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
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!
Hello, greetings from France. I am a sedevacantist Catholic from France, living in the Nord-Pas-de-Calais region. I have been reading your blog for several months.
ReplyDeleteThe Eucharist: The Body and Blood of Our Lord ❤️
Unfortunately, I don't have a non-una cum Mass near my home, and I don't have a driver's license to go to the NUC Mass at the IMB in Belgium...
So I watch the Mass live on YouTube with Sedevacantist Father Jean-Luc Lafitte, and I receive Communion spiritually.
I ask for your prayers for me and my mother, Marie-Agnès Hugot, please. My mother was diagnosed with uterine cancer in January...
May our LORD grant her healing, especially of her soul.
Thank you in advance, my dear American Catholic friend.
Vianney,
DeleteMay God bless you and your mother. I will pray that God heals her of her cancer, as I am keeping John Gregory in my prayers too.
God bless you,
-TradWarrior
Cher Vianney,
DeleteAre you unable to go by train or bus to Holy Mass in Belgium?
Many years ago, there was a French priest, affiliated with the SSPX, called Fr. Lafite and he was based, for a time, in Australia. That priest was very anti-sedevacantist! Do you think he is the same Fr. Lafite whose Masses you watch?
I was very sorry to learn that your mother has uterine cancer. A family member of mine has the same complaint and it is incurable in her case.
May Saint Peregrine, the Patron of cancer sufferers, intercede for Mme. Hugot and for you.
Que Dieu vous bénisse!
Leo
Cher Vianney,
DeleteI am sorry, but I spelt Lafitte as Lafite. My apologies!
Going by what TradSedeCath,NZ said, it appears that Fr. Jean-Luc Lafitte was also with the SSPX in New Zealand for a time. Thanks be to God that he left that confused, and confusing group!
Leo
John Gregory,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the wonderful article. All of your writings have made me grow more and more accustomed to The Council of Trent and for that, I thank you. I am keeping you in prayer that you are healed of whatever is ailing you. I pray that Jesus, Mary, and Joseph heal you and restore you to perfect health.
God bless,
-TradWarrior
John Gregory,
DeleteI second all of TradWarrior's sentiments. We have not forgotten about your predicament. God Bless you.
In Jesus and Mary,
-S.T.
Thank you S.T. John Gregory
DeleteThere were a lot of side discussions that took place on last week’s comments section on Introibo’s blog and I wanted to continue on this thread with some of these topics (since not everyone will revisit comments from the previous week’s article).
ReplyDeleteIn addition to what I wrote on eschatology and St. Joseph, there were just a few additional comments that I wanted to add. Some of this will be directed particularly to Leo and the anonymous writer at 5:25pm and 5:21am.
Leo (and anonymous poster) - I wanted to address some of your points that you raised about Fatima.
The part about a worse war following World War I coming to fruition under the reign of Pope Pius XI was a prophecy that proved true as it was at the tail end of Pius XI’s reign when Nazi Germany had already denounced the Treaty of Versailles, reoccupied the Rhineland, annexed Austria, had begun rebuilding its armed forces, and was drawing up military plans against Czechoslovakia as the first step towards the conquest of Europe. So this prophecy of Our Lady speaking about a greater and worse war occurring during the reign of (the future) Pius XI came true.
The ‘Miracle of the Sun’ was witnessed by at least 70,000 people (some suggest that number was much higher). The peoples clothing went from being drenched in rain water to being completely dry, which is impossible from a natural interpretation. The amount of energy it would take to be hot enough to dry all of those peoples clothing could not have occurred by natural means. Even the freemasons in one of their newspaper publications testified to the events that took place that day and they were enemies of the Church. The fact that some claimed they saw nothing could be a fabrication and just a bold face lie. It does not expel the overwhelming evidence of the tens of thousands that testified to seeing the ‘Miracle of the Sun’ that day.
In terms of your question about the Fatima prayer being added to the rosary, I am not sure where that came from and that is a good question. I see nothing wrong with that prayer and it in no way changes the mysteries of the rosary or the essential nature of what the rosary is.
Your point about “the dogma of the faith” being preserved in Portugal is very perplexing and I too made reference to it last week in my very lengthy eschatological comments. Portugal certainly has not kept the Faith. That is obvious. What that means, is beyond me?
The two Sr. Lucia’s to me is an open and shut case. Dr. Chojnowski has demonstrated through many different scientific experts that there is no question that these were indeed two different women. I have no doubt this is just another attempt by the Judeo-Freemasonic cabal to discredit Fatima and to try and destroy it as much as possible. Using a fake Sr. Lucia only helped to enhance everything else they did to bury Fatima, including burying the Third Secret.
CONTINUED…
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the hidden Third Secret, remember what Sr. Lucia told Fr. Fuentes in 1957. She spoke about how The Blessed Virgin Mary was very sad because people were not listening to her and how a great chastisement was coming between then and 1960. The only thing that fits the bill here is the last true pope (Pius XII) died and a series of impostors in white “took the throne” (though not actually, they only appeared to take the throne) and a counterfeit church eclipsed the True Church. Our Lady at La Salette also warned about the Catholic Church being eclipsed to Melanie and Maximin.
Now, I agree with the anonymous poster on a point that this person raised. Why did The Blessed Virgin Mary not just state what was to come? Why use secrets at both La Salette and Fatima, especially when the messages at both of these apparitions were buried forcefully by the enemies of the Catholic Church? That is a very good question, but Heaven’s ways are not our ways and God’s ways are very high above our ways, as Scripture talks about. God gave mankind a choice. Listen to Our Lady and heed Her warnings or suffer the consequences. He removed the pope for decades because mankind feels it is its own “pope” and we no longer need one. God simply complied with mankind thinking that “it knows better.” Does He want this? No, of course not, but He will respect His creatures freewill, even when they go the wrong way.
There are many people who think that Melanie and Maximin had mental issues. I take the opposite approach and have stated this many times (on this blog and in private conversations with people I know where we have hashed this out a lot more in private discussions). There was nothing wrong with these children (nor the Fatima children). It was the freemasonic onslaught that was doing everything it could to discredit these children, yet we know that Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, and Benedict XV believed in the La Salette children’s testimony, as well as many saints including St. John Bosco, St. John Vianney, St. Peter Julian Eymard, and many more! The French freemasonic clergy in France were trying to discredit the La Salette children just like the Portuguese freemasonic clergy were doing the same to the Fatima children.
The anonymous poster that dialogued with you Leo mentioned why did Our Lady appear on the 13th of every month, but not August? Again, I think because this was a punishment for many people not believing in the children’s testimony. Notice she appeared that month on August 19th – the Feast of St. John Eudes, who had a huge devotion to The Sacred Heart of Jesus and The Immaculate Heart of Mary and The Two Hearts tie into Fatima very well. The number 13 also has biblical references, not just freemasonic ones. Compare Esther and The Blessed Virgin Mary. Queen Esther approached the King of Persia on the 13th of the month; Our Lady appeared at Fatima on the 13th of the month. “Esther” means “star”; when Mary came to Fatima, she wore a star on her dress. Haman plotted the destruction of the Jewish people; Satan plots the annihilation of nations. Each scheme is defeated by the presence of a royal woman. Queen Esther asked the Jews to pray and fast for the success of her mission; Our Lady of Fatima asked for prayers, fasting, and sacrifices for the salvation of sinners. Numbers have great significance with God. I’m not trying to be the poster 777333 here. All I am trying to demonstrate is that this all is relevant. God does nothing arbitrarily.
CONTINUED…
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of doing nothing arbitrarily, I go back to my lengthy discourse last week on the study of eschatology (the end times). Those saints and mystics e.g. Taigi, Canori-Mora, and many others were given those messages for a reason. To simply discredit them would be unwise in my opinion. Again, we must place private revelation BEHIND public revelation, but it can be a useful supplement.
I was watching a couple of videos last night on Sedevacantist priests and their opinions on The 3 Days of Darkness prophecy. After everything I wrote last week, I wanted to do a little more research, just for fun. Fr. Dominic Radecki (who I cited last week) believes this is a false prophecy. Fr. Gabriel Lavery also believes the 3 Days of Darkness is false. Interestingly, Fr. Jenkins believes that it is credible; however, he does believe that there are false things that have been attributed to it (like the other two priests), but he does not discount it. One thing that Fr. Lavery mentioned is that according to this prophecy, Pope Pius IX was to be the last pope and the next pope would be the glorious Holy Pope that sets the world straight. This did not happen with Pope Leo XIII (great as he was). He also mentions St. John Vianney supposedly said that the world would end before the Church canonized him, which obviously is false. This is the problem with some of these private revelations; however Fr. Jenkins rightly states (as I did last week) that the Catholic Church, including popes and saints, thought very highly of women like Taigi, Jahenny. etc. This does not mean that everything that they state is true. We will of course find out in time.
