Public Scandals From Private Revelations

 

I don't get to comment in the depth I would like to recently, with my life being extraordinarily busy as of late. I learn from my readers and love reading their comments. Recently there have been comments about the truth of approved apparitions (e.g., Our Lady of Guadalupe, Our Lady of Fatima) and other private revelations. The purpose of my post this week is three-fold: (1) give some general principles to apply; (2) apply said principles to approved and unapproved private revelations; (3) demonstrate that private revelations must not replace Church teaching or be given undue emphasis. I have dubbed those who exalt private revelations to the detriment of the Faith as "Apparitionists." 

(N.B. I have used numerous online and print resources in the making of this post. Of special note: Foley, Understanding Medjugorje: Heavenly Visions or Religious Illusion? (2006), Laurentin & Ljudevit, Is the Virgin Mary Appearing at Medjugorje (1988), and The Mystery of Garabandal [2015] by L.R. Walker. ---Introibo). 

In this age of the Great Apostasy, many Traditionalists will (unfortunately) abandon the approved theologians of the Church for private revelations. It is imperative that we learn the Faith, and not what passes for the "Faith" in some quarters. Certain people don't even understand basic terminology. "Public" and "private" revelation do not refer to how many people the revelation was given, but rather whether or not it is part of the Deposit of Faith to which we must assent. The Deposit of Faith, given by Jesus Christ to His One True Church, ended with the death of the last Apostle (St. John) in 100 A.D. That marks the end of public revelation. The Church has authority to make solemn pronouncements on what is contained in this revelation, and the faithful must give assent under pain of mortal sin and expulsion from the Mystical Body by heresy (e.g. It is part of the Deposit of Faith that Christ gave exactly seven (7) sacraments to His Church).

 Private revelation is given by God after the close of public revelation to certain individuals (usually saints or people considered to be such). If a private revelation is approved by the Church, it means that it does not contradict matters of Faith and/or morals. It is worthy of belief, but you can deny it outright and not be a heretic. You also commit no sin of disbelief, provided your lack of faith in a particular approved revelation does not stem from disdain of ecclesiastical authority. 

This does not mean that private revelations are "useless." Obviously, if the Church approves something as worthy of belief, we can believe it without fear of sinning against faith or morals. God communicates to us for a reason. However, I refuse to get drawn into arguments over what a particular apparition or a particular revelation "really means." Moreover, it is by studying the approved theologians that we can learn the One True Faith and make our Catholic way the best we can through these most difficult times. To be certain, I believe in approved apparitions without making them the focus point of faith. I have devotion to Our Lady of Hope and Our Lady of Fatima. I wear the Five-fold Scapular, pray the Rosary daily, insert the "Fatima Prayer" at the end of each Rosary decade, have devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and try to attend Mass every First Saturday of the month. These are great Catholic devotions all Traditionalists should try to maintain. I do not view "Consecrating Russia" as some panacea to the Great Apostasy. Nor will I quibble over specific sayings Our Lady is supposed to have said.

While non-approved revelations should be avoided like the plague, even those which are approved can be misunderstood or have the message corrupted since Church approval does not entail any kind of infallible (or even authoritative) teaching. An example is the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima. The late "Fr" Gruner made a business out of peddling dire predictions for the world. I have material of his dating back to the late 1980s claiming "we only have a couple of years left" unless the "pope" (John Paul II) consecrates Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. That never happened and more than 20 years have passed since Wojtyla went to Judgement without any calamity taking place. Of course this never prevented Mr. Gruner from asking for the largest donation you could give as he shamelessly continued to predict the sky would fall "very shortly."

 According to another prediction of Fatima, "Portugal will never lose the Faith." One need only take a look at the present day European country to see that it has rejected the Faith for Vatican II, and has promulgated many evil "laws" such as murdering babies by abortion. There are no more Traditionalists there (in sheer number or proportionately) than in any other neo-pagan State. I do believe Our Lady appeared in Fatima to three children, but I refuse to try and discern "true" from "false" messages, or listen to all the conspiracy theories involved. Holding on to the Faith will save us, not private revelations--especially ones laced with fearful consequences for those who refuse to propagate those messages.

 Some General Principles About Private Revelations

As explained by theologian Volksen in detail, and reproduced by me in outline form, some of the pertinent criteria in discerning private revelations are:

1. Every revelation must be rejected a priori if its context is opposed to Church teaching. In places where the Scripture speaks most explicitly of the discernment of spirits and where it urges Christians to "try the spirits if they be of God," it gives only one criterion which is of a doctrinal nature. "By this the spirit of God is known: every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God: and every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God." (1 John 4: 2-3). That must be understood as teaching that every private revelation which does not confess Christ as God, and in anyway derogates ("dissolveth") Him by rejecting the teaching of His One True Church, is not of God and must be rejected.

2. A medical examination of all seers should be had to determine physical and psychological soundness. If the seers are healthy in mind and body, this constitutes support for a favorable judgement. If it can be established that the seer(s) showed all the symptoms of hysteria or other mental illness when receiving the revelations, a favorable judgement cannot be reached.

3. The seers should have deep humility (not seeking self-glorification), be obedient to proper ecclesiastical authority, and have fortitude. Fortitude is necessary, as the seer(s) will be pressured to recant and in many cases persecuted/threatened (e.g., St. Bernadette and the three children of Fatima). While they need not be saints, they should display innocence and piety.

4. The revelations must be of a serious nature and not frivolous or overly concerned with mundane things.

5. Any indication of natural explanations and/or fraud must be ruled out to allow for a supernatural character.

(See Visions, Revelations, and the Church [1961] by theologian Volken). 

N.B. While an approved private revelation may be disbelieved, it is not contrary to Faith and Morals, and may not be attributed to demonic activities or Satanic origin.

If there is a true pope, when he approves an apparition as "worthy of belief," we cannot declare it the work of Satan. You can choose not to believe at all, but that's foolish. The pope is protected by the Holy Ghost from giving error and evil to the Church. Error and evil is all the devil works for, so that nothing that comes from the devil can ever have papal approval; the Holy Ghost would prohibit it. 

