To My Readers: This week, John Gregory writes about the Passion of Our Lord and the supreme importance of the virtue of charity. Please pray for John and his family; he has been sick. 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
The Sufferings of Our Lord and the Virtue of Charity
By John Gregory
Then
Jesus took unto him the twelve, and said to them: Behold we go up to Jerusalem,
and all things shall be accomplished which were written by the prophets concerning
the son of man. For he shall be
delivered to the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and scourged, and spit upon:
and after they have scourged him, they will put him to death; the third day he
shall rise again (St. Luke 18: 31,
33).
“SUFFERED
UNDER PONTIUS PILATE, WAS CRUCIFIED, DEAD, AND BURIED”
IMPORTANCE OF THIS ARTICLE
How
necessary is a knowledge of this Article, and how assiduous the pastor should
be in stirring up in the minds of the faithful the frequent recollection of our
Lord’s Passion, we learn from the Apostle when he says that he knows nothing
but Jesus Christ and him crucified. (1 Corinthians 2: 2) The pastor,
therefore, should exercise the greatest care and pains in giving a thorough
explanation of this subject, in order that the faithful, being moved by the
remembrance of so great a benefit, may give themselves entirely to the
contemplation of the goodness and love of God towards us.
First Part of this Article:
“Suffered Under Pontius Pilate, was Crucified”
The
first part of this Article proposes for our belief that when Pontius Pilate
governed the province of Judea, under Tiberius Caesar, Christ the Lord was
nailed to a cross. Having been seized,
mocked, outraged and tortured in various forms, He was finally crucified.
“Suffered”
It
cannot be a matter of doubt that His soul, as to its inferior part, was
sensible of these torments; for as He really assumed human nature, it is a
necessary consequence that He really, and in His soul, experienced a most acute
sense of pain. Hence these words of the
Saviour: My soul is sorrowful even unto death. (Matthew 26: 38; Mark 14:
34) Although human nature was united to the Divine Person, He felt the
bitterness of His Passion as acutely as if no such union had existed, because
in the one Person of Jesus Christ were preserved the properties of both natures,
human and divine; and therefore what was passible and mortal remained passible
and mortal; while what was impassible and immortal, that is, His Divine Nature,
continued impassible and immortal. (COT p. 50 – 51)
Patience and Joy under Continued Affliction
We
must remember that if by prayers and supplications we are not delivered from
evil, we should endure our afflictions with patience, convinced that it is the
will of God that we should so endure them.
If, therefore, God hear not our prayers, we are not to yield to feelings
of peevishness or discontent; we must submit in all things to the divine will
and pleasure, regarding as useful and salutary to us that which happens in
accordance with the will of God, not that which is agreeable to our own wishes.
During
our mortal career we should be prepared to meet every kind of affliction and
calamity, not only with patience, but even with joy. For it is written: All that will live
godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution; (2 Timothy 3: 12) and
again: Through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God; (Acts
14: 21) and further: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so enter
into his glory? (Luke 24: 26) A servant should not be greater than his
master; and Saint Bernard says: “Delicate members do not become a head crowned
with thorns.” The glorious example of
Urias challenges our imitation. When
urged by David to remain at home, he replied: The ark of God, and Isreal,
and Juda, dwell in tents; and shall I go into my house? (2 Kings 11: 11)
If
to prayer we bring with us these reflections and these dispositions, although
surrounded by menaces and encompassed by evils on every side, we shall, like
the three children who passed unhurt amidst the flames, be preserved uninjured;
or at least, like the Machabees, we shall bear up against adverse fortune with
firmness and fortitude.
In
the midst of contumelies and tortures we should imitate the blessed Apostles,
who, after they had been scourged, rejoiced exceedingly that they were
accounted worthy to suffer reproach for Christ Jesus. (Acts 5: 4) Filled with
such sentiments, we shall sing in transports of joy: Princes have persecuted
me without cause; and my heart hath been in awe of thy words; I will rejoice at
thy words, as one that hath found great spoil. (Psalm 118: 161)
THE VIRTUE OF CHARITY
Charity
is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely: . . . is not
provoked to anger, thinketh no evil, . . . beareth all things, believeth all
things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. (1 Corinthians 13: 4 – 8)
Who
can behold the riches of God’s goodness and love, which He lavishes on us, and
not love Him? Hence the exordium and the
conclusion used by God in Scripture when giving His commands: I, the Lord.
(Catechism Of Trent [COT] p. 368)
PRAYER INCREASES CHARITY
In
recognizing God as the author of every blessing and of every good, we are led
to cling to Him with the most devoted love.
And as those who cherish a mutual affection become more ardently
attached by frequent interviews and conversations, so the oftener the soul
prays devoutly and implores the divine mercy, thus holding converse with God,
the more exquisite is the sense of delight which she experiences in each
prayer, and the more ardently is she inflamed to love and adore him. (COT p.
482)
ENEMIES AND THOSE OUTSIDE THE CHURCH
The
Lord has also commanded us, to pray for those that persecute and calumniate
us. (Matthew 5: 44) The practice of praying for those who are not within
the pale of the Church, is, as we know on the authority of Saint Augustine, of
Apostolic origin. We pray that the faith
may be made known to infidels; that idolaters may be rescued from the error of
their impiety; that the Jews, emerging from the darkness with which they are
encompassed, may arrive at the light of truth; that heretics, returning to
soundness of mind, may be instructed in the Catholic faith; and that
schismatics may be united in the bond of true charity and may return to the
communion of their holy mother, the Church, from which they have
separated.
Many examples prove that prayers for such as these are very efficacious when offered from the heart. Instances occur every day in which God rescues individuals of e every condition of life from the powers of darkness, and transfers them into the kingdom of His Beloved Son, from vessels of wrath making them vessels of mercy. That the prayers of the pious have very great influence in bringing about this result no one can reasonably doubt. (COT p. 389 – 390)
FRATERNAL CHARITY
In
order, however, that our prayers may have this power of obtaining all things
from God, we must forget injuries, cherish sentiments of good will, and
practice kindness towards our neighbor. (COT p. 496)
“God
listens willingly to the Christian who prays not only for himself but for
others; because to pray for ourselves is an inspiration of nature; but to pray
for others is an inspiration of grace; necessity compels us to pray for
ourselves, whereas fraternal charity calls on us to pray for others. That prayer which is inspired by fraternal
charity is more agreeable to God than that which is dictated by necessity.”
(Saint Chrysostom)
In
connection with the important subject of salutary prayer, the pastor should be
careful to remind and exhort all the faithful of every age, condition and rank,
never to forget the bonds of universal brotherhood that bind them, and
consequently ever to treat each other as friends and brothers, and never to seek
arrogantly to raise themselves above their neighbors.
Though
there are in the Church of God various gradations of office, yet this diversity
of dignity and position in no way destroys the bond of fraternal union; just as
in the human body the various uses and different functions of our organs in no
way cause this or that part of the body to lose the name or office of an organ
of the body. (COT p. 509)
FROM A
COMPANION TO THE SUMMA
Sharing the Divine Life
The
unquestionably accepted axion, “friendship is rare,” would be a terrible
indictment of the human race, if it were true.
But of course it is not.
Friendship is not nearly so rare as is appreciation of it. These gloomy axioms furnish us with fine excuses
when we run short of material for self pity, especially at times when our mouth
is watering for a dreary session with ourselves. Friendship is not rare among human beings because
unselfishness is not rare among them; and unselfish love is the one fundamental
for true friendship that might be come at with difficulty.
The nature of friendship
Surely
the amateur burglar, striking up an acquaintance with an expert in his line,
cannot be said to have true friendship.
He hopes to get something out of it, at least some expertness in
burglary. The girl who is an official
fascinator, looking out for material comfort for the future, is certainly not a
true friend of her men friends. Neither
of these is true friendship because neither of them is based on unselfish love.
Mutual benevolent love, on a common ground
Unselfish
love means no more than the constant, effective desire to do good to
another. Briefly, it means that we have
identified ourselves with another; his will is our will so that his good is our
good, his happiness our happiness. But
unselfish love is not necessarily a guarantee of friendship, it is not the
whole story. The charming girl student
may feel ever so kindly towards her professor of Ancient History and still fail
resoundingly whenever he has anything to do with her examinations. For friendship there must also be a common
ground upon which two can walk; a requirement not at all difficult to
meet. We have common ground enough with
men and women about us: we also worry about bills at the first of the month, we
too are thrilled at football games; we have our secret, unrealized hopes, our
sorrows, sacrifices, little triumphs. In
any one of these fields we can meet countless other men and women. The difficulty is, can we meet them
unselfishly? Can we see in them our
other selves? Can we attain to that
mutual, benevolent, unselfish love on this common ground and so be assured of
real friendship?
The friendship of men: Its strength
Friendship
would certainly seem to be worth having.
It means, at the very least, that through it we live, not one narrow
life, rather we live two lives. A door is thrown open and we are admitted to
regions that are proper to God alone, for by friendship we stroll into the soul
of another. It offers us completion for
our incomplete, lonely human hearts, a fulfillment that is sought by every man
from the beginning of his existence. If
friendship brought no more than this to a man, it might quite reasonably be
foregone. An unlimited amount of cosmetics will not beautify an ugly face; it
will merely hide its ugliness; nor will a football suit change the puny
physique of a man. These additions are extrinsic to the face and the physique;
and it is always true that only the intrinsic additions to man really perfect
him. In other words, the important thing
about friendship is what it does to the individuals involved. It brings out the best in every man, rather paradoxically
it is true, by making him forget himself.
It opens up to him possibilities of sacrifice that he has formerly
associated with heroism, with the sublime in the efforts of man. Understand, now, by friendship is meant all human
love: whether between man and man, woman and woman, man and woman—indeed all
human love that escapes the taint of selfishness.
While
friendship is a great comfort, it is not to be pictured in terms of dim lights,
quiet corners and intimate whispers.
