Author Topic: Inclusive Catholics give Communion to a Dog (Read 3113 times)

Augstine Baker · « **on:** August 06, 2012, 12:05:36 PM »

Sacrilege in Melbourne: 'Inclusive Catholics' give communion to a dog
There is an appalling story in The Age today, on a group of heretical ex-Catholics, led by Fr Greg Reynolds, when the 'inclusiveness' of this clearly protestant group was tested by a visitor giving his dog communion.

Sacrilege?

Given the description of the service, and the heretical views of the priest concerned, there seems a good chance that the consecration was not in fact valid. The problem is that the priest concerned is still a catholic priest, albeit one with his faculties suspended for his public support inter alia of the ordination of women, so there is a genuine risk that sacrilege did in fact occur.

Steel yourself before you read what the article said about the service:

"A first-time visitor arrived late at the Inclusive Catholics service in South Yarra with a large and well-trained German shepherd. When the consecrated bread and wine were passed around, the visitor took some bread and fed it to his dog.

http://australiaincognita.blogspot.com/2012/08/sacrilege-in-melbourne-inclusive.html

Belloc · « **Reply #1 on:** August 06, 2012, 12:08:31 PM »

if the man was truly ordained and made a valid consecration, then this host would truly be BBSD of Christ and a sacriledge......anyone have any info this was not a true host to begin with?

Oh do I miss the days of the Inquistion and the Catholic state :heretic: :dwarf:

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #2 on:** August 06, 2012, 12:36:48 PM »

At least 50% of Australian Catholics believe in real presence, so whatever your objective appraisal of the validity of the sacrament could be, the damage has been done.

Belloc · « **Reply #3 on:** August 06, 2012, 12:45:31 PM »

true enough......that percent is higher then the USA, amazing as liberalism is high there too.

But agree, even IF the host was unconsecrated, scandal has been greviously done........need to act as if it was adn punish the priest with excommunication if not already done (might have missed that point)

Sigismund · « **Reply #4 on:** August 06, 2012, 08:06:44 PM »

Actually, it may be less sacrilegious than the other human communions at this travesty of a Mass. At least the dog didn't know any better. Jeez, what idiots.

poche · « **Reply #5 on:** August 07, 2012, 04:00:35 AM »

This makes me ill. It also requires reparation for the sacrilege

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #6 on:** August 07, 2012, 06:18:15 AM »

This is a good example of what happens when there are abuses piled on top of
abuses, and the local bishops let it go or worse, even support the abuses.

In this "service" the consecrated hosts and "cup" of wine were "passed around" to
the people in attendance, and this one guy with a "well-trained German Shepherd"
who had come in late to the "service" took one of the hosts from the bowl he was
handed and gave the host to his dog.

~ The guy with the dog showed up "late" to the "service." How late? Was it a
Sunday Mass? If he arrived during the consecration, for example, and was
late for no good reason, he had already missed Mass on Sunday and shouldn't be
receiving communion anyway, so why was he given the container of hosts? Was
the man even Catholic? What was his dog doing there? "Well trained" is probably
not a seeing-eye dog. No mention of the man being blind, either, so he probably
wasn't.

So what does the local bishop have to say about the whole affair?

He only criticized the news, accusing the journalist of using the wrong words to
describe the Blessed Sacrament, that instead of "consecrated bread and wine,"
he should have said "body and blood of Jesus Christ."

Quote

***Update:Archbishop Hart responds

Archbishop Hart has written a [letter] to the editor and put out a press release complaining about the way this story was reported in The Age:

"Archbishop Denis Hart of the Archdiocese of Melbourne said today that Melbourne’s The Age newspaper was holding Catholicism up for ridicule in an article published in The Age this morning.

The article ‘Every flock needs a shepherd’ (The Age, 6/8), reports that at a Mass conducted by a group called Inclusive Catholics, the Blessed Sacrament was given to a dog.

The Archbishop said “that anyone would feed the Eucharist to a dog is an abomination.”

