Make your own free website on Tripod.com
Apparitions

 There is much controversy over apparitions these days. It seems that
every time you turn around there is someone "seeing" Jesus, or the
Blessed Virgin Mary. Many of these "apparitions" are not true. These
include Mejugorje, Bayside & Necedah.
 However, there are some that have been, after rigorous investigation,
declared 'worthy of belief' by the Catholic Church. These include 
Guadalupe, Lourdes, Fatima and Akita.
 There are, of course, several others that are approved, as well as 
numerous others that are not.
 How can one tell that an 'apparition' (or other mystical phenomenon)
is from God? The most obvious sign is OBEDIENCE to the local bishop 
in the matter. If the local bishop tells the "seer" to desist from 
spreading the messages that he or she is receiving, and does so, this
is a sign that the 'seer' is willing to obey God, and does not consi-
der him or herself to be the final judge as to whether the 'apparit-
ions' are real. He or she is aware that it is possible that deception
by the devil is taking place, and leaves it for the bishop to decide.
Also, if the local bishop declares that 'apparition' is not a super-
natural phenomenon, or that it is not from God, the 'seer' immediate-
ly tries to avoid them, refrains from promoting them, and tries to 
lead a good life regardless. These are signs that the 'seer' is hum-
ble, and is not caught up in pride and ambition. If it is in the end
proven that they are from God, then these actions go a long way in
proving that. If it is proven they are not, the 'seers' obedience and
leading a good life would tend to show they were probably not from 
the devil.
 Apparitions are given to certain people to serve as a reminder to us
about our duties to God; to remind us to pray, sacrifice, and gener-
ally to lead a good life, obeying God's Commandments, doing their 
daily duty.
 Even unapproved apparitions have been the means by which great sinn-
ers have been converted, but that point alone does not prove that a
given apparition is true. Medjugorje is a prime example. Many people
have converted because of it, but the "seers" themselves have admitted
that they have lied on several occasions. And some of the messages,
which claim that certain priests are innocent of disobedience to the 
local bishop, when in fact they are not, and the apparent "approval"
of modern(ist) "ecumenism" by the "Gospa", prove that Medjugorje is a
fake.
 We do not need "apparitions" in order to lead a good life, that is
what the Catholic Church is for. But we should remember they are gifts
from God, and treat them as such.


Serious Considerations:

This section is for saying what I have to say about these topics:

