Monday, May 19, 2025

Our Lady Of The Willow Tree

 

To My Readers: This week's guest post from Lee is about Our Lady of the Willow Tree, a beautiful and not well known story. Please feel free to comment as usual. If you have a specific comment or question for me, I will respond as always, but it may take me a bit longer to do so this week. 

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

Our Lady of the Willow Tree
By Lee
One of the easiest spiritual works of mercy for faithful Catholics to practice with success is praying for the living and the dead. Praying for the dead relieves the suffering souls in Purgatory and whether it frees them completely or partially, they nevertheless will return us the favor when they enter Heaven for helping them. In like manner, praying for the living doesn't go without its rewards. One might ask what things should be prayed for on behalf of the living? It could be anything perhaps but one of the most desirous from God is the conversion of sinners and for those outside the Church to return. This fact is proven from the beautiful words uttered by our Redeemer in this parable, "What man of you that hath a hundred sheep: and if he shall lose one of them, doth he not leave the ninety-nine in the desert, and go after that which was lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, lay it upon his shoulders, rejoicing: And coming home, call together his friends and neighbors, saying to them: Rejoice with me, because I have found my sheep that was lost! I say to you, that even so there shall be joy in heaven upon one sinner that doth penance, more than than upon ninety-nine just who need not penance."  Luke 15:4-7

The Story
Joan Carrol Cruz has done a great service for Catholics with many of her books. One in particular called Miraculous Images of Our Lady goes through the history of 100 images of the Blessed Virgin Mary found throughout the world which she painstakingly gives in detail. A particular story I found moving, unique, and approved by some popes was Our Lady of the Willow Tree. It brings to light my point from the introduction and shows how much Our Blessed Lady loves each of us even if we were to obstinately fall away from sanctifying grace. 

The account of the story from her book is as follows: 

Plantees (Vinay), Isere, France 1649

The events relating to the origin of the shrines at Plantees would seem beyond belief were it not for the testimony of witnesses, the formal inquiry conducted by the bishop, and the documents which may still be seen in the Provincial Archives in Grenoble. Finally, the events were given Church approval when, on two occasions, Pope Pius IX ordered the solemn crowning of Our Lady of the Willow Tree (Notre Dame l'Osier).

The main personage of this drama was Pierre Port-Combet, a farmer of the area who was a well-known follower of a heresy known as Calvinism. As such he harbored a great dislike for Catholics and all that represented the Faith. He had married a devout Catholic, Jeanne Pelion, but despite here protest, he disregarded his vow to permit her to raise their six children in the Catholic Faith and instead drew them into heresy.

On solemn holydays all work was suspended in the province so that the people might attend church services and spend the remainder of the day in private devotions. Pierre's great delight was to show public disregard for the Church, and in particular the holydays dedicated to the Blessed Mother. On that fateful day in 1649, on the Feast of the Annunciation, Pierre decided to show his utter disdain for the observances by performing work where all would see him. He chose to stand beside the road where the villagers would be passing on their way to Mass.

Drawing his knife, Pierre pretended to engage in manual labor by half-heartedly pruning a willow tree that grew beside the road. After his first stab at the tree he drew back in complete shock. The willow bled! Coming from the mark left by the knife were not just a few drops, but a large enough quantity to splash on Pierre's arms and hands. Pierre immediately thought he was injured, but he could find no wound on his arms or hands. After a moment of bewilderment, he stabbed at the tree once more-and again the tree bled.

At about that time Pierre's wife, who was on her way to church, drew near and saw the blood covering her husband's arm. Thinking he was seriously injured, she hurried to help him. While she searched for a possible injury, Pierre excitedly related what had taken place. Thinking to calm him, she took the knife and struck the tree, but nothing happened. More agitated than before, Pierre snatched the knife from his wife and cut a small branch. The tree bled even more profusely than before.

A neighbor, Louis Caillet, was passing by at the time and was called over by the agitated Pierre, who by now was thoroughly frightened. Despite repeated efforts, Louis Caillet could not produce even a trace of blood. It was obvious that blood only appeared at the hand of the heretic.

Neighbors passing by and other villagers became aware of the marvel, and as though with one voice they agreed that the prodigy was a warning for Pierre to convert and, instead of giving public scandal, he should observe the laws of the Church.  

There was also a law of the Province to contend with. Having gone contrary to the law by working on the feast day, Pierre was summoned to court. Testimony was heard from witnesses who had seen Pierre in the act of pruning the tree. The prodigy of the blood was likewise mentioned. As a result, Pierre received a fine for his disobedience of the law. The transcript of this hearing is kept in the Provincial of Archives in Grenoble. 

When Church authorities heard of the case and the prodigy of the blood from the willow, they also took action. A tribunal of churchmen was gathered for a formal inquiry, as ordered by the Bishop. The testimony of Pierre was taken, as the witnesses. In the end it was decided that Pierre had received a severe warning from Heaven. 

Pierre took the decision to heart and was seen from time to time at the willow tree in profound prayer. Some of those who saw him were his friends of the Calvinist movement; they were unmoved, and even threatened bodily harm should he abandon Calvinism. For this reason, Pierre resisted his return to the Catholic Church for seven long years-until Our Lady herself intervened. 

While Pierre was working in the fields on the Feast of the Annunciation, March 25th of the year 1656, he looked toward a small hillock called the Epinouse, or the Thornhill. There he saw a Lady clothed in white, wearing a blue mantle. Over her head was a black veil that partially hid her face. As the Lady advanced toward him, Pierre thought that she was lost and was coming to him for directions. Suddenly, displaying amazing speed, the Lady was standing next to him. 

With a heavenly sweetness the lady addressed Pierre: "A Dieu Sois-tu, mon ami!" ("God be with you, my friend!") 

For a moment the sweet sound of the voice and the beauty of the woman caused Pierre to hesitate. The Lady again spoke, "What is being said about this devotion? Do many people come?"  

"Yes many people come," Pierre replied.

Seeing satisfied with Pierre's reply the lady continued, "Where does that heretic live who cut the willow tree? Does he not want to be converted?"