One final thought - Some of these revelations do not make sense, yet the Catholic Church approved these apparitions. Why did so many take place in France? Why was there a need for both Beauraing and Banneux in Belgium so close together, when Our Lady could have appeared in Africa, the Orient, or somewhere else?
Can an apparition be approved by the Catholic Church, yet much of what came out of it was not true? That answer would seem to be “Yes”, after looking at what Steve Speray did with Guadalupe. He was not trying to do a “hatchet job” on Guadalupe. He simply went where the evidence led. Will Fr. Lavery be able to do the same thing with “The Mystical City of God?” Personally, I (and Lee) sincerely doubt that as it has the backing of too many popes, cardinals, theologians, etc.
Introibo clearly demonstrated (in several articles) that Pope Pius XII approved of Fatima in 1940; therefore, it is safe to believe in. Like Leo, and other posters on this blog, I too have my reservations with some of this stuff and it is my sincere hope that both Introibo and Steve Speray can write more on these fascinating topics because there are many things that simply do not add up?
To my point last week, it is MOST important to follow public revelation. Private revelation is very interesting to study (and it is important to some level), but the Catholic Church gives us everything that we need to get to Heaven. The other stuff is not necessary. I have known too many conservative Novus Ordo’s who have been into the “Charismatic Movement” and have an unusual devotion to Medjugorje (which is obviously false)! I know several R & R’s who have been extremely sucked in by Garabandal and it has led to increased paranoia and worries on their parts. Authentic private revelation is definitely interesting and on a blog like this, we can definitely learn from each other. I have things that perplex me and they do not make sense to me either, hence my request for Introibo and Steve to possibly shed further light on much of this. But we have to take it and put it in its proper place, AFTER public revelation always.
In Medio Stat Veritas.
-TradWarrior
Dear TradWarrior,
DeleteIt was very considerate of you to have gone to so much trouble in replying to me. I do appreciate your efforts.
I stand by dating the outbreak of World War Two to the invasion of Poland, as historians are wont to do. I am aware of all those preceding events you listed, but they led to the actual War; they were, strictly speaking not part of it. Maybe I am too much of a literalist here.
I do not deny that many thousands witnessed something extraordinary during the "Miracle of the Sun", including atheists, agnostics, anti-clericalists, lapsed Catholics, non-practising Catholics and maybe even occultists. It's probably unfair to label those who claim not to have observed the "Miracle" as liars to a man, unless one has proof of it. Some (how many?) could have been deceivers.
There was no need to add the "Fatima Prayer" to the Rosary, but WHICH prayer? There are several versions. We are not obliged to recite it, anyhow.
Unfortunately, the weird business of the "Two Lucys" exacerbates the mysteries and oddities surrounding Fatima.
TradWarrior, you bring up La Salette. The Church placed the Secret attributed to Melanie on the Index, if I am not mistaken, and forbade its dissemination. That prohibition was not lifted prior to our popeless period. By the way, excuse my pedantry here: it should be Blessed (NOT Saint) Peter Julian Eymard, as the Church has not yet canonised him (I don't accept Bogus Novus declarations of sainthood).
I have no problems with the number 13. It can signify Our Lord and His Twelve Apostles. It is absolutely absurd and superstitious refusing to have rooms numbered 13 in, say, hospitals and hotels.
Then there is the matter of occultists "knowing" about Fatima in advance...has anyone explained that one satisfactorily?
I do not reject Fatima outright, but I have what I consider to be legitimate concerns about it. So many mysteries remain! Pope Pius XII's approval of it doesn't clear up those puzzles. I maintain a prudent reserve, but will not impose it on anyone.
Thank you, TradWarrior!
Yours in the Faith,
Leo
Hi Leo,
DeleteThank you kindly for the response. This just leads to more questions.
If what you said is true about World War II, then where does that leave Our Lady’s words about the war starting during the pontificate of Pope Pius XI? If it is true what you say, then she would be wrong (an impossibility) or she never said this. This leads to even more questions.
Your points on ‘The Miracle of the Sun’ are very good.
There are several versions of the Fatima prayer, which leads to more puzzlement here, doesn’t it?
The two Sr. Lucia’s does indeed exacerbate the mysteries and oddities surrounding Fatima, I agree!
Yes, discussion of the Secret of La Salette was forbidden under The Holy Office of 1915, yet the apparition itself has been approved. This leads to more mystery and intrigue! And thank you for catching me on Peter Julian Eymard. It is indeed “Blessed” not “Saint.” Sometimes I forget that the “saint” status came from Roncalli onwards, and you are completely correct. Thanks for stating that fact.
And finally, you are correct. Pope Pius XII approving of the apparition doesn’t clear up these puzzles.
You write very well Leo. I am glad that you have contributed to Introibo’s blog in your commenting these last several months.
Like you, I am puzzled by so much of this.
Introibo or Steve Speray – perhaps you can offer a little help here with understanding all of this (Lol!)
God bless you Leo (and all who read this great blog).
-TradWarrior
Dear TradWarrior,
DeleteAnother interesting contribution from you, worthy of consideration.
Just because the Church has approved of Fatima, it doesn't mean she has guaranteed the genuineness of the statements ascribed to Our Blessed Lady there, let alone the private revelations Sister Lucy claimed to have had subsequently. How do we know that the Mother of God explicitly said that WW2 would break out at the time of Pope Pius XI? Answer: We don't. Yes, indeed, we can be sure that Our Lady appeared at La Salette, but some of what it is claimed she said there has been proved wrong. One could go on and on discussing the ramifications of these things!
A few American families moved to Portugal, believing they would be safe from Communism there, because the Blessed Virgin of Fatima would not allow that country to fall to the Reds. Guess what happened? The Commies orchestrated the Portuguese Revolution in 1974, leaving not a few disillusioned Americans. Were they correct in putting so much trust in what they thought Our Lady had said?
My father, who distrusted Roncalli from the outset, still expected him to reveal The Third Secret before 1960 was out. When that didn't happen, Dad's enthusiasm for Fatima declined somewhat, while his doubts regarding Jolly John increased markedly.
May the Holy Family watch over you and yours, TW,
Leo
Thank you TW and Leo for continuing the Fatima conversation. Please keep ongoing or collaborate with Mr Speray to write a post??
DeleteRegardless of 13 being of God or freemason manipulation/symbolism to mock God, I think we know masons have their hand in this one way or another. When in NO I attended a few Fatima events and it was beyond spooky the freemasons handling the traveling statue and all showing up in church lots with their freemason badges and car license plates etc and acting like militants, globalist not church militant. One of these Fatima events in NO included showing up at the church at 3am (their witching hour opposite of time Christ died on Cross) and having some weird man from Phillipines go around the Church and place Rose petals on our chests (mostly women) and then many of us had an image of the BVM appear on the petal, including me.. More signs and wonders to keep us there?
What do you all think of BVM purportedly telling the seers about the very young girl who would be in Purgatory until the end? If so, if someone just over age of reason has such a Purgatory stay, what about the rest of us? Most of us with no access to true sacraments? So many questions...blessings on all!
Dear Leo,
DeleteYou are definitely correct that when an apparition is approved, it does not mean that every statement attributed to Our Lady, the seer, etc. are accurate. This does happen a lot with human error mixed in. This makes all of these supernatural events that much murkier and the likelihood of us knowing the Truth in this life is pretty small. That is the unfortunate thing.
Good for your father for doubting “Good Pope John” in those early years. He was proven correct.
Your story of American families moving to Portugal made me think of some own people that I know. I know of a man who is an R & R who is excessively paranoid and who thinks that he has everything figured out within the next few years. He “knows” what will happen in the U.S., Europe, Russia, etc. geopolitically and how everything is going to play out politically and in the Catholic Church in the next few years, or at least much of it. He is a “prepper” in the true sense of the word. I am not saying that some of his preparations are bad and he definitely makes some interesting claims, but one area (and there are other areas too!) where he goes wrong BIG TIME (emphasis added) is his belief that he needs to stay near a Catholic Church (Novus Ordo, mind you) so that he can have access to true priests and true sacraments when things get “really bad.” Lol! I eventually shared with him (in great detail) how the Sedevacantist position is the True position and he would hear none of it. To him, I am a schismatic, even though he had no refutation to anything that I shared with him. I did a really nice job explaining this to him and backing it up with so many resources to help him. He had no refutation and none of his Novus Ordo “priest” friends have a refutation either. He cut all contact with me. The sad part is I helped him with a personal matter in charity. I just wanted to be charitable and was willing to go out of my way to help him a few years ago. He was very appreciative at the time. He needed help with something. This entire matter came full circle recently and he never reached out to me, although I could have greatly assisted him with the matter at hand. He never contacted me because he knows that I am a Sedevacantist and that I need to be “stayed away from", according to his Novus Ordo “priest” friends, who by the way could not dismantle the smallest fraction of evidence of what I wrote to him. Nope, he and his “priest” friends are correct and I am the loon. Oh well. I tried! Lol!
