 |
| Transexual Receiving Communion at Prison Liturgy |
This year the Pope visited the Roman prison Regina Coeli. He washed the feet of male and female prisoners and celebrated in the "Lord's Supper" in the prison hall.
Vatican Television rendered images all over the world
Among the prisoners, whose feet the Pope washed, there was also a transsexual. He then also received Holy Communion from another priest. The Pope's visit was accompanied by numerous television cameras that transmitted the Liturgy on Vatican Television and on other television stations around the world.
The sight was for pious Catholic, and perhaps unbelievers, a scandal. "At first glance", the most famous of Catholic bloggers, Francisco Fernández de la Cigoña did not make it out. De la Cigoña is known for his direct language and has already even criticized Pope Francis "with respect for his office and his dignity."
In prison one meets the prisoners
"The Pope has celebrated the Last Supper in prison. There are even murderers, robbers, pedophiles, cheaters, rapists, prostitutes ... " The Pope could not count on anything else "and we could expect nothing less in a prison."
"This time it was just a transsexual offender. Is it worse than a pedophile, rapist or murderer? Innocent convicts are rarely found in a prison," said de la Cigoña. The Church doesn't go on the Penal Code, but the soul of man. " The transsexual has been excommunicated? Can they not be pardoned for sin? Even a transsexual can become a saint."
Transsexuals are not the problem, but the impression
"It has even me, a little astonished," said de la Cigoña, "that one of the persons whom the Pope washed in prison, is a transsexual." But Jesus washed the feet of Judas Iscariot. The problem was not that person or other offenders. The question is whether those who were invited for Communion, were in a state of grace. However, the Church doesn't require a statement of confession. Why would they need one in a prison?
Precisely because of this connection: penitence, confession, contrition, forgiveness are not conditions for receiving Holy Communion and even faithful Catholics often are familiar with the scandal of the offense of images from prison that were carried into all the world. The Church has helped sinners at all times. She has done well, not to broadcast certain things out loud. Not to excite or give offense, but to avoid confusion. "We do not know what happened in the prison. But the wrong impression, however, should always be avoided: all were able to unconditionally receive the Lord."
We are in a period in which the gender ideology and the homosexualization are imposed by force, nor is this a question of whether there was an accidental or deliberate play with gestures and pictures. Someone had chosen those who were to be admitted to the washing of the feet, like two years ago someone had selected prisoners of various religions in youth prison in Rome. It is difficult to accept that it was done without consultation with the Vatican.
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
image: La Cigueña de la Torre
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
Link to Katholisches...
AMDG
image: La Cigueña de la Torre
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
Link to Katholisches...
AMDG
56 comments:
Notice how the trannie mannie is "receiving on the tongue". Does anybody know what izzie is inside for? Prostitution?
Two years ago, this would have been breaking news all around the world. Today, it barely registers. I'm not sure why that is, though. Maybe it's because crazy stunts have become the hallmark of Bergoglio and the shock factor has worn off. Maybe it's because the Church has moved so far to the left in just two years that this now seems acceptable.
Whatever the reason, the lack of surprise and shock about this and the lack of pushback from the conservative and traditional wing of the Church speaks to the crisis we are experiencing. Had Bergoglio followed Pius XII or even John XXIII and done these things, he would have been rightly branded a radical and deposed from the papacy. Now, silence.
While I can't conclude the public has or ever will turn on Bergoglio, the declining attendance he receives at his Wednesday audiences and outdoor Masses at St. Peter's are very noticeable.
I can think of no other grave sin (adultery, divorce, murder, prostitution, etc.) where the human person communicating displays the 'outward sign' of the 'sin' (homosexuality, bodily disfigurement, possibly mutilation) without apparently having made efforts to undo the disfigurement or mutilation so as to repent and avoid scandal. The communicant in this photo appears to be dressed as a woman or at the very least wearing a woman's coiffure. If this communicant were a man who had repented of his sins then one would expect that he dress as a man.
Therein lies the abomination and the scandal of this act.
There is no such thing as transsexualism and there is no such man as a transexual.
There are but two sexes and a man who has had his reproductive organs mutilated is an effeminate and weak man, yes, but he remains a man gooned on drugs to make him appear as though he is not who he is, a man.