When Pierre mumbled a vague answer, the Lady asked, "Do you think I do not know that you are the heretic?" Then in a more serious tone, the vision warned, "Realize that your end is at hand. If you do not return to the True Faith you will be cast into Hell. But if you change your beliefs, I shall protect you before God. Tell people to pray to advantage, not to neglect the source of graces which God in His mercy has made available to them."

Pierre was overwhelmed with remorse and moved slightly away toward his oxen. Realizing his rudeness he turned back, but the Lady had moved away and was already near the Thornhill. Running after her, Pierre pleaded with her to stop and listen to his apology and his plea for help. The Lady stopped and turned. By the time Pierre caught up with her he noticed that she was suspended several feet in the air and was slowly fading from sight. Realizing that he had been granted a vision of the Blessed Virgin, he fell to his knees and while sobbing uncontrollably, he pledged a complete reform. 

A few months later, on the eve of the Assumption, Pierre contracted a serious illness. The Augustinian Prior of Vinay heard his confession  and accepted him back into the Church. Remembering that the prodigy had occurred on the Feast of the Annunciation, Pierre completed his conversion  by receiving the Holy Eucharist on the Feast of the Assumption. Pierre's conversion influenced many others to return to the True Faith, including his son and five daughters, as well as many Protestants and Calvinists. 

The Lady's words: "Realize that your end is at hand..." were realized five weeks later, when Pierre Port-Combet died. In accordance with his final wish, he was buried at the bottom of the willow tree.

With approval of the directors of the Propagation of the Faith in Grenoble, the Reverend Fais, the parish priest of Vinay, helped Mme. de la Croix buy the field where Pierre had spoken to Our Lady. In due time, on the site of the apparition, a chapel was built which was dedicated to Our Lady of Good Meeting. Soon another even larger church was built at the site of the willow. This was dedicated to Our Lady of the Willow Tree. A statue sculptured according to Pierre's description was enshrined which soon attracted countless pilgrims. 

Unfortunately, during the French Revolution terrorists from Grenoble pillaged and desecrated the sanctuary. The highly regarded statue of Our Lady was taken from its niche and hacked to pieces. These pieces were recovered by some valiant women who hid them until religious freedom was secured. Also saved was a portion of the willow tree that had been stored in a decorative box in the oratory. 

Following the revolution, devotion to Our Lady of the Willow was revived. The Oblates of Mary Immaculate were given charge of the sanctuaries and in 1856, the second centenary of the apparition, Pope Pus IX decreed a solemn jubilee and a papal crowning for September 8th. For this celebration more than 30,000 people and 400 priests attended. Another crowning was ordered by the same pontiff in 1873.

The meeting between Our Lady and Pierre is depicted on a large wall painting in the chapel of Our Lady of Good Meeting. Between this chapel and the Thornhill, where Our Lady left him, a specially marked path approximately 400 yards long indicates the route taken by Pierre when he ran after the apparition.

The church built where the willow once grew was raised to the dignity of a minor basilica by Pope Pius XI on March 17th, 1924. Here is found the once-mutilated statue of Our Lady, and beneath Pierre's grave is at the foot of this altar. The casket containing a piece of the willow is located at about the same place where it formerly grew.

In the basilica, near the statue of Our Lady, are countless ex-votos. Of all the miracles of healing worked as a result of prayer before this image, more than 100 are said to be undoubtedly genuine since they had been witnessed and sworn to by reliable people who testified under oath and affixed their names to written documents. 

The shrines are located in the town of Plantees, five miles from Vinay. During the year, but especially on the feast days of Our Lady of the Willow, March 25th and September 8th and 9th, pilgrims wind their way from Vinay, up the terrain to Plantees to the shrine containing the image of Our Lady of the Willow Tree.    

Conclusion
True contrition requires a firm purpose of amendment. The lesson from the above story is for everybody who wishes to follow the truth and renounce their sins and errors once and for all. God has given us His mother as means to make this process easier. She continues to wait for us to call up on her through her cell phone (the rosary). "Upon the rivers of Babylon, there we sat and wept: when we remembered Sion: On the willows in the midst thereof we hung up our instruments." Psalm 137:1-2

100 comments:

  1. It's a beautiful conversion story that reminds us that God wants everyone to be saved, and that He takes every means to achieve this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If we are lost despite the many attempts God offers us to repent, it is our own fault.

      Lee

      Delete
  2. Thanks Lee and Introibo for this interesting story. The warning given to Pierre certainly was not subtle. He is blessed to have a wife who prayed thus for him. The tree obviously represents Someone Who was wounded for our transgressions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. cairsahr_stjoseph,

      I love unusual stories that are true.

      Lee

      Delete
  3. Great article Lee. Was the statue put back together?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John Gregory,

      I'm sure but on this website https://www.divinemysteries.info/our-lady-of-the-willow-tree-vinay-france-1649/ there appears to be a statue of her on the main altar. I think it's amazing that they preserved a small part of the tree which is displayed in the altar.

      Lee

      Delete
  4. Sadly, it seems the author was in false novus ordo religion. I am tending to not believe much of the stories we are told, especially of authors in NO. I am not saying this not true but after Steven Speray Guadaloupe article, so much more is now suspect. I did enjoy reading this, as I always do.

    Also, find interesting he showed up to a church questioning while he was still a heretic? When did church stop these inquiries? The transcript of this inquiry would be interesting. He was also fined? So heretics paid fines to the Church? I thought heretics were burned at the stake? Isn't one Saint famous for saying same about his heretic father, meaning he would the light the fire himself? Too bad there are not more stories of Mary calling people "heretic"...

    Ps. This tree had a blood appearing sap.
    Dragon's blood sap is a red resinous substance produced by certain trees, notably the Dracaena cinnabari (also known as the Dragon's Blood Tree).

    https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/nola/name/joan-cruz-obituary?id=13362295

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon. 2:09

      Being that France was a very Catholic country at this time, many of the local ordinances and laws respected the Church's laws. In other words, the Church was not separate from the state at least at this time in that particular country. Therefore, the fines Pierre had to pay were towards the state.