CONTINUED…
DeleteThen there is another person I know who is also paranoid and worried about how “things will soon get very bad in the church, country, and world”. She carries her excessive worry over to all of her children who understand what their mom is saying but they believe (and probably rightfully so) that she is way over the top! She frightens them and she tells them that they may have to leave quickly in the middle of the night when things get bad with only their backpacks and whatever they can carry. She means well and is naturally protective, but she takes things way too excessively in the wrong direction (again, ‘In Medio Stat Veritas’). She is also an R & R and she believes 'The Warning’ (Illumination of Conscience) mentioned at Garabandal is true and could come to fruition any day now and when it does, her family may have to be on the move very quickly to stay away from “the bad people.” Of course, she was saying this 10 years ago and nothing happened, but she has not relented. She will not relent. She is a very knowledgeable person and she rejected Francis as a false pope not long after his “election” and she knows Vatican II contains heresy, etc., but when I was trying to help her “get to the next step” and eventually see that Sedevacantism was the only logical conclusion to the situation in the church, she flat out got angry, combative, and lashed out at me because I “went into schism” (Lol). She, like the other individual I mentioned, cut all contact with me. They both want to stay “in the church” and near their Novus Ordo “priests” who will give them the real sacraments. I was like, “Um…yeah...okay…whatever you say” (Lol!) To them, I am kind of like the Boogeyman now.
God bless you Leo. Thanks for sharing those stories. Believe me, I have so many of my own, they would crack you up (Lol!).
Keeping you and everyone in prayer!
-TradWarrior
Thanks for sharing all these Novus Disordo stories. I have a zillion of the same. Sad stuff day in and day out. Imagine what heaven thinks of such nonsense.
Delete@anon12:57pm,
DeleteThank you for the compliments and for sharing your testimony. In terms of writing something on this topic in great detail, Introibo or Steve would be far better and it is my hope that at some point they do. Steve did a great job on Guadalupe and he could do a similar job with Fatima, no doubt.
In terms of your story, yes, that is indeed frightening, but it does not surprise me. Where God is, the devil is not far behind, so the freemasons wanting to distort and disrupt the Fatima narrative would be par for the course.
I always found the story of Amelia to be perplexing. She was young and would be in Purgatory until the end of the world according to what was told to the children. Yet it seems that people have committed worse offenses that would take longer to make expiation for the temporal punishment on their souls after death. This just adds to the mystery.
God bless,
-TradWarrior
@anon3:57pm,
DeleteYou’re welcome. I am sure we all have stories. I was in a small group discussion one time and I made reference to Luciani (John Paul I) being murdered and the table kind of froze and one woman shut down the whole conversation and said we shouldn’t talk about such things. I should have replied, “Oops, you’re right. He probably just died peacefully in his bed of a heart attack. Nothing bad ever happened at the Vatican.” Lol!
-TradWarrior
I am pretty sure close to 70% of the things that are said about Fatima are fake. Did you know about the false apparitions surrounding Lourdes?
DeleteTradWarrior,
DeleteI agree with your analysis. As I wrote before:
I have frequently wrote against those I label "Apparitionists:" They are people who exalt private revelations and 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.
It is OK NOT to believe in approved apparitions, but I believe it would be the height of folly to do so. Why does God give us a Magisterium if you think it cannot be safely followed? I wrote against those who ascribe Fatima and La Sallette as "demonic." 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.
Read the full post here:
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2024/12/are-fatima-and-la-salette-of-demonic.html
It also contains the 1915 decree of the Holy Office regarding "The Secret of La Salette.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Poni,
DeleteSee my post:
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2023/06/diabolical-influence-around-authentic.html
God Bless,
---Introibo
Poni...tell me about Lourdes please! I almost stayed in NO bc of Lourdes as I met a nun named same that day as I was escaping. She delayed it a bit for me as I was impressed with her. There are holy seeming people in NO which keep one there and square, sadly.
DeleteDear TradWarrior,
DeleteA further story concerning my late father. Back in the 1970's, he became alarmed that a local [formerly] Catholic paper was promoting all sorts of leftist causes, so he wrote to its priest editor (very much a Modernist) to complain. He received a terse response: "I am following the Holy Father [Montini]. Do you want to be disloyal to him?" Dad couldn't be bothered replying, but made it clear that "the Pope is a crook." Unfortunately, my father never adopted the sedevacantist position, but followed the SSPX party line.
Regarding La Salette, I was intrigued to read the following:
https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/g032_Judg-15.htm
Make of it what you will.
God bless you,
Leo
https://youtube.com/watch?v=eR98XJaxKTU&lc=UgzJcXyMAUp1uo6JFHd4AaABAg&si=v-8Wclj5zn8F9uWr
DeleteCFPodcast posted a video on Fatima yesterday and someone made the following quote fyi:
The Third Secret of Fatima refers to the false vatican 2 church. Here is the likely Third Secret revealed to a French priest by the name of Raymond Arnette: "There will be a wicked council planned and prepared that will change the countenance of the Church. Many will lose the Faith; confusion will reign everywhere. The sheep will search for their shepherds in vain. A schism will tear apart the holy tunic of My Son. This will be the end of times, foretold in the Holy Scriptures and recalled to memory by Me in many places. The abomination of abominations will reach its peak and it will bring the chastisement announced at La Salette. My Son's arm, which I will not be able to hold back anymore, will punish this poor world, which must expiate its crimes.
One will only speak about wars and revolutions. The elements of nature will be unchained and will cause anguish even among the best (the most courageous). The Church will bleed from all Her wounds. Happy are they who will persevere and search for refuge in My Heart, because in the end My Immaculate Heart will triumph."
This version of the Third Secret seems more likely with each passing day!"
Has anyone heard of Father Alonso amd his now buried life work on Fatima? Was he ordained prior to V2? I don't understand why the secret would be scheduled for a future date (1960) by a false pope? So perhaps someone has lied about all these dates?
Check the blog post shared by the Editor.
DeleteI know what he says...thought you may have extra info. Sorry you don't. I will not put much faith in apparitions especially after learning so much...
DeleteDear Anonymous at 6:12 AM,
DeleteSince Father Joaquín María Alonso was born in 1907 (he died in 1981), it is highly likely that he was ordained before "V2".
Fr. Alonso made the "mistake" of defending the authenticity of Father Fuentes' 1957 interview with Sister Lucy, but his biggest "crime" was his opinion that the Third Secret related to apostasy reaching to the highest echelons of the Church. That is why Fr. Alonso's massive 24-volume work was stopped from being published in 1975.
In Our Lady of Fatima,
Leo
Thanks Leo!
DeleteAnd thanks John Gregory for this post!
Prayers for all! 🙏
The actual secrets of La Salette were published in 1999. The SSPX website has the published secrets in a post entitled "La Salette: 170 years ago". They don't include any prophecy that "Rome will become the seat of the AntiChrist."
DeleteSee the truerestoration.org post entitled "The Holy See and the Secret of La Salette" for a translation of a French summary of what happened regarding the suppression of the writings of Melanie which were not the original secrets and contain the so-called prophecies that many Catholics wrongly believe to have come from Our Lady.
Dear Anonymous at 5:34 PM,
DeleteBut see:
https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/g033_Judg-16.htm
Leo
Introibo:
DeleteThank you for the link regarding your post on La Salette. I haven't yet found time to read it, though, in advance, could I ask does it specify what is licit to read and what is not?
If not, could you, or a reader, give some guidance?
Leo, thanks for drawing our attention to this TIA post and the other g032_Judg-15 post that you note in your 12:18 comment above. I read TIA regularly, but overlooked those two TIA La Salette pieces. They cover the subject of a recent highly scholarly work published about these apparitions, which clearly demonstrates, among other things, that the words "Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist" ARE part of the authentic La Salette messages. Contrary to what Anon of 5:34 is stating.
DeleteGod bless you, John !
ReplyDeleteGod bless you my friend. God is smiling upon as He refines you like gold in fire.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
DeleteConcentrate on getting better, my friend! Prayers for you always. We are lucky to have your sage guest posts!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Thank you very much Intriobo. I'm lucky to have the honor to post here. Thank you very much for the opportunity!
