![bpcozzens_eucharisticcongress2024](https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/files.catholicworldreport.com/2024/07/bpcozzens_eucharisticcongress2024-678x381.jpg)
Bishop Andrew H. Cozzens is bishop of the Diocese of Crookston, in northwestern Minnesota, and was chairman of the 10th National Eucharistic Congress, which was held July 17–21, 2024, at Lucas Oil Stadium and the Indiana Convention Center in Indianapolis, Indiana.
Bishop Cozzens recently spoke with Catholic World Report about the Eucharistic Revival, the National Eucharistic Congress, and how we can continue to promote devotion to the Eucharist going forward.
Catholic World Report: With the National Eucharistic Congress in the rearview mirror now, how do you think it went? Did it meet your expectations and those of all the organizers?
Bishop Andrew Cozzens: I think it exceeded our expectations in every regard. It’s hard to describe, actually, the sense of the Holy Spirit’s power at the event. It was clear that we were doing something, and were part of something, that was bigger than us.
Through the event, God was pouring out his grace. We were just caught up in something that was a beautiful work of God. We had hoped it would be the case, but I don’t think we anticipated the degree to which people would encounter and experience God in his mercy, in his goodness, through the event.
CWR: Over the course of the Congress, did anything surprise you?
Bishop Cozzens: It kind of felt like I was surprised at every turn. I was surprised in some ways by how well it was received by the bishops, and how many of the bishops said to me that it was a personal blessing for them and they felt spiritually renewed by it. I experienced the same degree of gratitude from the priests, especially those who took the “Priests Track”.
I was surprised by the beauty and the magnitude of the procession. The police counted on their cameras and said we had over 60,000 people at the procession! I hadn’t seen the park where it ended, at the War Memorial; I had looked at it on a map, of course, during the planning, but that’s it. So, when I got there at the end of the procession and was carrying the Blessed Sacrament and saw that massive crowd, I thought “Wow…this is epic!” It was really, really beautiful. Thousands upon thousands of people there.
And it was beautiful to see many young people, as I walked by with the Blessed Sacrament, they were in tears. So many people were just so grateful to have the opportunity to experience and profess publicly their joy and love for the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.
The beauty and simplicity of the procession, as we gathered together to proclaim our love for the Lord, was very moving. And seeing all of the groups, especially over 900 religious women in full habit, it was like seeing the renewal of the Church before our eyes.
CWR: It was also great to see a variety of beautiful liturgical expressions – Novus Ordo, Traditional Latin Mass, Holy Qurbana, Byzantine Rite. Why is it important to incorporate some of the Church’s liturgical variety in a Congress such as this, and what does that say about the universal Church?
Cozzens: Well, it says the Church is universal! That’s the key. And we were really trying to highlight the unity of the Church by showing some of the different and beautiful ways that the liturgy can be done, and to show that we’re all part of the same Church and we all worship the same Eucharistic Lord.
We wanted to highlight that, partially because the liturgy can be a divisive thing in our Church today, and we wanted to show that it’s actually a beautiful and unifying thing and that the diversity we have in the liturgy is a great gift. We were able to have many of the main liturgical families celebrated, which was a beautiful thing.
CWR: How did it come about that you were tasked with spearheading the Eucharistic Revival, and the Congress? And how does it feel to have that responsibility?
Bishop Cozzens: In November of 2019, I was elected as the Chair-elect of the Committee on Evangelization and Catechesis for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). I followed Bishop Barron in that role, and it was Bishop Barron who had an idea that we should do some kind of Eucharistic renewal that would affect all levels of the Church.
We were already talking about that idea before the COVID crisis hit, in February of 2020. Then the COVID crisis made it even more urgent. When I became the active Chair in November of 2020, after spending a year as the Chair-elect, I was given the task of organizing the Eucharistic Revival. We spent about six months actually doing listening sessions. I had been the Director of the Synod of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis on behalf of Archbishop Hebda before this (this was even before the Synod on Synodality, it was a diocesan synod). I basically used that method for these listening sessions with parish and diocesan leaders around the country in 2021. I brought together a group of those leaders in the summer of 2021 at the seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota, where we planned the 3-year Eucharistic Revival. Of course, that plan developed over time.