Rather it scans wide horizons with deep wisdom and is a source of
enormous strength. It shows us, for
example, the stupidity of gloomy sacrifice; it tears away the veil of mystery
from the cheerfulness, even eagerness, of love’s embrace of hardships. Perhaps when we say that friendship is rare,
we are really apologizing for ourselves, explaining that we are not
strong. At least, as soon as we make
self basic, we have begun to corrupt sacrifice and coddle cowardice; we have
begun to tear out something from the depths
of the human heart; for men have always looked, perhaps at times only
wistfully, to sacrifice as the fullest expression of a generous heart.
Its frailty
For
all its strength, comfort, sublimity, human friendship has about it the frail
delicacy of old lace. It is frail
because its truth can never be clearly seen but must always be taken on faith,
and because its task of surrender can never be fully accomplished. In a word,
human friendship is never a rugged thing because of our inability to share our
inner self. The closest we come to
sharing the truth of friendship is in our clumsy symbols of it; perhaps the
closest we come to accomplishing its task is in the physical generation of
children. In neither case can we give
ourselves utterly to another.
Fundamentally, the reason is obvious: we cannot give ourselves away
utterly because we do not belong completely to ourselves. (A Companion of the
Summa, p. 55 – 57)
FROM A
TOUR OF THE SUMMA
The Virtue of Charity
1.
Charity as a supernatural virtue is the friendship of man and God. On God’s part, it is love, benevolence, and
communication of benefits and graces; on man’s part charity involves devotion
and service to God. It was in charity
that our Lord said to his apostles (John 15: 15): “I will not now call you
servants . . . but friends.”
2.
Charity is in a person as a determinate, supernatural, habitual power, added to
the natural power of the soul, which inclines the will to act with ease and
delight in the exercise of loving friendship with God.
3.
Saint Augustine says: “Charity is a virtue which, when our affections are
perfectly ordered, unites us to God; for it is by charity that we love him.”
4.
Charity is not a general virtue, nor an overlapping of virtues; it is a special
virtue in its own nature; it is on a level with the other theological virtues
(faith and hope), and is distinct from these virtues.
5.
And charity is one virtue, it is not divided into different species or
essential kinds.
6.
Charity is the most excellent of all virtues.
Faith knows truth about God; hope aspires to good in God; charity
attains God himself simply, and not as having something to gain from him.
7.
All true virtue directs a man to God, his ultimate good, his last end. Hence, charity, which embraces the ultimate
good simply, must be in the soul that has any true and living virtue. No true supernatural virtue is possible
without charity.
8.
Charity therefore directs the acts of all the other virtues, making these serve
to get man onward to his last end. And
thus charity gives to these virtues their determinate being as effective
instruments. Thus charity is said to be
the “form” of the other virtues.
The Subject of Charity
1.
Charity as a supernatural virtue resides in man’s soul, specifically, it
resides in the appetitive part of man’s soul, that is, in man’s will. For the object towards which the will tends
is the good, and charity is the virtue which, above all others, tends to
and actually embraces the ultimate good of man.
Charity lays hold on God himself.
2.
This charity is not in us by our nature; it is supernatural. Hence, we
cannot acquire charity by our natural powers.
Charity is in us by divine infusion, by in-pouring. Saint Paul (Romans 5: 5) says: “The charity
of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost who is given to us.”
3.
Our natural gifts and capacities have no part in determining the quantity, so
to speak, of charity in us. For (John 3:
8), “the Spirit breatheth where he will”; and (1 Corinthians 12: 11), “all
these things one and the same Spirit worketh, dividing to everyone according as
he will.” Thus the measure of charity is not our capacity, but the will of God.
4.
Charity can increase in us while we are in this life, on the way to God; that
is, while we are wayfarers. If charity did not increase, we could make
no progress along the way to God.
5.
Charity increases not by having new elements added to it, but by growing more
intense.
6.
Not every act of charity increases the virtue of charity. It is possible that an act of charity, done
imperfectly, should mean no increase at all in the person who performs the
act. But each act of charity, rightly
performed, leads to another, and ultimately to a favor of action which
increases charity.
7.
Charity may go on increasing and increasing; it is not possible to fix limits
to this increase while earthly life endures.
8.
A perfection of charity (which in no way marks a stay of limit to its increase)
is found in those who give their whole hearts habitually to God, not thinking
or desiring anything contrary to his love.
9.
We may distinguish three steps or degrees in charity; it has its beginning, its
progress, and its (nonlimiting) perfection.
10.
Charity cannot decrease. It is
altogether lost by mortal sin, but it cannot be merely lessened in the
soul. Human friendship may grow weak and
be diminished through the negligence of friends and their forgetfulness. But charity is divine friendship; it depends
on God, the infinitely perfect friend, who never grows negligent or forgetful;
hence, charity does not decrease.
However, to neglect acts of charity and to commit venial sins, may be to
dispose ourselves to lose charity entirely through mortal sin; only in this
extrinsic way may charity be said to suffer decrease.
11.
Once we have charity, we have with it no guarantee that, during this life, we
shall not lose it. The charity of the
blessed in heaven (comprehensors) cannot be lost; the charity of men on earth
(wayfarers) can be lost.
12.
Charity is lost by mortal sin. For
whoever has charity is deserving of eternal life; a man who commits mortal sin
is deserving of eternal death, that is, of everlasting punishment. It is therefore impossible for a person to
have charity and, at the same time, to be in the state of mortal sin. One mortal sin drives out charity.
The Object of Charity
1.
The object of charity, that towards which the act of charity is directed, is God,
and our fellowmen in God. Says Saint John (1 John 4: 21): “This
commandment we have from God, that he who loveth God love also his brother.”
2.
Charity is love and friendship. We have
charity when we love God and neighbor, and wish for our neighbor the good of
God’s friendship. Thus, out of charity,
we love charity itself.
3.
We cannot wish to creatures less than man, that is, to irrational creatures,
the “fellowship of everlasting happiness.” There we cannot love such creatures
out of charity.
4.
We are to love ourselves out of true charity.
For our love of ourselves is the standard of the sort of love we must
have for others. Says Holy Scripture
(Leviticus 19: 18): “Love thy neighbor as thyself.”
5.
Even our body is to be loved out of charity, for it is God’s creature to be
used by reason in man’s service of God.
“Saint Paul says (Romans 6: 13): “Present . . . your members as
instruments of justice unto God.” We are
not, however, to love the disorder of bodily tendencies which are the result in
us of the primal fall.
6.
We are to love our neighbor out of charity, even if he be a sinner. We must hate sin, yet we must love the person
who sins, wishing him repentance, pardon, and eternal life, for God’s sake.
7.
Sinners do not love themselves truly.
They love only an apparent good in themselves, and they love external
and creatural goods as things worth having for their own sake. And thus sinners
miss the goal of charity which is endless happiness in God. Sinners, therefore, do not love themselves,
for, as Holy Writ tells us (Psalm 10): “He that loveth iniquity, hateth his own
soul.”
8.
We have the direct command of our Lord that we are to love our enemies. In Saint Matthew (5: 44) we read: “Love your
enemies do good to them that hate you: pray for them that persecute and
calumniate you.”
9.
We must, therefore, love our enemies in general, and we must also be ready, if
God wills to put opportunity in our way, to show them, as individuals, the
signs and offices of love.
10.
We are to love God’s angels out of charity, for we hope to share with them “the
fellowship of everlasting happiness”; this expectation is an element in the
friendship called charity.
11.
The fallen angels, that is, the demons in hell, cannot share the “fellowship of
everlasting happiness,” and therefore they are outside the scope of charity.
12.
Saint Augustine says: “There are four things to be loved: one is above us, God;
another is ourselves; a third is near us, our neighbor, a fourth is below us,
our body.
The Order of Charity
1.
There is an order in charity, and God is the principle of that order. God is to be loved out of charity, before all
others. The other beings that are to be
loved out of charity are, so to speak, lined up in their proper places,
subordinate to God.
2.
Charity is active friendship and love.
It is therefore something more than good will, which is the condition
and the beginning of friendship.
3.
God is loved out of charity for his own sake, not on account of anything other
than himself. Yet in one way we can love
God out of charity, and still have something else in view, as when we love God
for the favors we receive or expect, but in such a way that these very favors
are loved because they dispose us to love God the more.
4.
Even in this life, in which we are wayfarers, we can have an immediate
love of God, that is, love without a medium between lover and beloved. We know God through the medium of created
things; love moves the other way, for we love God first and then love created things
for the love of God.
5.
We can love God wholly according to our own creatural wholeness, but not
according to the infinite wholeness of God.
For we are finite, and cannot compass infinity.
6.
We need no test or mode or measure in our love for God. Saint Augustine says we need only go on
measurelessly loving God.
7.
It is, in itself, more meritorious to love a friend than to love an enemy, just
as it is worse to hate a friend than to hate an enemy. But, considering that the love of a friend is
likely to be less purely the effect of love of God, and also considering the
distaste and difficulty that one must overcome to love an enemy, we see that it
can be more meritorious to love an enemy than to love a friend.
8.
To love God is more meritorious than to love one’s neighbor. Indeed, to love one’s neighbor is a
meritorious act only when we live him for the sake of God. (A Tour of the Summa,
p. 201- 206)
Hopefully we have gained some idea on what the theological virtue of charity it. It is a virtue which we receive from God and is directed towards Him. The theological virtue of charity is absolutely necessary for salvation. Charity is linked with, and impossible to obtain, apart from the theological virtues of faith and hope. It is the love of friendship with God and must follow from or be infused with the theological virtues of faith and hope. Selflessness is a quality of charity. The loving of God above all things, and your neighbor as yourself for love of God. True love seeks the good of the other, ahead of one’s own worldly needs. It wills the genuine and especially the eternal good of the other. Charity denies oneself for the salvation of the other when the opportunity arises. It seeks not “what can I get out of this friendship” but “how can I help my friend”. It is not a “me first”, but rather an “after you”. It is also the love of one’s soul above the love of the body. That is the stuff martyrs are made of.
