Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Italian Liturgist Alleged to be Working on Ecumenical Mass: “Transubstantiation is Not a Dogma”

In his Monday column at First Things, Italian journalist and veteran Vatican-watcher Marco Tosatti gave voice to what had previously been little more than a whispered rumor: that a group was at work, with Vatican knowledge and support, on a kind of interfaith liturgy:

[T]here is the matter of the “Ecumenical Mass,” a liturgy designed to unite Catholics and Protestants around the Holy Table. Though never officially announced, a committee reporting directly to Pope Francis has been working on this liturgy for some time. Certainly this topic is within the jurisdiction of the Congregation for Divine Worship, but Cardinal Sarah has not officially been informed of the committee’s existence. According to good sources, Sarah’s secretary, Arthur Roche—who holds positions opposite to those of Benedict XVI and Sarah—is involved, as is Piero Marini, the right-hand man of Monsignor Bugnini, author of such noted works as La Chiesa in Iran and Novus Ordo Missae.

Today, at his blog, Stilum Curae, Marco provides a bit more information on this story:

I cannot help recalling a comment sent to me by a friend, even though it was made several months ago. It was made by a highly regarded unrestrained lay liturgist, Andrea Grillo, who is, according to what they tell me, involved in the work to create an ecumenical Mass.

The comment is:

“Transubstantiation is not a dogma, and as an explanation [of the Eucharist] it has its limits. For example, it contradicts metaphysics.” [emphasis added]

I would like to understand then: have all those people who during the last two millennia have thought that in the host and in the wine [sic] there was truly the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus – and those who still believe this now – have they been taken for a ride [by the Church]? Or, in a more benign hypothesis, were they victims of a false belief (to say nothing of Eucharistic miracles)? We are waiting with impatience to see where the work on the new ecumenical Mass will go, in order to go and put ourselves in line [for communion] at the closest Orthodox Church.

Grillo’s comments about Transubstantiation appeared on his Facebook page:

The Council of Trent, Session 13, Chapter VIII, says:

“If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.”

I reached out to Marco Tosatti this morning, and he told me that Andrea Grillo is a layman who teaches sacramental and liturgical theology at the Pontifical Athenaeum San Anselmo in Rome. Tosatti told me that Grillo has recently attacked both Cardinals Caffarra and Sarah, “more or less asking Sarah to be dismissed from his position.” Tosatti’s sources have indicated that Grillo is a member of the secret commission to prepare this alleged “ecumenical liturgy,” which would allow Catholics and Protestants to “share the table.” Grillo is said to be influential in Rome, and to have the ear of the pope.

Grillo is also noteworthy for his opposition to Summorum Pontificum, and has written a book entitled, Beyond Pius V: Conflicting Interpretations of the Liturgical Reform, which was reviewed by the eminent liturgical theologian and author Dom Alcuin Reid, who he called it “a theological and political ‘shot across the bow’”. Reid also describes

Grillo’s fundamental stance that one must accept “the” liturgical reform absolutely and to the exclusion of all that came before (and of course, to the exclusion of any possible “reform of the reform”—which is dismissed out of hand)…

If he is indeed involved in the preparation of a new liturgy, one is left to wonder if this same attitude of liturgical evolution with no looking back will be pervasive in its implementation, too.

The Handwriting on the Wall

With no substantial confirmation of this secret liturgical commission’s existence, some will no doubt be skeptical of its plausibility. And yet there is not a little evidence that the Vatican under its current leadership might support such an effort. The pope and his associates had already been making overtures in this direction beginning in 2015, which I outlined at some length in my December, 2016 article, “Up Next on the Vatican Agenda: Intercommunion“. At the time, it had appeared that the goal was to allow Protestants to receive communion in Catholic churches. But an interfaith liturgy would take things quite a bit further, and would, it seems, be not entirely unthinkable in light of the Vatican’s own joint celebrations with the Lutheran churches marking the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, which will reach their culmination this month on October 31st — the day Martin Luther published his 95 theses in a letter to the Archbishop of Mainz in 1517. In those very celebrations, there have been hints of what might come. As I reported last December:

On October 31, 2016, following the commemoration, Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, told reporters that “it was a ‘very beautiful’ day, one that’s ‘very late’ in coming, but ‘very important.’ It’s a ‘new beginning of a way to leave conflict in the past and go toward communion in the future’”. A joint statement issued by the Vatican and Lutheran World Federation that same day said that “many members of our communities yearn to receive the Eucharist at one table, as the concrete expression of full unity. … This is the goal of our ecumenical endeavours, which we wish to advance, also by renewing our commitment to theological dialogue.” [emphasis added]

Koch has also said that “in the Second Vatican Council, Martin Luther would have ‘found his own council'”, and that “the commemoration of the Reformation in 2017 can only be made in ecumenical communion.”

For Catholics, of course, intercommunion isn’t theologically possible. Yet in Germany, we have seen evidence that this is already taking place in a very public fashion. And with the advent of Magnum Principium, it will be far easier for regional implementations of liturgical change to take root without the “imposition” of corrections from the Congregation for Divine Worship.

The question therefore of what, if any, additional liturgical surprises Rome may have in store remains an open question.

This post has been updated to include the citation from the Council of Trent. 

428 thoughts on “Italian Liturgist Alleged to be Working on Ecumenical Mass: “Transubstantiation is Not a Dogma””

    • When you look for hidden planets in the universe, you look for gravity changes to the orb it of visible ones. With all of the turmoil aimed at Sarah, you had to know that there was some hidden source. I think that you have to start considering that the seat of this new religion will be moved from Rome.

      • Our Lady of LaSalette stated that Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist…not making any claims about the latter half of that statement, I certainly don’t believe the Holy Father is the Antichrist, but the first half does appear to be in progress.

          • Motus in fine velocior. I don’t know as much Latin as I ought, but that phrase has been been everywhere I look these days, and often in unexpected places.

          • I had lots of Latin but I looked it up. “Motion accelerates when the end is near”. Movement moves more quickly in the end.

          • Yes:) I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that I didn’t know what it meant, that’s certainly the way I wrote it, reading back on it now!
            The meaning I intend and the words I actually write occasionally (actually, frequently!) take different paths…(I wasn’t entirely certain I was spelling it correctly)

        • Pope Francis is not the antichrist, but there is good chance that he is the false prophet, the precursor, the sort of John Baptist to Christ voice, just the opposite.

          I do however think as per approved catholic prophecies and visions, we will have one more short golden age of Triumph and peace, but not without terrible terrible cost and chastisement beforehand.

          And then after mere 25-30 years (again look up 7 periods of Church, Angelic Pope, Great Monarch, Triumph of Immaculate Heart, etc) humankind will go back to its perverted and sinful ways.

          But this time it will be the ultimate end -son of perdition, and finally the last moment in the history of time, Our Good Lord coming as the Judge!

          • Your comments raise a few questions. But first, are you saying that:
            1. There is a chance that PF is the false prophet?
            2. The triumph of the Immaculate Heart and era of peace rests in the future?
            3. The Antichrist comes after that?

          • 1. Yes
            2. Yes
            3. Yes

            Ven. Bartholomew Holzhauser on the 7 ages of the church:

            1. Status Seminativus

            AD 30-70


            from Christ and the Apostles

            2. Status Irrigativus

            AD 70-330


            Persecutions of the Church

            3. Status Illuminativus

            AD 330-500


            4. Status Pacificus

            AD 500-1517


            from Pope Leo III to Leo X

            5. Status Afflictionis et Purgativus



            6. Status Consolationis

            *Triumph* (based on all the approved prophecies not longer than 25-30 years)

            from the Holy pope until the Antichrist

            7. Status Desolationis


            from the Antichrist to the End of the World and Christ Judging the living and the dead!

            Obviously noone knows the hour. World almost ended in time of St. Vincent Ferrer (Angel of the Apocalypse). Only because enough people repented God postponed it.

          • Thank you for your clear explanation. According to that scenario the false prophet and antichrist events are separate or unconnected, that is, with an era of peace of say 25 ─ 30 years between the two.

            Therefore, the chastisement bearing down upon us and preceding the era of peace is not the reign of Antichrist.

            But how can this be as the Scriptures, explained by the Fathers of the Church, place both persons together, the False Prophet being the assistant to the Antichrist?

          • I think he is a forerunner or putting things in place for the false prophet. The false prophet and anti-Christ will reign after the era of peace

            1-the church will adopt the ways of the world (full apostacy)
            2-Warning (Gospel will be preached to all the nations) Doesn’t always fir in with other prophecies
            4-Era of Peace and Age of Mary
            5-Anti-Christ and False prophet will work together to take down mankind
            6-Severe persecutions of Christians
            7- Enoch and Elijah will return (two witnesses)
            8-Jews will convert (you would think they would be converted by the Warning, this is why the Warning sometimes doesn’t fit in
            9-Jesus and anti-christ killed
            10-Jesus return in glory

    • The chastisement is well underway, Ebes64. Well underway.

      Chaos, anarchy, betrayal, murder of souls, ecclesiastical and spiritual earthquake and desolation. The signs are right before our eyes if we only recognize the spiritual as portending the physical chastisements that are to come over the world.

      The situation is grave.

      “For the time is, that judgment should begin at the house of God. And if first at us, what shall be the end of them that believe not the gospel of God?” 1 Peter 4:17

      • And spread the Word. The Truth.
        Be not scared, or ashamed to do it wherever and whenever.
        This includes also the exposing of all the lies of all liars, deceivers and seducers.

        Believe me! With these things, we are doing much more goods than we can understand.

    • my opinion is “…we…” don’t – only God Himself can, and will, stop this. When? who knows? Remember Jesus said “When the Son of Man comes again will there be any faith left.” Luke 18:8 This would all be very depressing if we didn’t know that He will come again; this time, in power and glory

  1. I am highly doubtful that such a “mass” would even be valid at all. Not something I could ever in good conscience attend, anyway.

      • I hold no illusions in that regard, I assure you. Sometimes I wonder if by the end of this madness we will be reduced to saying our rosaries at home on Sundays for lack of a valid Mass. Daniel’s prophecy of the 3.5 years where the sacrifice will be suspended come to mind. It would be such a simple thing for them to ban the TLM completely and impose this ecumenical mess everywhere.

        • The entrance of Francis in this saga is a critical development indicating, in my opinion, the proximity
          of things. Our Lady of Fatima makes the situation clear.

          “Father, the Most Holy Virgin did not tell me that we are in the last times of the world but she made me understand this for three reasons. (1) … she told me that the devil is in the mood for engaging in a decisive battle against the Virgin. And a decisive battle is the final battle … (2) she said … that God is giving two last remedies to the world. These are the Holy Rosary and Devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. These are the last two remedies which signify that there will be no others. (3) … in the plans of Divine Providence, God always before He is about to chastise the world exhausts all other remedies.”
          Sr Lucia to Fr Fuentes

    • What makes a Mass valid is the miracle of transubstantiation which occurs dmas the primary and main effect of consecration. With no valid words of consecration said in Persona Christe by a validly ordained and non-laicised, such a “mass” would not be valid. Since the liturgy and its central action, the consecration, is the heart of Catholicism, if such a mass replaces the minimally valid NO, the Church would be eviscerated and cease to be the Catholic Church. It is past time for the first warning of a formal correction to be made.

        • I believe they are saying that the mass wouldn’t be valid because the priest would not intend for transubstantiation to occur.

          • Pretty sure the Church has ruled that as long as the priest says what the Church says and intends to do what the Church does there is transubstantiation whether the priest intends transubstantiation or not. The sacraments are valid despite the state of grace or state of error of the priest as long as he intends to do what the Church does, even if he doesn’t understand or believe it himself.

          • Understood. I would be concerned that with such a priest that the chance of editing the words of the consecration would make for an invalid mass. Regardless, if known, I’ll keep myself and those under my charge far away from such a priest. This gos way beyond a priest with scandalous behavior.

          • I agree completely, things are a mess. I have been travelling from parish to parish for years now in order to hear Masses that aren’t filled with heresy and innovations…gives new meaning to Pilgrim Church

          • The problem with intention in an “ecumenical mass” is that there are two possibilities, even assuming that the wording allows for correct intention: 1) The Consecration is valid…but by doing so the priest would enable mass sacrilegious communion or 2) he cannot possibly intend sacrilegious communion and possibly in these modern times doesn’t even understand what he is doing or see anything wrong with it, in which case his intention is necessarily lacking. I think 2 is more likely.

          • I think that, should somehow an “ecumenical mass” be promulgated, then along with it would necessarily come the permission by the promulgator for all “Christians”, or perhaps all baptized Christians or perhaps all people as anonymous Christians to receive Holy Communion.

            There is such chaos in the Church today that orthodox Catholics would reject the idea as sacrilegious, the innovators would applaud and promote it, and most Protestants would still want nothing to do with the Catholic thing, Though in my diocese there is a least one parish whose “sister church” is the local anything goes United Church of Canada – they already share some ministerial stuff.

            Still the question remains as to whether the pope has binding authority, and what do faithful Catholics do if he should do something so strange? What are we to do now in light of AL, or the motu proprio allowing for national conferences to craft their own translations, or the ability of one diocese to proclaim morality that contrary to another diocese?

            I am no theologian, however I have read much on the topic of intent in trying to refute some of the SSPX claims against the validity of the NO Masses as they make essentially the same claim as you present. Concerning the intention of the priest, it seems the Church has extended a very broad meaning to the extent that in the doing of the action the priest’s intent is deemed sufficient even if his understanding is deficient in the ways you have mentioned.

          • I have not heard any SSPX claims that the NO is invalid. Only that it is deficient. It may be invalid in some cases but not generally as such.
            But what we are talking about here is not the NO. It is the alleged working on an ecumenical Mass. That’s a whole different matter. I do not see how you can have an ecumenical Mass without one of the two propositions above applying.

          • If the novus can be valid or invalid, how do you tell when it’s either one or the other? Celebrating or assisting at this new mass is playing Russian Roulette with the Sacraments – a sacrilege.

          • Well yes. As far as I understand it, generally it should be assumed that it is valid unless one has good reason to believe otherwise, but I long since stopped going to the NO because I felt that even if it is valid, which in the main I believed it was, it is disrespectful. The longer I have stayed with the TLM only, the more distressing I find it on the odd occasion when I have no choice but to go to a NO.

          • Do you mean assuming validity “in principle” or valid in each particular case?

            As far as I understand it, there are serious problems with the “in principle ” assumption from the get-go, which makes the “in particular” assumption irrelevant, because the “particular” is subject to the “principle”.

          • I meant “in principle”. As far as I understand it, matter, form and intention are what matters….and intention does not mean the private thoughts of any particular priest, as you can never know that anyway. I don’t think we can really go around “invalidating” any and every NO Mass willy-nilly. I do agree that it can be a bit of a Russian roulette as, to be quite honest, a few of the NO priests I have come across I can’t help wondering from various things they have said, if they even believe the same things we do….but they are not all like that. I avoid priests/parishes where I have such doubts. The safest thing to do, undoubtedly in my mind, is to stick to the TLM where we have a known quantity, but I am not prepared to say that the NO is invalid per se.

          • I understand, but even this intention is not necessary for the validity of the Mass. The priest doesn’t have to believe in Transubstantiation, or even to believe in God. He can be an atheist. The only intention required is that the priests “intends to do what the Church does”, i.e. he must have the intention to perform the ritual of the Church.

            It is quite difficult not to have this intention. Even the strongest unbelief cannot undo it, since even an atheist priest still knows that he is performing a Church rite when he celebrates Mass or administers a sacrament. The only way to escape this intention would be by way of play: if, for example, a priest takes part in a playlet, on stage, and in that play ha to say Mass or the consecration formula, then, obviously, this is not a valid Mass. Or if he, passing a bakershop, would make a cross over the bread he sees and recite: hoc est enim corpus meum. This last mentioned cases would of course be a highly irrrevent and scandalous thing to do in itself, but no consecration would happen because the priest is clearly consious of the fact that he is playing and not performing a Church ritual.

            In a similar manner, if for example children play and one of them jokingly “baptizes” an unbaptized child by pouring water over it and reciting the baptismal formula, this isn’t considered a valid baptism. It was done in the context of play, and therefore the absence of the required intention is presumed.

          • Appreciate the explanation. Although bishop Alexander thought otherwise about “playing” baptism- re: Athanasius.

