Today, the 11th of the month saw the sunrise on Rome at 5:52.
It will duly set at 20:22.
The Ave Maria Bell in the curial reckoning should ring at 20:45. A new cycle as of today.
This is probably NeoCat rubbish but it is instructive. BTW… the one who posted this tweet is not approving of what it shows, he’s explaining the underlying thought.
Todos a beber del cáliz. La Misa es un banquete fraternal, el altar es una mesa, no hay presencia real de Cristo después de la consagración. Así que nada, a beber el puro símbolo. pic.twitter.com/e0aAsY4OD2
— César Martín Pérez (@MartinP_Cesar) May 10, 2026
Everyone drinks from the chalice. The Mass is a fraternal banquet, the altar is a table, there is no real presence of Christ after the consecration. So nothing, let’s drink the pure symbol.
No “danger of profanation” there. Nope. Not at all. An the the TLM must be suppressed, right? But I guess what those folks are doing is okay because … why?… it’s in keeping with Vatican II and the TLM isn’t? Show me in Sacrosanctum Concilium anything that justifies that. Does anyone think that that is what the Council Fathers were voting for? Denial of transubstantiation?
I was thrown out of my US seminary by the prof (heretic priest slime) who, in class, explicitly denied the Church’s teaching on transubstantiation. I fought him in class when he stated that “no real change takes place”.
Shall I tell you about it? It was a matter of great personal suffering followed by years of more suffering.
This heretic stated in class that when the “ordained minister [we are all ministers, you see, some ordained and some non-ordained], says the words of institution [not consecration] over bread and wine “no real change takes place.” Wait for it. “No real change takes place. It becomes [and this is word for word] a symbol of the unity of the community gathered there in that moment”.
How many things are wrong with that?
I had been good. I had kept my head down. Then… I raised my hand.
I asked about transubstantiation.
“How”, I asked, “does that reflect the Church’s teaching on transubstantiation?”
“The Church no longer teaches transubstantiation.”
“When did that happen?”, I asked.
He said, “With Vatican II.”
“Okay,”, I admitted, “let’s say that Vatican II did that. Can you tell me how that harmonizes with what the Church used to teach on transubstantiation?”
He said that transubstantiation wasn’t a valid term, because we don’t adhere anymore to Aristotelean categories of substance and accident, form and matter, and all that.
I then asked him why Paul VI in his encyclical on the Eucharist, during Vatican II, said that we had to refer to transubstantiation, even when we use new ways to describe the Eucharist.
He became furious.
Purple, he ranted at me about outdated Aristotelean categories, blah blah blah.
I responded… and this, dear readers, was my Battle of Asculum,…
“I grew up Lutheran. Even Lutherans believe more than you do!”
Soon after, the rector had a heart attack and he, rector of vice (not kidding, but that’s another story), became the rector.
The next day he threw me out of the hell on earth that was our seminary, back in the day.
Yep. I’ve been fighting this fight for a long time. I take this issue seriously. Some of you younger priests and seminarians haven’t fought this fight yet. You will. In that day, find us older guys, with the scars. We’ll help you.
(BTW… a now well-know Archbishop and St. Therese de Lisieux got me back in.)
May I suggest to all priests reading this to review the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist and preach it clearly and boldly?
May I suggest to all priests and bishops to revive the Forty Hours Devotion?
May I suggest to all lay people to ask, request, beg, cajole, demand, urge the return of devotions such as Forty Hours and frequent Exposition and Benediction?
There there is this:
Black. Mate = 4 Easy
Disgraceful bad teaching from that tweet. He really thinks that the Eucharist is only Him at the moment of consecration,not afterward? Phew.
I would translate his last phrase literally as “for to drink is just the symbol” or “it is only a symbol that one drinks.”
But apparently the preceding phrase,”asi que nada,” is a discourse marker used to mean “to sum up” or “anyway, what it means is…” Maybe “so that’s all.”
Which makes it even worse, because it sounds so flip. Primarily used as a phrase in Argentina, Uruguay, and Spain.
I looked at the guy’s WordPress blog and he comes across as being Trad? And sarcastic.
So maybe he was just commenting on what the people in the picture thought and not what he himself thinks?
Argh argh argh. Tired and confused
Alright, I have to ask and expose my ignorance.
What was wrong with the drinking of the chalice by those women, assuming they were properly prepared to receive the Eucharist?
I think I understand the errors expressed in the commentary (and both grieve for you and fume with you over your treatment by that insufferable prof). However, was there some reason those women should not have received the chalice? (I have gluten free people in my family thus it would help to know.)