Faith, in part, is the knowing of God, hope is hoping for the eternal reward. Most Protestants, if pressed on the issue, will nod their heads in agreement, that we must love God for salvation to be possible, but immediately thereafter teach faith alone. Please pray for Protestants of good will that they seek and find the Truth; and pray for the Protestants of bad will that they become good willed before they die, so in eternity we may rejoice with them forever as authentic Christians that will be filled with love for the true God, the true Faith, themselves, and the Catholics and the Catholic Faith they formerly despised, forever.
Dear Introibo,
ReplyDeleteI wish you a happy feast of the Immaculate Conception.
To commemorate the feast, I want to show you a beautiful article about a German castle from the first Traditionalist site I've read: https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/c041_Newschawn.htm
Ryan
DeleteThank you for the link!
God Bless,
---Introibo
John Gregory,
ReplyDeletethank you so much for keeping Introibo's blog going with your guest posts (the same goes for Lee, TradWarrior, Steve Speray, A Simple Man, I hope I haven't omitted anyone). I love the conclusion of your post, you summed it up very aptly!
Having grown up in the Novus Ordo I can tell you I had absolutely no idea what the theological virtue of charity was. I blame the Modernists especially for having brainwashed former Catholics into thinking that charity or love as they are wont to say is this warm, fuzzy feeling you have of others you like. Now, imagine loving your enemies in this way, an absolute imperative for salvation, those who have hurt you big time and fail to see their own culpability, meaning they will continue to hurt you if you maintain regular relations with them.
It was somewhat of a revelation to me when I found out that all we are commanded to do for such people is to wish them the same spiritual good we wish for ourselves, pray for their conversion and eternal salvation (which is putting our good intentions into practice), and stand ready to help them if they really need our help and we are able to provide it (bearing in mind the order of charity).
Once again, a big thank you for all those who keep this fine blog alive with their articles and comments!
God Bless You,
Joanna
Dear Joanna,
DeleteGreat, informative comment on a great article!
THANK YOU too, John.
Oremus pro invicem,
Leo
Joanna,
DeleteThanks to YOU as well! You were one of my guest posters; and you can submit a post for publication anytime you want!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Thank you Leo!
DeleteJohn Gregory
Joanna,
DeleteThank you for the lovely post. All of the guest writers that have helped Introibo have been a blessing, including you. Some weeks I am able to post a lot and other weeks I am not due to a hectic schedule, but it is a blessing to be able to read articles and posts by the different commenters. I always enjoy reading your writing!
God bless you,
-TradWarrior
Dear Joanna,
DeleteYou write: "Now, imagine loving your enemies in this way, an absolute imperative for salvation, those who have hurt you big time and fail to see their own culpability, meaning they will continue to hurt you if you maintain regular relations with them."
I have experienced and also witnessed the harm that comes from this disordered understanding of charity. It was so hard to deprogram from the Novus Ordo that God does not will one to suffer this type of voluntary "martyrdom"; I would still call it a kind of death, but not a life-giving one. I see people trying to cope with their experience of it using drugs, excessive TV/media, immorality, etc. -- destroying the life in their soul and the light in their minds! Thank you for speaking to it.
I echo all the sentiments above about your wonderful contributions to Introibo's blog, both in guest posts and in comments.
Stephanie
Hello again Joanna!
DeleteOne more comment on the theme of true charity and standing up for oneself. This is a quote from Pope Pius XII's Christmas Message of 1948: “A people menaced by, or already victims of unjust aggression, if it desires to think and to act in a Christian manner, cannot remain in passive indifference."
Stephanie
One last quote! From Catechism of Christian Doctrine: No 4 - T. Kinkead, Question #46 ((https://heritage-history.com/index.php?c=read&author=kinkead&book=baltimore4&story=fall)
Delete"Our Lord once cautioned His apostles to watch and pray lest they fall into temptation; teaching us also by the same warning that, besides praying against our spiritual enemies, we must watch their maneuvers and be ever ready to repel their attacks."
Stephanie
Stephanie,
DeleteFr. Dominic Radecki once said in a sermon I watched online that we are not meant to be punching bags for other people to abuse us as they wish and I cannot agree more.
I wish there was more discussion among us Traditionalists on how to deal with emotionally abusive people in a Christian manner without assuming the role of a reluctant martyr. I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Thank you for a lovely comment!
God Bless You,
Joanna
Trad Warrior,
DeleteI am happy to read your comments whenever you find the time to post. I have learnt so much from you and other commenters. This blog would not have been the same without you!
God Bless,
Joanna
Thank you Joanna for your postings. When I can't read all comments on articles from other posters I scroll down to see who made the comment and yours I always make sure to read.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your kind words, John!
DeletePrayers for you and your family.
God Bless You,
Joanna
Thanks for the prayer request Intriobo!!! Much needed for many reasons. But all is good on the surface for now. God bless you for this site Intriobo!
ReplyDeleteJohn,
DeleteYou're always in my prayers, my friend! It seems like you're doing better--Deo gratias!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Thanks for this post! Prayers!
ReplyDeleteFyi all...NOW posted this, a new website which is opposed the The Thesis.
https://www.contra-thesis.com/?fbclid=IwY2xjawOlgfRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZA80MDk5NjI2MjMwODU2MDkAAR7RJB82qTU99oIchjjohdjQb0xx8YkOOX9EK8pXthNHrwvYBEBE_SaYeKpgoA_aem_Ed8pLTB_tTfePzUHoHxB8g
Anonymous @ 2:30 PM:
DeleteMy gratitude for posting the "Contra Thesis" link. I was unaware that such a site existed. It is certainly overdue. We have been bereft of such necessary information in English for far too long. Many years ago, a lady called Myra Davidoglou (I'm unsure of the spelling - relying on memory here) wrote a work demolishing the Thesis - so I am told - in French, but I don't think it was translated into English.
Thank you,
Leo
@anon2:30
DeleteGreat link! Thank you for commenting!
God Bless,
---Introibo
I sent the "Contra Thesis" link to a friend, and this was his reaction:
Delete"I worry about a group that doesn’t proofread its contents before uploading."
He cited the following passage to make his point:
"In particular, we are united in a focused effort against the Thesis of Cassiciacum and its various forms as a wide-spread error amongst renaming, faithful Catholics.
We have chosen our name to give veneration to our most Blessed Lady: the Virgin Mary, who we pray to for guidance and protection, and to whom we commend this project to. Moreover, this name indicates our interest with the seats (sedes) of the Catholic Church, which there is currently so much contention over."
The friend thinks Novus Ordo Watch is questionable for posting the link exists? I know a sede priest who says that NOW is more reliable than he is...the priest said he has never heard one error from Mario.
DeleteMario is about as solid as one can be. I have never been able to prove him wrong on anything. And I have tried. The man does the research and provides the receipts. As rock solid as you get. I believe his site along with this site and christorchaos are best. I would trust Mario and Intriobo with anything.
DeleteJohn Gregory
Was this posted on NOW? Is it discussed in the comments section? I would love to hear comments about this site.
DeleteMario simply posted the site's existence on the NOW Facebook page. Anyone can view it there.
DeleteMario also still stands by his view on the matter.
This is his article on the Cassiciacum Thesis:
https://novusordowatch.org/2022/03/apostolic-succession-after-pius12-catholic-hierarchy/
Mario tweeted (= used Musk's "X") to draw attention to the new website on Dec. 8 (= 60th anniversary, exact to the day, of the conclusion of V2). Mario did not there state anything for or against the new website, but was just alerting people to the fact that it existed... Also, for those who don't regularly follow the com-box of this blog, there was a fair amount of com-box verbiage directly or indirectly related to "The Thesis" following Introibo's Nov. 24 post = "Gates of Hell", by S. Speray.
DeleteYes, Leo of 12:02 above, the issues you point out, look concerning. Tiny typos and small mental lapses are seen now and then, in what just about all of us hit the blue "publish" button to publish. But in just the small extract you provide, there are 2 violations of the grammar rule "prepositions are not to end sentences with", as well as perhaps to many (?) other issues 2.
Thank you Anon 6:37 & 8:20!
DeleteThat website should be shared far and wide. We have to stop looking to the Vatican Institution for solutions. That train left by 1964.
John Gregory
John Gregory,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the article. I pray that you continue to remain in good health. It is a blessing having you write articles to help out our friend Introibo.
God bless you my friend,
-TradWarrior
Thank you Trad Warrior! Regarding my health, pray for a miracle.
DeleteMay God bless you too my friend!!!
John Gregory,
DeleteWill do!
-TradWarrior
John Gregory,
DeleteYou're in our prayers. God bless!
-S.T.
Thank you S. T.!!!
DeleteJohn Gregory
Introibo,
ReplyDeleteI wanted to ask you a few hypothetical questions. Among the holy quartet of Cardinal Ottaviani, Cardinal Bacci, Bishop Kurz, and Fr. DePauw, who would you say would have been the best choice to succeed Pope Pius XII? You mentioned that Cardinal Ottaviani had already chosen the name Pius XIII if he had been chosen. I realize that you are probably partial to Fr. DePauw (and for good reason!), but if you had to choose 1 of the 4, who would you choose and why? Could you rank them in terms of 1st to 4th?
Another hypothetical – assuming that we were to get a true pope again elected by supernatural means (e.g. Ss. Peter and Paul came down from heaven and elected someone) or by natural means, which Sedevacantist clergyman today do you think would be the best choice to become pope? Perhaps someone who would be the most “complete package”. A man who would be a saint, scholar, theologian, canonist, diplomat, great at church governance, pastoral, etc. Who do you think among the Sedevacantist bishops and priests would be the most ideal choice and why? Perhaps you could even list a Top 3.
