The Bitter Cup and some Sweet Satire

After the publication of Traditiones Custodes which has sent the Traditional Catholic world reeling, countless questions are being asked. Yet there is one uncomfortable question we need to answer in these times of the Passion of the Mystical Body of Christ:

Can you drink the bitter cup that is now being offered to you?

Let us pray that together with the Apostles James and John we will not hesitate to say “We can.” Matt.20:22. The following teachings from the founder of the Society of the Divine Saviour (Salvatorians) Blessed Francis Mary of the Cross Jordan, may inspire us to do so in faith, hope and love:

“Still we have the task of becoming like the apostles. Therefore, we must above all else cling to the cross and be ready to drink the cup. I would like to say your main task is: bibere calicem, quam bibit Dominus noster, “to drink the cup which our Lord drank.” And how should we drink it, where, why, how will we receive it? We are walking in the footsteps of Jesus Christ, we seek to extend his kingdom, we seek to become like the apostles, we seek to spread the teachings proclaimed by the apostles, we seek to oppose the vices against which the Divine Saviour and the apostles laboured – that is why we will receive the cross. But how will we receive this cross? 

First we will receive it from hell, from the opponent of salvation, from the fierce enemy who hates everything which is from God, from the opponent who hates us and pursues us when we work to destroy his empire and spread the kingdom of Jesus Christ. Therefore, he will pursue us in all directions, as far as he can. So we must engage him in battle! But this cup is one of the easier ones to endure.

A more bitter cup comes from evil people. That is the second point: to be pursued by those evil people who attack us because we confront their passions in our desire to restrict their lack of restraint when we want to bring them under the law of Jesus Christ. And the wicked enemy will strengthen them, and these people will be worse than those who come from hell itself. We must drink the cup presented by evil people. 

A third cup an apostolic person must drink and which is even much more bitter is the one prepared for him by good people when they misunderstand him, his plans and his intentions; when as a result of this people believe they are doing something good when they obstruct them [his plans]! The Divine Saviour even says: One will believe he is doing a service to God when he pursues them! Therefore, you must also be ready to drink this cup, the cup of good people who mean well but who do not understand you well; that is, the cup they hand you. That is the third cup, but not yet the most bitter. 

The last, if God should pass it to you, is when even those appointed by God to support and guard you, even the church authorities, lay obstacles in your path. This is the fourth and most bitter! But God can insist that you drink this cup also. And if you were to ask a St. Francis or a St. Vincent which was the most bitter cup for them, they would say it was when I was forbidden by the superiors to preach.”

And for a bit of light relief from the shock of ‘Traditiones Custodes’, here’s a satirical offering from the unrivalled Eccles. You can read the hilarious post in its entirety over at ‘Eccles is Saved’ and show your appreciation in the combox:

Now the pope’s reasoning behind the repeal of Summorum Pontificum without even waiting for Benedict to die may be seen as just another case of loutish bad manners (like refusing to answer the Dubia, slapping pilgrims, snubbing Cardinal Zen, etc.) but in fact it is dealing with one of the worst crises in the church: the popularity of the traditional Mass.

After all, there can be nothing more serious! Child abuse, idol-worship, the persecution of the Church in China, Fr James Martin’s sodoministry, Devout Catholic Biden’s abortion mania, the widespread embezzlement of Vatican finances, the squandering of Peter’s Pence on dirty films, heretical papal documents, … all these are trivialities compared with the use of the same Mass as our grandparents used before Vatican II. **Did you genuflect when Vatican II was mentioned? I did. Fun, wasn’t it?**** Remember that Vatican II changed nothing at all. Which is why everything has changed. The cunning plan:

1. Blame the traditional Mass for causing a schism.
2. Cause a schism by banning it.

“All right, lads. You know where he lives. You know what you have to do. Priests: if you wish to celebrate a Mass in the Extraordinary Form, it is very simple now: all you need is for your bishop to ask the Pater Sanctus for a signed letter giving permission (one for every time you wish to celebrate). Pope Francis is very good at answering letters (ask Burke, Brandmüller, etc.) and will gladly take time off from his Pachamama devotions to scribble you a note. Curiously, some bishops are actually giving Pope Francis (and his evil side-kick the sinister Dr Rauci) a shock, by saying that they will continue to allow Latin Masses as before. Some really are “Traditionis Custodes” after all. Amazing!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Reactions to the shocking Suppression of Pope Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum

RORATE CAELI: Our comment?

The attack on Summorum is the strongest rebuke any Pontiff has done to any predecessor in living memory.

Shocking, and terrifying.

***We were also asked if this is “huge”. Yes, it is huge.

It is the most stinging rebuke by a Pope against his predecessor in living memory — there has never been anything like it. Remember that the document itself is just 14 years old, and that Benedict XVI is still alive.

Legally, it’s a complete mess. Benedict had made clear in Summorum that it is basically impossible for an ancient rite to be simply abolished.

Paul VI had never truly abolished it, it was implied, because he could not do it. And the commission of cardinals that advised John Paul II had basically said the same.

Now, in the article 1 of his document, Francis basically abolishes it.

You will forgive if Traditional Catholics who withstood much more difficult times under Paul VI are skeptical.

Basically, what we believe is that Francis IS NOT ENTITLED TO DO what he has just done.

And our inexorable growth will eventually force a future pope to do to Francis what Francis THINKS he has done to Benedict: the impossible abolition of something that has refused to die even under the direst of circumstances.

In practical terms, it will mean little in the beginning, but much more in the years ahead. It will probably lead to a considerable strengthening in the long term of the Society of Saint Pius X and its position.


More reactions to the Traditional Latin Mass suppressing Motu Proprio which some critics have referred to as “terrible”, “terrifying”, “cruel” and “shocking”:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Motu Proprio Day

From Fr Z’s blog:

My desire for salvation constrains me from significant commentary at this time.

Accompanying Letter to Bishops: HERE (only in Italian)

Motu Proprio: HERE  (only in English and Italian)

Accompanying Letter:

Rome, 16 July 2021

Dear Brothers in the Episcopate,

Just as my Predecessor Benedict XVI did with Summorum Pontificum, I wish to accompany the Motu proprio Traditionis custodes with a letter explaining the motives that prompted my decision. I turn to you with trust and parresia, in the name of that shared “solicitude for the whole Church, that contributes supremely to the good of the Universal Church” as Vatican Council II reminds us.[1]

Most people understand the motives that prompted St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to allow the use of the Roman Missal, promulgated by St. Pius V and edited by St. John XXIII in 1962, for the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The faculty — granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984[2] and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988[3] — was above all motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre. With the ecclesial intention of restoring the unity of the Church, the Bishops were thus asked to accept with generosity the “just aspirations” of the faithful who requested the use of that Missal.

Many in the Church came to regard this faculty as an opportunity to adopt freely the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and use it in a manner parallel to the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Paul VI. In order to regulate this situation at the distance of many years, Benedict XVI intervened to address this state of affairs in the Church. Many priests and communities had “used with gratitude the possibility offered by the Motu proprio” of St. John Paul II. Underscoring that this development was not foreseeable in 1988, the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of 2007 intended to introduce “a clearer juridical regulation” in this area.[4] In order to allow access to those, including young people, who when “they discover this liturgical form, feel attracted to it and find in it a form, particularly suited to them, to encounter the mystery of the most holy Eucharist”,[5] Benedict XVI declared “the Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and newly edited by Blessed John XXIII, as a extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi”,granting a “more ample possibility for the use of the 1962 Missal”.[6]

In making their decision they were confident that such a provision would not place in doubt one of the key measures of Vatican Council II or minimize in this way its authority: the Motu proprio recognized that, in its own right, “the Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite”.[7] The recognition of the Missal promulgated by St. Pius V “as an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi” did not in any way underrate the liturgical reform, but was decreed with the desire to acknowledge the “insistent prayers of these faithful,” allowing them “to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass according to the editio typica of the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as the extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church”.[8] It comforted Benedict XVI in his discernment that many desired “to find the form of the sacred Liturgy dear to them,” “clearly accepted the binding character of Vatican Council II and were faithful to the Pope and to the Bishops”.[9] What is more, he declared to be unfounded the fear of division in parish communities, because “the two forms of the use of the Roman Rite would enrich one another”.[10] Thus, he invited the Bishops to set aside their doubts and fears, and to welcome the norms, “attentive that everything would proceed in peace and serenity,” with the promise that “it would be possible to find resolutions” in the event that “serious difficulties came to light” in the implementation of the norms “once the Motu proprio came into effect”.[11]

With the passage of thirteen years, I instructed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to circulate a questionnaire to the Bishops regarding the implementation of the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. The responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene. Regrettably, the pastoral objective of my Predecessors, who had intended “to do everything possible to ensure that all those who truly possessed the desire for unity would find it possible to remain in this unity or to rediscover it anew”,[12] has often been seriously disregarded. An opportunity offered by St. John Paul II and, with even greater magnanimity, by Benedict XVI, intended to recover the unity of an ecclesial body with diverse liturgical sensibilities, was exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.