DeleteThank you very much Trad Warrior and Simon!!!
ReplyDeleteOne thing sedevacantists (Catholics) can unite on is fasting and abstaining the whole day on Holy Saturday instead of doing it "until noon" because that is the way Pope Pius XII decreed it.
ReplyDeleteLee
Lee,
DeleteYes, we can do so as long as we are physically capable. However, anyone who ends at noon commits no sin in so doing.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteI would say the sede bishops and priests (which consists of most for the exception of the CMRI and few others) are committing a serious sin for telling people the opposite of what Pope Pius XII changed. The laity themselves may by obeying a wrong a command and through ignorance not be committing a sin but it's their responsibility to know the general laws on which days to fast an abstain.
Take myself for example. When I first started going to a sedevacantist chapel I had just turned 21. When Lent rolled around I had no idea that the Church used to mandate people to fast the entire season of Lent but found out by looking at a traditional calendar. In the Novus Ordo Church only Ash Wednesday and Good Friday are the days a person between 21-59 are required to fast and abstain under pain of sin (excluding those who are exempt). I realized how much harder the Church used to be and simply obeyed it because it was to my understanding that if I'm going to be consistent, I would have to obey the Church's commands on fasting and abstaining prior to Vatican II since I didn't believe the Vatican II church commands were valid.
If it's not a big deal that Pius XII changed the fasting and abstaining laws for Holy Saturday, then why worry about fasting and abstaining during the whole of season of lent, ember days, and certain feasts such as the vigil of Pentecost?
Another problem I have is how some clergy tell people in America that they don't have to fast on St. Patrick's day or abstain on the Friday after Thanksgiving. For St. Patrick's day they claim (don't cite) that the American bishops dispensed from that day because of so many Irish parishes that were in America. The problem is was for all dioceses? Do the sede bishops who do not claim any territory have the power to dispense? For Thanksgiving Pope Pius XII is cited but what is omitted is how it was only an indult for 1958.
Lee
Lee,
DeleteIt was Pope Pius XII who EXTENDED the time for Lent to include all of Holy Saturday and NOT end at noon! It is a problem with picking and choosing Pian reforms. ALL must be accepted. According to Fr. DePauw, Pope Pius XII granted the Friday after Thanksgiving and St. Patrick's Day for all Catholics living in the United States. I never asked for a citation, but that's what was done in the late 1950s and being an approved canonist, Father would know. Fr always said we should accept whatever was accepted, and reject whatever was rejected as of October 9, 1958--that day Pope Pius XII died. Wise advice!!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Sadly, another very young man died in a tragic accident...NO seminarian. Not sure if people see all those in NO dying daily. I know soooo many!
ReplyDeletePlease pray for the repose of the soul of Seminarian, Charles Outtier.
With deep sorrow, we ask for prayers for Charles Outtier, a French seminarian and deacon of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest in Gricigliano. He died on January 15 in a tragic tractor accident while serving on the seminary grounds. Preparing for priestly ordination this July, he was known for his joy, fidelity, and love for the Church.
Before his passing, he was anointed and received the Apostolic Blessing. Please pray for the repose of his soul, for his family, and for his brothers and superiors in the Institute as they grieve this great loss.
Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord,
and let perpetual light shine upon him.
May his soul, and the souls of all the faithful departed,
through the mercy of God, rest in peace.
Amen. 🙏✝️
John Gregory,
ReplyDeleteThe end of your article sums up very nicely the remedy to so much of the errors and evil that exists in this world. We need prayer, fasting, and almsdeeds to combat the bad that is occurring everywhere. That was the perfect ending to your article!
Keeping you in my daily prayers!
God Bless you,
-TradWarrior
Thank you Trad Warrior that means alot coming from you. Love your commentary!
ReplyDeleteDear John G,
DeleteIt was very remiss of me for not having acknowledged and thanked you earlier for your informative and inspiring article about the Most Holy Eucharist. One doesn't find writings of that calibre emanating from the Bogus Novus circus.
May Saint Paschal Baylón intercede for you and those nearest and dearest to you.
With much appreciation,
Leo
Thank you my friend! I enjoy reading your posts.
DeleteHello Vianney
ReplyDeleteNice to hear from someone in France and to know you watch the Masses of Father Jean Luc Lafitte whom I knew very well when he was with the SSPX and based in New Zealand. A very good priest. I remember well his offering of the Holy Mass and how after the both elevations of the Sacred Host and the precious Blood , he would bring them down very slowly while all eyes were fixed on them.
I will pray for your mother Marie Agnes . May our Blessed Mother keep you both always under her Mantle.
May God bless you
TradSedeCath,NZ
It should say Precious Blood with a Capital P. Typing error. Sorry and apologies.
ReplyDeleteMay God bless you
TradSedeCath,NZ
Great writing John and prayers for you. As a reader of this blog for a while ,there is so much good info every week as well as the great comments. Regarding the SSPX, they are so blind not to see Apostate Rome laughing at them. There is a good writing on Novus Ordo Watch just released.
ReplyDeleteThank you friend! Novus Ordo Watch is top notch. Don't forget to pray for Mario. He is so solid it is hard to imagine he needs prayers, but he does.
DeleteYes, a great writing on NOW. What made us feel sick is to see the superior general of the SSPX standing there next to that apostate pervert with a smile on his face.
ReplyDeleteGod bless, Thomas
Dear Thomas,
DeleteThe head honcho of the SSPX and the pervert next to him both have those sickly smiles because, in plain sight, they are telling the world - as if we didn't know already - that they are playing a diabolical game, pretending to be at odds, but in actual fact being co-operators in advancing The Great Apostasy. If people think this judgment is too harsh, they should wake up and smell the coffee (or roses, if you prefer). The weird show going on in Rome is puke material. 🤮
God bless you,
Leo
Yes, puke material, as Leo well states. I assume that these previous several comments are in reference to the Feb. 12 NOW post "Vatican Proposal to SSPX: Call Off the Bishops' Consecrations and We'll Talk!". What I found most noteworthy about the contents of that post, was the full text of Jeremiah 1:10, taken by Mario from Pope Boniface VIII = "I have set thee this day over the nations, and over kingdoms to root up, and to pull down, and to waste, and to destroy, and to build, and to plant." That particular verse aligns in meaning and application, with another verse in the biblical book of Judges. Also of interest in that particular comment section, are comments (not that I (completely) agree with them) concerning Bishop Roy and his thesis. And the commentator "TheCloakofZeal" (= not me) is telling Mario and others about a "riddle". Ahem. Riddles.
Deletehttps://www.papalencyclicals.net/bon08/b8unam.htm = Unam sanctam ecclesiam catholicam et ipsam apostolicam... And associated with that, "Instaurare Omnia in Christo!" (Ephesians 1:10) * 777333.
Samson Chronicles (17B) JG solves the riddle!!
ReplyDeleteConcerning John Gregory, the author of the above blog post, over 20 years ago, he actually published this prose gem (with my own added annotations in brackets = [ ] ):
"Here's another argument that could easily be termed a riddle... A heretical non-pope [= nope] is [or is] not [?] a heretical non-pope [= nope] until after he is declared [to be, or, not to be, that is the question... well, yes, actually, to be] a heretical non-pope [= nope]... [Huh? =] That makes as much sense as saying the man is a snake. But we must not consider the man to be a snake [oil salesman?] until he is authoritatively and officially declared to be a snake. Regardless of the fact that this snake slithered into the Church just as satan did when he first took the form of a serpent in the Garden, let us say this man/snake lived from 1964 to, oh say, 2020. The man/snake is declared to have never been a man but to have always been a snake in the year 2040. Yet from 1964 until 2040 we are compelled to believe under the force of excommunication and or schism that the snake was in fact a man? If we are to believe that, well then, dear reader, we must believe the world is flat as well. All riddles aside, the fact of the matter is that [ ... the answer to Samson's riddle] ... is ... faith ... faith ... AMDG JG"
Thank you very much, JG. To be continued, in part 17C, with a source citation and further comments. 777333.
Samson Chronicles (17C) Our earth is cube shaped!!
ReplyDeletehttps://dailycatholic.org/issue/05Dec/dec21mas.htm is the source of the JG riddle quote of 17B, where you can read the whole text in full context, dated Dec. 21, 2005, and titled with the heretical sounding (but merely ironic or sarcastic) "The World is Flat!" Or, is it shaped like Rubik's Cube?! Look at it yourself, as seen on that webpage!