      There are no know willow trees that have red sap. The tree in the story didn't specify what kind of blood appeared from the tree but that it only bled when Pierre cut it and not his wife or friend.

      I specifically picked this story because there is good public record of it, supporting the facts. Also we have popes who approve of it. Are you against the approbations of popes honoring such apparitions/images? If so why?

      Lee

      Delete
    2. Thanks for comment Lee! I only posted tree info because many trees have sap like blood. Not saying this tree does. I am more inclined these days not to believe any apparitions. Many do not make sense to me and it makes me focus away from the Faith. I also see so many still trapped in the NO due to their belief in apparitions, purportedly true and false ones. Something is very wrong to me in this regard. I recall your comments re Speray Guadeloupe article so I understand your viewpoint. Mine is just different. Thank you!

      Delete
    3. Anon. 5:55

      I appreciate the kind comment. Really I do but you didn't answer my question if you're against the approbations of popes (true ones) honoring such apparitions/images? I know everybody is free to stay away from apparitions etc. even if approved by the popes but why dissent against their judgment? Guadalupe for example has a feast day (Dec. 12th) honored by the whole Church since 1754 established by Benedict XIV with its liturgy surrounding its devotion strongly towards it. If an approved apparition leads somebody away from the faith then the logical conclusion is that it is wrong for the whole Church to honor it in the Mass because it would lead to possibility of impiety.

      The Council of Trent says
      CANON VII.–If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.

      The whole point of apparitions etc. is to help increase the faith of the faithful. We wouldn't have the Sacred Heart devotions, the Rosary, and others if Jesus and Mary didn't appear in the form of an apparition to St. Margaret Mary and St. Dominic.

      We don't question the miracles of Jesus etc. not merely because it is the deposit of faith and we must believe it because the Church says so but also because we have good reason that it happened without question with things like the Shroud of Turin to back it up and the historical account of it really happening. Why wouldn't Our Lord not work abundantly wonders in His future saints? Why stop with St. John? Did He not I say I will be with you always even until the consummation of the world?

      I'm inclined to believe that people stay in the Novus Ordo not because of apparitions but because it is easy. They do it because they are afraid of what people are going to think of them. They do it because it is very hard to believe that we haven't had a pope for many years and that the whole church that they believe is Catholic is wrong. They make excuses that they are not theologians or smart and so they prefer to be comfortable because everybody loves comfort. They are weak and it's partly because they don't have any faith which is accompanied by grace. I hope you re-consider and stop doubting so much in apparitions approved by the Church.

      Lee

      Delete
    4. Thank you so much for the awesome response Lee!
      John Gregory

      Delete
    5. Thanks Lee. I think I mentioned before in the Guadelupe thread a few posts ago, that I don't have problem with the Feast days/Masses honoring Mary. As for the apparitions themselves, I am setting aside. I agree regarding those sticking with the NO but I also know so many who seem to study and understand but then they keep reverting back to apparitions, such as unapproved ones, where Mary appeared at NO churches. And then of course, these same people are wowed by all those so called Eucharistic miracles and they "know and feel" Jesus is answering their Divine Mercy prayers and His real presence when they are at adoration. Signs and wonders. It is all so sad. Thanks as always.

      Delete
    6. Anon. 6:33

      I know what you mean. I knew an older couple who went to Medjugorje and talked about it like it was the Gospel. They even showed me where their rosary turned into gold. Nothing would convince them that John Paul II wasn't pope because the apparitions of Medjugorie through the visions of Marija stated that he was her pope. If one mentioned how the devil was able to perform unnatural things in the Old Testament such as turning a staff into a serpent they wouldn't believe that implied the same for Medjugorie.

      There are many unapproved apparitions and there are many who abuse those that are approved either by their interpretations of the message or the messages themselves being ambiguous. It's certainly a problem, but people can also do this with theologians. Take for example Mr. John Salza and Mr. Robert Siscoe. They say that the recognition of a pope by universal acceptance is a dogma when it is in fact not because we have at least 5 theological experts (Laymann, Azor, Ryder, Ward, Miaskiewicz) who don't agree when they imply that Universal Acceptance isn't guaranteed.

      The point I'm making is that just because theologians do not always agree does not mean we shouldn't read them even though we can error by reading them. It's best to read them with guidance just as we should be with approved apparitions because they are "worthy of belief." This means they do not contradict Catholic doctrine and faith.

      Lee

      Delete
  5. https://youtu.be/2w8a8LaVoR0?si=akyNQHyayBSFeRf0

    Interesting! I saw other videos recently explaining how so many church bells were destroyed...because they were healing! Another good reason not to believe all we read or see.
    Here is one video:
    https://youtu.be/7W3KipA2edw?si=nhQi9AZQXQScQe8m

    ReplyDelete
  6. Lee,

    Thank you for sharing that story. I enjoyed it.

    -TradWarrior

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TradWarrior,

      My pleasure. Feel free to share it if you think it's worth the time.

      Lee

      Delete
  7. Hello Lee

    A great story.Thank you very much

    Just been reading about the words of LeoXIV towards meeting representatives of other Christian communities and other religions the other day.This is what this evil and dangerous individual said - Aware,moreover that synodality and ecumenism are closely linked.I wish to assure my intention to continue Pope Francis commitment to developing new and concrete forms for an ever more intense synodality in the ecumenical field.

    Nothing has changed.Listen to the excellent podcast over on Novus Ordo Watch called dangerous excitement over LeoXIV.It exposes the foolish and duped R and R crowd like Taylor Marshall who is a fraudster.

    News came to me that at the largest SSPX church in the USA-St Marys,KS.Last Sunday at all Masses they included special collects for the "coronation" of Leo XIV.What the hell is wrong with the SSPX.Do they really think that Leo XIV is going to be interested in them.Why can't they stand up and fight.Leo XIV will not care a damn about them.They needed to get rid of that foolish Bishop Fellay whom I have believed for a long time is doing his darndest to sabotage things.Watch and read the actions of the last week of Leo XIV.Does the SSPX want to become a side chapel of the One World Pan Religion of the Vatican Two Sect.

