Monday, May 23, 2022

False Accusations About A True Apparition

 


Regular readers of this blog know that I do not make apparitions (those approved by the Church) to be the focus point of the Faith; they are not. I call Apparitionists people who exalt private revelations and apparitions whether approved by the Church (such as Our Lady of Fatima) or not (such as Our Lady of the Roses) over the teaching of the Church. They obsess over the alleged "true meanings" of messages (as if salvation depended on them), or even accept them to the exclusion of authentic Church doctrines in some area(s). The late "Fr." Gruner falls squarely in this category.  

Personally, I don't think Traditionalists should concern themselves over private revelations. To make the terminology clear, "private revelation" has nothing to do with the number of persons that claim to have seen and/or experienced something. "Public Revelation" refers to the Divine Deposit of Revelation given to the Church for all human beings to believe, so that they may be saved. Public Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, St. John, in 100 AD. Private revelation refers to all communication by God (directly or indirectly) with humans after Public Revelation ended. I can't stress strongly enough that no private revelation, including those deemed "worthy of belief" by the Church, need to be accepted by Catholics. You can reject any or all private revelations and you would not be a heretic, nor would you commit a sin.

On the other hand, private revelations must not be lightly dismissed as totally irrelevant and of no importance either.  Obviously, if the Church approves something as worthy of belief, we can believe it without fear of sinning against faith or morals. God communicates to us for a reason. To be certain, I believe in approved apparitions without making them the focus point of faith. I have devotion to Our Lady of Hope and Our Lady of Fatima. I wear the Five-fold Scapular, pray the Rosary daily, insert the "Fatima Prayer" at the end of each Rosary decade, and try to attend Mass every First Saturday of the month. These are great Catholic devotions all Traditionalists should try to maintain. 

That having been said, I was shocked to find an article circulating among some Traditionalists on the web and Twitter claiming that Fatima was a false apparition. Each time, the person calling the reality of Fatima into question would begin by correctly stating that private revelations need not be believed, and then present the article which claims Fatima was of demonic origin. It is one thing not to believe in a Church approved apparition, and quite another to claim it to be diabolic. 

There have been thousands upon thousands of reported apparitions to various individuals from the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and various saints. Holy Mother Church, in Her wisdom, would investigate any such serious claim and declare it "worthy of belief," reject the apparition as false, or render no judgement pending further proof. To show how solicitous the Church is for the eternal welfare of Her members, very few apparitions have met with approval. The manifest weight of the credible evidence must fall down squarely on the side that Heaven has spoken, so that no one should be lead astray by frauds, the mentally ill, or the deceits of Satan. Only the following Marian apparitions have Church approval pre-Vatican II (since there is currently no authority to pass judgement during the Great Apostasy) and notice how few there are; only ten (10):

1. Our Lady of Guadalupe (took place 1531; approved 1555)
2. Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal (took place 1830; approved 1837)
3. Our Lady of LaSalette (took place 1846; approved 1851)
4. Our Lady of Lourdes (took place 1856; approved 1862)
5. Our Lady of Knock (took place 1879; approved 1879)
6. Our Lady of Fatima (took place 1917; approved 1930 by the local bishop and in 1940 by Pope Pius XII)
7. Our Lady of the Good Event aka Our Lady of Quito (took place 1594-1634; approved 1611 while still taking place)
8. Our Lady of Hope (took place 1871; approved 1872)
9. Our Lady of Beauraing (took place 1932-1933; approved 1949)
10. Our Lady of Banneux (took place 1933; approved 1949)

There are seven cases where the Holy See and local Ordinary have not pronounced directly on the supernatural character of the apparition, yet have implicitly attested to their veracity by approving the public religious activity inspired by the apparition and/or authorizing liturgical veneration:

1. Our Lady of the Pillar (took place 40 AD while Mary was still alive; considered the first Marian apparition wherein Our Blessed Mother assisted the Apostle St. James the Greater)
2. Our Lady of Walsingham (took place 1061)
3. Our Lady of Mount Carmel (took place 1251)
4. Our Lady of the Watch (took place 1490)
5. Our Lady of Siluva (took place 1608)
6. Our Lady of Pellevoisin (took place 1876)
7. Our Lady of Zion (took place 1842)

Hence, from the year 40 AD to 1958, we have only 17 apparitions of Mary that have explicit or implicit Church approval. To claim that Fatima is from Hell would be an indirect denial of the Indefectibility of the Church--i.e., the Church cannot give that which is evil or erroneous to Her members. If, ad arguendo, the apparition at Fatima didn't happen, it didn't produce anything contrary to Faith and Morals. Yet, it if came from Satan, there would have to be things contrary to Faith and/or morals, because the adversary of mankind does not do anything for our benefit. 