Leave it to modernists to continue to try and push the margins and make real men feel repulsed and, worse, to then question themselves if they are wrong for experiencing revulsion.
God is offended by this action but he is not physically hurt; the pain has been carried in the crucifixion. The individual concerned has passed judgement on himself by his action, eating unworthily. In addition Christ is clear about the man who attends the feast without the right costume. Our sorrow and shock should not be for God who cannot be mocked but the condemned soul.
With regards the shepherd, where are the works of mercy? Has he forgotten what they are!? Or have they also been changed to suit the times?
Pope Francis carries on with his program of demoralizing Catholics by debasing Catholic worship, institutions, customs and doctrine. The Modernists began with the more palatable (so they thought and they were proven right as the majority of Catholics blindly accepted the liturgical changes world-wide). Now it is time for changes in doctrine and morals. In the meantime, "conservatives" and all stripes of papolators continue to aid and abet the destruction of their Church by keeping silent, maligning traditionalists, and doing all sorts of verbal and mental gymnastics to justify the unjustifiable. Pope Francis will continue to whittle away at the Catholic edifice and we will continue to grow accustomed to his outrages until we are all properly neutered. This was the plan all along---and it has worked like magic for the heretics. We are largely to blame: first, because of our personal sins; second, because we swallowed the lie of unconditional obedience as a Catholic "virtue." The Modernists do not give a bag of beans about obedience (to the Faith, which must be unconditional or to ecclesiastical persons, which must be qualified according to their own fidelity to the True Faith) while more conservative or quasi-traditional Catholics have their hands tied, willingly, while thinking themselves so very virtuous. It is a demonic plan that is working to perfection. I doubt there will the manly, needed rebellion against Francis that might give us a glimmer of hope. We have been castrated by our pastors and with our cooperation.
Nobody could judge if what looks like a true scandal had remained hidden between this transsexual and the Pope. The main scandal lies in the Vatican TV displaying it throughout the world.
Now the very bad sign Francis willingly or unwillingly gave the world is that the transsexual way of life is OK.
"Go and continue sinning again more"
Stephen, you are right, but in my opinion the sin of this trangendered man who ate the Body of Christ unworthily is light with respect to that of the priest who knowingly gave him the Eucharist with the Pope's approval.
Francis will have to dance the tango if he wants TV there next year. It's all getting very boring.
"The Apostasy will begin at the top"
(Cardinal Ciappi about the third Secret of Fatima)
Every time I read or hear the passages from St. Luke's and St. John's Gospels telling stories about Jesus spending considerable time and interest with prostitutes (e.g. the woman at the pharisee's dinner who anointed Him, washed His feet with her tears and dried them with her hair; the Samaritan woman with 6 men), I am sorely tempted to think that the Evangelists were--at least-- reckless and scandalously excessive in what they
reported. Would not Luke and John have benefited from a scrupulous And prudent editor? And if the Evangelists, would not Pope Francis, all the more?
Recent studies of identical twins have proven that gender identity is not hereditary. Pope. Francis is acting like a. Vatican 2 educated liberal priest who got a good dose of peace and justice stuff in the seminary with no dogma included. He has some good points and a kind nature, but I fear he's been hoisted into his position by an underground network, whoever they may be, to achieve certain agendas, and I don't like it.
Of course. What a world that there could be any question about something so patently evil.
The culpability of the Pope, the priest and the other spiritual leaders is much greater. They care not for this man's endangered soul nor the many others being led astray. Lord, have mercy. Reparation.
What utter absurdity. Our Lord was converting sinners not endorsing their sin. And to give the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour to one in a state of manifest grave sin is a sacrilege, a sin of immensity, and a scandal of great danger to souls.
We don't need "studies". This is basic knowledge available to all persons. The truth is recognisable even before reason is attained and greater understanding. God made us man and woman.
Having long hair is "patently evil" and "scandalous"? I wish I could introduce you to my friend, Jesus Christ.
Thanks for that concise summary of the MO and where the Church is heading.
I can't comprehend how things like this are "perfectly fine" and "merciful" yet traditional Catholics are wrong for "going backward" and being "doctors of the law."