Holy Communion in the hand - This is an all too common practice in the
  Church today. There is a lot made out of the "permission" to receive
  either on the tongue or in the hand. However, most people couldn't 
  name the document in which it was given if their lives depended on 
  it. Many people claim that this practice was mandated by Vatican II,
  but it is nowhere mentioned in the Council documents. Some claim it
  was a common practice in the early Church, but to my knowledge, it
  has never been proven to have been practiced by the the entire Latin
  Rite, or in any one of the Eastern rites as a whole, nor to have
  been a universal practice of the entire Catholic Church. In fact, 
  when it was brought before a Pope or a Council, it was ALWAYS con-
  demned as an abuse. 
   Some people claim that since it was an ancient practice, there is 
  no reason not to do it now. But they are unaware that Pope Pius XII,
  in his encyclical Mediator Dei (On the Sacred Liturgy), called it an
  ERROR to want to return to a practice simply because it was ancient.
   The truth of the matter is that the practice was started in the
  1500's by the Protestants, who did it to proclaim their disbelief in
  the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist. After all,
  to them, it is just bread, so why shouldn't it be received in the 
  hand? Then, in the 1960's, some "Catholics" in the Netherlands, and
  some other European countries started doing it, in total disobedi-
  ence to the Pope. When the case was brought to Rome, Pope Paul VI
  polled the bishops of the world, asking if the practice should be 
  adopted more widely. The majority of bishops voted against it. 
   The Pope then issued the document MEMORIALE DOMINI in which he sta-
  ted that he polled the bishops, the majority were against it, and 
  that the traditional way of receiving on the tongue was to be main-
  tained. However, he did something that is very curious. He allowed
  the practice to continue in the places in which it had already star-
  ted. But he DID NOT give permission for it to be done in other pla-
  ces. But, in other places it was done, and instead of condemning the
  disobedience, he supposedly allowed the bishop's conference's of the
  various countries to petition the Holy See for permission. It was 
  never denied, even in countries, such as the United States, where it
  was begun by liberals who thought (and think) that they know what is
  best for the layman in the pew. These liberals, even before it was
  possible to obtain "permission" were doing it out of disobedience to
  the Pope. This is the where Communion in the hand came from. It came
  from disobedience to the Pope. It is NOT a good thing. Before V II,
  and even up to 1975, it was taught that it was a sacrilege for a 
  layman to touch the Consecrated Host (except in certain necessary
  cases). Then all of a sudden, it becomes a good thing? Much is made
  out of "Papal permission" for the practice, but think about it. When
  has something that has almost always been considered wrong ever bec-
  ome suddenly right? If a parent gives a command to a child, and the
  child disobeys, and the parent says, "Oh, that's ok", what sort of
  message does that child receive? That it is ok to disobey his par-
  ent, because, after all, no punishment will take place. Does that
  make the child's disobedience right (moral)? No, it does not. And 
  so it is with Holy Communion in the hand. If something is good, it
  will bear good fruit. Yet, in the U. S., it is said that about 70%
  of Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in
  the Eucharist. Does that sound good?
"Eucharistic ministers" - This is another thing that many people don't
  seem to realize is rooted in a bad thing. In the past, during times
  of great persecution, such as in the early Church, that laymen did
  reserve the Holy Eucharist at home, to give them the spiritual
  strength they needed. And also because, they never knew if they were
  going to die the next day, or if their priest would be around the
  next day. 
   However, we are not in a time of massive persecution like in the
  early Church. So there is no real necessity for laymen to be doing
  what priests were ordained to do.
   Many claim there is a shortage of priests. In some places, there 
  are indeed few priests. However, that is no excuse. In fact the 
  priest "shortage" was artificially created. It is a fact, that bef-
  ore V II, there were sufficient numbers of priests in most areas of
  the world to serve the laity, but after V II, and the incredible
  confusion that came after it, many priests left the priesthood, for
  one reason or another. There are fewer priests today than there were
  30-35 years ago. 
   In the U.S. dioceses, with a couple of exceptions, there is a lack
  of vocations. However, in the Traditional Orders, those that follow
  the Traditional Latin Mass (1962 Missal) there are so many vocations
  that men who want to be priests have to be turned away for lack of
  space in the seminaries to train them. A prime example of this is
  the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP). But in the dioceses    
  that do not have the FSSP, or other Traditional Orders, they have 
  a distinct lack of vocations.
   Many dioceses are trying to make up for this lack  of priests by
  ordaining deacons. This is only a partial solution, though given 
  that they are ordained, they can also, by permission of the bishop
  or pastor, give Holy Communion. In this country, as late as 1975, it
  was still taught that for a layperson to touch the Host, it was a
  sacrilege; though it was permitted, in EXTREME NECESSITY, and if it
  could be done WITHOUT SCANDAL, for even a layman to distribute Holy