In this post, I will examine the blasphemous article "Why Pay Any Attention To Fatima?" and demonstrate why it is the article itself, and not Fatima, to which we should pay no heed. 

Attempting to Sound Catholic
The source of the article is the website cogwriter.com, by Dr. Bob Thiel. Thiel was originally part of the "Worldwide Church of God"(WCG) sect, run by Herbert W. Armstrong (d. 1986). "Armstrongism" was an eclectic mix  of mainline Protestantism and Seventh Day Adventist teachings, along with what Armstrong himself would say as the self-declared "Prophet of God on Earth." WCG teachings included the necessity of observing Mosaic dietary laws to be saved, denial of the Most Holy Trinity, avoidance of doctors and medicine, observing Saturday as the Sabbath, and denial of divorce (of course, when Armstrong wanted a divorce, that teaching changed, and he also went to doctors and took medicine while prohibiting his followers from doing it, living to the age of 93).  

After Armstrong's death, many new sects came from dissatisfaction among his high-ranking members, one such being the aforementioned Bob Thiel. Thiel founded the "Continuing Church of God" or "CCG." His sect rejects the Holy Ghost as God, and has many strange teachings similar to Armstrong.
(See ccog.org/statement-of-beliefs-of-the-continuing-church-of-god/). 

The article, Why Pay Any Attention To Fatima? (hereinafter WPATF), doesn't list an author. It appears to be a chapter of a book, but I could not locate it. The fact that it appears on a website run by Thiel means either (a) he is the author, or (b) he approves the content as it is on his site. He appears to be the author since you will find a short bio and picture of him on the last page. There is no mention of his religious affiliation.  I knew something was off prior to finding out this information. For example, the article claims that the apparition could not be "the Mary of the Bible." Also used to describe her are the phrases "Mother of Jesus," and once "Mother of Christ" but never the Mother of GOD, Our Blessed Mother, and other distinct Catholic titles. The article informs us:

Learning the truth about the shocking messages of Fatima could save you and your loved ones from making horrible mistakes.

What, exactly, would those "mistakes" be? Praying the Rosary? Wearing the Scapular? Making reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary? It never tells us, but wants us to believe Our Lady of Fatima was a demonic deception. What proof do they offer for this assertion?  That will now be examined.

Attacking the Blessed Mother of God

Below is a list of the attacks on Our Lady of Fatima and my response to each one. 

1. The apparitions at Fatima were predicted by occultists.
A group of occult psychics in Portu, Portugal claimed that “something transcendental” would occur on May 13,1917. And this was published in the Portuguese newspaper Jornal de Notícias. There was another prediction claimed to have been written on February 7, 1917 in Furtado de Mendonça, Portugal by way of “automatic writing” that moved the psychic’s hand and wrote the following backwards (and in Portuguese):

The day of May 13th will be one of great happiness for the good souls of the world…Always at your side shall ye have your friends, who will guide your steps and who will assist ye in your
work…The brilliant light of the Morning Star will illuminate the path.
~ Stella Matutina

So the above occult prophecy claimed that a lightbringer would illuminate a path on May 13, 1917. Stella is Latin for star. Matutina is associated with the morning. It may be relevant to note that the name Lucifer means lightbringer, and he is associated in sacred scripture with both the morning and stars (Isaiah 14:12-13), as well as becoming known as Satan the devil (Revelation 12:9). Although Jesus is also called the “Morning Star” (Revelation 22:16), using the type of automatic backward writing to reveal His mother does not seem to be biblically appropriate (cf. Isaiah 8:19-20), hence it should not be concluded that this Stella Matutina was Jesus. (See WPATF, pg. 33).