God Bless you,
-TradWarrior
TradWarrior
Delete1. Even Fr. DePauw wanted Ottaviani as pope! so my list:
Card. Ottaviani
Fr. DePauw
Bp. Kurz
Card. Bacci
2. Best sede Bishop for pope:
Bp. Santay
Bp. Pivarunas
Those would be my only picks.
God Bless you, my friend!
---Introibo
TradWarrior
DeleteReasons:
Ottaviani--most educated, practical, and he understood Church politics as well as the severity of Modernism. Humble man.
DePauw--brilliant and unyielding when it came to right vs. wrong, true vs. false. He would quote Davy Crockett: "First make sure you're right, then go ahead and do it."
Also, he'd quote St. Athanasius: "If the whole world goes against the truth, then I must go against the whole world."
Kurz--Practical, very humble, and was the only Rhineland bishop who refused to cave to Frings.
Bacci--fully orthodox and brave, but not nearly to the extent of the others.
Among Sede Bishops:
Santay: Solid in the faith, compassionate, hardliner.
Pivarunas: Also solid in the faith and has the best thought out positions; diligent in all he does.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo:
ReplyDelete1. Last week you said that Charles Coloumbe denigrates St. Thomas Aquinas. Would this NOT be the same as somebody simply admitting that they do not understand Aquinas very well?
2. Who was the young priest at St. Pius V School Chapel in Melville NY last Sunday(December 7 2025)? I saw him on the livestream Mass.
3. Sadly, I have heard some traditionalists say, in person and online, bad things about Jews and Black people.(I am a white woman.) Do you think that St. Pius V Chapel in Long Island, where you have said that you go to, would welcome such people as converts?
4. What Novus Ordo clergy can you name that you think are likely to become traditional/sede?
@anon9:13
Delete1. No. Not understanding Thomism/Aquinas is one thing. Claiming his philosophy directly led to heresy and is inferior to other philosophy goes beyond mere ignorance (even culpable ignorance) and into denigration/blasphemy.
2. Perhaps Fr. Haber.
3. Saying some (perhaps ignorant) things is not the same as being a bigot. If the person was a truly hateful person, they would not be welcome. There was one person years ago we called "Adolph." Every other sentence had something to say about Jews to the point of absurdity. If it rained, somehow the Jews were behind it. He was asked to leave by one of the priests and never returned.
4. Perhaps Vigano. Not too hopeful about V2 clergy, but only God knows who will respond to grace.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I am Anon9:13. About question 3, I meant to say, would St
DeletePius V Chapel itself welcome Jews and Black people who wanted to convert?
@anon5:52
DeleteOf course. An cleric who doesn't live by the Great Commission had better stop calling himself "Catholic."
---Introibo
The wait is over! Our new pope is 'Pope Hildebrand' (given us via Alexis Bugnolo), however I'm not sure of his non-regnal identity.
ReplyDelete@anon10:39
DeleteWhat a joke.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Wait and see.
DeletePope Hildebrand? Lol
DeleteA. Bug = Annibale Bugnini
DeleteA. Bug = Alexis Bugnolo
The one was a Grandmaster Craftsman, just like the other one is. One played a major role in constructing (or "cooking up") Novus Bogus sacraments, while the other one played a major role in constructing (or "cooking up") Novus Bogus popes.
Anonymous @ 9:28 PM:
DeleteThat was very witty and so true. You gave me a good laugh!
Many thanks,
Leo
The latest from Bro. Bug, dated Dec. 11, is that we will have to wait until at least Christmas Eve (if not longer) to find out the birth or baptismal name of pope-elect Hildebrand. We are informed that he is a citizen of Italy. (How about that? Has our world seen any Italian claiming to be pope, since the 1970s?!) But, alas, he is not a bishop yet. Bugnolo is the man handling the task of finding someone to consecrate him a bishop. My guess as to the place which the new pontiff will flee to, to exercise his "papacy" or "papal rule" is... somewhere in the Stati Uniti = USSA. Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of "As the World Turns".
DeleteThe phrase "Grandmaster Craftsman" of the 9:28 comment above, seems to have masonic overtones to it. Freemasonry is known as being a "craft", and a Master Mason or Grand Master, can be the head of a lodge or grouping of lodges. Both the Wikipedia and Grokipedia articles for "Annibale Bugnini" make reference to the claims that Bugnini was a freemason.
DeleteThank you.
ReplyDeleteJohn Gregory
Introibo
ReplyDeleteHave you met bishop Santay? You say compassionate . What are his thoughts on the Thuc issue ? In private would he give a Thuc supporter the Sacraments?
I believe he came from Ohio and was attending the Saint Gertrude the Great school Chapel which spilt in 1989 from bishop Dolan with father Jenkins being pastor.
I believe Bishop Santay gave a sermon not too long ago totally denouncing The Thuc Line. It might have been another CSPV/SSPV Bishop, but I’m quite sure it was Bishop Santay. There are some who seem to believe that the CSPV/SSPV will eventually change their position on The Thuc Line. I’ve met with at least one of their younger priests, and they make it clear before almost all of their sermons, that there are rules for receiving Communion there. They are not changing their position any time soon, and it’s unlikely they will ever change their position on The Thuc Line. I don’t agree with them on this and other issues, I have close family members who attend a couple of their Mass centers. I do not go there. There are problems with the traditionalist groups that I won’t go into here. It would take a book to fill. I only approach some priests for sacraments.
Delete@anon3:55
DeleteYes, I know Bp. Santay. He holds the line on Thuc--at least publicly. Does he still believe it? Only God knows.
@anon6:03
Every Traditionalist society has its share of confusion and problems in this Great Apostasy. Yes, they make clear the rules for Communion, but have no specified them orally in some time. They say to "speak with a priest" if you are new and before receiving Communion. The SSPV strive to be good and holy clerics. I admire and pray for them, even if I don't agree with everything they do.
God Bless,
---Introibo
As I said, I met with a CSPV priest in Oyster Bay, who, as you know are associated with SSPV. I attend a CMRI mass center. This priest was very clear in telling my parents they couldn’t go to the CMRI mass center when visiting me. I have heard them express this explicitly before about The CMRI before giving their recorded sermons at least once, but more often they say “if you are new, you are welcome, but must speak to a priest, there are rules for receiving Holy Communion”. The priest asked if I knew the rules when I met with him. I told him I did, and although I disagree, I want my parents to have the sacraments. The Holy Communion Rule, isn’t just a suggestion, they don’t just say what they don’t mean. Come on. Stop making excuses for The SSPV and their unwavering and enforced Holy Communion rules which are ridiculous. They all believe it and all make sure it’s enforced. It’s also made clear on the Norwood Ohio Mass Center website where Fr. Jenkins holds masses. It’s a clear as day.
Delete@anon2:03
DeleteI'm not making excuses; their stance is wrong. However, if you don't say anything, nothing will happen. One priest in particular told me "we're not here to enforce where people go to Mass on vacations and such, and then approve or disapprove where people go to Mass."
He's different, but the principle of "don't say anything" holds true. If they know you go to CMRI for Mass, then their (ridiculous) rule come into force.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Alright. Thanks for the reply. They like to dig a little. They asked my parents how they found out about the SSPV/TLM. They told the priest that I told them. Then they were asked where does your son go to Mass. So it’s not always as cut and dry and just remaining silent. The point I was making is that it is very much enforced, it’s not optional. You seem to be saying it’s enforced sometimes and not other times. All I know is that it’s just very unnecessary and absurd. Thanks for your input though.
DeleteAnonymous @ 5:28 AM:
DeleteMost regrettably, the SSPV acts in a cultish and sectarian manner by its stance on assisting at Masses offered by priests, such as those of the CMRI, whose orders can be traced back to a certain Vietnamese prelate. Their flagrant refusal to follow sacramental theology in respect of said bishop's consecrations is nothing short of scandalous, not to mention ridiculous.They have been unable to refute the clear-cut case presented by Mario Derksen and others.
Great writing John.
ReplyDeleteI have learn some new things.What are your thoughts on a Trad Catholic family attending a SSPX chapel but sending their children to a Novus Bogus school.Do you think it better to send them to a public school.Your readers thoughts too please.
God bless
@anon5:03
DeleteIt's an act of apostasy to allow your child to be indoctrinated in a false religion (Vatican II sect). Homeschool is best. If not feasible, public school.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Thank you very much. I'm not so hot on children attending SSPX with their schismatic sermons on the papacy, nor public schools if it is at all possible to avoid it.
DeleteI understand someone (perhaps Steven Speray?) write a tract 'disproving' the authenticity of Our Lady of Guadalupe. I never read it (as it's obviously rubbish) however I'm curious as to how he explained away the micro-scopic image in her eyeball which recorded the opening of the Tilma in the Basilica and the 13 persons present; and further the beautiful, celestial music written in the stars that night and recorded on the Tilma.
ReplyDeleteAny help much appreciated.
@anon11:28
DeleteI'll reach out to Steve and see if he can answer.
God Bless,
---Introibo
One thing I don't understand is how somebody can say something is rubbish even though they haven't read the very thing they call rubbish.
DeleteI read his article and while I still believe in the Guadalupe story, Speray poses many good questions as to its problems. For example: There is no historical record of Bp. Zumárraga ever mentioning Juan Diego. Just look it up. Also the image of Guadalupe doesn't even get mentioned until the year 1556 by Fray Francisco de Bustamante who actually criticizes it because he feared the newly converted Indians were worshipping it and when he and 7 others were brought before an Ecclesiastical court they never mention the story of Juan Diego and believe it to be a painting by a man named Marcos Cipac de Aquino. One can only ask, why is that?
It's not until 100 years later that you first start hearing about the story of Juan Diego which comes from the Nicccan Mopua written the Nahuatl language. Frs. Sanchez and Luis Laso de la Vega are the ones who start promoting the story that come from this Aztec document.