    God bless you

    TradSedeCath,NZ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't want to sound end-time "prophetic" but aren't we about to witness a major consolidation of the Novus Ordo conservatives/R&R/semi-trads under the auspices of Prevost, finally singling out sedevacantists as THE public enemy of Vatican 2?

      The SSPX are broken beyond repair at this point. It makes me sad and angry to think what good they could have done but never did if they had not catered to the Modernists.
      It really breaks my heart to see them flourish in my country with their invalid Novus Ordo clergy who have already outnumbered the valid SSPX-ordained priests (sic! at least last time I checked around covid) in their ranks, ultimately leading people back into the Novus Ordo!

      God Bless,
      Joanna

      Delete
    2. TradSedeCath NZ,

      You bring up a lot of good points specifically with the SSPX. The man speaks Latin in public, says marriage is between a man and woman, and pretends like he is going to center his papacy around his predecessor Leo XIII and the crowd goes nuts.

      John Paul II once gave permission to say the Latin Mass, was outspoken against abortion/contraception, but he's the one who partook in the abominations of Assisi where he prayed with other world religious leaders for peace in world. He's the one who created the greatest scandal amongst the young called World Youth Day which allowed promiscuous behavior and sacrilege time and time again. He's the one who permitted altar girls for the first time and even said they enrich the liturgy. So many other things this so called "saint" did in their church and yet they cannot put two and two together about him or the current man from Illinois.

      Lee

      Delete
    3. Thumbs up to Joanna and Lee. Wasn't aware of how many presiders they had.

      Delete
    4. I think that sounds about right Joanna.

      FromRome false religious brother posted this. Seems like even some deceived can figure out new pope a heretic but yet can't see that last 60 years of heretics. He mentioned sedevacantists and their wrong thinking today but I went back to copy exact words and no longer there. I hope and pray the Novus Ordo is destroyed soon!
      https://www.fromrome.info/2025/05/20/priests-naming-leo-xiv-in-the-canon-have-begun-to-cough-or-upchuck/

      Delete
  8. Lee and Introibo

    I would also like to add the warning about another dangerous and duped individual called Kennedy Hall.He just released another video this time claiming that Leo XIV will give the SSPX 2 or 3 new "bishops" and he will tell his Novus Ordo bishops to support the Society in their Dioceses.What a load of garbage.Get real Kennedy,your head is in the sand.Are you not reading the plans of Leo XIV who said he is carrying on the renewal of Vatican Two and the path of Francis.Myself and others have no doubt these fools are under some demonic spell.Where is their reasoning.

    We are in very bad times.Most will be led astray.Narrow is the way and few find the path.Let us all thank God that we have been given the graces to see the Truth.Thank God for this website.A real blessing.

    God bless you

    TradSedeCath,NZ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TradSedeCath
      Kennedy Hall is just another sad Vatican II sect apologist. I can't help but think it's willful ignorance. Thank you for the kind words--Comments like yours keep me writing (and Lee and John Gregory) writing!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  9. Hello all. I posted this comment on the previous article and thought I should post it here were everyone will see it, because I'm looking for some feedback, some one close to me was getting confused over it and it really disturbs me. "Thank you Intriobo. Excellent article. Bishop Sanborn disagrees that Provost cannot be validly elected. He claims the V2 institution can juridicaly elect a material pope. And that the election has to be declared invalid. Otherwise the Church would be like a mob. I wish he would quit causing division by constantly foisting the novel "thesis" upon the ears of laity and keep those conversations privately among the clergy."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John
      I agree with you that division is caused by enforcement of ideas that have no right to be enforced by those with no Magisterial authority. I'm a sedevacantist who is open to sedepriationism. Instead of fighting each other we need to fight the Vatican II sect. TradWarrior does a great exposition below.

      God Bless you, my friend!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  10. John Gregory,

    I agree with you here. I listed some critiques that I have of Bishop Sanborn/RCI on Introibo’s “Dowsing” article from a few weeks ago. Please read what I wrote there. First off, I just want to reiterate that I have respect for all the Sede clergy. We are living in very difficult times and they are only getting worse. I support the work that they all do. In charity, I want to mention that first. My biggest critiques of Bishop Sanborn and the RCI are the following:

    The Cassiciacum Thesis, not following Pius XII on the 1955 Holy Week or the Feast of St. Joseph the Worker, the rigid enforcement of the anti-Una Cum issue, the strict dress code issue. People will disagree with me on some of this and that is fine. I do not mind.

    1 - The Cassiciacum Thesis. The RCI treats this as if it were a fact that must be followed. To me, the Thesis is goofy and violates Pope Paul IV’s “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio” (among other theologians who also agree that popes cannot be heretics). Among the more recent V2 “popes” like Prevost, they do not have valid ordinations or consecrations. They hold the V2 heresies and espouse them like crazy. Yet, somehow these men can become pope if they recant their errors. It’s just goofiness. It is the Sede clergy that are IN the church so a pope would come from one of their ranks, not the Novus Ordo. I am not saying that one will be elected one day, but if we had another pope, it would be one of them, not a V2 “pope” who would recant his errors/heresies. It just doesn’t make any sense. If we have a pope again, I believe it will be by supernatural means from God directly. The institutional church is just too far gone. Either that or we go into the General Judgment not long from now.

    2 – The Pian Holy Week. If Pius XII was pope, we follow his holy week. He promulgated it and it was a done deal. Freemason Bugnini does not trump the Holy Ghost protecting the Supreme Pontiff Pius XII here. It just doesn’t make sense. The Catholic Church is indefectible. If Pius approved it, it is safe. End of story.

    3 – The enforcement of the anti-Una Cum issue. The RCI telling lay people that it is a mortal sin to attend such Masses is extremely problematic. There are so few Mass options as it is for Catholics to attend. The RCI makes up sins here that just do not exist. Matthew 23:4 comes to mind here in Christ’s rebuke to the Scribes and Pharisees.