What is the source of this information? I referenced the book in the endnotes, Celestial Secrets: The Hidden History of the Fatima Incident (2007) by Joaquim Fernandes and Fina D'Armada. The authors believe that Our Lady was actually an alien sent by a UFO. There is a trio of books (this one and two others) attempting to prove this whacky thesis. Moreover, the books are promoted by  Andrew D. Basiago, a "UFOlogist." Besides an attempted run for President of the U.S. in 2016, Basiago claims he:

  • Can teleport himself through time and space
  • Has made contact with Bigfoot
  • Went to Mars in 1981 and converses with Martians who live there 
(See, e.g.,https://www.inverse.com/article/14577-confessed-time-traveler-andrew-basiago-is-running-for-president-knows-he-ll-win)

These are the people we are supposed to believe over Church authority regarding Fatima. The trilogy is itself occult (talking to "beings from other worlds"--more than likely demons if not delusions of mental illness) and used by Thiel to make Fatima look "demonic." Moreover, occultists will often use the superior knowledge of demons to make something true appear false and vice-versa--if such an occult prediction even happened. No less than 20 of Thiel's 96 endnotes reference this occult book.  

2. The Blessed Mother was allegedly dressed immodestly.
Throughout the book, much is made of alleged claims by the seers of Fatima that Mary was immodestly dressed. From WPATF:

In 1917, the Catholic priest and investigator Canon Manuel Nunes Formigao interviewed the three Fatima children. Here is some of what he wrote:

Jacinta confirms that Our Lady’s dress fell only to the knees… Our Lady obviously could not have appeared other than dressed with the utmost decency and modesty…{This} constitutes a serious problem, opposing the very validity of the Apparition, giving rise in the spirit to the dread that this whole affair is a mystification, prepared by the Prince of Darkness. (pgs. 25-26).

This information is supplied by (you guessed it) Celestial Secrets. The dominant instrument used by the authors and promoters of that book, to convince the reader of their research prowess and to buildup interest and credibility for their product, is the highlighting of their previous visit to the secured Fatima Shrine archives in 1978. During that visit they were permitted to view the largely unknown personal notes of the local Fatima priests of that year of 1917, especially those who had directly interviewed the children. They have since been made public in 1992. They tell a different story from the cherry-picked quotes.

These initial recorded accounts by seer Jacinta (and Lucia) are tellingly conflicting with the young seer Francisco's descriptions, where the only knee-length clothing that he reports throughout all of his testimony was the mantle headpiece, a fact conveniently omitted, along with the fact that an investigative priest is supposed to be skeptical and not jump to supernatural conclusions in favor of the apparition. Even after that, the demonic must be considered as well. Lucia and Jacinta were no doubt scared by the questioning, and even probably misunderstood by the priest. The manifest weight of all the evidence explains why the Bishop approved the apparition as authentic upon the final report in 1930. 

3. Calling Dogma into question.
WPATF tries to link the Mother of God to the pagan goddess Diana by attacking the Dogma of the Assumption:

Some believe that the reason that August 15th was chosen as the day for the feast of the “Assumption of Mary” is that it was related to a similar festival for Diana. The Catholic Encyclopedia suggests questionable circumstances:

Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady’s death, nothing certain is known... The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite...Regarding the origin of the feast we are also uncertain.

Thus, it is known that this dogma originated from false sources. It was not officially adopted as Catholic dogma until 1950. (See pgs. 23-24). 

In endnote 43, theologian Ott is cited to support this blasphemy:
The “assumption” became Catholic dogma in 1950 (though it was alluded to earlier). According to Dr. Ott “express scriptural proofs are not to be had” he indicated that it first appeared in documents
falsely ascribed to Jerome and then other documents in the 5th and 6th centuries (others claimed false fourth century documents). Hence, this too, is an innovation and not an apostolic tradition.

Here's what theologian Ott actually says in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, (1955):
Direct and express scriptural proofs are not to be had. The possibility of the bodily assumption before the Second Coming of Christ is not excluded by 1 Corinthians 15, 23 as the objective redemption was completed with the sacrificial death of Christ, and the beginning of the final era foretold by the prophets commenced. It probably is suggested by St. Matthew 27, 52, 53: "And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose, and coming out of the tombs after His Resurrection came into the holy city and appeared to many." According to the more probable explanation, which was already expounded by the Fathers, the awakening of the "saints" was a final resurrection and transfiguration. If, however, the justified of the Old Covenant were called to the perfection of salvation, immediately after the conclusion of the redemptive work of Christ, then it is possible and probable that the Mother of the Lord was called to it also...Pope Pius XII confirmed: "the unanimous doctrine of the ordinary Church Teaching Office, and the unanimous belief of the Christian people" in a solemn definition on November 1, 1950. (See pgs. 208-209; 211; Emphasis mine). 

