Good Evening. Let us start with a prayer. In the Name of the Father...

Well! We have established that the Mass is the prayer of the Bible, .and in fact, the entire reason the bible was written. We have established that the reason God founded a Church called the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth is to continue His Sacrifice until the end of the world.

We have shown that when the priest says, “This is my Body” not only does Christ come down but the “shakina” takes place. The entire heavenly host comes with him.

The Church teaches that “how we pray is how we believe”. The Mass is how we (as Catholics) pray. Now through three hours of talks, you must be asking, “What Happened?”

What happened to the beautiful Masses and beautiful Church buildings we had before the 1970s? Should we blame Vatican II? Should we blame Pope Paul VI? Let’s go back to 1916 in a little village in Portugal called Fatima. An angel came to three little children holding a host and chalice.

He placed the host and chalice in the air and bowed down to the ground with his head on the ground and taught the children this prayer.

“Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I adore you profoundly, I offer you the Body, Soul, and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ present in all the Tabernacles around the world, in reparation for all the outrages, sacrileges, and indifference by which he is offended.”

Outrages, sacrileges, indifference? In 1916 where were the outrages? In 1916 where were the sacrileges? In 1916 where was the indifference? In 1916 there were no outrages. In 1916 people did not go to communion in the state of sin. In 1916 people were not indifferent.

This prayer of the angel in 1916 was a prophesy of our day. Today we have outrages in just the architecture of the Churches. We have outrages in the striping of the altar of its communion rail, of the bells, of the tabernacle, of the candles, of the crucifix, of even the altar itself with the relics of the saints and martyrs. We have outrages in the way people dress and talk in church. With the priest facing the people today, we have priests who think they are on the stage and should be actors instead of “persona Christi” in the place of Christ. In some churches with circular designs even the people face each other instead of facing with the priest towards God. Facing each other puts them on the stage and they become actors also. It is an outrage to strip the churches of all the statues that showed the “shakina” of the presence of Heaven at every Mass.

It is a sacrilege for everyone to go to communion, and yet, a Gallup pole showed in 1992 that 70% of Catholics do not believe Christ is physically present in the host and wine. In is a sacrilege for everyone to go to communion; and yet, 60% of Catholics practice birth control.
John Paul II talking about Americans said:

“It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error.”

Indifference? The commandment -- “You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain.” is a poor translation. The translation should read “commonly” instead of “in vain”. To treat God commonly (meaning the same as anyone else), is a sin against the Ten Commandments.

Everyone knows there are divisions in the Church. We have the ultra-liberals on one side and the ultra-conservatives on the other, with orthodox Catholics somewhere in the center, usually caught up in false apparitions and therefore neutralized as far as being in the fight.

But there is really only battle to be fought -- the Eucharist.

There are two main attacks against the Eucharist --- The ultra liberals and the New Age Feminists and they are both connected even if they don’t know it. Both are pagan Gnostics, whose goal is to worship the pagan God - Sophia. Sound absurd? The leaders know what I am talking about.

A good example of this battle (and our enemy from the liberal side) is a speech made by Father Thomas Rausch a Religious Education Congress sponsored by Cardinal Mahony. He first attacked what he called the “new apologists” as being out of touch with “contemporary Catholic theology”.

“They interpret Gospel sayings attributed to Jesus historically rather than theologically and they do not appreciate the possibility of doctrinal development or even change.”

What does he mean by doctrinal change? Let me quote his speech:

“I think we have to be a little careful about saying we’re the only ones who have the Eucharist. Lutherans and Anglicans and Orthodox have the same. We have a common understanding of the Eucharist. When the Anglicans or Episcopal Church celebrates the Eucharist, they recognize Jesus present under sacrament signs in the midst of the community. And the Lutherans have a very similar theology.”

This is a priest who teaches our seminarians. Our you starting to see the problem? This so-called top theologian (who teaches our seminarians does not think our Eucharist is any different than the Protestants Eucharist. What do the Protestants believe? Symbolic only! Why was he attacking Karl Keating and the new evangelists? Because they see a difference between the Catholic Eucharist and the Protestant symbolic ceremony. Father Rausch sees no difference.

In fact, one priest follower of this new theology said that we should not even be converting Protestants, since they are as good as we are, and the Catholic Church is to big already.

What happened? How did this priest theologian come to this end? Why do Cardinals like Mahoni put up with him. Why are heritics, like Notre Dame theologian Richard McBrien, allowed to write for Diocesian Papers with bishop’s approval.

What happened did not happen at the Second Vatican Council, but it did happen at the same time. The Council taught that the Eucharist is the fountain from which grace is poured forth upon us and It is the "end" "to which all activities of the Church are directed."

During the Council Pope Paul VI was warned about false Eucharistic theologies that were about to be published throughout the world. Theologies that very cleverly denied the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. To counter this before it took hold Paul VI wrote his encyclical, Mysterium Fidei, in 1965. This document was so important to the Holy Father, he published it without waiting for the Council’s vote or approval.

“Christ is present whole and entire in His physical "reality" it states.

This document was published in a rush because Karl Rahner S. J., and Edward Schillebeeckx, O. P. were about to publish their books on the Eucharist between 1966 and 1968 with a lot of financial backing. Where they got this backing we don’t know. What we do know is that in 1965 there were already over 2000 Communists who had infiltrated the priesthood and had become priests with one common goal, to destroy the Church from within.