Amazing to see the people here who are able to read the state of a person's soul. You have no idea of the state of this transsexual's soul. You are doing precisely what Christ commanded you not to do - judge others. The transsexual's moral culpability may be mitigated by many types of factors, such as psychological or biological disorders, lack of knowledge at the time of the change. He may not be able to revert back to his original state because of health reasons or risk or because of psychological reasons.
Amazing to see the people here who are able to read the state of a person's soul. You have no idea of the state of this transsexual's soul. You are doing precisely what Christ commanded you not to do - judge others. The transsexual's moral culpability may be mitigated by many types of factors, such as psychological or biological disorders, lack of knowledge at the time of the change. He may not be able to revert back to his original state because of health reasons or risk or because of psychological reasons.
Was not Our Lord present most intimately and fully--in His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity--with the sinful woman who dried His feet with her hair and, again, the sinful Samaritan woman at the well? And wasn't in that blessed intimacy that each, then, found mercy, faith and conversion.
And Jesus still weeps at all the judgement....
It's not just long hair. He's obviously dressed up as a woman. Look at the eyelashes.
There are situations where an act is objectively scandalous even if nobody were to find out about it.
Yes. And in each case they were admonished to sin no more and repentance follows. In these cases the sinners are not told to sin no more; in fact they are affirmed in their sin.
So he has no choice but to wear the eyelashes he is obviously wearing? Cmon!!!!
Good grief, they are in prison. That seems like "admonishment" to me. When Our Lord addressed this question directly (and somewhat unequivocally, it seems) He said, "when I was in prison, you visited me." (Matthew 25) Apparently say neglected to say "when I was in prison, you admonished me."
You said it all, Mr. Ronan. No more need be added, possibly except to cite CCC, paragraph 1387. And to wish all readers a Happy Eastertide.
But, on second thought, maybe someone out there can answer: Can the mentally impaired be denied Communion? How about the chronically emotionally immature? The wigged and eyelashed homosexual gentleman in the photo would obviously be one or the other, right?
jac, you are certainly right about the priest, who is the master of his own soul. Whether he had the ringmaster's, i.e., the Pope's, approval, or no, is really beside the point.
Anonymous 2:42 PM,
What are you talking about? Read what you wrote again, especially the second sentence. I think your heart could be in the right place, but please be more organized and charitable.
And, please, do me the courtesy of not numbering my pastor, my priests, my family, my friends or myself among your castrati.
Funny you should mention "receiving on the tongue." My young adult son and I happened to go to the Shrine of the Little Flower Church, of Fr. Coughlin fame, in Royal Oak, Michigan, on Easter Sunday, neckties on, my son wearing a sport-coat styled sweater, and I a blazer. To paint the rest of the scene, the architecture of the plant, as churches were wont to call themselves 10 or 15 years ago in an effort to appear like serious businesses, as if Houses of God needed such portrayal, includes a "church in the round." We were seated in a balcony. An expressive fellow who was a mix between Pete Seeger, Kosmo Kramer, Bob Barker, Oprah, and a circus ringmaster "presided," as the educated and affluent Catholic says, at Mass. The people ate it up, or at least appreciated it, especially to U of D and ND grads, as they were taught. Maybe some BC, Unversite de Louvain, and Villanova grads graced the Lord and His people with Their Presence.
Come Communion time, a priest and a deacon (I assume the titles for both, as that was how they were vested) came up to the narrow-aisled balcony to distribute Communion.
Now, at our home humble parish, one somewhat, somehow in communion with the Church of All Ages, I always receive on the tongue, my seeing Christ as my Creator, Savior, and Lord (if I am His friend, what work on His part!) at the communion rail. My children usually do the same, but sometimes they receive on the tongue, standing. Sometimes prudence does come into play at Mass-- the aisles were so narrow that it was more practicable to keep the line moving rather than have the 3 dozen or so affluent and harried Americano Catholics behind you stumble over you and each other when you kneel for Communion, though the right to do so is perfectly yours.