          • Abp Lefebvre wrote; “It is clear, however, that fewer and fewer Masses are valid these days, as the faith of priests is destroyed and they possess no longer the intention to do what the Church does –
            an intention which the Church cannot change. The current formation of those who are called seminarians today does not prepare them to celebrate Mass validly. The propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass is no longer considered the essential work of the priest. Nothing is sadder or more disappointing than to read the sermons or teachings of the Conciliar bishops on the subject of vocations, or on the occasion of a priestly ordination. They no longer know what a priest is.”

            The situation reached the stage that in 1980 Pope John Paul II needed to offer an apology to the faithful for the scandal and disturbance caused to them by the way the New Mass was so frequently
            celebrated. He ordered the publication of an Instruction, Inaestimabile Donum, intended to curtail some of the more flagrant abuses. Did those Novus Ordo abusers have the Intention? This
            Instruction was largely ignored. Now it is forgotten.

            Formula of Intention ─ Missale Romanum 2002. (Recited at vesting)

            ‘My purpose is to celebrate Mass and to confect the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the rite of the holy Roman Church to the praise of almighty God and all the Triumphant Church (in Heaven), for my good and the good of all the Church Militant (on Earth), and for all who have commended themselves to my prayers in general and in particular, and for the favorable state of the holy Roman Church
            May the almighty and merciful Lord grant us joy with peace, amendment of life, room for true repentance, the grace and consolation of the Holy Spirit and perseverance in good works.
            When the heretic Hans Kung was asked “what happens at the moment of Consecration?” he replied “Absolutely nothing!” In his case he was absolutely correct.

          • Formula of Intention is beautiful.

            As for Kung, could be that he was just wrong…again.

            Any priest that does what is needed for the consecration has, by intending to do what the Church prescribes, confected the Body and Blood of Jesus. To otherwise construe or define a lack of intent on behalf of the priest is to deny the Real Presence in that Mass.

          • Matter, form and intent are necessary for validity. Some hold that intent is satisfied simply by
            ‘intending to do what the Church does.’ This phrase was applied by the Council of Trent contra the ‘Reformers,’ and applied to all of the Sacraments. The reason was that the ‘Reformers’ denied the necessity of any sacramental intention.

            “The Church does not merely apply the matter and form when ministering the sacraments, but by means of those external rites she intends to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect that is, to baptize, to absolve, and so forth.

            An intention, then, to do this to baptize, to absolve, or an internal intention is necessary for the validity of a sacrament.

            It is not sufficient for the minister while making a sacrament to have a vague intention of conferring it. … The intention must be definite in its scope and object”

            Manual of Moral & Pastoral Theology., H Davies SJ. 1925.

          • Thanks for the quote.

            Another distinction is being made concerning the meaning of intent.

            There are some promoting the idea that intent is tied to the rite as per Pope Leo XIII. They say that since the Novus Ordo is deficient as a rite and so then the intent cannot ever be present.

            Others say that intent is simply ‘to consecrate’ this being parallel to the above stated intent ‘to baptize’. Those arguing invalidity of the NO say that the intent in the case of the Sacrament of the Eucharist is the intent to offer sacrifice.

            I know many priest who intend to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass via the NO and the Extra-ordinary form. I find it very difficult, if not impossible to believe that they do not have intent.

          • So he’s supposed to say this as he is vesting, but then goes ahead and performs a rite that denies the essential propitiatory nature of the Mass. How odd.

          • Do you think though, this would be pleasing to our Lord, to have a priest offer Mass and not believe?”
            Who would want to participate in that mockery?
            I could never participate in something like that, knowing this.
            And…..if a priest does not act like he believes, or talks like he believes, then I have the right and duty to assume, with common sense, that he simply does not believe in transubstantiation. And I shall avoid.

          • Of course, but that has nothing to do with the question of validity, or with the question whether transubstantiation occurs in his Mass. According to Catholic doctrine transubstantiation occurs even if the priest doesn’t believe in it.

            When you ask, “who would want to participate in that mockery?”, you are assuming, more or less, that the priest’s incredulity is a known fact. But this need not be the case. The priest may be a silent atheist, an apostate who never expressed his unbelief, and does everything he has to do in an externally correct way. In this case there’s no mockery, at least not public mockery, because everything is done according to the rubrics. Throughout history there have been priests who lost their faith but remained silent about it and continued to fulfil their duties. Catholic doctrine says that believers received valid sacraments through the hands of these priests and are not dependent upon the priest’s faith. That’s the real point of this doctrine of intention. Sacraments are effective ex opere operato, i.e. by correctly performing the ritual, not because of the faith of the minister.

            However, if a priest publickly mocks the whole thing, then of course one has the duty to stay away, despite the fact that he offers a valid Mass. And should he change the ritual, and in an ostentatious way ridicule the Mass and the faith during the performance of the liturgy itself, by willfully doing things exactly contrary to the presecribed order and meaning, so that the Mass is turned into a sick parody of itself. then a point is reached where one can seriously doubt its validity. For in that case there is reason to think that the priest’s intention is only to play and fool around, and not to do what the Church does.

    • They don’t want validity as much as they want our Lord to go away. It’s a way of trying to undo the Incarnation, an event that pitches demons into a blind fury of envy and rage. S. Michael, ora pro nobis.

    • I am sure that the consecration will be left valid. Otherwise, what kind of victory for Satan is that. Satan wants sacrilege after sacrilege after sacrilege, not only does it wound the Divine Heart, but it surely condemns all involved.

  2. The biblical references to the geocentrism were dogmatic as well until a bit of science gave them the correct context.

    I cant quite recall that part in the gospel though where the apostles, at the conclusion of the meal where the Lord uttered those words about the bread and wine, stopped everything, shoved the leftover scraps of bread into a Tabernacle, and some into a monstrance, lit a candle and then held Benediction.

    It’s so much easier to deify objects than actually believe the gospel truth about where God has chosen to reside.

    • I take it you have no belief in the numerous Eucharistic miracles that have been documented and investigated over the past centuries?

          • As the words in Mt 16:4 appear elsewhere in the gospels, I think it was an important statement by the Lord.

            Got something that tops it?

          • Try reading Max Aquino’s comment. Eucharistic miracles are a gift from God, not a demand or expectation from the believers. We practice the simple Catholic Faith.

          • John 6:53 ( Douay-Rheims )
            Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

            Did not an Angel of God appear to the children with the Host and Chalice at Fatima?

            The early Church Fathers believed….

            “St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Bishop of Jerusalem and Doctor of the Church, born about 315:
            On the Real Presence he is unambiguous: “Since He [Jesus] Himself has declared and said of the bread: This is My Body, who shall dare to doubt any more? And when He asserts and says: This is My Blood, who shall ever hesitate and say it is not His Blood?” Of the Transformation, he argues, if Christ could change water into wine, can He not change wine into His own Blood? The bread and wine are symbols: “In the type of bread is given thee the Body, in the type of wine the Blood is given thee”; but they do not remain in their original condition, they have been changed, though the senses cannot tell us this: “Do not think it mere bread and wine, for it is the Body and Blood of Christ, according to the Lord’s declaration”. “Having learned this and being assured of it, that appears to be bread is not bread, though perceived by the taste, but the Body of Christ, and what appears to be wine is not wine, though the taste says so, but the Blood of Christ . . . strengthen thy heart, partaking of it as spiritual (food), and rejoice the face of thy soul”. It is difficult not to see the whole doctrine of Transubstantiation in these explicit words.”

          • “Did not an Angel of God appear to the children with the Host and Chalice at Fatima?”

            You’re kidding, right. I’ll go with the mother’s take on that “miracle”.

            A 3rd century Bishop and his pre scientific understanding doesn’t lend credence to your theory.

          • Yes correct. Report’s suggest that Lucia’s Mother did not believe the apparition’s.
            But died in full communion with Mother Church.

            Everything is a Grace, remember some Jews could not reconcile the wisdom taught,
            and the report’s of miraculous healing’s, and the great wonder of many common people
            toward’s Our Lord with their familiarity with HIS earlier life as a lowly carpenter….

            Luke 4:24
            Douay-Rheims Bible
            And he said: Amen I say to you, that no prophet is accepted in his own country.

            One could paraphrase to suggest one’s own household.

          • Watch the film to the end………….”Mr Brown” SS
            Lucia’s Mother CONVERTED and believed’. She repented of her former refusal to trust the signs.
            Your history is that you willfully alter true Theology to suit your own purposes..

            90,000 viewed the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima. Pagans, Masons, Doctors, Priests, Evil people repented.
            When the secularist media beheld the Miracle and repented – why on earth would YOU prefer to deny it?

          • Mark 16:17-19 “And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my
            name they shall cast out devils: they shall speak with new tongues.
            They shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing,
            it shall not hurt them: they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and
            they shall recover.
            [19] And the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God”

            You’re not interpreting Mt 16:4 according to the mind of the Church. He was specifically talking about not giving signs for the wicked generation.

          • He’s not interpreting Mt 16:4 with the mind of someone with competent skills in understanding written language.

          • Mt 16:4 says, “A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign: and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.”

            Are you taking this to mean that Jesus said miracles are impossible? Is English your first language?

            Jesus is saying that his hearers, the “the Pharisees and Sadducees” and those of that time who were “wicked and adulterous” seek after a sign, but will not receive one save for the sign of Jonas the prophet. It says nothing whatsoever about the possibility of miracles in the age of the Church. For example, the Acts of the Apostles is filled with them. Actually, it says nothing regarding miracles at all. It says that some people seek a sign but will not receive one. That’s it.

            God bless

          • Yes. You are dead, the internet says you died in 1998. Why have you returned?

            As for your use of Matthew 16:4??????

            Find a Bible that DOESN’T speak of the “Signs” that the Son of God fulfilled. God does not object to giving signs.
            Christ said Watch and understand the SIGNS that witness that the beginning of the END is here.

            Matthew 16:4 states “A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign: and a sign shall not be given it, ”

            There was a reason for Our Lord saying this. Literally HUNDREDS of signs had already been given His chosen people throughout the Old Testament so that they might recognise their Messiah when He arrived, and not miss their opportunity of Salvation. THIS is why he was so angry with them when they requested yet ANOTHER sign. He viewed it as unnecessary, since the Gospel writers confirm that He had clearly fulfilled all the signs.

            Here are some of the fulfilled signs….

            [22] And answering, he said to them: Go and relate to John what you have heard and seen: the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are made clean, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, to the poor the gospel is preached: [23] And blessed is he whosoever shall not be scandalized in me. [24] Luke Chapter 7


            This is a clear fulfilment of this prophecy from Isaiah 35

            ” Take courage, and fear not: behold your God will bring the revenge of recompense: God himself will come and will save you. [5] Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.[6] Then shall the lame man leap as a hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall be free:

            These SIGNS and MORE did Our Lord do in front of those who afterwards insisted of His Majesty “Show us a sign”

            Our Lord is said to have FULFILLED every sign that he gave through the Prophets the Old Testament. (Over 500 Prophecies fulfilled)
            Stop focusing in on ONE passage and revising it to suit your own agenda.
            Christ is always eager to prove His identity through signs, (Just read the testimonies of the numerous conversions stories online) but never when the signs have already been given, witnessed, understood, yet falsely rejected because there is no real wish by the viewer to be converted.


            There has been much scientific study of the various Eucharistic Miracles. They all share identical genetic DNA with the Blood found on the Holy Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Valencia Cathedral. To NOT wish to take the Holy Eucharist knowing full well that Our Lord is truly present is EVIL! Take the Eucharist from the world and the world will end.

            “The revolt and separation must come…the Sacrifice shall cease and…the Son of Man shall hardly find faith on earth…All these passages are understood of the affliction which Antichrist shall cause in the Church…But the Church… shall not fail, and shall be fed and preserved amidst the deserts and solitudes to which She shall retire, as the Scripture says, (Apoc. Ch. 12).”
            -St. Francis de Salles

            “It is true that [the Mass] will cease on earth at the time of the Antichrist: the Sacrifice of the Mass is to be suspended…according to the prophecy of Daniel 12:11.” – St. Alphonsus Ligouri -Taken from His book the Holy Eucharist

            “St. Alphonsus in the same book later confirms that in reality the Sacrifice and Priesthood never will cease as “the Son of God, Eternal Priest, will always continue to offer Himself to God, the Father, in Heaven as an Eternal Sacrifice.”

            “In Daniel 11:31, we read that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass will cease. This prophecy does not just pertain to the Jewish sacrifice, for Christ reiterated the prophecy in Matthew 24:15. That the Sacrifice would be suspended, as Christ Himself was suspended for three hours from the Cross was the unanimous opinion of the Fathers of the Church.”

        • There’s no dogmatic statement that geocentrism is true–note that to claim something is dogmatically part of the faith when it has not been declared as such is sinful. Matthew 16:4 doesn’t say miracles won’t happen it just says not to demand signs.

          • You consider it non-dogmatic because, in hindsight it was wrong and dogmas can’t be wrong – not because it wasn’t dogmatically held.

            “The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.”

            And it says “no sign will be given other than the sign of Jonah” – your rationalization is wishful thinking.

            The “Eucharistic miracles” are the stuff of TAN books, not of science or faith.

          • If you want to believe in a version of a resuscitated corpse, then it doesn’t because that’s not how it is described biblically.

            But if you take all the resurrection stories and the characteristics of the risen Jesus mentioned in them, and those of the gospel writers, science can speak to that.

          • Are you serious? The Huffington Post? Natural science cannot explain the supernatural. It requires simple faith.

          • “Thus, in this view, Resurrection (as with all true miracles) is not
            contrary to science, but an indicator that science does not (yet?)
            describe the full expanse of reality.” I agree that science does not yet understand the supernatural, so I agree with Pope Benedict. I am asking you to show me how with current scientific knowledge that the resurrection is factual and not superstition. You clearly don’t believe in miracles, therefore with your logic how do you believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus?

            By the way the Huffington Post is the most anti-Catholic rag out there. Total garbage.

          • Hey Ray, would you mind telling us what religion you belong to? Are you Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant/Muslim/none of the above? I think it will aid us in our discussion. I’ll go first: I’m Catholic.

          • Such individuals are posers, toxic atheists, swaggering sophomoric grasp of religion that is not in any way shape or form theological, Christian, let alone Catholic.
            If he had something to do that otherwise satisfied his narcissism and sadomasochistic impulses he be doing them.
            Apparently this isn’t a good day for him.

          • Apparently. Also, apparently he’s gone away. He was like the internet version of a drive-by shooting. 🙂

            God be with you Ray. So long. You missed.

          • Not likely, research him on the internet. “He” apparently died in 1998. It’s possible he’s one of those souls from Hell that Our Lady warned us at La Salette would be released from Hell to come back and put an end to faith little by little when we were heading for the end…..

            His callous disrespect for Our Lord gives me goose bumps. Brrrr! He brings Hell with him.

          • So Pope Benedict XVI describes the Resurrection as “a new dimension of reality breaking through into human experience.”

            Do you believe this breakthrough involved Jesus’ physical corpse rising from the dead?

          • Not that we need further evidence than the testimonies of the eye witnesses . Didn’t St Thomas confirm that he put his fingers in Christ’s very wounds and believed?

            Just take a look at the latest evidence on the Turin Shroud, I think you’ll find the image was formed by a MASSIVE omittion of some king of radiation from every pore of the man of the shroud’s body. A process similar to that of a body scan. The Image was also apparently formed whilst he was hovering in the air. There are two blood flows recorded, which indicates that the person died and came back to life. It is all very scientifically evaluated – the press have kept it quiet – but then no big surprises THERE!

            The blood type of the blood on the Turin Shroud matches exactly that found within every known Eucharistic Miracle. The Eucharistic Miracles when tested proved to be “Living flesh” Heart Muscle. (Watch Dr Ricardo Castanon on YOUTUBE)

            The Eucharist IS the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

          • John 21:24-30 — It was Jesus’s actual body that was resurrected.

            Now Thomas, one of the twelve, who is called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
            The other disciples therefore said to him: We have seen the Lord. But
            he said to them: Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails,
            and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into his
            side, I will not believe.

            [23] “Whose sins”: See here the commission, stamped by the broad
            seal of heaven, by virtue of which the pastors of Christ’s church
            absolve repenting sinners upon their confession.