Writing to the Editor of The Age today, the Archbishop said “Your article ‘Every flock needs a shepherd’ is in bad faith. It is the most fundamental and defining belief of Catholics that what you call ‘the consecrated bread and wine’ is the body and blood of Jesus Christ.”

“That you should choose to report the matter in the way that you did can only be understood as an attempt to hold Catholicism up to ridicule.

“Your integrity in this matter can be judged by asking whether, if something sacred to Judaism or Islam had similarly been desecrated, you would have treated the matter with such flippancy.”

No word however on what action is being taken against priest and congregation...

Has Archbishop Hart considered that
~ It's an abomination that anyone would bring a dog into Mass in the first place?
~ It's an abomination that they pass around a bowl with consecrated hosts?
~ It's an abomination that someone arriving "late" to the "service" is handed the bowl?
~ It's an abomination that they are desecrating the Mass with the abominable Novus Ordo liturgy in the first place?
~ It's an abomination to pass around the Chalice too?
~ It's an abomination that the Archbishop continues to support innovations and novelty of all kinds?
~ It's an abomination that their "service" is in the vernacular language and not Latin?
~ It's an abomination that this Archbishop encourages "inclusiveness" and "ecuмenism" and "religious liberty" against all Sacred Tradition?
~ It's an abomination that with all these abuses, the Archbishop has the temerity to complain about how The Age reported the story????

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #7 on:** August 07, 2012, 06:46:42 AM »

From the source article in The Age:

...He is still a priest, though now on the dole. Mary Fenelon, who usually worships in Abbotsford, comes to this Mass because ''these people are forward-thinkers, and the church is going backwards. This is inclusive and welcoming.''

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/dissidents-preach-a-new-breed-of-catholicism-20120805-23nyg.html#ixzz22rKv3fre

Fenelon is expressing the same spirit as +Fellay when he promotes dialogue with
apostate Rome. She travels far from home to worship with forward-thinkers, when
the Church is going backwards. So does +Fellay. He travels far from home to
worship with forward-thinkers, and hopes to drag the Society into worshiping with
forward-thinkers too, while the other 3 Society bishops are going backwards, in
his perception.

The other 3 bishops are not going backwards, at all. It just appears that way
to +Fellay as he drifts off into conciliarism, because from his perspective, the
other 3 bishops look like they are "moving backwards" but that's because it is
+Fellay who is moving away from Tradition.

lefebvre_fan · « **Reply #8 on:** August 07, 2012, 06:58:56 AM »

At least the dog had the good sense to receive Communion on the tongue.

Lord, have mercy on us!

Belloc · « **Reply #9 on:** August 07, 2012, 07:23:50 AM »

Quote from: lefebvre_fan

At least the dog had the good sense to receive Communion on the tongue.

Lord, have mercy on us!

in that narrow sense, then, he is better then most NO that herd up to altar like cattle and man handle host.......even the dogs believe and tremble?

Ethelred · « **Reply #10 on:** August 07, 2012, 07:31:33 AM »

Don't get fooled by the neo-conservative Catholics and their Newchurch excess stories.

For decades they name and shame the most excessive Newchurch priests and bishops and actions, and since some years the Neo-SSPX does so, too. But their scary excess stories don't change a thing because they don't present any solution whatsoever.

In reality these neo-conservatives just distract from the heart of the matter which is the subjectivist Pope who has no possible understanding of objective Catholic Tradition and the destruction of the SSPX by putting themselves under obedience to modernist Rome which remains fundamentally anti-Traditional.

Short of a miracle in the form of a complete conversion of the Newpope, nothing will change. So we traditional Catholics have to hold out and wait and reject any tie with this modernist Rome. Interestingly the neo-conservatives in and around the SSPX don't say that. But the good Bishop does. That's why they're planing to expel him.