  Communion. But ONLY under those 2 conditions, and except in times
  of persecutions such as in the early Church, these 2 conditions
  hardly existed, and the same is true now, except in countries like
  China. But in the United States, Europe, and most other places?
  There is absolutely NO REASON for having lay people giving Holy
  Communion.
Standing vs. kneeling - Today most people stand to receive Holy Commu-
  nion instead of kneeling. This is partly due to the altar rails hav-
  ing been removed from most parish churches. Kneeling is the ultimate
  sign of reverence paid to God, so we really should kneel when we re-
  ceive Holy Communion. In fact, there is no reason, aside from phys-
  ical diability, for standing for Holy Communion. 
Latin Tridentine Mass vs. "New Ordo" Mass - This is a topic that is
  majorly controversial. There have been many books written on this, 
  but there are a few things to consider. According to the best sour-
  ces I have read, it is a fact that Pope Paul VI in fact did offici-
  ally promulgate the "New Ordo" Mass, and as such, the "New Ordo" in
  it's officially promulgated LATIN version is a VALID Mass. The rea-
  son for this is something called indefectibility. The Pope cannot
  officially promulgate something which is heretical. However, that
  doesn't mean that the TRANSLATION from the Latin is protected from
  error. So, it is entirely possible that a VERNACULAR translation of
  the "new Mass" could contain heresy.
Papal infallibility and approval - There are many people who seem to
  believe that if the Pope says or does something, it is automatically
  infallible and that there is no possibility that the Pope can ever 
  err no matter what. But the truth is, the Pope is infallible ONLY
  when he is defining a dogma that pertains to FAITH or MORALS. Out-
  side of these 2 cases, he is as subject to error as anyone else. 
  However, if a Pope, in an official document makes a decision about
  some theological point with the intent that it be the final word on
  the topic, then that is also protected from error, and the topic of
  debate is to be considered no longer open to debate among theolog-
  ians. This was made clear by Pope Pius XII in his Encyclical "Humani
  Generis" (The exact quote is near the top of this page.) One example
  of this is Pope John Paul II's declaration on "women priests" in Or-
  dinatio Sacerdotalis. There was a big debate when the Sacred Congre-
  gation for the Doctrine of the Faith was asked if that was infall-
  ible and the SCDF said yes. Every liberal came out of the woodwork 
  to claim it wasn't infallible, so it was still possible that women 
  may in the future be ordained. WRONG!!! The Pope obviously intended
  to declare once and for all where the Church stood on the topic, so
  CASE CLOSED. Anyone who tells you he is a Catholic, and says that
  women should be ordained, is in fact not a Catholic. Now, what about
  when the Pope "approves" of certain things, such as "altar girls"?
  NEVER in the history of the Church have girls or women been allowed
  to serve at the altar, except in cases where men were not available.
  Until the early 1990's. We are told that the Pope approves of this.
  When was the last time you saw the document that the Pope signed 
  stating that he in fact did approve of "altar girls"? Read the book
  Iota Unum by Romano Amerio for proof that on at least one occasion,
  a very important document was signed by Pope Paul VI which contained 
  heresy, and how a few months later this document was withdrawn and 
  re-written. Also, read the endings of Papal documents, most of them
  will say something like: Given in Rome, such and such a date, on
  such and such a Feast day, etc. and then have the Pope's name and/or
  signature. All this proves is that the Pope is at the most aware 
  that the document was written. But it does not prove that he actu-
  ally read the document before signing it. So a given document may
  only carry the authority of the Congregation which issued it, and 
  not FULL PAPAL AUTHORITY. Thus, the Pope may not necessarily have
  "approved" of something that we are told he did. Now, some will say,
  "If the Pope didn't approve of_____, then why is it going on?" Well,
  look at Holy Communion in the hand for one example. There are many
  people who don't care what the Pope says, they are going to do what
  they want. Read the POST Vatican II documents, particularly those
  which pertain to the Mass, and the things which were never done be-
  fore in the Church (as universal practice). Look at the endings of
  documents. Then look at the ending of 1997's "On Certain Questions
  Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the
  Ministry of the Priest". That document ends like this: "The Supreme
  Pontiff, in Audience of the 13 of August 1997 approved IN FORMA
  SPECIFICA (my emphasis) this present Instruction and ordered its
  promulgation." To the best of my knowledge, this the only document
  that came out after Vatican II that ended like this. What does this
  mean? It means that the Pope is very much aware of what that docu-
  ment said, and ordered its promulgation with FULL PAPAL AUTHORITY.
  So, anyone who doesn't follow that document is not obeying the Pope.
  And it proves that the Pope actually did approve that document, so
  it MUST be obeyed totally.
"Traditional", "Conservative", "Liberal" Catholics - First of all, 
  there is no such thing as any of these. One is either a Catholic, or
  one is not. A Catholic is one who believes in ALL that the Catholic
  Church teaches, is united to the Pope, and obeys all LEGITIMATE 
  Church authority. This doesn't mean blind obedience to everything 
  that comes from the Vatican or from a Bishop. Unfortunately, it is