Today their plan is known but it wasn’t then. Today they have lost their financial support but in the 1960s they had millions at their fingertips. The documents uncovered prove that they intended to support financially any theologian or writer who descended from the Teaching Authority of the Church especially regarding the Eucharist.

Communists know that the heart and soul of Catholic belief is the Eucharist. Destroy that and you destroy any reason for a person to be a Catholic at all. They are right. I believe they were behind Karl Rahner. He may not have been a communist himself, but they saw in his writings the perfect opportunity to destroy the Catholic Church. Without their international promotion, no one would have swallowed the stupidity of Rahner. Judge for yourself.

Your going to find it hard to believe. Well! At least hard to believe that anyone would believe in the German Idealist, Karl Rahner. He denied that anything physical is real. To Rahner the only thing real is the mental event. So for Karl Rahner "transubstantiation" at the consecration of the Mass, is not a change of substance, because he believes that substance is in the mind only. Therefore what is in the mind is the only thing real, substance is not real. The Physical world is not real. Now if you even studied New Age, you will see the connection because this is the essence of New Age.

This idea which is called “Tran-sig-nification” has been promoted throughout the Church primarily by Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx, O. P., and Pi-et Schoonenberg. They wrote and taught in the seminaries: I quote ----

"What takes place in the Eucharist is a change of sign."

Transubstantiation is a transfinalization or a transignification. They are not talking about the "host" as being the Real Presence of Christ, but rather it is "the assembled community" which is the real presence of Christ. Schillebeeckx states:

"The signs of the eucharistic bread only imply a presence as an offer, emanating from the Lord in his assembled community."

And, this real presence of Christ in the assembled community only becomes "more intimate" as the Eucharistic liturgy progresses.

If you haven’t noticed it by now we have evolved from the Eucharist as God, to the community of believers as God. We have gone from worshipping Christ in the Eucharist to worshipping the community of believers and this is a communist ideology. Has anyone accepted this nonsense?

Tad W. Guzie, S. J. of Marquette University, in his book Jesus and the Eucharist accepts it totally. Monika K. Hellwig, theology professor at Georgetown University, and recently named director of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, the higher-education unit of the National Catholic Education Association, dedicated her book, Jesus: The Compassion of God, to Schoonenberg. In her book, Understanding Catholicism, she states that the action of blessing, breaking, sharing and eating in such an assembly in Christ’s name and memory is what we mean by His presence in the community.

Finally, we come to the book that corrupted the seminaries. A book based on but simplified from the writings of Schillebeeckx --- Anthony J. Wilhelm’s book “Christ Among Us”

Two million copies were sold or given free to most all the seminaries in the United States. Many of these seminaries taught from this book and this book only. Here is an example from the book that caused thousands of priests to leave the Church simply because being a priest lost its meaning. I quote one passage from the book “Christ Among Us” and this is why it is titled “Christ Among Us”

“When we say that the bread and wine "become Christ" we are not saying that bread and wine are Christ, nor are we practicing some form of cannibalism when we take this in communion. What we mean is that the bread and wine are a sign of Christ present, here and now, in a special way--not in a mere physical way, as if condensed into a wafer.”

St. Paul teaches: "Because the bread is one, we though many, are one body, all of us who partake of the one bread" (1 Cor. 10:17). But this does not make the community God, it makes us one with Christ just as man and woman become one in marriage. They are still man and woman. Christ’s blood flows through us from one cell in the Mystical Body (the Church) to another cell. We are the cells in the Church, the Bride of Christ.

You have an idea of what happened. Now, what do we do about it? The 11th century Archdeacon Berengarius of Tours was the first to hold that Christ was present in the Eucharist only "as mere sign and symbol". In 1079 Berengarius was forced to take the oath written for him by Roman Council Six which stated:

I, Berengarius, in my heart believe and with my lips confess that through the mystery of the sacred prayer and words of our Redeemer the bread and wine which are placed on the altar are substantially changed into the true and proper living flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, our Lord, and that after consecration it is the true body of Christ ----“

We need to demand that people like Father Rausch, Richard McBrien, and Monika. Hellwig take that same oath. We need to know our rights as Catholics, and we need to demand of our priests and bishops the rights we have -- in Mass, in our Catholic Schools, and in all our education systems.

“But”, they will say, “we have to be obedient to the pastor. It’s his decision to have these Directors and Assistants.” Yes, that’s true. God set up a chain of command in the world. We must all be obedient to our superiors, and the pastor is our direct superior in his parish. The problem of obedience lies in the fact that the pastor has a superior he has to be obedient to also. The Bishop has absolute authority in some things, except what has been set down in the Doctrine and the Cannons of the Church. Then there are those things that only the Vicar of Christ on Earth (the Pope of Rome) can change. It’s the pastor’s job to see that the people know, love, and act upon the teachings of Christ and his Church. It’s the Bishop’s job to see to it that the pastors know, love, and act upon the same. It’s the Pope’s job to see to it that the Bishops do the same. The Pope, of course, cannot be in every place in the world. But he does have his eyes and ears, called ambassadors or the Nuncio to the Vatican. The problem with obedience comes to play when we the people know that a priest or a pastor is not being obedient to the higher authority.

God’s law of obedience is simple. Obey all authority in all things except sin. If, for instance, we have a father who is a drug user and an alcoholic, and he tells us to do something that is his right, like cleaning the yard. By God’s law we must to it. If, on the other hand, he tells us to use or sell drugs, we do not have to do it. Common sense teaches us that it cannot be any other way. If the subordinate is the judge of who to obey we have lost all social order. This is why Mother Angelica was wrong in telling people not to obey Cardinal Mahony.

