Rorate Caeli

Bishop Henry, it's not your call

The Bishop of Calgary, Alberta, has just suspended all activities of the Latin Mass communities in Calgary and Medicine Hat due to a pseudo-scientific and anti-Canonical order mandating the non-reception of the Eucharist on the tongue due to concerns related to the transmission of the Influenza A (H1N1) virus.

We had known about the matter for days, but had waited for some official words from the FSSP priests who serve those communities. However, since the entire matter has now been made public, we post the contents of the e-mail messages related to the affair. (A reader sent the e-mail exchange directly to us, but it was first made available in a web-based forum.)

Are you sick and tired of this kind of clerical abuse? Mail the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, make your protest known, wherever you may live around the world. We too are sick and tired of unwarranted episcopal tyranny, the despotism of those "liberal" or "conservative" bishops who use any excuse to persecute us: they swallow entire "Modern" elephants, yet choke on Latin mosquitoes. Or viruses...

__________________________________
[MESSAGE 1] From: [parvenu74]
Sent: November 30, 2009 10:09 AM
To: bishopfh@rcdiocese-calgary.ab.ca
Subject: Calgary's Saint Anthony Parish: forbidden to have Mass if communion in the hand is not offered?

Dear Bishop Henry,

On the front page of your diocese's website, I see there is a letter in which you are forbidding the distribution of communion on the tongue due to H1N1 concerns. Separately, I have heard that you have forbidden the Parish of Saint Anthony's in Calgary, which is serviced by priests of the Fraternity of Saint Peter, to offer Mass using the Missal of 1962 because that Rite of Mass is incompatible with communion given in the hand.

Is this true?

__________________________________

[MESSAGE 2] From: Bishop F.B. Henry
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Subject: RE: Calgary's Saint Anthony Parish: forbidden to have Mass if communion in the hand is not offered?



Dear [edited out]

The Fraternity ahs [sic] informed me that they are unable to comply with the directives in my pastoral letter re reception of communion. Therefore, the Latin Mass will be suspended until the temporary sanctions have been lifted as recommended by the Medical Officer of Health.

Peace, Bishop Henry



November 25, 2009
Rev. C. Blust, FSSP
St. Anthony’s Parish
5340 4th St. SW
Calgary, AB, T2V 0Z5

Dear Fr. Blust and My Brothers and Sisters of the Latin Mass Community of St. Anthony’s

The sacraments (and sacramentals – like holy water) are entrusted by Christ to the church which is responsible for determining through regulation the manner of their proper celebration. The bishop is the chief liturgist in the local church or diocese. In the event of a pandemic, we ought to try to reduce the possibility of transmission of a virus and protect the faithful – also the body of Christ. Our current liturgical restrictions in Calgary aim to do precisely that . This is a difficulty for some but we must remember that a Catholic spirituality is not an individual affair but communitarian from the get-go. For the love of our brothers and sisters we have mandated the sacrificing of a personal preference in the manner of Eucharistic reception for a temporary period.

Receiving communion on the tongue is not a dogma of faith. Nor is it an absolute. Since the Eucharistic Celebration is the Paschal Banquet, it is desirable that in keeping with the Lord's command, his Body and Blood should be received by the faithful who are properly disposed as spiritual food. In the Diocese of Calgary, all the faithful may receive communion on the tongue or in the hand - this also applies to the faithful who choose to celebrate the Eucharist with the Latin Mass community at St. Anthony’s, Calgary and St. Patrick’s, Medicine Hat. However, due to the current N1H1 pandemic and in accordance with recommendations received from the Medical Officer of Health, communion on the tongue is temporarily suspended.

I want to be perfectly clear: no one is to be denied the Eucharist, what is at issue is the manner of reception.

Participation in the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice is a source and means of grace even apart from the actual reception of Holy Communion. It has also been long understood that when circumstances prevent one from receiving Holy communion during mass, it is possible to make a spiritual communion that is also a source of grace. Spiritual communion means uniting oneself in prayer with Christ’s sacrifice and worshiping him present in his Body and Blood.

Nevertheless, the current pandemic circumstances do not warrant the non-reception of the Body and Blood of the Lord in favour of a spiritual communion. [Emphasis added]

Wishing you all the best, I remain,

Sincerely yours in Christ,

+ F. B. Henry
Bishop of Calgary.

__________________________________
[MESSAGE 3] From:[parvenu74]
To: Bishop F.B. Henry

Your excellency,

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), on 24 July 2009, stated that it is not licit to deny reception of communion on the tongue, despite the current threat of H1N1. Attached is a scan of the CDF's letter on this matter.

Through Jesus, Mary, and Joseph,
[parvenu74]


__________________________________

[MESSAGE 4]
From: Bishop F.B. Henry
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Subject: RE: Calgary's Saint Anthony Parish: forbidden to have Mass if communion in the hand is not offered?
To: [parvenu74]


I am well aware of what the congregation decided but quite frankly, it is not their call. It is mine. [Emphasis added]

131 comments:

finecrown said...

Please tell us how to go about sending email or conventional mail letters to the Eclesiastical Commision to which you refer. I am presently attempting to reach Rome after being rebuffed by my Bishop whose Priest I had requested him to advise that I could not be kept from Mass for kneeling.
Thanks. S. Petersen

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know if Bp Henry is perhaps concerned about legal ramifications if someone was to get sick?
(Noting that he refers to the state's medical info)

Anonymous said...

No one is to be denied communion on the tongue as per Rome, despite H1N1. And for those innoculated? Should I pull out medical records when receiving? If indeed this Bishop has been "unfriendly" towards the old Mass in the past I would make a point of bringing this to the point of scandal for him. It was our obedience they took advantage of when suppressing the Old Mass and they have to know that has changed. They lost our confidence and trust. Oh joy what the Novus Ordo implementation has wrought.

Jean said...

Why not just sidestep the issue for the time being, allow the priest to complete the sacrifice on the part of the faithful, and everyone make a spiritual communion. Either that or countermand the government edict altogether. Simply fly in its face, but don't be pushed around. Confront Satan (in the form of Socialism) to his face.

Anonymous said...

No, it is not Bishop Henry's call or the call of the C.D.W. Just as parents and not schools are primarily responsible for the education of children, it is parents and individuals and not bishops and priests who are primarily responsible for preserving the health of faithful. Those who judge that it is too risky to receive on the tongue or in the hand or standing on their heads, for that matter, are free simply to decline Holy Communion by not approaching the Altar for it. There is no sacred duty to receive just because one is not afflicted by mortal sin.

We are only required to receive Holy Communion once per year and then not even in Eastertide if there be a good reason for not doing so. The Church has mandated that, when we choose to receive, we are always free to receive in lingua, even at the New Mass. Bishop Henry's duty ends at making faithful aware of the risks and of their various options. He is a pastor of souls; it is we who are responsbile for protecting our bodies.

P.K.T.P.

New Catholic said...

He was, of course, not able to tolerate the idea that the faithful would all make spiritual Communion, which is why we added emphasis to the following words: "the current pandemic circumstances do not warrant the non-reception of the Body and Blood of the Lord in favour of a spiritual communion".

So, there is a solution that pleases all, yet not even this peaceful solution is good for the bishop... (even though his order of non-Communion on the tongue had been abusive in the first place..., and even though he knew that it violated clear orientation of a Roman dicastery.)

Louis E. said...

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith can be reached at Palazzo del Sant'Uffizio 11,00193 Roma,Italy,as can the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.The Secretary of the Congregation is Archbishop Luis Francisco Ladaria Ferrer and that of the Commission is Msgr. Guido Pozzo;both report to Cardinal Levada in their respective capacities.The fax number is 06.69.88.34.09 (the 06 is the international dialing code for Italy,I expect,you might remove the 0 as one does for Britain's code)

Anonymous said...

Estes acontecimentos (e os documentos)serão levados ao conhecimento da Santa Sé? É um bom material para comprovar que não se está lidando com Bispos mal-humorados, mas sim com verdadeiros lobos vorazes.

Anonymous said...