    ReplyDelete
  11. CONTINUED…4 – The strict dress code. Many people have no problems with the RCI’s dress code issue, but I have seen multiple people be very humiliated over this issue that the RCI continues to harp on. As long as someone is presentable for Mass, I do not see why a dress code is necessary. This is not grade school. Common sense should prevail. There have been many, many people hurt over this issue and completely unnecessarily. If someone wants to wear a suit and tie, fine. If someone wants to wear a nice dress shirt and pants, fine. I do not understand why this continues to be a huge issue to them. It is not an issue to the CMRI. People at their Masses look presentable and they come dressed different ways. Yes, dress attire is very sloppy in the Novus Ordo. No question. But if someone looks presentable at a traditional church/chapel, they are fine. For people that come into a traditional church for the first time and may not be dressed the nicest (e.g. jeans, sandals, etc.), some clergy handle it better than others. Some are very welcoming and explain the traditional church position to them very well while others are very harsh and they seem like they are going to have a stroke over it. There have been instances where family members and friends have attended their loved ones funerals at an RCI church and they didn’t follow the dress code (which they didn’t know about to begin with) and they were treated very harshly. Then there are people dressed really nicely but if the man wasn’t wearing a suit to go with his shirt and tie, he was refused communion. In Medio Stat Veritas is something those in the RCI just do not understand with many issues. It is unfortunate because people do not have many traditional church options. This over rigidity makes things that much worse. That, and the fact that charity seems to be lacking in some Mass centers when charity should be first and foremost. People need to feel welcomed or they will never come back. Some trad churches/chapels are not growing at all and it starts with the clergy. You want to treat people that poorly, well then do not complain when your group cannot attract more members and grow. This isn’t rocket science!

    Bishop Sanborn has done much good through the years. I personally have learned much from him, as well as Sede clergy from different groups. But these issues continue to be his downfall. There needs to be a change, but I do not see one coming in the near future. We’ll see in time.

    -TradWarrior

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Main issue is that he denied the salvation dogma

      Delete
    2. TradWarrior,
      A very well-reasoned and sensible approach! If only more Traditionalists (especially clergy) agreed with you!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. @Feeneyite2:58
      Please! Take your heretical garbage to Fred and Bobby Dimwit at Most Heretical Fanatic "Monastery."

      Praying for your conversion,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. I wrote that coming from the position of Fr. Muller. was Fr Muller a heretic who needed to be converted?

      Delete
    5. @anon1:42
      My apologies to you. When someone writes “salvation dogma” I’ve always found them to be Feeneyites. That’s the phrase Fred and Bobby (and their followers) use. If you’re using it as per Fr. Mueller, it’s very Catholic and I once more apologize. I’m going to ask what someone means by that expression before I leap to conclusions!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. Introibo,

      The Anon is pulling your leg. The Feeneyites love to quote Fr. Muller. Bp. Sanborn doesn't deny the "salvation dogma" that Fr. Michael Muller "teaches."

      What the Feeneyites don't tell you probably because they don't know is what Fr. Michael Muller actually taught:

      Fr. Michael Müller, C.SS.R., The Catholic Dogma, pp. 217-218, 1888:

      “Inculpable or invincible ignorance has never been and will never be a means of salvation. To be saved, it is necessary to be justified, or to be in the state of grace. In order to obtain sanctifying grace, it is necessary to have the proper dispositions for justification; that is, true divine faith in at least the necessary truths of salvation, confident hope in the divine Savior, sincere sorrow for sin, together with the firm purpose of doing all that God has commanded, etc. Now, these supernatural acts of faith, hope, charity, contrition, etc., which prepare the soul for receiving sanctifying grace, can never be supplied by invincible ignorance; and if invincible ignorance cannot supply the preparation for receiving sanctifying grace, much less can it bestow sanctifying grace itself. ‘Invincible ignorance,’ says St. Thomas, ‘is a punishment for sin.’ (De, Infid. Q. x., art. 1). “It is, then, a curse, but not a blessing or a means of salvation… Hence Pius IX said ‘that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, such invincible ignorance would not be sinful before God; that, if such a person should observe the precepts of the Natural Law and do the will of God to the best of his knowledge, God, in his infinite mercy, may enlighten him so as to obtain eternal life; for, the Lord who knows the heart and the thoughts of man will, in his infinite goodness, not suffer anyone to be lost forever without his own fault.’ Almighty God, who is just condemns no one without his fault, puts, therefore, such souls as are in invincible ignorance of the truths of salvation, in the way of salvation, either by natural or supernatural means.”

      Fr. Michael Müller also wrote a catechism titled “Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine.” He writes:

      Q. What are we to think of the salvation of those who are out of the pale of the Church without any fault of theirs, and who never had any opportunity of knowing better?

      A. Their inculpable ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance.

      Q. Is it then right for us to say that one who was not received into the Church before his death, is damned?

      A. No.

      Q. Why not?

      A. Because we cannot know for certain what takes place between God and the soul at the awful moment of death.

      Q. What do you mean by this?

      A. I mean that God, in His infinite mercy, may enlighten, at the hour of death, one who is not yet a Catholic, so that he may see the truth of the Catholic faith, be truly sorry for his sins, and sincerely desire to die a good Catholic.

      Q. What do we say of those who receive such an extraordinary grace, and die in this manner?

      A. We say of them that they die united, at least, to the soul of the Catholic Church, and are saved.

      Q. What, then, awaits all those who are out of the Catholic Church, and die without having received such an extraordinary grace at the hour of death?

      I'm sure Bp. Sanborn agrees with the above teaching but does the Feeneyite? I think not.

      Lee

      Delete
    7. In what way does he deny the salvation dogma?

      Delete
    8. Thank you Lee. I'm quite sure Bishop Sanborn does not deny the salvation dogmatic. That is why I figured Intriobo's original impression of anon was correct. Sounds like a feenyite.

      Delete
    9. If, by some mystery of Providence and Predestination, they [pagans and idolaters] are united to the soul of the Church, and by desire to its body, it is in spite of their paganism and idolatry - Bishop Donald Sanborn


      This even denies the necessity of belief in God. Even if you were to hold a lagrangian theory of per accidens excpetion for explicit faith in the incarnation, nessecity of grace , trinity and immortality of the soul. That wouldnt apply to the existence of God or eternal reward! and never did the church apply it to members of false sects.