If she had told people not to obey Cardinal Mahony on the one issue where by he was out of line with the higher authority, she would have been in her right. That issue is where Cardinal Mahony was advocating something that the higher authority had already set in stone and he had no right to change. But even in this most important issue, we still have to obey Cardinal Mahony in all other things as long as he holds his office given to him by the Pope.

The key to true obedience which is very well stated in Pope John Paul’s Encyclical, “THE SPLENDOR OF TRUTH”, is not in a clear conscience, but in an educated conscience. If, for instance a Bishop and a group of priests tell someone that they have a right to get a divorce (without adultery or danger being involved), they cannot use that authority to have a clear conscience. That authority has over stepped its bounds, and therefore the higher authority, the teachings of the Church, demand disobedience to the lower authority in order to be obedient to the higher authority. If you are not educated in the teaching of the Church, God will hold that against you, because that is not evincible ignorance. It is a sin against the Spirit of Truth.

If your pastor or bishop are in violation of the higher authority, you should not obey them, and in fact, should do what ever you can to stop their violation of the laws of the Church, when in fact, these violations cause the loss of souls. Without ever being disobedient to the pastor or the bishop in those things where they have not over stepped the higher authority, every good Catholic should fight for the right to have a true Catholic parish under the laws of the Catholic Church. Let me give an example.

In June of 1996 Pope John Paul II had enough of the abuses at the Mass caused by a book called “Christ Among Us” written by Anthony Wilhelm and encouraged by the then head of the Congregation for Divine Worship (a reported Mason). The Pope walked into his office and fired him on the spot.

He appointed the most conservative man on the Mass in the world to be the new head of the Congregation for Divine Worship, Chilean Bishop (Hor-hay Art-uro Este-vez )Jorge Arturo Medina Estevez.

When this appointment was announced, all Orthodox Catholics knew that things would start turning around. This is why Cardinal Mahony is in such a hurry to destroy the Mass in Los Angeles before these new directives come out. The first of these has hit America already. The Bishops of America submitted two documents to Rome asking for inclusive language to appease the “feminists” and “Women’s Libbers”.

Both of these documents were turned down by Rome. In his directive of September 20, 1997, Archbishop Estevez stated that the text submitted to the Vatican was so seriously flawed doctrinally, so poorly translated, and so grammatically confusing that it is beyond revision and the bishops must start the task all over from the beginning. He goes on to say that

“It appears, indeed, consciously or unconsciously to promote a view of sacramental and ecclesiological theology that contrasts with the intentions of the Holy See.”

Sighting some of the abuses he goes on to say,

“This Congregation considers it may be helpful to recommend that there be a complete change of translators. … It would seem, (in this translation), that the principal notion is that it is the people who offer the gifts and that the role of the priest is minimalized, … it, therefore, certainly cannot be approved by the Holy See and that it would be probably best simply to discard them en bloc.”

In November of 1990 the Vatican issued norms for Bible translations in response to the National Council of Catholic Bishop’s request for Inclusive Language Translations of Scriptural Texts Proposed for Liturgical Use.” The Vatican said in part:

The translation … should faithfully reflect the Word of God in the original human languages - without ‘correction’ or ‘improvement’. Kinship terms that are clearly gender specific, as indicated by the context, should be respected in translation.

The reason this guideline is important for the lay Catholic to know is that many of our parishes have been taken over by women who are secretly or openly members of “Call To Action” or “Catholic Women’s Network” and there goal is to undermine the above guidelines. It is also important for the lay Catholic to know where all these heresies came from, that they are not Catholic, that Rome has been fighting them since 1914, and that their goal is to destroy belief in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist by first changing the language, then the meaning of the language, then the action of worship, and the honor we pay to Christ in the architecture of our Church buildings.

Again in July of 1998 Rome issued an order called, ON THE DEFENCE OF FAITH. This edict from the Pope proposed to excommunicate those who persistently undermined orthodox teaching, and went on to say that any offense against any of the Church’s fundamental teachings should be treated as heresy. Before, only core Biblical doctrines of faith would be treated with excommunication.

If the lay Catholic was educated in the teachings of the Church, he would know that the local parish, the local bishop, and even an archbishop has no right to remove the altar rail from the Holy of Holies ground around the altar. He would have known that it is improper for anyone accept the priest and altar-servers to enter unto this holy ground. He would know that in our culture, the only proper form of worship of Christ in the Tabernacle or at the Altar is kneeling, not bowing. He would know that that obligation of an outward sign of worship extends to before receiving Communion also. It’s time, lay Catholics, to take back our Church from these feminists by being obedient to the higher authority, and demanding that our pastors do the same.

Ask your priest or even bishop to show you the document that allows them to stop using the patent at communion, the bells at the consecration, a glass instead of a gold chalice. Ask him to explain why extraordinary ministers pass out communion, when another priest and/or deacon are in the Church or in the rectory.
Ask you priest why extraordinary ministers stand around the altar in direct violation of documents from the Vatican.

How far can these abuses go? If you don’t put a loving pressure on your pastor for these abuses, they will not stop there. An example of how far they can go, is the once great San Luis Ray Mission in Oceanside. They have closed down the beautiful church, and built a community center where the altar is in the center of chairs with no kneelers. The Tabernacle is down the hall in a small room with no kneelers. The chairs surrounding the altar are at the same level as the altar which is a common table. The mural on the wall is of Martin Luther Jr. and other political men of history, not Christ.