Someone asks:

"Does anyone know if Bp Henry is perhaps concerned about legal ramifications if someone was to get sick?
(Noting that he refers to the state's medical info)"

There are no legal ramifications because everyone is free not to receive Holy Communion at all. Look, just by attending Mass during a pandemic (which is a hoax created by the C.B.C., but that's another matter), one incurs some risk. You can't prove that someone contracted swine influenza just becasue he voluntarily decided to receive Holy Communion on the tongue or in the hand on by any means. People are responsble for making their own choicese. It would be different if the Church required one to receive Holy Communion on Sunday. She does not.

Am I the only one here who refrains from Holy Communion if there are people hacking and coughing at Mass? I do that quite often over the winter. Only the uncatechised think that there is some sacred duty to march up to the Altar rail every Sunday. Affliction in mortal sin and failure to observe the Eucharistic Fast are only two reasons one does not receive. There may be others.

P.K.T.P.

Long-Skirts said...

finecrown said...

"I am presently attempting to reach Rome after being rebuffed by my Bishop whose Priest I had requested him to advise that I could not be kept from Mass for kneeling."


THE
PETITIONERS

They cock their pens
And write their pappy
Spill their ink
On trees once sappy.

They do not fight
With soul and might,
They'd rather sit
And letter write.

Oh these our lords,
Approved patricians,
Who give their lives
For bloody petitions.

Anonymous said...

I note that there are Byzantine Ukrainian Divine Liturgies in Calgary every Sunday. I advise Calgarian traditionalists to repair thence to avoid seeing the sacrilege of people receiving our Lord in manu. And no, don't anyone remind me that reception in the hand was 'the practice of the Primitive Church' or something. What constitutes unacceptable behaviour and sacrilege is coloured by the time in which one lives and the habits of that time. Communion in manu, for Catholics of the last several centuries, is associated with Protestants and their reception has much to do with their belief about what the Eucharist is. They started receiving in the hand to remind themselves and others that the Host is only a symbol.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Going to a Byzantine Catholic Church would be your best bet till this is cleared up. Maybe the FSSP can concelebrate with the Byzantine clergy for now. Just my opinion. The Divine Liturgy is just as sweet as the Latin Mass.

Knight of Malta said...

Priests in Calgary should ignore this dictate, as is their prerogative, under Summorum Pontificum (thus the brilliance of this document.)

Why not discontinue mass altogether, since that would certainly eliminate the spread of H1N1?

What a boob. It was the bishops in Canada who most strongly fought for contraception before Pope Paul VI issued Hummanea Vittae.

Whatever. Shake your sandals off, you denizens of that once great Catholic city, Quebec, since your prelates are leading you to hell. Now, only 5% of citizens in Quebec go to mass. So it is in France, and so it is in Europe.

What the French Revolution started, Vatican II put a linch pin into....

Timothy Mulligan said...

The Catholics of Calgary can continue to assist at the true Mass here: http://www.sspx.ca/Alberta/ImmaculateHeart.htm

This situation underscores the continued need for the SSPX.

Mike said...

Here is an appropriate but sad newspaper article; "Happy 40th birthday, Novus Ordo!

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

My friends, just assist at an SSPX Mass and you won't have any of these problems.

Tyler said...

I agree with what someone said. The FSSP should continue to offer the EF of the Mass, and tell the bishop that they will simply not distribute communion. I'm sure that those who assist would prefer this to nothing at all.

If nothing else, it would show the Bishops true prerogative here, which appears to be banning the EF and not communion on the tongue

Van Knackular said...

Who said anything about receiving Communion as a part of going to Mass anyway? Surly they could attend Mass and not receive?

Stu said...

Shameful. Completely shameful. If ever there is a time for deliberate action from the Vatican, it is now.

Anonymous said...

Calgary Catholics,
I now assist at the FSSPX chapel - without scruple of conscience. Bishop Henry is unjust. Take heart, Christ has overcome the world.

- Jerry

St. Rafael said...

The idea that recieving Communion on the tongue is dangerous because of H1N1 is nonsense.

Bishop Henry knows that H1N1 is not serious enough to end Cmmunion altogether and go with a spiritual Communion, because he wants Communion in the Hand.

Communion inthe Hand is actually worse than Communion on the tongue because germs are more likely to pass through the touching of the hands.
Communion on the tongue is the norm for the Church, not in the hand. CDF has jurisdiction ove thr entire Church, so Bishop Henry is in disobediece with Rome.

Anonymous said...

PKTP

It is possible that Bp Henry is considering that if he permitted communion on the tongue then the state authorities might interfere - claiming some public safety issue which overrides the operations of the church?

Joseph Antoniello said...

It is not the Bishop's call; the FSSP are not diocesan priests. The Ecclesia Dei is in charge...ugh.

I love episcopal abuse....

Anonymous said...

And it was also necessary to move into Czechoslovakia because ethnic Germans were being mistreated.....or so went another baseless, trumped up charge used by another tyrant as justification to impose his maniacal will on the world.

Anonymous said...

Have the FSSP priests of this parish ceased offering Holy Mass publically? From the content of the letters it appears so. Though this is lamentable in one sense, I applaud their refusal to allow this pseudo-scientific argument to proliferate the practice of Communion 'in the hand.'

I wonder what would happen if the priests would say Mass publically, but if the congregants at Mass all ('on their own accord') did not present themseleves for communion?

Pray for the priests at this parish, I am sure it pains them to be forcibly prevented from performing their priestly duties.

Anonymous said...

Note: the Medical Officer of Health in Calgary never said that Communion on the tongue should stop because of N1H1. That was an invention of Bishop Henry so - no legal ramifications. A doctor (specialist) has actually said that the chance of spreading the flu is fractionally greater when the Host is passed hand to hand (to hand?). Sadly the bishop has a problem with Tradition and Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificate and Rome will note this.

Anonymous said...

Dear Long-skirts:

On kneeling, see Protocol 1322/02/1, dated 1 July, 2002. Here is the lovely quotation: "Even where the Congregation has approved of legislation denoting standing as the posture for Holy Communion, in accordance with the adaptations permitted to the Conferences of Bishops by the Institution Generalis Missalis Romani n. 160, paragraph 2, it has done so with the stipuation that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds."

Signed by Msgr. Mario Marini, Undersecretary.

Msgr. Marini does note one circumstance in which Communion is to be denied:

to prevent "grave scandal to other believers arising out of the person's unrepentant public sin or obstinate heresy or schism, publicly professed or decarled".

Of course, that restriction is followed to the letter by these clowns!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

It seems a bit disingenuous to me, using the current climate of rabid fear to forbid Holy Communion on the tongue.

Especially since we would be far more likely to catch something from our pew-mates. In our cathedral the people are crammed in at Mass, so it would be hard NOT to catch something, LOL!

Here's hoping the priests aren't forbidden to attend sick people for fear of infection--is this what we're coming to???

Be that as it may, I have emailed the Bishop in question to register my family's disappointment in his actions, as we have often availed ourselves of the EF in St. Anthony's while visiting. Fr. Blust is a good priest, as is his associate, Fr. Poisson. Their summer camp for boys is great, too.

God Bless,

Embattled Catholic

Michael said...

And at The Immaculate Heaart, Calgary, you may have the benefit of hearing Fr. Leo Boyle preach - a great loss to SSPX UK and Bristol in particular.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps we are seeing the Canadian bishops public response to Summorum Pontificum. If Bishop Henry succeeds Summorum Pontificum is finished.

This development will not go unnoticed by the leaders of the SSPX. Whether it is on the agenda for their meetings with Rome or not, it will certainly be brought to the attention of the Roman representatives.

The war on all things reverent, lead by the liturgical revolutionaries, continues.

God save us from the bishops!!!

John Ashley
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia

Anonymous said...

Someone asked:

"It is possible that Bp Henry is considering that if he permitted communion on the tongue then the state authorities might interfere - claiming some public safety issue which overrides the operations of the church?"

The State cannot interfere in this because how the Church says one may or must receive a Sacrament is a matter of a fundamental right of citizens to freedom of religion. This is encoded (Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I believe) in the Cdn. Constitution.

Remember, there is not an issue here because NOBODY IS REQUIRED to receive Holy Communion except once per year. So if the priest ensures that everyone knows this and is aware of the risk, it belongs to the faithful to come forward for Holy Communion or not. Faithful who fear receiving in ligua are free as Catholics to go to an N.O. and receive in manu. It's not as if somebody carrying a machine gun is stopping them. Everyone who goes to the Latin Mass knows bloody well what the practice is.