The Meaning and Role of Private Revelations

Definition of Private Revelation and Its Usefulness

According to theologian Volken, a private revelations are heavenly and verbal manifestations of the Divine Will made to man in an extraordinary way in order to direct human activity in a particular situation of life of private persons or of humanity in general. Theologian Volken goes on to explain what this definition means in detail. Heavenly refers to the agent(s) which must be either an intermediary of God such as angels, saints, the Blessed Mother, or God Himself, as was the case with Christ's revelations regarding His Most Sacred Heart. 

Verbal manifestations means that it cannot be purely visual; something audible either to the human ear or directly to the brain must be heard. Divine Will designates the object of the revelations. The subject of the revelation is Man whether that is a singular person, several people, children, adults, clerics, laymen, etc. The manifestation is made in an extraordinary way to the recipient, not through the Magisterium.  Direct human activity in a particular situation of life means that God intervenes to help either a private person(s) or humanity in general to do something beneficial to eternal salvation given the current situation in the world. Hence, Christ sent His Mother to the children at Fatima to warn humanity about the reality of Hell (the belief in which had begun to wane substantially) and introduce devotion to Mary's Immaculate Heart as a special spiritual remedy. (See Visions, Revelations, and the Church [1961], pgs. 231-233). 

Volken reminds us that private revelations "cannot commit the Church or the Divine and Catholic Faith which has for its object the unaltered mysteries, revealed once for all time." (Ibid, pgs. 232-233). In other words, they are not part of the Deposit of Faith, and no private revelation, including those deemed "worthy of belief" by the Church, need to be accepted by Catholics. 

How Private Revelations are Abused

Volken hits the nail on the head, I believe, as to why Catholics become obsessive over private revelations. The more precious a good thing is, the more dangerous is its abuse. And revelations are a very precious things for they help us to conform our lives to the plan which God has for us in a particular situation. They are equally precious because of the way in which they act upon men. They come as a surprise and engage Man's feelings and his attention in such a way that they are effective in cases where other methods would not be. 

It is chiefly here that abuses creep in. Normally speaking, Man loves change (varietas delectat). He flees from the boredom that comes from the monotony of the actions of ordinary life. He feels the need for some new experience, some event, some sensation. In the spiritual life especially, in those periods of dryness when it becomes necessary to live by pure faith, the danger of abusing revelations is great. There are Christians who have an irresistible need to feel, to see, if possible, something staggering.  (Ibid, pgs. 257-258; Emphasis in original). This love of change and drive to experience something unique often will cause people to believe anyone who claims to have a private revelation, and it makes it equally interesting for them to try and "discern the true meanings" of approved private revelations, e.g., what did the Blessed Mother really mean when she said Portugal will always keep the Faith during her appearance at Fatima, etc. 

Another lure of private revelations is the idea of "get holy fast" spirituality that is wrongly attributed to devotions that emanate from such revelations.  As I stated above, I believe in the apparitions at Fatima. I wear the Five-Fold Scapular, have devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray the Rosary daily (adding the Fatima prayer at the end of each decade), and attend the First Saturday Mass whenever I can. These devotions are meant to be things that will bring us closer to God and His Mother, and I recommend them all to Traditionalists. However, there are those who treat these devotions incorrectly and in a superstitious manner. Some think that as long as they wear the Scapular and go to the Five First Saturdays, they can live like heathens, commit mortal sin with impunity, and they will go to Heaven because they have turned the devotion into some "license to sin." 

Principles Applied to False Private Revelations

Garabandal. An alleged apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary to four young girls from 1961-1965. The girls were Mari Loli Mazon (b. 1949 – d. 2009), Jacinta Gonzalez (b.1949), Mari Cruz Gonzalez (b.1950) and Maria "Conchita" Concepción Gonzalez (b.1949). 

The main message from "Mary" was this:

We must make many sacrifices, perform much penance, and visit the Blessed Sacrament frequently. But first, we must lead good lives. If we do not, a chastisement will befall us. The cup is already filling up, and if we do not change, a very great chastisement will come upon us.

There are predicted three great events that will befall humanity:

• The Great Warning, when all living people will see their sins, as if reflected in a mirror, and will understand what they must do to repent
• The Great Miracle, which will take place within one year of the Great Warning. It will leave a permanent sign in Garabandal, which can be seen and photographed, but not touched or explained by science
• The Great Chastisement, which is something horrible that will befall the world if humanity does not properly respond to the Warning and Miracle.

Nothing overtly heretical, but upon examination, much is wrong with both the events that surrounded said messages, and the so-called "seers" themselves.

Disturbing Events:

• When they went into "ecstasy" and had visions, they were bent over backwards and walked that way so quickly, many of the villagers had a hard time keeping up by running forwards.

• The “Virgin” asked that the girls not bring blessed sacramentals [rosaries, crucifixes, etc.], because she wanted to bless these objects herself. The vision is reported to have blessed and kissed hundreds of objects, such as pebbles, which were treated as "sacramentals." This is troubling for two reasons: first, because only blessed sacramentals affect the devil and fallen angels; second, the Blessed Virgin Mary is not a priest and therefore she cannot confer a priestly blessing--especially upon mundane objects like pebbles.

• At the death of Roncalli (John XXIII), many people wished the Council to end. Conchita said that she knew that the next "pope" would continue the Council, and she was happy about it.

• Conchita reportedly said the Blessed Mother "played hide and seek" with her.

• All four children signed a document with the Vatican II bishop agreeing with the findings of the Vatican II sect and promising never to promote the apparitions again. Does that sound like something real seers would do? The children at Fatima refused to retract what they had seen and heard even when an evil man threatened to kill them unless they did so. The girls at Garabandal later retracted their retraction. 