Theologian Ott further explains that apocryphal letters were a hinderance to the Assumption's development, not that it "first appeared" in such documents. As to the Catholic Encyclopedia, here's what was left out:  The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. (Emphasis mine). 

4. Other Falsehoods.

  • The apparition did not refer to herself as Mary. Nonsense. There are so many sources on this point even the article backs off saying, "Even if the apparition possibly later called herself Mary..." 
  • Mary did not refer worship to Jesus. In True Devotion to Mary, St. Louis DeMonfort reminds us of this Catholic Truth: [Regarding Scrupulous Devotees of Mary] It is all they can do to endure that there should be more people before the altar of the Blessed Virgin than before the other, as if those who prayed to our Blessed Lady did not pray to Jesus Christ through her. They are willing that we should speak so often of Our Lady and address her so frequently...[they say]“We must have recourse to Jesus Christ; He is our only Mediator. We must preach Jesus Christ; this is the solid devotion.” What they say is in a certain sense true, but in the application they make of it, namely, to hinder devotion to our Blessed Lady, very dangerous; and it is, under pretext of a greater good, a subtle snare of the evil one. (Emphasis mine).
  • Referred to the Lady of the Rosary. As if the Rosary is evil!! They also cite to the Celestial Secrets to "prove" Lucia was not sure if the Apparition spoke of herself or another. More cherry-picked claptrap.
  • Mary wanted a chapel built for her own glory. Blasphemy. Again, he who honors the Mother honors the Son all the more--it is to the ultimate glory of God. 

Finally, the article takes a shot at Our Lady of LaSalette, stating that the seer Maximin Giraud:
...reported false prophecies such as that the Antichrist would arrive in the end of the 19th or commencement of the 20th centuries. The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office actually forbade the discussion of that very secret on which the Church never passed final judgement.

THE SUPREME SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE DECREE CONCERNING THE COMMONLY CALLED "SECRET OF LA SALETTE."

It has come to the attention of this Supreme Congregation that certain ones are not lacking, even from among the ecclesiastic assemblage who, responses and decisions of this Holy Congregation itself having been disregarded, do proceed to discuss and examine through books, small works and articles edited in periodicals, whether signed or without a name, concerning the so-called Secret of La Salette, its diverse forms and its relevance to present and future times; and, this not only without permission of the Ordinaries, but, also against their ban. So that these abuses which oppose true piety and greatly wound ecclesiastical authority might be curbed, the same Sacred Congregation orders all the faithful of any region not to discuss or investigate under any pretext, neither through books, or little works or articles, whether signed or unsigned, or in any other way of any kind, about the mentioned subject. Whoever, indeed, violates this precept of the Holy Office, if they are priests, are deprived of all dignity and suspended by the local ordinary from hearing sacramental confessions and from offering Mass: and, if they are lay people, they are not permitted to the sacraments until they repent. Moreover, let people be subject to the sanctions given both by Pope Leo XIII through the Constitution of the offices and responsibilities against those who publish books dealing with religious things without legitimate permission of superiors and by Urban VIII through the decree "Sanctissimus Dominus Noster" given on 13th March 1625 against those who publish asserted revelations without the permission of ordinaries. However, this decree does not forbid devotion towards the Blessed Virgin under the title of Reconciliatrix commonly of La Salette. 

Given at Rome on 21st December, 1915. 

Aloisius Castellano, S. R. and U. I. Notary.

Conclusion
It is true that we are not bound to believe in private revelations, nor should we make them the focal point of our faith. However, to attack an approved apparition of the Church as being of "demonic origin," is an evil assertion and must be rejected. It is heretical to declare anything as coming from error and evil when Holy Mother Church has solemnly approved it for Her members. When anyone dares to attack something approved by the Church as evil, scrutinize it carefully, and you'll find out it's false--like WPATF. 

The article is written by the leader of a non-Christian sect trying to sound Catholic. He cites to occult sources (and perhaps the mentally deranged). He quotes sources out of context and cherry-picks what was written in said sources. All of this to the denigration of the Mother of God, Mary Most Holy. Let us venerate the Blessed Mother under her title Our Lady of Fatima, and remember well the words of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, Father and Doctor of the Church:

Let us not imagine that we obscure the glory of the Son by the great praise we lavish on the Mother; for the more she is honored, the greater is the glory of her Son. There can be no doubt that whatever we say in praise of the Mother gives equal praise to the Son. 