As far as the eyes on the tilma go, Speray tells you what he thinks is wrong with it although he's not saying that people could be in it. He shows how we see things we want to see in images and to prove it, he highlights, as an example a silhouette of what could clearly be a horse in her eye. It's called Pareidolia.
It's understandable that people are not going to necessarily agree with his 2 articles disproving its authenticity but I suggest people READ things before they criticize, otherwise they look like a FOOL proving that they are the one who is bias and who is not willing to give an explanations of what they believe.
Tomorrow is Our Lady of Guadalupe's feast day and since the Church approves of it very highly there is certainly nothing wrong with having devotion to the image and believing the story, but there is also nothing wrong with questioning aspects of it when Catholics are not required to believe in apparitions or stories. If we are required then we might well call ourselves apparitionists, which is what's wrong with many Catholics.
-Martin
Martin, thank you for the summary and also the semantics, typically with which I would be in sound accord, however any suggestion, connotation or inference that seeks to undermine the events surrounding Our Lady of Guadalupe is at best clap-trap and at worst blasphemous; the Church and her pontiffs have approved & venerated this apparition and honoured it in the sacred liturgy, and this puts it beyond question or contention.
DeleteWhat of the celestial theme, transcribed by mathematical code and a function of the firmament, particular to that night of Dec 12, 1531 A.D.?
Good renderings (and its details pertaing its discovery) can be found here:
https://traditionalcatholicprayers.com/2019/11/07/music-from-our-lady-of-guadalupe/
The image is miraculous, as are its fruits.
Have you seen the micro-scopic image reflected in Our Lady's left eye? It is unmistakably the seer: a young man with a beard and is of such intricate detail that to suggest it is anything other than what it plainly is is incredulous and dishonest. This is not the stuff of ink blots and "Tell me, what do you see, sir?"
I hope Mr. Speray apologises to the most Blessed Virgin for the doubt he has sowed and thus the damage he has done to this prized veneration.
Instead of fathers, sons are born of her; she shall make them princes over all the earth.
Anonymous,
DeleteI don't think you understand Speray's point. He's not speaking against the image itself. He in fact, says it's his favorite image. Rather, he calls into question the story of Juan Diego.
Events surrounding the sacred image and the apparition are two different things. Therefore, it wouldn't be blasphemous to doubt in the story especially when there is no history supporting it. Joaquín García Icazbalceta (A devout Catholic Mexican historian) was asked by the bishop in the 1800s to research its history and he humbly states that he didn't find any record of the story or the bishop's role in it and he was considered an expert in Mexican history at the time.
Can you explain why we have no historical record of Bp. Zumárraga ever speaking about Juan Diego or the image if it was such a gigantic deal at the time?
How do you explain Fray Bustamante and the other witnesses testifying in a Church court proceeding back in the 1556 that it was painted by Marcos Cipac de Aquino and how they give no mention of Bp. Zumárraga or Juan Diego which was only 25 years earlier if it really happened?
ONLY the Niccan Mopua (An Aztec document) is where the story of Juan Diego and Bp. Zumárraga come into the scene and it's in 1649 which is 118 years later. All we can say is that we believe in the story because of the Niccan Mopua (which is where it originally comes) and more importantly the Church's approval of it.
The miracles attributed to the image are interesting as to the stars, symbols etc. As to the eyes, I do not doubt that a person can be seen on the image but how do you know its Juan Diego if there is no historical mention of him until 1649 when the story firsts comes to thought?
I have a devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe but you have to admit there should be more history to support it and confirm its authenticity than the Niccan Mopua.
If Speray has to apologize as you suggest for the "damage he has caused" than so would Joaquín García Icazbalceta who never was required to after his assessment where he sheds a strong doubt due to no historical backing.
Bottom line is this. The Church approves it as it does Lourdes, Fatima, La Salette, Knock, and few others. We certainly should stand behind the Church for this and foster our devotion accordingly but we are not required to believe them. We are required to believe in all the dogmas and doctrines (that are close to the level of dogma) and practice our faith humbly. And Yes we should without a doubt have a closeness to Our Lady, especially her Rosary. I hope you understand a little better.
-Martin
to Anonymous December 11, 2025 at 12:23 PM: You have not read the articles and therefore can't make a single comment about it. You should the one doing the apologizing.
DeleteYou make the same mistake as anti-Catholics who refuse to look at the history, facts etc., but rashly judge without knowledge.
I deal with the miracles, the popes, the feast day, and basically everything! I know with absolute certainty there was no apparition! We have an official Catholic Church document that tells us that the Indian Marcos de Aquino painted the image. He was praised as being as good as Michaelangelo by the Spanish Conquistador Bernal Diaz del Castillo. We have the testimony of every single Church historian (all priests) who lived within a generation of the supposed event and not a single one mentions an apparition, but they do mention other apparitions and miracles.
As for the miracles of the image, there are many miracles associated with paintings and I give one example of a painting in Mexico about the same time as Our Lady of Guadalupe painting, which is even more miraculous, FAR MORE MIRACULOUS!!! No one knows about this one and I asked Mexicans who lived in the same city that never heard of it and there's a real history to it unlike an apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe.
I debunk the image in the eyes and most of the rest of the supposed miracles, but you may believe despite the normal natural explanations. Btw, I believe in miracles from paintings, and I believe Our Lady of Guadalupe has real miracles attached to it.
In case you didn't know, the image was tested and found to have paint all over it. The moon, stars, tassel, angel, lower fold of robe, white background, sunburst, gold trim, dark outlines of the mantle and tunic are all painted and definite additions to the original image. We know this to be a fact!!! They all are cracked and peeling. The hands have been altered the most. The cuffs were added. A crown has been painted over. Several retouches have been done in the 20th century, particularly to the face.
The fibers have been tested and found to be hemp which lasts for centuries.
There was no Juan Diego or an apparition and Church approved Catholic historians know this and testify to this fact. When John Paul 2 wanted to canonized Juan Diego, the Abbot of the Basilica, Prado who was there for 33 years confirmed Juan Diego was a myth and the Vatican did away with Prado and canonized the mythical Juan Deigo anyway.
Believe what you want. That's what most everybody does anyway despite the facts. They won't even look at the facts.
Thank you for your thoughtful replies Martin. I appreciate your defense of the scholarship of Mr. Speray as well as your grasp of the holes in the historical record regarding the story of Juan Diego.
DeleteThere must have been a time when it was praiseworthy to dismiss out-of-hand any appearance of dissent from the laity. Note: I say appearance, because the intent is to know the truth. As you rightly pointed out, we may question the authenticity of private revelations or apparitions.
Stephanie
I too do not understand someone calling something rubbish without even reading or I vrstugating the evidence supplied. In any case...the following excerpt re the so called music of the time comes from a top scientist who is also devoted to OLG, for those interested. This scientist, like many, have not discovered the nous ordo fraud yet either.
Delete"I am familiar with this music proposal. This is an example of human beings looking for order in chaos. You can look at clouds and see all kinds of shapes. The golden ratio is a very old idea. It is considered the most pleasing shape for a rectangle and dates back to the Greek Parthenon. Note in the image with the rectangle that the rectangle is wider than it needs to be just so as to fit with the golden ratio. As to getting notes, there are many ways of getting pleasing music. One can find such pleasing music by adjusting the information one takes from the source. For example, I have read how a person was able to get very pleasing music from taking the sequence of bases in a DNA molecule.
The evidence that the stars, the moon, the angel, etc were added later is very strong objective evidence. The formation of music from the mantle; the constellations, etc. are efforts to see into something what is not really there. It is poetry...a pleasing fantasy. There is nothing wrong with doing it as long as one does not attribute this to information inherent in the image. This may be an inspiration from Our Lady to lead people to listen to her message. I don't know.
The danger in this is that skeptics may look at this and dismiss not only the music but also the entire miracle. I know when I read new information, scientific, social, political, etc., I may not easily know whether the new information is true or not but I look for parts that are clearly wrong and then discard the whole message. Obviously most people do not have the time to do careful research on everything that comes their way and thus one looks for clues that something is wrong. Also if one source loses its credibility by publishing incorrect information then that source becomes even more suspect in later publications. e.g CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times etc. "
May Our Lady crush the evil novus ordo abomination of desolation!
To Martin, Very good defense! Thank you! When the Church gives permission to believe in a private revelation, we can't say to the contrary. You are permitted to believe it wholeheartedly.
DeleteAlso, miracles attributed to the image doesn't prove the apparition. As far as coronations, liturgies, etc. are connected to the image, we find the same type of papal acts with other known human artworks.
Again, believe what you want, but I choose not to believe in this particular one.
To My Readers:
Delete@anon6:04 above is also Steve Speray who forgot to put his name on that reply.
—-Introibo
Thank you, Stephanie and all the others who've come to my defense! God speed to all of you!
DeleteSteven, your research is excellent and I appreciate it much. I am also willing to go anywhere the Truth leads. Yes, very sad many do not look into anything...facts are discarded and a billion are fooled and being spoonfed poison by the novus ordo monstrosity.
DeleteNo wonder:
For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way [2 Thessalonians 2:7] 8 And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, 9 Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, 10 And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:
Not to be persistent but another thing I would like to point out to those who accuse Mr. Speray of being blasphemous, obviously rubbish, and thinks he needs to apologize for the damage he has caused; Go to Fr. Gabriel Lavery of CMRI or Bp. Sanborn and ask them what they think of the Mystical City of God which has been approved over and over again by numerous popes and bishops. They believe Catholics should have nothing to do with it because they don't personally don't believe in it and even take it a step further by daring to say it was condemned. Bp. Sanborn also doesn't care too much for Fatima among other things.
DeleteWould you call them blasphemous, obviously rubbish, and that they need to apologize to Our Lady for the "damage they have caused?"
Mr. Speray hasn't played down Guadalupe as much as they have with the MCOG and Fatima which are just as wonderful of devotions as Guadalupe.