      Delete
    10. Lee,
      I wasn't aware that Feeneyites now lay claim to theologian Mueller! I guess if you only read the selected passages and twist the rest out of context, it works.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    11. @anon5:25
      I was interested to see how you think Bp. Sanborn denies EENS. Without having heard a full explanation from Bp. Sanborn, what you cite does not prove heresy.

      He does not deny supernatural faith. As theologian Mueller explains above in Lee's quote: "I mean that God, in His infinite mercy, may enlighten, at the hour of death, one who is not yet a Catholic, so that he may see the truth of the Catholic faith, be truly sorry for his sins, and sincerely desire to die a good Catholic." They become Catholic prior to death in spite of being non-Catholic in the internal forum.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    12. i believe in BoD

      Delete
    13. Correction to my comment above; “in spite of being non-Catholic in the EXTERNAL FORUM.”

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    14. Lee, I anon believe in BoB, Explicit BoD and Implicit BoD

      I see implicit faith in The Trinity and Incarnation (Garrigou Lagrange’s position) as a permitted opinion which happens to be wrong

      I reject the idea that members of false sects somehow also have this implicit faith as heresy


      Call me a feeneyite all you want. It won’t be true

      Delete
    15. Anon. 3:44,

      I'm sorry I called you a Feeneyite. Many Feeneyites use Fr. Muller and that's what I thought you were doing as well.

      If something is permitted as an opinion such as Garrigou Lagrange's, you a free to disagree but not free to call the opposing opinion (if it is permitted) heretical. This would imply that the Church permits opinions which are heretical which would make the Church harmful spiritually.

      Lee

      Delete
    16. Does Bishop Sanborn err on the issue? Can you share the quote (again)?

      John Gregory

      Delete
    17. At the very least, I am sure everyone knows, you must believe, based upon God revealing, that God exists and is a renumerator. Whether you must believe in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity explicitly, under every circumstance has not been settled.

      Delete
    18. Anon. 12:56,

      This is what Pope Pius IX teaches in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore #7

      "Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments."

      What do you make of that statement?

      Lee

      Delete
    19. I'm sorry when I post on my phone it puts me as anonymous:

      At the very least, I am sure everyone knows, you must believe, based upon God revealing, that God exists and is a renumerator. Whether you must believe in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity explicitly, under every circumstance has not been settled.

      Delete
    20. I accept as true the above statement.

      Delete
    21. I believe Thomas Aquinas teaches that those who can reason are guilty of mortal sin if they do not believe in the existence of God. I probably really botched that. But he says there is either no sin or mortal sin in this aspect. We all are given the grace to be saved. I believe all the good willed can be saved, and also that all who are of good will die with a supernatural faith and perfect charity.

      Do you suggest someone without a supernatural faith and perfect charity, can be saved if he is invincibly ignorant? Do you suggest that is what the pope is teaching. It is important for us to be as clear as possible on this topic.

      Delete
    22. John,

      The way I understand it is that those who are invincibly ignorant are not without faith and perfect charity because they are incapable of deliberate sin through their own fault. It's also an internal forum issue. In other words, we cannot read the hearts of men like the Dimond brothers can (I hope you don't mind my sarcasm). This is why Pius IX says, "Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments."

      Lee

      Delete
    23. Hi Lee,

      So you are not denying that a supernatural faith and sanctifying grace are necessary for salvation.

      I don't see how that could be denied, or a valid pope would teach the contrary. The teaching is that two or possibly four beliefs are necessary, based upon God revealing for salvation to be possible. I believe that the good willed do not die without either (they are invincibly ignorant of the minimum necessary to have a supernatural faith). What God sees in the heart is often much different than what we see, or how they present themselves to our senses.

      Have you read "The Catholic Church and Salvation" by Monsignor Fenton?

      You can't come away from that believing it is possible for a person to exist, and be saved without a supernatural faith. He examines in detail the quote you have from above along with 7 other documents the encompass the 20 dogmatic teachings on no salvation outside the Church.

      I don't think we can understand the above quote as if it is possible for one at the age of reason to be invincibly ignorant to the point of not having a supernatural faith.

      Do you agree that those below the age of reason who die without being baptized are prevented from obtaining he Beatific Vision?

      Delete
    24. John,

      Yes, I agree that those below the age of reason who die without being baptized are prevented from obtaining the Beatific Vision and that they go to Limbo.

      I have not read Monsignor Fenton's work "The Catholic Church and Salvation" but trust what you are saying.

      Thank you for your input as always.

      Lee

      Delete
    25. Thank you Lee. Much respect. Love your work.

      Delete
    26. Good comments, all. Thank you.
      -S.T.

      Delete
  12. Fr Jenkins discussed Sanborn's sedeprivationism again tonight...he said it is interesting to basically see Sanborn converge with sspx and the Thesis is basically one and same as sspx position.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon7:09
      On that I must disagree. Sedeprivationism (SP) is not like R&R. SP holds Prevost to be a "placeholder" and not a real pope to be obeyed. R&R consider Prevost as a true pope and then ignore him and disobey him unless they agree with him on something.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Im so used to saying bergoglio. Prevost doesnt roll off the tounge

      Delete
    3. https://youtu.be/vMrFBz6usxM?si=0OfEPs6k0P-vXWg_

      Fr Jenkins brief statement on Sanborn/sspx begins at 57 minute mark, fyi.

      Delete
  13. Introibo
    I really can't see the SSPX doing any deal with Prevost.Not with his future path he said he is taking.Do you think he will call Vatican Three?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon11:24
      Vatican 3? While anything is possible with these jokers, they can continue the demolition without another Robber Council.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  14. Does anyone know the position of Bishop Pivarunas towards Bishop Roy of Canada.Is it correct that Bishop McGuire objected to his consecration.I wonder if he has changed his views now?
    Yes,this is a great website.Great to hear from John Gregory.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Genuine question here. If our bishops dont have ordinary jurisdiction how does te church have formal apostolicity. Can you provide quotes which state the marks act differently under sedevacante?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 1:50,

      I refer you to this article https://https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2023/05/12/does-apostolicity-of-the-church-absolutely-require-a-hierarchy/which covers that question you have.

