HERE IS A CATHOLIC ARGUMENT THAT CONCELEBRATED MASSES ARE HERESY

MY FOREWORD

The following argues that priests saying mass at the one time are doing wrong.  It is felt that this practice, concelebration, lends oxygen to liturgical abuses such as Masses that are not set up to turn food and drink into Jesus and let notorious heretics and sinners go to communion. 

The new heresy of concelebrated masses destroys the image of the sole priest celebrant representing Jesus Christ for it has lots of priests celebrating the one Mass at the same time. It destroys the structure of the Last Supper where Jesus celebrated alone though he could have ordained the apostles to do it with him.  If he ordained them priests then as the Catholic Church says then why didn't he invite them to do the rite with him?
 
All the priests cannot consecrate exactly at the same time. If priest A is slightly slower than priest B it follows that A is turning the bread and wine into Jesus after they have been already changed!

ACCEPTANCE OF A MASS WITHOUT A CONSECRATION
 
John Paul II and Benedict XVI accepted a Mass without a consecration as valid, namely the Canon of Addai and Mari repudiating the infallible doctrine that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ when the words of Christ, “This is my body” “This is my blood”, are used to consecrate the bread and wine. Leo XIII when he declared Anglican Orders invalid in Apostolicae Curae because the rite didn’t clearly say it meant to make priests to offer the sacrifice of the Mass declared that his decision was infallible and irrevocable. We can take it that the decision of the two disloyal popes, John Paul and Benedict, is a repudiation of his decree for the Canon gives no hint of intending to turn bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus. It’s further away from validity than Anglican Orders ever were for at least the Anglican rite satisfied some Catholic requirements. The new decree is a declaration that sacraments don’t need their form to be valid so it denies the existence of sacraments. This is totally contrary to Catholic tradition and dogma and commonsense. A sacrament is a sign that gives grace and so it has to express what it is trying to do to be a sacrament.

REFUSING COMMUNION
 
In the Catholic Church, if a notorious sinner came for communion the priest refused him. That was until liberalism infested the Church in the sixties. Now people living together in sin, homosexuals, liberals, heretics etc are given communion at the altar. In some cases the priest has a word with the sinner afterwards that he only gave him communion to prevent his humiliation at the altar but that in future he must stay away until he repents.
 
The message is clear, though Christ commanded that we love God more than people (Mark 12:28-34) it is acceptable to give his sacred body and blood in the form of holy communion to sinners in case they are embarrassed at the altar if they are refused. This is a total contradiction. Jesus only welcomes repentant sinners and has harsh words in the scriptures against sinners who are so hardened in sin that they will probably never repent.
 
The sinner is the one doing wrong by going for communion.
 
The priest is not the one doing wrong if he refuses him. If somebody wants to steal your mother’s purse do you take it off her and give it to him rather than let him make a scene on the street and embarrass himself? How much more precious is the body of Jesus Christ than a purse.
 
The sinner will be smug at how he is able to get communion despite his sins. This encourages his sin.
 
The Lord Jesus didn’t mind embarrassing anybody as long as it was for what was right.
 
The priest has authority to do what he considers right and human nature being what it is, some priests will be seen at times as more rigid than others but the purpose of authority is not to be perfect but to maintain order and it must be respected. If a priest is afraid of embarrassing a sinner or alienation the congregation then he must ask himself how Catholic his congregation is. Jesus wasn’t afraid to openly expose the Pharisees and sinners of his generation and he asked us to follow his example. In other words, the priest has the right to embarrass the sinner and the sinner should be glad to be embarrassed about their sin.
 
We know from Church teaching that contraception is intrinsically evil which is why it cannot be allowed even to protect a wife against an AIDS infection from her husband. Taking communion in mortal sin is intrinsically evil and even graver in malice and no priest can participate in this sin by letting a sinner have communion.