This entire issue shows how inane that Bishop Henry is. He was well known to be a liberal when he was Bishop of Thunder Bay. Then he re-invented himself when he was transferred to the politically-conservative Diocese of Calgary. He is a such a puerile man. Why doesn't he grow up and get some common sense? He is a pastor of souls. It is faithful adults who are primarily responsible for their health and that of their children. Not Rome, not the local bishop, but the father of the household. We don't need him to protect us from the swine flu. He needs to butt out of adult faithful's proper jurisdiction.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Antoniello:

You are right, of course, but the problem is that the local Bishop has the authority to expel the F.S.S.P. from this diocese. Herein lies the real problem--and the reason why an ordinariate or other particular church for tradition is needed. We shall never be free until we are protected from this local liberal bishops. They hate our Mass with a passion and will not stop until they drive it out. They will invent any nonsense to justify this idiocy. Nobody who fears influenza from Communion in lingua is required to receive that way. He can abstain from Communion and go to another Mass for Communion. Next, Bishop Henry will say that it is sacriligious to attend two Masse on one day. Oh what fools these mortals be.

P.K.T.P.

dcs said...

The FSSP should continue to offer the EF of the Mass, and tell the bishop that they will simply not distribute communion.

It seems that they offered to do this (hence Bp. Henry's statement against "spiritual communion"), but were being forced to offer Communion in the hand.

I had previously admired Bp. Henry for standing up to the homosexual regime.

M.A. said...

The FSSP must take up the battle with their bishop. Having the laity write to him would more than likely, be useless. They can do so, as a support to their FSSP priests, but it is the duty of the priest to protect his flock from the "verdadeiros lobos vorazes" such as is this bishop.

If the priests involved will do nothing for fear of getting expelled from the diocese, then better for the laity to attend the SSPX Masses.

Prof. Basto said...

I am well aware of what the congregation decided but quite frankly, it is not their call. It is mine. [Emphasis added]

A Congregation of the Roman Curia is the Pope's arm, the Pope's voice.

The Bishop, full of tyrannical pride, dares to say that it is not the Pope's call, that it is not the Holy Apostolic See's call.

In his deluded mind, it is his call. This man should be sacked immediately, that's what should happen.

And the Papal chirograph sacking him should be made public at once in the bulletin of the Holy See Press Office.

Only then will this bishop and his colleagues who so often simply decide to disregard the authority of Rome pause and tremble.

This bishop is acting like this because he is sure that there will be no punishment, no negative consequence.

So, certain of impunity, he can damn well disregard the authority of the Pope and his Curia, and do as he pleases.

If the Pope fails to act to restore discipline in an exemplary fashion, then such omission will be a dis-service to ecclesiastical unity and to the fundamental principle of ecclesiastical obedience.

The Pope, Christ's Vicar and Sucessor of St. Peter, is the foundation and principle unity of the Church. But the Holy See has been lax with discipline, and such leniency has made bishops feel as if they were all-powerful, as if they could simply ignore Rome as they pleased. This is a totally distorted understanding of a Bishop's legitimate authority.

So, this is not just about the TLM and yet another whip in the suffering back of the traditionalist faithful, it is also a blatant disregard to ecclesiastical discipline.

I mean, the Bishop declared very clearly and in no ambiguous terms that he doesn't care one bit about the Roman Congregation's decision, because, quite frankly, Rome is not running the show, he is.

This is an absurdity and a true scandal.

And this bishop's attitude is the result of the last 40 years of hell. Mary Most Holy, Queen of the Apostles, help us!

Gideon Ertner said...

I will be extremely happy to write to someone to protest against this utterly unjust travesty. But surely we should be writing to the Congregation of Divine Worship rather than Ecclesia Dei, should we not? ED does not have jurisdiction on this matter, but the CDW does.

Anonymous said...

Absolutely shocking.

"I want to be perfectly clear: no one is to be denied the Eucharist, what is at issue is the manner of reception."

The Vatican has said it is an individual's right, not to be taken away, to receive in the manner THEY wish. A person who receives only on the tongue IS BEING DENIED the Eucharist under the bishop's plan. He has contradicted himself quite plainly and clearly!

Paul Haley said...

This is clearly an abuse of power by a local bishop in clear defiance of the C.D.W. and, more than that, he attempts to avoid responsibility for this act by passing it off to the Medical Officer of Health, a government entity.

OK, so the message we get is: it's OK for those with canonical status and faculties to tell the C.D.W. to "go fly a kite" but the SSPX are to remain in some sort of canonical limbo indefinitely.

I'm sorry but this situation, coupled with all the atrocious liturgical abuses we've seen chronicled on the web recently, reminds me of the saying: Nero fiddles while Rome burns.

Bishop Henry does not have unlimited authority since his authority is received from the one who appointed him - in this case the Holy Father. And, it is the Holy Father who must act in this instance. An ironic post on another site by StevusMagnus is insructive here: http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=337867#337867 and the only question is when will the hammer fall, if ever?

Anonymous said...

This is an example of why schisms and reformations exist: Catholic bishops, with few exceptions, are putrid. Sometimes their stench is just too great for their co-religionists to bear, and they bolt.

Anonymous said...

This makes me so angry. Why are Bishops in the Church out to destroy it?

Andrew Weldon said...

This is a perfect illustration the problem with the Fraternity of Saint Peter and other Latin Mass ghettos across the world.

The Society of Saint Pius X is right and has a just cause, especially for insisitng they cannot come under the control of heretics such as this Bishop Henry.

Anonymous said...

Pope Benedict needs to stop this madness.

Christopher said...

Copy of the bishop's letter is up.

Anonymous said...

This "concern" it is not a concern in our Orthodox Churches. And you guys know how do we receive communion, and how the uniates do as well.

Anonymous said...

While writing the Ecclesia Dei Commission at the CDF may help, I wouldn't advise it. The PCED in the early 90's authorized reception in the hand.

Better to write CDW and request enforcement of Redemtionis Sacramentum, which applies to both the ordinary and extraordinary forms of the rite. There are few, if none, who go to the old Mass who would even want to receive in the hand.

Christopher said...

I believe the purpose in contacting PCED would be to ask about the action of suppressing the EF, not the previous action which would be a matter for CDWDS.

Anonymous said...

"The PCED in the early 90's authorized reception in the hand."

Could you provide more details, please?

Dan Hunter said...

"This makes me so angry. Why are Bishops in the Church out to destroy it?"

Because some of them hate Christ.

Look at the high priests Annas and Caiphas.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry guys, but Ecclesia Dei has no authority over bishops at all...

Anonymous said...

What a plonker! He must be a "bubble bishop".
1/ Communion on the hand is an indult. Not the norm.
2/ Communion on the tongue is the norm.

What of communion under both kinds.
What is the problem? Priests can use antiviral gel before Mass which is has a residual effect.

Placing hosts in peoples hands, into which they have coughed used to wipe their noses and shake hand in the new rite.
These spread disease as well.
The bishop is required to enforce the customs and discipline of the Church as instructed. Not invent his own!
As a last resort he can ask the laity to abstain from communion. For our ancestors frequent communion meant once a month at the most!
The canon law requires once a year by which time the flu will have passed.

Anonymous said...

I was denied communion in the mouth here in Brazil (Novus Ordo). Before the end of the Mass, the priest said the usual explanation and added a scandalous note (if taken as an absolute statement): "[the] faith doesn't avoid diseases". However, some minutes before, the hand-shaking sign of peace took place, with the priest walking to the peals.

Anonymous said...

IF this were to happen in my archdiocese, I would drive to the SSPX then. As it is, I have semi-regular access to the FSSP. The Fraternity is in the diocese by the 'charity' of the bishop and they must obey. Yes, to a personal prelature of some kind to protect the Mass of the Ages and yet make it totally licit and available to all the faithful.

This is what I wrote to the bishop:
Dear Bishop,

I was saddened to learn of your decision to ban the Latin Mass in your diocese because of the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue. This ontrived 'pandemic' of the flu is not a life threatening illness for normal folks. Why could it not be up to the discretion of the individual after a recommendation to not recieve on the tongue? I myself do receive on the tongue and I do not know what I would do if my archbishop forbade it. And the reasoning behind it is not sound enough to convince me that this is an effective means of prevention! A doorknob is still dangerous and the sneeze of an infected person even more so. I read that even holy water has been removed! As one who has been in the baths of Lourdes, as perhaps you also have been, and where thousands of people enter continually, I know of no documentation as to the spreaad of disease by the practice. If holy water is enough to make a demon quake, then I am not overly concerned that it will foster contagion.