At the same time, I am saddened by abuses in the celebration of the liturgy on all sides. In common with Benedict XVI, I deplore the fact that “in many places the prescriptions of the new Missal are not observed in celebration, but indeed come to be interpreted as an authorization for or even a requirement of creativity, which leads to almost unbearable distortions”.[13] But I am nonetheless saddened that the instrumental use of Missale Romanum of 1962 is often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the “true Church”. The path of the Church must be seen within the dynamic of Tradition “which originates from the Apostles and progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit” (DV 8). A recent stage of this dynamic was constituted by Vatican Council II where the Catholic episcopate came together to listen and to discern the path for the Church indicated by the Holy Spirit. To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Petro et sub Petro in an ecumenical council,[14] and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.

The objective of the modification of the permission granted by my Predecessors is highlighted by the Second Vatican Council itself. From the vota submitted by the Bishops there emerged a great insistence on the full, conscious and active participation of the whole People of God in the liturgy,[15] along lines already indicated by Pius XII in the encyclical Mediator Dei on the renewal of the liturgy.[16] The constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium confirmed this appeal, by seeking “the renewal and advancement of the liturgy”,[17] and by indicating the principles that should guide the reform.[18] In particular, it established that these principles concerned the Roman Rite, and other legitimate rites where applicable, and asked that “the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet present-day circumstances and needs”.[19] On the basis of these principles a reform of the liturgy was undertaken, with its highest expression in the Roman Missal, published in editio typica by St. Paul VI[20] and revised by St. John Paul II.[21] It must therefore be maintained that the Roman Rite, adapted many times over the course of the centuries according to the needs of the day, not only be preserved but renewed “in faithful observance of the Tradition”.[22] Whoever wishes to celebrate with devotion according to earlier forms of the liturgy can find in the reformed Roman Missal according to Vatican Council II all the elements of the Roman Rite, in particular the Roman Canon which constitutes one of its more distinctive elements.

A final reason for my decision is this: ever more plain in the words and attitudes of many is the close connection between the choice of celebrations according to the liturgical books prior to Vatican Council II and the rejection of the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the “true Church.” One is dealing here with comportment that contradicts communion and nurtures the divisive tendency — “I belong to Paul; I belong instead to Apollo; I belong to Cephas; I belong to Christ” — against which the Apostle Paul so vigorously reacted.[23] In defense of the unity of the Body of Christ, I am constrained to revoke the faculty granted by my Predecessors. The distorted use that has been made of this faculty is contrary to the intentions that led to granting the freedom to celebrate the Mass with the Missale Romanum of 1962. Because “liturgical celebrations are not private actions, but celebrations of the Church, which is the sacrament of unity”,[24] they must be carried out in communion with the Church. Vatican Council II, while it reaffirmed the external bonds of incorporation in the Church — the profession of faith, the sacraments, of communion — affirmed with St. Augustine that to remain in the Church not only “with the body” but also “with the heart” is a condition for salvation.[25]

Dear brothers in the Episcopate, Sacrosanctum Concilium explained that the Church, the “sacrament of unity,” is such because it is “the holy People gathered and governed under the authority of the Bishops”.[26] Lumen gentium, while recalling that the Bishop of Rome is “the permanent and visible principle and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the multitude of the faithful,” states that you the Bishops are “the visible principle and foundation of the unity of your local Churches, in which and through which exists the one and only Catholic Church”.[27]

Responding to your requests, I take the firm decision to abrogate all the norms, instructions, permissions and customs that precede the present Motu proprio, and declare that the liturgical books promulgated by the saintly Pontiffs Paul VI and John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, constitute the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite. I take comfort in this decision from the fact that, after the Council of Trent, St. Pius V also abrogated all the rites that could not claim a proven antiquity, establishing for the whole Latin Church a single Missale Romanum. For four centuries this Missale Romanum, promulgated by St. Pius V was thus the principal expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite, and functioned to maintain the unity of the Church. Without denying the dignity and grandeur of this Rite, the Bishops gathered in ecumenical council asked that it be reformed; their intention was that “the faithful would not assist as strangers and silent spectators in the mystery of faith, but, with a full understanding of the rites and prayers, would participate in the sacred action consciously, piously, and actively”.[28] St. Paul VI, recalling that the work of adaptation of the Roman Missal had already been initiated by Pius XII, declared that the revision of the Roman Missal, carried out in the light of ancient liturgical sources, had the goal of permitting the Church to raise up, in the variety of languages, “a single and identical prayer,” that expressed her unity.[29] This unity I intend to re-establish throughout the Church of the Roman Rite.

Vatican Council II, when it described the catholicity of the People of God, recalled that “within the ecclesial communion” there exist the particular Churches which enjoy their proper traditions, without prejudice to the primacy of the Chair of Peter who presides over the universal communion of charity, guarantees the legitimate diversity and together ensures that the particular not only does not injure the universal but above all serves it”.[30] While, in the exercise of my ministry in service of unity, I take the decision to suspend the faculty granted by my Predecessors, I ask you to share with me this burden as a form of participation in the solicitude for the whole Church proper to the Bishops. In the Motu proprio I have desired to affirm that it is up to the Bishop, as moderator, promoter, and guardian of the liturgical life of the Church of which he is the principle of unity, to regulate the liturgical celebrations. It is up to you to authorize in your Churches, as local Ordinaries, the use of the Missale Romanum of 1962, applying the norms of the present Motu proprio. It is up to you to proceed in such a way as to return to a unitary form of celebration, and to determine case by case the reality of the groups which celebrate with this Missale Romanum.

Indications about how to proceed in your dioceses are chiefly dictated by two principles: on the one hand, to provide for the good of those who are rooted in the previous form of celebration and need to return in due time to the Roman Rite promulgated by Saints Paul VI and John Paul II, and, on the other hand, to discontinue the erection of new personal parishes tied more to the desire and wishes of individual priests than to the real need of the “holy People of God.” At the same time, I ask you to be vigilant in ensuring that every liturgy be celebrated with decorum and fidelity to the liturgical books promulgated after Vatican Council II, without the eccentricities that can easily degenerate into abuses. Seminarians and new priests should be formed in the faithful observance of the prescriptions of the Missal and liturgical books, in which is reflected the liturgical reform willed by Vatican Council II.

Upon you I invoke the Spirit of the risen Lord, that he may make you strong and firm in your service to the People of God entrusted to you by the Lord, so that your care and vigilance express communion even in the unity of one, single Rite, in which is preserved the great richness of the Roman liturgical tradition. I pray for you. You pray for me.



[1] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 23 AAS 57 (1965) 27.

[2] Cfr. Congregation for Divine Worship, Letter to the Presidents of the Conferences of Bishops “Quattuor abhinc annos”, 3 october 1984: AAS 76 (1984) 1088-1089.

[3] John Paul II, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “Ecclesia Dei”, 2 july 1988: AAS 80 (1998) 1495-1498.

[4] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 796.

[5] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 796.

[6] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 797.

[7] Benedict XVI, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum”, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 779.

[8] Benedict XVI, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum”, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 779.

[9] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 796.

[10] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 797.

[11] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 798.

[12] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 797-798.

[13] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 796.

[14] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 23: AAS 57 (1965) 27.

[15] Cfr. Acta et Documenta Concilio Oecumenico Vaticano II apparando, Series I, Volumen II, 1960.

[16] Pius XII, Encyclical on the sacred liturgy “Mediator Dei”, 20 november 1947: AAS 39 (1949) 521-595.

[17] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, nn. 1, 14: AAS 56 (1964) 97.104.

[18] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 3: AAS 56 (1964) 98.

[19] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 4: AAS 56 (1964) 98.

[20] Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Pauli PP. VI promulgatum, editio typica, 1970.