One of the big discernments we made during that summer was, “Should we have a national gathering, a national Eucharistic congress?” There was a lot of discussion and prayer on both sides of the question. In fact, there was a moment where we were at a stalemate, and I said “Let’s go to the chapel and do a holy hour.” And, really, after that it was clear to us that we should do something that would affect the whole country, which became the Eucharistic pilgrimages, and then a gathering, which became the Eucharistic Congress. Those two central ideas came right at that first discernment/planning meeting we had.
Then, of course, we had to present it to the bishops and get their approval, which was not an easy thing. But I did present it to them in November of 2021, and over 90% of the bishops voted in favor of it. And then, with the help of the Holy Spirit, it exceeded all of our expectations.
CWR: So you were spearheading the Eucharistic Revival efforts because of your position as Chair of the Committee.
Bishop Cozzens: Yes, and my time as Chair ran out in November of 2023, but I continued as the Chair of the Eucharistic Congress. In order to run the Congress, we founded a corporation, of which I am the Chair, and I will be for the foreseeable future. It is a majority bishops board, with also several laypeople. We’re planning for the future, and we intend to continue. In terms of how it all will look, we are discerning that with the USCCB. Archbishop Thompson of Indianapolis succeeded me as Chair of the Committee on Evangelization and Catechesis, and he’s asked me to stay on the committee to continue heading up the Eucharistic Revival.
CWR: One of the other things that was noteworthy and exciting was the announcement that, in the lead-up to the next National Eucharistic Congress in 2033, there will be other efforts to continue this Eucharistic Revival. What sort of other efforts are in the works to keep up the momentum from this year’s Congress?
Bishop Cozzens: Yes, we hope to help dioceses and regions sponsor local Eucharistic congresses around the country in the intervening years, as well as continue the Eucharistic pilgrimages. And we also intend to continue to animate Eucharistic missionaries on the local level. We have a few hundred thousand people who have signed up and who desire to be involved as a Eucharistic missionary at the local level, whether that’s in a parish or just on their own.
I’ve written a book on being a Eucharistic missionary with Tim Glemkowski, and we also have a free online video course that’s coming out on how to be a Eucharistic missionary, so we want to continue to animate the grassroots, as well as provide some opportunities at the local and national level.
I think we’ve seen through the Eucharistic Revival, and the Congress, that the Holy Spirit is at work and that the Eucharist is really at the heart of evangelization, and that we can continue to help the bishops in their desire to evangelize.
CWR: There has been some criticism of the Congress here and there online. One that I have seen in many places is that having a large Eucharistic Congress like this downplays the reality of the Real Presence at the parish level because it makes people think they have to come to a huge, elaborate event like a Congress to really experience Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. How would you respond to such a criticism?
Bishop Cozzens: I guess I’d like to meet the person who was at the Eucharistic Congress who then says, “Oh, I guess I don’t need to go to Mass anymore,” or “Going to Mass isn’t important after what I experienced here.” I think the experience of those who attended the Congress is exactly the opposite: they’re going to go to their local church with more fervor and love for the Eucharist because they encountered it so profoundly, and they’re going to be even more grateful for the gift of their parish, whether it’s a small country parish or a large city parish because there they can receive this gift of the Eucharist every week, or every day.
I relate that to a similar critique I’ve heard, which is that we have to be careful not to promote Eucharistic Adoration too much because that might draw people away from the Mass. I’d like to meet the person who goes to regular Adoration during the week who doesn’t go to Mass! I just haven’t met that person, and I think actually the opposite is true: the more you encounter Jesus in the Eucharist, whether at a big event or a small event, whether in a small adoration chapel or inside a stadium with 50,000 people, the more you’re going to want to receive him in Holy Communion as often as you can, and the more you’re going to want to be transformed by Him and become what we eat, and live that Eucharistic life.