BTW, If Our Lady of Guadalupe is not painted as the story has us believe and is directly divine in its makeup then explain to me why the original image has been painted over such as the crown it once had among before the late 1800's among other touch ups? Who paints over such an image? Would anybody dare touch up the Shroud of Turin (which is certainly of Divine origin)? I think NOT.
Martin
Yep, people disregard the facts and follow science and other false prophets. I escaped Novus Ordo but many have not and died because of NO and their false pope telling them to take murdered baby poison shots as an "act of love"...oh, and they died or are suffering and dying now. Sad stuff disregarding FACTS!
DeleteRight a bunch of dopes thought they could paint better. Yes there are many instances of the crown being painted, removed, re painted. I have a feeling Our Lady isn't gonna crush novus ordo real soon. We must suffer to help save souls.
DeleteMR. SPERAY!
DeleteStop it! You only offend God all the more and I entreat and repeat: apologise to the most Blessed Virgin, Mother of God, for the great dis-service you pay her. Is she not your Mother?
I am not in receipt of the time to instruct you on matters of traditional piety however I assure you - and this you can regard as fundamental truth - the almighty God would not under any circumstances permit falsehood, legend, myth or lore to supply, sully or inspire such a pivotal devotion to Himself, the Blessed Virgin or His Saints. He is not remarkably fond of the works of the hands of men and has no need of them in and for His glory. He would never, ever, permit a counterfeit image (or provenance) to sporn such an august devotion, befooling His Church and allowing such a falsity to serve as Patroness of the Americas. And it is this 'end-point', so to speak, which slays your (presumably well-intentioned though nevertheless) scurrilous blasphemy dead, wrong and amply wicked.
This is my final word on the matter, however I encourage you to examine the primary source (c. 1560) 'NICAN MOPOHUA' and further to consider some of the miraculous events described on the linked page below (obviously those endorsed 'true') and including the bomb which was detonated at its base in 1921:
https://www.kofc.org/en/news-room/our-lady-of-guadalupe/truths/index.html
The paint on the blessed tilma is the work of generations since its creation; they are not of the original (miraculously) created image.
This highlights one of the problems of this horrible Great Age of Apostasy, viz. even some of who uphold authentic Catholic truth labour under, or are hostage to, at best, a 'gun-shy' timidity or, at worst, a faith-destroying reticence and thus aridity in response to the poisonous fruits of the wretched Robber Council.
I firmly recommend to you the daily practise of the Seven Dolors as one of its attached graces/promises will greatly assist you in this and other matters. This can be as quick and simple as the recitation of 7 Aves, a mere few minutes of one's day.
I categorically assure you and, as you Americans are fond of saying, 'You can take this to the bank, Jack': the Blessed Virgin Mother of God does not smile upon a lack of faith and trust in her patronage and Motherhood and you appear firmly on the wrong side of the line and, worse, beckon others.
God bless you and the Seat of Wisdom guide you.
Dear Steven,
DeleteYou have presented a thought-provoking case. I have some difficulty accepting it in toto; let's just say I currently maintain a prudent reserve concerning the miraculous (?) provenance of "Our Lady of Guadalupe". Why do you suppose the Novus Bogus cult was so hellbent on "canonising" "Juan Diego"? Abbot Guillermo Schulenburg of the Basilica of Guadalupe was an absolute disgrace. In 1972, he gave permission to the Chilean Jewish filmmaker, Alejandro Jodorowsky, a man associated with the occult and all manner of filth, to shoot an obscene film at, and in, the Basilica. Not surprisingly, Schulenburg planned and co-ordinated the construction of the new hideous monstrosity that replaced the Basilica. Because this enemy of the Faith dismissed "Juan Diego" as a myth, I am inclined to believe he existed after all. It was great that Schulenburg was forced to resign - what a shame that didn't happen after the Jodorowsky fiasco.
May Our Lady of Guadalupe intercede for you,
Leo
I have a 1952 edition of The Raccolta, which has an itemized listing of 781 items as segments, most of them as indulgenced prayers. Items 422-424 pertain to "Our Lady of Guadalupe". Item 422 is "A Visit to the Image"; item 423 is "A Devout Exercise"; and item 424 is a "Prayer". To all of them are attached various indulgences. The 424 prayer (reproduced below) was given an indulgence of 500 days by Pius X in 1908. So, if Pope Saint (= not Nope Ain't) Pius X, was thereby lending credibility to a "pious fraud", what then??? And who exactly is the pious fraudster who duped Pius X and numerous other popes? Please name who he is. And is not Dec. 12 a papally established feast day for OL of Guadalupe?
Delete424 = "Our Lady of Guadalupe, mystical rose, make intercession for Holy Church, protect the Sovereign Pontiff, help all those who invoke thee in their necessities, and since thou art the ever Virgin Mary and Mother of the true God, obtain for us from thy most holy Son the grace of keeping our faith, sweet hope in the midst of the bitterness of life, burning charity and the precious gift of final perseverance. Amen."
Unbelievable!
DeleteAnonymous,
You didn't answer any of the REAL questions as to the problem with the apparitions history as pointed out by Mr. Speray or myself. You obviously didn't read what any of us said.
Go tell your "infallible sede" clergy that they are blasphemous for attacking the Mystical City of God which they are dead wrong about as to it being condemned when it is praised by several popes and bishops. I bet you won't do it because you are probably another sycophant.
It is you who needs to apologize for not being rational. Prove the history of Guadalupe by first confirming that it wasn't painted by Marcos Cipac de Aquino. Please show us where Bp. Zumárraga mentions Juan Diego in any of his writings. On top of that, show where the twelve Apostles of Mexico mention it. I've looked very hard and have not found it. All you can say is that you believe in the Niccan Mopua which came 120 years later from Aztec tradition. This does not explain the absent history that came before it. If you think you are so smart about the subject how about you or anybody for that matter be man enough to debate Mr. Speray on the topic because I put a bet on it that you won't.
-Martin
AnonymousDecember 11, 2025 at 8:58 PM: You're the one doing the disservice to Our Lady. I present facts of history. I've already examined all the evidence, but you won't actually study and read but take the word of those who know nothing. The NICAN MOPOHUA is a story by the Indians that the Catholic Church rejected until some priests ran with it a hundred years later. The link you sent is from the Knights of Columbus of whom I deal with in the article if you bothered to read it. They present lies and half-truths easily demonstrable. Again, we have an official Church Document that was kept hidden by apparitionists because it tells us that Marcos painted the image. Even the bishop the promoted the image acknowledged this fact. The story itself is seriously problematic, which is explained by the Catholic Mexican historian Mr. García Icazbalceta. It's in my article. But that's okay, you just go ahead and speak from emotion rather than logic and reasoning. Btw, I have a devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe. I love the image.
DeleteTo Leo, the answer is to keep Mexicans inline with the Novus Bogus. The Vatican removed certain saints from the calendar because of the lack of historical evidence they existed, yet there is zero historical evidence for Juan Diego's existence with an apparition. John Paul 2 used Our Lady for his evil.
DeleteTo anon 12:22am: I deal with all the Popes and approvals in my article part II. It's very simple. You have to use your head, which unfortunately apparitionists don't do.
DeleteThat is one of the prayers I questioned...protect the sovereign Pontiff (when there is one)?
DeleteAnon 8:05AM There's nothing wrong with the prayers. We have many approved prayers to protect the pope even within the Holy Mass, and those are presuming we have one at the moment. During interregnums, they won't apply for a non-existent pope, but they would apply the same for the Church in general.
Delete@ Anon. 12:22: the RACCOLTA owner:
DeleteAre you sure your copy is 1952?
Perhaps it might instead be 1957. Would you mind checking?
I ask because I'm interested to know up until what year they stopped re-printing the 1910 edition. I know Fr. Cekada had an 11th or 12th edition, from the 1930s.
Would you also mind checking the 1888 ('long') Prayer to St. Michael, which might be #446 ot thereabouts, and see if it contains the verse "In the holy place itself where has been set up the most holy See of Peter and Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety..." (Or similar).
I ask because the 1910 ed. and it's reprints did include that and related verses, though subsequent editions did not.
I hope you can help, many thanks in advance.
Thanks Steven for replying to these folks, especially those who didn't even read or investigate your article! God bless! May OLG distribute abundant graces this feast!
DeleteI think you are right about keeping Mexicans in line with Novus Disordo.
Replying to Martin above 12/11/2025 at 7:19pm
DeleteDear Martin,
I read Mystical City of God devotedly as a member of the Vatican II sect. I must take exception to your description of Father Gabriel, CMRI in the counsel he gives of avoiding the book. You say:
“They [referring to Fr. Gabriel and Bp. Sanborn] believe Catholics should have nothing to do with it because they don't personally don't believe in it and even take it a step further by daring to say it was condemned.”
From the many Twitter threads Father Gabriel has posted on the topic, it is clear that his basis for discouraging the reading of it is its true status of condemned by the Church. You are more erudite than I am and could follow his evidence better. I merely noted that what he had (in my view, most charitably) made the effort to research was sufficiently convincing and have tried my best to forget the books.
I have posted previously some links to his best posts on this topic on Introibo’s blog previously under an article guest written by Lee, but unfortunately cannot find them. Here are some I was able to locate now, in case you have not seen them (oldest first):
https://x.com/FrLavery/status/1880778621411066154
https://x.com/FrLavery/status/1880777468929569009
https://x.com/FrLavery/status/1880791890951577977
https://x.com/FrLavery/status/1880792505010237803
Stephanie
To Stephanie of 7:30, all you need to do to find what you are looking for in Introibo's blog, is type in "Mystical City of God" into the search box at the far upper left, then click on that search icon, or press your "Enter" key. The two results relevant, found as a result, are the Aug. 8, 2022 post "Blessed Be Her Glorious Assumption", and the Aug. 31, 2020 post "Thy Will Be Done". It is NOT correct to state that the "true status" of MCofG is "condemned by the Church". It was, very briefly, before. A long time ago. You can also consult the Wikipedia article MCofG, then click on the Mary of Agreda hypertext link therein, to read about the author, which gives more info. God Bless.