[21] Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Pauli PP. VI promulgatum Ioannis Pauli PP. II cura recognitum, editio typica altera, 1975; editio typica tertia, 2002; (reimpressio emendata 2008).

[22] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 3: AAS 56 (1964) 98.

[23] 1 Cor 1,12-13.

[24] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 26: AAS 56 (1964) 107.

[25] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 14: AAS 57 (1965) 19.

[26] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 6: AAS 56 (1964) 100.

[27] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 23: AAS 57 (1965) 27.

[28] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 48: AAS 56 (1964) 113.

[29] Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution “Missale Romanum” on new Roman Missal, 3 april 1969, AAS 61 (1969) 222.

[30] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 13: AAS 57 (1965) 18.

[01015-EN.01] [Original text: Italian]






Guardians of the tradition, the bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome constitute the visible principle and foundation of the unity of their particular Churches.[1] Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, through the proclamation of the Gospel and by means of the celebration of the Eucharist, they govern the particular Churches entrusted to them.[2]

In order to promote the concord and unity of the Church, with paternal solicitude towards those who in any region adhere to liturgical forms antecedent to the reform willed by the Vatican Council II, my Venerable Predecessors, Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI, granted and regulated the faculty to use the Roman Missal edited by John XXIII in 1962.[3] In this way they intended “to facilitate the ecclesial communion of those Catholics who feel attached to some earlier liturgical forms” and not to others.[4]

In line with the initiative of my Venerable Predecessor Benedict XVI to invite the bishops to assess the application of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum three years after its publication, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith carried out a detailed consultation of the bishops in 2020. The results have been carefully considered in the light of experience that has matured during these years.

At this time, having considered the wishes expressed by the episcopate and having heard the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I now desire, with this Apostolic Letter, to press on ever more in the constant search for ecclesial communion. Therefore, I have considered it appropriate to establish the following:

Art. 1. The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.

Art. 2. It belongs to the diocesan bishop, as moderator, promoter, and guardian of the whole liturgical life of the particular Church entrusted to him,[5] to regulate the liturgical celebrations of his diocese.[6] Therefore, it is his exclusive competence to authorize the use of the 1962 Roman Missal in his diocese, according to the guidelines of the Apostolic See.

Art. 3. The bishop of the diocese in which until now there exist one or more groups that celebrate according to the Missal antecedent to the reform of 1970:

§ 1. is to determine that these groups do not deny the validity and the legitimacy of the liturgical reform, dictated by Vatican Council II and the Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiffs;

§ 2. is to designate one or more locations where the faithful adherents of these groups may gather for the eucharistic celebration (not however in the parochial churches and without the erection of new personal parishes);

§ 3. to establish at the designated locations the days on which eucharistic celebrations are permitted using the Roman Missal promulgated by Saint John XXIII in 1962.[7] In these celebrations the readings are proclaimed in the vernacular language, using translations of the Sacred Scripture approved for liturgical use by the respective Episcopal Conferences;

§ 4. to appoint a priest who, as delegate of the bishop, is entrusted with these celebrations and with the pastoral care of these groups of the faithful. This priest should be suited for this responsibility, skilled in the use of the Missale Romanum antecedent to the reform of 1970, possess a knowledge of the Latin language sufficient for a thorough comprehension of the rubrics and liturgical texts, and be animated by a lively pastoral charity and by a sense of ecclesial communion. This priest should have at heart not only the correct celebration of the liturgy, but also the pastoral and spiritual care of the faithful;

§ 5. to proceed suitably to verify that the parishes canonically erected for the benefit of these faithful are effective for their spiritual growth, and to determine whether or not to retain them;

§ 6. to take care not to authorize the establishment of new groups.

Art. 4. Priests ordained after the publication of the present Motu Proprio, who wish to celebrate using the Missale Romanum of 1962, should submit a formal request to the diocesan Bishop who shall consult the Apostolic See before granting this authorization.

Art. 5. Priests who already celebrate according to the Missale Romanum of 1962 should request from the diocesan Bishop the authorization to continue to enjoy this faculty.

Art. 6. Institutes of consecrated life and Societies of apostolic life, erected by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, fall under the competence of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies for Apostolic Life.

Art. 7. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, for matters of their particular competence, exercise the authority of the Holy See with respect to the observance of these provisions.

Art. 8. Previous norms, instructions, permissions, and customs that do not conform to the provisions of the present Motu Proprio are abrogated.

Everything that I have declared in this Apostolic Letter in the form of Motu Proprio, I order to be observed in all its parts, anything else to the contrary notwithstanding, even if worthy of particular mention, and I establish that it be promulgated by way of publication in “L’Osservatore Romano”, entering immediately in force and, subsequently, that it be published in the official Commentary of the Holy See, Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

Given at Rome, at Saint John Lateran, on 16 July 2021, the liturgical Memorial of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, in the ninth year of Our Pontificate.



[1] Cfr Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 23 AAS 57 (1965) 27.

[2] Cfr Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 27: AAS 57 (1965) 32; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree concerning the pastoral office of bishops in the Church “Christus Dominus”, 28 october 1965, n. 11: AAS 58 (1966) 677-678; Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 833.

[3] Cfr John Paul II, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “Ecclesia Dei”, 2 july 1988: AAS 80 (1988) 1495-1498; Benedict XVI, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum”, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 777-781; Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “Ecclesiae unitatem”, 2 july 2009: AAS 101 (2009) 710-711.

[4] John Paul II, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “Ecclesia Dei”, 2 july 1988, n. 5: AAS 80 (1988) 1498.

[5] Cfr Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 41: AAS 56 (1964) 111; Caeremoniale Episcoporum, n. 9; Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacrament, Instruction on certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist “Redemptionis Sacramentum”, 25 march 2004, nn. 19-25: AAS 96 (2004) 555-557.

[6] Cfr CIC, can. 375, § 1; can. 392.

[7] Cfr Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Decree “Quo magis” approving seven Eucharistic Prefaces for the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite, 22 february 2020, and Decree “Cum sanctissima” on the liturgical celebration in honour of Saints in the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite, 22 february 2020: L’Osservatore Romano, 26 march 2020, p. 6.

[01014-EN.01] [Original text: Italian]

CP&S comment: You may wish to follow reactions to this development over at Fr Z’s. Here is just one comment on what is effectively the overturning of Pope Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum:

Since Vatican II, the Church has been declining in vast numbers, in terms of clergy, religious and laity alike. The only area showing growth – and especially the youth and young family demographics – has been the Traditional Latin Mass and THIS is what the Pope wants to curtail. What madness!

On this Feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, let us redouble our efforts to pray, fast and sacrifice for Pope Francis and for the Church.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

Flos Carmeli, ora pro nobis!

Prayer of Saint John of the Cross to Our Lady of Mount Carmel:

O Mary, most holy Mother of Carmel, Virgin of virgins, sanctuary of the Blessed Trinity, mirror of angels, assured refuge of sinners! Have compassion on me in my sufferings, listen to my sighs with clemency, and appease the anger of thy Son. Amen.

Today we implore the Virgin of virgins to “appease the anger of thy Son.” St. John of the Cross, who composed the above prayer, lived in the late 15th century. Now, think of how much more Jesus is offended with our world today! Abortion allowed up until birth, rampant contraception and sexual immorality, unnatural same sex unions, gender confusion, domestic violence, atheism, demonic activity, worshiping false gods, and the breakdown of the domestic family, not to mention Catholics receiving Holy Communion in the state of mortal sin. Let us pray this litany, begging Our Lady of Mount Carmel, to ask her Son Jesus, to have mercy on the world.

Lord, have mercy. 
Christ, have mercy. 
Lord, have mercy.
Christ, hear us. Christ, graciously hear us.
God, the Father of Heaven, have mercy on us. 
God the Son, Redeemer of the World, have mercy on us. 
God the Holy Spirit, have mercy on us. 
Holy Trinity, One God, have mercy on us.
Holy Mary, pray for us.