Also, I was a "Eucharistic Minister" for 20 years. In that time, the lay person consumed the remainder of the Precious Blood after hundreds had already drank from the cup. I never got sick from this practice!

Please do reconsider and lift this prohibition. I know in the natural and worldly realm it may seem prudent but on the supernatural level it does not.

Ave Maria!

GJ said...

The suspension of the Latin Mass came as a shocker to me any my wife. Nonetheless, although I have no sympathy for the bishop's order, I do praise the FSSP's obedience. We will be attending the Divine Liturgy at the Assumpton Ukrainian Catholic church for the time being, but I cannot encourage anyone to go to an SSPX Mass.

Dad29 said...

All of which goes to prove that fogging a glass is the minimum requirement for Ordination as Bishop.

Anonymous said...

I emailed the bishop and he responded. He asked if I was a Christian and said my concerns were nonsense. Typical Liberal

Anonymous said...

Write the Holy Father directly and tell him about this wicked bishop.

Where is Una Voce in all this? Are they not the international voce for these kinds of issues? I haven't heard a peep, have you?

Anonymous said...

Why not email the bishop and let him know any concerns. This is his email

bishopfh@rcdiocese-calgary.ab.ca

Brian Kopp said...

Heads need to roll. With evil intransigence like this, its simply not enough for the Pope to "lead by example."

When a three year old child is putting a screwdriver into an electrical outlet, the father is not doing the child any favors by quietly "reasoning" with him, or trying to "lead by example."

The father must discipline the child in such a way that the child realizes the mortal implications of his bad actions.

This is one of those instances where the bishop needs to be disciplined, slapped down openly and loudly and in no uncertain terms.

Anything less would be scandalous, and call into question the love of the Holy Father for his children.

dcs said...

I'm sorry guys, but Ecclesia Dei has no authority over bishops at all

Even if that were the case (and it is not, as the PCED has the authority of the Holy See in matters regarding the application of Summorum Pontificum [see art. 11 of that document]), the congregation in question is the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, not the PCED. The CDW has authority in this matter and the bishop does not. And since the bishop has gone beyond his authority there is no question of "disobedience" - obedience can not be compelled in matters beyond ones authority.

Anonymous said...

Anon. wrote:

"I'm sorry guys, but Ecclesia Dei has no authority over bishops at all..."


It does in matters pertaining to the Traditional Latin Mass. Read Article 12 of "Summorum Pontificum". Read it.

Sill, the C.D.W. should be contacted about this--and soon. A letter to the P.C.E.D. with a copy o the C.D.W. would do the trick.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Just a question for those who advise attending the Eastern Rite: I am an Extraordinary Catholic who finds himself 140 miles from the closest Extraordinary Catholic Mass but in the midst of a strong Ukrainian Catholic population (in East Central Alberta).

When I am unable to drive to the Extraordinary Mass I bring my Extraordinary family to the Ukrainian Rite. Recently, the priest announced that as a result of H1N1 the Holy Eucharist would be distributed using "disposable" wooden sticks (like the kind the doctors use when you say "Ahh").

Sadly, I have seen the sticks fall to the floor twice while being replaced on a dish held by the server. Also, I am curious how these sticks will be handled after the Mass given the absorption of the Precious Blood into the wood?

Being an Extraordinary Catholic, I am not familiar with the history of Eastern Liturgical practice and would be grateful for any clarification on this modification.

I am grateful for having this opportunity to experience the beautiful liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Perhaps the Saint might have some famous quotation that could shed some light on the Bishop Henry situation ;-)

Anonymous said...

I have been told the Ukranians burn the sticks after mass.

Anonymous said...

We are waisting Bishop Henry's talents in the great white north. He is an excellent administrator.

Bishop Henry should immediately be transfered to Rome to take over the Vatican Post Office.

I just hope they have the stick on stamps, not the one's you lick. Otherwise there will be no mail delivery. H1N1 you know!

Anonymous said...

Has someone ever tried using scientific logic to prove the faulty logic behind banning communion on the tongue?

The logic that the health department is that a priest putting his hand on the eucharist and then near someone's mouth is somehow increasing the rist of spread of the flu should be able to be proven faulty quite easily.

First of all, in the extraordinary form, the priest washes his fingers in alcohol and dries them with a clean linen before handling the sacrament. (alcohol is known to kill the flu virus on contact) The priest never opens up is thumb and index finger once he touches the host. (Something that is not done in the ordinary rite) The priest then lays the host on the tongue of the communicant (he doesn't stick in his/her mouth) all the time pinching his thumb and index finger. Once communion is over he then washes his fingers in wine again. Not much in the way of exposure to disease.

On the other hand, in the ordinary rite, the priest does not take all of the precautions stated above to protect the eucharist. The eucharist is also handled by a number of euchartic ministers for distributing communion. ( I don't think they cleanse their hands with alcohol before doing so). Then everbody receiving communion handles the eucharist before putting it in their mouth after they have shaken the hands of countless number of individuals in the community. Don't forget the priest and euchastic ministers shake hands as well.

Now which group seems more suceptable to spreading disease?

I wonder what the good bishop would have to say about that?

PJL

Anonymous said...

When the Church allows assisting at SSPX Masses for a just cause by canon 1335 or 1325, whatever - then there's no need to feel superior than the Church.

Anonymous said...

GJ

In this particular case, no, I don't praise the FSSP's obedience. If they don't start standing up for their God-given rights, they're salt without savor.

Delphina

Petrus Radii said...

Since the so-called bishop is acting "ultra vires" (beyond his powers), his "suspension" of the Traditional Latin Mass is, according to Canon Law, absolutely null and utterly void.

The FSSP would be completely justified, and within their rights, completely to ignore the bishop's decree.

In fact, I would most strongly encourage them to do just that, since the decree is positively morally harmful. Compliance with the decree would be an abdication of the FSSP's moral responsibility to the Faithful entrusted to their care.

Moreover, it would be appropriate if the bishop were declared suspended a divinis by the Apostolic See for his grave disobedience towards the Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Dicasteries, as well as interdicted from placing any acts requiring jurisdiction, until such time as he would rescind his invalid decree and do public penance for the scandal caused.

Grignion said...

There is far less risk of cross-infection in the Traditional Rite than in the new Rite. There is only one person handling the Blessed Sacrament as opposed to half a dozen laypeople. After the Consecration, the priest keeps his tongue and index finger joined, so he is not touching anything else. In the New Rite we still have the Sign of Peace where he shakes hands with lots of people. The faithful are kneling down for Holy Communion, so the head is tilted back slightly, enabling the priest to place the Host on the tongue. Whe administering Holy Communion on the hand, the priest will often touch the skin on the palm of the hand. This is where the flu is most likely to be.

I think this is just an excuse to suppress anything that smacks of Tradition or devotion. They've ben looking for an excuse to suppress Communion on the tongue for years. However, when all this mass-hysteria has passed, I can't see them lifting this. They'll lift the suppression of the Sign of Peace though.

Someone has already posted the link to the SSPX church in Calgary. Bp Henry should not start bleating on about obedience on this one.

Long-Skirts said...

This is what comes of so many "Traditional" Catholics thinking that they could "have their cake and eat it too." In other words they stayed in the middle where they could have "their" Latin Mass and the other Catholics could have "their" Novus Ordo Masses. There is only ONE, TRUE, APOSTOLIC AND CATHOLIC FAITH.

MIDDLE
CHURCH

In the middle of the Church
There’s a very safe spot,
Where it’s not very cold
And it’s not very hot.

You can say a little prayer
In a Latin cant one day,
On another take the Host,
Serve yourself, walk away.

It’s the middle of the Church
And a very safe spot,
Where it’s not very cold
And it's not very hot.

There is no school for minds,
Or for little Catholic souls,
But at least there are no fights
How to clean the toilet bowls.

For the classrooms, they are empty,
And the lavatories too.
No daily Mass, no Catholic class
For little Don and Sue.

But it’s really very middle,
In a very safe spot,
Where it’s not very cold
And it’s not very hot.

