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.