Queen of Heaven, pray for us sinners.
Victorious over Satan, pray for us sinners.
Most Obedient Daughter, pray for us sinners.
Most Pure Virgin, pray for us sinners.
Devoted Spouse, pray for us sinners.
Mother Most Tender, pray for us sinners.
Model of Perfect Virtue, pray for us sinners.
Sure Anchor of Hope, pray for us sinners.
Refuge in Sorrow, pray for us sinners.
Dispensatrix of the Gifts of God, pray for us sinners. 
Bastion Against Our Enemies, pray for us sinners.
Our Aid in Danger, pray for us sinners.
The Way Leading to Jesus, pray for us sinners.
Our Light in Darkness, pray for us sinners.
Our Consolation at the Hour of Death, pray for us sinners.
Advocate of the Most Abandoned Sinners, pray for us sinners.
For the Hardened in Vice, pray for us sinners.
For Those who Offend Thy Divine Son, pray for us sinners.
For Those Who Neglect to Pray, pray for us sinners.
For Those Who are in Agony, pray for us sinners.
For Those Who Defer Their Conversion, pray for us sinners.
For Those Suffering in Purgatory, pray for us sinners.
For Those Who Do Not Know Thee. pray for us sinners.
Let Us Pray. 

Our Lady of Mount Carmel, glorious Queen of Angels, channel of God’s tenderest mercy to man, refuge and advocate of sinners, with confidence I prostrate myself before thee, beseeching thee to obtain for us a sincere reparation for our sins and the sins of the world (then mention your intentions.) In return I solemnly promise to have recourse to thee in all my trials, sufferings and temptations, and I shall do all in my power to induce others to love and reverence thee and to invoke thee in all their needs. I thank thee for the numberless blessings which I have received from thy mercy and powerful intercession. Continue to be my shield in danger, my guide in life, and my consolation at the hour of death. Amen

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

COVID Vaccination: My Body, My Choice?

US President Joe Biden speaks about the Covid-19 response and the US vaccination program in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington, DC, July 6, 2021. (Photo by SAUL LOEB / AFP) (Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)

By Paul Kengor at Crisis Magazine:

“This is my body!” “My body, my choice!”

Those are the mantras, of course, of the pro-choice lobby. And they didn’t start in 1973 with Roe v. Wade. In my unfortunate life as an authority on the communist movement, which means reading a lot of dark stuff, I found communists using similar slogans in the 1920s. Long before American pro-choice liberals were touting slogans like “Keep your hands off my body,” communist women in Germany in the 1920s were urging abortion under the campaign slogan “Your body belongs to you.” 

Quite chillingly, the pro-choice credo “This is my body” is an unholy inversion of the precise sacrificial words of Jesus Christ at the Last Supper. Those words of Christ are repeated every hour worldwide in every Mass by every priest, serving in persona Christi, as he elevates the host—i.e., the Real Presence, the Body of Christ—and affirms, “This is my Body.”

That Body was a sacrifice given up for you. It is Christ sacrificing Himself, all the way to the cross. He was willing to die for you. He did not demand that you die for Him. He willingly gave up His body. It was the ultimate unselfish act. The act of abortion, on the other hand, is purely about the self.

“My body, my choice” is also the creed of the 60 pro-choice Catholic Democrats who wrote a letter to the bishops insisting that their staunch advocacy of unrestricted “abortion rights” should not affect their fitness to receive the Body of Christ. Their attitude is best reflected by the statements of Reps. Nancy Pelosi and Ted Lieu. When a reporter asked Pelosi if she believed she could be denied the Eucharist, she asserted: “I think I can use my own judgment on that.” Ted Lieu went further, taunting the bishops: “Next time I go to Church, I dare you to deny me Communion.”

How dare the bishops infringe upon a woman’s “sacred” (as Pelosi put it) right to choose to do what she wants with her body.

Of course, this is also the position of our pro-choice Catholic president, Joe Biden.

I mention this right now in light of so many pro-choice liberals demanding that everyone in America be vaccinated against COVID-19, including those who choose not to. Joe Biden threatens to go from “door to door” urging people to take the needle: “We need to go community by community, neighborhood by neighborhood, and oft times, door to door, literally knocking on doors.” Former Planned Parent president Leana Wen argued that Biden needs to force vaccinations on the populace.

That includes you and your children.

They are even demanding this of those of us who have suffered through COVID-19 and now have natural immunity.

And before I go any further, let me state for the record that I am not an “anti-vaxxer.” I published a bunch of articles and did a lot of media commentary expressing my great concern over COVID-19. I was anything but a COVID-19 skeptic; to the contrary, I was arguably a COVID-19 alarmist. I wrote repeatedly about the crucial need for a vaccine. I was a staunch advocate for President Trump’s Operation Warp Speed. I’ve never opposed vaccines, and I wrote very positively about promising efforts to develop COVID-19 vaccines at my alma mater, the University of Pittsburgh, where I spent four years working in immunology for the organ transplant team. 

Again, I’ve never been an “anti-vaxxer.”

Having said all of that, no one should be able to force me or any American to inject something into our bodies against our will, our conscience, and our constitutional liberties, especially when other Americans can easily and freely choose to get vaccinated and receive protection. 

Moreover, many of those choosing not to get vaccinated are doing so because they do not want to take vaccines that even the FDA and pharmaceutical companies explicitly warn are experimental. The official “Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers” of the Pfizer vaccine states categorically: “There is no U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved vaccine to prevent COVID-19.”

People are also hesitant to get vaccinated because of alarming reports of bad side effects. There are increasingly disturbing reports of perfectly healthy young people developing myocarditis from these vaccines, including a 19-year-old girl in my area who, two weeks ago, had to receive a heart transplant and remains in critical condition. Not surprisingly, the CDC is now openly acknowledging (click here and here) that there is a direct risk of myocarditis to young people receiving the mRNA-based vaccines.

Notably, the dominant mRNA-based vaccines are not traditional vaccines. Unlike vaccines like, say, the Salk polio vaccine (which I wrote about a number of times last year), these are not conventional vaccines. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are mRNA based and thus totally different and very new. (Here’s a well-written piece for the layman on the differences among the leading vaccines in use or under development.)

I know people (Catholics among them) who are awaiting the non-mRNA-based vaccines, such as Novavax (see this in-depth piece in The Atlantic), which they understand is more conventional, less risky, and so far seems even more effective. (Novavax is based on the type of simpler and more reliable vaccine technology used for Shingles and Hepatitis, the latter of which was the dominant disease I dealt with among my liver-transplant patients.) They are also hoping that these other vaccines will not be tainted with material from cell lines of aborted fetuses.

Significantly, Joe Biden’s Church backs these Catholics. In an official statement released December 21, 2020, the Vatican stated categorically: “vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and…it must be voluntary.” The Vatican says that you cannot be forcibly vaccinated against your will. Forced vaccination is a violation of your freedom of religion and conscience. This is officially affirmed by the American bishops.

Thus, yet again, Joe Biden is taking a position in direct contravention of the moral-ethical position of his Church.

The freedom not to be forced into receiving experimental vaccinations is especially critical for those of us who had COVID-19 and now have antibodies. A peer-reviewed study published in the journal Nature found that patients who have recovered from COVID-19 develop “long-lasting immunity,” namely with “antibody-producing cells” that “live and produce antibodies for the rest of people’s lives.” 

A major study by Cleveland Clinic, conducted on 52,238 employees, concluded categorically that individuals who had COVID-19 “do not get additional benefits from vaccination.” It found that “no significant difference in COVID-19 incidence was observed between previously infected and currently unvaccinated participants, previously infected and currently vaccinated participants, and previously uninfected and currently vaccinated participants.” (I wrote about these studies here.)

In light of this latest research, and the other aforementioned factors, no one should be forcing people to take experimental vaccines against their will. This is America. You can’t do that.

That brings me back to my point at the start of this article: whatever happened to “This is my body!” and “My body, my choice?”

Is it not fascinating, if not revolting, that liberals will proclaim these mantras when it comes to abortion, which most acutely affects the other body in the situation—the unborn one—which has no choice at all, but they will not apply the mantras to forcible vaccination, which actually involves only the body that has the choice?

And so, behold the anti-choice vaccination thinking of pro-choice liberals: It’s your body and your choice if you want to abort your child, but it’s not your body and your choice if you want to choose not to be vaccinated. 

But vaccination is your choice. If Joe Biden and friends come knocking at your door, tell them firmly: “My body, my choice.” This is my body, Joe. Keep your hands off.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment



Some of the ‘Doctors of the Church’ have epithets, and Saint Bonaventure, whom we celebrate today, is the ‘seraphic’, perhaps for his transcendent teaching; also due to his charism, putting into systematic words the sublime and radical wisdom the ‘poverello’, Saint Francis, the ‘seraph’ wounded with the fire of the stigmata on Mount Alverno.