  necessary to have discernment about things that come out of the Vat-
  can today. But that is the way it is. Everything must be judged 
  according to how the Church has ALWAYS taught something. It is the
  Church's responsibility to interpret Tradition and Scripture. But
  today many things are said and done that have always been considered
  to be wrong. "Ecumenism" as it is practiced today is one example. In
  years past, it was well known that to attend and to participate in a
  Protestant service was a MORTAL SIN. In truth, it still is. But that
  isn't what many priests, bishops and even the Pope are teaching by
  their example. Today, it is a common sight to see the Pope particip-
  ating in non-Catholic services or ceremonies. Many bishops in this
  country allow their cathedrals to be used for the "ordinations" of
  Protestant "bishops" and "clergy." This is WRONG. The 1st Command-
  ment of God is "Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me", and 
  this commandment forbids participating in non-Catholic services. So,
  claiming "The Pope does it, so it must be all right", doesn't save
  you from commiting a MORTAL SIN.
RCIA - This is the modern-day "Catechism class." In most parishes, it
  is not designed to teach a prospective convert the real Catholic
  Faith, but a Protestantized version of it. In essence, many people
  who go through this are in fact still Protestant, no matter what is
  claimed. There are some parishes where it is done well, and those
  who go through it come out Catholic, but they are very few. Most 
  RCIA programs will teach you how it's supposedly "OK" to use birth
  control, and some people even claim that Pope Paul VI said that it
  was "OK" to use it if one felt, after prayerful discernment, that 
  one couldn't live without it. That is total baloney! First of all,
  Pope Paul VI never said such a thing; second, if he had, he would be
  denying that God does not command us to do the impossible. God will
  give us the grace to do what He commands, if we ask for it. 
"Renew" and "Renew 2000" - These are programs allegedly designed to
  help people grow in their Faith. In reality, these programs were 
  designed to destroy their Faith. These programs are set up so people
  can meet in small groups, study the Bible, and in theory, learn more
  about it. In fact, what happens is people are allowed to express
  their opinion about anything having to do with the Catholic Faith,
  and be affirmed that their "opinion" is "OK", even if it is in total
  contradiction to what the Church teaches. If you value your Faith, 
  it's best to avoid these.
"Sede-vacantism" - This is the belief that there is no current valid
  reigning Pope, and that Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul
  I, and Pope John Paul II were (are) anti-popes. Many of these people
  claim that Pope Pius XII was the last valid Pope, and that the Church
  is still under him. One problem with that: He's been dead for over 40
  years! Once a Pope dies, his reign is ended, period! The only thing
  that survives is his writings, proclamations, decisions, and teach-
  ings. Whatever a Pope proclaims as part of the Magisterium of course
  remains in effect. Outside of that, things are subject to change. I
  can understand how and why some people come to the conclusion that 
  the See of Peter is vacant. Let's face it. There are many things go-
  ing on that are not in conformity with what the Catholic Church has
  ALWAYS taught. Even the Pope, by his example, is basically saying the
  Catholic Church is just another church which can lead to salvation.
  He may not SAY it words, but by going to non-Catholic churches and 
  participating in non-Catholic services, and not telling the Protest-
  ants and Jews that they MUST become Catholic and accept Jesus Christ
  and ALL that Christ teaches through His Church in order to be saved,
  he is in fact promoting the idea that there is some sort of "univer-
  sal salvation", that everyone will be saved, no matter what religion
  they follow. And that is WRONG. Many sede-vacantists become so be-
  cause of all the changes in the Mass, the Sacraments, etc., and since
  they don't believe in the changes, they reject the Popes after Pius
  XII. The thing is, while most of the changes are not good, that does
  not give anyone the right to declare a 'vacancy' in the Holy See. We
  are not the judges of the Popes. We can see that some of their decis-
  ions are not good, but it is not for anyone of us to declare that the
  Pope is a 'heretic' or 'schismatic'. Furthermore, if the Popes after
  Pius XII were (are) not valid, then who is the Pope? Some have this
  theory that Cardinal Siri was in fact elected Pope. Then why didn't
  he declare that he was? And why was he not crowned Pope? In the ent-
  ire history of the Church, there has never been a time that there was
  not a valid Pope. There were times when the time between elections
  were fairly long (a couple years in one case), but there has always
  been a visible, universally known successor to the See of Peter. If
  the post Vatican II popes were (are) not valid, then Christ and His
  Church have failed. Christ told His Apostles that He would be with
  them until the consummation of the world, and that the gates of Hell
  would not prevail against His Church. So, either the post V2 popes
  were (are) valid, or Christ was a liar. One or the other. Another
  point I'd like to make. The Cardinal Camarlengo is the one who, in
  the interim between Papal elections, runs the Church. So, if the
  sede-vacantist theory is to make any sense at all, they should be 
  proclaiming that the Cardinal Camarlengo of Pope Pius XII was the 
  Pope after he died. But none of them, to my knowledge, ever have.