DeleteIn Christo Domino et Maria Regina,
I am, "just another Anon", not Martin.
Stephanie,
DeleteI don’t own the four volumes of The Mystical City of God, but I have thought of putting it in my library. There are some who say it should be avoided, The CMRI is one group that thinks this. I know at least two priests, the one you mentioned, and another who are very cautious about recommending it and/or believe it should not be read at all. I think Bp. Daniel Dolan supported the writings. I could be wrong.
Anyhow, I tend to think it’s fine to own and read. Ven. Mary of Agreda was made venerable not long after her death by Pope Clement X, her body is Incorrupt, and she bilocated around 500 times to prepare Indians in the American southwest for baptism.
The books do not go against The Faith, there no no doctrinal errors in it. The book was on the Index for 3 months and then came off after a more thorough examination of the original text. There was a dispute between The Franciscans and The Dominicans over the writings, this during a time when The Immaculate Conception was still being debated among them. Some say the writings are too lengthy, and it elevates The Blessed Mother too much. I have heard the opposite as well. People have said it has helped them with their devotion to The Blessed Virgin Mary and that there is nothing against Faith in the books. I’ll have to do more research though. But based on what I’ve read so far, I think it’s fine to read and own.
I have a idea that Father Markus Ramolla supports her writings . He stated on his website some time back in his bulletin that CMRI were wrong on this.
DeleteTo Stephanie, Anon 12:45, 3:39,
DeleteThe point I was making is if one is going to say Mr. Speray's work is blasphemous (such as the anonymous nobody above) for questioning the history of the apparition of Guadalupe they would certainly have to say the same of Fr. Lavery and Bp. Sanborn. Mr. Speray doesn't say to not believe in Guadalupe. He understands fully that the Church approves it.
On the other hand, Fr. Lavery and Bp. Sanborn don't care that popes and bishops give approbation to the book the Mystical City of God and obstinately say its condemned when to the contrary Pope Pius XI gave his Apostolic blessing to those who read those volumes as well as other popes who promoted it and several bishops throughout the world. I know this because I have personally told Fr. Lavery what popes have said about it and he for some reason either doesn't believe they actually said good things about it or just doesn't want to look into. I don't know. It's unfortunate though.
I personally love Guadalupe and the Mystical City of God but I know that both as beautiful as they are may not all completely be accurate or historically certain.
Like I said in previous posts. The Church approves of these things and as Catholics we don't have to fear believing them because they are NOT a danger to faith but to the contrary an aid to our faith and this is why the Church approves them. However, we as Catholics are not bound to believe them. What we cannot do is say they are condemned etc. and that they should be avoided. This goes for Guadalupe and the Mystical City of God.
-Martin
@anon3:39am,
DeleteI could not agree with you more! I have always been a fan of “The Mystical City of God” by Ven. Mary of Agreda. I got so much spiritual nourishment from this incredible work. I read the abridged version years ago and found it to be absolutely incredible! I am sure that the 4 volume work is even better, as it is so much more extensive.
You are correct in what you say about Ven. Mary of Agreda. She was declared “Venerable” by Pope Clement X, less than 10 years after her death. Her body is incorrupt. Her bilocations to what is present day Texas and New Mexico are absolutely astounding! Her work was praised by popes, cardinals, and theologians, as indicated on the work itself. Among works on The Blessed Virgin Mary, this work is among the top of my list.
I personally find Ven. Mary of Agreda’s revelations on The Blessed Virgin Mary to be more accurate (and detailed) than other works of private revelation by Anne Catherine Emmerich, St. Bridget of Sweden, and others. I am not an expert on these works, nor am I claiming to be, as I have not read them all extensively, but I personally find Ven. Mary of Agreda’s work to be the most accurate. That is just my personal opinion.
There are people who are fond of it and people who are not. It is important to reiterate that this is private revelation and a person is free to accept it or reject it. I am not sure why some Sede clerics are so much against it. My take is exactly the opposite. It was interesting, informative, drew me closer to The Blessed Mother, and it contained so much good fruit in it that helped me in my spiritual life that I have yet to have received or found from other spiritual works. I give it high praise.
God bless you,
-TradWarrior
TradWarrior
DeleteGreat response to her writings. Thank you
What do you think about the below comment about a woman who attends the SSPX and then gets married in a Novus Ordo Church by a indult priest because her chapel was not good enough and to give her new inlaws a good impression. I would never court or marry a hypocrite like that
God bless you our friend
I found the Agreda books confusing and a bit odd. I know NOers who are fanatical about them. What Does anyone think about her saying Jesus was not nude on the Cross...I cannot recall page etc but basically she said Jesus was covered on his privates. But Scriptures say otherwise, right?
DeleteAnonymous
DeleteOf all things you could think of to object to, you bring up the loin clothes? If you have a problem with loin clothes being left on our Blessed Lord than that means you would have to have a problem with every single crucifix on the wall for having a loin cloth on Him, am I right? Are you implying it's wrong to read the MCOG because some people in the new church like it?
The Scriptures never say he died without them and this is what he MCOG says:
"To all these sufferings was added the confusion
of being bereft of his garments in the presence of his
most blessed Mother, of her pious companions, and in
full sight of the multitudes gathered around His divine power He, however, reserved for Himself the nether garment which his Mother had wound around his loins in Egypt; for neither at the scourging, nor at the crucifixion could the executioners remove it, and He was laid in the sepulchre still covered with this cloth. That this really happened, has been revealed to me many times. Certainly, He desired to die in the greatest poverty and to take with Him nothing of all that He created and possessed in this world. He would gladly have died entirely despoiled and bereft of even this covering if it had not been for the desires and the prayers of his blessed Mother, to which Christ wished to yield. On her account He substituted this most perfect obedience of a Son toward his Mother for extreme poverty at his Death. The holy Cross was lying on the ground and the executioners were busy making the necessary preparations for crucifying Him and the two thieves."
-Martin
To My Readers:
DeleteTwo points I wish to highlight:
1. No Catholic has to believe in apparitions; even those approved by the Church. Private revelation need never be believed. Steve Speray has brought up a compelling case.
I refuse to get bogged down by private apparitions, and argue of the alleged "true meanings" of various apparitions. For the record, I believe in Fatima, but I will never make it the focal point of the Faith; it isn't. I'll stick with dogma and doctrines of the Deposit of Faith as interpreted by the Magisterium--as we all should.
2. As to the MCOG, Fr. Lavery told me he was working on an article after having visited the Vatican to do some research. He claims that he has proof that MCOG was condemned. If and when that article comes out, if he has compelling proof this is the case, I will do the only thing a Traditionalist Catholic can; submit to the decision of Holy Mother Church.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteI've been keeping up with this conversation above and while it's certainly true that a person does not have to read or believe in the MCOG, they certainly cannot say as Martin pointed out that it is condemned for the reasons below:
Benedict XIII (1724-1730)
“It is ordered that the cause of the above-mentioned Servant of God shall be continued before the holy Congregation of Rites without further examination of the Mystical City of God, and these books can be retained and read. March 14, 1729.”
Benedict XIV (1740-1758)
in 1753 (as extant in Magnum Bullarium Romanum):
“We read in the history of the life of Sr. Mary of Jesus that after she had written the work known as The Mystical City of God a certain confessor commanded her to burn the work. She did so immediately as she was ordered. Then another confessor who was more experienced in spiritual matters commanded her to rewrite the work anew. It happened, not without a miracle, that the same work was rewritten by the Servant of God without any discrepancy from the one which was burned previously, except for certain unimportant editions.”
Pius IX (1846-1878)
“The Mystical City of God is a most excellent book, very appropriate for propagating the veneration of the Virgin Mary, and an antidote against the evil doctrines of our days.”
Pope Leo XIII
“The reserve which is ordinarily maintained on the subject of private revelations has no longer any real reason to exist in relation to The Mystical City of God, since His Holiness Leo XIII has been so good as gladly to encourage the project of spreading among the faithful the science of the saints which is contained in that heavenly Life of the Mother of God.”
Pius XI (1922-1939)
On April 29, 1939 (within the lifetime of some of us) Pius XI granted an audience to the publisher of The Mystical City of God. He told him:
“You have done a great work in honor of the Mother of God; she will never permit herself to be outdone in generosity, and will know how to reward a thousandfold. We grant the Apostolic Benediction to all readers and promoters of the Mystical City of God.”
Fr. Lavery is wasting his time in vain to "prove" it is condemned when you have pope after pope who say the contrary.
Lee
Thanks Martin. There are many assumptions you make about my comment that aren't true at all. I thought Jesus was naked on the Cross, which was part of the humiliation of the Crucifixion. If they stripped Him and took his garments where does it say they left loin cloths? I have always been horrified by this. I thought the cloths depicted on crucifixes were for modesty. I looked into this years ago and asked many priests about this topic...they told me Jesus was naked. The NOers I know who are fanatical use the writings to justify staying in the NO. I certainly hope Jesus was not completely naked. I will reread all those Gospels today.
Delete@anon4:00pm,
DeleteRegarding the below comment, that is a very difficult and sad situation. I agree with you that it is definitely hypocritical. Unfortunately, there are many such stories like this in the world, especially when it comes to marriages today, which are so much of a huge mess! The Great Apostasy has caused problems all across the board for everyone. One problem (among many!) with the R & R mentality (e.g. SSPX) is their refusal to accept a position to its logical conclusion. Either these last 7 men wearing white were popes or they were not. Choose one. It’s Novus Ordo and you follow these men because what they teach is magisterial or it’s Sedevacantism and you reject these men because they are false popes who represent nothing magisterial.
