LATIN MASS

NEW MASS

We live in an age of revolution and contestation. Never before have Priests taken an active part in revolutionary movements; never before have the Church authorities imposed new liturgy and forbidden the new liturgy.

The traditional liturgy, it must be recalled, goes back to Apostolic times, and its definitive form was codified by Pope St.Pius V, who, in his Bull Quo Primum, gave it force of law until the end of time. The New Missal, however, was deviously introduced, arbitrarily imposed, and the Bull Quo Primum (which St. Pius V forbade to be abrogated) was quietly dropped from the opening pages of the official Altar Missal.

The New Mass  was opposed by the Synod of Bishops in 1967, but some Vatican Officials, in contempt of the Bishops, and enlisting the help of six non-Catholic ministers, went ahead with the final version of their work. (The non-Catholic ministers were Dr George, Canon Jasper, Dr Shephard, Dr Konneth, Dr Smith and Br Thurian, representing the World Council of Churches, The Church of England, the Lutheran Church, and the Protestant community of Taize. Their photograph was published in Issue No. 20 of World Trends.) With devilish cleverness, they stopped just short of outright heresy, and abusing the trust which their position entailed, they prevailed upon Pope Paul to ratify it.

The New Missal is indeed a radical attack on our Faith. It will destroy the Mass more effectively than Luther's efforts. Having destroyed the Mass, it will-inevitably again-destroy the World. For when the blood of Christ is no longer offered on the Altars of our Churches, then the blood of men will have to be spilled on the asphalt of our Streets.

Anna-Katarina Emmerick (19th Century)
"I saw again the new and odd-looking Church which they were trying to build. There was nothing holy about it . . . People were kneading bread in the crypt  below . . . but it would not rise, nor did they receive the body of Our Lord, but only bread. Those who were in error, through no fault of their own, and who piously and ardently longed for the Body of Jesus were spiritually consoled, but not by their communion. Then, my guide [Jesus] said: 'THIS IS BABEL.' [The Mass in many languages]."
(This prophecy was made circa 1820 by Anna-Katarina Emmerick, a stigmatised Augustinian nun and is recorded in The Life of Anne Catherine Emmerich by Rev. Carl E. Schmoeger, C.SS.R., first published in English in 1870 and reprinted in 1968 by Maria Regina Guild, Los Angeles, California.)

Latin mass and novus ordu (new-missal)

from encyclical mysterium fidei on Eucharistic doctrine & worship

This is Pope Paul VI's own official prohibition of the new Mass now enforced under severe penalties within their Dioceses by rebellious Catholic Bishops.



When the integrity of Faith has been preserved, it is necessary also to safeguard its proper mode of expression, lest, by the careless use of words, we occasion, God forbid, the rise of false opinions regarding the most sublime of mysteries . . .

The Church therefore, with the long labour of centuries and the help of the Holy Ghost, has established a rule of language confirming it with the authority of councils. This rule, which has often been the watchword and banner of the orthodox Faith, must be religiously preserved. Let no one presume to change it at his own pleasure or under the pretext of new science ... It cannot be tolerated that any individual should on his authority modify the formulas used by the Council of Trent to propose the Eucharistic Doctrine of belief. These formulas, like the others which the Church uses to propose the dogmas of faith, express concepts that are not tied to a certain form of human culture, or to a specific phase of scientific progress, or to one or other theological school.

No, these formulas present that part of reality which necessary and universal experience permits the human mind to grasp and to manifest with apt and exact terms taken from either common or polished language. For this reason, these formulas are adapted to men of all times and all places.
...It is, in fact, the teaching of the First Vatican Council that the same signification (of Sacred Dogmas) is to be for ever retained once our Holy Mother the Church has defined it, and under no pretext of deeper penetration may that meaning be weakened.

...Given at Rome, at St Peter's, the third day of September, the Feast of Pope Pius X, in the year 1965, the third year of Pontificate.
                                                                                                                                               signed: Paul PP. VI

FREEMASONRYS PLANS FOR VATICAN II

3. Assign Protestant Ministers to revise and de-sacralise the Mass. Instigate doubts that the Eucharist is closer to the Protestant belief, that it is only bread and symbolic.

4. Stop all Latin in Mass Liturgy and songs.

5. Stop communicants from kneeling to receive the Host.

10. Remove all Saints' relics from Altars and then remove the Altars themselves. Replace with Pagan, unblessed tables which will be used to offer live sacrifice at Satan Masses. Repeal the Church law that says Mass in Churches can only be said on Altars containing Saints' relics.

11. Stop the practice of saying Mass before the Holy Eucharist in the Tabernacle. Do not allow any Tabernacles on the tables used for the Mass. Make the table look like a dinner table. Make it portable, to imply that it is not sacred but could do double duty fur anything, such as a conference table or for playing cards. Later, put at least one chair at this table. Make the Priest sit in this after Communion to signify that he rests after his meal. Never let the Priest kneel at Mass or genuflect, people don't kneel at meals.

30. Get women and laity to give Communion. Say that this is the age of the laity. Start giving Communion in the hand like the Protestants instead of on the tongue, say that Christ did it this way. Collect some for Satan Masses. Then replace receiving Communion by a bowl of wafers to be taken on leaving the Church. Say that they will then carry God's gift into their daily lives. Install Communion vending machines and call them Tabernacles.

prophecy of new mass

Oba Prophecy
"It will come when the Church authorities issue directives to promote a new cult, when Priests are forbidden to celebrate in any other (way, ie the Tridentine/Latin Mass), when the higher positions in the Church are given to perjurers and hypocrites, when only the renegades are admitted to occupy those positions.

WARNINGS FROM THE BEYOND AND NEW MASS

Title: 'The Mass'. Date August 14th, 1975.
Exorcist=.  A= Demon.
A: There were a few small things, which needed to be changed, but most of it - no. Believe me! In the liturgy, there was practically nothing to be changed. Even the Gospel reading should be in the vernacular; it would be better if the Holy Mass was said in Latin. The reason can be seen if you just look at the Consecration, only the Consecration, but that is typical. At the Consecration, one uses the words: "This is My Body which will be given up for you", followed by:"This is My Blood, which will be shed for you and for a great number". That is what Jesus said.

