Are Fr. Z and Shaw pushing Vatican II Jansenist-like "Liturgical Reform" which Opposes Pope Pius X's Teachings?
It seems that the apparent coronavirus hysteria promoters Fr. John Zuhlsdorf (Fr. Z) and Joseph Shaw think that Pope Pius X was not "adequately catechized about what Mass is":
After Shaw comments on the development of a strong social dimension to participation at Mass, to the detriment of the mysterious and ritual dimensions, he writes of the historical practice of distribution of Communion outside of Mass and its subsequent return to the context of Mass.
My emphases and comments.
Have PRIESTS?
It seems also to me that Communion outside of Mass, and less frequently, may be a way forward as Chinese COVID-1984 [Catholic Monitor's emphases] continues or some other demon virus comes along.
Might Fr. Z and Shaw wanting to go to "Communion outside of Mass, and less frequently" be a from of the heresy of Jansenism which claimed to be returning to "early Church practices"?
Are Francis traditionalists Fr. Z and Shaw pushing Vatican II Jansenist-like "liturgical reform" which opposes Pope Pius X teachings because they support Francis' promotion of the coronavirus hysteria?
Jansenism like Protestantism and the Modernism of the Nouvelle theologie school, that dominated the proceedings of Vatican II, claimed to be returning to the "early Church practices."
Jansenism emphasized pessimism due to original sin and predestination as did Calvinism and Lutheranism with the denial of free will.
One of the main tenets of Jansenism was that Holy Communion shouldn't be received frequently. In the early twentieth century, Pope Pius X, the hammer of Modernist heretics, condemned this tenet and endorsed frequent Communion.
It appears that Fr. Z and Shaw agree with the Jansenist heretics and oppose Pius X's endorsement of frequent Communion.
Theologian Jessica Murdoch of Villanova University quotes Pope Pius X saying this type of thinking is Jansenism:
"'[T]he poison of Jansenism, which had infected... under the appearance of honor and veneration due to the Eucharist, has by no means entirely disappeared'... this same pontiff declared: 'Let frequent and daily communion... be available to all Christians... it is enough, nevertheless, that they be free from mortal sins, with the resolution that they never sin in the future.'"
(First Things, "A Pessimism that would Canonize All'" February 21, 2017)
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Mass and the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
After Shaw comments on the development of a strong social dimension to participation at Mass, to the detriment of the mysterious and ritual dimensions, he writes of the historical practice of distribution of Communion outside of Mass and its subsequent return to the context of Mass.
My emphases and comments.
[…]Shaw is certainly right. His point about it being “hard to imagine” not receiving Communion at Mass underscores a major crisis in the Church today: Have people [such as Pope Pius X] been adequately catechized about what Mass is [Catholic Monitor's emphases and comment in parentheses]?
The increasing emphasis on Mass as a meal began long before the Second Vatican Council. A major step in this direction was moving the reception of Holy Communion back into Mass, in the early decades of the twentieth century. For many centuries prior to this, Communion had been distributed outside Mass, and commonly (as the frequently of reception increased with the waning of the influence of Jansenism), between Masses. There is a parallel between this development, and the later encouragement of the distribution of Hosts consecrated at the same Mass, rather than those consecrated earlier and stored in the tabernacle. The meal symbolism is served by both changes. What may be lost is the sense of the eternity and singleness of the Mass and the Victim.
I have no strong personal objection to either historical development, but it is a fact that today the reception of Holy Communion outside Mass is once again going to become the norm, at least for a time. It seems that for many Catholics the very idea of reception outside Mass, except for the hospitalized and housebound, has become difficult to imagine, and much of the push-back against the banning of Mass with a congregation appears derive from the idea that if we cannot attend Mass, then we will not be able to receive Communion. [Exactly. Thus, the loss of the sense of what Mass really is.] Indeed, so difficult has this been to imagine that many bishops and priests have failed to note that this remains a possibility, and one where the risk of infection can be managed in all sorts of ways: by limiting the number of communicants, if necessary to one; by the priest cleansing his fingers before and after the ceremony; by performing the ceremony outside, or in a controlled environment; and so on.
Clearly, a carefully controlled approach to distributing Holy Communion outside Mass will place a limit on the numbers able to receive, and even on the most optimistic view Catholics will have to get used to another aspect of standard past practice: infrequent Communion. Today, not only is Communion outside Mass hard to imagine, but for many Catholics so is attendance at Mass without the reception of Communion. This implies a casual attitude towards the reception of Holy Communion which perfectly accords with the placing of the meal-symbolism ahead of other considerations, but is not a positive development from other points of view.
[…]
Have PRIESTS?
It seems also to me that Communion outside of Mass, and less frequently, may be a way forward as Chinese COVID-1984 [Catholic Monitor's emphases] continues or some other demon virus comes along.
Might Fr. Z and Shaw wanting to go to "Communion outside of Mass, and less frequently" be a from of the heresy of Jansenism which claimed to be returning to "early Church practices"?
Are Francis traditionalists Fr. Z and Shaw pushing Vatican II Jansenist-like "liturgical reform" which opposes Pope Pius X teachings because they support Francis' promotion of the coronavirus hysteria?
Jansenism like Protestantism and the Modernism of the Nouvelle theologie school, that dominated the proceedings of Vatican II, claimed to be returning to the "early Church practices."
Jansenism emphasized pessimism due to original sin and predestination as did Calvinism and Lutheranism with the denial of free will.
One of the main tenets of Jansenism was that Holy Communion shouldn't be received frequently. In the early twentieth century, Pope Pius X, the hammer of Modernist heretics, condemned this tenet and endorsed frequent Communion.
It appears that Fr. Z and Shaw agree with the Jansenist heretics and oppose Pius X's endorsement of frequent Communion.
Theologian Jessica Murdoch of Villanova University quotes Pope Pius X saying this type of thinking is Jansenism:
"'[T]he poison of Jansenism, which had infected... under the appearance of honor and veneration due to the Eucharist, has by no means entirely disappeared'... this same pontiff declared: 'Let frequent and daily communion... be available to all Christians... it is enough, nevertheless, that they be free from mortal sins, with the resolution that they never sin in the future.'"
(First Things, "A Pessimism that would Canonize All'" February 21, 2017)
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Mass and the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Pray an Our Father now to offer reparation for the offenses against the Sacred Heart of Jesus, the Immaculate Heart of Mary and for the conversion of sinners.
Comments
There is good reason that Fr Z has NEVER been a parish pastor.
The latter has been abandoned, and only daily communion remains. That might be Fr. Z's point, for such a incongruity is certainly worthy of reproach. But the collapse of the numbers in the priesthood due to an attack on the liturgy and eucharist and doctrine and even the churches themselves by the clergy, certainly has help that problem explode. I think this is why so many clergy back Bergoglio, they have already blacked their souls unto hell with sacrilege via neglect and promotion of aberrations from sound Catholic practice.