My son, being in line immediately in front of me, when he did not put up his hands but his tongue for communion, was asked by the priest, "Are you Catholic?" Such was this no-longer-young but not-yet-fully-seasoned priest's shock, though, he probably recalled, a moment after, reading something about that in Church History or Patristix TM or some such class. It seems his instinct was to protect, commendably, the Body and Blood of Our Lord, or maybe some other orthodoxy.
A few moments later, he administered to me, on the tonge, without comment. A few dozen communicants later, he administered on the tongue to a lovely young lady who I think was a parishioner.
Our Lord is saving a place in Heaven, should he live in a way to accept it, for a perspicacious young man, at least more perspicacious than getting-old Barnum, who waited to be last in line, then received kneeling. The young lady who was with him, his wife, I presume, had better hang onto the perspicacious young man, for it stands to reason that he who sees Christ in the Host will see Christ in his wife and in their marriage. But she will have to be ready to communicate with him. He wants to imitate Christ, but unlike Our Lord, cannot know what she is thinking.
These 4 I noticed out of may some 7 or 8 dozen Catholics. I may have missed some, but I don't think so, based on the question to my son, and what seems to be the habits of the priests and parishioners.
Shrine has made strides in respecting Our Lord after Communion, it is not as perfunctory, to put it mildly, as it had been. There is plenty of room for improvement; let the GIRM be consulted and followed.
And I don't want to paint an unfair picture-- I have seen, over the years, a handful of people saying, despite the din, some of it coming from the priests, the Rosary, in the chapel, after Mass. The parish does sponsor a beautiful bookstore with faithful books being sold. And, thinking back, some of the priests have said some faithful things at Mass.
Lord, let our tongues speak your thoughts, as best we understand them. And may our thoughts always be Yours.
My apologies--paragraph 3 should have read "the aisles in the balcony at Shrine of the Little Flower...
And paragraph 5 should read "...tongue...".
That sums it up Jac, 'The Apostasy will begin at the top'.
I would refer you to Liam Ronan's post above.
Dear Barnum,
You ask if the mentally impaired or chronically emotionally immature can be denied Communion.
A child may receive Communion at the age of 7, I believe. Emotional maturity is not required; rather, belief. I suggest this might apply as well to the mentally impaired.
If the priest knows the person is incapable of sufficient belief then I would suspect that the Sacrament would be withheld until such time as the priest is satisfied the would-be communicant has sufficient belief in the Real Presence to receive.
The prison is an admonishment so far as there is a catholic chaplain to admonish the jailed people. Admonished means having been reprimanded and shown how sinful one's life is. And every admonished man isn't ready to accept the admonishment, to repent and do penance before daring to eat the Body of Christ.
Is this transgendered man truly repenting? I doubt this because otherwise he would have cut his woman's hairs and stopped making up in order to cease being a sexual temptation for his jail mates.
Ou parish priest often goes to dinner with unbelievers and sinful people, like Christ did, but he would certainly decline giving them the Eucharist if theyrequired it.
To those who judge some commenters as being "judgemental":
Here, the scandal doesn't lie in the fact that the Pope controversially okayed giving the Eucharist to this man.
It lies in the fact that he agreed the Vatican TV broadcasting this throughout the world and thus he gave a very bad signal to all the transgendered people: "The transgender way of life is no longer sinful in the eyes of the Church, so we don't have to strive changing it and repent like She required in the past".
I pity our poor parish priests who once more will have to explain these men that they are wrong, that the signal the Pope sent them isn't what they think.
Instead of this confusing comedy, the Pope's duty was to recall the words of St Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9
"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men" etc...
To those who judge some commenters as being "judgemental":
Here, the scandal doesn't lie in the fact that the Pope controversially okayed giving the Eucharist to this man.
It lies in the fact that he agreed the Vatican TV broadcasting this throughout the world and thus he gave a very bad signal to all the transgendered people: "The transgender way of life is no longer sinful in the eyes of the Church, so we don't have to strive changing it and repent like She required in the past".
I pity our poor parish priests who once more will have to explain these men that they are wrong, that the signal the Pope sent them isn't what they think.
Instead of this confusing comedy, the Pope's duty was to recall the words of St Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9
"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men" etc...