TO BE CONTINUED............. 

This is the text of a pamphlet that promotes and explains the necessity of kneeling for Holy Communion.

OMNE GENU FLECTATUR

"Every knee shall bend" Phil. 2:10

The Movement of Nations for Kneeling

 Mother Teresa of Calcutta, Society of the Missionaries of Charity:

"God love you for your sincere desire to see Jesus in the Blessed 
Sacrament better known, more fervently loved, more humbly adored and
more faithfully served throughout the worl! I fully support any organ-
ization which has this as its aim, and I will be praying for you and 
all the intentions of The Movement of Nations for Kneeling."

 Kneeling "officially signifies adoration."
 (Ceremonial of Bishops, Nos. 68-72 p. 36-37)

 "One who waits for symbols and promises standing, but the Reality,
  one receives with love and on one's knees." Pope Saint Pius X

 "The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers the worship
  of latria (adoration) to the Sacrament of the Eucharist."
                          (Pope Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei, 1965, n.56)

 "No one eats of this flesh without having first adored it and not
  only and not only do we not sin by adoring but we would sin by
  not adoring."
             (Ibid., n.55, St. Augustine, In Ts, Ch.98, 9:PL 37, 126)

  The worship of divine adoration must be given to Christ present in
  the Eucharist.
                      (Ibid, n.55; Paul VI, Address of June 15, 1978)

The mission of this movement is threefold:

1. To restore and bring about increased, more humble and fervent ador-
ation, reverence and love for Jesus in the Holy Eucharist through re-
ceiving Holy Communion worthily and in the best way possible, while
kneeling and on the tongue. (The communicant must of course, always be
in a state of grace, having received absolution in the Sacrament of
Penance.
2. To promote and defend kneeling at the appropriate times during the 
Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, especially during the Consecration.
3. To maintain and renew the venerable practise of genuflecting and
kneeling "before the Blessed Sacrament, whether enclosed in a taber-
nacle or publicly exposed, as a sign of adoration...This act requires
that it be performed in a recollected way. In order that the heart may
bow before God in profound reverence, the genuflection must neither be
hurried nor careless." (S.C.S.D.W. Inaestimibile Donum, 1980, No. 26,
approved by John Paul II)

 This mission is to be wholeheartedly fulfilled in full communion with
official Church guidelines, strong recommendations and intentions of 
Popes and the Saints, and long-established practise, throughout the 
Church. The models for perfection are Our Lord Jesus Christ, Mary,
Patroness and Mother of this movement, and all the Holy Angels and 
Saints.