The New Mass has its many,
The Indult many too.
But the Indult has conservative
“Scalias” in the pew.

The Indult brings in money.
The New says “that is great!”
And the priest who goes between them both
Can really celebrate...

For he’s really in the middle
In a very safe spot,
Where it’s not very cold
And it’s not very hot.

Young priest say the Old,
Old priest say the New,
Middle Church and safe priest
Can accommodate the two...

For they'll keep you in the middle,
In a luke warm spot,
Where you’ll never fight the cold
And you’ll never fight the hot!

Anonymous said...

This is absolutely outrageous. This knave should be removed from office by force. Even though I don't reside in this fool's diocese, I am seriously considering permanently returning to the SSPX as a result of this BS.

Fagans said...

In a sense, His Excellency's remarks about being the final word in his diocese are quite legitimate. In fact, he's acting like a patristic era bishop. Remember, he's in communion with Peter. He's not Peter's bitch or employee.

Anonymous said...

Didn't many of the Saints of the Catholic Church follow in obedience to their bishops even when they were not in the wrong or felt they were being persecuted or treated unjustly.

Bishop Henry has done many great things for the Church and some of these comments are completely slanderous and unfounded. And some of these comments show absolutely no respect for the divinely appointed Bishop's Office, who contrary to the self appointed bishops in the church ie many of the Lay extraordinary form members, the Bishop actually by the authority of the Church is the “the first steward of the mysteries of God in the particular Church entrusted to him, is the moderator, promoter and guardian of her whole liturgical life.”

When did the Catholic Church become so filled with Pharisees whose only concerns are rubrics and "laws" The hatred one discerns towards anything outside the so called "traditional" movement" is getting tiresome.
Its no wonder why most novus ordo catholics want nothing to do with the beauty of the Church's traditions. You guys sound like a bunch of old cronies who have nothing better to do then wine complain and attack every persons character who does something you dislike and don't agree with.

For the record and hate mail to come I am a faithful Catholic who loves the Mass Latin old and new and who in obedience however much I dislike touching the host will obey my bishop in Toronto.

Secondly the prompting to "deny" actually suspend the Latin Mass has nothing to do with the swine flu, liberalism or whatever. The fact that the FSSP is directly challenging the Bishop's authority publically is the issue. And "if" Bishop Henry is the one who has invited the FSSP into his diocese then they are subject to obedience if they choose to remain.

This whole scandal that is being fabricated could be avoided by obedience and using the proper channels; the Vatican, not blogs and news commentaries. The people who attack name call and all the regular yahoo that comes with these comment boards just add to the scandal because all of us Catholics look like a bunch of jackasses who cant hold a civil discussion.

There is no love or justice or charity in slandering a person's character even if you disagree on matters of doctrine, discipline and authority.

Daniel
Pax Vobis

Anonymous said...

Friends

Many of you who do not know Bishop "Red Freddie" might be forgiven for thinking that he is abominable and anti tradition. Yet here in Canada Bp Red Freddie has been a true example for the other bishops many of whom are openly quasi-heretical, pro-abort, and prosodomy. Red Freddie has been vocal against the pinko-commie homos and anti-christs in our public and ecclesial domains here in Canada and has been subject to great abuses for his pro-Christ stand.

It is my personal view that Red Freddie actually believes he is looking after souls, misguided as this particular view of his may be.

For he has not been anything like the vast numbers of anti-Christ bishops we are plagued with in Canada.

As such, I would recommend respectful emails to him and a caution against judging him. In many ways he has been a real blessing to faithful Catholics.

With all due respect Red Bp Freddie, we love but receiving Christ in our hand, where we end up consuming Him with the germs on our hands, is not better for our physical health than receiving on our tongue.

God loves you, so do we. We implore you in love to wake up and smell the sulfur.

In JMJ

JDB

Jordanes said...

The "middle," the heart, of the Church of Christ is exactly where I want to be. Roving on the fringes or outside the bounds of the Church is not an option.

Anonymous said...

Much as I despise Bishop Henry (and always have, by the way), we must be fair to him. Some posts have commented here on the handshaking in the New Mass and how dangerous that is. I note that Bishop Henry has banned all handshaking in the New Mass until the pandemic has past. So we can't use that argument against him. Fair is far.

We need to keep the argumetns in focus. Bishop Henry does not have the authority to override a dicastery of the Holy See on this matter, and the Holy See declares that each of us has a right to receive in lingua, whether at the T.L.M. or the N.O.M.

But nobody is bound in law to receive, whether on the tongue or in the hand. We all have the right and the duty to protect our health and that of our children as we see fit. Just as parents, not schools, are the primary protectors of the education of their children, it is adults, not Bishop Henry, who are the primary protectors of their health and that of their children.

Bishop Henry can act responsibly by instructing his priests to warn all churchgoers of the dangers of infection. Having been duly warned, communicants can decide for themselves what risks they wish to incur. This is their responsibility, not Bishop Henry's. Just as Bishop Henry has rights as the local ordinary, faithful laics also have a province in which they rule and judge. He needs to learn how to respect that. Note how contrary he is to his vaunted Council, a Council which insisted on the priesthood of the faithful and their legitimate rights! But he would tyrannise them in a province where he lacks due authority.

I write all this as one who is both a traditionalist and a bit of a hypochondriac. Whenever I'm in church and I hear hacking and coughing and sneezing, I avoid Holy Communion altogether! That is my choice! My own health is primarily my business, not that of this liberal bishop! But if others are more trusting, that is also their business and theirs alone. Nobody is forcing them at gunpoint to approach the Altar.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

J.D.B., who must be an American (because he spells sulphur as if it has an f), is referring correctly to the fact that Bsp. Frederick Henry is regarded as a 'conservative'. I suggest that he was known to be a liberal when he was Bishop of Thunder Bay and then morphed into a conservative once he was transferred to Calgary, perhaps the most conservative city in Canada.

But a conservative is not the same thing as a traditionalist. Let's not forget that. As for his credentials as a conservative, I'm sceptical (not skeptical) about them.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Do FSSP priests have the right to forbid reception of communion in the hand?

Anonymous said...

Daniel Said - "Secondly the prompting to "deny" actually suspend the Latin Mass has nothing to do with the swine flu, liberalism or whatever. The fact that the FSSP is directly challenging the Bishop's authority publically is the issue."

It really doesn't matter why the Bishop is suspending the mass, the problem here and for the last 40 years has been bishops illicitly withholding the mass from the faithful. To use the mass as a carrot to hold traditional minded catholics in line is reprehensible, it is disobediance to the holy father and is just as serious if not worse than anything the SSPX is accused of doing.

This kind of thing only validates the need for the SSPX. What accountability would any bishop like this one have without the SSPX?

There is no need for hate mail. What is needed is for catholics like you to understand the difference between those who like the old mass and those who are cradle to grave traditional catholics. This same bishop would have no authority to forbid eastern rite celebrations and what is needed is a structure that will protect the rights of traditional catholics. Let us pray that The Pope will find a resolution to this problem soon.

PJL

Anonymous said...

Daniel you write, "The fact that the FSSP is directly challenging the Bishop's authority publically is the issue."

Not so,the FSSP have been humble and quiet and they have tried every diplomatic and legal channel.

The Bishop is disobeying canon law and going beyond his authority - that is the issue not the other way around.

People are scandalized. yes they need to be charitable, as does Bishop Henry. You don't realize what is at stake here.

Hinky

Dan Hunter said...

"Roving on the fringes or outside the bounds of the Church is not an option."
Jordanes:
You are exactly right that is why many of the faithful repair to FSSPX,or FSSP[not in Calgary] or other Ecclesia Dei parishes.

Bernadette said...

Hey Longskirts, I think I'll take a stab at poetry also...here goes:

All those that thought they were fairly wise, fell victim to their compromise,

"We have two rites" they sang, quite merry...an additional rite called the extraordinary!

"What is next?" They may ask since novelties reign...those bending to modernists now feel the pain.

The FSSP cannot follow tradition...their trust in Rome has led to their perdition....

No communion on the tongue the Bishop has said...looks like the neo-Trads must lay in their bed.

C. said...

Fagans, you forget Pastor Aeternus, ch. 3:

"Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.


"...So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema."

Anonymous said...