      Lee

      Delete
    2. Your last paragraph is incorrect. It has an historical fact that formal, juridical apostolic succession has continued in the past without the expressed mandate of the Holy See. This has happened in the early Church, religious orders, during extended interregnums or when it was impossible for the pope to communicate. It is an historical fact that the mandate for the mission has been tacit when there was no pope or the pope could not communicate. I believe we are in that situation now. The apostolic succussion continued thru Thuc (who was granted permission to ordain bishops by Pius XII), Lefebvre, Mayer and possibly Mendez. It is my contention that all their valid Catholic successors are the hierarchy, with formal jurisdiction, not over territories but souls.

      Delete
    3. My above comment was not referring to any comments here, I was responding to someone on another site and forgot to take out the first sentence above on this site. Please accept my apologies.

      John Gregory

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  16. The mandate from the Holy See can be, sometimes must be tacit, such as it was during previous extended interegnums. Even if our current Catholic SV bishops do not acknowledge it themselves. Their jurisdiction can be formal, over souls, even if not territorial. IMO, based on all I have read from sound theologians.

    ReplyDelete
  17. For instance, the theory forces us to hold that the visible and canonical Church has failed, even to such a degree that to say a Mass in union with its leader is sinful.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Is the Vatican Institution One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic? If not, can we still get a pope from it? Do the Catholic SV bishops have all these marks? If not, where is the Church? Has it been destroyed?. Bishop Sanborn points to the Vatican Institution as the visible Church despite being a corpse. The spiritual Church, with no authority, are the traditional Bishops despite having no body no visibility. They are the perfect dispensers or sacramental vending machines, in a seven decade state of epikea.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hard to type on the phone. Seeing my grammatical errors above. I meant to say pez dispensers. A visible heretical Church and a spiritual Church composed of Catholics with no mission. That leads to home aloneism. In that case the sacraments can only be administered to those in danger of death the thought goes. That is why I have an issue with it being preached as if it were doctrine.

    Bishop Sanborn has endearing qualities and more knowledge in his pinky than I will ever have. I'm sad that I have to fear listening to what would otherwise be enjoyable and informative since that offensive to pious ears issue will always come up.

    Much like the diamonds so long ago. They get alot right but they always include their heresy. Can't dream of listening to them.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Is there a theology book anywhere that teaches a pack of heretics can elect a pope elect? We know the theory was never taught before despite extended interegnums and all the Cardinals being killed at the same time has been taken into consideration.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I agree with most of your comments John Gregory. Probably same reasons it took me so long to arrive at sedeland and I am never 100% sure about it, although I hear of many sedes who are. I have to stop listening to Sanborn too. He is too contradictory. Often I see Steven Heiner obviously baffled in some of their Q&A shows. All is very difficult to discern and I do not know why it is. I truly do not think the Faith should be so hard to figure out. I hear many sincere priests mention in their sermons a simple faith is all is needed. Well, after it took the few of us in sedeland decades to find the true somple faith? Now ostracized from most family and friends and home alone and, in my case, lost most of my income too. Nothing is simple.

    Does anyone know how Catholics studied the faith when there were no books and no priests to teach? How did they manifest their membership in the true Church without much knowledge at all.

    God bless all here. Thank you.

    Ps.
    I thought Louie V newest was very good.
    https://youtu.be/SL3kvJkMDuc?si=wxjXQA3Q3vnNwYPZ

    ReplyDelete
  22. Getting back to the article. I think it is amazing how that man was privileged with such extraordinary graces to save him from Hell. He was perilously close. Others who sinned a fraction of what he did would be damned. God knows the heart. Perhaps he had a devotion to Our Lady at one pointed or someone interceded with Our Queen on his behalf.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John Gregory,

      Agreed, that's how I think about it.

      -S.T.

      Delete
  23. On this feast day of St. Rita of Cascia, attached are some beautiful prayers, especially the Litany containing a prayer “that the Faith in all its purity may be spread over our land.”

    Thank you again, Introibo, for your blog, and thanks to Lee for his post. St. Rita of Cascia, pray for us.

    Alanna

    ReplyDelete
  24. Forgot to post the link.
    http://catholicharboroffaithandmorals.com/St.%20Rita.html

    Alanna

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alanna,

      Thank you for the comment and the link regarding St. Rita.

      Lee

      Delete
  25. That is a great website-Catholicharboroffaithandmorals.com

    So much info on there

    ReplyDelete
  26. Lee,

    Thank you for the post and for sharing this great story. We enjoyed it. Our Lady is the greatest advocate we could ever hope for.

    God Bless,
    -S.T.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. S.T.

      I'm glad you enjoyed it. There is no reason not to have a confidence in Our Lady after reading stories like that. I believe it actually hurts those who have doubts.

      Lee

      Delete
    2. If the Church says we do not have to believe apparitions...why would it hurt us to doubt what even the Church does not say we must believe? I think that comment is more hurtful, not doubting apparitions.

      Delete
    3. Anon. 8:11,

      It hurts you because you don't trust in the Church for saying it's worthy of belief but prefer to doubt it. What is it worthy of belief? Worthy of belief means it's not contrary to the Church and that you can TRUST them. The Church never specifies why it allows you not to believe them other than the fact that they are private revelations.

      Do you trust in the popes when they approve an apparition? If you say no, then why do you listen to them at all when they speak on matters of faith an morals?

      Did it do Thomas any good for doubting in Jesus?

      Lee

      Delete
    4. Thomas is a Saint, right? So back to Guadelupe then...if apparition never happened as Mr Speray proved in my opinion, there is no reason to believe such. Thanks for trying to explain why it hurts to doubt apparitions. I just don't buy that it hurts.

      Delete
  27. I have full confidence in BVM and doubt most apparitions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I doubt your comment while I believe in only apparitions approved by the Church. We have become two doubters in a pod.