Anyway, dear Mr. John "Our earth is a cube!" Gregory, congrats! I consider you to be a "TradCat Olympic Gold Medalist" which you earned by publicly pointing out over 20 years ago, the correct answer to what many consider to be the most famous riddle of all time. Not that this was all that difficult a riddle to solve. The answer is noted right where Samson is noted in Hebrews 11:32-34. And the word "faith" is re-iterated over 20 times in that chapter 11. Even so, people like Leo were apparently flummoxed by this riddle. Leo even complained to me about it, in his Jan. 31 at 1:33 comment of the Jan. 26 "Old Errors..." post, which was in response to my SC17A Jan. 16 at 9:58 comment of Introibo's Jan. 12 "R&R" post. In the comment section of that particular R&R blog post, we find, curiously enough, an assortment of R&R = Riddles and Riddles, by TW & Leo. 777333.
https://www.dailycatholic.org/2017ftt.htm is the John Gregory D.C. article archive list. FYI.
DeleteThere is no dark side of the moon, really. JG is not a "Flat Earther", really. Obviously, he was only rhetorically pretending to be one. Wiki = "Flat Earth". Grok = "Myth of the F. E." & "F. E. belief". Introibo published "A Flat Denial" (Sept. 12, 2022). JG made a Sept. 22 comment to that post. Really, need more be noted?
DeleteSteve Speray has written an excellent article on his blog. In it, he lists Sedevacantists who are not Catholics at all or are not Catholics in good standing. He lists 3 groups towards the end of his article: 1) Feeneyites 2) Home Aloners (these are strict home aloners, not home aloners who have no Mass options near them) 3) Sede groups who reject The Holy Week Liturgy of 1955. He expounds a bit on #3 and he lists 2 articles that Introibo wrote.
ReplyDeleteAt one part of his article he says the following: “CMRI is one group that has a rock-solid Catholic foundation. I’m very happy with them! Bishop Pivarunas and his priests are dynamite! However, most of us Catholics have to rely on one of these other groups for our sacraments and it’s unfortunate that they have to be so pertinacious in their errors.” I agree with everything that he has written here.
It would be very interesting to see what the leaders of the other Sede factions have to say including the SSPV, RCI, SGG, etc. Steve mentions how many Sede factions display cultish behavior. Again, I agree wholeheartedly with him and I have witnessed this personally time after time after time.
Steve said that he prays that these other factions come to their senses and humble themselves. I am curious how others like Bishop Sanborn, Bishop Santay, Fr. Jenkins, Fr. Despósito, Bishop McGuire, and the others would respond?
-TradWarrior
I'm sorry to hear that Father Martin Stepanich is burning in Hell because he is not a Catholic. Too bad he didn't check with Steve to make sure he was doing the right liturgy first.
DeleteIt is reprehensible that at times like this when we need to unite and fight the evil together, we insist on fighting each other. I get along very well with Trad Warrior and Introibo on this site despite disagreeing with them on the issue while at the same time admitting that I could be wrong. This and the una cum heretic issue are two issues that should not divide us, especially to the point of declaring each other NOT CATHOLIC!!! in such a dimondesque fashion.
I declare with as much authoritative and binding force as Steve that there are 3 types of sedevacantists that are not Catholic:
1. Feeneyites
2. Home Aloners
3. Steve Speray
If Steve Speray dies without becoming someone else, he will burn in Hell for all eternity.
Look at the difference between what Steve writes and what John Gregory wrote so long ago, the world is flat, trying to keep us united.
Steve scandalizes, and hardens people in their stance causing more division amongst a group that is divided enough as it is.
Steve, allow more time for orthodox things to enter your head and less time for divisive things to come out of your mouth.
To AnonymousFebruary 14, 2026 at 9:08 AM:
DeleteDid you actually read the article carefully? The only group that I said was not Catholic were the Feeneyites! I didn't say the other groups were not Catholic. I said they are not Catholic in good standing which I qualified as dissident Catholics. We are supposed to do the right thing and when Catholics don't, we call them out, which I did and explained why.
As for Fr. Martin Stepanich, I didn't say or imply he was in hell. If he rejected the 1955 missal, he would have been wrong for the reasons I gave in 4 articles on the subject. By the way, true popes have been corrected by women in the past and the women were right!!!!
As for being divisive, Jesus said, "Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."(Matt:10:34-35)
When I call out those who do wrong and get accused of being divisive, I say thank you for accusing me of being like Jesus!
You accuse me of not being Catholic. I see that you don't understand Christianity at all. Next time you make a comment, make a reasonable argument rather than some sophomoric reply. How about this? Grow up!
This is an emotional response. Unity means nothing if it includes disbelievers. What you could have done instead, was to prove were Mr. Speray is wrong.
DeleteAnon. 9:08
DeleteI think you don't understand who really is being divisive. Those who Steve mentioned in the 3rd group of people in his article are the ones who do not want to unite with other clergy that don't agree with them. The 55 missal rejecters primarily come from all ex SSPX sedevacantists and everyone of them are as stubborn about that position as they are with all their other positions. We might as well call it positionism because they whole heartedly believe their position is the only right position in order to be Catholic.
SSPV rejects Thuc line and refuses sacraments to those who attend such priests but won't withhold them from those in the SSPX when the SSPX believe Leo is pope! What do you call that?
SGG do their own thing and refuse to work with the CMRI and Bp. Rodrigo da Silva, which if it were not for Bp. Pivarunas or Bp. da Silva their enterprise wouldn't even exist as they are now. No gratitude. No humility.
Bp. Sanborn says Bp. Roy's suggestion of calling for an imperfect council is absurd but yet we are to believe the thesis is not and that if we don't that we deny the Church's Divine constitution because their has to be a hierarchy even if they (material pope and cardinals) aren't real members of the Church. Come on.
Then you have the wild cards who've been secretly consecrated or ordained through Bp. Slupski's influence. I knew one bishop under this man who thought you would go to hell if you committed a venial sin, who thought Putin was secretly baptized a Catholic and that Pius XII no longer was pope after 1952. Does that sound normal?
I've seen people complain about the CMRI but it's usually from people who are unstable. The very people Steve warns about. I think they have the most Catholic spirit of all. The ones who truly obey who they believe is the last true pope. Who are after the salvation of all souls and not just those who have the money or who are in the click. I've known them for years now and compared to all the others I also know, I can attest to that.
Fr. Cekada once said why can't we all just get along. He and so many others apparently never looked very closely in the mirror.
From this point on I will never have anything to do with the above mentioned except the CMRI unless they like Steve says humble themselves and feel like uniting with Catholics in good standing because I've become allergic their endless nonsense.
Lee
Correction: I meant to say the 55 missal rejecters primarily consists of those sedevacantists who were once SSPX and are now ex SSPX.
DeleteLee
Steve,
DeleteThat was very well said. Your article was very well balanced.
Thank you.
Lee,
Your take on those different groups is very well written. I could not have done a better job than what you said.
Thank you for sharing.
Introibo,
I have shared my own past frustrations with you privately on what I have seen personally among some of the Sede factions. I was trying to be the good guy and help people to become traditional Catholics and the biggest obstacle to people coming into a Trad church (or the reason they left) was the priest and the people. And they should have been the greatest HELP to welcoming new people to become traditional Catholics. Talk about a messed up situation!
John Gregory,
I’ll say it again, the end of your article is the key to much of this disagreeing among the factions, as well as so much of the other evil in this world: Prayer, Fasting, & Almsdeeds. If people humbled themselves, sought the Truth with an open mind and heart, and did those three things you mentioned, the Catholic Church and the world would be much better off.
God bless you all,
-TradWarrior
Lee,
DeleteI agree with everything you say above. Except I do not condemn those who stick to the 3-year-reign of the new way of doing things. I'm at least consistent in that I admit I could be wrong on a topic the clergy "good and bad" cannot agree on.
If it is true that Bishop Pivarunas believes vital organs can be harvested from the brain "dead" then he is clearly wrong about that.
I have issues the all the outspoken ex SSPXers that you have with their cultish petty ways, but Father Stepanich was not that way. I trust his conclusions more than any of the other SV heroes that have gone before or who exist now. He was the only one left with a doctorate in theology.
I do want to unite with all clergy. I am not an entity unto my own. I admit, and have done so many times, that those who go with what is in place at the death of the last valid pope are correct on the surface at least. That at the very least they appear to take the safest and correct stance on the issue. But with all the hindsight we have I do not think it cut and dry.
I do not think everything was perfect on October 9th 1958 and became terrible October 28th 1958. Alot went on in the 50's and it was trending in a certain direction before the death of Pius XII and under his watch. I have a right to that opinion and shouldn't be lumped together with feeneyites and home aloners because of it.