            And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with
            them. Jesus cometh, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and
            said: Peace be to you.
            Then he saith to Thomas: Put in thy finger hither, and see my hands;
            and bring hither thy hand, and put it into my side; and be not
            faithless, but believing.
            [28] Thomas answered, and said to him: My Lord, and my God.
            Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast
            believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.
            [30] Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.

          • “Resuscitated corpse” ? What do the initials S S after your name STAND for Sir? Son of Satan?

            Go and preach your blaspheming satanically inspired tosh somewhere else. If you are hoping for a “Resurrection” at the end of time, you’ll have a long wait!

          • 1) Popes declare dogma, not Bishops–that statement is not from a pope
            2) The statement is true: the sun is not the center of the world and it does move (unless you believe our Galaxy is stationary)
            3) Jesus specifically said that signs would accompany the Apostles. So you are misreading the statement

            Mark 16:17-19 “And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast out devils: they shall speak with new tongues.
            They shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing,
            it shall not hurt them: they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and
            they shall recover.
            [19] And the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God”
            3) No sign will be given to the wicked generation other than the sign of Jonah. Consider for instance the Encyclical of Pius V
            4) Also Paul in acts 28:3-5 handles a serpent as stated in Mark 16:17-19

          • Lanciano and Argentina, among others, can scarcely be described as “the stuff of TAN books”.

            St Thomas of Aquinas stated that for those who believe, no proof will be necessary, for those who doubt, none will be possible.

          • Lanciano…?

            We don’t believe the bread and wine literally turn into flesh – that is pure magic and superstition, not religious reverence.

            Pretty easy to fake too.

          • Ray, before you go will you please explain to me by means of science the resurrection. A true scientist without faith would claim it to be as you eloquently put it ” pure magic and superstition, not religious reverence.”

          • The merit’s of Lanciano aside,
            In your own time, in your own word’s, pray privately with an open heart
            for GOD to grant you what HE know’s you need “to put to bed” that upon
            which you and all of us stumble upon in our desire to know, love, and adore
            our Creator.
            God bless Ray!

          • I read your posts here and now I am wondering why you are STILL here, after this comment.

            If you do not believe, than go.

          • Always curious, I do hope you will share the reasons you continue to inhabit the mask of a Catholic when there are numerous sects which have held to your perspectives for centuries. These “faith communities” would surely appreciate your cutting edge analysis and deeply held beliefs.
            Would you not find yourself more self-actualized and supported among those who disbelieve as you do?
            Do explain.
            After all, what is the necessity to troll the bare ruined choirs inhabited by bead fingerers and vigil light vigilantes? Idolaters?
            Ah! It must be that spirit of evangelization and an altruistic drive that impels you to, against all reason, throw your lot with a ignorant cult that has been wrong about everything for two thousand years.
            That’s it. It’s a spirit of mortification!
            You and I have exchanged here before.
            I knew Father Brown, and rest assured your adoption of his portrait and the confection of his name only bespeaks your personal poverty. You are a fraud, unworthy to stick to the bottom of his shoe.

          • Pretty easy to keep flesh from rotting for centuries?

            And all of the Eucharistic miracles of this nature that have been tested show that the flesh is human, and comes from the interior surface of the heart, and the blood types match.

            Not so easy to fake for the Middle Ages.

          • Research Dr Ricardo Castanon PHD a former atheist on YOUTUBE – Cardinal Bergoglio invited him to come and scientifically examine a Eucharistic Miracle in Buenos Aires. See your POPE believes in them.

            All the scientific analysis proves scientifically that you don’t know what you are talking about.

          • The Catholic Church, barring an infallible ex cathedra decree from the pope (which wasn’t officially available in either 1616 or 1633 since the doctrine of papal infallibility had not yet been defined until
            1870), put the full weight of her Tradition, the Ordinary magisterium, and her rights of due process in a canonical tribunal, as support for the condemnation of heliocentrism, and she has never rescinded any of it.

            The first thing the 1633 tribunal did
            was make heliocentrism a formal heresy by these two decrees:

            “The proposition that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture.”

            “The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.”

          • Ray, it’s most fundamentally about SAVING SOULS your’s and mine.
            Your “scientific” mindset is a vanity the rest of us do not have the luxury
            to indulge in…..

          • Doctrine of infallibility was always true. Submission was only ever to teachings of the pope not to the Bishops. The statement given was in a canonical trial. The claim that the full weight of Her Tradition and Ordinary magisterium was behind it requires further proof than it appearing in a trial. That is not how the Church works:

            1) Popes declare dogma, not Bishops–that statement is not from a pope
            2) The statement is true: the sun is not the center of the world and it does move (unless you believe our Galaxy is stationary)
            3) Jesus specifically said that signs would accompany the Apostles. So you are misreading the statement

          • Bishops/Tribunals only authoritatively teach when they do so with the Pope. This is not just an ex-cathedra point. Catholic must give deference to their local ordinary (usually a Bishop) but the universal Church is only taught by the Pope or the Bishops with the Pope, not just a tribunal.

      • He’s a troll. Ignore him. Raymond E. Brown was a notable heretical theologian sprung from the “spirit” of Vatican II, hence the name. He’ll go away if no one pays him any mind. (I have children — I know these things.)

        • I think you are speaking of Raymond E. Brown, SS, author of “An Introduction to the New Testament” (Doubleday, 1997).

          That book was recommended to us by the head (who was also one of the instructors) of the Lay Ministry Training Program of the Diocese of Charlotte in North Carolina which I took about 12 years ago. It bears a nihil obstat (Miles M. Bourke, STD, SSL) and an imprimatur (Patrick J. Sheridan, DD, Vicar General, Archdiocese of New York).

          I try to be doubly careful about what I read, so I invite anyone to offer a sincere opinion on the usefulness of Brown’s book for students of Holy Scripture. (I’m not in formal studies of any sort. I just want to know if Brown’s book is a proper resource for orthodox Catholics.)

          • I went looking and apparently he’s more regarded as a “dissident” than a “heretic” but one will have to make up their own mind on that. I cite this website linked below (It seems to have fallen into disuse, but used to be very informative). Some comments there have the plus and minuses of his scholarship, I appended one below the link:


            “That’s very interesting that you should find no problem with Ramond Brown. The first time I ever heard Raymond E. Brown and Q referenced was at a bible study of St. Mark’s Gospel in my Catholic Church run by two retired university professors. I couldn’t believe the complete doubt and utter nonsense that was being taught. I questioned if Raymond E. Brown was Catholic. Oh, he’s the best biblical scholar. When I questioned the validity of Brown’s writings and pointed out observations he made that made little sense, I was told that no one is allowed to ask such questions of Brown! Really, I said. Brown was allowed to question 2,000 years of Catholic biblical teaching, it’s about time someone expressed some criticism about this man. His findings are based on fallacy and his degrees from a protestant university. This man’s books should not be in bible study–rather, they should be thoroughly analyzed by Catholic theologians because what this man says is heresy. I could hear it after listening to two sentences. Brown trashes and mocks the basic tenets of the Catholic Faith. To teach and advance the theory of Q as a fact is to state that the entire new testament, the inspiration of the holy spirit, the
            fact that the apostles were witnesses and heard stories directly from the blessed mother is a lie and that, in fact, their stories are only similar because they shared the same source material from Q–we don’t know who that guy was–but he’s the one that really knew what was going on–not, God forbid, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John or Paul and Peter and Mary.
            Brown is one of the reasons the Catholic hurch loses the faithful–the man is certaibnly not a Catholic–Jesuit or not–and he definitely has a problem believing in Christ asw the son of God and his mother as revered. Maureen “

          • Regarding “Q,” that’s *exactly* what we were taught in the LMTP sessions on Sacred Scripture. Although the book I mentioned was not specifically, cited as the source, it was recommended for further reading. I bought the book but didn’t find it engaging. It’s sat on my shelf for years, untouched.

          • You’re very welcome! Google him and you’ll see that some think he was brilliant, and others, not so much. His name usually came up with Hans Kung, Charlie Curran and Schillibex (sp?) as powerful scholars in heretical matters. Personally, I only knew him by reputation, as far back as the 80’s. Good luck to you.

          • Very interesting. His book has remained, unopened, on my bookshelf for more than a decade by a special grace of the Holy Spirit. I would rather get my information about Holy Scripture from unequivocally orthodox sources, so Brown’s book will make room for some of them!

          • The Navarre Bible has some excellent commentary that sheds much light while reading the New Testament (I have the single volume – it is also sold as individual books, but the heavy hardback I have is better I think). The comments cited there refer to works of saints, encyclicals, Fathers and Traditional teaching that can be used as a springboard for further study on your own. I also have a few of the Navarre books of the Old Testament, Psalms and a few others, sold separately also with much commentary. I don’t know if they’ve finished the entire Old Testament. I’ve heard that the Ignatius Bible also has great commentary as well. So much of the Early Fathers writings and classic out of print books can be found on line – these times aren’t all bad.

    • Your handle almost makes it but falls a tad short. Joe E Brown, the famous comedian would be more accurate. Of course, he was funny. You? You’re just a run-of-the-mill heretic.

  3. The abomination of desolation on the way. Let’s not pretend this is about anything else. Folks, these people HATE God and want Him gone from every tabernacle and every Altar in every Church on the face of the earth.

    • The False Prophet’s agenda is becoming more open, cunningly using his cohorts in the Vatican to “take the reins” of bringing about these revolutionary changes.

    • These are not people…They are devils in human form. Nothing less than purely satanic. They are part of the Chastisement promised by Our Lady of Fatima. It’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better. There is no pretense or restraint left in the Conciliar Church of Francis the Apostate. Stay tuned for the approval of sodomite “marriages”, women deacons, etc…..all in the name of “Mercy” of course.

    • I don’t think they actually hate God. I think they don’t believe He exists and want to move all of us foolish people who *do* believe into reality. You know, if we could just start working together and obediently, robotically do as we are told. we could make the earth a beautiful place. We’d get everything recycled properly and reduce CO2 and reforest the rain forest. If we make heaven here on earth, we wouldn’t need God and all those silly superstitions.

      • They think and act like the Talmudic Jew, God is unknowable and material power
        a virtue. But are led by a strange spirit….by their actions they choose their destiny.

  4. You had to know that this was coming. Sarah is in the way. Transubstantiation is in the way. The devil is in the details. Now, you know why Cupich, Tobin, and McElroy are being ascended. This is all about a new religion.—When the Latin Mass was obliterated, those on these secret committees knew all along where this was going. The priesthood itself will be phased out. Jesus the Christ was a rabbi and at the Last Supper founded the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. He was the divine sacrifice. Francis is really begging for the lightning to hit.

    • I pray for the Popes conversion. I pray Cardinal Sarah stays faithful. I met a guy the other day that kept saying the same beautiful thing over and over again..the guy was a complete stranger…he said, “lion of Judah, Israeli, Fire by night, cloud by day, Jonah spent 3 days in the belly of the whale and so to shall the Son of Man…
      To me and the repetitive nature of it was a source of encouragement

      • The conversion of the pontiff has as much chance of flying as a “lead balloon”. You don’t have to worry about Sarah. He is the real “lion in winter”.

      • “It all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is”. You have to realize the types of priests required in the new world order. These are not of Melchizedek but of MSWs.—Here in St. Louis,there is a multilayered process going on. Parishes are merging and regional schools without priests are being created. These socialist entities are laying the groundwork for the new world order. The priesthood is dying and there is a new skeleton already in place.—-Every entity that is closed is used to reform existing communities into socialist entities. It makes no difference that every time that it has happened, stable neighborhoods have been destroyed. On paper, it looks good. They are all multi cultural.—When Burke was run out of town, the new archbishop was selected with care. His first order of business was to reform the seminary. He began actively recruiting gays and rooting out the conservatives both inside the student body and in the administration. He brought in a well known Jesuit reformer, Stephen Horn, to start the process.—–Every parish now has a woman pastoral associate who is responsible for teaching religion. This is no longer a duty of the pastor. You have to see the handwriting on the wall.—–You also have to understand the deal made with the Democratic Party. Obama very likely had input into the selection of Francis. The head of the CIA, John Brennan, was a Catholic and evident convert to Islam. The capitalist Trump is installing Catholic values and still the US Bishops are obstructing him. It is all about the redistribution of wealth and the installation of a world socialist government.—-As someone who is Irish, you have to know of the sad situation involving the local Irish parish, St. James the Greater. The school was directed to be closed and merged into a regional entity. The parish resisted and won a one year reprieve with a donation of 250,000. In retaliation, the Irish pastor was removed and replaced with an Indian priest who is a convert from Hinduism. It is his job to go into the Irish parish and to make sure that it will be closed down as ordered.—Every year, this parish has an Irish culture parade. For St. Louis, it is a big deal. In 2012, I attended. I have been to New York every other year for St. Patrick since 2010.—The parish is being frozen out economically. There is no money for the Irish. Meanwhile, the Catholic schools are now some 40% black and non Catholic. Every black kid carries a government grant with him courtesy of Obama. The Irish kids and every other old immigrant entity such as the Italian are paying double tuition.——Last Sunday, it was announced on the results of a capital improvement campaign. One hundred million was collected for the archdiocese. The presenter bragged that 40 million will be given back to the parishes. This particular suburban parish received 12,000.00. The rest will be used for redistribution of wealth.—-The Catholic schools in this archdiocese are deteriorating and becoming non Catholic entities. Groups that wish to retain Catholic culture as noted by my deceased Irish mother are being persecuted and shut down. Jefferson City is a subordinate diocese. The bishop who came from St. Louis just instigated controversy over the inclusion of children of gay parents with the parents to be welcomed warmly.—-This is all well planned and well orchestrated by a clever low key archbishop. It must be said again that then Archbishop Raymond Burke was “run out of town” in order for the reform to take effect.

        • It must also be remarked about this suburban parish that there was an attempt to burn it down. Last Christmas someone got into the Church in late evening. They stacked various material including a podium on top of the crib and set it on fire. The church came close to burning down. It was shut down for repairs for almost a year.—In investigating, I have traced the event to BLM. There are plenty of fine African-American people. However, they have a radical left core that hates the Church and everything that it stands for.—-The Church is afraid to speak out against the far left. The bishops are afraid that their churches will be burned down in retaliation. Here is one instance, where it didn’t matter. The bishops hiding like a bunch of scared rabbits didn’t matter. The church was still set on fire and it was located in a very affluent neighborhood where low income housing had been brought in.

  5. If this is an accurate report, then the cardinals should be able to find the evidence to support it, and issue a declaration of heresy to this heretical pope.

  6. “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist”. Our Lady of La Salette.

    Behold the False Church. Behold the new, universal apostate Church of Man where Catholic dogma is an enemy of “ecumenism”. Behold the Church of the Antichrist.

    The apostates and the heretics are going hog wild, now.

  7. Cardinal Kurt Koch: “…It’s a ‘new beginning of a way to leave conflict in the past and go towards communion in the future’ “
    Serpent’s tongue.
    How can one call this a ‘conflict’?! Deceivers are always using those (false) words, which implies their own false message, based on their own distorted perception.
    The Christ’s Church is only ONE. The Catholic Church. Period!
    Those who have separated themselves, only if and when they completely sincere repent and turn back, they may come back and will be accepted, in the one and only true Christ’s CATHOLIC CHURCH.
    By purposely using of word ‘conflict’ those manipulators are trying to imply equality on the two sides in the essence, which does not, and never can exist. There is only One Christ’s Church, and there are those who are apostates. Many kind of them, with many different names.
    An therefore, … there is no any possibility of any communion (union!), with any of all these apostates.
    They MUST come back, or go wherever they want to go with their false religion. alone!

    I never want to be a Catholic who wants accompany anyone who persistently and willingly keeps walking on the wrong path!
    But I’ll do my best effort, and I’ll keep doing that, to help anyone to be a part of the Christ’s true Church, may God help me with that an use me for that.

    For… “My brethren, if any of you err from the truth, and one convert him: He must know that he who causeth a sinner to be converted from the error of his way, shall save his soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins.” (James 5,19-20)

      • You don’t see it, don’t you. Try to read the real message of the whole sentence. He use word ‘conflict’ specifically and only to give the listener/reader the ‘sense’, or better to say,- to persuade us to think (believe) about the ‘legitimate’ need for unification, instead of conversion of apostates!