  

47 comments:

  1. The devil uses useful idiots in false sects to confuse unsuspecting people. Nor do I obsess over approved private revelations but I do not dismiss them as I believe it is for our good that the Blessed Virgin has appeared and delivered certain messages for our apocalyptic times.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simon,
      They are very good! The message of Fatima--Rosary, Scapular, Penance for sin, and First Saturday devotions are what we need in these times of Great Apostasy.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  2. This is a good article for so many trads to read. I have argued with handfuls of them in multiple comboxes over the years about private revelations and Fatima is the most popular to be picked on.

    In fact, a few months ago, a person named Fitzpatrick Informer called Fatima demonic on Novus Ordo Watch. He ended up making an implication that the Church before 1958 wasn't always Holy and that the evils that came after Vatican II came out of a vacuum created over a number years.

    If people would stop wasting their time reading garbage filled books, de-funked websites, social media platforms, and instead read good wholesome things approved by the Church we wouldn't have such problems today. It's no wonder there was such a thing known as the index of forbidden books.

    Lee

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Index was unfortunately suppressed by Montini. This means that any member of the V2 sect is free to read anything, even anti-Catholic stuff, porn and whatever...

      Delete
    2. Thank you for the reminder about this insidious stuff and for mentioning the site this came from, Intro!
      I remember stumbling across this kind of material about Fatima a few years ago under some poster (maybe the same one) in which the children were described as troublemakers; Lucia being the ringleader who "admitted" that though they said the Rosary each day, it was too irksome to recite the prayers entirely, so they only said the words "Our Father", Hail Mary" and "Glory Be" on the beads so they had more time to play.
      And the seers being called attention seekers who were disdainful of authority.
      What slander!
      As far as Catholic bloggers go, Lee, I agree about Fitz; and there's one more I know of that is calling the magisterium of Popes as far back as the Middle Ages into doubt. I have noticed that some accounts on "Catholic Twitter" are becoming combative lately too.
      Nasty online fights are breaking out among some laypeople there that you'd think would know better.
      Although there are still twitterers who do a good job of posting great, soul enriching items, I have been getting disturbed from the anger and insults I am seeing on that platform, and think I need to cut way back from following so as not to lose heart.
      I apologize for straying off topic, Intro.
      I feel that the time is getting closer than we think to the approach of Antichrist.
      This isn't the time for Catholics to fight over non doctrinal issues; we need to try harder than ever to keep the simple Faith and stick together and practice charity above all.
      Thank you, again, Intro.
      -Jannie

      Delete
    3. Lovely comment Jannie. Yes I agree, it would be best for Catholics to stop fighting over how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop.

      Unfortunately, bad Catholics are high in numbers these days.

      Lee

      Delete
    4. @Simon said "This means that any member of the V2 sect is free to read anything, even anti-Catholic stuff, porn and whatever..."
      Simon: I write to you as a brother in Christ, and I know your intentions are good. But even though we regard the V2 sect as enemies of the Faith (which they are), we want to avoid the temptation of hyperbole; such as stating that the V2 sect is Ok with pornography. Making statements like that makes us look bad because it means that we'll believe anything and everything against them, true --- or not true. I'm not hammering you by any means; that's not my intention in the least. And, of course, I'm on "your side". As trads we just need to be objective and fair---even to our enemies -- and even if they aren't fair to us.
      My 2 cents.

      Delete
    5. Jannie,
      Thank you for the kind words! I couldn't agree more with you and Lee.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. @DaveVI:

      I do not encourage V2 sect members to read porn or esoteric content. I am simply saying that those whom they believe to be their Catholic authorities are exposing them to all this by not warning them of the bad books in circulation. When I was Novus Ordo, I remember that there was a small shelf in the church where people came to put books for everyone to use. Some books seemed to be New Age. I reported it to the "parish priest" but I don't know if he had them removed. This is the consequence of this disastrous decision to remove the Index of prohibited books.

      Delete
    7. I have two problems with Fatima, now these probably come from a lack of understanding the faith but I will lay them out.

      1: The apparition of Fatima wanted Russia consecrated to her immaculate heart, but how do you consecrate a country that is Eastern Orthodox/communist? Both are opposed to Catholicism, especially Communism. To give an argument of extreme absurdity Could the Pope consecrate an abortion clinic if so ordered?