Eleison Comments CCLVI (9 June 2012): Archbishop Speaks

(..) As an example of [Archbishop Lefebvre's] clear mind, here is a letter that he wrote on August 18, 1988, to Dom Thomas Aquinas, the young Prior of the monastery in Brazil which had been founded from the Traditional Benedictine monastery in the south of France, le Barroux, under Dom Gérard. Alas, within days of the consecrations in Écône, Dom Gérard had broken with the SSPX in order to integrate his monastery into the Conciliar Church. Here is what the Archbishop wrote to Dom Thomas:–
(..)
In [Dom Gérard’s] declaration he lays out what has been granted to him, and he accepts to put himself under obedience to modernist Rome which remains fundamentally anti-Traditional. That is what made me keep my distance. At the same time he wished to retain the friendship and support of Traditionalists, which is inconceivable. He accuses us of resisting for the sake of resisting. I did warn him, but his decision had already long been taken, and he did not want to heed our advice.

The consequences are now inevitable. But we will have no further relations with le Barroux, and we are advising our faithful to give no more support to an operation which is henceforth in the hands of our enemies, the enemies of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of his Universal Kingship. The Benedictine Sisters (attached to le Barroux) are in great distress. They came to see me. I gave to them the advice that I give to you: remain free, and reject any tie with this modernist Rome. (..)

Such was the Archbishop’s clear mind and will from the Episcopal consecrations onwards. One wonders how some of his sons can now be wanting to put themselves “under obedience to modernist Rome which remains fundamentally anti-Traditional”, or, under a subjectivist Pope who has no possible understanding of objective Catholic Tradition. Such is the power of seduction, increasing all the time, of the subjectivist world around us. The madness of subjectivism has become so normal, so widespread, that few people notice it any longer. “Our help is in the name of the Lord.”

Kyrie eleison.

Bishop Richard Williamson

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #11 on:** August 07, 2012, 08:50:12 AM »

Quote from: Ethelred

Don't get fooled by the neo-conservative Catholics and their Newchurch excess stories.

For decades they name and shame the most excessive Newchurch priests and bishops and actions, and since some years the Neo-SSPX does so, too. But their scary excess stories don't change a thing because they don't present any solution whatsoever.

In reality these neo-conservatives just distract from the heart of the matter which is the subjectivist Pope who has no possible understanding of objective Catholic Tradition and the destruction of the SSPX by putting themselves under obedience to modernist Rome which remains fundamentally anti-Traditional.

Short of a miracle in the form of a complete conversion of the Newpope, nothing will change. So we traditional Catholics have to hold out and wait and reject any tie with this modernist Rome. Interestingly the neo-conservatives in and around the SSPX don't say that. But the good Bishop does. That's why they're planing to expel him.

Eleison Comments CCLVI (9 June 2012): Archbishop Speaks

(..) As an example of [Archbishop Lefebvre's] clear mind, here is a letter that he wrote on August 18, 1988, to Dom Thomas Aquinas, the young Prior of the monastery in Brazil which had been founded from the Traditional Benedictine monastery in the south of France, le Barroux, under Dom Gérard. Alas, within days of the consecrations in Écône, Dom Gérard had broken with the SSPX in order to integrate his monastery into the Conciliar Church. Here is what the Archbishop wrote to Dom Thomas:–
(..)
In [Dom Gérard’s] declaration he lays out what has been granted to him, and he accepts to put himself under obedience to modernist Rome which remains fundamentally anti-Traditional. That is what made me keep my distance. At the same time he wished to retain the friendship and support of Traditionalists, which is inconceivable. He accuses us of resisting for the sake of resisting. I did warn him, but his decision had already long been taken, and he did not want to heed our advice.

The consequences are now inevitable. But we will have no further relations with le Barroux, and we are advising our faithful to give no more support to an operation which is henceforth in the hands of our enemies, the enemies of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of his Universal Kingship. The Benedictine Sisters (attached to le Barroux) are in great distress. They came to see me. I gave to them the advice that I give to you: remain free, and reject any tie with this modernist Rome. (..)