  8. Who will join me in signing a letter written to both remaining dubia cardinals insisting and pleading for them to issue the first of the two warnings of a formal correction? Those who will do so should send your answer to [email protected].

    • I think it is fair to assume the correction has already been submitted to Pope Francis. I believe he has been given a period of time to respond before it would become public. This is only my opinion.

      • Although I doubt the first warning has been sent, you may be correct. Or, another alternative could be that he was never given the dubia, the filio correction or anything else that is negative or critical of him. His ego is so large that his assistants may have a standing directive to screen out anything that doesn’t feed it.

  9. As St. John Paul11 stated. “Intercommunion is the goal NOT the means to the goal.” There can be no true unity without unity in belief.



    To the Nuclear
    Plant I went
    With wafered host
    I was hell-bent.

    Exposed the wafered un-
    Consecrated host
    To radiation
    Now nuked toast.

    Offered heretic
    “Taste and see.”
    “Oh no!” He cried
    “That’s not for me!”

    “But look, ” I said
    “Nothing’s changed…
    A still white wafered
    Host arranged.”

    “Though looks the same,
    Could do much harm!”
    The heretic knew
    Expressed alarm.

    As Catholics know
    A spiritual radiation
    Daily at Mass

  11. Let’s not mince words. An “ecumenical mass” would be both sacrilegious and blasphemous; that the Roman Pontiff could even conceive of such a thing is an indictment that cries out to Heaven for remedy.

    Pray the Rosary every day.

    • Exacttly, no intercommunion possible without the Novus Ordo as the bridge. Therefore, let us run away from that to local TLM chapels quickly!

      • Never been to a TLM, I really want to go to one. Seeing an interfaith poster with the crescent and star of David on the bulletin board today really disgusted me.

  12. So called ecumenical mass = abomination of desolation mentioned in the book of Daniel. Totally invalid, therefore no Transubstantiation.

  13. What part of jesuses repeatedly stating his body and blood Transubstantiation was Required for salvation,. Is this apostates cino Catholic not aware of.. Plus how disciples Left his company over this. Time to declare. SCHISM in tjebrc faith right away.

    • Schism is breaking off from the authority of the Pope. That’s what’s tricky about the Pope being at the bottom of all this. If he hasn’t already stepped over the line into Heresy the only other option is Apostasy. Being new territory we must wait to hear from our Cardinals in union with the Magisterium, and in the meantime pray while dangling in the wind.

      • The prospect of an apostate “pope” has been covered here

        Given that the 3rd secret touches on Chapter 13 of Apoc and therefore is related to the papacy (a “pope” “under the control of satan”) one should think and reflect.

      • Schism bythe Vatican and Jesuits hierarchy is undermining.the faith. That this is being done in.the Vatican . Deliberately done. by clerics like cupich and theological traitors promoted by the Vatican is schism against the faith…. No difference than arianism bishops undermining the faith

      • Our Lord is with us. We are not really dangling even though at times it seems like it. Our trust in Him means everything to Christ. The more we trust the more graces will abound.

  14. “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of Antichrist.” If Rome allows this, and allows the Holy Things to be eaten and trampled by dogs, committing sacrilege by feeding heretics the veritable Body and Blood of the divine Christ, then Rome surely has lost the Faith, and there can be no more waiting for a formal correction. How long will God allow His own Body to be rent by teeth of heretics and murderers? How long are the “good” Cardinals going to let God’s Body to be consumed by mouths whose speech is full of words of heretical perversity?

  15. Well, I wasn’t in the best of spirits today to begin with, and upon reading this it has pretty much done me in. I’m off to the Vigil Mass tonight anyway, probably crying all the way through it, but going regardless. I’ll offer my broken heart to the Lord.

    • I was reminded long ago that in ancient times prayer was always accompanied by sacrifice. We tend to think our prayer is only efficacious, or even prayer at all, when it “feels like” prayer. I think your participation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass tonight with a heart united in sacrifice with Christ’s will be a most efficacious offering.
      And don’t forget, the further they go in professing and practicing aberrance, the further they go in being convicted. If they aren’t going to convert – to “turn around” – its best they go all the way. Then they stand without mask, without alibi, and will be judged by the Church in history and Almighty God in Eternity for what they are.
      Perhaps, at that moment, they will wake up.
      Don’t give into discouragement, the adversary’s greatest tool. We are privileged to be able to endure this “white” martyrdom for the love of Jesus Christ, present in all the
      tabernacles of the world.

        • Sometimes I admit red does appear preferable to white… It’s like living in a movie and watching it at the same time.
          You can’t help but predict the worst and watch it immediately transpire before your eyes.

        • May God through the intercession of the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary grant us the graces we need to be faithful to Him in life and in death.

      • Maybe not In all of them. How many priests are lacking even In the intention to do what the Church intends when they say Mass?

        • Excellent and totally embarrassing question, Benedict.

          I recall one English writer raising this point decades ago. He declared that the Consecration was not invalidated by the priest’s inattention, senility or horrible hangover. But it was invalid if he had no intention to consecrate. Another English Catholic asked in 2014 whether one particularly dodgy Bishop believed anything, judging by his casual demeanour at the Consecration.

          Obviously, not many “Catholic” priests are willing to fess up, as this atheist “priest” from Gloucestershire, in the west of England finally did. How many invalid consecrations did Richard Barton perform before he finally quit? Er, no, Barton’s dodgy Bishop, who condoned his live-in boyfriend, is not the dodgy Bishop I mentioned above.

        • Hi Benedict, the Church teaches that the intention to do what the Church does is made manifest by the surrounding ceremonial rite, provided the proper matter and form are used properly and seriously.

          Novus Ordo has no offertory, and the Offertory is one of the three essential parts of the Mass that make up the renewal of Calvary (along with the Consecration and the Priest’s Communion). Every clear reference to the mass as a propitiatory Sacrifice is absent in the new mass, from beginning to end.

          This surrounding ceremonial rite fails to manifest the intention to do what the Church does every time, as far as I can tell.

          I know a validly ordained Priest, who is ex-Society. He now says the Novus Ordo and the old Mass. When he says the traditional Mass, I know he has the intention to do what the Church does. But when this same Priest uses the new missal, I don’t know what his intention is, because he doesn’t make it manifest when he uses a new rite that has no offering of a Victim.

          • An Opus Dei senior Priest here said same thing : The Priest must intend to do what the Church does. And that is offer the sacrifice. I take your point about the words, but if the Priest intends to offer the sacrifice, why would that NOT suffice ?

          • The Church has stated that as long as the priest intends to do what the Church does, that is, uses the proper elements of bread and wine and says the words given him by the Church then the Sacrament is valid.

            Lots of supporters of the idea that the NO Mass is invalid use some errant criteria for intent; however, the Church is clear, intent is caught up in the action of the consecration, not in the proper disposition, understanding or any other criteria. This teaching is given in part to assure the faithful that they need not worry if the consecration is valid or not…if you saw the priest do it in the context of the Mass, he is recognized as having done it with intent.

            The very dangerous road other interpretations of this reality run is the denial of Jesus, present in the Sacrament of the Altar.

            Peace in Christ.

          • Yes the NO is valid. That point is made frequently. What is meant is the Consecration of the Bread and Wine validly becomes Christ’s true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, but the other important issue is WHY the Mass is offered in the first place ? Is the purpose of Mass solely to produce Christ present in the Host? Lots of older Catholics seem to believe that. When Mass is not available,one of them will put their hand up to run a Communion Service so they can receive the Host, and to their mind, that’s it. They are willing to attend a local Communion Service rather than drive an extra 10 minutes to attend Mass in another Parish! What about our need to offer God the Father perfect worship on earth? That’s what Jesus set up: perfect worship perfect sacrifice. As part of that perfect worship, God takes the Sacrifice and shares the Sacrifice with us through Holy Communion. It is thanks to the current Pontificate with its talk of a further drift into ecumenical service that a whole lot of scrutiny is taking place amongst ordinary Catholics about how we have arrived at a situation where Catholics no longer understand what it means to be Catholic.

          • I agree wholeheartedly.

            What a wonderful gift we have as children of God bathed in His grace and strengthened in the Sacraments. I tend to believe that the solution is only to be found in a refocusing on and continually pointing to Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, all else is straw.

            Sad to see such well intended souls arguing over the grey areas, many times to the point of rejecting all those who do not agree. So many fervently explaining in good faith the “obvious” yet contradictory firmly held teachings of the Church.

            Seems we all have to be theologians in order to be saved.

          • You mention the context of the Mass. The context is built into the rite. The rite must therefore express what the Church believes in order for the intention of the minister to be made manifest.

            This is the teaching of Leo XIII in his Bull, Apostolicae Curae, on the invalidity of the Anglican Orders.

            He says that even if the matter and form are right, a rite that does not express what the Church believes regarding that sacrament causes a manifest defect of intention, or even a contrary intention in the minister, and the sacrament is invalid.

            If you saw a Catholic priest use the Anglican Lords Supper Communion service, would you say it is a valid or invalid Consecration? They use the same matter and form as the Church.

            If you were at dinner with a priest, and after dinner he got some bread and wine and said the right words over the bread and wine, would anything happen, or would it still be bread and wine?

            Of course in both cases, nothing would change. Why not? The proper matter and form were used. But he did not manifest the correct intention, and thus no sacrament is effected.

            So now to the Novus Ordo. A rite that was produced with the express intention of the fabricators of deleting and suppressing the essential doctrine of propitiation in the mass, and replacing it with a meal. There is no Offertory. There is no Divine Victim offered to God to take away sin. In fact, there is no victim at all. Mere bread and wine are offered by the people, not the priest. He only “presides” over the assembly. This was a deliberate attempt to bring the Catholic mass as close as possible to a Protestant communion service, and suppress the propitiatory sacrifice. This is a defective rite. It cannot be reconciled with the definition of the Mass as it was in Session XXII of the Council of Trent.

            This, it fails to cause the minister to manifest the intention to do what the Church does. I’ll leave the last connecting dot to you. This is not “dangerous”. This is the teaching of the Church.

          • This is a very interesting take on the current state of affairs. I’ll definitely have to have a look at Pope Leo XIII.

            Concerning the use of the Anglican Lord’s supper by a Catholic priest one might argue that since the Anglican rite has not been given to the priest by the Church and so in using it he is not intending to do as the Church does, but rather as the Anglicans do, there is no consecration.

            In the case of the NO however there is the little point that indeed the Church has unleashed the NO and so as long as the priest intends to do as the Church does that is, consecrate the bread and wine, then the Mass is valid. Clearly he shows up in a church, vests, approaches the altar, prepares for the rite and executes it, how could he not intend to do as the Church has prescribed?

            I guess the answer to the question at hand centers on the “intent” to do as the Church does and while you say intent to sacrifice as made manifest by the rite, others say the intent is the intent to consecrate.

            I would very much like for you to expound upon your statement that the NO cannot be reconciled with the infallible definition of the Mass at Trent.

            Must all faithful hold that the NO Mass in not valid?

          • Hello, no one can know with absolute certainty whether it is valid or not. All we can do is look at it through the lens of what the Church has always taught.

            My position is that it is gravely doubtful. The Church forbids us to approach Sacraments that are even “probable” in their validity. One must have moral certitude, or stay away altogether.

            Apostolicae Curae. The Ottaviani Intervention. The council of Trent. The Roman Missal. These are great sources. You could also look at authors that go into more detail about these things, and not be afraid that what may come out is seriously different to what the mainstream narrative wants you to think. This crisis did not happen without a cause. What is it? Who is behind it? There are things that are impossible for the Catholic Church to do.

            It’s a trail of breadcrumbs. When Cardinal Ottaviani wrote the covering letter to Paul VI in 1969 on the Criticsl Study of the Novus Ordo Missae (aka the Ottaviani Intervention), he said the following.

            “The Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The “canons” of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.”

            So then we ask, well what did Trent say? Click, click on the mouse, tap, tap on the keyboard, and here we are:


            It’s a rabbit hole that leads to all sorts of official teaching of the Church. If one sticks with pre V2 Magisterium, one finds clear and concise teaching which is not hard to understand. One can hold the ideas together easily, and join one to the next.

            It takes some effort and determination, but the issue is so gravely important, a better issue of time can hardly be employed.

            May God bless you and guide you in good will to the underlying truth of what went wrong in the 60’s and continues to this day.

          • Thanks for the response.

            I hope to follow up on these. I guess at the heart of the current confusion is the question of authority. What is the binding and loosing given by Jesus limited to , can the Church of today still bind and loose?

            Do you have any quick references concerning the Church’s guidance away from the questionable Masses. I can see it thought I have also read some thins that would tend to lead a faithful soul to be present and console the heart of Jesus as innovations and abuses at the Mass provide so many opportunities for irreverence and even abuse of Our Lord.

            Thanks again, Peace in Christ

          • Hi Greg sorry for the delay.

            Moral theology has a principle of not proceeding on a doubt.

            If you are going to demolish a building and don’t have moral certainty that it’s empty, then you can’t knock it down until you have moral certainty that it is vacant.

            There are two types of doubt. Negative and positive. Negative doubt is a doubt proceeding from lack of evidence. The Church dismisses negative doubts. They are useless “what if’s”.

            Positive doubt however is based upon objective evidence. One cannot morally proceed on a positive doubt.

            With all the changes on the new mass and the new rites of Orders, we have before us positive doubt, because there are several clear contradictions with what was previously received and approved by the Church.

            So, while we cannot say with absolute certainty they are valid or invalid, we have enough evidence to conclude they are positively doubtful, and therefore we must not proceed upon them.

          • Thanks Mike,
            Am I right in stating that following what you propose that my entire diocese and indeed all neighbouring dioceses in which there is no TLM, the faithful should not be attending the NO mass?
            Is the NO mass to be considered outside the binding and loosing powers of the Church? Could the positive doubt you refer to be a doubt concerning the ability of the Church to promulgate the NO mass, and so a movement against faith?

          • Yes, and yes, absolutely.

            If the Church is capable of being the proximate cause of this terrible apostasy, resulting in the probable damnation of countless millions of souls, then all that she teaches about herself is a lie.

            But this is inadmissible. So we have to look for another explanation. We may not have the solution to the crisis on a grand scale, but as individuals, we remain safe from falling away by “holding fast to tradition” (2 Thessalonians 2:15), and “avoiding heretics” (Titus 3:10-11), as Divine Law commands us.

            “If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.” Galatians 1:8.

            As far as I can see, this absolutely includes all the doctrine on faith and morals, and the sacraments and rites (including the Mass and Holy Orders) that the Church has handed on from the Apostles.

          • Mike, I’ve talked to you many times before… you are clearly advocating for sedevacantism and telling members of the faithful now to not attend Holy Mass if it is in the deficient but approved Novus Ordo Rite. As you know, advocating for sedevacantism is against our comment policy. I know you’re acting as best you know how in the current climate, but so are we. With multiple warnings in the past having been given, and with concern for souls, I’m afraid I have to act. You’re welcome and encouraged to keep reading here, but I’m afraid you are no longer welcome to comment.

          • Sorry I missed this. Read Apostolicae Curae, by Leo XIII on the invalidity of the Anglican Orders. Although he is talking about Holy Orders and why the Anglican’s rite is “utterly null and absolutely void”, the principles of sacramental theology he rests on and reinforces in the Bull, apply to all seven Sacraments.

            He says that if the ceremony emonial rite surrounding the matter and form are defective, i.e. does not express the faith of the Church regarding that sacrament, then even if the matter and form are right, the minister still manifests a defect of intention, and the sacrament is not effected, that is, it’s completely invalid.

            This is how the Church judges the intention of the minister of the sacrament. Not by whether he likes Latin, or incense, or if he thinks that kneeling foe Communion is better than in the hand, or even if he believes what the Church teaches regarding the sacrament in question. No, it is by his use of a Catholic Rite, a rite that expresses what the Church believes about that sacrament. Since the Church does not regard the interior state of the minister, but only what is visible or manifest, (because the Church herself is visible) then we are not permitted to go beyond this.

            I have no idea why a seemingly good priest who believes the mass is Calvary would use a rite that causes a contrary manifest intention, but I don’t need to figure that out. That’s Gos business alone. I just look at the externals and go from that, because that’s the mind of the Church.

