by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
If there is any sincerity in a Catholic, it is to have unlimited gratitude for what our Savior and God, Jesus Christ, did, said, and suffered for our sake.
And thus, we are put to test in every thing we do and say, that we act always in conformity with such sincerity. Whether in what we do, say, cause or promote, whether in regard to men or women or children.
But also in regard to God.
One of the greatest betrayals of this therefore, is when we attempt to force Jesus to be in communion with us, when we are in the act of committing a mortal sin. This is the spiritual equivalent of attempting to rape Jesus Christ.
And this occurs if we make a sacrilegious communion.
Sacrilege is the sin of stealing something which is Sacred.
And there is nothing more sacred that Jesus Christ.
Next to that, there is stealing His authority, as when one usurps the Apostolic Throne of St. Peter.
But just as one shares in the sin of another by approbation, so in usurpation. That is why, as soon as you have hard facts that someone has usurped the rights of another, you should refrain from acting as if they did, otherwise, you are publicly approving of their crime.
And this is true also at Mass. For when we attend Mass where there is named in the Canon of the Mass a man who has usurped the throne of the Bishop of our Diocese, or of the Apostolic See, the priest is committing a mortal sin of approving of that theft, if he knows it to be a theft. And all who remain in the Church, participating in that Mass, commit mortal sin by solemnly approving of that usurpation.
But even worse is when the priest receives the Eucharist at that Mass. Yes, it is validly consecrated, such that Jesus is truly really and sacramentally present as the consecrated Host, as the Council of Trent teaches. But He is not there physically.
So the person who attempts to make Jesus commune with him in such a public approbation of sacrilege commits an even worse sacrilege of spiritual rape, in attempting to receive Him at such a Mass.
Yes, as the Host enters his mouth, God enters his mouth, and the Flesh and Blood and Soul of Jesus Christ, along with His Divine Persona also enter his mouth.
But they enter no more than a body is forced into communion during a violent rape.
And thus spiritually there is no communion.
This is because Jesus is present mystically, that is, sacramentally, so as much as the sinner attempts to embrace him with his soul, he does not.
And this is why communion with Jesus in the Eucharist is impossible when the Sacrament is received in such circumstances.
This case differs from the case in which the Eucharist is consecrated by a heretic. For in that case, one cannot even go to the Tabernacle afterwards and ask a Catholic deacon, for example. to give you communion outside of the Mass.
This does not mean that we do not or ought not recognize that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist, at such masses, in such tabernacles or in such Churches.
And this is not hard to understand. For just as a woman remains a woman, even when she is the wife of another, and it would be rape to force her into union with you, if you were not her husband, so Jesus remains Jesus in the Eucharist consecrated outside of communion with His Vicar on Earth, even though it is not licit for you to attempt to unite yourself to Him in such a circumstance.
Now, there are laity out there who have never studied sacramental theology, nor even read the Summa of Saint Thomas Aquinas, on the question of when one spiritually does or does not receive the Lord at communion. But this is Sacramental Theology 101.
That they scream ¨Heretic!¨ on YouTube channels at us Catholics who simply keep doing and believing what has always been taught, is unhinged behavior. And they will have to answer for the mortal sin of defamation, calumny, and false teaching for each person who hears their videos or reads their writings.
For to be an advocate of the spiritual rape of Jesus Christ is not going to be a sin which the Eternal Father forgets on the Day of Judgement.
Therefore, let us examine ourselves carefully before going to Mass, and before deciding where to go to Mass, and let us remember that we can show true love for Jesus Christ, when we are not right with God, by not receiving Him in communion.
❤️❤️❤️🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻❤️❤️❤️
JÉSUS N’EST PAS UN OBJET À MANIPULER À VOLONTÉ – Mise en garde solennelle contre ceux qui vont à la messe ‘UNA CUM’ et qui, en communiant, commettent un viol spirituel
#Praedicatho #unacum
https://www.homelie.biz/2023/01/jesus-n-est-pas-un-objet-a-manipuler-a-volonte-mise-en-garde-solennelle-contre-ceux-qui-vont-a-la-messe-una-cum-et-qui-en-communiant-commettent-un-viol-spirituel.html
The last sentence of this paragraph is confusing to me:
“ But even worse is when the priest receives the Eucharist at that Mass. Yes, it is validly consecrated, such that Jesus is truly really and sacramentally present as the consecrated Host, as the Council of Trent teaches. But He is not there physically.”
Is the Consecration by a validly ordained priest who is a heretic somehow -physically – different than by one who is not a heretic? Is the resulting Consecration also different than one invoked by a priest who is in a state of mortal sin, but who is not a heretic?
A priest who condones usurpation sins primarily against men and himself. But a priest who supports heresy, against God Himself. Thus we can never receive the Eucharist which heretics confect, even if it be found outside of mass. But we can if they are only in error. Those of heretics should be placed in water until the species decomposes. This all has to do with the observance of the commandments, and the distinction between the moral caution we should have of participating in the offense of God.
There is also a sin of presumption, a sin against the Holy Spirit, because they continually do this out of habit thinking God already forgives whenever they commit this sacrilegious act.
Now I realize why the punishment of earthquake and flooding was given by the Eternal Father across cities in the world.
I agree.
So, if it is a sin to attend a mass that recognizes in the canon of the mass a pope or bishop who is a usurper, and it is an obligation to attend mass each week, how does one fulfill the obligation to hear the mass, if no such mass can be heard? Even on television, all masses I know of name Bergoglio in the canon of the mass. In effect, there is no licit mass available to most of us at this time. No mass. No eucharistic communion. Do most priests truly understand that we have a usurper claiming to lead the church and that they are committing sacrilege? And how many fewer lay people actually understand this? These are terrible times. I pray we do not die before the election of a successor of Benedict XVI. Hopefully he will declare a year of jubilee!
One is NOT obliged to attend Mass every week. One is obliged to attend a Catholic Mass in communion with the true Pope, each week, IF you are not obliged to work on Sundays because of the natural disposition of your work (dairy, hotel, gas station, railway, etc.) and then, only when the weather is not dangerous (Hurricane, snow storms, ice storms, sand storms, deadly cold or deadly heat), and furthermore only when the priest is NOT a public sinner (heretic, sodomite, concubinage, etc.) nor your mortal enemy (wants to kill or defame you) and you have clothing suitable (you are not nude or without decent covering).
So you see, you DONT have the obligation to go to Mass every Sunday under every condition. This is the doctrine of the Saints.
Thank you.
After prayer before the Blessed Sacrament, a time of intercession for the successor of Benedict XVI, and reading your article on JPII and canon law concerning the election of a legitimate pope, I have better understanding of what I face in my own situation. It is indeed time to focus our lives towards saving the Church rather than being concerned myself with the Church saving us. Jesus’ words come to mind. “Because of the increase of lawlessness, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.” Mt. 24:12-13 (I think he was speaking of the coming destruction of the Temple, but it seems to apply to today’s circumstances.) May we draw strength from the words of Jesus. “I am with you always until the end of the world.”
How about the Canon of a Latin Mass where the priest does not audibly say the name of the pope out loud? Can we attend that mass?
It’s not a question of whether you hear it, but of what he says. Ask him.
If I’m not mistaken the obligation is to worship on Sundays and holy days of obligation. If through no fault of our own we find ourselves with no Mass in our area, and nothing restrains us from worshiping some other way, perhaps at home, then we’re obliged to do so.
Some of us do this by, for example, offering the time we would spend at Mass, in prayer and reading Scripture, in addition to our usual daily prayers and reading.