We need to keep people like these in our prayers, but ultimately, they have to decide for themselves if they will follow the Truth or not. Many regrettably will not.
God bless you,
-TradWarrior
Lee,
DeleteI too was thinking of citing several popes who supported “The Mystical City of God”, but your post accomplished that very nicely. Thank you for sharing that.
I will certainly be interested to see what Fr. Lavery determines in time on this topic, but I agree with you, that there have been so many popes, saints, and holy people who have greatly supported Ven. Mary of Agreda’s work. Steven Speray has turned the Guadalupe narrative on its head through much research and his work is very interesting. He may one day do the same with Fatima. I would be very interested to read anything he writes on this topic too, just as I will keep an open mind with whatever Fr. Lavery writes on “The Mystical City of God”. Personally though, I side with you on this, and many in the church the last several centuries have sided with us too on this, so we are in very good company.
God Bless you,
-TradWarrior
TradWarrior,
DeleteI personally do not think that Fr. Lavery is doing Catholics a good service by going out of his way to try to prove something that seriously cannot. He would have to prove that all those quotes that I gave as well as the many approbations from bishops are somehow false. He cannot get around them. Plus Mr. Tim Duff has explained on his website how Pope Innocent was deceived when he was given the first copy of her volumes and he has personally confronted Fr. Lavery on this on a few occasions to inform him. I think he's committing a sin by attempting to tell Catholics the books are condemned. All he can say is that he chooses not to believe in the MCOG for personal reasons and that's it. The popes have already decided differently.
Steven on the other hand, has carefully shown why the story of Juan Diego (Fr. Lavery is free to do this with MCOG) has problems but unlike Fr. Lavery doesn't dare attempt to tell Catholics it is condemned. There is a HUGE distinction that Sedes specifically need to start understanding and many have not unfortunately. Martin did an excellent job explaining that to the person above.
Lee
Lee,
DeleteI agree that Fr. Lavery has a seemingly impossible task. My point was that ***IF*** he proved his case, I will always submit to the decisions of Holy Mother Church.
God Bless you, my friend!
---Introibo
John/Introibo
ReplyDeleteWe would like to make a comment regarding the above question about a family attending the SSPX and sending their children to a Novus Ordo school.
We know of one woman in particular who has done this. Her family along with her attended the SSPX. She got engaged and married a Novus Ordo man by a indult priest in a Novus Ordo church because the SSPX chapel was not good enough i.e to give a good impression to her new inlaws .We got info that she was having a premartial relationship with this man before marrying him with the full knowledge of her parents i.e going on for at least 18 months.This man only went to the SSPX Mass with her to please her but he did not care about the Catholic Faith. When they started having children,they were all sent to a local Novus Ordo school. Talk about confusing those poor children .We can be sure they will give the whole thing away when they get older.
Objectively speaking, a Catholic who attempts marriage in a non-Catholic sect incurs excommunication and such a marriage is invalid in the eyes of the Church.
DeleteBut can we really consider SSPX people Catholics?
@anon4:54
DeleteHere's how I approach the answer to your excellent question: The V2 sect members are not part of a sect of declared heretics, and they subjectively believe themselves to be Catholic. Hence, they are bound to the Catholic forum. My opinion as a layman.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I just saw on a recent youtube video of a Mass from their seminary here in the USA, in the corner was a picture from start to finish of "Pope" Leo XVI.Are they for real.This is so sad.
ReplyDeleteHave any of you folk ever had any association with hare krishna followers? I have a follower at my work place pushing her ideas. Just being around her, I sense a feeling of evil.
ReplyDeleteGod bless, Jane
Jane
DeleteHare Krishna may be thought of as a more cultish form of pagan Hinduism. It is very bad. I feel sorry for those who got involved. Yes, some may be possessed/obsessed as they are pagan. Stay away from her and pray for her! Wear a St. Benedict medal.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Hello Jane
ReplyDeleteThey are a demonic sect. Pages could be said about them. Can understand why you feel uneasy round them. Praying for you
John Gregory,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your informative post.
"In order, however, that our prayers may have this power of obtaining all things from God, we must forget injuries, cherish sentiments of good will, and practice kindness towards our neighbor. (COT p. 496)"
There were many good things shared in this post, but this quote perhaps had the most value for me right now. Sometimes it is difficult to forget about injuries if you have frequent reminders of them, even though in the Act of Charity we pray, "...I forgive all those who have injured me, and I ask pardon of all those I have injured." A good reminder!
God Bless,
S.T.
I have the same difficulty forgetting injuries in some circumstances. One case in particular where I have Masses offered and pray for the person every day but will never look at or talk with the person again.
DeleteDo you think this will be good enough for God at my judgment?
John Gregory
You don’t have to talk to that person, or be good friends with them, or even like them. But you must not harbor resentment, you must love them for the sake of God and because they are made in His image and pray for their salvation. It also depends on the specific circumstances and relationship involved. But we must not let hate take root in our hearts and carry around bitterness towards anyone. We must pray for their spiritual well being and supernatural love can be through prayer and by not having a temporal relationship with that person.
DeleteThank you very much for the response anonymous! This deep deep rooted and profound betrayal had devastating long lasting effects on several souls. This is why I wanted nothing to do with her from that point on.
DeleteThough I have stood up for her several times since when she gets abused by the medical industry.
John Gregory
John Gregory,
DeleteThank you for sharing what you did. I'd like to think those are very good things to do. I've prayed for these people, but not all of them. You've inspired me to do more in that regard. I echo anon@6:32's good comments. I sometimes remind myself of Jesus's teachings about those who say "Raca" against their brother... but not often enough.
-S.T.
John Gregory, Seeking Truth, and Anonymous Posters,
DeleteThank you for your comments on this topic. In my own life, I have cut ties with MANY, MANY people that were toxic for me to keep in my life. Family members, friends, acquaintances, and many other people I no longer see. I pray for them and wish them well, but my life is FAR MORE peaceful now that I no longer see many former people that were not good for me. You do not need to be friends with everyone. Most people are not your friends. My friends now are so low in number that I cannot think of many. Following God and the Truth at all costs comes with a heavy price, but in the end, it is definitely worth it. I just wanted to chime in to this discussion because there are MANY people that I no longer have contact with that were unhealthy relationships and letting them go was a very prudent decision. I am so much more at peace not seeing them anymore.
God bless you all,
-TradWarrior
Seeking Truth,
Deletethose words of Our Lord have always filled me with fear. I'm afraid I've been carrying a very heavy load of resentment since childhood and just when I thought I managed to get rid of it, something happens that makes me re-live the injuries of the past all over again. Can't do much about it except pray and struggle to live my life.
Take care, my friend!
Joanna
Doed anyone have a good link about Ember Days I can send to NOers, that is not from RR?
ReplyDelete@anon5:49
DeleteI have nothing online, only in print. If someone has such a link, please pass it on.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Has anyone read, MARY OF AGREDA, AND THE MYSTICAL CITY OF GOD by Dom Prosper Gueranger? I would highly recommend it.
ReplyDeleteJohn Gregory
No, is there a link to read online?
DeleteTraditionalcatholicpuplishing.com
DeleteJohn Gregory
Introibo
ReplyDeleteI have a brahman hindu woman at work who has been trying to put this yellow paint on the forehead and nose of some of our fellow staff. She is telling them they will get protection from the "Gods" How would you handle this situation.
A Young Woman
A Young Woman,
DeleteI would politely tell her that she is making you uncomfortable with her beliefs (this is the tactic used by pagans and secularists against Christians), and that you get protection from the Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ and His Blessed Mother. If she persists, I would then go to HR and ask them to make her stop unless they would allow me to hand out scapulars and rosaries. If HR has even one ounce of intelligence, they would tell the woman she must cease and desist immediately.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Can we leave aside lesser questions regarding Our Lady of Guadalupe / Juan Diego and The Mystical City of God while this apostasy lasts ? Our problem is with 1958-1965, nothing else.
ReplyDeleteGod bless.
I am Dec. 12 at 12:22, responding to Dec. 12 of 11:43. You ask about the "...They have raised the THRONE of their abominable impiety..." (Henceforth: THRONE) St. Michael prayer in Raccolta editions. First off, one can read the Wiki article "Prayer to Saint Michael", which notes in the "Further Reading" section, the 2015 book by Kevin J. Symonds. I have that book. That Wiki article also notes that the THRONE prayer IS found in the 1898 edition of the Roman Ritual = Rituale Romanum = RR. But it was cut out of the RR starting in 1902 (Symonds, pp. 70-75). But it remained in the English editions of the Raccolta until at least 1930, as can be seen online in the 1930 edition. Raccolta typical editions in Latin include 1929 and 1938. I have a 1943/1946 English Raccolta, which is translated from the 1938 Latin. The long THRONE prayer is missing from that. And of course it is not seen in my 1952 English edition either, translated from a 1950 Latin edition.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.fathercekada.com/2007/11/12/the-saint-michael-prayer-a-falsified-text/
is probably the best online presentation. Also worthy of note is the article "Pope Leo XIII's Prayer to St. Michael - A Prophecy about the Future Apostasy in Rome", which is a Oct. 21, 2018 pdf doc of motherofmercychapter.com. This 2018 author, and others too, hint at possible connections of the THRONE prayer to the LaSalette secret "Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist" and to the V2 era (= 1960s onwards) in general. That is possible. But Cekada, and Symonds (p. 113) would connect the elimination of the THRONE version of the prayer, to circa 1930, when, as it seems, Pope Pius XI wanted it cut out, and a different shorter St. Michael prayer substituted in place of it, in the aftermath of the 1929 "Lateran Treaty". And so "(circa) 1930" is the answer to your question about when they stopped re-printing the 1910 English edition. I don't know for sure if the THRONE prayer is found in the 1929 Latin Raccolta, or in 1931-1939 vernacular translations, as I haven't seen such online yet... I hope that helps. Any further questions, feel free to ask.