      • Good point about sacrifice. Kneeling before the Blessed Sacrament can be seen in the same vein. The early native Americans sacrificed part of their crop to thank their gods. That is also the reasoning behind tithing.—-With this social justice mentality, there is no sacrifice. It is all about the state taking care of those under her care. There is no need to work and to offer thanksgiving for the bounty given to us by for Creator.—Man is now equal to God. There is no reason to sacrifice to a superior being. Native Americans are seen as superstitious. Maybe, they had the right idea.—-The Aztecs took it a step too far with human sacrifice. Nevertheless, Isaac was ordered to kill his son in sacrifice. God allowed His only son to be sacrificed.—It is all about the pride of Lucifer and a current spiritual leader who gives every indication of having no humility.

    • It’s probably safe to say that everyone who comments has shed some tears as you describe. I like to think of these times as keeping Our Lord company when He was imprisoned over-night before His crucifixion. In Tobit it says that the angels carry such tears in a golden bowl to place before God’s throne. Consoling thought, isn’t it?

  16. For Catholics, of course, intercommunion isn’t theologically possible.

    But for German post-Catholics and post-Lutherans, it may well be perfectly possible.

  17. The 3rd stage of the Novus Ordo as predicted by Fr Malachi Martin in his 1991 interview. A blasphemous ceremony so far removed from what the Mass should be that those who embrace this horror wil probably never know the sacrificial nature of Christ’s sacrifice. Fr Gregory Hesse was spot on that the NO was the foundation of a new religion based on man, paving the way for Antichrist.

    • Anyone familiar with Fr Malachi Martin’s book “Jesuits”, must have fallen out of their chair when they saw a South American Jesuit chosen as Pope. I wish he was around now. Though I am sure he is glad is isn’t.

  18. An imperfect council needs to call and declare Francis a Heretic since he is allowing this Gorilla Clown to shoot off his mouth and blaspheme God.

  19. The abomination of desolation truly sits in the Holy Place. Francis continually transforms the episcopate with his appointments of Cardinals and Bishops, adding to the apostates who show their true colors since his election. What is a Catholic who holds the old Faith to do? When the living magisterium contradicts the old, how long are we to how long are we to pretend. Where is the Church founded by Jesus when the living magisterium contradicts the basic Dogmas of the Faith?

  20. Abomination of desolation indeed. What does the Vatican say about miracles in which hosts turn into cardiovascular tissue? had an article about these miracles within the last few months.

  21. I took this from Novus Ordo Watch at 11.30pm (G.M.T)

    [Interviewer:] Which of the doubts formulated in your “Dubia” letter is the principal one? How would you try to explain it once more, succinctly, to a layman?

    [“Cardinal” Brandmuller:] First: To pose “dubia”, i.e. doubts, questions to the Pope has always been a way of eliminating ambiguities. That’s completely normal. Then: Put simply, the question is: Can something be permitted today that was a sin yesterday? It is also asked if, as has always been taught, there really are actions that are immoral at all times and under any circumstance? Such as, for example, the killing of an innocent man, or adultery? That’s what the issue ultimately is. Should, then, the first question indeed be answered with “yes” and the second with “no” — then this would be heresy [Irrlehre, “doctrinal error”] and subsequently [mean] schism. A split in the Church.

    Do you really consider schism a possibility?

    May God prevent it.

    (“Das Christentum hechelt nicht nach Applaus”, Frankfurter Allgemeine, Oct. 28, 2017; our translation.)

  22. Why beat around the bush?

    These men are not simply heretics – they are APOSTATES!

    And everyday is Halloween where they can dress up like Catholics and say and change whatever they like, simply because they themselves believe it was all made up in the first place, therefore they merely see themselves are being in continuity with what was always a farce.

    100 Years of Fatima from the first Apparition ended recently. 100 Years from the Miracle of the Sun ended this month.

    100 Years from our Lady’s formal request to Sr. Lucia for the Consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart in Tuy, Spain, during the Spanish Civil War, will end by 2029.

    Our Lord Himself appeared to her in Rianjo, Spain to express His displeasure that His Vicars continually delayed to obey Him and would find themselves following in the footsteps of the Kings of France who failed to consecrate France to His Sacred Heart, and 100 years later fell to the French Revolution.

    This year, we see Emmanuel Macron being dubbed by the press as channelling the spirit of King Louis XIV, the Sun King, in his arrogance.

    Only yesterday tensions between Catalonia and Spain have come to a head and threaten civil war. Something that could easily lead to the break-up of many EU states. Is it really coincidental that this similar event is occurring on the anniversary of Fatima? Recall that the Queen of Heaven told Sr. Lucia that once the Civil War in Spain came to an end, a greater war would break out – WWII.

    It would not surprise me if many former EU nations break up under the tyranny of the EU, and with the EU and the USA refusing to recognize their sovereignty, will turn to other nations for trade and for protection – like Russia and China.

    Secessionist states from former Europe could band together as an alliance, and turn to the U.N. as Syria did to request Russian aid and troop presence, fulfilling prophecy of Russian armies in Europe and the Russian flag over the dome of St. Peter’s. And just as in Syria and the Middle East, Europe and Rome could see itself in brutal conflict and Europeans will taste what the Afghanis, Iraqis and Syrians experienced.

    With America backing hardline Jihadis, the moderate Muslims in Europe and Islamic nations will naturally be more comfortable allying with Russia.

    The Pope will have to flee Rome, and considering the corruption and sodomite bureaucracy of the Vatican, that’ll probably be for the best once the Pope is free of those shackles. He can flee to Portugal, and God can happily do to St. Peter’s what He did to the Temple of Jerusalem. We shall weep at the destruction of that beautiful edifice just as the Jews did for Solomon’s and again in 70 A.D. St. Peter’s Basilica will be the 3rd time.

  23. They’re already trying to float some of this inter communion garbage in the US. In my diocese, which I won’t name, a parish priest and presumably parishioners took part in some sort of festival to celebrate the protestant revolution with Lutherans and another protestant sect. At a Catholic college here, they had a Catholic, I think a priest, give a talk about the protestant revolution in the vein of let’s all come together.

    • We have the same foolishness going on at our parish here in town tonight.

      I wish, desperately, there were a TLM available less than 2 hours away. But, as there isn’t, and I haven’t the first idea how to get one here, we have the choice of NO or nothing.

      • Please make every effort to avoid the new mass. I travel almost 2 hours every Sunday. It’s like a pilgrimage but it’s worth it

        • I have no doubt that it is worth it. I can’t justify the risk of two+ hours there and then back again on slick (north ID) winter roads into the high country, especially with the risk of running into weather and missing Mass altogether because of it, and a host of other issues, not the least of which is the fuel budget, with children to keep warm, no less.

          Single parent means single income, and these times seem to require hard choices. Despite my best efforts, no reprieve in sight at present. This seems to be the path I get to travel, so I have to herd my charges as best and as safely as I can. Sleep has been (and surely will continue to be) lost over the decision.

        • If only I had the option. If I do, I lose custody of my children to their father, who abandoned us all, and has spent the last three years stalking us. I am at the furthest point of my “range” as it is.

          There are no easy answers that I can see.

  24. …and he reports directly to Francis. I’m running out of things to say. If I had the word “Cardinal” in front of my name…

  25. The Sacrifice will be taken away …. so prophesied Daniel. Who can say anymore that this monster in white from Argentina cannot be the False Prophet of the Apocalypse?

    Those Cardinals and Bishops who are still Cardinals have to act, and act now.

  26. Oh, for pete’s sakes, if you want to go the John Macarthur route into Protty land big time, at least check out Joan Carrol Cruz’s book on Eucharistic Miracles FIRST! Amazing how many “Bible Believing Christians” (not like us weird Catholics) want to skip over that part in John Chapter 6 where Jesus says FOUR TIMES about eating His flesh and drinking HIs blood, as “my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.”! and that part a lot of His followers suddenly said “I am outta here!” afterwards.

    Incidentally this kind of “dialogue” is like when conservatives and liberals “dialogue” and the conservatives gradually develop a taste for Statism! Fooey! Kyrie Eleison, Christe Eleison

  27. The transubstantiation of the Eucharist acts on everything in reality, including the level of information – the distribution of order and disorder throughout reality.

    The bread and wine become the flesh and blood of Christ at least in that their effect on reality is identical – not just equal – to that of having the meat and living blood of our Saviour at the altar table. This must be true of them, unless one is accusing Christ of lying to us.

    Saying then that the consecrated bread and wine are not truly His flesh and blood because they appear in an unfamiliar form is hairsplitting, and in every way that matters – their effect on reality as phenomena – is wrong.

    If Christ is the progenitor of everything, and gives life to everything, everything that lives – including the grape and the grain – is His life.

    If you only accept the things that Christ tells you insofar as you think you understand them, are you worshipping at Christ’s Church or your own?

    The desupernaturalist tendency amongst radical sceptic modernists is a failure of faith.

    God grant me the faith to believe what I do not understand. You have the words of eternal life.

  28. This is beyond imagining… such outrages and offences against Our Lord, this is the culmination of years of irreverence and ever less subtle attacks on the Real Presence.

    Time to double down on Eucharistic Adoration!

  29. There are some who believe the abomination of desolation, or a precursor of it, is the Novus Ordo Missae. Rome lost the Faith in 1965 with the heresies contained in Vatican II documents. We have waited in vain for a “Holy” Father to consecrate Russia in the exact manner requested by Our Lady and to defend the Church from the errors of the Council. Most Catholics today do not even know the rudimentary elements of the Catholic Catechism and therefore do not recognize error when it is fed to them. With the attacks on marriage and now the Holy Eucharist, are we finally getting to the nerve of what they do know about their Faith. Will they now begin to pray the rosary in earnest for the Consecration and fulfill the First Five Saturdays in reparation? I pray that they will. And I thank God with all my heart that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre led me and my family to all that is holy and saved us from thirty years of ignorant sins against the Faith. God bless him forever.

    • On Friday night my family hosted a newly ordained priest who is assigned to the parish of which we are members. He learned Latin, considered FSSP but didn’t do it because he felt he could make more of a difference in NO parishes, catechizing–stealthily if need be–the uncatachized masses. He said that he feels the translation is fairly faithful but the movements are much less disciplined in NO (e.g. TLM is highly choreographed which is good, he does try to remain faithful to it). He certainly believes in the real presence as he told me problem number one is that EM’s are not to wash the vessels, ever. He is also looking for help in getting the music ministry corrected (e.g. “Stand Up and Shout (If You Believe in Jesus)” type music is on its way out), and so much else.

      My point, there are faithful NO priests, some of them even know Latin. Sedevacantists and SSPX types can call the NO illicit–maybe it is–but the sacraments are valid. And for those with no other choice, that is what really matters.

      • God bless this priest for his choice! It is a great act of charity. I’m sure he would have rather, in a way, joined the FSSP in order to say the TLM exclusively and to be around more “like-minded” Catholics. That would have been the easy, more comfortable option.

      • Sorry, Brian. If he thinks the biggest problem is EMs purifying the sacred vessels, then he’s a problem. IF they can handle without consecrated hands the Blessed Sacrament, they can certainly purify the sacred vessels in which the sacrament is contained (whether ciborium or chalice). Liturgical principle: he (and now, “she”) who can do the greater can do the lesser. Effecting the union between Our Lord and His faithful is certainly greater; ergo . . . . .

        EMs are abhorrent. Period. They destroy respect for the Blessed Sacrament, and effectively separate the intimate connection between priest and faithful by being the ones who “feed the flock” and “feed the sheep” (the majority of Catholics around the world at Sunday Mass do not receive Our Lord from the hands of a priest). It separates the Blessed Sacrament from the stewardship of priests and therefore compromises the exclusivity of the priest’s unique relationship with the Eucharist. Unless I misunderstand you, your priest does not experience any loss of unique Eucharistic intimacy heretofore inherent in his office. THAT’S a problem.

        • No, no, no. He is talking about things he can address now. He is a parochial vicar, not the parish priest. He answers, on earth, immediately, to the parish priest.

        • “…the majority of Catholics around the world at Sunday Mass do not receive Our Lord from the hands of a priest”.

          There are several ways to understand this which are true!

          • Yeah, there sure are, and they’ve all been coming thick and fast from the supposed hierarchy since the 1960’s. We didn’t pick this fight. The shepherds who became wolves via public heresy did. I refuse to submit to them or participate in their destructive heresies and novelties. That’s the Catholic way. The sheep hear the voice of the Good Shepherd (John 10), and don’t follow strangers.

          • The Church is not an institution its a spiritual reality.
            The Mystical Body of Christ. It was always so and always will be…

            The Church has not changed in essence since IT is I AM all along and all within.
            No loosening or binding of great substance is made without the HEAD.
            To suggest that (despite its errors) the N.O. Holy Sacrifice is an affront to its intended
            reason (Our Lord) is the Faith of a poor child.

            The day may come as Daniel prophesied, but IT HAS NOT COME YET.

          • You’re a bit fuzzy on some basics regarding the nature of the Church Barry. That’s OK. We have not been taught by the hierarchy for a very long time. You can square this all up by reading the pre-vatican II magisterium and the approved theologians. It helped me immensely.

          • Mike, I would contend that your theology lacks prowess.

            Religious beliefs and theory when systematically developed,
            require an act of faith.

            And the theology of mere Men requires caution, BUT Our Lord
            will not abandon the simple faith of many today in the N.O. who
            seek HIS face.
            The MASS is valid yet!

          • Our Lord can give the grace of a sacrament when it may be lacking in the sacrament itself if the soul is of good will. But He guarantees to give the grace each and every time the sacrament is validly confected, and that’s where I am going to go. You can’t show me by sound sacramental theology that your claim is absolutely true. Just like everyone else I ask.

      • “The Sacraments are valid”. I see this assertion around the traps, and I would like to know how people are so sure about it, but can’t get a good answer in the positive.

        So, how do you know the new sacraments are valid, according to the principles of sacramental theology from before Vatican II?

        • What is new about the sacraments? If the words are still the words translated then it’s valid. This is well established. Further, Christ probably instituted the Eucharist in Aramaic.

          • The form for the consecration of the Chalice has been mutilated. Firstly “for you and for all men” has a different meaning than “for you and for many”. This form was defined by Eugene IV, and again by Pius V, who said any change in meaning would render the sacrament invalid. There is still the elimination of Mysterium Fidei, the Mystery of Faith, from the consecration of the Chalice. This is an explicit reference to Transubstantiation, and it has also been suppressed.

            The Novus Ordo also suppresses every reference to the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, most notably by the elimination of an Offertory. From beginning to end however, the essential doctrine of propitiation is gone.

            Leo XIII taught that when the proper form and matter are used, the minister is presumed to have the correct intention, provided a Catholic rite is used. The Catholic rite gives the external manifestation of the inward intention of the minister, and is necessary for validity. So what do we make of the Novus Ordo, which suppresses, distorts and eliminates the very truth about the Mass which the Church has always taught? How does the minister show the intention when the rite he is using suppresses the very truth it is meant to affirm?

            The form for Holy Orders for the Priesthood and the Episcopate were expressly laid out in Sacramentum Ordinis by Pius XII in 1947.

            He said that if a new form had a different meaning to the one he laid out, the sacrament of Orders would be invalid. Both the new form for the Priesthood and the Episcopate are different in meaning.

            Also, the new ceremonial rites surrounding the matter and form for the new rites of Orders suppress the essential nature of the Priesthood and the Episcopate, in the same way the Anglicans suppressed it in their modification of the rite of Orders. Leo XIII said that the Anglican rite of Orders is invalid due to a defect of form and a defect of intention.

            When we are commanded by St Paul to “hold fast to tradition”, he means all of it, including the traditional rites and forms for the sacraments. Ignore this Divine command at your own risk!

          • “Firstly “for you and for all men” has a different meaning than “for you and for many”. This form was defined by Eugene IV, and again by Pius V, who said any change in meaning would render the sacrament invalid. There is still the elimination of Mysterium Fidei, the Mystery of Faith, from the consecration of the Chalice. This is an explicit reference to Transubstantiation, and it has also been suppressed.”

            But is there a SIGNIFICANT change in meaning? as Pope Eugene IV and Pope Pius V meant it. To render invalid
            every single MASS in the N.O. invalid? Are we trading with semantics here…

            I hold no brief for Anglican “issues”

            St.Paul spoke of tradition (thus, established) unaware of the future development of doctrine in the history
            of the Church up to (let us say) V2.