The great importance and need for the Church to fulfill this mission 
is very clear:

 1. Explanations from recent literature:

"On kneeling in the liturgy - If we attempt to banish or downplay the 
posture of kneeling we will be doing serious harm to an element inte-
gral to Catholic liturgy." Jesus prayed while kneeling. Kneeling was,
from Apostolic times, the general custom. In the Old and New Testa-
ments it is the posture of the New Covenant, when all fall to adore
God-with-us in Christ...the gesture which, as Isaiah had foretold,
would greet the coming of God's Kingdom. This posture signifies pro-
found adoration. (A. Beards. Homiletic & Pastoral Review. Feb., 1992)

"Kneeling and faith in the Eucharist":

"Once more, the act of bending the knee before Jesus Christ is not
just a relative act, or an act that is based on culture. Rather it 
transcends culture because it is an act that has scriptural, tradit-
ional, and cosmic significance...When Catholics 'worship' by 'bending
the knee' in Eucharistic adoration, they strengthen belief in the doc-
trine of the Real Presence of Christ In the Eucharist, for themselves
and for the entire Church. And when they can and do not, they weaken 
it...Kneeling,as an act of latria (adoration) of Jesus Christ...test-
ifies to all four fundamental doctrines better than the act of stand-
ing...if a person deliberately, and with full knowledge, discourages 
kneeling at the Consecration or genuflection before the Blessed Sacra-
ment, he or she is 'anathema'" C.T.(cf.n.878) (Fr. Scanlan, Homiletic
& Pastoral Review. Aug.,1994)

Receiving Jesus this way is needed and best:

1. It emphasizes the uniqueness of this Holy Food as compared with
ordinary food.
2. It emphasizes the uniqueness of the ordained priest touching the
Sacred Species.
3.It emphasizes the presence of Christ who is feeding his flock and
fosters humility.
4. It gives us a strong sense of identification with past Catholics
and Saints who have received on the tongue from time immemorial.
5.It minimizes the danger of the Host being dropped or ignored. 
Reduces sacrileges/abuses.
6. It fosters a sense of unity in the Liturgy.
7. It reaffirms the fact that Holy Orders is a Sacrament that ordains
a man to the priesthood.
8. It expresses complete obedience to the Church.(Challenge, Fr. F.
Heuser, p.3-4, June 1992)

 2. Other authoritative statements:

 Pope John Paul II: "I did not revoke what one of my presecessors has
said about this...here. my dear priests amd my dear brothers and sist-
ers, only Communion on the tongue and kneeling is allowed...I say this
to you as your bishop! (Sermom, March 1,1989,SS Nome Di Maria Church)
 
 Pope John Paul II, on Communion in the hand: "There is an apostolic
letter that the e xistence of this special permission is valid. But I
tell you, that I am not in favor of it...neither will I recommend it!"
Nov. 1980,Germany (101 Times,Vol.4,No.2,1992,tel.908-689-8792,USA)

 Mother Teresa of Calcutta

 "Self-knowledge puts us on our knees and it is very necessary for 
love." (Total Surrender, p.30)

 "Further, it is the custom in our Society, and my known wish, that 
the Sisters receive Holy Communion on the tongue, which to my know-
ledge they are doing everywhere." (India,1995)

 The Church throughout centuries: To preserve and defend reverence,
dignity and holiness due to the greatest treasure in the Church, only
kneeling, not standing, to receive Holy Communion, always on the ton-
gue, was allowed. "This method, 'on the tongue' must be retained."
(Pope Paul VI,Memoriale Domini,1969)

St. Basil(330-379AD);considered Communion in the hand a "great fault."

Council of Rouen(650AD);Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any
 layperson, but only in their mouths.

Council of Constantinople(695AD);prohibited the faithful from giving
 Communion to themselves.