      Lee

      Delete
  28. Still no answer why doubting apparitions hurts someone?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon,

      It hurts somebody because when an APPROVED apparition isn't believed their faith in those whom approve (priests, bishops, popes) of them is also hurt. There then becomes a lack of trust in the Church for allowing an approved apparition to be believed. When this happens an individual starts deciding for himself what he will and will not trust based on his own decisions. In other words, what is supposed to be worthy of belief will become what is no longer worth believing for the individual. Then they start questioning everything.

      Now that I've answer your question answer mine which was "Do you trust in the popes when they approve an apparition?"

      Lee

      Delete
  29. Thanks for update Lee! Still baffled though. Does the Church say it hurts us or you?
    Perhaps the Church says we don't have to believe because a pope, bishop or others can be wrong on these matters. Sanborn doesn't think priests can advise faithful on medical matters, which is ridiculous. Even NO Strickland warned people not to get murdered baby shots. Even though Sanborn holds that opinion and the nonsense Thesis theory, I still believe he is true priest with much to offer. Are you saying if the Guadeloupe apparition never occurred, we should still believe it when evidence says otherwise?
    Something is either true or false so I am choosing not to believe apparitions or simply set them aside. I hope and beg to get to Heaven one day like St Thomas did....
    At least I escaped novus ordo abomination, which well over a billion self identifying Catholics believe is true as do many people who are not awake to most of the lies of the world.
    God bless!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon.

      It can hurt anybody. For example, say a well meaning person hears about Our Lady of Lourdes for the first time. After hearing the story the person wants to become a Catholic and indeed studies to become an eventual baptized member of the Church. Say a few months pass by and a devils advocate comes along and tells this person they don't have to believe it because of such and such reason. Let's say the devil's advocate (it can be any person) is so convincing that the person who is new to the faith starts having doubts in the Church's credibility that they start exploring other religions because it no longer trusts it as being the true Church because it got something they now believe is wrong.

      What good did the devil's advocate accomplish? You see, one may be free to believe or disbelieve an approved apparition, but I don't think it's right to go out of ones way to convince people why everybody shouldn't believe them because the Church has already encouraged belief in them by its approval and to contradict the Church could cause scandal.

      As far as the apparition of Guadalupe is concerned one Catholic historian from Mexico gave his analysis as to why he didn't believe the story was real. I acknowledge that he makes good points. Are we to believe his critique over the approval of Pope Benedict XIV who came 100 years earlier and all the popes since then?

      I'm happy that you have escaped the Novus Ordo and understand and believe in the Catholic Faith (Creed, Laws, Commandments, Sacraments, etc.)

      Lee

      Delete
    2. Thanks Lee. I understand your train of thought but still don't think it applies to me or many. Are people converting to the faith bc of Lourdes? Or any apparition? I see more believing unapproved ones like Medjugorje. Ecumenism is so popular you know! I am not going out of my way to convince anyone of what I think of apparitions. In fact, no one cares one bit what I think of novus ordo fallacy. That is what I try to convince anyone of...rarely does an apparition come up. When it does, it is usually from NO person who stays in NO because they believe Medjugorje! Never ending circular nonsense and lies.

      Delete
    3. Still confused. If Guadeloupe did not occur...I see no reason to believe it regardless of popes who believed it. True or false? I only want Truth.

      Delete
    4. Anon.

      Your first comment is well taken. As to the second comment it all depends on whether the story found in the Niccan Mopua regarding Juan Diego is true. If you believe it's just a story that didn't actually happen because of a Mexican historian who had his doubts I suppose you can believe that but the popes did believe it happened. I tend to side with the popes because it would seem they did more of an investigation of it rather than just believing in a mere legend or story.

      Two things we cannot do is say one must believe it or that there is something wrong to believe it because the popes have already said it is not contrary to the Faith.

      Lee

      Delete
  30. I am not preferring to doubt, as you say. I am doubting based on evidence supplied with the reason God blessed me with. I am not questioning everything. I am doubting apparitions which we are not required to believe so obviously I trust the Church and Her wisdom and have taken a road she has offered.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon.

      You are free to do that. I also trust in the Church when it approves of apparitions the same way it has investigated the lives of the saints and determined whether they were in fact saints because I believe in the Communion of Saints.

      Lee

      Delete
  31. Ps. I trust the pre Vatican 2 popes on faith and morals. I don't have to believe apparitions approved by Church and I choose not to. Feel free to help all those who believe Medjugorje, even traditionalists, which is a CIA psyop. God please wake people up!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon.

      Medjugorie is not approved by the Church, at least the pre-Vatican II Church. So I would never help people believe in that. Like I said in a previous comment, I knew a couple who strongly believed in that and I tried to convince them otherwise but could not. I do however try to help people with approved apparitions not because I'm an apparaitionist but because I believe it does help people grow closer to Mary. It certainly has helped me. I don't talk about them all the time but when they come up I defend them as best as I can because the Church not only allows them to be believed but even goes out its way to honor certain ones in big ways with processions/coronations etc.

      I don't know if you saw it but I was highly outspoken against the Divine Mercy a couple of years ago on this very website found here: https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2023/04/divine-or-diabolical-mercy.html.

      I hope you understand where I am coming from.

      Lee

      Delete
  32. Yes, thanks Lee. I just encounter NOers differently and apparitions, especially Medjugorje usually come up. People "feel" it is is holy because they have been there and experienced some sort of miracle or conversion or a NO priest they know claims his false vocation from there. I know a NO deacon who said he was healed of cancer after going to Lourdes so all the NOers cling to that as well and stay put in NO. I have other pals who write books as professional Catholics who write about all the miracles they encounter in NO. It is endless! They dabble in them all especially too, false Divine Mercy devotion. I most likely read and sent that out many times. But NOers "feel" their relatives went to heaven thanks to them praying it once! I was duped too when in the NO but I want the Truth no matter where it leads. I am re reading your DM post and comments. You point to Patrick Perez as having evidence re Diary on index, right? He wasn't validly ordained right? I followed him for a bit and was so sad when he died during covid scam...the Tradition in Action folks who were friends with him said hospital killed him, which he knew would happen if he went. Very Sad! Eternal rest grant unto him O Lord...🙏⚜🙏 He died shortly after TIA's Our Lady of Good Success video where he states...the NO has caused millions to lose the faith.

    ReplyDelete