      2. This one is pretty general: the idea of secrets doesn’t seem very Catholic to me. Maybe that’s just because I’m not that well informed on the faith. However the idea of secrets and keeping secrets seems to be opposed to what a Christian is and is supposed to do on a general level.
      Ryan

      Delete
    8. Jesus Christ hids information in the Bible. He keeps secrets.

      Delete
    9. @anon2:09
      If you mean there are parts of the Bible (especially in the Apocalypse) that we may not yet fully understand until the events come to pass and make the message clear; Conceded. If you mean Our Lord "keeps secrets" insofar as He keeps knowledge from us and "hides" it in sacred Scripture; Denied.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    10. Ryan,
      As to #1--I think you are confused as to what this "consecration" means. It does not make something holy as in the Consecration at the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Rather, it means to place it under her power so that Christ, working through His Mother, may destroy the evil. It is not to "bless" atheistic Communism or heretical Eastern Schismatics.

      As to #2---In PRIVATE REVELATION it is possible that God wants certain things kept from us because in His Infinite Wisdom, He foresaw that if the knowledge were made public before certain events, worse things would befall humanity. The knowledge could also be used at a certain time for our benefit, but He left it to people's free will to release the information or not. Roncalli chose not to release the Third Secret in 1960, and Ratzinger lied in 2000. Those facts alone show that both men acted against the Will of God and give further credence (as if any more evidence were necessary) that we have been in a state of sedevacante since 1958.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    11. Thanks Introbio for your response. For number 1. I get it now that makes sense. Although there probably is a limit somewhere about what can and can’t be consecrate something to do with whether the object is intrinsically evil I would imagine. But that point is far afield.

      For number two I understand your point, it makes sense, but it still doesn’t sit right with me. It’s too similar to how secret societies operate imho. But it’s a logically valid explanation.

      There’s something else that bothers me too, if the Popes really believed in Fatima then they would have done the consecration. It’s kinda like the whole faith vs works argument: if you really have the faith then you do works. As our Lord said if you love me keep my commandments. The Popes didn’t do it, the consecration, they didn’t have the faith in Fatima.
      Ryan

      Delete
  3. For Joanna S. and any other Polish people who read this blog: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5fFhhP-ckk&t=18s

    It's a CMRI seminarian from what I understand.

    Lee

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lee,
      Thank you for the information!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Yup, that's one of the two Polish seminarians at Mater Dei. He's recently received his tonsure and it's absolutely awesome he's got that spirit of Catholic apostolate!
      We've been also blessed with a Polish subdeacon lately, a fellow seminarian at Mater Dei. What a grace!
      These two young men being formed by Bp. Pivarunas and the CMRI are the greatest hope that Poland has for a proper Catholic apostolate.

      God Bless You,
      Joanna S.

      Delete
  4. Hello Editor;
    I temporarily removed the PDF's I saved from your blog because I will check the comments. Some of them may have links to bad websites, etc. Just to make sure. I will try to bring them back next week. Hope you are fine;
    The Catholic Archivist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Catholic Archivist,
      Thank you for all you do! You have an excellent website which I recommend to all! I’m doing well and I hope you are as well. Thank you for letting me know—if you wish to delete all comments and simply keep the posts, that’s fine with me!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Thank you. I am planning to preserve the comments, just in a separate file.

      Delete
  5. I also really liked this article; this blog is being very important to me and I greatly appreciate it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jacinto,
      Thank you my friend! Comments like yours keep me writing!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  6. Hi Introibo,

    Thank you for an interesting topic!

    I found the following link: http://www.ourladyisgod.com/

    What do you think about it?

    God bless you!

    Robertus

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Robertus,
      It is pure heresy. It feeds into all the nonsense Protestants claim; that Catholics “worship” Mary as God.

      God Bless,
      —-Introibo


      Delete
    2. The "Rosario Fatima" website is also gnostic, since it accuses the Creator of evil behavior.

      Delete
    3. Introibo,

      Thank you for your reply.

      The website I sent earlier also claims that the correct Rosary contains 150 continuous beads, while the Rosary we have forms a satanic pentagram. That's heresy.

      How was the real story of the Rosary? Did St. Dominic, who lived in the year of 1170-1221, firstly received it from the Blessed Virgin Mary? If he did, did he only pray the first half of Ave Maria prayer? We know that the first half of Ave Maria prayer was taken from the Scripture, while the second half of it was added by the Church, around in the 1500's.

      God bless you!