I can't believe it is as simple as people prefer to wish it to be; otherwise Father Stepanich would have just gone along with it. He had as much integrity as the CMRI folks and more than the other SVs you correctly mention as not being the best apples on the cart.
I call out all those above for condemning the PIAN changes and those who go along with them as much as you do, as I believe it along with the una cum heretic thing are to be left to our informed consciences. I believe neither side should condemn the other on either of those positions. So I am at least consistent. If the other clergy who hold my opinion as if it was dogma were more humble, and perhaps less greedy and cultish perhaps we would not be so divided.
Consider the divisions:
1. Siri
2. Cassiciacum
3. Thuc
4. Home alonism
5. Feeeneyism
6. Harvesting of organs, NFP, body piercings, tattoos, women in pants etc.
7. The Bugnini changes
8. Actively participating at una cum anti-Christ Masses.
I'm not sure why anyone under categories 7 and 8 should be condemned in our current circumstances on either side of those issues. The same would be true with number 6 apart from the harvesting of vital organs.
I cannot as readily say Father Stepanich is wrong as our great scholar Steve Speray seems to be in a position to do.
I admit I could be wrong on those last two positions. I wish the SSG, SSPV and Sanborn could do the same.
CONTINUED:
DeleteWith all the above divisions, why do we have to make the last two a thing? I ask that of the SSG, SSPV and Sandborn as well as you, if you condemn me for holding the opinion I hold on the Pian changes.
I believe the last two positions along with questioning approved apparitions should be left to the next valid pope and should not be a source of division amongst us.
I do not think people should go out of their way to condemn The Mystical City of God either.
I've said over and over that the CMRI is the least cultish and I respect Bishop Pivarunas above the rest along with his priests more than the other well-known groups, by far. I do not condemn them at all for their position on the pian-changes. In the objective realm they cannot be condemned for sticking to the updated novel changes in place at the death of the last Pope. But I do not condemn those who stick with what he had from Gregory the Great through 1954 either.
What Pius V did was more a reigning in and uniting than updating the liturgy.
I'm not sure how anyone who is aware of all that went on in the later years of Pius XII can not have some questions about what was really going on behind the scenes. There are things he did which seem inexplicable.
Would you agree that being lumped together with feeneyites and home-aloners is not the highest compliment?
Just think of the irony of those who stay at home if their only option is what was in place from Gregory the Great through 1954.
I say this as Catholic that is not dissident and respects your opinion on an issue that more qualified minds than ours disagree with. I hope good, humble knowledgeable Catholics do not think of me as a dissident Catholic.
We have bigger fish to fry than condemning one another over the last two issues. If I am wrong, please take the time to show me how.
Your Friend in Christ and
His Most Holy Mother,
John Gregory
To John Gregory: You write: "I cannot as readily say Father Stepanich is wrong as our great scholar Steve Speray seems to be in a position to do."
DeleteAre you just being a smartass now? Did you read my articles on the issue??? I explained in 4 articles why rejecting the 55 missal is wrong and you come on here saying, "I'm not sure why anyone under categories 7 and 8 should be condemned in our current circumstances on either side of those issues."
For your information, the 55 missal rejecters are saying OUR Holy Week mass is harmful, evil, leads to the new mass, etc. and you're going to say you don't know why that should be condemned!? You want to wait for a future pope to tell you what the Church already says on the issue? Half the Church can't say the other half is doing an evil liturgy and then say our differences are just our permitted opinions. It doesn't work that way. It's wrong and its sinful!
Btw, I didn't lump 55 missal rejecters in the same category as Feeneyites. You should actually read what I wrote before making comments about what I said.
If you detect an angry tone, then you would be right! I don't appreciate what you said about me and then misrepresent what I said.
In one of his recent livestreams, Bp. Sanborn called those who obey the Pian liturgical changes as not being serious. He's an extremely intelligent clergyman which makes his remark all the more harmful.
DeleteLet's forget for a moment it's 2026 and we've been without a pope for nearly seven decades (apparently, not a big deal for many sedevacantists who enjoy just hobnobbing with their favorite sede clergy and I do not mean any of you who comment here). Imagine it's 1956 and your parish is going to celebrate the Holy Week liturgy according to the new papal decree. Do we dare go full Kwak beacuse the pope exercised his right to implement liturgical changes? Remember, Peter Kwasniewski has the temerity to reject the other Pian changes to the liturgy, those made by St. Pius X in the breviary. There is no stopping the R and R madness once you give it a try.
Fr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, one of the last staunchly anti Modernist theologians, pointed out in the mid or late 50s that the the liturgy of the Mass could very well look much different if the Pope wished so.
By all means, let us have a somewhat heated but still friendly and charitable discussion abut these things. I have learnt a great deal from you all.
God Bless,
Joanna
Only "somewhat" heated?
DeleteIs that really so, Joanna?
It's Sunday fun day here!
The day the NFL worships &
"Professional" Wrestling too.
A big Battle Royale Melee.
A feisty fight to the finish.
Introibo gets to be, the referee.
His nose will be made bloody.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Royale
May God bless all the hard core combatants.
Amen.
Not funny 🥀
DeleteDear Steve Speray,
DeleteFirst of all, you are correct, I did not read your article. Where you are incorrect, I do not claim the Pian Holy Week Mass is harmful, so let’s take that out of the equation. A valid pope cannot give us a harmful liturgy.
Another place where you are correct is that I incorrectly claimed you lumped those who go with what we had from Gregory the Great until 1954 with non-Catholics. I did a surficial reading of Trad Warrior’s comment and saw “1. Feeneyites, 2. Home-aloners, 3. Those who reject the 55 [novelties].
But in a certain sense, they are lumped together. Seeing myself linked with the feeneyites triggered me. It literally triggered me. I believe you as well as anyone would take offence if you perceived (rightly or wrongly) that you had been lumped together with the feeneyites.
I’ve been around, I see those who reject the novelties, being corrected by those I respect alot, by people like Introibo and Trad Warrior and others. I get it. I have no issue with that, just as if people I do not respect were to comment against that opinion such as the dimonds or those I do not know and would not care either way what they thought on the issue.
But our current issue, between you and me, reminds me of the 2005 – 2008 time-frame when Mike Cain, Griff Ruby, Tom Droleskey and I got in knock down drag out fights over the una-cum heretic issue.
Friendships could have ended. I believe Griff and I were pro-attendance while Mike and Tom were staunchly against it, I’ve gone back and forth on the issue 1000 times.
But the reason why I fought so hard with Mike and Tom, is because I looked up to them, they are my heroes and hurt me to see them take a position I disagreed with. You fall into the same category. I love the work you have done against the feeeneyites. So, I took it more seriously than the typical blogger when I heard you called us out and, on the surface, it seemed you lumped us together with the feeneyites. This is different than Trad Warrior and Introibo (who are also my heroes) merely point out that which on the surface at least, seems to be the correct and safest position to take without “lumping me in with the feeneyites”).
Father Cekeda, Bishop Sanborn and Bishop Dolon were my heroes as well, that stopped at a certain point. I lost friends for calling out Cekeda and Dolan over the school issue where they continually ignored the plea of parents calling for the removal of the principal who bullied the students there. And yes, they are all against the pian novelties which does not make that position look so good.
I remember feeling bad on how they treated Bishop Romalla, and how they forbidden their parishioners from reading the Four Marks, a publication I was banned from writing for when I wrote an article defending Bishop Romalla.
I believe very knowledgeable laypeople as well hold my position. Such as John Lane and John Daly and the people at WM Review. I could be wrong. I know Mario Derksen used to hold my position, and don’t think it didn’t give me pause when I found out he changed his position on the issue, I have mammoth respect for him. He has been a mentor to me.
It reminds me of the Cassiciucum theory, where it was not thought of much, but more and more people were taking the position or at least starting to become more open to it, and now it seems people are waking up to the untenableness of that issue, at least now, if it was tenable until 1964 or some time. I was disappointed to see Steven Heiner go in that direction, and the French clergy, I guess because the inventor of that theory was French.
CONTINUED:
DeleteSince I became SV, everyone I looked up too, at least at the time, Griff, Mario, Cekeda, Dolan, Sanborn etc. Were against the novelty. My parish priest for a long time, who was anything but SV at the time, was against the novelties as well and stayed with liturgy from Gregory the Great through 1954. I then got in contact with Father Stepanich over the feeneyite and una-cum Benedictio issue and he did the pre-55 liturgy. This made an impression on me.