E: It is not correct to say "for all"? Tell the truth, in the name . . . you have no right to lie.
A: It certainly isn't. The translations have not been completely accurate, and this is particularly the case with "for all". It should not, and cannot be "for all" - it should be for a great number". When the text is not correct, so the abundance of graces diminishes; the channel of graces still flows, but only sparsely. And the Consecration is accompanied by so many graces when the Priest does things correctly, according to the old Tradition, and according to the will of God. "For you and for a great number" must be said, just as Christ himself said it.

E: But didn't Christ shed His Blood for all? Tell the truth in the name . . . !
A: No, He would have liked to shed it for all, but, in fact, it did not flow for all.

E: Because many have rejected it? Tell the truth . . . !
A: Exactly; in this way it did not flow for all, for it did not flow for us in Hell.

E: Tell the truth, in the name . . . !
A: The new order of the Mass - The Bishops have changed the Tridentine Mass - the new Mass is absolutely not as They up there want it (he points upward). The point will soon be reached when the whole Mass will no longer be valid.

E: How is the Tridentine Mass, the Old Mass, which was prescribed by Pope St. Pius V? Tell the truth in the name . . . and you have no right to lie!
A: It is the best in existence; it is in the standard, the true, the good Mass (he groans).

E: Akabor, tell the truth, in the name of and by the order of, the Blessed Virgin! We order you to say everything she charges you to say!
A: I said all that against my will, but I was made to! She up there (he points upward) forced me (he mutters).

THIRD SECRET OF FATIMA AND NEW MASS

The following is from a Fatima Crusader interview with Father Paul Kramer
Q: What did Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani say about the Third Secret
Father Kramer: Cardinal Ottaviani was prefect of the Holy Office, and at the same time, the Holy Office was the pre-eminent discalcery of The Roman Curia. He was the one, who pronounced on Orthodoxy. Also he had the jurisdiction over the final approval or disapproval of apparitions. He stated in an address he gave in 1967 at the Antonianum, that the Third Secret of Fatima is set forth on one sheet of paper.
Q: Who is Cardinal Ciappi and what did he say about the Third Secret?
Father Kramer: Cardinal Mario Luigi Ciappi was a Dominican Priest who had been made a Cardinal by Pope Paul VI. He was Papal Theologian under Paul VI, John i and early in the reign of Pope John Paul II. Cardinal Ciappi stated in his letter to Professor Baumgarter that in the Third Secret of Fatima it is revealed, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.
Q: Could Cardinal Ciappi be telling the truth? Isn't 'apostasy' too strong a word?
Father Kramer: I know there aresome people who find some difficulty with the idea that there could be an apostasy, or a great apostasy in the Church. Some people do seem to think that the word is a little strong.
However, it was not too strong for St Paul to use the term, because he was the one who foretold that before the coming of the man of sin, the Anti-Christ, there would be this great falling away, a great apostasy.
So it is not surprising that Our Lady would warn about this apostasy in the Church, because this is already a teaching enshrined in sacred Scripture by the great Apostle himself, St Paul.
Q: How do you reply to those who say that Our lady would never make such a claim that the Church itself, the spotless bride of Christ, would enter a period of Apostasy?
Fr Kramer: To those who find difficulty with the idea that the Church, the Bride of Christ, could ever enter into a period of apostasy, I respond that Our Lord Jesus Christ said, "Behold, I have told you all of these things in advance." How can we question the word of God? The suffering that the church, as the Mystical body of Christ, must undergo is described prophetically, for example, in the Book of Lamentations. It is described again prophetically in the bok of the Prophet Daniel, and in the Apocalypse, where we see there will be a great apostasy and a great persecution of the remnant of faithful; and that God will preserve them in their faith, so that the elect will be preserved.
Q: Do you see a connection between the Third Secret of Fatima and the New Mass?
Fr Kramer: Sister Lucy of Fatima, in reference to the message of Fatima,said that there would take place a diabolical disorientation in the Church. And there is nothing that could do more to bring that about than a Liturgical revolution
 hat would enshrine alien principles into a seemingly Catholic Liturgy.
As a matter of fact there is more substance to the question of a diabolical disorientation. I am referring to the part of the Third Secret of Fatima that has not been revealed. I know this to be a fact because I have personally spoken with a German theologian and a seminary rector who is a long time close friend of Pope Benedict.
When Pope Benedict was still Cardinal Ratzinger, around 1990 he revealed to his friend that in the Third Secret of Fatima Our Lady warns not to change the Liturgy.
Now, of course, with the New Mass of Pope Paul VI, that is exactly what was done. Elements of Protestantism, both in the symbolism, and in the wording of the Liturgy were brought into and mixed into a Catholic framework to the extent that the makers of the New Rite flatly stated that this is no longer the Roman Rite, it is a new creation.
Father Joseph Galineau was the right-hand man of Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, who is the architect of the New Rite of Mass. Both FatherJoseph Galineau and Archbishop Bugini plainly stated that the Novus Ordo Mass is a new creation, that the old rite of Mass, the Roman Rite, has been destroyed. Pope Paul announced in November of 1969 that This/his would be a new rite of Mass.
So there is no question about the new liturgy, the Novus Ordu Liturgy, being somehow a revision and a continuation of The Roman Rite. No. It is a break with catholic Liturgical tradition.
So Our Lady of Fatima warned in the Third Secret not to make specifically this kind of change in the liturgy. Yet Pope Paul VI went forward and made those changes anyway.
Our Lady also warned that there would be an evil council in the Church that would cause great scandal. And of course
it was the document from Vatican I, the Constitution on the Liturgy, which gave the impetus for Pope Paul VI to reform the Liturgy in such a disastruous manner that has caused such a loss of Faith and confusion in the Church.
So we have Cardinal Ratzinger himself stating to  a close personal friend that these warnings were given by Our Lady in The Third Secret of Fatima not to change the Mass in precisely the manner that Pope Paul VI changed the Mass.
Now after this took place, the German theologian who I am referring to went back to the Country in South America where he was rector of a seminary and he explained to a young Priest what Cardinal Ratzinger had related to him. And precisely when he related that Our Lady warned against changing the Mass and there would be an evil Council in the Church, the both of them saw a plume of smoke coming up from the floor. Now it was a marble floor,this could not be anything of a natural phenomenon. Both the young Priest and the old German rector were so impressed, they drew a dossier and sent it to Crdinal Ratzinger.
Then on 26, 2000, Cardinal Ratzinger published for the world the document (on the Third Secret) containing the vision of a "Bishop in white", claiming that the entire secret is set forth in this document. Yet it can only be understood that way if we say that he is using a mental reservation; that what is set forth by Our Lady in her words is already implicitly contained symbolically in the vision.
The elderly German Priest, Ratzinger's long-time personal friend, took note of the fact that when this vision of the Third Secret was published it did not contain those things, those elements of the Third Secret that Cardinal Ratzinger had revealed nearly ten years earlier. The German Priest, Fr Dollinger, told me that this question was burning was burning in his mind on the Day he concelebrated  with Cardinal Ratzinger. Fr Dollinger said to me "I confronted Cardinal Ratzinger to his face." And of course he asked Cardinal Ratzinger, "how can this be the entire secret? Remember what you told me before?"
Cardinal Ratzinger was cornered. He Didn't know what to say and so he blurted out to his friend in German, "Wirklich gebt dans der etwas"  which means "Really there is something more there," meaning there is something more in the Third Secret. The Cardinal stated this quite plainly.
Q:This is an amazing story. Is Fr Dillinger a credible witness?
Father Kramer: I can say this much, wer'e talking about an elderly Priest, a long-time personal friend of Pope Benedict, a man who was a long-time personal acquaintance of St Pio of Pietrelcina. In fact, he told me he had gone to confession to Padre Pio 58 times!