            So significant a change THAT Heaven denies the exact same gift of Grace post-V2 through the
            Sacrament as SHE did prior to V2?

          • I disagree with several points. One, you do not get to define what is a Catholic rite. Two, I sat and listened to him talk about the sacrificial meaning of the mass. Third, on what authority would I believe a thing you say? Where do you attend mass?

          • A Catholic rite expresses the same Faith the Church has always taught. The new rites propose a different theology and a different faith. I hope you can see that.

            A thing cannot be A and non-A in the same way at the same time. Two opposing theologies on the Mass cannot both be Catholic. The traditional trumps the novel.

            If the Our Lord didn’t think we would be able to apply His universal teachings via the Church to every particular instance of our life, He would not have commissioned the Church to teach us at all. You don’t need to be given authority to make judgements in the intellect. You already have it, and the Divine command to use it.

            Leo XIII says the intention is made manifest by the use of a Catholic rite, not a sermon.

            You don’t have to believe me on anything. I don’t have teaching authority in the Church. None at all. I have a duty to be taught by the Church, which I have done and continue to do. I just share with my fellow Catholics what the Church does and does not teach.

            I go to an SSPX chapel exclusively. I have already lost the Faith entirely a long time ago by simply going along with a Novus Ordo Parish – and no guidance from traditional teaching or liturgy – and I’m not doing that again. They are not getting my children either if I can help it.

          • Also, the new ceremonial rites surrounding the matter and form for the
            new rites of Orders suppress the essential nature of the Priesthood and
            the Episcopate, in the same way the Anglicans suppressed it in their
            modification of the rite of Orders. How do you know this ? I have some people saying the same thing but I dont know WHERE to check it out ???

          • Michael Davies’ The Order of Melchizedek goes into all this detail.

            There are several places online which go into all this, but the authors might put you off because of what they think about the vacancy of the Holy See in our time.

          • I just located a review of that book from 1994 at Our Lady of the Rosary, extract of which is : ”
            Davies’ primary thesis is that the new Rite of Ordination is valid in spite of all its alterations and
            omissions. He cites Pope Pius XII’s instruction Sacramentum ordinis, which states the minimum matter and form required for the validity of the Sacrament. The new rite contains almost all of the prescribed form, lacking but one word, and Davies holds that this omission makes no substantial change. He points out that this form is identical with that given in the older Leonine Sacramentary. While the matter and form alone are required for validity, Pope Pius did demand that the auxiliary ceremonies the handing over of a chalice and paten holding bread and wine, and a second imposition of hands indicating the reception of the power to forgive sins be retained. Nonetheless, the new rite would seem to possess the minimum needed for validity.” It is a mixed review citing what the author believes are errors in the book. I have not read it, but hope obtain a copy at some time. I sensed this review may interest you. at The subject of a proposed ecumenical Mass came up this morning, and the Parish Priest affirmed the Priest must intend to do what the Church does – which is to offer Christ’s sacrifice. Perhaps at the end of the day, it is important for us all right now to always attend Mass offered by an orthodox Catholic Priest.

          • Davies presents a lot of material. These are the facts of the matter, and he does a great job in that. There is no argument against the facts. The similarities between the novus rites of Orders, and the invalid Anglican rite, the same pattern of suppression and deletion of the nature of the Priesthood, are all part of this material.

            His opinion on whether it meets the minimum amount of…whatever it is…which is required to satisfy the mind of Michael Davies on the matter, is however entirely subjective. His opinion on the facts is of no weight.

            We have grave positive doubt. The one word deleted in the new form for priestly orders is the Latin word “Ut”, which means “in order to” or “so it may”. It places the first half of the sentence as the cause, and “ut” sets up the second half of the form as the effect. The sacraments must signify what they effect, and effect what they signify, or else they are invalid. Pius XII says that if anyone changes the form, then it must mean exactly the same thing as the traditional form. Deleting this word makes the new form different in essential meaning compared with the old.

            Are you happy to take the gamble, by this serious break with what the Church has always done, and bank on the new rite giving the grace which it does not appear to signify in the new form?

            It’s not for me to say its valid or invalid. I simply see a break with tradition on an extremely crucial point, which means the sacraments I receive are potentially either valid or invalid, and stay right away. Nothing in Divine Law compels me to accept them.

            Shopping around for “orthodox” priests as the means of being sure the sacraments is valid is leading to wards the heresy of Donatism.

            The safer path is to hold to the teaching of the Church, particularly in Apostolicae Curae, and judge intention on whether a Catholic rite is used in the ceremony surrounding the proper matter and form.

          • I will pray for you. This is not an easy thing to deal with. It caused me lots of disturbance to put it mildly. I’d rather go to the dentist! But face it we must.

  30. You think this is craziest thing you’ve heard all day? I went to Saturday vigil at the assisted living facility I volunteer at, and the priest took the opportunity of “reformation Sunday” to thank archheretic Martin Luther for pushing “change” which he then elaborated took place 50 years ago at VII. I just about jumped out of my seat when I heard that….

  31. It really must now be understood, indisputable even to Novus Ordoites, that this is a new religion.

    It’s not just the wholesale adoption by the visible authorities of the Catholic Church of the entire package of the Protestant-Masonic alliance (which has been very profound for at least two centuries), it’s more than that. It’s Talmudic (the judaizing nature of the post-Vatican II Church has been noted many times); it’s gnostic; it’s nature is in fact pagan and this is very much in the open now.

    Do not try to hold the hands of Christ and Belial at the same time, it can’t be done.

      • The joint scripture readings should be a riot. I would pay good money to see what happens if the followers of the Religion of Peace include the passages about striking the infidel on the neck. Better search all participants for sharp objects before you start.

    • Pope Captain Kangaroo and Cardinal Greenjeans will surely pick up on this.
      Moslems have more integrity, regard and zeal for their belief system than to take part in something so foolish.
      Leave it to us to promote such fraudulence.

  32. This should not be surprising: John Paul II paved the way with his syncretic ecumenism, especially with his appeasement of Islam, and with his arbitrary revisionism on capital punishment that reflects intellectual fashion and European secularism rather than Scripture and Tradition:

  33. Example of the utter nonsense of modern Ecunemism that Denies Not a mere Dogma if that can be said, but the Very Core of Catholicism, Transubstantiation , the Divine presence of the Actual Body, Blood and Divinity of Jesus Christ, what can be more clear, and for that reason,one receiving must be in Sanctifying Grace, free of any Mortal Sin that seldom is mention as a condition for receiving Holy Communion which otherwise IS a an act of Sacrilidge That Pope Francis makes light of.

    • Even as Pope John Paul II fostered Eucharistic sacrilege after Eucharistic sacrilege by his personal cult-forming mega outdoor Masses.

      • Pope John Paul II has been infallibly declared a saint, and enjoys the Beatific Vision. The Church thus doesn’t share your opinion that he ‘fostered Eucharistic sacrilege’ by holding large Masses. You REALLY think that it was his intention for the Blessed Sacrament to be mishandled or abused? The persons who did these things are responsible for their conduct.

        I personally don’t think lay people should be touching the Eucharist, whether receiving or distributing. But since it is permitted by the Church, I am not going to accuse the parish priests of ‘fostering sacrilege’ by allowing it. And considering that since even persons receiving on the tongue can remove the Host afterwards and use it for evil purposes, should the Mass be suppressed to prevent such sacrilege? I think Pope St. John Paul II’s words and writings give sufficient evidence of his orthodoxy regarding the True Presence.

        • Do I REALLY think? If I didn’t think it, I wouldn’t have written it. John Paul II was Pope for 27 years. He “presided” (his preferred term, not mine) over hundreds of “mass” Masses all over the world. IF he didn’t know, he should have (and to even suggest he wasn’t aware strains credulity). I suppose he had his eyes closed when a bare chested woman “Reader” in some South Pacific Island entered the sanctuary literally feet from where he sat. Just where does the buck stop in your estimation?

          Your snide remark about the SSPX above is intentionally inflammatory on this site and you know it. Too often you post-conciliar enablers of the Revolution are permitted to rabble rouse in here. . . .without anything constructive to offer except snide remarks.

        • It doesn’t matter his intention and it doesn’t matter if he was canonized. Sacrilege still happened. Someone can be in heaven and have allowed sacrilege intentionally or not. Someone can be in heaven, yet not be a good candidate for canonization as they would give a bad example. Pseudo-saint John Paul II fulfills these descriptions.

  34. I dismiss this as useless gibberish, the people involved have obviously distanced themselves from the Truth of the Catholic Faith and have no part in it.

  35. Following on from Sandro Magister’s recent fascinating article (on the onepeterfive site) on PF’s apparent attitude to the Four Last Things, this interfaith liturgy is not in the least surprising. If the Last Judgement is nothing to be afraid of, why bother about the fine print of any Catholic dogma or alleged dogma? Any brave volunteers willing to explain to the average Catholic congregation the difference between transubstantiation, consubstantiation and a memorial feast?

    Admittedly, as one scathing English priest observed c. 1975 about Karl Rahner’s “theology”, PF’s teaching (or alleged teaching) on any subject seems to change shape as it goes along, like an amoeba. The latest that I have seen (as of 25th Oct 2017) is that PF explains that you need a little repentance, as per the Dying Thief, to get into Heaven.

    So it is not quite Universal Salvation All Round and he seems to have slithered back just inside the boundary of Catholic orthodoxy, probably in reaction to the pushback produced by Sandro’s excellent article. Though, seeing that today is 29th October, anything might have changed in the last four days.

  36. I see, the Abomination of Desolation… How did this Grillo obtain or is even able to maintain his position at San Anselmo?

    This papacy is going to give me permanent blood pressure.

    This mess reminds me of a certain scene with a great score from a popular movie:

    Dagoth, o deus dos sonhos…

    And there I was assuming the end game was giving the Eucharist to sinners practicing a certain sexual persuasion. But with no Transubstantiation… My bad…

        • Just to warn you though, Patricia. The piece of music is called ‘The Orgy’ and the scene in the film depicts one. It came to mind re that priest’s orgy in the Vatican and when that gay priest came out during the Family Synod, not forgetting the revelations of recently deceased ex-Fr Baum of VII.

  37. Has anyone read Canon 844: 3&4 of JPII’s New 1983 code of Canon Law?

    It expressly permits inter Communion for heretics and schismatics.

    Go on, look it up for yourself if you don’t believe me. It’s been on the official books for 34 years.

    Since what the article says regarding inter Communion being impossible for Catholics is absolutely true, then what does this say about Karol Wojtyla’s status as one? Neither the pope nor the Church is capable of leading souls into error or heresy.

    • It specifies ‘provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.’ That makes the difference.

      • That is completely against the teaching of the Church. Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Sacraments. You have to do some homework if you think this is ok.

        Canon 731: 2 from the 1917 code of canon law says the following on the same subject:

        “It is forbidden to administer the sacraments of the Church to heretics or schismatics, even though they err in good faith and ask for them, unless they have first renounced their errors and been reconciled with the Church.”

        Canon law is never contrary to Divine Law. Since the Church has Divine authority to teach and govern the faithful, she can never fail in this by leading souls into error and damnation.

        So, what do you make of this contradiction?

        • “unless they have first renounced their errors and been reconciled with the Church”
          This text to me sounds like what a “manifestation of Catholic Faith” would imply.
          I see no contradiction here.

          • See it however you want Barry. The 1917 code is absolutely clear. The 1983 code is sufficiently ambiguous to deceive anyone if they wish to let themselves be taken in.

            It is still clear enough to be a blatant contradiction to the old Code. One had to become a Catholic to receive the Sacraments before 1983. Now they can just profess “faith” in the Sacrament they want, and keep the rest of their heresies.

          • That is your opinion of matters, “a manifestation of faith” and away you go is not my
            interpretation of the relevant part of the code Book IV. The Sanctifying Office of the Church

          • Barry, it is exactly your type of “conservative” that has gone along with every facet of the Revolution and has allowed this crisis to happen.

            The Hierarchy is faithless, even malicious – get that into your head and you will start to see more clearly through the fog in your mind.

          • I will NOT abandon the N.O. before “the appointed time”, there ARE many within its walls who
            need help to understand its failings and what IS most important is that the Sacraments remain
            valid up to this point.
            I stand and fight within its confines until I feel called to abandon, the fight is not over yet.
            You disagree, WE disagree. That’s OK.
            God bless!

      • Yes. And every other possible reason. Look at how it’s worded. Nice and ambiguous – the hallmark of modernism.

        “Whoever eats [the body and blood of Christ the Lamb of God] outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails.” (St. Jerome, Doctor of the Church, c. 374 A.D.)

        The Sacraments have never been given to non-Catholics. Compare the 83 Law with the older 1917. It’s a complete contradiction after 2000 years.

        • Hello too! Yesterday I stumbled across” the Ottaviani Intervention: A Critical Study of the New Mass”. I read what I thought was the entire Ottaviani Intervention many years ago, but this newly discovered long document is very helpful though sad of course. Christ knows our predicament, and I think we are moving quickly to a situation where those “signal Graces” which the Virgin Mary has promised associated with dedication to the Rosary, are about to come into play. If you know of an ‘official response’ to this O.I. at that time, would like to read that too if you know where it is? Whilst what is happening in the Church is fast paced and alarming, equally alarming is the lockstep political movement across the globe, and I believe there is a connection between the two movements inside and outside the Church. One can throw hours of study at all this and still barely scratch the surface. Thank you for your contribution.

          • Paul VI essentially ignored the Intervention. Only a token recognition of it was given. In the original 1969 General Instructionon the Roman Missal, there was an heretical definition of the Mass in paragraph 7.

            A few touch ups were made to the GIRM, but the 1970 Missal remained identical to the 1969 version.

            That’s about it. The new mass went ahead as planned.

  38. There’s a bad joke that I would like to share:

    Q. What’s the only thing that never changes in the Novus Ordo?

    A. The bread and the wine.

      • So don’t go to it. It has caused the destruction of the faith in more souls over 48 years than Luther and his cronies could have ever dreamed. It’s not from the Church, and the more ridicule and scorn one can pour upon it, the better.

        • You under-estimate Divine Providence,
          and at least have taken the gloves off, revealing your disdain. Your comment is absurd.

          To suggest an application of scorn and ridicule is pleasing to GOD in this instance is woefully
          ignorant and faithless, furthermore your posit would have us believe that The Holy Sacrifice of
          the Mass in the N.O is no less an abomination in God’s sight,
          It IS to HELL!

          At best, your intellect has blocked you. The MASS is valid yet….

        • Mike you are a LEGALIST regarding Transubstantiation at present, alive and well
          in the N.O. MASS.
          Am reminded of another one, SAUL……

          • The only thing I am certain of in the whole world is that whatever the Church teaches is of Divine revelation.

            When the Church teaches doctrine it cannot err. If this is legalism, then count me in.

            You prefer fuzzy thinking. Fine, but perhaps Catholicism is not for you, since it deals in black and white truth.

          • Both you and I are “fuzzy thinkers” for we labor under Original Sin.
            It is an Act of Faith and “reason” encouraged by Grace that gives us confidence
            in the Church and it’s consistent doctrine.

            The Church can not KNOW the mysteries of Faith, or they would cease
            to be mysterious and faith would be unnecessary.

            The Holy Spirit IS not confined to the finite minds of Man and his insecurities.
            Transubstantiation occurs AND The Real Presence Is Alive and Suffers with
            Joy amid the liturgical “drama” of the Novus Ordo.

            “The Spiritual Picture is as alive to me as Spiritual Pride is dead”

          • You are quite right about the understanding of sacred mysteries. Only God fully comprehends things like Transubstantiation, but the Church infallibly teaches us the very precise and narrow circumstances when it will happen, and just as importantly, when it will not happen.

          • Ok Mike. Essentially it is GOD and GOD alone who dispenses Grace
            as HE sees fit. This is obvious and is HIS exclusive preserve. GOD being GOD has no NEED for an exactitude of text (as argued) to be rendered (summoned) present on the Altar at the words of consecration in the N.O. MASS.
            It’s like GOD is saying: “I am not coming down there because their wording is off, regardless of their thirst, regardless of their NEED.”

            Such a time approaches, BUT the MASS is valid yet….