Then in my own studies when I read Pius V Quo Primum, how he standardized the Mass in perpetuity and how the popes through 1954 did not dare mess with it. Then Pius XII with Mediator Dei seemed like at the time, 1947, who would never capitulate. But low and behold, he did, cutting out prayers, taking away octaves, etc. Things a valid pope can do, John XXIII continued the trend, still doing what a valid pope could do.
Add to that all the priests I know that don’t fall into petty-cultist also held my position.
My point when being a “smartass” (I was in part being one) was to get across the fact that greater minds than ours are divided on it including those who are not petty-cultist trying to keep their flocking from going anywhere else.
So, who are we as lay-people to disagree with good clergy on the issue and “lump together” the pre-55ers with feeneyites and ipso facto declare them “dissident” when the issue is much thornier than that? I do not know if the non-cultist clergy, admit that they can be wrong on the issue as I do or not. I believe they give it as their opinion and what they chose to go with having a clear conscience about it, without condemning those who disagree. I’m not sure what is so wrong with the position.
I stand by the fact that there are bigger fish to fry and that we have enough legitimate things dividing us to make this an issue that even further divides. You will have difficulty convincing me otherwise.
I hope you understand where I am coming from and would not have defended my position publicly like that had I not had the respect for you that I have. It may sound weird, but it is true.
Very Sincerely and Respectfully,
In Christ and His Most Holy Mother,
John
To John Gregory: Thank you for your kind reply!
DeleteI'm not sure what position you're referring to when you state: "I believe very knowledgeable laypeople as well hold my position. Such as John Lane and John Daly and the people at WM Review. I could be wrong. I know Mario Derksen used to hold my position, and don’t think it didn’t give me pause when I found out he changed his position on the issue, I have mammoth respect for him."
As for the 1955 Missal, the liturgy has been changed numerous times since Quo Primum of Pope St. Pius V. In fact, Pope St. Pius V himself messed with the liturgy after Quo Primum. Therefore, it's not true when you stated, "how the popes through 1954 did not dare mess with it." I will do a future article naming all the changes to the mass since Quo Primum.
Be that as it may, you state: "Where you are incorrect, I do not claim the Pian Holy Week Mass is harmful..." However, I never said or implied that you made that claim. I didn't know your position. I'm still not sure what your position is based on what you wrote. Here's the thing, if there's nothing wrong with the 55 missal, why reject it for an earlier liturgy? Would it be okay to reject the missal of Pope St. Pius V for a liturgy of the 4th century? See the problem? There's no reason to do an earlier missal if there's nothing wrong with the most up-to-date missal and we don't get to decide what liturgy we get to do. Everyone I've seen (except you) do the pre-55 missal precisely because they believe the 55 missal is harmful in someway. That is wrong and very sinful!!! You don't think we should make this an issue, but as I wrote, "it is most definitely false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous." Those are the words of Pope Pius VI on the issue where this thing is addressed. It cannot be ignored or worse accepted as a permissible opinion.
Thank you for the response Steve. When I talk about people holding my position I mean they preferred the pre-55 liturgy. Perhaps Mario would prefer that not be out there and I hope I didn't lack prudence and state that. He didn't tell me directly but I gleaned it. Then when I came out and asked him and was surprised at his current position I asked if this was always his position because I was under the impression it was not. He didn't directly say whether he changed or not but said a person can change their positions, it indicated to me that he has. Perhaps you could ask him directly. I'd be interested to know if he would admit he changed positions or if he prefers not to elaborate.
DeleteIn regards to "messing with it", I'm talking on a large and sweeping scale. There was some sweeping and severe changes. Not merely changing the rank or moving feasts. Also how long does it take to update? Are we updated enough yet? Will the next valid pope continue to update? The pope was surrounded by bad people who were pressuring him. Even in America they were caving in to the cassocks and other things. It was all heading in the wrong direction.
I'm sure you will admit a pope is not guaranteed to always do the best thing at the best time. They can do imprudent things and cowardly things without going against what a valid pope can do.
They can do wrong things and still be a valid pope. If you look at the Jesuits, Calles, not consecrating Russia publicly by name in union with all the bishops, alot of other things in the history of the Church.
It took 'til Gregory the Great to let it properly form after the persecutions, so the argument of why not go back to how it was in the 300's instead of what Pius V standardized in perpetuity doesn't hold.
Something strange was afoot under Pius XII.
I'm older now, and do not have the time I did to redo all the research that led to my conclusion but when doing the research I did, it is really quite astounding what happened during the reign of Pius XII, including those he promoted despite knowing they were suspect of heresy.
I have been convinced by what I have seen online on the history and by the character of many good priests of our day, such as McMahon, Ahern and I forget the third priest who was of the original 12. Father Ringrose. Father Theilan, Stepanich etc.
I don't think the issue should divide us and I don't think we should be considered dissident. We have hindsight and we are not disobeying anyone. I'm a weary warrior that does not have the time for the fight as it were. It is not something I'm willing to get martyred for and I feel no need to prove I'm right (or not wrong).
Back when I looked into it, I came to a definitive conclusion, even if I have forgotten most of what led me to it. What I admit is wrong is to condemn CMRI's position on the issue, or worse, to forbid people from attending their Masses.
I believe there is more to the picture than either of us see.
Thank you very much for taking the time to respond to me Steve.
John Gregory
First, Mario is strongly against rejecting the 1955 Missal! If he changed, it was because he saw how wrong it was just as when we were in the novus ordo and changed out of it.
DeleteAs for the changes in the missal since Quo Primum, there have been at least 3 general revisions. Pope St. Pius X radically altered the missal!
Did you read why Pope Pius XII revised it? It was intended to be revised again as that was the intention of Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII.
Now you said there’s nothing wrong with the change and then you turn around and argue that there’s something wrong with it. That’s why I asked you, why reject it if there’s nothing wrong, but deep down you believe there is something wrong, which is impossible and not Catholic for you or anyone else to say.
You said it was headed in the wrong direction. Says you? Are you accusing the Catholic Church of going in the wrong direction with the liturgy change of 1955?
You believe Pope Pius XII did wrong with the 1955 Missal? Why? What's wrong?
You accuse the same pope of doing wrong by not consecrating Russia with all the bishops as asked at Fatima, but that’s your opinion. We are not obliged to believe in Fatima at all, and the fact you accuse the popes of doing wrong is a strike against Fatima, not the popes!
My argument about going back to the 4th century does hold because the principle is the same. Again, you write: “Something strange was afoot under Pius XII.”
Not with the 1955 Missal! Your entire argument about Pius XII surroundings and his response is irrelevant to your rejection of his missal.
Fr. Theilan did the 1955 Missal and he personally told me that he thought it was a very serious error to reject it as you’re doing!
You don't think the issue should divide us and you don't think you should be considered dissident, and you claim you are not disobeying anyone, but the fact is you are disobeying, you are dissident, and this is a dividing issue precisely because you’re under the censure of Pope Pius VI!
You think there's more to it than we both see, but I see it very clearly! You obviously don't, which is why you make the statement, but I also think it's pride.
Again, if there’s nothing wrong with the 1955 Missal, why are you rejecting it? Preference doesn’t give you a right.
You have passed judgment on the decision of the Apostolic See and therefore have done exactly what is forbidden by the First Vatican Council when it infallibly declared:
8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54].
I will not give you or anyone else a pass on this issue because it is simple and clear and there's no excuses! This is a very serious matter and it makes no sense why all the ex-SSPX clergy are continuing with their recognize and resist nonsense in sede land.
Thank you for this response Steve. I knew I was making your point for you when I said Mario does not hold the position I hold now. And stated "don't thing that didn't give me pause." I have more respect for him in regards to his person and his work than anyone. Introibo is right up there but I have known Mario since 2004 and Introibo more recently. Two of the most top notch dudes out there. :) Classy people and as solid of Catholics as I have known.
DeleteI'm supposing we are talking about the same Father Theilen. I met him in 2012. I would have asked him about the 55 novelties as that has been an important issue for me for decades. He had white hair at the time and did not seem in the best of health. How is he doing now? Was he from Illinois. Please tell him the Gregory family (from Front Royal Virginia that he visited) says hello.
Thank again for taking the time to respond. I believe you have done all you can do to help me now.
Very Sincerely and Respectfully in
Christ and His Most Holy Mother,
John Gregory
Fr Theilen died a couple of years ago. He was a fine priest!
DeleteHe was a fine priest from what I remember. He offered Mass at our house. I remember asking him why the brothers are so uncharitable despite praying the Rosary every day.
DeleteJohn Gregory
I see SGG gave his eulogy.
DeleteLee,
DeleteI hope all is well.