CWR: There are so many areas of the faith that are misunderstood, underappreciated, or barely acknowledged. Why is it important to have a specifically Eucharistic Revival?
Bishop Cozzens: Because the Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith; or another way to say it is the Eucharist is the heart of the Church. It’s the life of the Church. It makes the Church, as John Paul II said. So, the Eucharistic life of the Church is strengthened as individuals come to understand what the Eucharist is and who the Eucharist is and how it calls them to deeper union with Jesus.
That’s going to affect every area of their life: it means they go to confession more, they seek to live a moral life, they’ll be more charitable. The Eucharist is the heart of all that. It’s the means that Jesus gave us to continue His living presence among us and transform us into his body. The Church needs to be the Body of Christ in the world. How will that happen? It will happen by people being more deeply drawn into the heart of the Eucharist.
You think about the heart: it’s the heart that pumps blood to the body, and if your heart is weak it doesn’t matter how strong your muscles are, right? It doesn’t matter how smart your brain is; if your heart is weak, the body’s not going to be any good. We are strong as a Church when we are united to the Lord in the Eucharist.
This is a huge issue we face, with so many people not going to regular Sunday Mass. That’s why we have so little impact on the culture, when only 17% of Catholics go to Mass on Sunday.
CWR: Is there anything else you’d like to add?
Bishop Cozzens: People ask me if I was tired after the Eucharistic Congress. I was, but I wasn’t. I was full of God, I felt so full of God’s grace. I felt like the apostles must have felt the day after Pentecost: “Wow, what just happened?” with a sense of enthusiasm and joy for what God was able to do.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
I tend to think this will be like nearly all teen retreats: the enthusiasm will fade and people will return to baseline. Months later, it’s legitimate to question whether it had any long-term impact or was worthwhile.
What’s really needed is transformation and renewal in every parish, in the quality of celebrations of Mass, every Sunday.
Same. Steubenville youth conference has been doing a bunch of 60,000+ people each conferences in a surprising number of locations every year for about 2 decades, complete with Mass and adoration. The significantly higher numbers haven’t created a revival yet, though they’ve probably managed to keep quite a few in the Church. Mass and adoration are good things, but a bunch of people attending them there instead of here probably isn’t going to change much.
If the bishop is claiming success at this early of a date, I don’t think he’s looking for long-term impact either.
60,000 is about 3.5 people per parish (not counting chapels, basilicas, or cathedrals), and a bunch of the Eucharistic conference attendees were children who aren’t going to be able to do anything for years. The priest goes to seminary for 7 years, and doesn’t seem to be able to turn the parish around; to expect a layperson to go to a conference for 7 days and come back and fix their parish, with perhaps one friend, from a zero-authority position, is lunacy.
No claims of revival should ever have been made without diocese- and parish-level events.
Yes, yes, yes, but as with Apollo !3: “Houston, we have a problem…”
Of the Real Presence in EACH Mass, the revealing term is “particular” churches, not local parishes. The inability to both think and speak metaphysically? The continuation and extension of the one-time-only divine self-donation on Calvary—now totally real in each Mass across the globe and throughout all of history…
And then there’s the original proposal—an “expectation” by some—for “Eucharistic coherence,” meaning the connection between the sacramental Real Presence and concrete life on this particular planet, in all circumstances. The elephant in the living room is the devious manner in which self-deception presents itself as the truth.
Take, for example (only one example), the 1970s substitution of “doctors-and-patients” with the half-truth of “health service providers and health service consumers.” What, then, of the totally real and unborn child now rendered as an irrelevant outsider? Anyone who might object in the legal forum is disqualified as “not having legal standing.” How, then, to crack the echo-chamber of sycophant validation–of the Big Lie? How to leaven a deaf and unreal world with the benefit of the, yes, Real Presence? How to fix our two parallel universes?