To Daniel:

It is you who slander the FSSP. If you don't know the facts of the case then don't speak. I live in the diocese and can say first hand that the FSSP are completely blameless in all this.

When the bishop put out these restrictions the pastor tried to modify communion in the safewest way possible. He cut the communion hosts in half and asked us to present ourselves in such a way so that he could just drop the host into our mouths and thus reduced risk of touching on the tongue. That would not satisfy the bishop. Next he asked us not to receive physical communion for the time being but only make a spiritual communion. Though sad at this we were willing to quietly acquiesce if it meant we could have our mass and still fulfill our Sunday obligation but the bishop was implacable. He issued a decree basically trying to force the pastor to give communion in the hand; this is not permissable in the Tridentine mass and he knew it. He essentially put the pastor in an impossible situation. The district superior for the FSSP then tried to suggest a solution to this; they were willing to agree to any modifications short of committing sacrilege and even offered the to proceed with the most outrageous hygiene measures (such as if during communion if there was even a hint of contamination the priest would suspend communion and rigorously sanitise his hands before resuming) but all to no avail. The bishop curtly suspended the Latin mass on Friday with a brief memo and left us all in the lurch.

The FSSP have been quiet in all this and the usual appeals have been lodged to Rome but that takes time. Meanwhile news of this is bound to leak out when you have 500+ people suddenly affected and scrambling for last minute alternatives.

I may also add that this restriction has no objective medical foundation. The medical officers of health have never specifically requested the bishop to do this. At the most they only suggested general health guidelines such as if you are sick and have respiratory symptoms then don't go to mass or don't partake in communion. At no time did they ever suggest to suspend communion in the hand.

This is a very sad state of affairs and I will pray for all involve. I will pray for the bishop that he will soften the hardness of his heart; I will pray for Rome that she may swiftly come to our aid and render us true justic and mercy. Most of all though I will pray for the poor suffering pastor caught in all this. He is going through a living martyrdom. He is a good and holy man who has never said an unkind word about the bishop and everywhere and always has preached obedience and charity towards him and all lawful superiors (but this does not mean one can obey an unlawful command- the bishop cannot force communion in the hand in a tridentine mass in his diocese anymore say than can he suddenly declare that the 4th commandment no longer is applicable to his diocese).

If there is any charity in you then I suggest that you retract your thoughtless comments on the FSSP.

Anonymous said...

The Supreme Pontiff could end this once and for all by forbidding the reception of Holy Communion in the hand.

Phillip C. in S.F.

Alexander said...

Following the Bishop's logic he should ban the sign of peace by lay people in the Novus Ordo. Has he?


Anyone talking to the Bishop via email, please ask him this.

Anonymous said...

Dear friends,

I am appalled at the level of discourse and lack of respect owed by all Catholics to a sitting bishop. Respectful critique is always in order, but I am ashamed of much of what I see in this thread. Bishop Henry has been one of the good guys in Canada in taking on rabid secularism, the homosexual lobby, and other important causes. Let us work together to get this settled in the proper channels.

Anonymous said...

Bishop has the right to forbid FSSP activity and he has executed that right. This is how the FSSP apostolate works. It's up to him to decide, not up to some angry, yelling "trads". Don't be hypocritical.

C. said...

Daniel,
"Didn't many of the Saints of the Catholic Church follow in obedience to their bishops even when they were not in the wrong or felt they were being persecuted or treated unjustly."

True, but in none of these cases did the bishop ask for obedience to him over obedience to the Holy See. Such obedience cannot be granted.

M.A. said...

"And "if" Bishop Henry is the one who has invited the FSSP into his diocese then they are subject to obedience if they choose to remain. [Give Communion in the hand, or else you can't celebrate Mass.]"

The late William Marra coined the term "papalotry". I would suggest some here are falling into 'bishopaltry".

Pascendi said...

Attack the point and not the person !

Bp. Henry has done much good in Canada, and Calgary.

dcs said...

Bishop has the right to forbid FSSP activity and he has executed that right. This is how the FSSP apostolate works. It's up to him to decide, not up to some angry, yelling "trads". Don't be hypocritical.

Precisely the sort of response that would turn a humble, quiet "trad" into an "angry, yelling 'trad'".

Paul Haley said...

I've read somewhere on the web that Pope Benedict XVI uses his computer and often surfs the net visiting sites of particular interest to him. Would that Rorate-Caeli was one of these sites. If it was, he could stop this in a heartbeat by picking up his phone, dialing up Bishop Henry and saying to him that he must retract his banning of communion in lingua immediately.

Of course, this is not going to happen and we all know that Pope Benedict's manner of leadership is by example rather than by direct confrontation with the disobedient. It's too bad, really, for there is much to be said for grabbing the bull by the horns except that one could be gored in the process.

To all the defenders of Bishop Henry may I say that we do not mean to in any way denigrate his position as head of the local diocese but we do not understand his alleged defiance of the C.D.W. and, by extension, the Holy Father himself. As has been pointed out previously the Roman Dicasteries and curial offices are legitimate extensions of the Pope's authority.

Discreet Observer said...

I have just read that doctors have noticed, in the USA at least, that obese people are more likely to contract the swine flu virus. In the interests of health and safety it follows that priests who are overweight must not distribute holy Communion. Furthermore,scales must be placed at the doors of churches to weigh people as they arrive and overweight people should not be admitted as they may be a source of danger to others in the congregation.

Anonymous said...

To all those who bring up Bishop Henry's record in Canada. I am surprised that Catholics continue to measure Bishops by such a low standard as their stance on abortion and other perversions. Surely these sins are the least that any Catholic (any person) should understand and abhor -- not the height by which we measure the quality of a Bishop. Perhaps he has fought off a wolf, or two, but has he fed the sheep?

Anonymous said...

Pray for the Bishop and all Bishops. There has been many uncharitable comments towards Bishop Henry in these recent days. This is not Christian, it is pagan.

We all need to pray for humility and the grace to be obedient to the truth.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes:

Another red letter day!

I agree with you - it's best not to go either right or left. Both suffer from the same, how shall we put it, difficiencies?

Delphina

Anonymous said...

N1H1 (sic)

Anonymous said...

Would this bishop deny communion to a public pro-abort Catholic.

I'm thinking not.

And I am also thinking that with the same pastoral solicitude he might recognize that it is not feasible to ask any priest to refuse communion to a member of the faithful who approaches with mouth open and tongue extended.

The Church proposes. In cases of ignorance or refusal the Church cannot impose.

Anonymous said...

Google Fr. James Kneale. This will show you what kind of human being the "good" bishop really is.

Anonymous said...

Here is the Bishops address to write him a respectful letter expressing your opinion. I just did

Bishop Henry
Catholic Diocese of Calgary Alberta
120-17 Ave SW
Calgary AB T2S-2T2
Canada

Anonymous said...

Bishop Henry has spoken out and written against pro-abort politicians BUT he has NEVER publicly refused communion to them.
Info. obtained from quick google search.

Anonymous said...

Alexander asks:


Following the Bishop's logic he should ban the sign of peace by lay people in the Novus Ordo. Has he?

Actually, Bishop Henry has banned the Sign of Peace. Let's not get the facts wrong on our side, as Daniel does on his. The issue is whether or not Bisoop Henry has the right to override a decision of the Holy See. He is violating Church law in denying Communion in ligua, not only at the T.L.M. but also in the N.O.M. Period.

It is for faithful to make decisions to protect their own health and that of their children, not for Bishop Henry or even the Holy See. That is why we can all choose simply not to receive at all. But when we do decide to receive, we can decide to receive on the tongue. The good priest is the one who disobeys Bishop Henry's ordinance and gives Communion in lingua even at the N.O. Mass. As St. Thomas Aquinas taught, an ordinance that is unjust is not bad law; rather, it fails to qualify as law in the first place. Bishop Henry's ordinance is invalid because it violates the higher law of the Pope himself. It is Bishop Henry who is guilty of disobedience to Holy Church and not those who refuse to obey him on this. End of story.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I don't think that there is any point to writing Bishop Henry. He has made it clear that he has no respect for the Pope's authority. Instead, I suggest letters to the C.D.W. and the P.C.E.D. Let them contact him so he can 'get sorted'.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

It is clear that merely breating the same air in a confined space incurs the risk of contracting swine influenza. This is indisputable. Therefore, if Bishop Henry wishes to minimise the spread of swine flu, he should simply close all the churches of Calgary until this 'pandemic' is over. Can he do this in law? The Mexican bishops did when this epidemic first appeared.