      Delete
    4. Robertus,
      In the 13th century, the Albigensian heresy was devastating the country of Toulouse. St. Dominic implored the Mother of God to help, and was instructed by her, to preach the Rosary among the people as an antidote to heresy and sin. It consists of fifteen mysteries each with an Our Father and ten Hail Marys. That's 150 Hail Marys corresponding to the 150 Psalms.

      As to the origin of the Ave Maria (Hail Mary) the Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that my Patron Saint, King St. Louis IX: "So Thierry tells us of St. Louis of France that "without counting his other prayers the holy King knelt down every evening fifty times and each time he stood upright then knelt again and repeated slowly an Ave Maria." Further, "In the time of St. Louis the Ave Maria ended with the words of St. Elizabeth: "benedictus fructus ventris tui"; it has since been extended by the introduction both of the Holy Name and of a clause of petition." It has its current form since at least 1568.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  7. Fatima is so obviously confirmed to be true that it is inseparable from recognizing the complete rupture between 33-1958 A.D. and the New Church. To my mind, you cannot be a sedevacantist without being a devotee of Our Lady of Fatima. (If there are any, I would be interested in hearing your story).

    Also, in the interests of keeping the purity of the Faith, I distrust anything after Fatima, because Fatima is fulfilled either way (whether or no the Consecration is done) and also because it leads in to the Apocalypse (again, either way...). (Apocalypse is rightly veiled from all those who refuse Our Lady of Fatima).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Our Lady said that her Immaculate Heart is the last refuge and that no other remedies shall be given to mankind. Now, consider the decree of the Holy Office (May 26, 1937) stating that new forms of worship and devotion are not to be introduced. To me, this is really providential.
      Interestingly, only a year after that decree had been issued, the Divine Mercy hoax began but that's another story.
      The message of Fatima which to my mind is best summed up in the devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and not the consecration controversy (if we can even talk of controversy here), as you rightly state Cairsahr_StJoseph, is of vital importance to Catholics today.

      God Bless,
      Joanna S.

      Delete
    2. caisahr__stjoseph,
      I accept all Church approved apparitions. "In medio stat veritatis." Traditionalists shouldn't make them the focal point of Faith nor should they be deemed useless, or worse, "demonic."

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  8. What a wonderful writing Introibo for the month of our Blessed Mother like last week.Thank you.

    On a different subject.Someone spoke several weeks ago about the SSPV view on the Thuc issue.A number of friends who attend the SSPV here in the state of NY have told me there will not be any change till Bp Kelly dies.The only priests who have a hatred or should I say a obsession with this and the CMRI is Father William Jenkins and Father Martin Skierka.What do you think they will do if there is a change in policy?

    As far as Father Joseph Greenwell.He is a utter disgrace.Pray for him.My friends were pleased when he left Oyster Bay.

    On a another different subject.A former friend who has stopped going to the Traditional Mass and Sacraments has said the true day of the Sabbath is Saturday,not Sunday.I have had to break friendship and just pray for him.

    Look foward to your response.Thank you for all you do with your writings.God bless

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon5:44
      I agree that there will be no change in "Thuc policy" during the lifetime of Bishop Kelly. Should it change, I don't think Fr. Martin Skierka would go along, but he would be tolerated. Probably Frs. Jenkins and Greenwell would split and become independent. These are just my mere opinions as a layman.

      Fr. Greenwell would never have been ordained pre-Vatican II. Fr. DePauw, as Dean of Admissions to Mount St. Mary's Major Seminary for the Archdiocese of Baltimore, would have seen to it he never saw ordination.

      You may want to keep the door open for your friend. Perhaps he can be persuaded he's wrong. If he converted to a Seventh Day Adventist sect member, that would be much harder. Avoid him if he represents a danger to your Faith.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. May I ask what's wrong with Fr. Greenwell? Not SSPV so I'm curious to know what's bad about him.

      Delete
    3. @anon10:50
      Fr. Greenwell offers Mass in the most slovenly and disrespectful way I've ever seen. He rushes through like he can't wait for it to be over and talks as quickly as an auctioneer. You can't offer Mass like that and have any devotion. The joke was if you arrived five minutes late for Mass, he'd be up to the Last Gospel.

      He garbled the words during the prayers at the foot of the altar. This is, in my opinion, scandalous. Moreover, as soon as he bent down over the host and chalice at the Consecration, he would stand back up almost instantly. Twenty-two words comprise the Form for Consecrating the wine. Did he garble THOSE WORDS? If so, the entire validity of the Mass is in question--even the validity of the Consecration of the bread, since approved theologians have taught that since the Sacrament is inseparable from the Sacrifice, if the Consecration of the wine is invalid, God (Who knows the future) did not allow for valid Consecration of the bread either.