Bonaventure, Franciscan, bishop, cardinal, doctor, and friend of Saint Thomas, died on this day in 1274 while attending the Second Council of Lyons – a few months after Thomas Aquinas, who had died the previous March 7th on his way to the council. Both have been proclaimed Doctors of the Church – an elite company, with but 36 members – and both wrote ‘Summas’, or compendia, of theology, even if, for various reasons, it was Thomas’ – the Common Doctor – that the Church officially adopted in her teaching. But Bonaventure has much to teach us also, in his doctrine on God, His providence, the salvific purpose of all history and creation.

Born in 1221 Giovanni di Fidanza, almost nothing is known of his childhood (except the name of his parents). His birthplace at Bagnoregio, an hour’s drive northwest of Rome, is still commemorated with a simple plaque, evincing his simple beginnings, which he never really left behind. Young Giovanni was apparently miraculously cured by the prayers of Saint Francis (who died in 1226, so was still alive in the lad’s first years). With an a already instilled devotion to the Order, Giovanni joined the newly-founded Franciscans, his piety and genius recognized early – he helped reform them, galvanizing what might have been a rag-tag group of wandering mendicants (not that there’s anything wrong with that) into a spiritual and intellectually rigorous band of brothers – even though they would have their travails, as the more ‘spiritual’ elements always strove to go back to their original roots of radical poverty, which was not practically sustainable. But then there was the opposite tendency to hoard up riches and property, and finding a balance has been a constant struggle ever since. The Franciscans would be the largest Order in the Church if it were not for the fact they are so fissiparous.

But Bonaventure, who helped found and define the Order, writing much of the original Rule, and, through his own studies and works, became one of the greatest lights of his age, in an age filled with ‘great lights’ such as Thomas (a member of the also-newly-founded Dominicans, who had a more stable beginning and rule). Bonaventure was eventually elected Superior, then made a Cardinal, but always retained his humble ways – when someone came to the convent to find the great man, they had trouble finding him amongst his brethren, washing dishes.

Bonaventure also wrote the first definitive biography of the founder of his Order, Saint Francis of Assisi, a beautiful contemporary picture of one of the greatest of saints. Bonaventure lived the joyful Franciscan charism well, in humility and charity, right up to the end, when he was appointed a Cardinal and deputed to attend the Second Council of Lyons.

There is much more to say, and for those who would like Pope Benedict’s three addresses on Bonaventure, on whom he completed his doctorate, may find the first of them here.

I will leave you for now with two quotations: First, a brief comment from a papal notary who knew Bonaventure, which sums up our saint well:

A good, affable, devout and compassionate man, full of virtue, beloved of God and human beings alike…. God in fact had bestowed upon him such grace that all who saw him were pervaded by a love that their hearts could not conceal.

And the words of Bonaventure himself, from today’s Office:

For this passover to be perfect, we must suspend all the operations of the mind and we must transform the peak of our affections, directing them to God alone. This is a sacred mystical experience. It cannot be comprehended by anyone unless he surrenders himself to it; nor can he surrender himself to it unless he longs for it; nor can he long for it unless the Holy Spirit, whom Christ sent into the world, should come and inflame his innermost soul. Hence the Apostle says that this mystical wisdom is revealed by the Holy Spirit.

The fire of the love of God, which burns away all our sin, our deceit, our faults, and leaves us purely His, in ineffable bliss.

Saint Bonaventure, Seraphic Doctor, ora pro nobis!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Will the attack on Summorum Pontificum be on Friday, O.L. of Mt. Carmel?

From a reader of Fr Z’s blog:


I just read on Rorate that they expect Francis to issue his new motu proprio restricting the celebration of the Latin Mass this week Friday.  Do you think it was deliberate that they chose to issue it on the Feast of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel?  Perhaps this is a supernatural sign that it will fail.

A couple things.  First, there was an article in French at Le Figaro a couple days ago: HERE.

Rumor volat, vellicatim volat.   So far, those I’ve spoken too, pretty well plugged in with what is happening in Rome, say “Oh yes… it’s coming!”, but they don’t back it up with something concrete.

Maybe it is coming and maybe it isn’t.  I suspect no, rather than yes.  Either way, there is nothing that we can do about that but set our faces like flint, keep our shoulders to the task, and entrust the matter to the Mother of God, St. Joseph (don’t forget the Bux Protocol) and the Saints of the Roman Canon.  It avails nothing to panic and get everyone worked up.

Mind you, it’s not that I don’t think that there is a document that would strike at Summorum.  I firmly believe that there has been such a karstic document in draft form – popping in and out of view – since 8 July 2007.   I’d be surprised if there wasn’t, given the spittle-flecked hatred modernists have for the Traditional Mass, obstacle as it is to their goal of reducing the Church to an NGO.

Since denial of a rumor tends to make it grow, let’s play along for a moment.  Let’s say that this Friday, the Feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, will be the day of release.


I doubt it would deliberate from a spiritual point of view.  Would those who would issue such a document be aware that it will by Our Lady’s feast?  More likely, it is just a Friday, which is a sort of “take out the trash” day, giving them a weekend buffer to give statements.

Say, however, it were deliberate.  Then I observe that it was, during the Amazonian Synod (“walking together”), precisely at the Church of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel on the Via della Conciliazione, a stone’s throw from San Pietro and, hence, the meeting hall, that the shrine to the demon idol Pachamama was created.  Remember the pictures of a woman nursing a critter?  Remember the demonic idol taken from that church and pitched into the Tiber?  Remember the demon cult bowl placed on the altar of San Pietro?

Say it were deliberate.  Then I observe… GOOD.

Let them choose a feast of Our Lady, particularly beloved of so many traditional Catholics, many of whom are enrolled in the Brown Scapular!

Let them choose such a day to make their contempt for traditional Catholics even clearer.

Let them choose the Feast of Our Lady of Mt Carmel, to make their insult even deeper.

Giù la maschera!

There could hardly be a better way to stimulate a strong reaction to such an insult.

Circling back to the top, we really should avoid getting worked up about this until and if we see something real and reliable.

Meanwhile, it is never a waste of time to pray.

Our Lady of Mount Carmel… Our Lady Queen of the Clergy … Our Lady Queen of Angels…

St. Joseph… Patron of the Dying… Guardian of the Universal Church… Terror of Demons….

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Priest Beaten, Arrested Amid Cuba Protests


Priests, religious sisters and lay people scheduled a peaceful demonstration from 8:00 a.m. July 12 in front of the police station to demand the release of Father Álvarez.

A woman holds a placard reading "Freedom for Cuba" as others demonstrate holding Cuban and US National flags during a protest against the Cuban government in Miami on July 11, 2021.
A woman holds a placard reading “Freedom for Cuba” as others demonstrate holding Cuban and US National flags during a protest against the Cuban government in Miami on July 11, 2021. (photo: Eva Marie Uzcategui / AFP/Getty)

Father Castor Álvarez was beaten and arrested in Camagüey while he was defending young protesters amid protests of Cuba’s communist government on Sunday.

Protests took place across the island July 11.

According to information confirmed by CNA’s sister agency, ACI Prensa, the priest is being held at the Montecarlo police station in Camagüey, accused of public disorder.

It became known July 12 that the government wants to process the priest for 96 hours for various charges. According to a source related to the Church in Cuba, Archbishop Wilfredo Pino Estevez of Camagüey “tried to see him this morning. He was called later when he was in the Archdiocese so that he went back to the police station”. The source also said that young Catholic people arrested yesterday from Camagüey and Florida, nearly 30 miles northwest of Camagüey, “are still imprisoned”.

Priests, religious sisters and lay people scheduled a peaceful demonstration from 8:00 a.m. July 12 in front of the police station to demand the release of Father Álvarez.

Father Rolando Montes de Oca, a priest of the Archdiocese of Camagüey, told ACI Prensa that “there are, in fact, several elements that help to understand” the origin of the protests.

“The economic situation in this moment is complicated and it has aggravated much more with an economic maneuver that the government made at the beginning of the year, called economic reordering or something like that, that in the end has made life much more difficult,” the priest said.

“Inflation is huge and basic necessities like food have become very difficult to get. There is a very bad situation of material poverty,” he said.

Father Montes de Oca also said that besides the economic crisis, there is great suffering because of the COVID-19 pandemic: “We are in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis. There is a lot of information about people dying, people that do not receive medical attention. Hospitals are collapsed. We see images of sick people in corridors, even on stretchers on the floor”.

The priest also said that “there is a tremendous lack of medicines. Many people do not have a pain reliever. For instance, there are no aspirins. We are not talking about high-end drugs. Nobody has them. They are practically non-existent, sometimes there aren’t even in hospitals”.