The challenge picked up by the Second Vatican Council, but not consistently influential ever since. Yes, processions and Adoration, but in another sense the Congress is a remedial beginning toward unfulfilled expectations of ourselves and the Holy Spirit.
In all contexts…Eucharistic coherence? It’s almost as if Veritatis Splendor means something.
I wasn’t there, but the event reminds me of Fr. Peyton’s massive rosary crusade in Golden Gate Park, San Francisco ,back in the 60’ before Vatican II.
I have read and seen enough to believe that the National Eucharistic Congress had a strong impact on those who attended it. I have continued to watch videos of speeches and events, and have started reading work and viewing talks by younger Catholic luminaries such as Msgr. James Shea, Fr. Boniface Hicks and Sr. Josephine Garrett. I appreciate that they acknowledge the many problems and letdowns of recent decades but take a more active mindset opened to at least the possibility that we don’t have to be crushed by the enormous weight of disappointments. So the Congress has already had a positive effect on me. Where this all goes from here, we will just have to see.
I went to a retreat this year that definitely had a positive impact on me. I came away with an increase in hope for the future, a far better idea of what the spiritual life is like, and with concrete things to do. And with no expectations that this would result in some sort of revival, even at the relatively tiny scale of my immediate friends.
I fully expect the Congress to have a positive impact on the attendees, and since the speakers seemed like a good lineup, also on those who listened to the speeches. Many of the speakers have youtube channels, so those effects were already in operation.
I expect no Eucharistic revival to result, regardless of the name. That is because there is little to nothing occurring on the parish level, and the attendees are far too few, and far too untrained, to change that. This is not to encourage despair. It is simply to say that if you want changes and improvements, actual hard work needs to be done. “Wait and see” will result in the same problems and letdowns of recent decades continuing.
Sure, change is hard. And it occurs much more slowly than most people want to believe. Maddeningly slowly, in some cases. In fact, some people get so discouraged by the gradual, halting, stop-and-start nature of change that they start doubting that actual change is even possible . And then they give up and at the worst, try to get other people to give up too.
But in my opinion, that’s a problem rooted in unrealistic expectations, and maybe a wish to see an instant utopia? Kind of a single “big bang” event that will reset things in the “right” direction. That will never happen, apart from the one time God intervened on Calvary. Even then, it was up to to the apostles and disciples to pull themselves together, truly submit themselves to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and then — make decisions and take action. THEY had to take action: the Holy Spirit would not do them for them. If they had not taken action within their own sphere of influence, we would not have the Christian faith today.
Expecting the organizers of the National Eucharistic Congress to come up with solutions AND figure out a way to get those solutions circulated down through to the micro (parish) level, PLUS tell people on the parish level exactly what they need to do to pick up the impetus and move it forward IS unrealistic. If that is the expectation of the people who are declaring the Congress to be largely a failure less than a month after it ended, then I can understand why those people are disappointed. I’m not sure why they need to try to spread their disappointment to others, as you sort of did in your response to my post, but that’s a hard question to answer.
As Samton alludes to in his post, national events like the Congress are a catalyst for change. But they don’t make widespread change magically happen all by itself. Nothing does that. It has to start somewhere, in the sense of a specific point in time at a specific place. There’s a fair amount of research out there indicating that many changes are led by very small groups who come up with a shared vision that they can at least be comfortable with (even if it isn’t ideal). Then they get things set up, do planning, and put things in motion, begin communicating and gauging interest, begin bringing in more people and building relationships for future expansion. Then, once there’s positive movement, they allow others to make their own contributions that will build on the original vision, but they don’t micromanage every detail and action. As things get established and start to expand, the original group course-corrects as needed and may steer a bit at times, but they allow the later participants to develop and expand the vision further in a way that works for them. In others words, they don’t try to control change from the top down in order to force it to happen. That wouldn’t work anyway. At any rate, quite a few change initiatives fail but if nothing ever even starts at that one point in time, then nothing will EVER happen.