Preparing to slap my forehead when you provide the obvious explanation I am missing.
“I then asked him why Paul VI in his encyclical on the Eucharist, during Vatican II, said that we had to refer to transubstantiation, even when we use new ways to describe the Eucharist.
He became furious.”
Seems to me that when a person is being truthful, their response to reasonable questions is not fury, but a calm explanation of the truth.
Too many of us have experienced this same sort of exchange with various representatives of the hierarchy over the last 60 or so years, and have the scars to prove it.
At the Last Judgement, when the scene you described is going to be replayed for all the world to see, you, Fr. Z, are going to seem like the young David with a mere slingshot nailing the giant Goliath right between the eyes.
Thank you for this, Father.
I converted from Agnosticism myself (the real thing BTW, not an atheism dressed up with an an intellectualistic fig leaf, but one that was genuinely open to all possibilities) from a series of undeniable divine interventions ; these, with the Scripture (that I chose to read in Latin), implied the whole of the Catholic Doctrine ; and to the centrality of Holy Eucharist, itself undeniable divine intervention at the heart of Christian Life and at the heart of our Church and the Church of our Lord.
He is Risen !!
He is Lord !!
HE IS HERE !!!
Black to move and mate in 4
1) … hxg2+
2) Kxg2 (forced) Rxh2+
3) Kxh2 (forced) Qh5+
4) Kg2 (forced) Qh3# mate
Thank you for sticking up for Jesus. Honestly, the battles priests of your generation had to fight need to be told.
I recently made a video about the dangers of Communion in the hand, hoping to make my case palatable to the average Mass-goer: https://youtu.be/DoPtcHCKK48?si=2C27TgtZScl-8ePb
@The Bruised Optimist –
Obviously we know nothing about the state of the woman’s soul, her discernment of the Body, etc.
The design of the chalice is an accident waiting to happen.
It takes inspiration from either large Greco-Roman drinking vessels, or from ciboriums that were used to contain the Eucharist.
Using it as a Communion chalice for smaller people without big arm strength encourages drippage, or dropping the chalice altogether.
Walking the chalice through the pew is also an accident waiting to happen. Nobody wants a chalice hitting someone on the head, as well as being spilled.
I mean, I am sure care is being taken, but it is wrong to set a situation up to encourage danger, as well as danger of disrespect.
Bl. Alvaro del Portillo, whom Opus Dei celebrates today (all particular questionings of the institution or the beatification aside) used to say that the crisis in the Church would not start to solve until Eucharistic devotion started to flourish again. And I confess that’s my main point of hope in these troubled times. I have seen belief in the real presence, adoration, and general Eucharistic devotion go on the rise, steadily, for the past 20 years, specifically where I live. Last year I saw a priest on the progressive side and age range (you know, the non-clericals wearing, no saying the black, older xennial kind) ask during a homily “because Jesus is really present in the Eucharist, right?” and visibly react shocked and grieved when few voices answered “yes”.
On a related note, I think people here would be interested to hear that two bishops who tried some of the +Martin strategy in Argentina (trying to forbid the faithful receiving communion kneeling, or even in the mouth), got their ears pulled by the DDW. Source is El Wanderer, which is a long-standing, serious, and well informed blog in the Hispanic Catholic blogosphere.
Thank you Father, for putting that bad shepherd (priest) in his place; it cost you, but it was a small price to pay ultimately. I know when a person who is gluten intolerant is about to receive at Mass- the priest has a very small “chalice” on the altar and when that person presents him/her self, the priest stops, goes up to the altar and brings the chalice down to that person to recieve under the speicies of the Holy Blood- not rocket science! No punch bowls allowed!
Yes, definitely imprudent vessel and imprudent movement.
Thank you.
Concerning the chalice and the Eucharist:
The parish near where I lived in the early 1980s began having communion under both species. The first few years they would have the communicant receive in the hand and the communicant would dip the host into the wine. Since I was a teen I thought it was “normal” and “acceptable”. It wasn’t until many years later that this was not intinction but it was a liturgical abuse.
Another thing I remember at the parish I attended regularly in the 1980s was the cups holding the consecrated wine at communion (EMHC’s distributing under both species) were all glass. My understanding the last several years is this was a liturgical abuse because the chalice must be made only from certain metals. Even though my brother and I were altar boys, both of us didn’t know anything different.
A college I attended in the 1990s had a younger priest there who would sometimes say “Mass is a show.” This younger priest went on leave of absence after 4 years of ministry to explore other opportunities. Within a few years he eventually married a woman, had children, and became a Protestant minister.