The Chapel carries books like “Faithful Dissent” by Charles Curran, “Christ Among Us” by Anthony Wilhelm, [three volumes], NIV and King James Bibles. All these books are contrary to the Catholic Faith.

“My house is a house of prayer.” Says the Lord. “Let all generations keep silent before me.” If I am talking to someone and you walk up and interrupt us without good cause, that is impolite and a sin. If, however, I am talking to God, or God is talking to me, and you interrupt, how much greater a sin.
St. John Chrysostom said:

“For the church is not barber’s or perfumer’s shop, nor any other merchant’s warehouse in the market place, but a place of angels, a place of archangels, a place of God, heaven itself. As therefore if one had parted the heaven and had brought you in, though you should see your father or you brother, you would not venture to speak; so neither here ought one to utter any other sound but those which are spiritual. For, in truth, the things in this place are also in Heaven.”

And St. Gertrude said,
“One idle word in Church equals 1000 years in Purgatory.”

But the community center is just that, a place for people to talk, forgetting God, who is not there anyway. This is not a Church, and because of that the bishop could not Kristin it a church.

Lets talk about some of your rights. For me, and this is a personal thing based on my study of Liturgies in the first four Centuries, and actually seeing with my own eyes the oldest still standing Catholic Church in the world in Syria, my most important obsession is the altar rail.

There is no directive from Rome or any council of Bishops to remove the altar rails. This area of the Church is sacred just like the holy of holies in the Temple of Soloman. The inner sanctuary of the Temple was so sacred that only the High Priest could enter, and then only once a year. He was so afraid to enter that a rope was tied around him in case he died inside he could be pulled out without anyone else having to go inside and get the body. The early Christians did the same with what has come to be called the “Iconostance Wall” As time went on it has been reduced in the Latin Rite to a rail. But the meaning is still the same. Not as a rail to receive communion, but as a rail to separate the common ground from the sacred ground. St. Ambrose risked his life to keep the Emperor of the Whole World from going onto that sacred ground, saying that only the priest and the servers were permitted to enter this area. Even the pulpit was placed outside this area, because sometimes people, other than the sacrificing priest would give the homily or the readings. In the early Church there was an order called “readers”, just like deacons.

Today people walk all over the sacred ground as if it were nothing, treating God and His area commonly. We Catholics have a right to demand a return of this reverence. It must come from us because priests and Bishops are being taught that we people want it this way, and they are afraid of us.

There is only one type of Church which should not have an altar rail, and this has been true for 1500 years, and that is a Cathedral, that has many altars on the sides, and that is used by many tourists and conferences of bishops and priests. The main altar of a Basilica is never used for normal weekday or Sunday Masses. It is designed for the ordination of priests and bishops, and for the crowning of kings. This type of church building, like Notre Dame or St. Peters, is the only type that can be without an altar rail.

In the Eastern Rite Churches when any important time of the Mass takes place the bells are rung to tell us to pay attention to the great event, and to ring out our love and worship of God. In Los Angeles at the Norbatine Monistary (to this day) they ring a hug bell on the outside of the Church at the moment of consecration so that even those who are far away can show a sign of worship and adoration at the moment the “shakina” takes place. People from far away kneel down or make a sign of the cross when they hear the bells. At the moment of consecration God comes down to that altar and all of Heaven comes with Him. At that moment we are taken back to His crucifixion to be present at the foot of the cross. The bells wake us up and remind us of these things. Ask your Bishop or your priest to explain to you why they don’t ring the bells today. What reason in the name of God is there for removing the bells?

The paten is the plate that the altar boy placed under your chin when you received communion in case the host dropped or in case a particle of the host dropped. Recently I had the honor of serving at Mass for a priest from Rome. There were over 300 people at the mass. Communion was passed out at the communion rail with everyone kneeling. No directive was given to receive on the tongue or in the hand; nevertheless, only two people received in the hand and I was especially careful to hold the paten under their hands until they put the host in their mouth.

In spit of this priest being very careful, two large particles of the Body and Blood of Christ were spotted on the paten. This made the priest so nervous he stopped passing out communion and took the patent from me and returned to the altar. He carefully cleaned the particles off the paten into the chalice and then returned to passing out communion.

With that advent of communion in the hand, the patent has become even more important, where is the paten? Why is it gone? Go out there and fight for its return. Go out there and defend you God, who is being trampled on by the feet of the “community of believers”. Believers in what?

This brings us to the question of communion in the hand. Is it legal? Yes! Is it expedient? No! Was it done in the early Church? Yes, and it was done away with because it was found to be irreverent to Our God. Mother Theresa of Calcutta was asked by reporters what was the greatest sin of the 20th Century, expecting her to say abortion. She said, “communion in the hand.” Father John Harden has stated, “We must battle to reverse this ruling.” Was the Pope wrong in allowing communion in the hand? Yes!

Whoo!!!!! Can the Pope be wrong? Yes! In matters of Canon Law the Pope can be wrong and many have been in the past? In fact, Dietrich von Hilderbrand (the greatest doctor of the Church in the 20th Century - as stated by two popes) says that although we must obey the Pope in his practical decisions in running the Church, we do not have to believe them to be good for the Church. In fact, he goes on to say, that while we obey, we can and should do all we can to change these cannons that are not matters of faith or morals.

Why is Communion in the hand wrong?