• Two of the seers, Mari-Loli and Jacinta went into the woods on the edge of town. They went into ecstasy on their knees and they shouted to "Mary," --"Don't tell us these things!" They then screamed all night in such a terrifying manner that the whole village was up and afraid to approach them. The other two seers remained in the village. This went on the following night. Consider this: What could be more frightening than seeing Hell? Yet when the three children at Fatima were shown Hell by the Blessed Mother, there was no screaming. And why would the Blessed Mother inflict such fear for two whole nights? I can only imagine how frightening seeing little girls bent backwards in the woods at night screaming at the sky with unearthly sounds for hours must be.

• The Garabandal messages acknowledge the validity of Vatican II, the false religion it created, and its false popes.

Serious Problems with the "Seers:"

• The apparitions began when the girls were committing mortal sin by stealing apples

• The children would often open their mouths and stick out their tongues while St. Michael the Archangel would give them "invisible Holy Communion." To end the incredulity of some, Conchita claimed God would prove this was true. On July 18, 1962, during a nighttime ecstasy, there is film footage of what appears to be a Communion Host appearing on Conchita's tongue which she then consumes. Conchita reportedly admitted to Father J. Pelletier that she herself had stolen the Host from the tabernacle of the Church and placed It on the roof of her mouth, letting It drop down on her tongue for the so-called "mystical Communion." 

•  In 1966 Conchita wanted to enter the Carmelite Convent in Pamplona. "Jesus" told her to go back to the world (!) 

• Two of the "seers" admitted to hiding a statue of the Blessed Mother in the woods so they could claim Mary told them where to go and find it. They did this (allegedly) because they were jealous that "Mary" talked to Conchita the most.

• Where are the seers today? Mari Loli Mazon came to the United States and lived in New Hampshire until her death in 2009, just before turning 60 years old. Jacinta González became Jacinta Moynihan and lives with her husband and daughter in California. Mari Cruz González lives in Aviles, Spain with her husband and four children. Conchita made a museum of her house in Garabandal. She has since sold that house and owns a house in New York with her husband and a flat in Fatima as well. Compare that with St. Bernadette in Lourdes. Conchita (like the others) all attend the Vatican II sect. Sadly, Conchita lives within an hour of the SSPV, SSPX, and Fr. DePauw's Ave Maria Chapel, none of which she will attend, because she fully accepts Vatican II.

Medjugorje.  The alleged apparitions began on June 24, 1981 in the small town of Medjugorje in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The "seers" were four boys and two girls; to wit: Mirjana Dragicevic, Marija Pavlovic, Vicka Ivankovic, Ivan Dragicevic, Ivanka Ivankovic and Jakov Colo. Three were born in 1965, one in 1964, one in 1966, and one in 1971. According to the official website medjugorje.org: The BVM has come there "In Her own words She tells us, 'I have come to tell the world that God exists. He is the fullness of life, and to enjoy this fullness and peace, you must return to God'"

Problems with the "Gospa" ("Our Lady") and the Messages

• Ivan claimed that the hands of the Gospa "trembled." This is clearly out of character for the serene Queen of Heaven, and she was not making a point about something; e.g., how people will tremble with horror for their sins, etc. That was simply how he perceived her.

• The Gospa said nothing at the beginning of her appearances. Then she would merely answer questions from the visionaries. This is a complete departure from all approved apparitions whereby Mary had a mission and was never there for a "question and answer" session.

• The visionaries claimed to be able to "kiss and touch" the Gospa, while she "laughed." In approved apparitions, Mary has occasionally been said to smile, but not laugh, nor was she "kissed and touched." (reminiscent of  Garabandal above where the phony seers said Mary "played hide and go seek.") 

• It is asserted that one of the visionaries sprinkled the Gospa with Holy Water to make sure she wasn't a demon in disguise. Later, Vicka claimed it was only ordinary water but "contained some blessed salt."

• Unlike all approved apparitions, the Gospa of Medjugorje appeared only gradually out of some orbs of light (sometimes a "blue mist"), as if she were composed of it. By contrast, in approved apparitions, Mary appears immediately with any light being totally distinct from her. 

• The Gospa would "bless" the religious objects from pilgrims (as the visionaries collected donations), and impart to the six a "special grace" they could then give unto others. Only priests can bless religious objects, and Mary is not a priest. Imparting "special grace" (whatever that means) to have the six visionaries impose hands and pass it on sounds like an imitation sacrament from ersatz "priests" and "priestesses"

• The Gospa would "burst into spontaneous laughter"

• The Gospa would recite the Our Father with the visionaries. This is heretical and blasphemous to suggest. How could Mary ask God to "forgive us our trespasses" when she is without stain of sin?

• Why is it taking more than 40 years--with no end in sight--for the Gospa to reveal her message to the world? Mary always gave a message in a short time in all approved apparitions. Whereas Fatima had three secrets given in less than a year, the Gospa has sixty (60) to give, and most of the content is virtually unknown to this day. 

No Saintly Seers Here

• Unlike the seers of approved apparitions, the visions began with disobedient and sinful teenagers. Only one (Jakov Colo) was a true child at the time, being ten years of age. The average age of an approved seer is eleven, and those who were older led virtuous lives like St. Catherine Laboure, who was a holy nun of 24 when the Immaculate Virgin started appearing to her. These false "visionaries" (as they called themselves) were materialistic, disinterested in religion, and corrupted by the influences of the world in the 1980s

• The first vision was allegedly seen by Mirjana (age 16) and Ivanka (age 17) when they saw a light which Ivanka claimed to be the Gospa. What were these two young teenage girls doing prior to this event? They had each stolen cigarettes from their father and went to smoke and listen to evil rock music. (Similar to the false apparition of Garabandal where the seers had stolen apples prior to the first "vision") 

• It was claimed, on reliable testimony, that Mirjana both used drugs and gave them to others

• The visionaries were caught in numerous discrepancies ("lies") about various aspects of their experiences. They also claimed they were oblivious to anything when in "ecstasy" watching the Gospa

• When in an "ecstasy" staring at the ceiling of the church where the Gospa was present (1985), a pilgrim named Jean-Louis Martin, was able to get near and went close to Vicka's eye with his finger as if to poke her. She jerked her head back and ran out of the room. She came back to explain that it wasn't the finger of Martin that made her move her head and run away, it was the impression she got that the Gospa was about to drop the Infant Jesus she was holding. God can't "fall," and Mary can't "drop the Divine Child." The very idea is manifestly absurd. In addition, none of the other visionaries thought this was happening. The discrepancy was never explained. Their "spiritual director"  had the "apparition room" of the church closed to the public after that day

• Threats: Ivan said in a letter to the Vatican II sect "bishop" who was refusing to approve the apparitions, that the Gospa demanded his "immediate conversion" and that he should stop emphasizing the "negative side" of Medjugorje (how could a visitation of Mary have anything "negative"?), otherwise she and her Son would punish him.