 Latin Mass not created by Pope Paul VI

COMMUNION IN THE HAND

There was a time when Catholics always knelt for Holy Communion. When Catholics only received on the tongue. When only the Priest administered Holy Communion. When our Priests and Religious Sisters taught it was sacrilegious for anyone but the Priest to touch the Sacred Host. When our tabernacles were always on the centre of the altar as the primary focal point. Why were these things changed? Why has kneeling disappeared? Why are people receiving in the hand? Why are the lay-ministers of the Eucharist? Why can 'anyone' touch it? Why were tabernacles disappearing from the centre and being placed by the side? Have these changes done us good or harm? If they have done us good then how come we do not have large numbers of people flocking to our churches to receive the Sacraments? Do our Clergy care? Do you care?
please note: My own observation of Eucharistic Minister is that many of them develop something wrong with their hands. The skin on their palms or fingers changes to a strange colour!

"It is better that scandals arise than the truth be suppressed." Pope St. Gregory the Great

But when necessity compels, not only those who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St Thomas maintains : "Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers." Pope Leo XIII Martyr and Saint Cardinal

John Fisher "Times of flowering or collapse within the history of the Church were always associated with the handling of the Holy Eucharist." (1835)

Our Lord to St Faustina (1905-1938) "But I want to tell you that Eternal Life must begin already here on Earth through Holy Communion. Each Holy Communion makes you more capable of communing with God throughout Eternity."

 

MOTHER TERESA OF CALCUTTA


Father George William Rutler, in a homily on Good Friday, 1989, said: I will tell you a secret, since we have just a few thousand friends together, and also because we have the Missionaries of Charity with us, with whom the Holy Spirit has sent into the world that the secrets of many hearts might be revealed. Not very long ago I said Mass and preached for their Mother, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and after breakfast we spent quite a long time talking in a little room. Suddenly I found myself asking her (I don't know why ): "Mother, what do you think is the worst problem in the world today?" She more than anyone could name any number of candidates: famine, plague, disease, the breakdown of the family, rebellion against God, the corruption of the media, world debt, nuclear threat and so on. Without pausing a second she said: "Wherever I go in the world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand."

Mother Teresa's own statement: "Further it is the custom in our society (order) and my known wish. that the sisters receive Communion on the tongue, which to my knowledge they are doing everywhere." (India 1995)

FROM 'WARNINGS FROM THE BEYOND'


At 16 years of age, Anneliese Michel (d 1976, incorrupt) was suddenly afflicted with demonic possession. The local Bishop ordered an exorcism. These are details and revelations given by demons during a series of exorcisms performed from August 14, 1975 to March 30, 1978. The demons were Akabor, Allida, Judas Iscariot, Veroba and Beelzebub. The excerpts confirm the existence of the imposter pope and also mention other subjects. Speaking through the possessed woman the demons were forced to tell the truth by Our Lady under the Solemn Church exorcism. The demon was forced to give the following account.

Exorcism of August 14, 1975 From 'Confession & Holy Communion' Demon is Akabor

A: Communion must be received in the mouth and not in the hand. A: We racked our brains for a very long time down there until we succeeded in getting Communion in the hand under way. Communion in the hand is very good for us in Hell, believe me!

A: She (Mary) wishes me to say that if She, the Great Lady, were still living on earth. She would receive Communion in the mouth, but on her knees, and she would bow deeply. A: I have to say the Communion must not be received in the hand. The Pope himself  gives Communion in the mouth. He does not want Communion to be given in the hand at all. That comes from the Cardinals.

A: Then it went to the Bishops and they imagined it was a question of obedience, that they must obey the Cardinals. Finally, it came to the Priest, and they, in turn imagined that they had to conform because obedience is written in very large letters.

A: Evil people should not be obeyed. Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin and the Pope are the ones who must be obeyed Communion in the hand is not at all the will of God.

Exorcism of August 14, 1975 From 'The Liturgy' The demon is Akabor

E:Tell the truth, say what you must say, in the name . . . !

A: Lay people should not distribute Holy Communion (he cries out in a frightful voice), did you hear? Allida, did you hear what I have just been forced to say? Allida, you can speak too! (The other demon replied angrily: "Shut up!") The Blessed Sacrament of the altar J: The Blessed Sacrament, the Blessed Sacrament. It is no longer adored anymore; It has been completely to one side. Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament) rarely takes place This was from the dialogue between Exorcising Priests and Demons during the 1970's Exorcist: "What is the story about Communion in the hand in the earliest time of the Church?" Demon: "Christ -we saw it ourselves at the time-when he broke the bread, did not give it into the hands the Apostles. He put the bread directly into the mouths of the Apostles. The Apostles gave Holy Communion (to others) in the mouth. If later they (others) did receive it in the hand, it was because they (others) had the wrong understanding of things."