Because, when you treat God commonly, you treat everything commonly, even life. It is well known that the Holy Father is not a promoter of Communion in the hand. In his native Poland, the practice is still illicit, as indeed it is at the level of the universal Church. Is was also illicit until very recently in the Vatican Basilica. And the Pope seems to be changing his mind in that matter for he has recently even refused to give communion in the hand in countries where the practice has been granted by the Holy See.

The most remarkable example of this is the time when the wife of the President of France approached the Pope for Holy Communion with hands outstretched, He ignored those hands and placed the Sacred Host into her (astonished) mouth.

The priest washes his hands in holy water before touching the Host. We, even if we were to do the same, shake hands with everyone around us just before we go to Communion. What do these hands of mine do? Where have they been? Are they suitable to hold what the universe cannot hold? What you hold in your hands you feel you own. Can you own God? Is it expedient for you to be presumptious to think that it doesn’t matter?

And in fact, do you think most people want to receive in the hand? Most people in America do receive in the hand, so, you would assume that most want to. I’ll bet you are wrong. There is a deliberate attempt to make it almost impossible to receive on the tongue. This is done in many ways by those who want it that way, and is avoided by the good priests who know better. A good priest cannot deny Communion in the hand but he can make it difficult. He stands on the altar and passes out communion from a high position so that communion on the tongue is easier. He must stoop way down to place it in the hand.

The priest who wants to pass out communion in the hand stands off the altar at the same level as the people, making it very difficult to reach up and place the communion on the tongue. “Extraordinary Ministers” (and they are not Eucharistic Ministers) are sometimes very short women, who have a hard time reaching up to my tongue and I am not very tall. They also are not trained properly to give communion on the tongue and are very clumbsy about it. It should be snapped on. Those who are taught have no problem.

The WE ARE CHURCH agenda of those who teach extraordinary ministers can be known in two ways: One is their persistent use of the words “Eucharistic Ministers” instead of Extraordinary ministers in violation of the directives of Rome. The Second is how they teach these ministers to look you right in the eye - smiling - as they say Body of Christ, expecting you to look at them. This is their way of saying “We are the body of Christ”. YOU SHOULD NOT LOOK AT THEM BUT AT YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR IN THE EUCHARIST.

Cardinal Ratzinger and the new head of the Sacred Congregation for the Liturgy, both want to turn the priest around facing the altar instead of facing the people. I believe this will happen very soon, because it is a major theological problem. The priest is “en persona Christi” in the place of Christ. The priest faces God, the Father, (which used to be to the East) and offers the Son to the Father for our sins. We face God with the priest, but behind him. All should face towards God, not towards each other. I said this was a theological problem. By that I mean that the action of the priest facing the people is a false theological statement. Think back at the heretical book, “Christ Amongst Us”.

What is the heresy trying to say, “that God is in the people, the community - not in the Eucharist”. By forcing the priest to face the people, the promoters can get the priest’s mind off of God and unto the community. When his mind is on the community, he becomes an actor instead of a priest in prayer. This is what they want. They want worship of the community instead of worship of God in the Eucharist. They want all to be priests. There goal is to place the altar in the center of the community so that all the community worships each other. Then they will eliminate the altar and the priest.

How do we know this is their agenda? If, for what ever reason, the Church had to be built in a circular fashion, it still could be reverent and holy, if the altar was high enough so that the people on one side were not looking at the people on the other side. If the altar was high, as it is in St. Peter’s Basilica, it would be the center of importance as it should be. The mere fact that most of these new Churches have the altar only eight inches high shows the agenda of community worship. All industrial psychologists admit that high is authority. Judges put their chairs on an elevated platform to show power and authority. Bosses always have the highest backed chairs and the largest desks. Commanders have the most stars and stripes, but we want Our God to be down in the gutter with us. If He wants to come down to me, He will, but I will not force Him down to my level.

The moving of the tabernacle to a Eucharistic chapel was actually recommended by Roman congregations in two post Vatican II documents especially in those churches which are visited a lot for their artistic and historical beauty, and / or for a suitable place for private adoration and prayer. However, and I quote the General Instruction on the Roman Missal, “If this is impossible because of the structure of the church or local custom, it should be kept on an altar or other place in the church that is prominent and properly decorated.”

But, most churches don't have tourist traffic. Consequently, there is no good reason to move the Blessed Sacrament from the sanctuary. Canon 938.2 states: "The tabernacle in which the blessed Eucharist is reserved should be sited in a distinguished place in a church or oratory, a place which is conspicuous, suitably adorned and conducive to prayer."

When the tabernacle is removed from this most prominent place, the faithful are left with the impression that the Blessed Sacrament has lost its importance in the Church.

In Scripture the Holy of Holies or ( tabernacle in the sanctuary of the temple) was the most sacred place for the Jews of the Old Testament since it housed the "ark of the covenant” along with the "Holy Bread" It was the place where the priest offered sacrifice for the atonement of the peoples' sins It was "the Lord's presence" among the Israelites.

All of this was a foreshadowing of the New Covenant It was a foreshadowing of Jesus Christ and of his sacrifice eternally celebrated in the Eucharist This is the new "Holy of Holies" where Christ offers Himself to the Father for our sins.

To separate tabernacle from altar is to separate two things which by their origin and their nature should remain united. If at all possible, then, the tabernacle and the altar of sacrifice should be kept in one place, a sacred and holy place!