      Fr. Greenwell would also refuse to say whether or not he included the name of the alleged "pope" in the Canon, stating, "It's MY Mass." Uh, no. The Mass is not "his possession, it belongs to the Church and everyone has a right to know what is being said.

      I had words with him over another issue, and he was clueless.

      My advice: stay away from his Mass.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. I see that it's not just the Novus Ordo "priests" who screw up the Mass. It is sad.

      Delete
  9. I am re-reading "The Admirable Life of Mother Mariana" Vol 1 (Our Lady of Good Success/Quito), by Fr. Pereira, who wrote it in the 18th Century. It is a wonderful book; very detailed about the Conceptionist convent and Mother Mariana's mystical experiences, and I got a lot of spiritual good from it. Everything doctrinal in the book adheres to the Faith of course, but I can't seem to be able to reconcile the words of a prophecy related by the deceased Abbess in Chapter 16, with what has happened in our time:

    "Our Father St. Francis dearly loves his Order, which is so beloved of God that He [God] will never permit the great deviations that will be made in other Orders to occur in it."

    Clearly the Franciscans have deviated almost completely since V-2.
    It's true 200 years passed from the time of the apparitions to the writing of the book, which could account for a possible discrepancy, but notes by Mother Mariana were used by Fr. Pereira.
    (The book was translated into the English by Dr. Marian Horvat of TIA; notwithstanding her R&R position, she is devoted to Our Lady of Good Success, and a very learned person).
    Thanks for any insights you can furnish, Intro.

    -Jannie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jannie,
      When it comes to prophesy, many things have to be considered. For example:

      1. The prophesy may only go so far as just before the Great Apostasy. The Jesuits become infected with Modernists while the Franciscans and, to a lesser extent, Dominicans never had deviated UNTIL the Great Apostasy.

      2. Maybe the person who originally wrote those words misunderstood or got them wrong.

      3. We may never know. For example, in Fatima the Blessed Mother is alleged to have said "Portugal will always keep the dogma of faith." How so? They are just as pagan now as the other formerly Catholic countries.

      4. Remember that a Church approved private revelation means that it is free from moral or theological error
      and cannot teach something wrong or evil. It does not mean that everything necessarily happened exactly as recounted.

      I hope this helps!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  10. Thank you Intro.

    Your explanation helped a great deal!
    I felt I was missing something in that passage and that there had to be a greater context, but didn't have sufficient knowledge to understand what it might be.
    Thanks again, and I wish you and all your readers a restful and fruitful Memorial Day weekend.

    -Jannie

    ReplyDelete
  11. Please pray for me.
    I'm having major difficulties,resentment,and anger with God.
    Thank you,
    - Andrew

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andrew,
      I prayed the Litany of Saint Joseph for your intention; I'll also keep you in my Rosary (as I strive to do for all those who requested my prayers).
      May Our Blessed Lady console you in your afflictions and grant you peace in your tribulations.

      Jesus, Mary, Joseph - I love you, save souls!

      God Bless,
      Joanna S.

      Delete
    2. Andrew,
      You were remembered at Mass today, and I will continue to pray for you. I ask all my readers to please do the same.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. Thank you.
      -A

      Delete
    4. Thanks Introibo about the my question regarding a former friend who says the Sabbath is Saturday,not Sunday.Have you written anything on this subject(which month and year on your site?)He is a complete danger to my Faith.He now supports Judaism as the True Faith.

      Delete
    5. Andrew,
      You are definitely in my prayers.
      Give your feelings and concerns to Our Lady. She knows all about it and will help. Don't worry.
      God bless.
      -Jannie

      Delete
    6. @anon6:18
      I have not written anything on the Sabbath allegedly being Saturday after the death of Christ, either from the perspective of Jews or Seventh Day Adventist sect members. Your friend is an apostate, and a danger to your Faith. Therefore, I agree you must stay away from him. Pray daily for his conversion and offer up small sacrifices to God on his behalf. Hopefully, he will return to the One True Faith.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    7. @anon618
      May not help your friend right now but keep this for future reference.
      https://curate.nd.edu/show/05741r69b84

      Delete
  12. Thank you all very much.
    God bless. -A

    ReplyDelete