Here is the video. This man explain his experience to the public.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=86&v=2_igxE9f8Oo
Obvious troll is obvious.
"gender identity" is nonsensical political propaganda as is sociology. Sociology is a scam created to brainwash and make money off of stupid teenagers who weren't smart enough to get into university.
There is no gender, there is only sex.
Why do you keep judging the commentators on this blog?
Your comment is self-defeating because it in itself is judgement.
Oh wait, I forgot that you're a troll. Remember that time you were pretending to be Russian and were praising the glories of supreme leader Vladimir Putin? Ha! That was great! You must get really bored though... I mean, this site isn't a troll mine like youtube or anything...
Dear Mr. Ronan,
Of course I agree with everything you just stated, but I was more interested in immaturity as displayed by the fellow in the photo. To draw on your earlier point, the fellow's dress leads one to conclude that he was denying respect to Our Lord, or didn't believe in the Real Presence, or believed he was being respectful. If he believed the latter, then he had either some emotional immaturity or mental impairment. As the condition manifested itself in inappropriate behavior, i.e., dressing in drag, before Our Lord, it seems the priest had the responsibility of denying him the Eucharist on the basis of the fellow not understanding the respect due Our Lord.
I concur that this person (even were he just confessed and shriven of every sin) ought not have been given the Holy Eucharist. The priest might have given him a simple blessing when he presented himself and thereby avoided the greater scandal.
Perhaps too there ought to have been some caution to would-be communicants before Mass.
We must consider too that only God knows with what 'wedding garments' (the grace of a spotless soul) the other recipients, whose inner appearance we could not readily see, were 'clothed'.
The greater scandal and therefore ultimate accountability before God in this matter rests with those ecclesiastics who were so careless in arranging the circumstances of this Holy Eucharist.
The scandal and the sin consists precisely in the fact that the transsexual has not reverted to his true sex. The sin is public, not private, and it must be treated as any grave public sin is: He must be denied Communion. Those who wax poetic about the state of his soul are the same who would give Communion to a public adulterer who has not left off the adultery, that is, to a "divorced and remarried person." Let us not forget that NO person who is in a grave state of sin may receive Communion. In the case of private sin the Church wisely holds that the burden lies only upon the sinner. To deny Communion to one that the priest alone knows to be in sin is to betray the confessional. In public sin, the burden also lies upon the priest who administers the Sacrament, because of the scandal that ensues, and because the refusal of Communion has no risk of scandal in the case that everyone already knows the person to be in a grave state of sin.
Very lucid. Thank you.
jac,
Regarding: "Is this transgendered man truly repenting? I doubt this because..." God knows and, perhaps, his confessor knows but you and I don't--at least, I don't. That is truly Holy Ground and, personally, after Jesus instruction to "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." I prefer not even to entertain the question--way, way too dangerous.
If that priest had denied the he-she Communion, he would likely have been severely reprimanded. Novus Ordo priests walk a fine line these days.
Cardinal Wuerl recently sacked a priest for refusing Communion to a practicing lesbian.
Seattle Kim
In that case which is the duty of the priest?
Should he obey, then transferring the guilt of the sacrilege on his bishop.
Should he not comply taking the risk of being suspended and sacked?
Clearly the priest should not give Communion to a person who is so obviously in rebellion against Church teaching and thus in a state of mortal sin. But even good priests can be weak.
The only safe place for a priest not to risk punishment for such an act would be in an SSPX or sedevacantist parish,
Seattle kim
Here the tranny speaks of its beautiful experience having the pope wash and kiss
its pedicured feet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=86&v=2_igxE9f8Oo
Seattle kim
I just returned from a blessed week away with no internet connection, and am seeing this story for the first time. Surely, SURELY, this is not far off from the abomination of desolation. This is SO unspeakably bad, and that so many are so blase about it just shows how far the inroads are that satan has made.
God have mercy on us. How much more will He take?....how much more will He allow?
We are called to look at actions. While we cannot read his heart to accuse him, neither can we do so to excuse him. The actions are inherently sinful. That's it.
Is it possible that the priest, at the time, thought the transexual was a real woman? I've seen some of these guys, and if I hadn't known I could have mistaken them for women.
Post a Comment