You see how absurd this becomes when one does not *quantify* risks? How much riskier is it to receive in lingua than in manu? Bishop Henry doesn't know. He has never delivered any data, medically reliable or not, to quantify the difference.

But the faithful can make up their own minds on this: they can simply choose not to receive in lingua or in manu or neither or both.

Neither the Church nor Bishop Henry is risking anyone's health by allowing one way or receiving or another.

But Bishop Henry is risking the health of his flock by keeping the churches open, because anyone can contract this by breating the same air as those who are infected. Thanks to Bishop Henry, all the faithful in Calgary are being put at an unncessary risk! What a bad man he must be!

P.K.T.P.

P.S. You see how silly this is. Let's be honest, Your Excellency. Some bishops in Italy have stopped distributing Communion in the hand owing to cases of sacrilege there. You and your buddies are afraid that the Pope is about to ban Communion in the hand. So you are trying to invent a case in which Communion in the hand is safe, whereas Communion in lingua is dangerous. But there is no medical evidence for a significant difference in risk.

Furthermore, during times of epidemic, the saftest course is for the Church merely to ban the distribution of Holy Communion in any case or, in even more severe cases, to close the churches altogether. Fr. Blust, F.S.S.P., was actually taking a safer course than yours when he suggested spiritual communion for the time being. You can get the swine flu from Communion in the hand but not from a spiritual communion per se. Those who still wanted Holy Communion could have repaired to the N.O.M., Bishop. Are you suggesting, Bishop, that New Masses are less acceptable sources for the Sacrament?

Fr. Blust was only trying to reduce the terrible risk of Communion in the and by banning all Communion. But you keep trying to give us the swine flu, Bishop!

Anonymous said...

Let's suppose that Joe Eucharist just *HAS* to receive Holy Communion whenever he can. And he regularly attends the Traditional Latin Mass in Calgary. But he agrees with Bishop Henry that Communion on the tongue is soooo dangerous. The only thing to do is to receive in the paw. What is poor Joe Eucharist to do? Poor Joe!

Bishop Henry to the rescue! The Fraternity priest must communicate him in manu at the Latin Mass! Naturally. Isn't it obvious?

But wait! Joe Eucharist has a way out! He can attend the Traditional Latin Mass and not receive Holy Communion. Then he can repair to another church and ask for Communion in the paw outside Mass. Communion outside Mass has always been allowed in difficult cases. For example, people who miss Mass might ask for this. Problem solved! But Bishop Henry won't have it. He won't ask poor Joe (if poor Joe even exists) to go to another church on his way to the shopping mall. Instead, Bishop Henry would rather destroy the peace at the Latin Mass. Bishop Henry, you see, has a real sense of proportion.

Poor Joe Eucharist can even ask for Communion after Mass from the F.S.S.P. It will be in lingua but the priest can wash his hands before and after. Not much risk of infection there--except from its REAL cause, Bishop Henry, which is breathing the same air as those who are infected.

Once again, if Bishop Henry were really concerned about swine flu, he'd be banning Communion altogether for a short time or even closing the churches.

This is not about swine flu. It's about Bishop Henry trying to enforce Communion in the hand on those who regard this as sacrilege given its recent context in the Reformation. Symbols and gestures bear meaning and these meanings are coloured by the discourse of the time. Protestants receive in manu because most of the heresiarchs who founded their sects wanted to make it clear that the Host is only a symbol or that Christ is present there 'only after a spiritual manner'. If its only a symbol, you can come to Mass with unwashed hands and handle a piece of bread; but if it's the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, you will want to receive as reverently and as humbly as possible from the consecrated and ritually purified hands of a priest. Communion in manu undermines belief in the Real Presence. The Real Presence is the target.

P.K.T.P.

Viator Catholicus said...

1. The bishop forgot to forbid people from orally pronouncing responses. In doing so, they release germs into the air which may contaminate others!

2. I still don't understand how communion in the hand is more sanitary than on the tongue unless the goal is to touch the tongue?
Dare I suggest that the bishop is so unfamiliar with the latter practice that he is confused.
If communion is given on the tongue to a stationary person as at the altar rail with a communion plate under the chin, the priest does NOT risk touching the tongue. In fact, he can reverently drop the host on the tongue from above. However, in placing the Host in the hand, it is almost impossible not to touch the hand (especially in a moving line) - the same hand that may have been sneezed into or coughed into or have just held a contaminated tissue.

3. For what it's worth, I think the best thing to do is stress that that Mass obligation ceases when one is ill. And since he judges this to be a grave emergency, the bishop can grant a dispensation from attendance to those who prudently judge themselves to be feeling ill (adding that they must stay home and rest while also prescribing some form of prayer as a substitute for Mass attendance).

Adeodatus said...

So I'm thinking of changing my name to "Joe Eucharist". =)

Though I receive on the tongue these days, I'm not as hard line about it as some folks here... mainly because I don't really have the issue fully sorted out. I'd enjoy a good honest fight about it some time, and I'd be willing to take up the "manual" side and give the strongest possible arguments in favor of it, though not minding the possibility of getting completely disproven. Sort of like Glaucon and Adeimantus coming at Socrates with the Ring of Gyges.

Say, P.K.T.P.: You asked me a question a few posts down and I never got back to you on it (life, etc.). You asked:
"So why not clarify your position on this: Do you favour a measure by the Holy See to grant faculties to or recognise faculties for the S.S.P.X? Yes or no?"

Yes, sed distinguo. I've mentioned problems I see in that organization (no reason to rehash them here) and I suppose that, if the Holy Father sees them he will be troubled by them as well. But if they get sorted out to his satisfaction then well enough. Whatever the pope decides is good enough for me.

To bring it back around to the issue at hand... too bad more bishops don't feel that way, I guess.

Viator Catholicus said...

Perhaps the bishop might reread his Denzinger which reproduces Pius VI's Auctorem Fidei:

A. 7. Likewise, in this, that it encourages a bishop "to pursue zealously a more perfect constitution of ecclesiastical discipline," and this "against all contrary customs, exemptions, reservations which are opposed to the good order of the diocese, for the greater glory of God and for the greater edification of the faithful"; in that it supposes that a bishop has the right by his own judgment and will to decree and decide contrary to customs, exemptions, reservations, whether they prevail in the universal Church or even in each province, without the consent or the intervention of a higher hierarchic power, by which these customs, etc., have been introduced or approved and have the force of law,—leading to schism and subversion of hierarchic rule, erroneous.

Alexander said...

Bishop has the right to forbid FSSP activity and he has executed that right. This is how the FSSP apostolate works. It's up to him to decide, not up to some angry, yelling "trads". Don't be hypocritical.

And don't be stupid. The CDF trumps the Bishop. He disobeys Rome, maybe he should be treated like "rad trads" and be accused of being quasi-schismatic?

Anonymous said...

Viator Catholicus wrote:

"In fact, he can reverently drop the host on the tongue from above. However, in placing the Host in the hand, it is almost impossible not to touch the hand (especially in a moving line) - the same hand that may have been sneezed into or coughed into or have just held a contaminated tissue. "


Good point. Yesterday, when I was buying a bottle of wine in the liquor shop, the one and only clerk at the cashier's desk sneezed violently and then wiped his nose with his bare hand. Before I could retreat, he grabbed my bottle with the same hand and put it in a paper carrying bag. I gave him a bill and then he tried to return the change in the very same hand. I asked him to drop it in the bag instead. Outside the shop, I dumped the change on the ground. It's the first time I've thrown away money in my entire life. When I got home, I had to don gloves and then spray down the bottle with sanitzer, which, by the way, is not nearly as effective as manufacturers claim. Then I had to decant it while wearing gloves and then throw the bottle in the garbage. No, I didn't burn the gloves afterwards. I'm not that extreme. I just tossed them. Perhaps Health Officer Frederick Henry would have commanded me to burn them.

I've seen people in church sneeze violently. Who knows what they're wiping their noses on? When I see that someone in church is sick, I just don't approach the Altar rail for Communion at all. It's safest in such cases simply not to receive. Receiving in the hand is far more dangerous than not receiving at all. But we have a Bishop in Calgary who missed his calling as a public health officer.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Someone wrote:

"The late William Marra coined the term "papalotry". I would suggest some here are falling into 'bishopaltry".


