The National Catholic Reporter portal publishes an opinion piece by Karen E. Park attacking Bishops Ricken, Muhich, and others for restricting Communion under both kinds, falsely presenting the post-conciliar practice as “ancient tradition” while ignoring the Council of Trent’s dogmatic definition on concomitance and the centuries-long discipline of the Latin Church. The article exposes the modernist mentality that equates reverence with clericalism and treats the Most Holy Eucharist as a communal meal rather than the Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary.
The Protestant Origin of Lay Communion Under Both Kinds
The cited article asserts that “Communion under both kinds is not a liberal post-conciliar innovation. It was the practice of the ancient church and remained normative for centuries.” This is a deliberate falsification of history deployed as a theological weapon. The practice of lay Communion under both kinds (sub utraque specie) was introduced by the Hussite heretics in Bohemia and later adopted by Luther as a hallmark of the Protestant Reformation — a symbolic rejection of the Catholic doctrine of concomitance (concomitantia), which teaches that the whole Christ (Christus totus) is present under each species alone. The Council of Trent, Session XXI (1562), dogmatically defined against this very error: “If anyone says that the holy Catholic Church was not induced by just causes and reasons to communicate laymen and clerics under the species of bread only… let him be anathema” (Canon 3). The same Council declared: “Christ whole and entire is contained not only under either species, but also under each particle of either species” (Chapter 3). The “ancient practice” argument is a reductio ad antiquitatem fallacy; the Church, guided by the Holy Ghost, restricted the chalice to the celebrating priest precisely to safeguard reverence, avoid profanation by spilling, and confess the integrity of the Sacrament — lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of prayer is the law of belief).
Vatican II as the Source of Liturgical Ruin, Not Restoration
The author claims “Vatican II authorized its restoration to the laity in specified circumstances and subsequent liturgical legislation progressively expanded the occasions on which it was offered.” This reveals the conciliar hermeneutic of rupture masquerading as “development.” The false council’s Sacrosanctum Concilium (Art. 55) opened the floodgates, but the true intent was the Protestantization of the Mass — the transformation of the Sacrificium laudis into a coena dominica (Lord’s Supper) centered on communal sharing. The “progressive expansion” Park celebrates is the metastasis of a liturgical cancer. The bishops she attacks — Ricken, Muhich, Bullock — are still “bishops” of the conciliar sect, yet their restriction accidentally aligns with the immemorial discipline of the Roman Rite codified by St. Pius V in Quo Primum (1570). Their motive may be administrative control (“preservation of unity,” “clerical role”), but the effect is a partial return to the status quo ante the conciliar apostasy. Park’s outrage confirms that the novus ordo establishment knows the chalice for the laity is the liturgical badge of the new religion.
The Modernist Theology of “Access” vs. The Catholic Theology of Reverence
The article quotes Paul Wadell: “What is almost blasphemous about the sacraments is that they make God so easy to approach. Through them God is exposed and handed over.” This sentence crystallizes the heresy of the new theology. Blasphemy is to call the tremendum et fascinans of the Divine Majesty “blasphemous” for its accessibility. The Angelic Doctor teaches: “The Eucharist is the sacrament of charity… but it is also the sacrament of reverence” (ST III, q. 80, a. 1). St. Paul warns: “Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:27). The modernist “friendship with God” (amicitia Dei) divorced from timor Domini (fear of the Lord) is the essence of the cultus hominis condemned by Pius XI in Quas Primas: “When God and Jesus Christ were removed from laws and states… the foundations of that authority were destroyed.” The chalice restricted is not “frustrating God’s intention” — it is protecting the faithful from sacrilege and the Sacred Species from profanation. The “risk of spilling the Precious Blood” cited by the bishops is not a logistical excuse; it is a recognition of the realitas tremenda of the Sacred Species, which the novus ordo “extraordinary ministers” (often lay women in secular attire) treat with casual indifference.
The “Unity” Argument: Unity in Error, Not in Truth
Park highlights the contradiction: “This desire for unity does not seem to apply when considering unity among neighboring dioceses, such as the Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin… ‘Communion under both kinds… is normative on Sundays and holy days.'” This exposes the ecclesiology of the conciliar sect: unity is horizontal, not vertical. They seek uniformity of practice within the novus ordo, not unity with the Catholic Church of all ages. The true unity is unitas fidei, unitas sacramenti, unitas regiminis — unity of faith, sacraments, and governance under the Roman Pontiff. Since the See of Peter has been vacant since 1958 (death of Pius XII), the “dioceses” of Green Bay, Superior, Portland, Orange are administrative units of a schismatic structure. Their “bishops” have no jurisdiction (Canon 188 §4: publice a fide catholica defecerit). The “USCCB norms” Park cites are the legislation of a pseudo-episcopal conference with no canonical authority. The only legitimate norm is the Missale Romanum of St. Pius V, which knows no “Communion under both kinds” for the laity.
Divine Mercy Sunday: The Feast of the False Apparition
The article notes Ricken includes “Divine Mercy Sunday” among the few days permitting the chalice. This feast, instituted by the antipope John Paul II in 2000 based on the private revelations of Faustina Kowalska (whose writings were placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Holy Office in 1959 under Pius XII), is a hallmark of the neo-church’s devotion to sentimental piety over dogmatic truth. The inclusion of this feast — while omitting Epiphany and Ascension, feasts of Our Lord of higher rank — proves the arbitrarietas of the conciliar calendar. It is a liturgy constructed by men, not received from Tradition. As Pius X condemned in Lamentabili Sane (Prop. 58): “Truth changes with man, because it develops with him, in him, and through him.” The neo-church’s calendar changes with the “signs of the times.”
The Symptomatic Level: The Chalice as Totem of the Conciliar Religion
The ferocity of Park’s defense reveals the sacramental theology of the antichurch. For the modernist, the chalice for the laity is the signum of the “People of God” priesthood (Lumen Gentium 10), the democratization of the sanctuary, the erasure of the ontological distinction between the ordained priesthood and the common priesthood of the faithful. To restrict it is to attack the very identity of the novus ordo. The “conservative” bishops restricting it are not restoring Tradition — they are managing the decline of a fabricated rite, perhaps to conserve “clerical prestige” or “reverence” as aesthetic categories. But their restriction, however motivated, materially coincides with the Catholic truth defined at Trent. The NCR’s fury is the fury of the revolutionaries seeing their revolution partially rolled back by its own functionaries. Quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat (Whom God wishes to destroy, He first drives mad).
Conclusion: The Only Remedy Is the Rejection of the Novus Ordo Entirely
The article is a masterpiece of modernist gaslighting: it calls the Protestant innovation “ancient tradition,” the conciliar excess “Vatican II’s intent,” the restriction of sacrilege “clericalism,” and the defense of dogma “innovation.” The integral Catholic faith knows one rule: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus — and the Church is not the conciliar sect occupying the Vatican. The Most Holy Sacrifice is valid only where the Canon Missae of Trent is prayed by a validly ordained priest (pre-1968 rite) with the intention of doing what the Church does. In that Mass, the priest alone communicates under both kinds, in persona Christi, completing the Sacrifice. The laity receive under the species of bread, receiving Christum totum, as the Church has taught for a millennium. The chalice in the hand of a layman in a novus ordo service is not the “fuller sign” — it is the sign of the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place (Matt 24:15). Let the NCR weep; the Catholic rejoices at every restriction that makes the novus ordo less frequent, less accessible, less “normal” — for it drives the faithful to seek the True Mass, the only Ark of Salvation.
Source:
Restricting the chalice is not tradition — it's a troubling innovation (ncronline.org)
Date: 15.09.2026