          • Well, I will leave it up to GOD to decide my merit’s….
            a charge of “heresy” how very odd.
            GOD knows what I mean and what is in my (soul) and
            will correct my life, not you, not any man.

          • I knew there was something odd about you from the beginning of our conversation, Barry. In charity I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

            But now it’s clear. Now I understand. You are a heretic of the first rank, and unless you renounce your impious unbelief, I have nothing in common with you at all.

            You are not a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, not because I say so, but because you do via public heresy.

            Come to your senses man. Goodbye.

          • Transubstantiation occurs in the N.O. call me a “heretic” all day long it changes nothing.
            You foolish man to think you can lecture me and judge me outside The Mystical Body Of
            Christ. “Public heresy?” you are a clown!

            A sanctimonious legalist who would have people believe
            that the only true Church resides in a spirit of disobedience to Apostolic Succession.

            Run away from the fight to restore the Church and sneer from the sidelines, you have
            less grasp of the reality of The Mystical Body which permeates the intellectual contradictions
            of sheep of the flock.

            Those who have read previous comments of mine know of my disdain for abuses and “heretical
            pushes” going on in the Church today, but like a broken record I will repeat THE MASS IS VALID

            Enough ad hominem casting of stone from you, sir!

    • Hardly without foundation.

      Do you not remember his comment two or three years ago about how the promise of ecumaniacal endeavour had run into the sand but (I paraphrase here) “A big gesture is needed and I have the humility (sic) to do it”.

      A sacrilegious Mass is exactly the gesture this demon would provide.

      • Don’t worry. I await worse! If this were to come about it would make the witness of the English Martyrs at the time of the deformation a complete nonsense.

    • If one manned a watchtower “waiting and seeing” could prove fatal.
      Prudence IS necessary but there is already too much evidence of bad fruit
      to “dismiss all this as pure gossip and speculation”

      Balanced “alertness” with deference to the actions of The Holy Spirit, BUT
      extreme preparedness and caution for ALL eventualities…..

      • But what can a mere member of the laity do except pray? Well I have never been particularly interested in liturgy but the latest sally against Cardinal Sarah has convinced me that I need to join the Latin Mass Society.

        • Nicolas, reflect on what you’ve said…..

          Myriad activities stem from Prayer, the Corporeal works of Mercy, informing one’s neighbor
          (those that care to listen) of present challenges within the Church and those to come.
          Financial help to agents of authentic witness.

          If you can practically attend a T.L.M. do so. Proper application of efficacious Prayer e.g.the Rosary
          will lead you along……(docility).
          Trust Our Blessed Mother to help you.

  39. Looking into the Orthodox Church. Far stricter rules about a closed Communion with a much more ancient Liturgy. Maybe they were the originalmchurch.

    • ” … with a much more ancient Liturgy.”

      A common myth, but a myth nevertheless.

      When Summorum Pontificum was issued, Patriarch Alexei II of the Russian Orthodox Church issued an official response acknowledging that the “TLM” is the oldest rite in Christendom.

      Our lot may be apostates, but that frying pan is the Orthodox’ schismatical and heretical fire: the SSPX is where you (and all of us) belong.

    • They allow people who have been divorced “two or three” times to receive. Sure, they aren’t discussing full on ecumenical and denying the real presence but they certainly disrespect Christ, too.

    • Kim Bo, there are 22 Eastern Catholic Churches in union with Rome for you to investigate before resorting to the Orthodox Church. Several years ago, I attended a Byzantine Catholic Divine Liturgy. (“Mass” is from the Latin “missa” and is not used in the Eastern churches.) It was gloriously reverent, a holy experience, and the people, deacons, and priest were kind and welcoming. The sacred vessels were the most beautiful I’d ever seen outside what is on display of the Vatican treasury.

      • On the other hand, some at least of the Oriental Churches have gone through their own Vatican II destruction and are no better. I have personally assisted at Maronite Catholic Masses complete with Communion in the hand and electric keyboard player belting out some Arabic numbers.

    • There’s nothing wrong with having rules such as no pants on women or no NFP. Women wearing pants is a trend of the world, it is not of God and therefore it must be opposed completely. If memory serves me right, when Pope Pius XII spoke of NFP, he said it could be used under very specific and special circumstances. This is not how NFP is spoken of in the conciliar church. There it is promoted as some kind of birth control which is completely against Catholic doctrine. You are not allowed to use any kind of birth control at all.

      You mustn’t go the Eastern schismatics, the allure might be strong but don’t fall into the temptation. They are not the original Church but schismatics. If you have a SSPX parish near you I suggest you go there. Don’t abandon the Church when she undergoes her own passion like so many abandoned Our Lord at His own one.

        • The attack on the Catholic Church, her teachings, her sacraments, and her morals is an attack on all fronts. Thus the counter-attack must be launched on all fronts. Do not take this matter lightly. Women wearing pants is not only a violation of God’s command that men and women should wear clothing that is specific to the respective sex, it is also a challenge to men’s purity. It also serves to instill a masculine spirit in women, something which is completely disordered.

          Now more than ever the Church needs Catholics who are willing to fight on all fronts. She needs Catholics who are not just content with having the proper liturgy but also the proper doctrine and morals.

      • “Don’t abandon the Church when she undergoes her own passion like so many abandoned Our Lord at His own one.”

        That doesn’t make sense to me, after advocating going to an SSPX parish. Since the SSPX is not in communion with Rome, going to an SSPX parish would be doing exactly that.

    • Don’t go there.

      Orthodoxy is a ghetto religion, NOT Catholic in the true meaning of the term.

      Don’t leave. FIGHT.

      You will not find the grass greener there even if it feels better for a time!

    • Just go to an SSPX Chapel. Some, but not all sedes can be overly rigid in their fight against the modernist crisis, but you do have a valid Mass and sacraments at least.

      On the other hand, they are right on those things that you mention, even if it makes you feel uncomfortable. 60 years ago, everyone just knew these things. Now it sounds rigid to our soft modern way of thinking.

  40. It was in our Sunday paper today that the supposedly Catholic Archbishop of Milwaukee, Lesticki will be celebrating the 500yr anniversary of the Reformation at a Catholic church with the ELCA Lutheran church this coming Tuesday the 31st. Yes folks, the Apostate church is no longer in hiding but in full view of the public! The Catholic church I believe, has been split for the past couple of years but now we have the Roman Catholic church and the Apostate church. These Apostate bishops/priests/cardinals will have to answer to Almighty God for destroying HIS holy church that HE Himself founded and turning her into ‘one of many’ Protestant denominations.

    • This ELCA “church” has fake women Preist, supports abortion and same sex “marriage”. They can’t even team up with a decent Protestant church than supports traditional Christian moral values. Do you think they know the difference? I do. Saint Pius V, pray for us.

      • I believe they DO know the difference.

        Ever notice how Catholic prelates always select apostate, truly rank Protestant groups with which to engage in ecumania?

        Indeed, what group that holds to any code of moral behavior would have anything to do with us?

        Yes, it is that bad.

    • I was taught, in Catholic grammar school, that it was the “Protestant REVOLT.” Nothing to celebrate! WHAT is WRONG with these people?!” (I realize that that question has been asked and answered, at least in these parts!)

  41. The Eccumenical liturgy is already in use, its called the second eucharistic prayer. Short and vague, little sacrificial language, just drop the saints and there you go.

  42. Ah…back from Mass. Folks here might remember a few months ago I described my invalid confession with a modernist retired priest. He preached the homily today (thank goodness our younger orthdox priest presided over the rest of mass) and it was one for the ages: instead of reaffirming to everybody that, indeed, Christ tells us today that Love they God with your heart is the numero uno commandment, he gave a two minute homily in which he claimed “today’s gospel reading remind us not to be so hard on ourselves, to love ourselves”. Okay…well….I did not hear that at all. Good news, though, that was not the kicker: he told all of the parishioners to close their eyes, imagine the worst thing they have done or continually do, think about Christ on the cross, imagine putting that sin into His hands, Him putting his hands behind our back and the sin is gone. If we want that forgivness, we got it. If you want that right now, when you leave mass today, it is so.

    Wow! What a day. What a day.

      • You make an essential point.. The bad must be condemned and that’s what they stopped doing. Now we have a Catholic Church full of people who think various doctrines are just opinions and acceptable.

        • Again and again; See the new model in the words of Pope John XXIII at the opening of Vatican 2. These are the words I personally believe are the most critical to grasp coming from V2. All other misinterpretations, malevolent assertions and outright attempts to change Church teaching coming from the ambiguity of the documents could be handled by a Church willing to condemn evil. But the Church gave up an essential tool of spiritual warfare, and for a mindboggling reason, a reason that comes straight put of the Classical Liberal Protestant optimism of the late 1800’s:

          See here:

          First, here is the fundamental change, admitted as such by John XXIII:

          “The Church has always opposed these errors, and often condemned them with the utmost severity. Today, however, Christ’s Bride prefers the balm of mercy to the arm of severity. She believes that, present needs are best served by explaining more fully the purport of her doctrines, rather than by publishing condemnations.”

          So no more condemnation of evil, just affirmation of good. In SPITE of the fact that the affirmation/condemnation model was the paradigm under which the Church operated since Jesus’s ministry on earth and was the model used by Jesus and the Fathers as well.

          Now, here is the shocking part, the reason WHY he says the Church must go this new route:

          “Not that the need to repudiate and guard against erroneous teaching and dangerous ideologies is less today than formerly. But all such error is so manifestly contrary to rightness and goodness, and produces such fatal results, that our contemporaries show every inclination to condemn it of their own accord—especially that way of life which repudiates God and His law, and which places excessive confidence in technical progress and an exclusively material prosperity. It is more and more widely understood that personal dignity and true self-realization are of vital importance and worth every effort to achieve. More important still, experience has at long last taught men that physical violence, armed might, and political domination are no help at all in providing a happy solution to the serious problems which affect them.”

          So we don’t NEED to condemn anymore because humanity has changed so much mankind recognizes evil for what it is already! Because “our contemporaries show every inclination to condemn it of their own accord”!!!!!!

          Every time I read this line I struggle to imagine it was written by a sane person!

          AGAIN, as I’ve said many times before, we live even today under the pall of World War’s 1 & 2. Pope Benedict XV said in 1916 that Europe committed suicide in World War 1, and surely this suicide had deeply effected the Church. And then came WW2 with its devastation of families and religious and priests and edifices. Surely it was the titanic evil unleashed during that war that seemed to John XXIII to be self-evident and thus in no need of condemnation.

          So since then we have had a Church that pussyfoots around every element of manifest evil, softening it to conform to the idea that all people know what it is anyhow and will avoid it of their own accord, a Church that at least among its entire leadership lives in a pretend world of make-believe, uttering sweet admonitions while the devil and his minions dismantle the edifice brick by brick. A Church that at most levels has left Christ behind for as Pope-emeritus B16 has said, the dogma of extra ecclesiam nulla salus has been abandoned, a dogma that inherently includes condemnation of all other faiths. So with the words of John XXIII we now have the Church of No Condemnation…

          Until…………..Bergoglio, who brings back condemnation especially for use against those who affirm the perennial Magesterium of the faith or refuse to accept the New Church model of communism, effeminacy and heresy, all creeping evils that were allowed to enter the Church, evils left alone and not strongly condemned for 50 years.

          Where does this bring us today?

          God help us and may God Save the Catholic Church.

          • Cardinal Roncalli was made Pope at age 76. How does one get to be 76 and remain an optimist? Yes to what you write. And another insight:”the dogma of extra ecclesiam nulla salus has been abandoned, a dogma that inherently includes condemnation of all other faiths”. It takes decades of concerted effort to piece together an understanding of the Catholic Faith as a whole piece, and it is rather like a woollen pullover – if a thread gets pulled and is not repaired, it pulls further and finally tears and the whole pullover can slowly be unwound through that one thread as every teaching is linked to every other teaching. God can raise up a prophet of power and fearlessness at any moment but maybe people are not quite ready to listen yet.

    • You are not bound to go to this guy’s “mass”. It is a sin against the First Commandment to endanger one’s Faith by listening to heretics.

  43. I believe Marco Tosatti threw light on this so-called Ecumenical Mass a little earlier on.

    In order to make the Mass more palatable for Protestants and so hide the Consecration, they could look towards the ‘Anaphora of Addai and Mari’ which is the Eucharistic Prayer of the Oriental Assyrian Church or Nestorian Church. This prayer has no explicit words of consecration but the intention is still there.

    You can find further details on this in a 2001 document found on the Vatican Website: “Guidelines for admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East” (sorry, don’t know how to do a web link).

    It’s abominable how the Catholic Church insists on reducing itself ad nauseam to suit other sects/heresies. I don’t see the Lutherans or Russian Orthodox for instance, scrabbling to become more Roman.

    Yes, the Catholic Church can just keep on denying Christ in its Mass. I thought they had done enough with the Novus Ordo.

    But I guess that’s what they want, just become another sect/heresy.

      • senrex;

        I need to ask you.

        What is the solution to all of this?

        I don’t mean divine intervention, I mean in all seriousness {and that might include divine intervention…} what concrete steps MUST prelates take to repair the damage done to the Church since V2?

        It seems, and is, humanly speaking, to have gone too far for procedures to be introduced that will resstore the Church.


        • If I may barge in, RodH:

          The answer is to refuse any association with the organisation that produced Vatican II, the Novus Ordo Missae and the new rites of Ordination and Episcopal Consecration. This organisation could not be the Catholic Church.

          “Hold fast to tradition”, says St Paul, (which we are bound to do by Divine Law) by attending an SSPX chapel exclusively. The bigger fix up will have to come from higher up, but as laity, this is all I think we can do for now.

        • Hi Rod. I don’t think there is a human solution. At this point, I just beg Our Lord and Our Lady to grace my faith with perseverance and grant me the time and grace to save my soul and as many of my family as I can influence through prayer and penance.

          Hang in there, Friend.

          • Yes, the apostasy seems to have permeated the entire structure of the faith. And with the void in catechesis, many Catholics do not even know what it means to BE Catholic, so they are ripe for anything that comes from an authority they recognize.

            We are witnessing a collapse of the Church, at least at the top and at least at present. What happens in the future is anybody’s guess, but I see an unavoidable split coming.

          • I think Bergoglio wants a schism (he said about a year ago that he may be the Pope who causes a schism). That’s why I think this “Ecumenical Mass,” and the ending of mandatory celibacy for priests (and perhaps even a change in the teaching on contraception) are imminent. He doesn’t fear a schism for two reasons: (1) it’ll drive all the “right wing traditionalists” out of the Church and he’ll be left with very pliant and agreeable subjects and (2) he doesn’t need to worry about the financing of his schismatic Church because he’ll be financially supported by his globalist friends: Soros and others of his ilk.

            We’re beyond human solutions. Saints have prophesied about these times for centuries. Many have also prophesied that when all seems lost, Our Lady will intervene and achieve victory.

            It’s fun to read about previous times in Church history when the Church seemed to be headed for complete destruction only to emerge stronger than ever — and we even use these examples of the intervention of Providence in Catholic history as evidence that the Church is a Divine institution. We just never think about the Catholic souls who had to sometimes live their entire lives within that chaos and die without a solution even being in sight.

            That’s us. . . in the present moment.

          • I agree 100%. I, too, believe Bergoglio wants this.

            In addition, he knows just how small are the Traditionalists in numbers. I suspect he knows that there are many who just don’t care much and who will be just as you say, pliable.

            Moses lived and died without seeing the Promised Land. He is a good model for us today.

          • Here’s where the message of Jesus takes precedence over the message of Moses, tho.

            We have the promised land in our hearts.

    • The Catholic Church is incapable of doing any of the things you say it is doing in your post. This hideous thing we are discussing is not the Mystical Body of Christ. It must be and is a counterfeit established in order to deceive the elect, if that were possible.

      How do you know “the intention is still there” if the ceremonial rite and form of a supposed sacrament are manifestly defective?

      I would like to recommend reading Apostolicae Curae, by Leo XIII on the invalidity of the Anglican rite of holy orders. It is entirely relevant to today’s crisis regarding the modernised sacraments (which many Catholics absolutely refuse to have anything to do with).

  44. What they will do I suspect, is set up some sort of “agape feast” which will in no way violate the Mass, technically, since it will not be a Mass.

    And little by little foist it off as meeting the obligation to attend Mass.