Exorcist: "Who did want to introduce Communion in the hand?"

Demon: "It is ourselves (demons) who schemed and plotted for that, we said to ourselves, "If we can manage to introduce Communion in the hand among the early Christians, then later on we will be able to say "There was Communion in the hand during the time of the first Christians. "The Demon continued: "Certain leading Saints and very great doctors of the Church saw clearly where this was heading and that it would be better and there would be more respect if He up there were received in the mouth " .(tongue)

During another exorcism a Demon gave the following account.

Demon: "The thing (Holy Communion) may not be placed into the hands. The Priests must be courageous. The laity may not distribute it. During the distribution of that stuff (Communion) one must kneel. On the order of that one there (pointing to a statue of Mary nearby) , hand communion must be gotten rid of, for it is my (the devils) work. The Bishop must forbid hand Communion, if he can achieve it."

August 14, 1975

A: Many Priests make reference to obedience. But Now, in these times, it is not necessary to obey modernist Bishops. It is now the times of which Christ spoke : " There will rise up many false Christs and false prophets". Those (modernist Bishops) are the false prophets. But one ought not - nor one has the right - to believe them, because they . . . because they . . . have accepted so many novelties. We are in them; we from down there (he points downwards)  have stirred them up. Prior to that, we deliberated a great deal as to how to destroy the Catholic

 

INTENTIONS OF THE EVIL ONES

In the 19th Century we may quote Stanislaus De Guaita. He was a  fallen away Priest, a Kabbalist and a Satanist. "When we have succeeded in having Catholics receive Communion in the hand, then we will have met our goal."

From a Masonic plan of 1925
"How can we rob the faithful of their belief in the true presence? . . . First we must bring people everywhere to receive Communion while standing, then one must place the Host in their hands. Prepared in this fashion, they will come to see the Eucharist as a mere symbol of a general brotherly meal and will thereby fall away."

A French Priest who had renounced his membership of Freemasonry, announced the Masonic plan which he followed when he was part of the Masonic sect.
'Official guidelines from a Grand Master-Mason to Catholic Masonic Bishops, effective March 1962. All brother Freemasons shall report on the progress of these critical directives.'
The following is from a list of 34 Masonic directives of 1962.
#6 Stop communicants from kneeling to receive the Host. Tell Nuns to stop the children from kneeling and from folding their hands to and from Communion.
#30 Get women and laity to give Communion, say that this is the age of the laity. Start giving Communion in the hand like the Protestants instead of on the tongue-say that Christ did it this way. Collect some for Satanic Masses!
please note: these instructions were given during Vatican II . . . How significant!

MARTHE ROBIN, 13 MARCH 1902 TO 6 FEBRUARY 1981

Marthe Robin was a French Stigmatic who survived on nothing but the Eucharist from 1930 until her death in 1981. Multiple witnesses, on multiple occasions testified that when given Communion, the Host was seen to fly miraculously from the Priests hand to her mouth.

A DIVINE SIGN

In 1970, June 21 or 28 at the 7am Sunday Mass. In the Beauce-ville Church the Parish Priest Charles Eugene Houde was celebrant. He had told his parishoners that they were permitted to receive the Holy Host in their hands according to the Archbishop of Quebec. That day, before the Mass, he told his parishoners the following : " Hence forth, to avoid complications, everyone of you will receive the Host in your hands for Communion." 
At the moment of the Communion of the Mass, Rev Haude turned to the people, holding the Ciborium in his hand. Before he had time to take one single Host and make a single step, about fifty consecrated Hosts flew out of the Ciborium by themselves, they went up in the air and dispersed themselves around the celebrant, then slowly fell to the ground.
Father Houde, who was struck by the prodigy, said to the faithful who were approaching the Holy table; "Henceforth, all of you will receive the Holy Host on your tongues, not in your hand, because God just gave us a sign." 

SR AGNES OF AKITA

Sr Agnes received a stigmata on the palm of her left hand during Mass on several occasions that was so painful she was unable to open her hand to take Communion, as was the custom in her convent. Because of this, she received on the tongue. When she reflected on these things, she came to believe that what she experienced was evidence of a divine wish for Communion on the tongue. Eventually, her entire convent went back to receiving on the tongue.

AN ARCHBISHOP

"Behind communion in the hand is a deliberate conscious weakening of faith in the real presence. A miracle would be required during each particular distribution of communion to avoid particles falling to the ground and also from remaining on the hand of recipients."

DIETRICH VON HILDEBRAND

"There can be no doubt that Communion in the hand is an expression of the trend towards desacralisation in the Church in general and irreverence in approaching the Eucharist in particular . . . Why . . for God's sake . . . should Communion in the hand be introduced into our churches when it is evidently detrimental from a pastoral viewpoint, when it certainly does not increase reverence, and when it exposes the Eucharist to the most terrible diabolical abuses?
There are really no serious arguments for Communion in the hand. But there are the most gravely serious kinds of arguments against it."
From an article called 'Communion in the hand should be rejected', Nov 8, 1973.

BISHOP JUAN LAISE OF SAN LUIS, ARGENTINA

"With Communion in the hand, a miracle would be required during each distribution of Communion to avoid some particles falling to the ground or remaining on the hand of the faithful."

FR JOHN HARDON S.J. ENGLAND

"Behind Communion in the hand is a conscious, deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence. Whatever you do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God."

REV HOLLOWLY S.T.L. PORTSLADE, ENGLAND

"The demand for Communion in the hand did not derive from any genuine demand or need from the people. It came from the same group of sophisticated neo-modernist intellectuals and Priests who have been active in denying transubstantiation and are for the most part in open defection from the full doctrine, (and) even more from the full morals from the Catholic Church. It ought therefore be more strenuously resisted, and the snide practice of doing away with the altar rails, on specious pseudo-liturgical pretexts with it. Holy Communion for the general good is given the most reverently, kneeling and taken with devotion on the tongue.