Mysterium Fidei states:
Further, you realize, venerable brothers, that the Eucharist is reserved in churches or oratories to serve as the spiritual center of a religious community or a parish community, indeed of the whole Church and the whole of mankind, since it contains, beneath the veil of the species, Christ the invisible Head of the Church, the Redeemer of the world, the Center of all hearts, "by whom all things are and by whom we exist.”

John Paul II: "Every member of the Church, especially bishops and priests, must be vigilant in seeing that this Sacrament of love shall be at the center of the life of the People of God."

John Paul II tried to center the Blessed Sacrament in the hearts of Catholics by stating in the 1983 Code of Canon Law:

Christ's faithful are to hold the blessed Eucharist in the highest honor. They should take an active part in the celebration of the most august Sacrifice of the Mass; they should receive the sacrament with great devotion and frequently, and should reverence it with the greatest adoration. In explaining the doctrine of this sacrament, pastors of souls are assiduously to instruct the faithful about their obligation in this regard.

They say there is a shortage of priests and vocations. Actually a great many boys go into the seminaries, and a great many of boys drop out of the seminaries without becoming priests. Why should they? In the seminary they are taught that all the community are priests. They are taught that it is the people who bring down Christ with their community belief. They are taught that their is no difference between the priest and the community. Why then should they become a priest?

Today we are loosing vocations because we treat the priest and the altar commonly, breaking the First and Forth Commandments. The altar has become no different than the rest of the Church. The priest has become just one of all us priests. We have no vocations because we are taught that “Christ is among us” in the same way (in the bible and the people) as He is in the Eucharist. We are taught that we are all priests. If that is the case, why should anyone become a priest? If, on the other hand, a boy is well taught by his mother and father, and knows his faith well, he will be told by these new age Liturgists that they do not have a vocation. Why are we loosing vocations? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

There are also hundreds of good and holy priests all over the United States who have no job because their bishop does not want them to teach or preach true doctrine in their diocese. Since they cannot compromise faith and cannot disobey the bishop and become a roving priest, they stay in their home or appartment saying Mass by themselves and the people loose another great priest, who could have changed the world. I personally know many of these priests, and I know you all know some of them. Where is the priest shortage and why? You will find that it is deliberate.

When you read about the Heavenly Liturgy, you see that there is constant singing. It is claimed that to sing a prayer is to pray twice. Personally, I can’t sing and one should know his own limitations. But when the music is reverent and holy, I find that it raises me up to God in prayer. All music is mind altering and sometimes that is good, if it alters our mind from the flies of our daily life to the Heavenly Jerusalem. Music with any beat does not belong in a Church, since it alters the beat of our heart which should be regulated by our prayer and not by the music. Not one peace of music from tradition has any beat whatsoever. Think of the Gregorian Chant or songs like “Silent Night” or “Holy God” and find a beat. There is none. Music with a beat does not belong in Church at all.

It is not, however, the type of music that bothers me the most. It is the moving of the quire loft to the front of the church and in some cases right on the altar. We need to ask our priests and bishop to give us a good and logical reason why the quire was moved from the back of the Church, where they did not distract our attention from the Mass, to the front of the Church where they become actors on a stage. These destroyers of our Mass speak from two sides of their mouth. For when you ask about the statues they will say that they take away from the Mass, but when you ask about the quire they say it adds to the Mass. We come to Mass to worship God, how does a quire on the altar help us worship God. The historical reason for a quire loft in the back of the Church is to sound as though the music was coming from the angels in Heaven and to imitate the Heavenly Liturgy, helping us worship like they do in Heaven.

St. John Chrysostom:
“The church is not a barber’s or a perfumer’s shop, nor any other merchant’s warehouse in the market place, but a place of angels, a place of archangels, a place of God, heaven itself. As therefore if one had parted the heaven and had brought you in, though you should see your father or you brother, you would not venture to speak; so neither here ought one to utter any other sound but those which are spiritual. For, in truth, the things in this place are also in Heaven."

What St. John teaches us here is the same thing that all the Church Fathers believed for almost 2000 years. In the Church is the Tabernacle. In the Tabernacle is Christ. Wherever Christ is the entire Heavenly Host is also. Christ is King and His court is with Him at all times. Wherever Christ is all Heaven is with Him.

As we stated in the beginning, at the moment the priest says, "This is my body" a "shakina" takes place. All heaven comes down with Our Lord to worship on our altar the Living God. This is why for 2000 years we build churches to imitate what we could not see with our eyes. We built Churches high to imitate the vastness of the Heavens. We put in stained glass windows to show the lights of Heaven. We lined everything with gold to show the richness of Heaven and of God. We surrounded the altar with statues of angels and saints to show that wherever Christ is, there is the Heavenly Host with Him. We placed the altar high up in the center of importance and surrounded it with a sacred rail to divide it from the common ground of the people. Everything was done to imitate the shakina that we knew took place but could not see it with human eyes. All architecture was designed to imitate the shakina.

How do we teach our children that we worship and adore God in the Eucharist when we dress up our houses more than we dress up our churches? Don’t let anyone tell you it takes away from God; it shows God’s importance to have his Host with Him. If you think this is in the mind of men only, read how God demanded Moses to built the Ark, the Tabernacle, the Tent, the ornaments and everything else that went with the Ark. This is the symbolism of how we are to build our Houses of God.

Now regarding worship, which is the center theme of our participation at Mass, to hug, to kiss, to shake hands, and to worship are actions. They cannot be done in the mind. Worship is an action of the body - not the mind. Faith comes from the mind and is finished in the action of loving God and neighbor. But notice that faith and love are separate words, since faith is in the mind and love is the action of faith. The action of loving God is worship, which is an action. You cannot worship in your mind only, (although all actions start in the mind) no more than you can hug or kiss in your mind.