• Vicka had frequent headaches and blackouts. In the opinion of the medical authorities who examined her, it was the result of an "hysterical stupor" and a psychologically unhealthy need of attention. Not only was she deemed psychologically unstable, she was ignorant of basic religious truths, such as the significance of the Annunciation. Yet we are to believe Mary appeared to her on a daily basis.

• When their "spiritual director," the invalidly ordained "Fr." Vlasic, wanted to start a "mixed-sex religious community" in 1987, Mirija said the Gospa approved of such an abomination. The V2 priest started it with a woman named Agnes Heupel. When the Vatican II sect "bishop" ordered it closed, Marija retracted her statement in a writing in which she stated, "My first statement (about approval from the Gospa)...does not correspond to the truth" (Letter of July 11, 1988; Emphasis mine). Her change of heart might be explained by the fact that Vlasic and Heupel shared a room together which was locked at night. It is rumored that Mirija caught the couple having sex and didn't want the Medjugorje events damaged by such a revelation. Hence, her prior and clearly articulated approval (which came from Mary) was somehow "misunderstood" and not a lie

• Unlike the seers of approved apparitions, none of the six visionaries became nuns, priests, or brothers. They were worldly and made huge sums of money off those with a dangerous desire for the miraculous. All kinds of "relics," religious articles, books, and even tours of Medjugorje made them opulent. The promoters of Medjugorje stated on the official website, "I know Marija, Vicka, and Ivan all seriously considered a religious vocation, but after much prayer, they discerned that their vocation was married life. We should not consider the decision to be parents and to bring life into the world a less important or holy vocation than a religious vocation."  (Emphasis mine) Compare the infallible decree of Trent: On Matrimony: CANON X.-If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema. It was also stated on the official website: "Ivanka was the first to decide that her calling was married life, and asked for Our Lady's blessing. Our Lady joyfully gave Ivanka her blessing, and added that she had chosen the harder path for her life." (Emphasis mine). 

• Today, the visionaries live in mansions with double garages and security gates, and one even has a private tennis court. They drive fancy cars (BMWs)  go on frequent and expensive foreign trips, and all have married. Ivan married a former Miss Massachusetts, Loreen Murphy, a beauty queen who dresses immodestly. He is obese (so much for frequent fasting); and this, by the way, is "the harder path for [their] life." 

Principles Applied to an Approved Private Revelation

Fatima. Lucia dos Santos, Jacinta and Francisco Marto were the three young Portuguese shepherds Our Lady of Fatima appeared to in 1917. Our Lady emphasized prayer, penance, the Rosary, Scapular, and the devotion of the First Five Saturdays. There was nothing contrary to Faith or Morals. 

There were no problems with the messages or seers, all three of whom gave evidence of great sanctity. Both Francisco and Jacinta predicted their early deaths. They accepted much suffering and an early death to make sacrifices for sinners and to appease God. Lucia became a very holy nun. 

You need not believe in Fatima, but there is great evidence that something supernatural happened, and it was given papal approval in 1940 by Pope Pius XII. There are those who attack it as "of the devil" which is blasphemous and impossible, since the Holy Ghost would protect the Holy Father from approving as "worthy of belief" anything that comes from Hell. To claim that Fatima is from Hell would be an indirect denial of the Indefectibility of the Church--i.e., the Church cannot give that which is evil or erroneous to Her members. If, ad arguendo, the apparition at Fatima didn't happen, it didn't produce anything contrary to Faith and Morals. Yet, it if came from Satan, there would have to be things contrary to Faith and/or morals, because the adversary of mankind does not do anything for our benefit. 

One of the most disturbing and reprehensible attacks I've heard was that occultists predicted the apparitions at Fatima. A commenter repeated that contention in a recent post (he claimed he heard about it, not that he claimed it was true). The source of the occult claim originates with a blasphemous article entitled  "Why Pay Any Attention To Fatima?" (See https://www.cogwriter.com/FatimaShock2Chapters.pdf). 

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

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

(See ccog.org/statement-of-beliefs-of-the-continuing-church-of-god/). 

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

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

What, exactly, would those "mistakes" be? Praying the Rosary? Wearing the Scapular? Making reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary? It never tells us, but wants us to believe Our Lady of Fatima was a demonic deception. 

WPATF states:

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

The day of May 13th will be one of great happiness for the good souls of the world…Always at your side shall ye have your friends, who will guide your steps and who will assist ye in your

work…The brilliant light of the Morning Star will illuminate the path.

~ Stella Matutina

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

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

• Can teleport himself through time and space
• Has made contact with Bigfoot
• Went to Mars in 1981 and converses with Martians who live there 

(See, e.g.,https://www.inverse.com/article/14577-confessed-time-traveler-andrew-basiago-is-running-for-president-knows-he-ll-win)

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

The only thing "occult" about Fatima is that occultists have attacked it. 

Conclusion

The scandals that can come from distorting the importance of private revelations should be manifest. First are those who exalt private revelations/apparitions whether approved by the Church (such as Our Lady of Fatima and Our Lady of Lourdes) or not (such as Our Lady of the Roses or Garabandal) over the teaching of the Church. It should be painfully apparent how placing these apparitions over doctrine will inevitably lead people into error (usually by being trapped in the falsehood of the Vatican II sect).  People also fail to learn the Faith because they want to know the "true meaning" of the "Third Secret," or how some alleged saying of the Blessed Mother squares with the Bible.