Such was the Archbishop’s clear mind and will from the Episcopal consecrations onwards. One wonders how some of his sons can now be wanting to put themselves “under obedience to modernist Rome which remains fundamentally anti-Traditional”, or, under a subjectivist Pope who has no possible understanding of objective Catholic Tradition. Such is the power of seduction, increasing all the time, of the subjectivist world around us. The madness of subjectivism has become so normal, so widespread, that few people notice it any longer. “Our help is in the name of the Lord.”

Kyrie eleison.

Bishop Richard Williamson

Yes, I understand, Catholics who don't seem Catholic to your judgement have no standing, need be of no interest and the Church as you see it is a mostly spiritualized entity.

Assuming you're not a home aloner, I'd imagine that whatever chapel you go to can be just as challenging to deal with as the Church at large, what with all the Modernists and other types roaming around.

What would we do without stalwart guardians of doctrine like yourself?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #12 on:** August 07, 2012, 10:29:06 AM »

Quote

In reality these neo-conservatives just distract from the heart of the matter which is the subjectivist Pope who has no possible understanding of objective Catholic Tradition and the destruction of the SSPX by putting themselves under obedience to modernist Rome which remains fundamentally anti-Traditional.

Yes I think it is almost a way to desensitize Catholics when the fundamental issues are much more serious. I read US News and World Report as a kid, which is a neocon rag. They'd always have an editorialist (IIRC John Leo) who would trot out shocking stories to keep conservative readers inflamed and entertained. But the simple fact is that US News and World Report was not truly conservative in any respect, but is in fact a Jєωιѕн magazine with Jєωιѕн interests at heart. In fact an editorialist there had the gall to demand that Bishop Williamson be re-excommunicated.

The SSPX with Krah in such a position becomes in fact a pro-ѕуηαgσgυє anti-Christian organization. You cannot have the friend of your enemy managing your money and legal affairs. Unless you've sold out.

Just as you can't claim to really be serving the Archbishop when you say the things Bishop Fellay has said about the errors of the Council not being of the Council, about Vatican II being part of the "great tradition" of the Church.

The Church is going to be wrecked by these "conservatives" - and what they always do is to use the very tactics of the Left - to try to marginalize, insult and ridicule those who point out the truth about who the traitors are.

Belloc · « **Reply #13 on:** August 07, 2012, 10:34:24 AM »

Quote from: poche

This makes me ill. It also requires reparation for the sacrilege

TRUE

Belloc · « **Reply #14 on:** August 07, 2012, 10:36:37 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote
In reality these neo-conservatives just distract from the heart of the matter which is the subjectivist Pope who has no possible understanding of objective Catholic Tradition and the destruction of the SSPX by putting themselves under obedience to modernist Rome which remains fundamentally anti-Traditional.

Yes I think it is almost a way to desensitize Catholics when the fundamental issues are much more serious. I read US News and World Report as a kid, which is a neocon rag. They'd always have an editorialist (IIRC John Leo) who would trot out shocking stories to keep conservative readers inflamed and entertained. But the simple fact is that US News and World Report was not truly conservative in any respect, but is in fact a Jєωιѕн magazine with Jєωιѕн interests at heart. In fact an editorialist there had the gall to demand that Bishop Williamson be re-excommunicated.

The SSPX with Krah in such a position becomes in fact a pro-ѕуηαgσgυє anti-Christian organization. You cannot have the friend of your enemy managing your money and legal affairs. Unless you've sold out.

Just as you can't claim to really be serving the Archbishop when you say the things Bishop Fellay has said about the errors of the Council not being of the Council, about Vatican II being part of the "great tradition" of the Church.

The Church is going to be wrecked by these "conservatives" - and what they always do is to use the very tactics of the Left - to try to marginalize, insult and ridicule those who point out the truth about who the traitors are.

Conservatives exist only to stay perpetually angry and blaming, same for many on the "other side" of the aisle....