It was not Marra who coined that term. It comes from the English Reformation. As for 'bishopalatry', it's a malformation. The correct neologism would be 'episcopalatry'.

P.K.T.P.

Peter said...

PKTP

I think you could have had a fair degree of moral certainty that if you washed the (unopened) bottle with soap and water you would have been just as fine.

Mechanical washing is very effective.

M.A. said...

PKTP: "It was not Marra who coined that term. It comes from the English Reformation...."


Ah, yes. Quite right! I had forgotten. My memory had only gone back to Dr. Marra.

You must be much older than, I.

;-)

Anonymous said...

The local arm of the national radio station CBC did an interview with the Latin Mass Chair.

http://www.cbc.ca/eyeopener/

CBC also has an interview with Bishop Henry.

Anonymous said...

Upon hearing that interview with the C.B.C., I at first thought that, perhaps, I should have taken up the offer to be interviewed on this. On second thought, we must all remember that the C.B.C. is one of the most demonic forces in our world; it is an organisation the ruination and dissolution of which I have long prayed.

I'm not sure if the Chairman of the Latin Mass Society had a copy of the questions in advance. The first rule is that one should never agree to be interviewed by them without first agreeing on the questions.

The quotation from Bishop Henry was idiotic. All the accompanying letter of the Pope says is that the dispositions in no way diministh his pastoral and liturgical authority in the Diocese. But the distrution of Holy Communion is not a pastoral or liturgical matter but a Sacramental one. That's why the ritual for it is in the Rituale Romanum, not the Missal.

Moreover, the rider only says that the full immediate authority of the local bishop is not diminished by papal authority. That's because the former, to be legitimate in the first place, is co-operational.

P.K.T.P.

TIAGO said...

Great Bishop!
Sometimes, many times, the Holy See do not know how the real world is... They are far away from the reality!
It is good to have care with Communion.
The First Communion is between the brothers and only after that we can receive the Lord.
Do not say that I am heretic... I am using the words from the Bible.
Tiago Veloso, CP

Anonymous said...

Any updates on this story?

Anonymous said...

Bishop Henry sent a memo to the clergy in the diocese saying that the Latin Mass was suspended due to disobedience from Fr. Blust, FSSP.

So we see again, the Bishop pushing it all on the priest....just watch he will kick the FSSP out of the diocese.

+Henry is vindictive and a product of V2 thinking...and so is the canon lawyer ecumenical pastor at St. Anthony's.

The two of them are truly ignorant of Catholic dogma and theology and just smart enough to know he can get away with it to push out the Trads.

Anonymous said...

We tend to forget the fact, that we can get to heaven whether we have H1N1 or not. What about pride?

Timothy Mulligan said...

The FSSP parish in Calgary has posted a note on its Web site, stating that the Mass schedule has resumed.

H1N1 Survivor said...

From the Una Voce Calgary Website:

"After hearing from the Health Officer, Bishop Henry has lifted the Mass restrictions" (Fr. Blust, FSSP)

Should it not read:

"After hearing from Rome, Bishop Henry has lifted the Mass restrictions"

What restrictions did St. Charles Borromeo put in place during the plague? Can H1N1 be compared to the plague? Can Bishop Henry's conduct be compared with the saintly Archbishop of Milan? Should it not?

How can one interpret this event? Bishop obeys health officer and not Rome...why? Human Respect? Antagonism toward Tradition? Concern for the physical health of the faithful?

The last possible interpretation is the only favorable one; unfortunately, it underscores a lack of faith in the Sacraments and an inordinate faith in modern medicine. It is important to remember that there are even fewer good medical doctors than there are good priests in the world today.

"But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?"

Oh, finally ... what would St. Damien of Molokai think of H1N1 and the empty holy water fonts and the modifications and restrictions on the reception of the Holy Eucharist?

Anonymous said...

Today, I attended a Traditional Latin Mass in my Diocese to honour our Lady. During Mass, I noticed that someone present was clearly quite ill. Was it a cold or was it the swine flu? To be cautious, I simply chose not to receive. Others decided to take the risk or to trust in God that they would not be infected. Each of us decided for himself or herself what to do. Nobody forced anyone to communicate. Father did not pull out a bull whip and force us to receive.

So, you see, we don't need bishops or priests to tell us whether or not to communicate when we are free to do so (i.e. free of mortal sin and having observed the fasting law). We can make these decisions for ourselves and it is we who can decide to live with the consequences.

Meanwhile, more people died this autumn of conventional flu then from swine flu--and yet there were no restrictions to protect us from conventional flu last year. And more people die driving to Mass than by contracting influenza at Mass. And yet Bishop Henry has not banned driving to Mass--at least not yet. His arguments have been fatuous and puerile.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Guess what, Bishop Henry? Those attending the T.L.M. in Calgary last Sunday were able to fulfil their obligation at the local Byzantine Ukrainian church, thereby avoiding seeing the sacrilege of Communion in the hand. Some are even aware that S.S.P.X Masses fulfil the Sunday obligation. So thanks for nothing.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

"MEMORANDUM
Date: 2009-12-07
From: Bishop F.B. Henry
To: All Persons on Diocesan Mailing List
Subject: H1N1 Update
This morning I received the following communication from the Calgary
Medical Officer of Health:
“All indications are that we have essentially moved to the level of usual seasonal influenza virus circulation. In other words, the ‘second wave’ (H1N1) appears to have subsided. Of
course, the possibility of a ‘third wave’ remains, but we will monitor that and communicate as appropriate.

With respect to resumption of usual liturgical practices, I would very much like to encourage the continuation of the message that we have a responsibility to one another, to avoid
carelessly transmitting infectious agents. Attention to good hand hygiene and cough etiquette, are important measures to avoid the transmission of the usual seasonal influenza virus, as
well as others, such as respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), which all may cause significant illness in vulnerable individuals. Parishioners need also to be reminded to stay home when they are ill.”

Accordingly, all of the restrictions that were mandated concerning communion on the tongue,communion from the cup, holy water fonts, and hand shaking at the greeting peace have been
lifted effective immediately."

Anonymous said...

Now we see how Bishop Henry is trying to cover up the fact that he has been dressed down by Rome.

The Bishop writes this:

"In other words, the ‘second wave’ (H1N1) appears to have subsided. Of
course, the possibility of a ‘third wave’ remains, but we will monitor that and communicate as appropriate."

Um, point of information: the health authorities have been reporting that the second wave is over for at least a fortnight now. It must be true because it's been on the C.B.C. News and, as we all know, the C.B.C. never lies or makes a mistake. It is a source of absolute truth, making us no longer need a God.

Note that I have mentioned this FACT for over a week now.

Bishop Henry could have avoided this crisis in the first place.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dr., um, Bishop Henry continues:

"Attention to good hand hygiene and cough etiquette, are important measures to avoid the transmission of the usual seasonal influenza virus, as
well as others, such as respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), which all may cause significant illness in vulnerable individuals. "

Thanks, Dr. Henry, but we can get all that from the health authorities. Are you an M.D.?

Those of us who fear the swine flu or the other one, the one which is more likely to be deadly but against which you have never imposed any restrictions, can simply elect not to receive Holy Communion when we hear people coughing and hacking. It's our call.

I'd ask someone from Calgary to continue with a dubia to Rome and then to publish the answer given.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I can say that I completely ignored Bishop Henry and received in lingua for the entire period of swine influenza. Of course, it was easy for me, since I'm not stuck in his Diocese. My Bishop did not impose such restrictions but only made recommendations. Not all bishops are obtuse.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

He may have been dressed down by Rome. I hope he was dressed down by Rome. He certainly needed to be dressed down by Rome.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes writes:

"He may have been dressed down by Rome. I hope he was dressed down by Rome. He certainly needed to be dressed down by Rome."

And he was dressed down by Rome. We are entitled to believe it sans proof. There will never be any proof! But it will be interesting to see what his regulations are for the third wave of swine flu, expected by the omnipotent C.B.C. to strike in January. I can hardly wait.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

http://www.cbc.ca/eyeopener/

+Henry part 2

C. said...

Unrepentance is sad.