POPE PAUL VI: MEMORIALE DOMINI (MAY 29, 1969)

The Pope recognised that Communion on the tongue: "Signifies the reverence of the faithful for the Eucharist . . . Provides that Holy Communion will be distributed with due reverence . . . Is more conductive to Faith, reverence and humility . . . It (communion in the hand) carries certain dangers with it which may arise from a new manner of administering Holy Communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the August Sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating true doctrine."
"In view of the gravity of the matter and the force of the arguments put forward, the Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering Holy Communion to the Faithful." "This method (on the tongue) must be retained."
" The Apostolic See therefore vehemently urges Bishops, Priests and laity to carefully submit to the law which is still valid and which has been confirmed."

"Which tells us that the faithful should receive Communion on the tongue. In order to protect their sensibility and spiritual worship towards the True Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist."

Communion in the hand was illegally introduced in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, France and in the USA well before Pope Paul VI wrote 'Memoriale Domini'. The Holy See firmly opposed this disobedient and abusive practice from the beginning.

INESTIMABLE DONOM, APRIL 17, 1980

From the Holy Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine worship, April 1980.
"The Holy Eucharist is the gift of the Lord which should be distributed to laymen through the intermediaries of Catholic Priests who are ordained especially for this work. Laymen are neither permitted to take the Sacred Host by themselves nor the Sacred Chalice."

POPE JOHN PAUL II IN DOMINICAE CENAE FEBRUARY 24 1980

"To touch the species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the Ordained." (Dominicae Cenae) Pope JP II had a sign posted on St Peter's Basilica specifying that all Priests who celebrated Mass in St Peter's were, no matter where they came from, to give Communion on the tongue. Gave Communion only on the tongue in his private Masses at the Vatican. (please note, I do not know about St JPII public Masses or what he had to say about his public Masses)
Said: "I did not revoke what any of my predecessors said about this . . . Hear my dear Priests and dear Brothers and Sisters, only Communion on the Tongue and kneeling is allowed, I say this to you as your Bishop!" (those in wheelchairs, etc are exempt from kneeling) On Communion in the hand: "There is an Apostolic letter that the existence of this special permission (the receiving of Communion in the hand) is vald. But I tell you, that I am not in favour of it(communion in the hand) . . . neither will I recommend it." (Nov 1980, Germany)

NEW PAPAL NORM FOR PAPAL LITURGIES

Anyone receiving Holy Communion from Pope Benedict must be kneeling and receive on the tongue only.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008.

STATEMENTS OF POPES, SAINTS & CHURCH COUNCILS

St Sixtus I (117-126) "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by other than those consecrated to the Lord." (circa 115) Reminded the Christians of the Apostolic rules and installed that only servants of the cult, Priests, could touch the Holy Mysteries.


Pope St Eutychian (275-283) Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.


St Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379) "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution."


St Basil considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault. The Council of Saragossa (380) It was decided to Excommunicate anyone who dared to continue the practice of Communion in the hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.


Pope St Leo the Great (440-461) Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful."One receives in the mouth what one receives by faith."

The Synod of Rouen (650) "Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layperson, but only in their mouths." Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege. The Sixth Ecunemical Council at Constantinople (680-681)
Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication.
Sr Cresentaa Hoss (1744) Stigmata
The consecrated Host flew out of the Tabernacle through the length of the Church and landed in her mouth.
Sr Marie Columba Schonath (1787) Stigmata
The consecrated Host flew out of the Tabernacle and landed in her mouth.
Anne Katherine Emmerich. stigmatic (d1824)
Considered the most famous of all German Mystics. She had the gift of the age of reason from birth and saw Christ distribute the bread onto the tongues of the Apostles.
Therese Neuman (d1962) Stigmatic
She lived on the consecrated Host for 33 years and saw Christ distribute the bread into the mouth of the Apostles.
The consecrated Host flew out of the Tabernacle, through the length of the church, and landed in her mouth.

Pope Paul VI (1963-1978)
"This method [on the tongue] must be retained." (Memoriale Domini, May 29, 1969)


Pope Paul VI recognised that Communion on the tongue was more conductive to faith, reverence and humility.


Pope John Paul II
"To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained." (Dominicae Cenae,  February 24, 1980, 11)
"It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another." (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)


Three children of Fatima
When the Angel of Portugal appeared to the Fatima visionaries Lucia, Jacinta and Francisco in 1916 the three knelt to receive. Then the Angel provided Communion to one and the contents of the Chalice to the other two. The children did not hold the Host or the Chalice.


St Catherine of Siena
Received Holy Communion from Jesus on her tongue.

ST THOMAS AQUINAS

St Thomas reminds us that reverence demands that only what has been consecrated should touch the Blessed Sacrament. By Baptism, we have been consecrated to receive the Lord in Holy Communion, but not to distribute the Sacred Host to others, or unnecessarily to touch it.
"The dispensing of Christ's body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because . . . he consecrates in the person of Christ.  . . Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people, hence as it belongs to him to offer the peoples gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver the consecrated Hosts to the people. Thirdly, to touch the Sacred Species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist." (Dominicae Cenae, 11) "Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the Priest's hands, for touching this sacrament." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8) "The body of Christ must not be touched by anyone other than a consecrated Priest. No other person has the right to touch it, except in case of extreme necessity."

JESUS TO ST BRIDGET OF SWEDEN IN 1373

"Look, my daughter, I left behind five gifts to my priests . . . and fifth, the privilege to touch My Most Holy Flesh with their hands."

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

During these years, the authorities of the Church of Rome had worked to streamline the tenets of Catholic belief and practice, rooting out elements of ambiguity, undiscipline and disorder.
"The fact that only the Priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an apostolic tradition. "
"To Priests alone has been given to consecrate and administer the Holy Eucharist. That the unwavering practice of the Church has also been that the faithful receive from the hands of the Priest."

FROM THE CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

"It must be taught then, that to Priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer to the faithful the Holy Eucharist. That this has been the unwavering practice of the Church . . . as having preceded from apostolic tradition, is to be religiously retained."