While the country suffers, “the government has denied that there is a collapse at the medical level (saying) that everything is under control. Meanwhile, reality says something completely different”.

“It is a situation that takes us Cubans back to a period of crisis, which is a kind of national trauma, the special period in the years 1992, 1993 and 1994, in which there were blackouts of many hours”. 

Blackouts now occur “almost daily. This and the heat of Cuba and mosquitoes make weather almost unbearable”.

Father Montes de Oca said that all this is “part of the explanation” of the protests that occurred “practically throughout the country.”

The priest said that “there has been a lot of pressure inside the pot and this has exploded”. 

“This that is happening in Cuba is unique, at least in the last six decades. I’m 40 years old and I had never seen something like this: all the protests and all the violent repression of the government”.

“The president has spoken on national TV and has said that the order to fight has been given and we are ready for anything”.

“He has obviously blamed the United States for the whole situation Cuba is going through and he has said that we must go against these protesters and has called on all communist forces to go against the protesters with everything,” the priest said.

“And yes, there has been a lot of violence against the protesters, who were peaceful.”

President Miguel Díaz-Canel on July 11 called “all the revolutionaries to take the streets to defend the revolution everywhere”.

“We are not going to hand over the sovereignty of our country,” the president said, adding that “the order to fight has been given, the revolutionaries should go out to the streets.”

Father Montes de Oca said that “I don’t know what is going to happen or where we are going with all this. I wish something good could happen but I don’t know”.

“I hope that God puts his hand and in the end peace and justice triumph,” he said.

Communist rule in Cuba was established soon after the conclusion of the Cuban Revolution in 1959, which ousted the authoritarian ruler Fulgencio Batista.

Under communism churches and schools were closed, and priests were exiled or assigned to re-education camps. The Church was driven underground until religious tensions in the country began to ease in 1991.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

The Credo of the Catholic Democrats

They issue a declaration of independence from Church teaching.

By George Neumayr from The American Spectator:

Almost 60 Catholic Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives recently released a statement declaring their “principles.” The statement is a classic illustration of modern liberalism’s one-sided conception of church-state relations: the church should never lecture the state, but the state is free to lecture the church. The statement is also a snapshot of the pitiful imbalance of power and confusion in the Catholic Church: heretics, far from fearing clerics, feel emboldened to instruct bishops on what they can and cannot do.

Enjoying the protection of the media and exploiting the divisions in the Church, heretical Catholic politicians can grandstand with impunity. Congressman Ted Lieu’s (D-Calif.) hotdogging tweet to the bishops captures the mood of the moment:

The boldness of the heretics grows in proportion to the timidity of the bishops. By not controlling their own sacraments, the bishops have allowed the enemies of the Church to control them. Even the supposedly “conservative” bishops have no intention of withholding Communion from these defiant pols.

So it is not entirely clear why those 60 Catholic Democrats even needed to issue their petulant statement. They are pushing on an open door. The statement is notable only for its arrogance. They, of course, invoke the “separation of church and state” before dictating to the bishops how they should interpret canon law and Eucharistic theology. The point of the statement is: Don’t tell us how to do our jobs, but listen up as we tell you how to do yours.

One of the more ludicrous lines in the statement is this: “To pursue a blanket denial of the Holy Eucharist to certain elected officials would indeed grieve the Holy Spirit and deny the evolution of that individual, a Christian person who is never perfect, but living in the struggle to get there.”

These Democrats claim an expertise on what will “grieve the Holy Spirit,” but they see nothing grievous in their support for hundreds of thousands of abortions a year. They trivialize the significance of that and call abortion merely “one issue.”

Of course, the group, led by Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), opposes Church teaching on multiple issues. Were one to give the group a Catholic voting rating, it would be near zero. The members of the group reject the Church’s teachings on gay marriage, transgenderism, sex education, and embryonic stem cell research, among many others. “We are committed to making real the basic principles that are at the heart of Catholic social teaching,” they say. No, they are not. They disdain the natural moral law, without which Catholic social teaching is meaningless.

Their support for the killing of unborn children and the destruction of the family renders any rhetoric about the “common good” hollow. The common good and the natural moral law are inseparable, according to Catholic teaching. The agenda of these Democrats is to remove any trace of the natural moral law from our politics.

The old conceit of the former Democratic New York Gov. Mario Cuomo that he “personally opposed” abortion and other violations of the natural moral law no longer even obtains. Today’s Catholic Democrats don’t bother to maintain that charade, because it so obvious that they both publicly and personally support those violations. What’s more, they favor forcing the Catholic Church to participate in those evils. They believe in their own “primacy of conscience,” as the statement puts it, even as they support coercing the Little Sisters of the Poor and other Catholics into paying for contraceptives and abortions.

These Democrats celebrate their lack of communion with Church teaching while insisting that the Church give them Communion. They hide behind the liberalism of Pope Francis and say that the Eucharist is “medicine,” as if they seek healing. But they don’t. They are utterly unrepentant in their rejection of Church teaching. Medicine can only work on the living, not the dead.

Under canon law, the bishops have not only a right but a duty to protect the Eucharist against sacrilege and scandal. The Church has no obligation to humor the hectoring presumption of these Catholic Democrats. It speaks to the strength of secularism and the weakness and division within Church leadership that these Democrats would even undertake this self-indulgent attempt to redefine Catholicism and its sacramental requirements. Such hubris would have been inconceivable in past eras. But this is the age of the shameless secularist pol, who can at once declare independence from his religion while reserving the right to micromanage its internal affairs.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Judgement and The ‘Little’ Sins

By Richard Maffeo at Catholic 365:

Here is a warning by the Lord Jesus that no one should gloss over: 

“And He was passing through from one city and village to another, teaching, and proceeding on His way to Jerusalem. And someone said to Him, “Lord, are there just a few who are being saved?” And He said to them, “Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. Once the head of the house gets up and shuts the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock on the door, saying, ‘Lord, open up to us!’ then He will answer and say to you, ‘I do not know where you are from.’ Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets’; and He will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you are from; depart from Me, all you evildoers.’ In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being thrown out.” (Luke 13:22-28) 

Hardly a time goes by when I read this text that I don’t wonder how it can be that some who faithfully attend Mass or worship services, and who even routinely receive Holy Communion, how they can be so surprised at the Judgment when they are cast away from the Lord. 

But the more I reflect on that text and on my question, the more unlikely I think it will be for anyone to be surprised at the judgment IF – IF they have purposely sought the Holy Spirit to open their eyes to their sins. Certainly, we want to know about our ‘big’ sins, but we should never gloss over the ones WE consider ‘little.’ And to simply make a general confession to God along the lines of, “I have sinned in what I have done and what I have failed to do” – and not actually NAME those sins – is to risk sliding into a nonchalance about those sins. 

Listen to St Augustine on the subject: “While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call “light”: if you take them for light when you weigh them, tremble when you count them.

A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap.” Hear also St. Teresa of Avila: “. . . [H]ave such a fixed determination not to offend the Lord that you would rather lose a thousand lives, and be persecuted by the whole world, than commit one venial sin.” 

And St Francis of Assisi: “Had I committed but one little sin I would have ample reason to repent of it for the rest of my life.” 

The mature Christian, the one who sincerely desires to live a holy lifestyle before a holy God, will daily seek the Holy Spirit’s light to shine on his or her sins so those sins can be confessed and turned from. 

No one wants to be woefully surprised at the Judgment. It will not have mattered on that final day how often we attended Mass, or how often received holy Communion, or how much money we have given to the Church and to her work. What will matter to God is how we sought to live a holy life and lifestyle. Routine confession and repentance of sin – the big ones and the little ones – will help ensure we are not cast away from His holy Presence.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Does Pope Francis Want to Strengthen the Society of Saint Pius X?

From Gloria TV:

If Francis were to restrict the Roman Mass, this would be an “abuse of power,” Bishop Schneider told @CatholicHack in a July 9 video interview.

Forcing priests to preside the New Rite would be for Schneider a “violation of spirituality.” He doesn’t believe Benedict XVI’s claim that the Roman Mass [which is of apostolic origin] and the 1970 New Rite are “two forms” of the same rite [otherwise the New Rite would not have been called “new”]. Schneider calls them “two different rites” because there are “big differences.”

