The Germs of G.I.R.M. |
Part Sixty-Eight: Synthetic Liturgy of the Syncretic Sycophants
"If the Mass is principally a sacrifice, then why is it even desirable to make it appear as though it is principally a meal in which have to both eat and drink, giving rise to abuses against the Sacred Species and undermining the nature of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice? Or is that precisely the point? In other words, the dopey preconciliar types who don't want to receive Communion under both kinds have to be "guided" into understanding that the Mass is more of a meal than a sacrifice, if it is a sacrifice at all, that is, and that their refraining from drinking from a chalice or cup or glass actually impedes the sense of community and fellowship that is supposed to be represented by the "Eucharistic banquet," to say nothing of how the extraordinary minister feels slighted if you pass him or her without taking the chalice or the cup or the glass containing the Precious Blood. This is an effort to use peer pressure and actual heresy in order to intimidate people in a very Leninistic and Stalinistic manner to do what they are told because it is what "the Church" wants. In order to believe that, though, you have to suspend rational thought and accept the absurdity that the Church was wrong for, say, about 1900 years. Bon appetite."
Paragraph 282 of G.I.R.M. reads as follows:
"For the faithful take part in the rite or are present at it, pastors should take care to call to mind as appropriately as possible Catholic teaching according to the Council of Trent on the manner of communion. Above all they should instruct the Christian faithful that, according to Catholic faith, Christ, whole and entire, as well as the true Sacrament are received under one kind only; that, therefore, as far as the effects are concerned, those who receive in this manner are nor deprived of any grace for salvation. Pastors are also to teach that the Church has the power in its stewardship of the sacraments, provided their substance remains intact, to make those rules and changes that, in view of the different conditions, times, and places, it decides to be in the interest of reverence for the sacraments or for the well being of the recipients. At the same time the faithful should be guided toward a desire to take part more intensely in a sacred rite in which the sign of the Eucharistic meal stands out more explicitly."
Comment and Analysis: This paragraph contains an insidious effort to cloak the new Mass resuscitation of Communion under both kinds in the Roman Rite as a widespread practice for the first time since the twelfth century with an acknowledgment of the doctrine proclaimed by the Council of Trent while effectively vitiating that doctrine by asserting that the faithful have to be "guided toward a desire to take part more intensely in a sacred rite in which the sign of the Eucharistic meal stands out more explicitly." If the Mass is principally a sacrifice, then why is it even desirable to make it appear as though it is principally a meal in which have to both eat and drink, giving rise to abuses against the Sacred Species and undermining the nature of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice? Or is that precisely the point? In other words, the dopey preconciliar types who don't want to receive Communion under both kinds have to be "guided" into understanding that the Mass is more of a meal than a sacrifice, if it is a sacrifice at all, that is, and that their refraining from drinking from a chalice or cup or glass actually impedes the sense of community and fellowship that is supposed to be represented by the "Eucharistic banquet," to say nothing of how the extraordinary minister feels slighted if you pass him or her without taking the chalice or the cup or the glass containing the Precious Blood. This is an effort to use peer pressure and actual heresy in order to intimidate people in a very Leninistic and Stalinistic manner to do what they are told because it is what "the Church" wants. In order to believe that, though, you have to suspend rational thought and accept the absurdity that the Church was wrong for, say, about 1900 years. Bon appetite.
Paragraph 283 of G.I.R.M. reads as follows:
"Communion under both kinds may be permitted for the following reasons, in addition to those given in the ritual books: (a) for priests who are not able to celebrate or concelebrate; (b) for the deacon and others who perform some role at Mass; (c) for community members at their conventual Mass or what in some places is known as the 'community' Mass, for seminarians, for all who are on retreat or are participating in a spiritual or pastoral gathering. The diocesan Bishop may lay down norms for the distribution of Communion under both kinds for his own diocese, which must be observed even in the churches of religious orders and in celebrations with small groups. The diocesan Bishop also has the faculty to allow Communion under both kinds, whenever it seems appropriate to the priest to whom charge of a given community has been entrusted as their own pastor, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament or that the rite would be difficult to carry out on account of the number of participants or for some other reason. However, as to the methods of distributing holy Communion under both kinds, and as to the extension of the faculty to do so, the Conference of Bishops may publish norms, with the proper recognitio of the Apostolic See."
Comment and Analysis: There was a huge controversy in the late 1970s and early 1980s concerning the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds. The bishops of the United States were in the vanguard of pushing the Holy See to permit the unrestrained distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds, especially during weekday Masses. It turned out, however, that permission for said distribution under both kinds during Sunday Masses already existed in the Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1969. Thus, Rome surrendered on the matter insofar as weekday Masses were concerned. It is now a free-for-all in one diocese and parish after another. How can a bishop or a pastor guarantee that there will be no profanation of the Precious Blood? Accidents happen. Chalices filled with the Precious Blood are dropped frequently across the world. This novelty is rife with the possibilities (if not the probabilities) of profanation. However, this novelty is one of the chief vehicles by which the liturgical revolutionaries have sought to impose a theological agenda alien to Catholicism as the norm in one parish after another. And they have been very successful, haven't they?