My advice for what to do at this point: start trying to change the way that you are currently framing and understanding the situation in the Church, so that you start picking up on possibilities as well as problems. Then patiently pursue that, start acting on small changes that occur to you along the way. And see where that leads to. I am not fretting about coming up with a “whatever shall we all do?” master plan because it’s way too early at this point. There are no guarantees in life.
We read: “Expecting the organizers of the National Eucharistic Congress to come up with solutions AND figure out a way to get those solutions circulated down [?] through to the micro (parish) level [?], PLUS tell people on the parish level exactly what they need to do [?] to pick up the impetus and move it forward IS unrealistic.”
To be meaningfully accurate, the “parish” is not quite a mere “micro level,” but is one with the diocese which is ALREADY a “particular” Church across/within the One and sacramental Eucharistic Church. Instead of a bureaucratized National Eucharistic Congress figuring this stuff out, maybe each bishop–as a successor of the Apostles–could simply require his pastors (each as an extension of the bishop, rather than as a micro-franchise) to simply give a concise homily on the Real Presence. Say what?!
As a convenient AID, pastors might even publish in one or two weekly bulletins (wedged between the routine doughnut announcement and the plumber and cemetery advertisements) St. John Paul II’s “Prayer Before Mass”:
PRAYER BEFORE MASS
Pope St. John Paul II
(National Catholic Register, May 19-22, 2006)
“Eternal Father, we members of your blessed son Jesus Christ’s Mystical Body (His Church), in prayerful union with other members of His Church throughout the world, especially those who are suffering or living under oppression, and those who desire to go to Mass but are unable to do so; in spiritual communion with the intentions and affections of The Immaculate Heart of Our Lady of Sorrows on Calvary, the Angels and Saints in Heaven, our patron Saints, our Guardian Angels—we all join in offering this Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, this UNBLOODY RENEWAL AND EXTENSION [CAPS added] of Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross for the following intentions:
1) To adore and worship God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit and to pledge our love and loyalty forever to the God who made us to Know, Love and Serve Him in this world and to be happy with Him forever in Heaven.
2) To thank Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for opening the gates of Heaven by His sacrificial death on Calvary and to thank God for all the blessings and graces He has bestowed upon us throughout our lives especially for the supernatural gifts of Faith, Hope, and Charity; those gifts of Truth, Love and Peace which Christ promised to leave with us.
3) We express our sorrow for having offended God in any way throughout our lives and offer our prayers, works, sufferings, joys and even ourselves [underlined], to the Eternal Father with this sacrifice of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of His Dearly Beloved Son in atonement for our sins and those of the whole world.
4) Finally, we petition the Triune God for the Grace from this Eucharist to conform every conscious endeavor of our lives to the will of the Father in all things as did Christ. We also pray for all persons, places and things—absent, present, living and dead—for which we are bound in conscience or have expressed a desire to pray for, especially for an increase in vocations, for peace among nations, for the conversion of Russia and for the end of the unspeakable crime of abortion. AMEN.”
Thank you for yor response. After I used the term “microl level” to characterize the parish level, I soon recognized its inadequacy. I appreciate the clarification.
As far as your added question marks, I am not sure what you mean by them. Each of those points represent how I have heard and understood expectations that frequently come up in negative criticism of the National Eucharistic Congress — not just in CWR reader comments but across other platforms. Especially the ones expressing anger at bishops and desire to “make a statement” expressing that anger that will get the bishops’ attention and provoke them to change.
Believe me, I understand the reasons for being disappointed and even angry because of what various bishops have done and not done, particularly in recent years. I don’t fault anyone for being upset and even furious. But I try to focus on what specific bishops have done rather than lumping them all into a group because I believe treating them as a monolithic group is counterproductive and won’t get much serious attention.. This is because few people see themselves as part of a collective mass, thus it’s easy for a bishop to hear the criiticism but ignore it because he thinks it refers to “those other guys,” not him.