    The Protestants won’t give a fig about it, except for the sodomite-supporting mainliners.

    • 1376. The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.

  45. Andrea Grillo: “Transubstantiation contradicts metaphysics” This statement is utterly false. My father was a metaphysics professor. The way this guy reasons, all miracles contradict metaphysics. Duh.
    Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section 2, Ch. 1 Article 3:
    1376. The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.

  46. IF this is true, we have a major problem. Wouldn’t this invalidate all Masses because the intention would be gone? I mean if it became the norm. This could potentially obliterate the Mass from the face of the earth….except for the Traditionalists. 😮

    • I think this is a real possibility. Luther rejected the idea of the Mass as sacrifice. So expect to see an absence of the word ‘sacrifice’ in a new ecumenical eucharistic prayer. The Mass makes Christ’s Sacrifice on Calvary constantly present on the earth and in Heaven for the forgiveness of sins! That ecumenical prayer will likely be widely used each weekend as that way a Parish could promote itself as a welcoming Parish, and we know how popular that is! Pope Pius XII spoke of a time when Catholics would come and “look in vain for the sanctuary lamp” and people would ask “where have you laid Him?” There will be thousands of clueless Catholics who will think nothing has changed because they can still see the host being used. So those Catholics who come to what they believe is Mass to receive the Bread of Life will not receive it. The same plan unfolded in England in Henry VIII’s time. Revelation speaks of the time when the Eternal Sacrifice is not offered – fortunately that time comes to an end, but how many people will die from lack of the Bread of Life.

        • Indeed spiritual Communions are good but you have to know about them to use them. I dont think Jesus actually had spiritual communions in mind when He consecrated bread and wine. Mass centers on the Sacrifice.

      • The Anglican heretic, Thomas Cranmer kept the word “sacrifice” in the Orate Fratres – the “Pray brethren that my sacrifice…” – in his Anglican communion service. But he emphatically said it referred only to a sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise, and not of propitiation.

        The Novus Ordo rite has also kept this prayer, but nothing in the preceding prayers makes any reference to propitiation, because there is no Offertory.

        So it is also an ambiguous reference to sacrifice, like the anglican service, but does not say what it is, to keep people in the dark. Conservative Catholics hear the word “sacrifice” and think all is well, but it doesn’t have to mean what the Church teaches about the Mass. It can mean an heretical understanding of mass.

        I believe that the new mass causes a manifest defect of intention in the minister, and would like someone to show me why I may be wrong. i really would.

        • Yes you are right. I read it too – about even the word “sacrifice” being privately interpreted. I attend both Latin Mass and NO by a Priest who only uses the Roman Canon. No doubt, what you raise, will be discussed fully in the event of the ecumen. Mass coming out. I am grateful for the way you explained this today.

          • Anyone can compare the new Missal against the old and see the difference. People with the use of reason can understand the ordinary meaning of words. The Church is not a Gnostic sect which has esoteric knowledge only available to a select few.

            There is no Victim being offered by the ministerial priest. It is an offering by the assembly with the priest merely presiding. Just read them side by side.

            The abolition of the Offertory was a deliberate “ecumenical” gesture which followed in the footsteps of what the Anglicans and the Lutherans did four hundred years earlier.

            Who would be a good priest to ask? I have asked good priests of the SSPX and they agree with what I understand it to be. They have from the beginning. You could read the famous “Intervention” which Cardinal Ottaviani, the head of the Holy Office (now called the CDF) s by to Paul VI in 1969 which covers all these issues.

            As for a good priest, who to choose?? The article above mentions that this horrible heretic who says Transubstantiation is not a dogma teaches in Novus Ordo seminaries. Are you really going to ask a priest trained in one of these modernist seminaries for his opinion?

            You have to look elsewhere. There is lots of good material online.

            You could ask your priest about the lack of an Offertory in the new mass. There is nothing offered for sin. It is just bread and wine being offered for no purpose. There is no Victim. It is similar to Cain’s offering in Genesis. Fruits of the earth and work of human hands, but no Victim. It was rejected by God. Abel’s offering of the best of his flock, a substitute Victim was accepted.

            Just as Cain became murderously hostile to Abel, so are the proponents of the new mass to the traditional mass as they try to wipe it from the face of the earth.

          • Perhaps the whole issue of WHY Sacrifice is summed up in Hebrews 9:22 “Indeed under the law almost everything is purified with blood and without the shedding of blood there is NO forgiveness of sins”. That’s why Jesus set up a perpetual Sacrifice of His own perfect Sacrifice. Therefore, the sacrifice of the Mass is essential to forgive all the sins being committed today. Trouble is without THAT sacrifice, there just remains the shedding of our own blood as sacrifice, an imperfect sacrifice but we hope to unite it with Christ’s which surely will always be present somewhere on the earth – please God. And Pope JP2 reminded us in the 1970’s at the Philadelphia Eucharist Congress that the Church would need to be purified through the shedding of blood and this was unavoidable. Getting back to your initial comment : “Anyone can compare the new Missal against the old and see the difference. People with the use of reason can understand the ordinary meaning of words.” Well, I can tell you that study of the Missal did not form part of normal Catholic catechesis prior to V2 let alone after. The only people using the 1962 Missal today are attending the TLM. Joining the dots is a Divine project – gift. With such deficits present in the hierarchy in the decades running up to V2, I assume nothing anymore about anyone.

          • There was no need for a comparative study because there was nothing to compare. My father was born in the 1930’s, and he can still tell you every part of the mass in the right order. He knew which three elements of the mass are necessary to fulfil the Sunday obligation. He still knows the responses of the altar server by heart. He knew all along that the mass was the renewal of the sacrifice of Calvary. So did my mother.

            The wonder of the New Covenant is that we are now able to approach God united to an infinitely pleasing offering, and thereby join our fourfold intentions with the sacrifice of Calvary. These four intentions allow us to fulfil our obligation to God: Adoration. Atonement. Petition. Thanksgiving.

            We are also able to be united more and more perfectly to Christ and our fellow members of His Mystical Body through Holy Communion.

            Each time Calvary is renewed, the devil is also reminded of his sore defeat, as much as he was on Good Friday. He can’t stand the Mass.

            No wonder why his best friends, the heretics and the apostates have tried to destroy, twist, change and suppress it.

  47. While in the Marines, we had a joint Catholic Protestant service in the field. It was actually a Mass. The Lutheran chaplain read the Epistelandd the Priest the gospel.

    The priest conducted the consecration, of course. At communion, Prtestant Marines received non consecrated host from the Lutheran, and Catholics received the consecrated host from the priest.

  48. Rod H asks what can be done in human terms to right the Catholic ship and return her to healthy sailing through the Oceans of time.

    What is needed is (to the world) a very holy yet thug-like Pope who, in the paraphrased words of Pope St. Pius X, uses his fists and only his fists with these apostates, heretics and neo-pagans of the cuckoo Anti-Church calling itself the Catholic Church. Here then is the first few weeks of the future Pope Sophronius IV:

    Day One
    1. – announces that the SSPX were never in schism, that they enjoy complete freedom with no strings attached to offer the Sacraments, that the Cause of Marcel Lefebvre is now open.
    2. – having accepted at Election the fealty of the Cardinals, he then publicly sacks all of them, retaining only Burke, Brandmuller and Sarah, completing the new College with appointments solely from the SSPX and other Traditional Congregations. The sacked ones are commanded to perpetual silence. The Restoration is now assured, whatever happens to Sophronius himself.
    Weeks 1-3
    3. – requires the resignations of a pre-prepared list of the worst episcopal offenders against Catholic doctrine, based on their public statements. If this means that the majority of the world’s dioceses have no Bishop, then so be it.
    4. – announces that the faithful should attend him as he will speak for one-two days about the crisis in the Church. Material all pre-prepared. Over the course of that immensely long discourse, Sophronius lays bare the causes of the crisis, how teaching has been corrupted, who has done this and why. This leads to a final presentation where he:
    – abrogates the Novus Ordo, its calendar and the new forms of the other Sacraments, ordering that from the next Feast of XYZ, the Old Mass and the other Sacraments will be offered using the Missale Romanum in use before the Easter Triduum changes of Pius XII.
    – declares Vatican II a False Council as it was high-jacked by the Church’s enemies and all its documents removed from the Acta Sedis.
    – condemns and anathematises ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality.
    – declares all Bishops’ Conferences world-wide to be dissolved, wound-up;
    – declares all the Popes from Paul VI onwards to be valid Popes, but all their teaching, permeated as it is with dangerous philosophies and the errors of Vatican II, negated, null and void, and removed from the Acta Sedis. This includes all their Encyclicals, other official documents and all their acts (including canonisations).

    These are the essential steps. Then the mountain of work required in every single area (seminaries; the monasteries and convents; Sacred music, architecture, art; Catholic education – everything) can commence.
    It will mean a giant schism. It will mean the opprobrium of the world. It will mean the expulsion of all the sodomite clergy. It will mean the closure and sale of modernist buildings. It will mean tackling the business empire of the German Church.
    It will mean the Restoration of Catholic orthodoxy.

  49. The ecumenical Protestant “mass” will probably happen and eventually–3-5years–replace the Novus Ordo “protestant” Mass. This will be accepted by 75% of Catholics. Simultaneous there will be a schism. Unless God decides to intervene.

  50. My own and other UK bishops are reforming parishes which will be ‘lay managed’, with the controlling cliques dictating the precise form of liturgy to their own proclivities and imposing the same upon the cleric appointed to minister to them – every parish, so inclined, an individual Protestant outpost within Mother Church, if the term can be used in such circumstances.

    • If this were to happen in my parish, I will travel to a church that has a priest.

      The so-called ‘managed’ shortage of priests…

      • Is exactly what I do.

        There is only one Sunday TLM in the whole of the diocese, plus one SSPX. Adjacent diocese are encouraging Traditional Orders to help-out, but my own diocese would rather close churches and even deny the Ordinariate opportunity to expand.

  51. The reason they hate Transubstantiation, is because they hate Thomistic Metaphysics, which is absolutely necessary to be true for the dogma of Transubstantiation to be true.

    • No. Transubstantiation is true because of the authority of Our Lord, Who cannot lie.
      Thomism is simply the best description of it in human terms.

      • You missed my point. They reject Thomistic metaphysics. They have a distain for it, because they are entrenched in scientism and the evolution of doctrine. Thomistic/ Aristotelian metaphysics counters this.

        Hence, they start from a position of false philosophy and metaphysics, then work their way up.

        This is why they reject Transubstantiation. The definition of Transubstantiation was infallibly defined at the council of Trent using Thomistic metaphysics. It is not simply the best way to describe it, it is NESSASARY to describe it this way because Thomistic metaphysics is *true* not some system that is the “best way to explain something.”

  52. This is not unexpected under the Pontificate of Pope Francis the Destroyer. To be a true destroyer one must destroy everything, including the Mass and the dogma of Transubstantiation. I expect only the worst under this current Pope. My only hope is that Christ remains faithful and ultimately saves HIS Church from the gates of hell.

    • There is no way Satan can triumph over what is Divine, and the Soul of the Church is the Holy Spirit. But we suspect who is running the Vatican and we cannot know the full story, the threats, the deals. The question is how much of the visible structures – buildings as well as organisational structures will our Good Lord allow to be pulled down, and if He does allow it, it will be so that what rises again will be purely His power and obvious to people of good will. That’s my hope!

  53. You could not make this stuff up.
    I feel like I’m witnessing theological science fiction come to life.
    This is not good….like scary not good.

  54. How can we share the same communion table when we do not share the same beliefs? More important, in my mind, is the very real and crucial fact of apostolic succession. When Jesus breathed upon his Apostles and gave them “power and authority” to forgive sins, etc., it wasn’t a figure of speech. He actually gave them something. He didn’t give them PERMISSION. He gave them POWER AND AUTHORITY. It is this power and authority that has been transmitted through the ages. As we all well know, there are thousands of Protestant denominations because the very nature of PROTESTantism is protest. It is a fracturing tendency that has duplicated itself exponentially. If Luther had “the real” message of Christ, it would have ended with Lutheranism and there would have been no other PROTESTant church. Clearly, that’s not what happened. In another venue, we had King Henry VIII, who made himself the head of the church in England and cut all his subjects off from the transmission of power and authority. Instead, the whole church answered to a reprehensible, vulgar man who ripped an entire nation of people away from the church just so he could kill yet another wife and marry again. Now, we are to “share one table” with the descendants of this madness? If some protestant churches believe they have “the real presence” they’re deluded. The POWER AND AUTHORITY were not transmitted to their preachers. The ORthodox church is looking better every day.

  55. I do not have the reputation of being the voice of calm reason, but I find myself trying to be that now. I do not think that even the present group of scoundrels who have taken control in Rome and its outposts would ever FORCE such a liturgy on the whole Church. They may try to use it at ecumenical gatherings (which we can easily avoid) and any priest who presides at such a “Mass” would not effect the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ because he would have a contrary intention. So such services would just bring together all the poor benighted, deluded fools who would like them. The novelty will wear off pretty quickly and then the nonsense will fade away. The Lutheran churches in Europe which are empty and the Catholic churches that are almost empty will be empty again.

    If the pope would try to force such a “liturgy” on the whole Catholic Church to replace both the Novus Ordo and the Extraordinary Rite (“old Mass”), then there would be OPEN schism, because I am sure that most priests, especially the younger ones, would just not have anything to do with it. And – perhaps this is just way too much to ask – even the timid, cowering, hand-wringing bishops would actually refuse to cooperate, too.

    • Interesting take, Mgr., and your comments about the likelihood of priests wanting anything to do with the putative farce is one I can relate to. The hardest job my bishop has is to find a priest who is willing to run his “Commission for Ecumenism”. If not out of principled opposition it seems like most of the clergy are at best apathetic and bored with the whole ecumenical project.

    • Rev.Msgr.John R. Schulte,
      I believe that the Mass remains valid at PRESENT in the N.O. and am keenly aware of all the subversive
      efforts by “the traitors in our midst” to destroy the Church.
      But the Sacraments are presently STILL the vehicles of Grace they have always been?

  56. The way I understand it, Protestants will be allowed to take Communion, but those Catholics living in a State of Mortal Sin will not be? Or, will the Pope drop all requirements, and allow anyone to receive Communion?

  57. The prophecies of Marie-Julie Jahenny hit home again!

    June 1, 1880

    “All the works approved by the infallible Church will cease to exist as they are today for a time. In this sorrowful annihilation, brilliant signs will be manifested on earth. If because of the wickedness of men Holy Church will be in darkness, the Lord will also send darkness that will stop the wicked in their search of wickedness…”

    June 3, 1880

    Our Lord describes how Lucifer will proceed. He (Satan) will address priests: “You will dress in a large red cloak…We (devils) will give you a piece of bread and a few drops of water. You can do everything that you did when you belonged to Christ….” “But,” says Our Lord, “they do not add, Consecration and Communion.” And Hell added: “We will permit you to say it in all houses and even under the firmament.”

  58. We have the words of Jesus Himself on this, “This is My Body.” No further explanation needed. If Protestants want to share in the Holy Eucharist with Catholics, what’s to stop them from joining the Church and attending Mass?

  59. Transubstantiation is very certainly a dogma. What in it “contradicts metaphysics” ? Transubstantiation is of great importance, because it is an outstanding, pre-eminent example of how the recreative grace of God “make[s] all things new”. It is a very great sign of the presence of the Kingdom of God. So it is very far from being unimportant.

    • The new, 1983 Code of Canon Law, promulgated by JPII, in Canon 844, paragraphs 3 & 4, say they can.

      So either the Church was wrong for 2000 years, or the New Code of Canon law is a fiction.

      Then we would still be bound by the 1917 code, which Canon 731: 2 has this to say on this subject:

      “It is forbidden to administer the sacraments of the Church to heretics or schismatics, even though they err in good faith and ask for them, unless they have first renounced their errors and been reconciled with the Church.”

  60. “The question therefore of what, if any, additional liturgical surprises Rome may have in store remains an open question.”

    Lay consecration? Change in species from unleavened bread with gluten and wine with alcoholic content to a piece of gluten -free cracker and some grape juice in disposable plastic cup instead of a golden chalice? General confession and absolution of mortal sin? Polysexual matrimony? I mean, under this bunch, the sky’s the limit.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...