KNEELING

Saint Pope Pius X (1903-1914)
"At the moment of receiving Holy Communion one must kneel."
please note: according to any apparitions of Satan, it has been said that the Devil did not have knees when he was visible!

TABERNACLE

Imagine being a guest at a banquet and then moving the host from being at the head of the table, to the side or even removing and placing the host into another room. Is the same not being done by moving the Tabernacle from the middle of the Altar to the side of the Altar, or even into a small chapel to the right or left? Is this how you want God to be regarded? Did anyone request this?
How come the laity were not told before the Tabernacles were moved, of a decision having being made to move the Tabernacles? How come Priests never provided an explanation of the Tabernacle being moved? Why did Priests not explain to the laity after the Tabernacles were moved, why an explanation to move the Tabernacle was not given to the laity before the Tabernacle had been moved? Was this so that the laity could not prevent the Tabernacles being moved by the fact that they did not know of the Priest's intention and decision to move the Tabernacle? Is this honest? Is this just? 

SUMMARY

Our Lord to St Faustina (1905-1938)
"But I want to tell you that Eternal Life must begin already here on Earth through Holy Communion. Each Holy Communion makes you more capable of communing with God throughout Eternity."

Martyr and Saint Cardinal John Fisher
"Times of flowering or collapse within the history of the Church were always associated with the handling of the Holy Eucharist." (1835)

CARDINAL BERNARDIN, AN ANGEL OF LIGHT OR DARKNESS?

Cardinal Bernardin: an angel of light Former President Bill Clinton bestowed upon Cardinal Bernardin the Medal of Freedom, the highest honor available to American civilians. Clinton also praised Bernardin as a "voice of moderation" in the Church. According to the November 1997 Washington Blade, a homosexual newspaper, the Cardinal himself had arranged for the "Windy City Gay Chorus" to sing at his wake at Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago (it did so behind a sign prominently displaying its name). The Masons, also, honored the cardinal after his death. Bernardin was a friend of Call To Action (CTA) and allowed them to operate on Church property. He even went so far as to speak out against Bishop Bruskewitz (of Lincoln, Nebraska) for excommunicating CTA members in his own diocese. In retrospect, it is apparent that Cardinal Bernardin sympathized or actively promoted the liberal/dissenting side on virtually every Church issue. 


        Accusations of satanism: An exposé by the lay group Roman Catholic Faithful  (The allegations concerning Cardinal Bernardin's involvement in satanism are taken from an exposé by Roman Catholic Faithful):

[Roman Catholic Faithful] first heard of Agnes’ story from a friend in 1996. This friend of mine had met Agnes a few years earlier when she came to him for advice. He never gave me her name or location but only made reference to her situation because it fit into a conversation we were having regarding the Archdiocese of Chicago. In 1998, when I first learned who Agnes was, I found that she had been on RCF’s mailing list for some time. I also learned that a private investigator, as well as a lawyer from Chicago who had provided RCF with information, had met with Agnes a few years earlier in an attempt to help her find a way to bear witness to what had happened to her. This same investigator and lawyer provided RCF with information they had obtained regarding the alleged sexual activity of the priest who had abused Agnes many years earlier. That priest was the young Joseph Bernardin. 

The allegations of Agnes
Over the past 12 years, in sworn deposition, in accounts to investigators, in affidavits submitted in support of others' cases, in direct statements to Bernardin, in phone calls and letters to Church officials, and in correspondence with Vatican officials (all of which RCF has examined), Agnes has testified to the following story:

     In the fall of 1957, in Greenville, S.C., Fr. Joseph Bernardin raped 11-year-old Agnes as part of a satanic ritual that involved, among others, Bishop John Russell of Charleston. Brought to the event by an abusive father, Agnes “was able, at first, to resist Bishop Russell physically, out of the knowledge that God had made me good, not bad as I was being told I was” (her words). As a young child, she had been victimized by a “sadist” cousin, and her identity was based upon “resisting bad things”, which included Bernardin. Bernardin then showed kindness and approval of her resistance, in order to gain her trust and get her to relax, and then he raped her. He followed the rape with a perverted use of a host, in an attempt to make Agnes swallow the guilt of the event.
     In the fall of 1992, Agnes passed a polygraph examination regarding these events. She also, in early 1990, told her story to Malachi Martin, who had been recommended to her as someone who could get her information to the Vatican, which Agnes knew had sole and immediate jurisdiction over such a case. Martin wrote a novel, Windswept House, with the premise that Agnes had given him: that the Catholic hierarchy's tolerance of heresy, liturgical abuse, clerical sexual misconduct, and clerical pedophilia had one overarching explanation at root, a network of Satanists whose smoke had ascended high in the Church. Her story is greatly theatricalized in the novel, but the essential fact of ritual rape is there, as is the spiritual reality of Christ's presence in the victimized child. Thirty-four years later, Agnes went to visit Bishop Russell in a nursing home. In and out of lucidity, he agreed to testify against Bernardin if asked. He died without the opportunity to do so.

The lawsuit of Steven Cook
A former seminarian from the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, Steven Cook, filed a $10 million lawsuit against Bernardin and Cincinnati priest Ellis Harsham. The suit accused Harsham, when he was a priest at St. Gregory seminary in Cincinnati in the mid-1970s, of numerous coercive sexual acts against him, and then delivering him to Bernardin, then archbishop of Cincinnati, for the same purposes.
     Agnes later came to know Steve Cook, and submitted an affidavit in support of his suit. Before he died, Cook told Agnes he was writing a book to tell the truth about his abuse, and he gave a different account of his lawsuit retraction than the one publicly accepted.
     Someone who knew Cook earlier than Agnes is a former seminarian RCF interviewed who admitted to a four-year sexual relationship with a Catholic bishop who now heads a western diocese. This man stated that he also had forced sexual contact with Cardinal Bernardin, and that, through Bernardin, he came to know Steven Cook. This individual, interviewed in November of 1998 by RCF, claims to have received a cash settlement. RCF confirmed, through an attorney, that this seminarian did indeed receive a cash settlement.
     In June of 1998 RCF interviewed a Chicago businessman whose son was abused by a Chicago priest a few years earlier (1980's). In 1989 this Chicago businessman met with Cardinal Edouard Gagnon. He gave me the following account of his conversation with the Cardinal. (He also directed me to Jason Berry's book "LEAD US NOT INTO TEMPTATION" for an account of his family's story). The Cardinal stated that the Holy See had received hundreds of letters regarding the pedophile problem in the U.S. and that it was beyond the control of the Holy See as the Church is in schism and the American bishops will not obey the Holy Father.