Now, if I have misunderstood those expectations, and that’s not what people want, I welcome corrections because I would like to better understand where others ar3 coming from, especially those opposed to the Revival. However, I have come across many, many comments along those lines, especially comnents demanding that the bishops “do something!” Whatever that “something” is, I don’t think it is in my imagination.
I definitely hope the National Eucharistic Congress does not become bureaucratized, especially NOT by putting established leadership figures such as bishops fully in charge of running it. From what I have read and seen, USCCB bishops overwhelmingly approved the idea of having a Eucharistic Revival, yet relatively few bishops were actually involved in organizing and managing the Congress and Pilgrimages. Bishop Cozzens name came up repeatedly along with one or two others (Bishop Barron, naturally, since he seems to be everywhere lately). However, the names and faces I have most frequently encountered are that of priests, men and women religious, and laypeople. Women religious have been particularly prominent, to my joy. From what I have seen of Congress proceedings, bishops were not much in evidence except at Masses and processions. Maybe four or five bishops spoke at the Congress? I haven’t counted but that was my general impression.
There is a majority-bishop board with some laypeople that will presumably serve as a steering committee, but I hope the Revival structure is otherwise relatively decentralized and organized by regions rather than through a centralized chain of command. Bishop Cozzens speaks of plans to “help dioceses and regions sponsor local Eucharistic congresses around the country in the intervening years.” I can’t see how that could reasonably be managed other than through a regional structure that comunicates with dioceses, parishes, religious orders, and Catholic organizations like the Knights of Columbus, the St. Vincent de Paul Society, Catholic colleges and universities, etc. We will see, and I will definitely pray.
[CWR: There are so many areas of the faith that are misunderstood, underappreciated, or barely acknowledged. Why is it important to have a specifically Eucharistic Revival?]
The problem is that the bishops made a mistake. They should have called first for “a synodal church”.
[Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way. First be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.] Matthew 5:23
In my parish, we do not have a parish council. Many people are more interested in liturgy than solidarity. The Pope is correct in emphasizing a “synodal church” because we must first learn to be friends with our neighbors before we can be friends with God.
You have to start somewhere. Just holding the Congress was a major step. It reinforced to everyone that the Eucharist is important and real. For many Catholics, it is simply a non question, or a belief that they never fully understood or believed. I bet if you went back to the 1960’s, and carefully talked to everyone at Sunday Mass, an awful lot would not have been able to describe the real presence, or would think it is symbolic, etc, etc. Most people went to mass because it was expected of them, was a cultural norm and could not be broken, but few bought into it wholesale. The great thing about Vatican II is that it realized that most people were just going through the motions and sought to change that. Pope Benedict even wrote an article in 1958 saying that most country were functionally pagan, not Catholic. So this is a very deep problem that has existed for a long time. The chaos in the church in the 70’s, when secularism and homosexual priests entered the church, also had a crippling effect. Until the church becomes RADICALLY counter cultural and offers something greater than the media, we are going to be in trouble. At least the Congress educated a tiny cadre of believers to go out and spread the message. A bit like World Youth Day, which effervesces for a time and then fades – BUT – it also planted a germ of real faith in a significant minority, and that enthusiasm never fades and goes on to enrich the entire church over time.
“At least the Congress educated a tiny cadre of believers to go out and spread the message. A bit like World Youth Day, which effervesces for a time and then fades – BUT – it also planted a germ of real faith in a significant minority, and that enthusiasm never fades and goes on to enrich the entire church over time.”
The problem here is the risk of scandal. If we think that we can “enrich the entire church over time” by planting “a germ of real faith in a significant minority” while supporting Catholic schools which now serves primarily the upper classes; leaving the poor in public schools— we are not practicing what we preach. We should first deal with this scandal before spending more resources on a “eucharistic revival”.