He explains that concelebration was never considered as a requirement to show “unity.” Thus, Oriental Churches were never asked to concelebrate for such a purpose. An obligation to concelebrate would “contradict the entire history of the Church and the law of the liturgy,” Schneider says.

According to him, forcing the Fraternity of St Peter (FSSP) to co-preside in the New Rite would lead some of its members to join the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) which was founded by “a holy man, a man of God.”

Because Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication of the SSPX bishops, and Francis granted SSPX priests the faculty to hear confession, it is “difficult” for Schneider to say that these priests are “outside of the Church or schismatics” since they possess ordinary faculties to hear confessions “given by the Pope himself.”

The Interview with Bishop Schneider starts at 1:05:00

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Sunday Readings and Reflections

“The Appearance of Christ on the Mountain in Galilee,” by Duccio di Buoninsegna (14th century)

Sunday, July 11 
Fifteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time 

Roman Ordinary calendar

St. Benedict

Book of Amos 7,12-15.

Amaziah, priest of Bethel, said to Amos: “Off with you, visionary, flee to the land of Judah! There earn your bread by prophesying, 
but never again prophesy in Bethel; for it is the king’s sanctuary and a royal temple.” 
Amos answered Amaziah, “I was no prophet, nor have I belonged to a company of prophets; I was a shepherd and a dresser of sycamores. 
The LORD took me from following the flock, and said to me, Go, prophesy to my people Israel.” 

Psalms 85(84),9ab-10.11-12.13-14.

I will hear what God proclaims; 
the LORD –for he proclaims peace to his people. 
Near indeed is his salvation to those who fear him, 
glory dwelling in our land. 

Kindness and truth shall meet; 
justice and peace shall kiss. 
Truth shall spring out of the earth, 
and justice shall look down from heaven. 

The LORD himself will give his benefits; 
our land shall yield its increase. 
Justice shall walk before him, 
and salvation, along the way of his steps. 

Letter to the Ephesians 1,3-14.

Brothers and sisters: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavens, 
as he chose us in him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and without blemish before him. In love 
he destined us for adoption to himself through Jesus Christ, in accord with the favor of his will, 
for the praise of the glory of his grace that he granted us in the beloved. 
In him we have redemption by his blood, the forgiveness of transgressions, in accord with the riches of his grace 
that he lavished upon us. In all wisdom and insight, 
he has made known to us the mystery of his will in accord with his favor that he set forth in him 
as a plan for the fullness of times, to sum up all things in Christ, in heaven and on earth. 
In him we were also chosen, destined in accord with the purpose of the one who accomplishes all things according to the intention of his will, 
so that we might exist for the praise of his glory, we who first hoped in Christ. 
In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised holy Spirit, 
which is the first installment of our inheritance toward redemption as God’s possession, to the praise of his glory. 

Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Mark 6,7-13.

Jesus summoned the Twelve and began to send them out two by two and gave them authority over unclean spirits. 
He instructed them to take nothing for the journey but a walking stick–no food, no sack, no money in their belts. 
They were, however, to wear sandals but not a second tunic. 
He said to them, “Wherever you enter a house, stay there until you leave from there. 
Whatever place does not welcome you or listen to you, leave there and shake the dust off your feet in testimony against them.” 
So they went off and preached repentance. 
They drove out many demons, and they anointed with oil many who were sick and cured them. 

Saint Gregory the Great (c.540-604) 
Pope, Doctor of the Church 
Homilies on the Gospel, 17,1-3

“He began to send them out two by two”

Dearly beloved brethren, our Lord and Savior teaches us sometimes by his words and sometimes by his actions. His actions themselves are commandments, for when he does something without saying anything, he shows us how we must act. So here he is sending his disciples out two by two to preach, because there are two commandments of love: love of God and of the neighbor. The Lord sent his disciples to preach two by two to suggest to us without saying it that the person who does not have love for the other must absolutely not take on the ministry of preaching.

It is very good that he “sent them in pairs before him to every town and place he intended to visit.” (Lk 10:1) For the Lord comes after his preachers, because preaching is a prerequisite: the Lord comes to dwell in our soul when the words of exhoration have come as a forerunner and have caused us to welcome the truth in our soul. That is why Isaiah said to the preachers: “Prepare the way of the Lord! Make straight in the wasteland a highway for our God!” (Isa 40:3) And the psalmist also told them: “Prepare the way for him who rises up to the west.” (Ps 67:5 Vulgate) The Lord rises up to the west [the lying down of the sun] because in lying down in his passion, he showed himself in greater glory in his resurrection. He rose up to the lying down, because in rising, he trampled underfoot the death that he suffered. Thus, we prepare the way for him who rises up to the lying down when we preach his glory to your souls, so that when he comes after, he might enlighten them by the presence of his love.

Traditional Latin Mass Readings for this Sunday

Click here for a live-streamed Traditional Latin Mass

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Prayer for healing through the Precious Blood of Jesus

Heavenly Father, I thank you for loving me.
I thank you for sending your Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ,
to the world to save and to set me free. 

I trust in your power and grace that sustain and restore me.
Loving Father, touch me now with your healing hands,
for I believe that your will is for me to be well in mind, body, soul and spirit.

Cover me with the most precious blood of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ
from the top of my head to the soles of my feet.

Cast anything that should not be in me.
Root out any unhealthy and abnormal cells.
Open any blocked arteries or veins and rebuild and replenish any damaged areas.
Remove all inflammation and cleanse any infection by the power of Jesus’ precious blood.

Let the fire of your healing love pass through my entire body
to heal and make new any diseased areas
so that my body will function the way you created it to function.
Touch also my mind and my emotion, even the deepest recesses of my heart.

Saturate my entire being with your presence, love, joy, and peace
and draw me ever closer to you every moment of my life.

And Father, fill me with your Holy Spirit
and empower me to do your works
so that my life will bring glory and honor to your holy name.
I ask this in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Amen.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Return of the Pachamama

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Viganò: Cardinals Cupich, Gregory and Tobin are unworthy to celebrate Mass

Marco Tosatti at Stilum Curiae:

Viriliter agite, et confortetur cor vestrum.

Act manfully, and let your heart be strengthened.

Ps 30:25

What do you think of Pope Francis’s support for Father James Martin?

The LGBTQ+ ideology and the gender theory that it presupposes as its postulate represent a mortal threat for our entire society, the family, the human person, and also obviously for the Church, because they dissolve the social body, relations between its members, and the very concept of the biological reality of the sexes, which is arbitrarily changed to each person’s questionable and variable subjective self-perception based on gender. Many do not realize the chaos this will cause not only in civil and family habits but in religious ones as well, as soon as recognition of the LGBTQ+ movement inevitably leads to people with what may be defined as gender dysphoria demanding to be welcomed in parishes and communities. An emblematic example could be the case of a man ordained as a priest who at a certain point believes that he identifies as a woman: should we prepare for the eventuality of seeing Mass celebrated by a trans-sexual or a transvestite? And how can we reconcile the persistent existence of the male chromosome – which indefectibly defines the matter of the Sacrament of Holy Orders – with the appearances of a woman? What should we think about the case of a nun who, developing a male self-perception, demands to be transferred to a religious community of men and perhaps even to receive Holy Orders? This delusion, whose consequences are absurd and disturbing in the civil sphere, if applied to the religious sphere, would inflict a mortal blow on the already tortured ecclesial body. 

We must consider the reasons that have led a personality like James Martin, S.J., to enjoy such notoriety and visibility in the ecclesial sphere and even in the Roman institutions, receiving an appointment as a Consultor of the Dicastery for Communications and recently being the recipient of a hand-written letter from Bergoglio. His ostentatious commitment in support of the pan-sexualist movement effectively offers considered and acritical support for an unlimited series of sexual variations and perversions. Such a priori adhesion is not the deplorable excess of a single Jesuit but represents the planned action of an ideological vanguard that has already proven to be uncontrollable and capable of orienting the very “Magisterium” of Bergoglio and his court.

The LGBTQ+ ideology constitutes the new moral paradigm of the globalist religion of the indistinct, which is of a clear Gnostic and Luciferian matrix.  The absence of supernaturally revealed dogmas serves as the premise of a post-human superdogma, in which Faith is perverted into an unconditional acceptance of every sort of heresy and depravity, Hope dissolves into the absurd claim of an already-guaranteed salvation hic et nunc, and Charity is corrupted into a horizontal solidarity deprived of its ultimate reference in God. The activism of the Jesuit Martin foreshadows the rainbow ministry of the Age of Aquarius, the religion of the Antichrist, and the worship of idols and demons, beginning with the filthy Pachamama. 