Paragraph 284 of G.I.R.M. reads as follows:
"When Communion is distributed under both kinds: (a) as a general rule, the deacon administers the chalice, or in his absence, a priest may do so, or an instituted acolyte or another extraordinary minister of Holy Communion; even a member of the faithful may do so, to whom, in case of necessity, this office has been entrusted for the occasion; (b) whatever happens to remain of the Blood is consumed at the altar by the priest or deacon or instituted acolyte who ministered the chalice, and who then cleanses, wipes and arranges the sacred vessels in the customary manner; (c) to the faithful, who happen to want to take communion under the form of bread only, holy Communion under this form should be offered."
Comment and Analysis: Isn't that nice and generous of the authors of GIRM? Those of the faithful who want to receive "communion under the form of bread only" should have It offered to them. How condescending. This paragraph institutionalizes the terrible scandal of lay people distributing the Precious Blood of Our Lord on a regular basis and being given permission to cleanse the chalice or the cup or the glass used for said distribution. As Monsignor Kelly rightly noted nineteen years ago, this practice of the new Mass was to proliferate
extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, and has it ever done that. Another effect of this practice, as I have noted seemingly ad nauseum, is to eviscerate the meaning of the priest's reception of the Most Precious Blood as the completion of the unbloody Sacrifice of the Cross.
Paragraph 285 of G.I.R.M. reads as follows:
"Preparations for giving communion under both kinds: (a) if Communion of the chalice is given by drinking directly from the chalice, whether from a single chalice of a sufficiently large size, or even from several chalices, care must always be taken to foresee that no surplus of the Blood of Christ beyond what is needed remains to be consumed at the end of the celebration; (b) if it is given through intinction care is to be taken that the Eucharistic bread is not too thin or too small, but a little thicker than usual so that after being partly dipped into the precious blood it can still easily given to the communicant."
Comment and Analysis: How in the world can anyone know what quantity of wine is going to be just the "right amount" so as to give the Precious Blood of Our Lord to everyone who wants to receive It while not having too much left over after the distribution of Holy Communion has ended? Saint Padre Pio might have been able to tell someone this. However, he would have been opposed to the practice to begin with. Perhaps Carnack the Magnificent or the Amazing Kreskin? The plain fact of the matter is that there is no way to predict what quantity of wine will be enough. The authors of GIRM are pretending here that there are inherent safeguards to prevent profanations and sacrileges from the novelty of Holy Communion under both kinds. The practice is inherently laden with the possibilities for profanations and sacrileges, as I have noted earlier. And the Eastern rites, where Communion under both kinds is given by intinction, offer the Host in the form of what approximates a crouton, which is dipped by a special spoon into the Chalice before the spoon with the Host is placed carefully into the mouth of the communicant. Again, though, intinction is a custom of the East, not of the West.
Paragraph 286 of G.I.R.M. reads as follows:
"If the Precious Blood is given by drinking directly from the chalice, then each communicant goes and stands before the minister of the chalice after receiving the Body of Christ. The minister says: The blood of Christ, the communicant answers: Amen. The minister hands him the chalice, which the communicant raises to his lips. The communicant then hands it back to the minister and withdraws, while the minister wipes the rim of the chalice with the purificator."
Comment and Analysis: Tell me, please, that there are no possibilities of spillage here. If you can assert that with a straight face, I can recommend that you use Martha Stewart as your stockbroker and Arthur Andersen as your accounting firm.
Paragraph 287 of G.I.R.M. reads as follows:
"If Communion of the chalice is given by intinction, then the communicant, while holding the paten under the chin, approaches the priest who holds the chalice and at whose side stands the minister with the sacred particles. The priest takes the host, intincts the particle into the chalice and, showing it, says: The body and blood of Christ. The communicant responds: Amen, and receives the Sacrament in the mouth from the priest. Afterwards, the communicant returns to his or her place."
Comment and Analysis: I was getting a little worried about the political correctness of the authors of GIRM. Paragraph 286 used the male pronouns ("he" and "him" and "his") without making reference to any female pronouns. Very exclusive of them, wouldn't you say? Well, anyhow, this is the simplified form for the distribution of Holy Communion is repeated here, this time in the context of Communion under both kinds. Contrast "The Body of Christ" and "The Blood of Christ" and the novel "Body and Blood of Christ" with the following: "Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam. Amen." ("May the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ keep your soul unto life everlasting. Amen.") Oh, no, we haven't lost anything as a result of a synthetic liturgy that was the result of arbitrariness on the part of those too arrogant and proud to admit that it was precisely the Mass of our fathers that had safeguarded the transmission of the Faith in the midst of all of the storms endured by the Barque of Peter. No, they had to incorporate those very storms in to the framework of the Mass itself, thereby extinguishing the true Faith and replacing it with a brand of syncretism heretofore unknown in any liturgy of the Church, whether of the East or the West.
Thomas A. Droleskey, Ph.D.
For past installments of G.I.R.M. Warfare in The DAILY CATHOLIC by Dr. Droleskey, see Archives
volume 14, no. 28
The Germs of G.I.R.M.