It’s wonderful that so many people participated in the Eucharistic Revival. There were modest opportunities in our local parishes to know about what was planned. I imagine those who attended were inspired much more. Naturally as time goes by the sheen will fade but that doesn’t mean it was not a worthy cause or effort. The only thing I find disappointing about the entire effort is that it was not accompanied by specific suggestions to return a greater degree of reverence to the Mass and its reception of the Eucharist. Doing that would however mean re-introducing practices that have been declared verboten by our Vatican leadership including the Pope. It was obvious that the Vatican authorities were not enthused with the US bishops who initiated this Revival. It would have been a “bridge too far” had they added specifics to implement significant improvements in practice in US churches. A missed opportunity to be sure but to do more would have been met with bad consequences from the Vatican leadership.
There needs to be follw-up at the parish/diocesan level.
I second John Grondelski’s suggestion of restoring the 40-hours devotion.
I went for one day and regret not being there longer. I’m not as enlightened as those who criticized here the NEC. It was the first time (I’m 68) I was present for the one church Jesus prayed for. The latin mass with Arch Bishop Cordileone, the New mass with Cardinal Dolan, the great evangelist like Fr M Schmitz the joyful Sisters of Life and more. I’ll take this and my pilgrimage to the holy land to the grave and see y’all on the other side.
“Why is it important to have a specifically Eucharistic Revival.”
Because The Eucharist Is The Source And Summit Of The Catholic Faith, and we are in the midst of a Great Apostasy.
I have heard The Eucharistic Revival was beautiful, but not sufficient to address The Great Apostasy. The Faithful must utilize The Charitable Anathema , instituted By Christ Himself, against the counterfeit church which denies Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and The Teaching Of The Magisterium, grounded in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture which is attempting to subsist within The One Body Of Christ to because they desire to create a counterfeit magisterium .
“It Is not possible to have Sacramental Communion without Ecclesial Communion”, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque), for it Is “Through Christ, With Christ, And In Christ, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque) , that Holy Mother Church Exists.
“You cannot be My Disciples if you do not abide in My Word.” Jesus The Christ
“For The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles.”
“Behold Your Mother.”- Christ On The Cross
“Penance, Penance, Penance”
“At the heart of Liberty Is Christ, “4For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5Have moreover tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come…”, to not believe that Christ’s Sacrifice On The Cross will lead us to Salvation, but we must desire forgiveness for our sins, and accept Salvational Love, God’s Gift Of Grace And Mercy; believe in The Power And The Glory Of Salvation Love, and rejoice in the fact that No Greater Love Is There Than This, To Desire Salvation For One’s Beloved. “Hail The Cross, Our Only Hope.”
“Blessed are they who are Called to The Marriage Supper Of The Lamb.”
“For where your treasure is there will your heart be also.”
May Our Blessed Mother’s Immaculate Heart Triumph soon, so Peace Will be restored in Christ’s Church, for The Salvation Of Souls.
Simple question, how exactly can one remain in communion with a man elected to the Papacy, who, himself ,did not remain in communion with every previous Pope, and thus is not in communion with The Magisterium and thus with Christ and His One, Holy, Catholic. And Apostolic Church ?
https://onepeterfive.com/
Don’t the sacraments remain valid?
We would be exempt from not following wrong teaching?
We would be forgiving of the situation?
We would await and work for and pray for the right resolution in the meantime -if it were indeed so; calling on the saints as aid and witness?
We would for his sake bear in our persons both the merits of communion and the burden of the truth of continuity of Magisterium and Tradition, at any cost?
We would make bold to present our concerns wholeheartedly and in charity to offending parties and to all yet be open for any clarification wanting of the record?
Edit/add: We would be very careful not to cause the estrangement of others?
The Extraordinary Form of the Mass is free of cost but ghettoized.
A Eucharistic Conference with the price tag of a political convention and the layout of Lakewood Church is lauded.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.