St. Thomas Aquinas(1224-74);"Out of reverence towards this Sacrament,
 nothing touches It but what is consecrated."(Summa,Pt.III,Q.82,Art.3)

"When the faithful communicate kneeling, no other sign of reverence 
 toward the Blessed Sacrament is required, since kneeling itself is a
 sign of adoration." (S.C.S.D.W.,Inaestimibile Donum,1980,No.11)

"It should be absolutely clear that all the faithful show this Holy
 Sacrament the worship of adoration that is due to God Himself, as has
 always been the practice recognized in the Catholic Church." 
                                     (Eucharisticum Mysterium,1967,3f)

Conference of Catholic Bishops: According to the Novus Ordo, the peo-
 ple kneel not only during the Consecration, but also "beginning after
 the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the
 Eucharistic prayer, that is before the Our Father."
                                (U.S. Appendix to the G.I.R.M., No.21)

Examples from Scripture:

 "Every knee shall be bowed to me" (Is 45:23).
 "As I live, saith the Lord, every knee must bend, in heaven and on
  earth and under the earth" (Phil 2:10)

 3. Other Sources:

 Liturgist: "Have you ever seen anyone receiving Holy Communion in the
  hand while kneeling? No. The posture of kneeling inclines the person
  to receive Communion on the tongue! It is the ordained priest's 
  privilege and task to give Holy Communion and to enter the taber-
  nacle, and he should not abandon or lightly delegate this. We must 
  stop the liturgical abuse of unnecessary extraordinary ministers
  where we don't need them, under ordinary conditions." (1995, see
  Immensae Caritatis, S.C.D.W., 1973 Sec I, a.)

 Through stigmatist Sister Agnes' wound, the nuns were led to abandon
  Holy Communion in the hand and to receive Jesus on the tongue and
  kneeling instead. (Akita, Approved by local bishop)

 President, Women for Faith & Family: "Receiving Holy Communion on the
  tongue and kneeling down is the traditional and most respectful way.
  These signs of respect would help us to bring back reverence...to
  focus on Jesus." "The first step...is to return the tabernacle to 
  its central place of honour over the altar." (1995)

 Clergy who ask congregations to kneel report: Returning to kneeling
  is actually reducing reception time by fifty percent in the parish!


Worldwide appeal for help to fulfill this mission:

1. It is our great hope and prayer that all religious societies and
 orders, clergy, and laity will inspire and lead the entire Church, by
 God's grace, in fulfilling this important mission. We appeal to all
 to help by prayer, example, and word and to invite everyone to do the
 same.

2. We invite all clergy and laity to ask and encourage the faithful to
 receive Holy Communion on the tongue and while kneeling; to come and
 kneel in a line or semi-circle in front of, along, and around the 
 altar is the best proven and most efficient way, the common practise 
 for centuries throughout the world.

3. We encourage the use and restoration of an elevated step, mat or
 floor padding, pews or kneelers, or communion rails, where needed.
 
4. Since this is a matter of ecclesiastical discipline, the practise 
 of receiving Holy Communion in the hand can be rescinded in any dio-
 cese.

5. We ask all Cardinals, bishops, clergy, religious and lay persons in
 every nation tp please make, distribute or write for copies of this
 document. Donations to cover costs are greatfully accepted. Accurate
 and faithful translations of this flyer are encouraged, available and
 can be reproduced in other languages to spread this movement to all
 peoples. We encourage all to establish local chapters and/or informal
 support networks.

 Thank you very much. May God bless you, through the Immaculate Heart
 of Mary, for your diligent and generous response to this appeal to
 and for the good of the whole Church.

Angel's Prayer
 With the Blessed Sacrament suspended in the air, the angel at Fatima
 prostrated himself, and recited this prayer:

   O Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, I adore Thee pro-
  foundly. I offer Thee the most precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divin-
  ity of Jesus Christ, present in all the tabernacles throughout the
  world, in reparation for all the outrages, sacrileges and indiffer-
  ence with which He is offended. By the infinite merits of the Sacred
  Heart of Jesus, and the Immaculate heart of Mary, I beg the conver-
  sion of poor sinners. (Ecclesiastical approval: Fatima, 1930)

Verified to be free of theological errors by ecclesiastical authority.
(December 11, 1995)

 OMNE GENU FLECTATUR 
The Movement of Nations for Kneeling
Worldwide Apostolate: P.O. Box 489, Station U,
 Toronto, ON, Canada M8Z 5Y8