I am talking about the word, “Latria” which means “worship” and worship is reserved for God alone. We do not worship Mary, we love and honor Mary. Worship is for God alone. We love and honor the saints, we do not worship the saints. We can even honor the Chalice or the Tabernacle that the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity touched, because whatever God touches deserves honor, but we cannot worship them.

If latria is reserved for God alone, there must be a very striking difference between what we do to people (even Kings and Queens), what we do to our elders (even Bishops and the Pope), what we do when we walk up to a statue of the Virgin Mary or the saints, what we do to a relic (even of the true cross), and what we do (action - because to do is an action) when we face God in the Eucharist or even in prayer at home. When we latria anything but God, we commit the sin of adultery, therefore, it is very important to know in our own lives how to worship in action and when we are worshipping.

The Council of Trent infallibly taught that the Son of God in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist is to be adored outwardly with the worship of latria (the act of adoration), and to be venerated with a special festive celebrations, and to be borne about in procession according to the praiseworthy and universal rites and customs of the holy Church, and is to be set before the people publicly to be adored with the worship of latria.

The Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship says “The venerable practice of genuflecting before the Blessed Sacrament, whether enclosed in the tabernacle or publicly exposed, as a sign of adoration, is to be maintained.

After the Second Vatican Council, the Church states in her General Instructions of the Roman Missal, "They (the faithful) should kneel at the consecration unless prevented by lack of space, large numbers, or other reasonable cause.

The Catholic Bishops of the United States stated in The Sacramentary that this Roman Missal directive to kneel at the Consecration be extended so that the faithful kneel, not only during the Consecration, but also from after the Sanctus (Holy, Holy) up to the Our Father.

In the (Ceremonial of Bishops) 1985 it is stated:

69. A genuflection, made by bending only the right knee to the ground signifies adoration, and is therefore reserved for the Blessed Sacrament whether exposed or reserved in the tabernacle.

71. No one who enters a church should fail to adore the Blessed Sacrament, either by visiting the Blessed Sacrament chapel or at least by genuflecting.

Similarly, those who pass before the Blessed Sacrament genuflect, except when walking in procession.

Now, it is important to know that at the June 1995 Conference of Catholic Bishops in the United States it was recommended that the bishops permit standing as an option to kneeling during the consecration of the Mass. But, the bishops objected and pointed out that there is only one law and this is to kneel at the consecration. The recommendation was then withdrawn.

If at your church they are not kneeling they are going against the Conference of Catholic Bishops of the United States. Keep in mind also that even that Conference of Bishops cannot do anything without Rome’s approval because the Liturgy is reserved for Rome only. Even the translations have to have Rome’s approval.

Nicea I
The real reason these liberals want us to stand during the mass is to stop our belief in the True Presence, but they will site the Council Of Nicea in 325 as their reason. In the Council of Nicea one Canon states that people should not kneel or lay prostrate during the Liturgy on Sundays because on Sunday we honor the Resurrection.

But it was not the intent of the Council that people not kneel at all during the Mass, but that only the penitential practice be eliminated on Sundays. In those days the penitence given at confession was sometimes months or years of prayer on the knees or prostrate to the ground. It was the intent of the Council that any penitence for sins be only for six days of the week and not on Sunday because of the Resurrection. Canon 325 was to stop people from kneeling throughout the entire Mass, as they were doing because of the direction of the priest in confession.

The Second Vatican Council states in its document, Sacrosanctum Concilium:

"In the earthly liturgy we take part in a foretaste of that heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the Holy City of Jerusalem toward which we journey as pilgrims, where Christ is sitting at the right of God, Minister of the Holies and of the true tabernacle."

And, since the Church's earthly Liturgy is directed toward (on route to) this heavenly Liturgy, any legitimate liturgical development will move the Church closer in resemblance to this fully developed heavenly Liturgy described in the Book of Revelations.

Now, St. John describes this fully developed heavenly Liturgy in his Book of Revelations when he talks about the "Vision of Heavenly Worship" where "Christ is the Paschal Lamb without blemish whose blood saved the new Israel from sin and death." John says: "the twenty-four elders fall down before the One seated on the throne, and worship him who lives forever and ever" (Rev. 4:10). Again, in the Book of Revelations, St. John states:

“Then I heard the voices of every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea; everything in the universe cried aloud: ‘To the One seated on the throne, and to the Lamb, be praise and honor, glory and might, forever and ever!’ The four living creatures answered, ‘Amen,’ and the elders fell down and worshipped.” (Rev. 5:13-14)

In the perfect Liturgy in Heaven creatures "fell down and worshipped" the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ. The correct posture at the consecration of the Mass and before the Blessed Sacrament (God) in the earthly Liturgy, is one which approximates the falling down in worship before the "Lamb" (God) in the fully developed heavenly Liturgy.

Kneeling at the consecration of the Mass is a Latin Rite Church law.

This law protects Catholics from pastors who would forbid kneeling at the consecration. Furthermore, Can. 24 § 1 of the new Code of Canon Law, states: "No custom which is contrary to divine law can acquire the force of law." And, it is "contrary to the divine law" to tell the faithful not to adore the Eucharist "outwardly," especially since the Council of Trent infallibly teaches (as a dogma of divine faith) that "If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist the only-begotten Son of God is not to be adored even outwardly with the worship of latria (the act of adoration) . . . let him be anathema"!