Second, there are those claiming that approved revelations/apparitions are the work of the devil. If there is a true pope, when he approves an apparition as "worthy of belief," we cannot declare it the work of Satan. You can choose not to believe at all, but that's foolish. The pope is protected by the Holy Ghost from giving error and evil to the Church. Error and evil is all the devil works for, so that nothing that comes from the devil can ever have papal approval; the Holy Ghost would prohibit it.

In my opinion, private revelations should be seen as helps to get to Heaven. Take away the good general message, e.g., praying the Rosary, wearing the Scapular, making reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary through the first Five Saturdays devotion, etc. Don't worry about "the true meaning" of such and such that the Blessed Mother was supposed to have said. On the other hand, don't give scandal by declaring an approved apparition as "evil" or "of the devil" and tacitly deny the Indefectibility of the Church. Spend your time on Earth wisely by learning and practicing the Faith. In this time of Great Apostasy, with no pope to guide us, private revelations can be very dangerous.

The Holy Eucharist And The Law of Fasting And Abstinence

 

To My Readers: This week, John Gregory writes about the excellence of the Most Holy Eucharist, as well as the importance of fasting and abstinence in the life of a Traditionalist Catholic. Please continue your prayers for John's health and pray for his family. I am humbled that a sick man went out of his way to write a guest post for me. Anyone who has derived any good from my blog should remember and pray for all my guest posters (past and present) who help me keep it going; and most especially, in his time of need, extra prayers for John Gregory.

Please feel free to comment as usual. John may or may not be able to respond. I will respond, as always, but it may take me longer to do so this week.

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

The Holy Eucharist And The Law of Fasting And Abstinence

By John Gregory

And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterwards he was hungry. . . . And behold angels came and ministered to him (Matthew 4: 2, 11). 

 

IMPORTANCE OF INSTRUCTION ON THE EUCHARIST 

 

As of all the sacred mysteries bequeathed to us by our Lord and Saviour as most infallible instruments of divine grace, there is none comparable to the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist; so, for no crime is there a heavier punishment to be feared from God than for the unholy or irreligious use by the faithful of that which is full of holiness, or rather which contains the very author and source of holiness.  This the Apostle wisely saw, and has openly admonished us of it.  For when he had declared the enormity of their guilt who discerned not the body of the Lord, he immediately subjoined: Therefore, are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep (1 Corinthians 11: 30). 

 

In order that the faithful, therefore, aware of the divine honors due to this heavenly Sacrament, may derive therefrom abundant fruit of grace and escape the most just anger of God, pastors should explain with the greatest diligence all those things which may seem calculated more fully to display its majesty. 

 

Institution of the Eucharist 

 

In this matter it will be necessary that pastors, following the example of the Apostle Paul, who professes to have delivered to the Corinthians what he had received from the Lord, First of all, explain to the faithful the institution of this Sacrament. 

 

That its institution was as follows, is clearly inferred from the Evangelist.  Our Lord, having loved his own, loved them to the end (John 13: 1).  As a divine and admirable pledge of this love, knowing that the hour had now come that He should pass from the world to the Father, that He might not ever at any period be absent from His own, He accomplished with inexplicable wisdom that which surpasses all the order and condition of nature.  For having kept the supper of the Paschal lamb with His disciples, that the figure might yield to the reality, the shadow to the substance, He took bread, and giving thanks unto God, He blessed, and brake, and gave to the disciples, and said: “Take ye and eat, this is my body which shall be delivered for you; this do for a commemoration of me.”  In like manner also, He took the chalice after he had supped, saying: “This chalice is the New Testament in my blood; this do, as often as you shall drink it, in commemoration of me.” (Matthew 26: 26; Mark 14: 22; Luke 22: 19; 1 Corinthians 11: 24). 

 

Meaning of the Word “Eucharist” 

 

Wherefore sacred writers, seeing that it was not at all possible that they should manifest by one term the dignity and excellence of this admirable Sacrament, endeavored to express it by many words. 

 

For sometimes they call it Eucharist, which word we may render either by good grace, or by thanksgiving.  And rightly, indeed, is it to be called good grace, as well because it first signifies eternal life, concerning which it has been written: The grace of God is eternal life (Romans 6: 23); and also because it contains Christ the Lord, who is true grace and the fountain of all favors. 

 

No less aptly do we interpret it thanksgiving; inasmuch as when we immolate this purest victim, we give daily unbounded thanks to God for all His kindnesses towards us, and above all for so excellent a gift of His grace, which He grants to us in this Sacrament.  This same name, also, is fully in keeping with those things which we read were done by Christ the Lord at the institution of this mystery.  For taking bread he brake it, and gave thanks (Luke 22: 19; 1 Corinthians 11: 24).  David also, when contemplating the greatness of this mystery, before he pronounced that song: he hath made a remembrance of his wonderful works, being a merciful and gracious Lord, he hath given food to them that fear him, thought that he should first make this act of thanksgiving: “His work is praise and magnificence (Psalm 110: 3). 

 

OTHER NAMES OF THIS SACRAMENT 

 

Frequently, also, it is called Sacrifice.  Concerning this mystery there will be occasion to speak more at length presently. 

 

It is called, moreover, Communion, the term being evidently borrowed from that passage of the Apostle where we read: The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?  And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord (1 Corinthians 10: 16).  For, as Damascene has explained, this Sacrament unites us to Christ, renders us partakers of His flesh and Divinity, reconciles and unites us to one another in the same Christ, and forms us, as it were, into one body. 

 

Whence it came to pass, that it was called also the Sacrament of peace and love.  We can understand then how unworthy they are of the name of Christian who cherish enmities, and how hatred, dissensions and discord should be entirely put away, as the most destructive bane of the faithful, especially since by the daily Sacrifice of our religion, we profess to preserve nothing with more anxious care, than peace and love. 