Did you see my response at February 15, 2026 at 2:41 AM
I'm not trying to convince you, just curious about your thoughts on what I wrote directly to you.
Omnia pro Jesu per Mariam,
John
Did you have any comments about what I wrote to you?
I think Mr Speray makes more sense than most.
ReplyDeleteLeo
ReplyDeleteThanks for your reply regarding SSPX. Talk about weak men.
Do you or anyone know the age of Father Joseph Greenwell of the SSPV?
Agree with your thoughts on SGG. I could never understand why Bishop McGuire rejected a well trained man like Bishop Roy of Canada. I have also been advised in the entrance to the church in Ohio, there is pictures of Bishop Thuc, Bishop Carmona, Dolan and McGuire . No picture of Bishop Pivarunas. What is going on there?
God's blessings, Thomas
Thomas,
DeleteFr. Greenwell was born in 1964.
God Bless,
----Introibo
Mr. Speray,
ReplyDeleteyou've told it like it is although many will consider your recent blog post as nothing more than stirring up a hornet's nest. Alas that they should think so rather than take a step back and re-consider their long-established and clique-like ways.
Lee and Trad Warrior,
I second every word you wrote (to those who find this sycophantic I have nothing to say).
The are veritable loons out their in sedevacantist circles, people who wear "Catholicism" as a fancy corsage of flowers pinned to the overcoat of their favorite political ideas. I've seen it with my own eyes.
It seems to me, most home aloners have been cornered into their sad position because of real (or exaggerated) hurt and scandal from ill-trained/ignorant/sociopathic clergy and lay people.
God Bless You All,
Joanna
P. S. I've been keeping all of you who visit and contribute in any way to this site in my poor prayers.
Dear Joanna,
DeleteYour "poor prayers" are much appreciated, as is your probable level of humility too, as your prayers are probably much more than "poor" in the eyes of the Immaculata. As concerns Mr. Speray, to whom you address your above comment, the vast majority of what he publishes is not problematic, or Introibo and others here would not praise him on this site, as they do. But sometimes Steve projects a certain literary vibe that has a certain way of rubbing people in a wrong way. For example, whoever it was who faked up the Guadalupe tilma must have been quite the badass (oops, I meant to say "smartass", as that was exactly how Steve referred to John Gregory above.) Then the theatrical Nope Ain't from Poland completed out the farce by... "canonizing" someone who never existed?!? Please pardon me, but even "Snopes" won't say... And Snopes specializes in such debunking. Guadalupe is another subject for another day. But I'm not the least bit impressed with the S.S. Guadalupe "thesis", which is no more than a poor quality rehash of earlier Internet stuff, and easily debunked by hard science. Forget about theology. Science alone would suffice for that.
I won't call you a "feminazi" Joanna. Nor will I refer to you as a Steve S. "Sycophant" (to quote your own word). But Steve sometimes uses inflammatory "feminazi" style language. He could have gotten his point across to John without resorting to such language. I don't know who that was, who was using Dimwit Duo verbiage, to damn him to eternal hellfire. That was quite inflammatory too, obviously. Above, you advocated for the use of "somewhat heated but still friendly and charitable..." Spot on. God Bless.
Anon 12:55,
DeleteYour comment rubs me the wrong way because you're being exactly what S.S. would say and no I am not going to type out the word.
As to his Guadalupe articles, I take it you didn't read it either, otherwise you wouldn't have made such a shallow comment.
I for one believe the story of Juan Diego but the reason S.S. does not is because the story didn't exist until 1649 from the Niccan Mopua which was written in the Nahuatl language by Antonio Valeriano. He contests that the story is real because nowhere in the history of Mexico and I invite you to look it up do we find Bp. Zumarraga (the bishop who would have first seen the Tilma) ever mention Juan Diego or the story we are told. In fact, it is the second bishop Alonso de Montúfar who is the first to ever promote it but it was Fray (Friar) Bustamente who in 1556 who was the first to officially mention it when he complains in an ecclesiastical court that the Indians were worshipping it. Nowhere does he or the other eight witnesses mention or defend its integrity because of the great story of Juan Diego which would've happened 25 years earlier in 1531. The story SHOULD match historical record but it does not.
We believe it simply because the Church has approved it because the Church believed in the Niccan Mopua as authentic. This does mean we are required to believe it even if it is approved
As to the miracles of the Tilma, S.S. doesn't have a problem with acknowledging them because there are many images which are miraculous which he gives examples of.
He's not imposing his ideas as something you have to believe any more than the clergy I mentioned above. He's never says anybody is going to hell but it's your implication that is what he means. I would like to see you call Steve S. a feminazi to his face, but I doubt you would. As mad as I get with certain people I try to refrain from going as far as you have and I advise you to stop, assuming you are the same anonymous that first replied to Trad Warrior above.
Lee
to Anonymous February 16, 2026 at 12:55 AM Had you actually read my 2 articles on Our Lady of Guadalupe, you would have not made your silly comment. You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Yes, telling the truth is a literary vibe that rubs people in error the wrong way. Funny how so many people come on here acting like they know something, criticizing things they know nothing about, all doing so under Anonymous.
DeleteAnon 12:55,
DeleteThank you for your comment.
I'm not a regular reader of Steve Speray's blog but from what I've seen he's dealt with some highly-strung heretical goofballs in his comment box that would make me lose my temper big time. I didn't like his reaction to what John Gregory wrote though. John is a great guest poster and a serious and good Catholic man.
God Bless,
Joanna
Joanna,
DeleteYes. John Gregory and Steve are both good men. Things can sometimes get heated, but we must remain charitable, especially to those of the household of Faith!
God Bless, my friend
---Introibo
Joanna, Intriobo,
DeleteThank you so much for the above comments. When I would debate on other blogs I would get piled on, but of course it didn't stop me. And this when I was clearly right. On this issue when I am not clearly right, you have shown me some charity and I appreciate that. It really meant alot to me. I was feeling bad and you helped.
Thanks Joanna! Prayers for you and all here too! I have no Mass so am home alone, I like to say like the Japanese in their 300 year span without Mass or priests.
ReplyDeleteAnon 1:43,
DeleteYour prayers are much appreciated!
It's a tough spot (I'm priestless too); may God have mercy on us.
God Bless You,
Joanna
Dear Joanna at February 15, 2026, 9:53 AM,
ReplyDeleteNiech będzie pochwalony Jezus Chrystus!
You mentioned the staunchly anti-Modernist theologian (as indeed he was), Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton. How tragic, then, that he capitulated to the so-called Vatican 2 Council, whose teachings on the nature of the Church, for example, contradicted what he held and wrote about. The poor man, like so many others, tried to reconcile two opposites. Maybe doing so had an injurious effect on Msgr. Fenton's already-delicate health and he died before the NOM was imposed. May he rest in peace.
Na wieki wieków. Amen!
Leo
Leo,
DeletePerhaps Fr. Fenton tried to stay sane amid the incomprehensible madness of Vatican 2 by convincing himself that things were not so bad after all. Seems like a mental self-defence mechanism. After all, the last entry in his Vatican 2 memoir says he was going to write on how Vatican 2 could be understood as orthodox. I don't think he really believed that though. It's hard to imagine the confusion back then if the best of theologians couldn't make any sense of it. Goes to show what a gem of a priest Fr. De Pauw was!
God Bless You,
Joanna
Joanna,
DeleteThank you for the kind words for Fr. DePauw! It was confusing for even the most brilliant minds, and orthodox believers---Fr. DePauw included. As he would say to me with his sense of humor, "If I had all the answers I run for God in November."
God Bless,
---Introibo
This comment is for TradWarrior near the top but this comment system is not perfect.
DeleteMy question is, why do you still believe in the Three Days' Darkness ? There will be no 3 days nor 'two witnesses'.
Cairsahr_stjoseph,
DeleteThank you for your question. I am open to the 3 Days of Darkness prophecy; however, I have been swayed more by Introibo, Steve Speray, and Fr. Dominic Radecki that it will not happen (as I clearly stated above). The mention of a Holy Pope and Great Monarch certainly has a lot of backing from the saints/mystics. Some of them place these 2 figures with the 3 Days of Darkness occurring one event after the other (3 DOD, then the 2 figures appear), while others do not place them together in their visions. We honestly do not know and like I said, we will all eventually find out in time. It’s not something to get overly hung up on since we have no way of knowing until we continue to move forward in time.
-TradWarrior
Fair enough. In fact, everything I've concluded up to this point is contingent upon its confirmation (or not) and may change as needed as things develop. Anyway you reminded me to remind myself of that. God bless.
DeleteYou’re welcome.
ReplyDeleteGod Bless,
-TradWarrior