St. Augustine said: "It was in the flesh that Christ walked among us and it is His flesh that He has given us to eat for our salvation." And, he added: "no one eats of this flesh without having first adored it ... and not only do we not sin in thus adoring it, but we would be sinning if we did not do so!"

One must realize that refusing to give an act of latria, like kneeling, before the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharistic Liturgy out of embarrassment, is certainly a type of being ashamed to acknowledge the presence of Jesus Christ in the midst of men. And about this, Jesus said:

“I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men -- the Son of Man will acknowledge him before the angels of God. But the man who has disowned me in the presence of men will be disowned in the presence of the angels of God.” (Lk. 12:8-9)

Father Regis Scanlon suggests that:

“Today, belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is failing miserably among baptized Catholics (70%). It is urgent, therefore, that everyone, especially deacons, Eucharistic ministers, and altar servers kneel during the Consecration and at the "Lord, I am not worthy" in the Eucharistic Liturgy. It is especially urgent that deacons, ministers, and servers kneel because of their visibility to the congregation and their leading roles in the Liturgy. The People will follow their lead in kneeling. It is also important for pastors to encourage their people to make use of the "strongly recommended" genuflection prior to receiving communion, or to use the legitimate option of having the people kneel to receive the Sacrament. Then, those, who know the doctrine of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, will be affirmed, and those who do not know will ask about the kneeling and genuflection and learn.”

The Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship in 1980 stated:

“When the faithful communicate kneeling, no other sign of reverence towards the Blessed Sacrament is required, since kneeling is itself a sign of adoration.

When they receive communion standing, it is strongly recommended that, coming up in procession, they should make a sign of reverence before receiving the Blessed Sacrament. This should be done at the right time and place, so that the order of people going to and from communion should not be disrupted.”

The officially "recommended" act of reverence prior to receiving communion, when receiving in a standing position, is clearly a "genuflection".

God the Father says through Isaiah: "To me every knee shall bend" (Isaiah 45:23). And St. Paul says, “for it is written: ‘As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bend before me’” (Romans 14:11). Again, St. Paul states: "at Jesus' name every knee must bend in the heavens, on the earth, and under the earth" (Philip. 2:10).

In the General Instructions of the Roman Missal: "lex orandi, lex credendi" ("what is prayed indicates what may and must be believed"). This Latin phrase "makes the rule of prayer a norm of belief." It points out that "worship influences doctrine" and vice versa. This "influence" of "worship" on "doctrine" also includes the gestures and postures of worship. Consequently, when Catholics "worship" by "bending the knee" in Eucharistic adoration, they strengthen belief in the doctrine of Christ's Eucharistic Real Presence, for themselves and for the entire Church. And when they can and do not, they weaken it.

So, what is a person to do if a bishop, pastor, or religious superior tells one not to kneel during the consecration of the Mass nor genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament? Here, the nature of obedience must be clearly understood. One obeys to do the will of God. One does not obey because of political reasons or because one idolizes a certain bishop, pastor, or religious superior. And, authority in the Church is One (it exists in the apostolic unity of the Holy Spirit) and it comes down from above and not up from below. Consequently, the directives of a higher authority in the Church must always be obeyed over the directives of a lower authority.

Therefore, it is neither meritorious, nor the virtue of obedience, to heed the directive of a lower authority over the directives of a higher authority in the Church.

In conclusion, you must kneel every time the Eucharist is exposed, held up, or seen in any way. You must genuflect whenever you pass the tabernacle and/or before you receive communion if you are receiving standing. No matter what the priest or bishop say, you would be sinning if you do not do so.

Thus, no bishop, pastor, or religious superior can come between a directive from the Pope to the Church or any member of the faithful because the Pope's authority over the individual member of the faithful is "ordinary and immediate."

So, when it comes to kneeling at the consecration of the Mass or genuflecting before the Blessed Sacrament, no one can come between the Pope and an individual member of the faithful on these matters. Since the directives to kneel at the consecration of the Mass and genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament come from documents approved by the Pope, no one can direct the faithful to do otherwise. If they do so, the faithful are not to heed the lower authority's directive under a false guise of obedience or virtue.

One must especially remember that, not only is this matter of kneeling at the consecration of the Mass and genuflecting before the Blessed Sacrament a matter of Church discipline in the liturgy and sacraments, it is a matter of adoration of God, a matter directly related to the Catholic faith as expressed in Sacred Scripture and Tradition.

Daniel 11:31 states that the Antichrist during the end times will try to abolish the daily sacrifice. And Paul states:

“On the question of the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, that the Antichrist must come first and we will recognize him because he will exalt himself above every so-called god proposed for worship and will sit in God's temple and even declares himself to be God. " (2 Thes. 2:3-4).

Is this any difference than the “Holy of Holies”, the altar, becoming common ground for the “community” who are now taught that they are God, they are the “Christ”, they are the “High Priesthood of Christ”. When we open the altar, “the Holy of Holies” to the community, we profane sacred ground, reserved for the priest only, who is higher in authority and dignity than the Emperor of the World because he is “en persona Christi”.

This is New Age, an old Gnostic heresy, which was not possible when we had the Latin Mass because it was unchangeable. Am I saying that the Tridentine Mass is the only real solution? I don’t know - maybe so.

Following are some verbal or written questions with answers given by phone, mail or e-mail.
We also include any valued articles or comments that will bring back love, reverence, and divine worship to Our Lord in the Liturgy.