 

It is also frequently called the Viaticum by sacred writers, both because it is spiritual food by which we are sustained in our pilgrimage through this life, and also because it paves our way to eternal glory and happiness.  Wherefore, according to an ancient usage of the Catholic Church, we see that none of the faithful are permitted to die without this Sacrament. 

 

The most ancient Fathers, following the authority of the Apostle (1 Corinthians 11: 20), have sometimes also called the Holy Eucharist by the name of Supper, because it was instituted by Christ the Lord at the salutary mystery of the Last Supper. 

 

It is not, however, lawful to consecrate or partake of the Eucharist after eating or drinking, because, according to a custom wisely introduced by the Apostles, as ancient writers have recorded, and which has ever been retained and preserved, Communion is received only by persons who are fasting. (Saint Augustine traces this precept to an Apostolic ordinance in his letter to Januarius in the year 400). 

 

The Eucharist is a Sacrament Properly So Called 

 

The meaning of the name having been explained, it will be necessary to show that this is a true Sacrament, and one of those seven which the holy Church has ever revered and venerated religiously.  For when the consecration of the chalice is effected, it is called a mystery of faith. 

 

Besides, to omit the almost endless testimonies of sacred writers, who have invariably thought that this was to be numbered among the real Sacraments, the same thing is proved from the very principle and nature of a Sacrament.  For there are in it signs that are external and subject to the senses.  In the next place it signifies and produces grace.  Moreover, neither the Evangelists not the Apostle leave room for doubt regarding its institution by Christ.  Since all these things concur to establish the fact of the Sacrament, there is obviously no need of any other argument. 

 

IN WHAT RESPECT THE EUCHARIST IS A SACRAMENT 

 

But pastors should carefully observe that in this mystery there are many things to which sacred writers have from time to time attributed to the name of Sacrament.  For, sometimes, both the consecration and the Communion; nay, frequently also the body and blood itself of our Lord, which is contained in the Eucharist, used to be called a Sacrament.  Thus Saint Augustine says that this Sacrament consists of two things,—the visible species of the elements, and the invisible flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.  And it is in the same sense that we say that this Sacrament is to be adored, meaning the body and blood of our Lord.  

 

Now it is plain that all these are less properly called Sacraments.  The species of bread and wine themselves are truly and strictly designated by this name.  

 

HOW THE EUCHARIST DIFFERS FROM ALL THE OTHER SACRAMENTS 

 

How much this Sacrament differs from all the others is easily inferred.  For all the other Sacraments are completed by the use of the material, that is, while they are being administered to some one.  Thus Baptism attains the nature of a Sacrament when the individual is actually being washed in the water.  For the perfecting of the Eucharist on the other hand, the consecration of the material itself suffices, since neither (species) ceases to be a Sacrament, though kept in the pyx. 

 

Again in perfecting the other Sacraments there is no change of the matter and element into another nature.  The water of Baptism, or the oil of Confirmation, when those Sacraments are being administered, do not lose their former nature of water and oil; but in the Eucharist, that which was bread and wine before consecration, after consecration is truly the substance of the body and blood of the Lord. 

 

The Eucharist Is But One Sacrament 

 

But although there are two elements, as bread and wine, of which the entire Sacrament of the Eucharist is constituted, yet guided by the authority of the Church, we confess that this is not many Sacraments, but only one. 

 

Otherwise, there cannot be the exact number of seven Sacraments, as has ever been handed down, and as was decreed by the Councils of Lateran, Florence and Trent. 

 

Moreover, by virtue of the Sacrament, one mystical body is effected; hence, that the Sacrament itself may correspond to the thing which it effects, it must be one. 

 

It is one not because it is indivisible, but because it signifies a single thing.  For as food and drink, which are two different things, are employed only for one purpose, namely, that the vigor of the body may be recruited; so also it was but natural that there should be an analogy to them in the two different species of the Sacrament, which should signify the spiritual food by which souls are supported and refreshed.  Wherefore we have been assured by our Lord the Savior: My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. (John 6: 56) 

 

THE EUCHARIST SIGNIFIES THREE THINGS 

 

It must, therefore, be diligently explained what the Sacrament of the Eucharist signifies, that the faithful, beholding the sacred mysteries with their eyes, may also at the same time feed their souls with the contemplation of divine things.  Three things, then, are signified by this Sacrament.  The first is the Passion of Christ our Lord, a thing past; for He Himself said: Do this for a commemoration of me, (Luke 22: 19) and the Apostle says: As often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come. (1 Corinthians 11: 26) 

 

It is also significant of divine and heavenly grace, which is imparted at the present time by this Sacrament to nurture and preserve the soul.  Just as in Baptism we are begotten unto newness of life and by Confirmation are strengthened to resist Satan and openly to profess the name of Christ, so by the Sacrament of the Eucharist are we nurtured and supported. 

 

It is, thirdly, a foreshadowing of future eternal joy and glory, which, according to God’s promises, we shall receive in our heavenly country. 

 

These three things, then, which are clearly distinguished by their reference to past, present and future times, are so well represented by the Eucharistic mysteries that the whole Sacrament, though consisting of different species, signifies the three as if it referred to one thing only. 

 

Constituent Parts of the Eucharist 

 

THE MATTER 

 

It is particularly incumbent on pastors to know the matter of this Sacrament, in order that they themselves may rightly consecrate it, and also that they may be able to instruct the faithful as to its significance, inflaming them with an earnest desire of that which it signifies.  