Deceit and subterfuge: Communion in the hand illegally introduced
      Bernardin, president of the United States National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB), initiated two unsuccessful attempts to introduce Communion in the hand in 1975 and 1976. In the spring of 1977, the bishops’ vote again fell short of the required two-thirds majority. At this NCCB meeting, Bishop Romeo Blanchette of Joliet, Illinois rose and objected that the bishops at this meeting were not following the procedure established by the Holy See for episcopal conferences when they were discussing the issue of Communion in the hand.
    Furthermore, Cardinal John Krol stated that he thought a parliamentary device had been used to get rid of a valid motion at this bishops' meeting.  This motion would have allowed the bishops to discern if Communion in the hand was even a prevailing practice at all in the United States (which, at this time, it was not).
     The Vatican stipulated that it was necessary to prove that Communion in the hand was the prevailing (though disobedient) practice in the United States for the issue to go any further. If it was determined that it was not the prevailing practice, the issue would be dead in the water.  The "parliamentary device" objected to by Cardinal John Krol went around this requirement (to establish if Communion in the hand was the prevailing practice) in order to go to the next step, a vote.
    What was required at the voting stage was a 2/3 majority of bishops favoring Communion in the hand. The vote was made, and the 2/3 majority did not materialize. To get around this next obstacle, for the first time ever bishops in absentia were polled by mail after the conference meeting; subsequently the necessary votes "materialized" and the measure was declared passed. Several canon lawyers have stated categorically that this procedure was illegal. An interview with Bishop Blanchette in the National Catholic Register (June 12, 1977) confirms that Communion in the hand was unlawfully introduced into the United States. In this article, Bishop Blanchette was interviewed concerning this movement to allow Communion in the hand. Bishop Blanchette responded:

"What bothers me is that in the minds of many it will seem that disobedience is being rewarded. And that troubles me because if people persist in being disobedient--and that is used as a reason for changing the discipline--then we're very close to chaos or what I would call selective obedience, which is no obedience at all."

     Fr. John Hardon, S.J. likewise affirmed the fact that retired and dying bishops were polled to make sure the measure for Communion in the hand would be passed:

"To get enough votes to give Communion in the hand, bishops who were retired, bishops who were dying, were solicited to make sure that the vote would be affirmative in favor of Communion in the hand. Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God." (Fr. John Hardon, S.J., Detroit Call to Holiness Conference, November 1, 1997)

    Fr. Alfred Kunz, a canon lawyer, was interviewed in August 1996 on the topic of the American bishops' meeting. He stated that Communion in the hand was passed by counting bishops by proxy who weren't even there. Fr. Kunz affirmed that this fact alone would invalidate the petition for Communion in the hand and it would have no status. He concluded by emphasizing that Communion in the hand could not be done because permission was gained by deceit at the bishops' meeting.   
     The American hierarchy at this 1977 meeting were deluded into following Bernardin's illegal promotion of Communion in the hand throughout the United States.  The laity, too, followed the direction of their deluded leaders and the irreverent practice of Communion in the hand spread throughout the United States. 

"Bishop against bishop, cardinal against cardinal":
Cardinal Law of Boston rebukes Cardinal Bernardin

     Cardinal Bernardin, shortly before he died, promoted an ambitious project entitled "Catholic Common Ground Project," which was to host a series of conferences designed to stimulate "a new kind of dialogue" to help define the future course of the Catholic Church in America. Fundamental to this Common Ground Project was a statement drafted by Msgr. Philip Murnion, the director of the National Pastoral Life Center in New York, entitled "Called to be Catholic."  This document was reported to serve as a "manifesto" for Cardinal Bernadin's project. 
     Bernardin has long been recognized as the most influential bishop in the United States. Therefore, Bernardin's promotion of the Common Ground Project raised red flags among orthodox Catholics who recognized that this project, if successful, could drive a wedge between the United States and Rome and precipitate a schism. 
     Cardinal Bernardin held a press conference on August 12, 1996 designed to unite the American bishops and lay people behind the Common Ground Project. Within hours of Bernardin's press conference, Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston had released a public statement of his own, distancing himself from the Bernardin initiative and especially from Msgr. Murnion's statement, which he characterized as "unfortunate."
     "The fundamental flaw in this document is its appeal for 'dialogue' as a path to 'common ground,'" Cardinal Law argued. He explained: "Dissent from revealed truth or the authoritative teaching of the Church cannot be 'dialogued' away."  He then very sharply pointed out the dangers of Bernardin's approach. "Dialogue as a way to mediate between the truth and dissent is mutual deception," he cautioned. And in answer to the statement's appeal for "collegial" decisions which would merit "reception by the faithful," Cardinal Law cautioned that popularity--even among bishops--is no guarantee of orthodoxy. He reminded the faithful that during the time of King Henry VIII, all but one of the bishops of England had broken away from Rome

Cardinal Bernardin, president of the United States National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB), initiated two unsuccessful attempts to introduce Communion in the hand in 1975 and 1976. In the spring of 1977, the bishops’ vote again fell short of the required two-thirds majority. At this NCCB meeting, Bishop Romeo Blanchette of Joliet, Illinois rose and objected that the bishops at this meeting were not following the procedure established by the Holy See for episcopal conferences when they were discussing the issue of Communion in the hand.
    Furthermore, Cardinal John Krol stated that he thought a parliamentary device had been used to get rid of a valid motion at this bishops' meeting.  This motion would have allowed the bishops to discern if Communion in the hand was even a prevailing practice at all in the United States (which, at this time, it was not).
     The Vatican stipulated that it was necessary to prove that Communion in the hand was the prevailing (though disobedient) practice in the United States for the issue to go any further. If it was determined that it was not the prevailing practice, the issue would be dead in the water.  The "parliamentary device" objected to by Cardinal John Krol went around this requirement (to establish if Communion in the hand was the prevailing practice) in order to go to the next step, a vote.
    What was required at the voting stage was a 2/3 majority of bishops favoring Communion in the hand. The vote was made, and the 2/3 majority did not materialize. To get around this next obstacle, for the first time ever bishops in absentia were polled by mail after the conference meeting; subsequently the necessary votes "materialized" and the measure was declared passed. Several canon lawyers have stated categorically that this procedure was illegal. An interview with Bishop Blanchette in the National Catholic Register (June 12, 1977) confirms that Communion in the hand was unlawfully introduced into the United States. In this article, Bishop Blanchette was interviewed concerning this movement to allow Communion in the hand. Bishop Blanchette responded:

