St. Thomas Aquinas said, “Out of reverence towards the Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it but what is consecrated.” Only the hands of a priest are consecrated.
Communion in the hand, a practice that arose as an abuse in Europe in the early 1970’s, contradicts the traditional Church teaching that was enunciated by St. Thomas Aquinas, viz., “Out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches it but what is consecrated.” Only the hands of a priest are consecrated. Communion in the hand was condemned by the Synod of Rouen in 650 A.D. to halt widespread abuses, and as a safeguard against sacrilege. However,
Communion in the hand was re-introduced starting with Martin Luther, ***Protestants re-introduced this practice “to manifest their belief that there is no such thing as Transubstantiation and Holy Orders, and the bread used is just ordinary bread and the minister is just an ordinary man with no God-given power to consecrate.” ***
Very quickly, however, the “extraordinary” became ordinary as the ranks of “Eucharistic” ministers swelled. In short order followed the sacrileges of consecrated Hosts left on pews, sometimes in pieces; Hosts carried in pockets, passed around the classroom, found on the streets; and Hosts easily procured for the ultimate profanation in satanic Black Masses. Receiving Communion in the hand, and from a layman, has also contributed to the downgrading of the priesthood and other heresies concerning the Holy Eucharist. Let’s look at the attack on the priesthood now. Liturgical “ministries” seem to be the vehicle for effecting the chief goal of religious feminists, viz., women’s ordination. In the face of the Church’s refusal to ordain women, the strategy became to effect an eventual approval of ordination by involving females in other liturgical roles such as ALTAR GIRLS and LECTORS. This would prepare a climate of acceptance for priestesses by getting congregations used to seeing women around the altar. Feminists hope that eventually the clamor for priestesses will become so widespread that the Church will capitulate. Twenty years ago, arch-religious feminist Rosemary Ruether described this strategy of re-education:
“It is likely that a long seedtime must set in. A growing practice of ministry shared by men * and women will develop on local congregational levels. A certain educational process will go on between women and ordained males on the injustices of the restrictions placed on their female colleagues. Laity will become used to seeing women ministers in a number of adjunct roles and wonder why not Sacraments. Perhaps there will be discussions and conferences around this . . . Eventually, more bishops will be consecrated who wonder at the absurdity of the exclusion [with a growing example of women in full Sacramental ministry in other Churches].” [19] [Emphases added.] 19. Cornelia R. Ferreira, The Emerging Feminist Religion [Toronto: Life Ethics Center, 1989], pp. 4-5. Feminist Naomi Goldenberg, who calls herself a psychologist of religion, confirms this strategy that makes use of “devout” women who are unaware of the feminist agenda. She says these reformists and their clerical supporters think using inclusive language, highlighting the importance of women in the Gospels, and promoting women’s ordination are means of “improving the practice of their religion by encouraging women to share the responsibilities of worship equally with men,” [20] i.e., with priests. 20. Ibid., p. 5 [emphasis added]. Role Reversals Notice that phrase, “share the responsibilities of worship.” You’ll hear it quite frequently. It clothes the revolution in fuzzy, positive terms. After all, you won’t get anywhere by telling your pastor you intend to take over his job, and you won’t easily win “devout” recruits to your power grab by this frontal assault. Satan deceives by posing as an Angel of light. Goldenberg openly admits that the planned reforms challenge the basic nature of Christianity; they are “not minor alterations,” but “major departures from tradition” that will “shake Christianity at its roots.” [21]
- Ibid. Here we have it, straight from the horse’s mouth: according to two feminist leaders, lay ministries are designed to destroy the foundations of our religion; they are a transitional step to priestesses. As we know, in secular society, feminism, using role-reversal ideology , has emasculated the husband, stripping him of his role as provider, and destroying his hierarchical authority, all in the name of women’s equality. This has resulted in the “fatherless” family. The liturgical role revisions have done the same damage in the spiritual sphere.
*