 

THE FIRST ELEMENT OF THE EUCHARIST IS BREAD 

 

The matter of this Sacrament is twofold.  The first element is wheaten bread, of which we shall now speak.  Of the second we shall treat hereafter.  As the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke testify, Christ the Lord took bread into His hands, blessed, and brake, saying: This is my body; (Matthew 26: 26, Mark 14: 22, Luke 22: 19) and, according to John, the same Savior called Himself bread in these words: I am the living bread, that came down from heaven. (John 6: 41) 

 

THE SACRAMENTAL BREAD MUST BE WHEATEN 

 

There are, however, various sorts of bread, either because they consist of different materials,—such as wheat, barley, pulse and other products, of the earth; or because they possess different qualities,—some being leavened, others altogether without leaven.  It is to be observed that, with regard to the former kinds, the words of the Savior show that the bread should be wheaten; for, according to common usage, when we simply say bread, we are sufficiently understood to mean wheaten bread.  This is also declared by a figure in the Old Testament, because the Lord commanded that the loaves of proposition, which signified this Sacrament, should be made of fine flour. [The loaves of proposition, of shew-breads, were twelve loaves of unleavened bread placed in the Holy of Holies and renewed every Saturday.  Their purpose was to show forth the gratitude of the twelve tribes to the Lord, their sustenance and strength.]  

 

THE SACRAMENTAL BREAD SHOULD BE UNLEAVENED 

 

But as wheaten bread alone is to be considered the proper matter for this Sacrament—a doctrine which has been handed down by Apostolic tradition and confirmed by the authority of the Catholic Church—so it may be easily inferred from the doings of Christ the Lord that this bread should be unleavened.  It was consecrated and instituted by Him on the first day of unleavened bread, on which it was not lawful for the Jews to have anything leavened in their houses. (Matthew 26: 17, Mark 14: 12, Luke 22: 7) 

 

Should the authority of John the Evangelist, (John 13: 1) who says that all this was done before the feast of the Passover, be objected to, the argument is one of easy solution. For by the day before the pasch John understands the same day which the other Evangelists designate as the first day of unleavened bread. He wished particularly to mark the natural day, which commences at sunrise; whereas they wanted to point out that our Lord celebrated the Pasch on Thursday evening just when the days of the unleavened bread were beginning.  Hence Saint Chrysostom also understands the first day of unleavened bread to be the day on the evening of which unleavened bread was to be eaten. 

 

The peculiar suitableness of the consecration of unleavened bread to express that integrity and purity of mind which the faithful should bring to this Sacrament we learn from these words of the Apostle: Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new paste, as you are unleavened.  For Christ our Passover is sacrificed.  Therefore, let us feast, not with the old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. (1 Corinthians 5: 7) 

 

UNLEAVENED BREAD NOT ESSENTIAL 

 

This quality of the bread, however, is not to be deemed so essential that, if it be wanting, the Sacrament cannot exist; for both kinds are called by the one name and have the true and proper nature of bread.  No one, however, is at liberty on his own private authority, or rather presumption, to transgress the laudable rite of his Church.  And such departure is the less warrantable in priests of the Latin Church, expressly obliged as they are by the supreme Pontiffs, to consecrate the sacred mysteries with unleavened bread only. 

 

QUANTITY OF THE BREAD 

 

With regard to the first matter of this Sacrament, let this exposition suffice.  It is, however, to be observed, that the quantity of the matter to be consecrated is not defined, since we cannot define the exact number of those who can or ought to receive the sacred mysteries. 

 

THE SECOND ELEMENT OF THE EUCHARIST IS WINE 

 

It remains for us to treat of the other matter and element of this Sacrament, which is wine pressed from the fruit of the vine, with which is mingled a little water. 

 

That in the institution of this Sacrament our Lord and Savior made use of wine has been at all times the doctrine of the Catholic Church, for He Himself said: I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day. (Matthew 26: 29; Mark 14: 25) On this passage Chrysostom observes: He says, “Of the fruit of the vine,” which certainly produced wine not water; as if he had it in view, even at so early a period, to uproot the heresy which asserted that in these mysteries water alone is to be used. 

 

WATER SHOULD BE MIXED WITH THE WINE 

 

With the wine, however, the Church of God has always mingled water.  First, because Christ the Lord did so, as is proved by the authority of Councils and the testimony of Saint Cyprian; next, because by this mixture is renewed the recollection of the blood and water that issued from His side.  Waters, also, as we read in the Apocalypse, (Apocalypse 17: 15) signify the people; and hence, water mixed with the wine signifies the union of the faithful with Christ their Head.  This rite, derived as it is from Apostolic tradition, the Catholic Church has always observed. 

 

But although there are reasons so grave for mingling water with the wine that it cannot be omitted without incurring the guilt of mortal sin, yet its omission does not render the Sacrament null. 

 

Again as in the sacred mysteries priests must be mindful to mingle water with wine, so, also, must they take care to mingle it in small quantity, for, in the opinion and judgment of ecclesiastical writers, that water is changed into wine.  Hence these words of Pope Honorius on the subject: A pernicious abuse has prevailed in your district of using in the sacrifice a greater quantity of water than of wine; whereas, according to the rational practice of the universal Church, the wine should be used in much greater quantity than the water. (The wine must be at least eight times more than the water to ensure validity, keeping in mind that often more than one drop is mingled with the wine. — J.G.) 

 

NO OTHER ELEMENTS PERTAIN TO THIS SACRAMENT 

 

These, then, are the only two elements of this Sacrament; and with reason has it been enacted by many decrees that, although there have been those who were not afraid to do so, it is unlawful to offer anything but bread and wine. 

 

PECULIAR FITNESS OF BREAD AND WINE 

 

We have now to consider the aptitude of these two symbols of bread and wine to represent those things of which we believe and confess they are the sensible signs. 

 

In the first place, then, they signify to us Christ, as the true life of men; for our Lord Himself says: My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. (John 6: 55) As, then, the body of Christ the Lord furnishes nourishment unto eternal life to those who receive this Sacrament with purity and holiness, rightly is the matter composed chiefly of those elements by which our present life is sustained, in order that the faithful may easily understand that the mind and soul are satiated by the Communion of the precious body and blood of Christ. 

 

These very elements serve also somewhat to suggest to men the truth of the Real Presence of the body and blood of the Lord in the Sacrament.  Observing, as we do, that bread and wine are every day changed by the power of nature into human flesh and blood, we are led to more easily by this analogy to believe that the substance of the bread and wine is changed, by the heavenly benediction, into the real flesh and real blood of Christ. 

