Novus Ordo "Communion" Remains an Invalid Cookie By Patricius Anthony TRADITIO Traditional Roman Catholic Internet Site E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org, Web: http://www.traditio.com Copyright 2008 P. Anthony. Reproduction prohibited without authorization.
Months before Benedict-Ratzinger's participation in this year's "Catholic Woodstock," or World Youth Day, as it officially known, in Sydney, Australia, there was considerable talk within Newchurch circles about restrictions on or even the complete outlawing of the despicable practice of "communion in the hand." A story in the Italian periodical, La Stampa, at the time reported that Newvatican was set to issue "guidelines" on the matter.
Concurrent with the article came the release of a book, Dominus Est, by Newchurch bishop Athanasius Schnedier, which called for greater reverence for the Novus Ordo "Blessed Sacrament" and a "rethinking" of "communion in the hand." The introduction to Schnedier's work was written by Newchurch Archbishop Albert Malcolm Ranjith, the Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Ranjith spoke of how the distribution of "communion in the hand" reduces respect for the "eucharist" and that its allowance was "improperly and quickly introduced in some quarters in the Church." Yeah, like Newvatican itself! Such talk, however, was little appreciated by Newchurch authorities, who criticized Ranjith and most assuredly made their feeling known to Benedict-Ratzinger. Like his gutless fellow Newchurch prelates, Ranjith quickly recanted his statements, claiming that they were taken "out of context."
On the eve of Benedict-Ratzinger's appearance in Australia, the issue of "communion in the hand" again intensified with contradictory statements about what Newpope would do at Sydney. Reports circulated that Benedict-Ratzinger would prefer to give "communion" on the tongue, but, in typical Newvatican fashion, no definitive statement was made on the matter. Naturally, this report caused quite a stir amongst Motarians, who boasted that a possible crackdown on the practice of "communion in the hand" was another sign of the great "Benedictine Restoration" and that Newpope was showing his concern for "abuses" and sought to do something about them. As events unfolded in Sydney, however, neocon Newchurchers would again look like fools.
While broadcasts of the "Papal Mass" showed Benedict-Ratzinger giving cookies on the tongue, there were also shots of Novus Ordo prelates and presbyters distributing cookies in the hand. In the end, even Benedict-Ratzinger went against his own supposed desire and distributed "communion in the hand." After the Sydney performance there has been little written or said on the matter from either Newchurch liberalists or neocons. The hope that many neocons held for the outlawing of the practice has been quashed -- it was all just another "great facade" from the Modernist Benedict-Ratzinger.
Come to think of it, wasn't The Great Facade the title of a long-winded tome issued a while back, which criticized Newchurch for its liturgical novelties and other abuses such as "communion in the hand?" Didn't this vapid book upbraid the Newchurch hierarchy and, in particular, "Cardinal Ratzinger?" Where are the refunds, or at least an apology, to those who shelled out their hard-earned money to purchase a work from a pair of supposed "traditional" authors, who are now leading the hosannas for the arch neo-Modernist, Benedict-Ratzinger, and wishing him a long "reign?" How can anyone take seriously anything written or said by such hypocrites, or the organs and organizations that promoted and publicized The Great Facade? Apparently, what is not a facade is the utter lack of shame that permeates the neocon cheerleaders for Newchurch!
What neocon Newchurchers fail to see is that any Novus Ordo-inspired "reform of the reform," be it "communion in the hand," "kneeling at the Agnus Dei," or a New "Mass" with a little Latin or Gregorian Chant in it, is all part of the neo-Modernist program to obtain the legitimacy that it lacks. Talk about doing away with "communion in the hand" has been periodically coughed up by Conciliar Church authorities for years. It has been a clever ruse that has kept gullible neocon Newchurchers at bay.
Yet the "abuse" is the Novus Ordo "Mass" itself. It has long since been demonstrated by lights such as Patrick Omlor that the New "Mass" is not a Mass at all, and certainly isn't Catholic, but a variation on Protestant worship services and is invalid, sacrilegious, and an abomination that confers no Sacramental grace. Rather, it is a bald-faced lie, whose inspiration comes from the Master of Lies. Those who continue to "celebrate" it, assist at it, or promote its supposed "virtues" are doing the work of Almighty God's enemies and will face an unpleasant eternity.
Such naiveté on the part of neocon Newchurchers, however, is largely the reason why neo-Modernists like Benedict-Ratzinger have been so successful. Benedict-Ratzinger, Hoyos, and their cohorts understand the mindset of attention-starved "conservative" Newchurchers. Motarians do not threaten Benedict-Ratzinger; he knows how to control and use them for his own purposes. Traditional Catholics are the ones whom Benedict-Ratzinger fears and despises, for he understands full well that they will not compromise and that their loyalty is not, ultimately, to men, but to Christ and the Apostolic Faith.
Issues like "communion in the hand" again demonstrate how Newchurch neocons have missed the point of the current crisis. It is not about the "reform of the reform," but that of betrayal. The Conciliar Church revolutionaries (Joseph Ratzinger being one of the most notorious) have deliberately replaced the traditional Faith, which was passed down through the Precious Blood of Christ and His martyrs, with a false, man-made substitute that is leading its adherents to perdition.
One can, thus, never negotiate, co-exist, or compromise with a traitor, and Benedict-Ratzinger is a traitor to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Faith. It is hard to forget what the Divine Savior said about the man who betrayed Him and not see that those ominous words apply to his Conciliar successors of contemporary times, who have sold out their Master: "The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man, by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed: It were better for that man if he had not been born" (Matthew 26:24/DRV).