"What bothers me is that in the minds of many it will seem that disobedience is being rewarded. And that troubles me because if people persist in being disobedient--and that is used as a reason for changing the discipline--then we're very close to chaos or what I would call selective obedience, which is no obedience at all."
       Fr. John Hardon, S.J. likewise affirmed the fact that retired and dying bishops were polled to make sure the measure for Communion in the hand would be passed:     
"To get enough votes to give Communion in the hand, bishops who were retired, bishops who were dying, were solicited to make sure that the vote would be affirmative in favor of Communion in the hand. Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God." (Fr. John Hardon, S.J., Detroit Call to Holiness Conference, November 1, 1997) 

Fr. Alfred Kunz, a canon lawyer, was interviewed in August 1996 on the topic of the American bishops' meeting. He stated that Communion in the hand was passed by counting bishops by proxy who weren't even there. Fr. Kunz affirmed that this fact alone would invalidate the petition for Communion in the hand and it would have no status. He concluded by emphasizing that Communion in the hand could not be done because permission was gained by deceit at the bishops' meeting.   
     The American hierarchy at this 1977 meeting were deluded into following Bernardin's illegal promotion of Communion in the hand throughout the United States.  The laity, too, followed the direction of their deluded leaders and the irreverent practice of Communion in the hand spread throughout the United States.

Cardinal Bernardin: Was he a modern Judas? According to the November 1997 Washington Blade, a homosexual newspaper, the Cardinal himself had arranged for the "Windy City Gay Chorus" to sing at his wake at Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago. The Masons, also, honored the cardinal after his death. Bernardin was a friend of Call To Action (CTA) and allowed them to operate on Church property. He even went so far as to speak out against Bishop Bruskewitz (of Lincoln, Nebraska) for excommunicating CTA members in his own diocese. In retrospect, it is apparent that Cardinal Bernardin sympathized or actively promoted the liberal/dissenting side on virtually every Church issue. 
Accusations of satanism: An exposé by the lay group Roman Catholic Faithful     (The allegations concerning Cardinal Bernardin's involvement in satanism are taken from an exposé by Roman Catholic Faithful):
[Roman Catholic Faithful] first heard of Agnes’ story from a friend in 1996. This friend of mine had met Agnes a few years earlier when she came to him for advice. He never gave me her name or location but only made reference to her situation because it fit into a conversation we were having regarding the Archdiocese of Chicago. In 1998, when I first learned who Agnes was, I found that she had been on RCF’s mailing list for some time. I also learned that a private investigator, as well as a lawyer from Chicago who had provided RCF with information, had met with Agnes a few years earlier in an attempt to help her find a way to bear witness to what had happened to her. This same investigator and lawyer provided RCF with information they had obtained regarding the alleged sexual activity of the priest who had abused Agnes many years earlier. That priest was the young Joseph Bernardin. 

The allegations of Agnes
Agnes has testified to the following story:
     In the fall of 1957, in Greenville, S.C., Fr. Joseph Bernardin raped 11-year-old Agnes as part of a satanic ritual that involved, among others, Bishop John Russell of Charleston. Brought to the event by an abusive father, Agnes “was able, at first, to resist Bishop Russell physically, out of the knowledge that God had made me good, not bad as I was being told I was” (her words). As a young child, she had been victimized by a “sadist” cousin, and her identity was based upon “resisting bad things”, which included Bernardin. Bernardin then showed kindness and approval of her resistance, in order to gain her trust and get her to relax, and then he raped her. He followed the rape with a perverted use of a host, in an attempt to make Agnes swallow the guilt of the event.
     In the fall of 1992, Agnes passed a polygraph examination regarding these events. She also, in early 1990, told her story to Malachi Martin, who had been recommended to her as someone who could get her information to the Vatican, which Agnes knew had sole and immediate jurisdiction over such a case. Martin wrote a novel, Windswept House, with the premise that Agnes had given him: that the Catholic hierarchy's tolerance of heresy, liturgical abuse, clerical sexual misconduct, and clerical pedophilia had one overarching explanation at root, a network of Satanists whose smoke had ascended high in the Church.Thirty-four years later, Agnes went to visit Bishop Russell in a nursing home. In and out of lucidity, he agreed to testify against Bernardin if asked. He died without the opportunity to do so.

The lawsuit of Steven Cook
A former seminarian from the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, Steven Cook, filed a $10 million lawsuit against Bernardin and Cincinnati priest Ellis Harsham. The suit accused Harsham, when he was a priest at St. Gregory seminary in Cincinnati in the mid-1970s, of numerous coercive sexual acts against him, and then delivering him to Bernardin, then archbishop of Cincinnati, for the same purposes.
     Someone who knew Cook earlier than Agnes is a former seminarian who RCF interviewed who admitted to a four-year sexual relationship with a Catholic bishop who now heads a western diocese. This man stated that he also had forced sexual contact with Cardinal Bernardin.
      In June of 1998 RCF interviewed a Chicago businessman whose son was abused by a Chicago priest a few years earlier (1980's). In 1989 this Chicago businessman met with Cardinal Edouard Gagnon. The Cardinal stated that the Holy See had received hundreds of letters regarding the pedophile problem in the U.S. and that it was beyond the control of the Holy See as the Church is in schism and the American bishops will not obey the Holy Father.

 

This is a heading

This is a heading

This is a paragraph. To edit this paragraph, highlight the text and replace it with your own fresh content. Moving this text widget is no problem. Simply drag and drop the widget to your area of choice.

© Copyright Third Secret of Fatima