 

This admirable change of the elements also helps to shadow forth what takes place in the soul.  Although no change of bread and wine appears externally, yet their substance is truly changed into the flesh and blood of Christ; so, in like manner, although in us nothing appears changed, yet we are renewed inwardly unto life, when we receive in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the true life. 

 

Moreover, the body of the Church, which is one, consists of many members, and of this union nothing is more strikingly illustrative than the elements of bread and wine; for bread is made from many grains and wine is pressed from many clusters of grapes.  Thus they signify that we, though many, are most closely bound together by the bond of this divine mystery and made, as it were, one body.  

 

Form of the Eucharist 

 

The form to be used in the consecration of the bread is next to be treated of, not, however, in order that the faithful should be taught these mysteries, unless necessity require it; for this knowledge is not needful for those who have not received Holy Orders.  The purpose (of his section) is to guard against most shameful mistakes on the part of priests, at the time of the consecration, due to ignorance of the form. 

 

FORM TO BE USED IN THE CONSECRATION OF THE BREAD 

 

We are then taught by the holy Evangelists, Matthew and Luke, and also by the Apostle, that the form consists of these words: This is my body; for it is written: Whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to his disciples, and said: Take and eat, This is my body. (Matthew 26: 26; Mark 14: 22; Luke 22: 19; 1 Corinthians 11: 24) 

 

This form of consecration having been observed by Christ the Lord has been always used by the Catholic Church.  The testimonies of the Fathers, the enumeration of which would be endless, and also the decree of the Council of Florence, which is well known and accessible to all, must here be omitted, especially as the knowledge which they convey may be obtained from these words of the Saviour: Do this for a commemoration of me. (Luke 22: 19) For what the Lord enjoined was not only what He had done, but also what he had said; and especially is this true, since the words were uttered not only to signify, but also to accomplish. 

 

That these words constitute the form is easily proved from reason also.  The form is that which signifies what is accomplished in this Sacrament; but as the preceding words signify and declare what takes place in the Eucharist, that is, the conversion of the bread into the true body of our Lord, it therefore follows that these very words constitute the form.  In this sense may be understood the words of the Evangelist: He blessed; for they seem equivalent to this: Taking bread, he blessed it, saying: “This is my body.” (Matthew 26: 26) 

 

NOT ALL THE WORDS USED ARE ESSENTIAL 

 

Although in the Evangelist the words, Take and eat, precede the words (This is my body), they evidently express the use only, not the consecration, of the matter.  Wherefore, while they are not necessary to the consecration of the Sacrament, they are by all means to be pronounced by the priest, as is also the conjunction for in the consecration of the body and blood.  But they are not necessary to the validity of the Sacrament, otherwise it would follow that, if this Sacrament were not to be administered to anyone, it should not, or indeed could not, be consecrated; whereas, no one can lawfully doubt that the priest, by pronouncing the words of our Lord according to the institution and practice of the Church, truly consecrates the proper matter of the bread, even though it should afterwards never be administered. 

 

FORM TO BE USED IN THE CONSECRATION OF THE WINE 

 

With regard to the consecration of the wine, which is the other element of this Sacrament, the priest, for the reason we have already assigned, ought of necessity to be will acquainted with, and well understand its form.  We are then firmly to believe that it consists in the following words: This is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many, to the remission of sins.  Of these words the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from Apostolic tradition. 

 

Thus the words, this is the chalice, are found in Saint Luke and in the Apostle; (Luke 22: 20; 1 Corinthians 11: 25) but the words that immediately follow, of my blood, or my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for you and for many to the remission of sins, are found partly in Saint Luke and partly in Saint Matthew. (Luke 22: 20; Matthew 26: 28) But the words, eternal, and the mystery of faith, have been taught us by holy tradition, the interpreter and keeper of Catholic truth. 

 

Concerning this form no one can doubt, if he here also attend to what has been already said about the form used in the consecration of the bread.  The form to be used (in the consecration) of this element, evidently consists of those words which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord.  Since, therefore, the words already cited clearly declare this, it is plain that no other words constitute the form. 

 

They moreover express certain admirable fruits of the blood shed in the Passion of our Lord, fruits which pertain in a most special manner to this Sacrament.  Of these, one is access to the eternal inheritance, which has come to us by right of the new and everlasting testament. Another is the access to righteousness by they mystery of faith; for God hath set forth Jesus to be a propitiator through faith in his blood, that he himself may be just, and the justifier of him, who is of the faith of Jesus Christ. (Romans 3: 25) A third effect is the remission of sins. (COT p. 213 – 226) 

 

Our goal is to get to heaven.  God did His part, and more, by giving us Himself, it almost seems blasphemous, had He not done so, to eat.  We must do our part.  This includes prayer, fasting, and almsdeeds.  If we look at Saint Luke 2: 37 we see that the prophetess Anna served God by prayer and fasting.  Fasting, when done for love of God is a form of worship, as is prayer.   

 

Conclusion 

To prayer let us unite fasting and almsdeeds.  Fasting is most intimately connected with prayer.  For the mind of one who is filled with food and drink is so borne down as not to be able to raise itself to the contemplation of God, or even to understand what prayer means. 

 

Almsdeeds have also an intimate connection with prayer.  For what claim has he to the virtue of charity, who, possessing the means of affording relief to those who depend on the assistance of others, refuses help to his neighbor and brother?  How can he, unless, while imploring the pardon of his sins, he at the same time humbly beg of God to grant him the virtue of charity?   

 

This triple remedy was, therefore, appointed by God to aid man in the attainment of salvation.  For by sin we offend God, wrong our neighbor, or injure ourselves.  The wrath of God we appease by pious prayer; our offences against man we redeem by almsdeeds; the stains of our own lives we wash away by fasting.  Each of these remedies, it is true, is applicable to every sort of sin; they are, however, peculiarly adapted to those three which we have just mentioned. (COT p. 500) 

 

Eucharistic Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us. 

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!