For this reason, the indecent and scandalous Bergoglian endorsement of the aberrant provocations of James Martin is only one more step down a path that started with his famous “Who am I to judge?” in perfect coherence with the line of “rupture” of this “pontificate.” It is a suicidal gesture in which the leaders of the Church surrender unconditionally to the antichristic ideology of globalism and hand over the entire flock of Christ as a hostage to the Enemy, abdicating their role as Pastors and showing themselves for who they really are: mercenaries and traitors. Scandalized, we are witnessing the transition from “argue, obsecra, increpa, insta opportune importune” – “reprove, entreat, rebuke, be instant in season and out of season” (2 Tim 4:2) – to “loquimini nobis placentia” – “speak unto us pleasant things” (Is 30:10).

It is therefore unsurprising that James Martin enjoys such appreciation in the highest spheres of the Vatican, which according to the methodology in force since Vatican II leaves a free hand to the most agitated exponents of progressive currents and then adopts the Hegelian dialectic between the thesis of natural and Catholic morality, the antithesis of doctrinal deviations, and the synthesis of a new magisterium in step with the times.

This way of proceeding, which may seem to some to be a prudent updating to the secularized mentality of our time, nevertheless reveals an abysmal betrayal of the teaching of Christ and the law impressed in man by his Creator. A greater license in vice – largely desired and promoted by today’s dominant anti-Christian ideology – does not legitimize in any way this denial on the part of the Hierarchy of the command it has received from Our Lord, nor can it authorize operations of adulteration that aim solely at indulging the worldly spirit and the corruption of morals. On the contrary, the more the mainstream pushes for a cancellation of the immutable principles of Catholic morality, the more pastors have the duty to raise their voice to reaffirm without hesitation what God has commanded them to preach. 

I therefore find it outrageous towards God, scandalous for the honor of the Church, a matter of grave scandal for the faithful and a desolating abandonment for priests and confessors that a voice can be given to a Jesuit who bases his personal success not on proper pastoral action seeking the conversion of individual homosexuals with respect to Morality, but on the illusory promise of some change in Catholic doctrine that would legitimize people’s sinful behavior and grants the dignity of interlocutor to the so-called LGBTQ+ movements. The mere use of this acronym, which supports people by identifying them mechanically in their specific sexual perversion against nature, demonstrates a prostration of James Martin and his collaborators to the demands of the pan-sexual lobby, which the Church cannot accept or legitimize in the least. 

In any case, if a large part of the Clergy is so impatient to see the demands of LGBTQ+ ideology endorsed by the Hierarchy, this is clearly due to an execrable conflict of interest and a very deep moral and disciplinary crisis.

Is it possible to change the teaching of the Church with regard to homosexual unions, especially considering that Pope Francis has publicly approved civil unions, which in the past were condemned by magisterial documents of the Vatican?

It must be made clear that behaviors against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue, especially those concerning sexual disorders that offend the Creator in the natural distinction of the sexes themselves and in the procreative purpose of the conjugal act, cannot be subjected to any updating, not even under pressure of power groups or iniquitous laws promulgated by the civil authority. 

The hedonistic and pan-sexualist mentality that lies at the foundation of today’s dominant ideology, according to which the exercise of sexuality is not intrinsically ordered towards procreation but can have as its sole purpose the unregulated satisfaction of pleasure, should also be denounced without hesitation. This vision is repugnant to the natural order willed by the Creator, which makes the sexual act lawful only in the union of spouses blessed by the Sacrament and open to conception. It is evident that, since nature firstly does not make procreation between two men or two women possible, every form of sexuality between persons of the same sex is intrinsically disordered, and as such cannot be justified in any way.

Civil unions are nothing but forms of public legitimization of concubinage in which the couple does not assume the responsibilities and duties connected to the natural institution of marriage. If the civil authority approves such unions, it abuses its own authority, which Providence has instituted within the very precise limits of the bonum commune and never in direct contradiction of the salus animarum which the Church watches over with Her maternal authority. But if such unions are ratified by the ecclesiastical authority, the betrayal of the divine mandate is added to the perversion of the purpose for which the supreme Lawgiver willed it, rendering every even implicit form of official approval of sinful and scandalous behaviors de facto null and void. 

There are many bishops in the United States who sign letters in support of indentification as LGBT and confirm this orientation, just as others – like Cardinal Cupich – suggest that homosexual couples can receive Holy Communion. What is your message to Catholics who may be bewildered by such pronouncements?

The pseudo-magisterium of recent years, in particular that of Amoris Laetitia regarding the admission to the Sacraments of public concubinaries and divorcees, has opened a breach in that part of the Magisterium which even after Vatican II had been preserved from systematic demolition by the innovators. It is therefore not surprising, even in its absolute gravity, that once people who are in the state of mortal sin have been admitted to Holy Communion, this unfortunate decision is then extended to people who do not have the capacity to contract legitimate marriages, since they are not a couple consisting of a man and a woman. But on closer inspection, this heterodox vision also concerns politicians who in their action of governance and social commitment publicly contradict Catholic teaching and betray the commitment to coherence which they assumed with their Baptism and Confirmation. On the other hand, so-called “adult Catholics” – who in the eyes of God are simply rebellious against His holy Law – find widespread approval among Bishops who are even more rebellious – like Cupich, Tobin, Gregory, and their followers, who are themselves unworthy of celebrating the Sacred Mysteries – while the Pastors who are faithful to the mandate conferred on them by Our Lord not only recognize their situation of public sin but also do not wish to aggravate it with the profanation of the Blessed Sacrament.

What is the essential and immutable teaching of the Church with regard to homosexuality?

The Church, faithful to the teaching of her Head, is Mother and not stepmother: she does not indulge her children’s weaknesses and inclination to sin, but she admonishes them, exhorts them, and punishes them with medicinal sanctions in order to lead every soul to the purpose for which it has been created, that is, eternal beatitude. Every soul, willed and loved by God, has been redeemed by the Redeemer on the Cross, for whom He has shed his very Blood: Cujus una stilla salvum facere totum mundum quit ab omni scelere. As we read in the Adoro te devote, composed by the Doctor Communis, one single drop of the Most Precious Blood of Christ has the power to save the entire human race from all of its sins. 

The Church’s immutable teaching is simple, crystalline, and inspired by the love of God and the love of neighbor for His sake. It does not impose itself as a cruel castration of the tendencies and orientations of the human person which it irrationally defends as legitimate, but rather as a loving and harmonious development of the individual towards the sole purpose that can completely fulfill him and that corresponds to the intimate essence of his nature. Man is born to love, adore, and serve God, and so attain eternal beatitude in the glory of Paradise. 

Making him believe that by indulging the corrupt instincts of original sin and personal sins he can in some way fulfill himself far from God and against Him constitutes a culpable deception and a very grave responsibility on the part of those who abuse their role as Shepherds in order to delude the sheep and plunge them into the abyss.

Instead, it is necessary to show, with patient but firm spiritual direction, that every human being has a supernatural destiny and a path of suffering and sacrifices that temper him and make him worthy of his eternal reward. There is no Resurrection without Calvary, no victory without a fight! This is true for every soul redeemed by Our Lord: both the married person and the celibate, the priest and the layperson, the man and the woman, the child and the elder. The battle against one’s own nature corrupted by Original Sin unites us all: the one who manages money must fight against the temptation to steal, the one who is married must fight against the temptation to betray his or her spouse, the one who lives in chastity must fight against temptations against purity, the one who eats nice food must fight against the temptation to gluttony, and the one who is exposed to public applause must fight against the temptation to pride. 

Thus, with humility and trust in the Grace of God, and having recourse to the intercession of the Immaculate Virgin, every person whom the Lord puts to the test – even in the painful situation of homosexuality – must understand that it is in the battle against sin that one conquers one’s place in eternity, makes the Passion of Christ not rendered vain, and causes the splendor of the Mercy of God to shine forth towards His creatures, whom He helps in the moment of temptation – not with the illusory approval of inclinations to evil but by pointing to the glorious destiny that awaits each one of us: being admitted to the Wedding Feast of the Lamb wearing the royal robe that He has prepared for us. 

May we be assisted in this earthly pilgrimage by the Grace regained with sacramental Absolution and the celestial food of the Holy Eucharist, the Bread of Angels and pledge of future glory. 

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

3 July 2021

Saint Irenaeus, Bishop and Martyr

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments