St. John Bosco
“There will be an Ecumenical Council in the next century, after which there will be chaos in the Church. Tranquility will not return until the Pope succeeds in anchoring the boat of Peter between the twin pillars of Eucharistic Devotion and Devotion to Our Lady.”
It will have been somewhere between 1969 & 1972 when I had an odd dream which, I earnestly felt was to be shared with the Parish Priest of the time. His name was Fr. Purcell and as for me, I would have been between the ages of 8 and 11. Of course outside of Confession, what Priest would have had much time for so young a parishioner knocking on the Presbytery door and his wanting to tell of ‘odd dreams.’ Fortunately for me I was an Alter-boy, consequently chit-chat and banter with the Priest before and especially after Mass was familiar territory. So, starting a conversation in the Sacristy after Mass with,
“I had a dream last night Father and it was about you…”
was not so out of the ordinary alongside all the other dribble we young lads would conjure up. Unsurprisingly therefore, I did catch his attention, albeit if only his wanting to humour me.
“Go on then Peter, if you must…but this had better be good”
Now, before I go further you need to know the context that led to the dream. The previous Sunday I had heard Fr. make mention from the Pulpit that, it was now permissible for parishioners to receive Holy Communion in the hand and under both kinds. What was my reaction at the time as I sat daydreaming through the sermon? Not a clue, I have no recollection whatsoever! One can only assume an impact of sorts must have resulted, if only on a subconscious level for between that Sunday and the following, I had the dream as follows.
I was at Mass and it was the time for receiving Holy Communion. I wasn’t observing as if an Alter-boy, my usual place, but rather stood facing the alter, on the parishioner’s side of the rails and to one side. From here I could easily observe how Fr. Purcell was endeavouring to give each Holy Communion under both kinds.
The imagery of the dream is as vivid to me today as it was then, I can still see the church interior, its’ décor, every detail of the Sanctuary, the windows, the statues, where we sat as alter-boys and notably that the Alter was newly positioned away from the back wall so the Priest faced the congregation although the Tabernacle still remained centrally placed, (It was moved some years later, still on the Sanctuary but now over to the far side). Sadly, the Church was finally closed December 01 2009 and demolished. The new Church is of the modernist circular style, rather bland, the Tabernacle now fully separated from the Sanctuary and placed to one side close to the pews, but I digress.
I didn’t give Fr. Purcell the detail of my viewpoint or its’ seeming so real, I simply recounted something akin to the following:
“I saw you giving each person the Host, then giving a little cup taken from lots on a tray, in the cup was the Blood. But the Blood was everywhere, on the tray, people had Blood on their lips which, they wiped with their hands, I saw It fall to the floor in drops and trodden on. Seeing this you decided to give the Chalice to the people themselves to pass on and drink from, but everyone had filthy hands making the Chalice really dirty. The Blood was still being spilt, but not so much this time, still, I saw it dripping off the Chalice to the floor, it was smeared on the cloth used to wipe the rim and I saw how it transferred from there to people’s hands, Blood was still on lips which would be wiped with hands or sleeves. Finally, I saw you decide to dip the Host in to the Chalice and give Communion under both kinds in this way only. This was good, only you touched the Host and the Chalice, all was clean, Blood falling from the Host was caught on the Paten. There was no mess, and so Father I think you had better do it this way.”
This I related as if in an incidental conversation due to the fact that I was at the same time struggling to hang up the Priestly garments as each was handed to me. When I had finished with the hanging and closed the cupboard doors, I turned to face Fr Purcell for a reaction. He looked at me somewhat bemused. His response was simply one word followed by its meaning.
“what?” I said
“Communion under both kinds, by dipping the Host in the Chalice.” I wonder now, and perhaps Fr Purcell did then, how I could know of, at such an age, or visualise in a dream such a thing as ‘intinction’. But that was that, the subject was never spoken of again, the method of ‘intinction’ was sadly never adopted, but the dream’s impact, its imagery has always remained with me.
The intent of this Article is to set out and bring attention to the twofold remedies that Heaven proclaims to be the only sure means by which the Church will defeat Her enemies from within and without. It is necessary therefore to understand what the stated remedies are, why they are such and how we then might apply them, individually and universally as the Body of Christ. The premise of the article is drawn from Divine Revelation, the Dogmas of the Church, orthodox teaching of the Magisterium and private revelation. If we give our assent to, and practice that which is necessary, we are assured of final victory and the era of peace.
Chapter 1: Garabandal, A Eucharistic Admonition to the Entire Apostolic Church
Taken as a whole there is much that is sensational in the occurrence of supernatural events that engulfed the small Spanish hamlet of Garabandal between 1961 and 1965. Notwithstanding some 2000 apparitions, ecstatic falls and marches, kissing of pebbles and rosaries by the Apparition, the night of screams and the extraordinary story concerning the fifth visionary Fr. Luis Maria Andreu, there is still the awaited fulfillment of prophesy concerning the Warning, Miracle, Permanent Sign and Conditional Chastisement. These last four topics unsurprisingly continue to generate the highest instances of recurring discussion and analytical debate across social media. Clearly, they are among the most anticipated and perhaps most feared of all apparition themes that have come to us from across the centuries.
It’s a fact that all too often we become caught up in the bright lights of the sensational, for such is human nature. Yet, in becoming so dazzled we can all too easily lose sight of that which is the true meaning and purpose of the Heavenly visitation and more so, miss the very subtleties of its deeper meaning and forewarnings. One such subtlety and forewarning that is regrettably all too often overlooked with regard to Garabandal is that of Our Lady’s Eucharistic Admonition to the Church. If you look closely it is found embedded in the actions of the seers when in ecstasy, the Miracle of the Host and the two main messages announced at the very start and end of the Garabandal events, October the 18th 1961 and June 18th 1965 respectively.
How often did the seers invisibly receive the Sacred Host from the Angel and what, in every single instance, was their posture at reception? How many times did the visions occur at or end at the Church door? When acceding to the girls’ request for a Miracle “so that people might believe” what form of Miracle did Heaven grant and why? Most poignantly, what are we to make of the direct Eucharistic Admonitions, given not as incidentals but as prominences in Our Lady’s primary messages for the Church and the World?
Oct 18th 1961:
“We must make many sacrifices, perform much penance, and visit the Blessed Sacrament frequently.”
And June 18th 1965
“Many cardinals, many bishops, and many priests are on the road to perdition and are taking many souls with them. Less and less importance is being given to the Eucharist. You should turn the wrath of God away from yourselves by your efforts. If you ask His forgiveness with sincere hearts, He will pardon you.”
What are we to make of such admonitions? It is not insignificant that the Garabandal events commenced during the year of 1961, nor that the Eucharistic Admonitions progressed from advisory at the beginning to accusatory at the end (1965). Nor should we overlook the connection with Fatima outlined below and the sense of urgency in Sr, Lucia’s comments during an interview with Fr. Augustine Fuentes in 1957 and her pointed question;
“Father how much time before 1960 arrives?”
The significance of this question is it’s relating to the Third Secret of Fatima, both in terms of its’ severity and it being made known to the world no later than 1960. These two facts are poignantly captured in the book The Whole Truth About Fatima, Volume III: The Third Secret by Frère Michel de la Sainte Trinité, quoted as follows:
“Having received the formal order to write down the Secret in mid-October, two months later Sister Lucy still had not done so. This shows how much the writing of this text made her tremble. Indeed, as she took up her pen, she found herself incapable of writing. In effect, as she asked Don Garcia for advice, she added that she had wanted to obey several times, that she had sat down to write, without being able to. This mysterious impediment still existed on December 24, 1943, where she makes it clear in a letter to Don Garcia ‘that this phenomenon was not due to natural causes.’
“…Undoubtedly we see it as Satan’s final outburst against the messenger of the Immaculate One, guessing what a great weapon this prophecy would be, once it was set down in black and white, against his domination and his claim of being able to infiltrate the very heart of the Church…thus the seer’s great trial was the measure of how great was the event about to be accomplished.” [Page 45]
Finally, on January 2, 1944, Sister Lucy was able to write down the text of the Secret in the chapel at the convent of Tuy. According to the account of Canon Martins dos Reis, she was able to proceed only “after Our Lady appeared to her to tell her to write the famous secret … in conformity with what had been asked of her.” [Page 48]
On January 9, 1944, Sister Lucy wrote to Bishop da Silva to tell him that the Third Secret of Fatima had been written down and placed in a sealed envelope. On June 17, 1944, the envelope was delivered to Bishop da Silva, by Sister Lucy’s bishop confessor in Tuy. The five-month delay had resulted from Sister Lucy’s unwillingness to entrust the envelope to anyone but a bishop. Bishop da Silva made the famous promise to Sister Lucy that the envelope would be unsealed and the Secret revealed not later than 1960.”
The question that arises is; in what manner is the third secret so severe that Sr Lucia endured such difficulty in committing it to paper even after her insistent requests for a formal order to do so? Perhaps the most concise and authoritative answer is provided by Frere Michel (Vol III The Third Secret), where he quotes on Page 707 a passage from Fr Alonso’s work, La Verdad sobre el Secreto de Fátima (English version Page 82).
“Moreover, how are we to understand Lucy’s great difficulty in writing the final part of the Secret when she has already written other things that were extremely difficult to put down? Had it been merely a matter of prophesying new and severe punishments, Sister Lucy would not have experienced difficulties so great that a special intervention from Heaven was needed to overcome them. But if it were a matter of internal strife within the Church and of serious pastoral negligence on the part of high-ranking members of the hierarchy, we can understand how Lucy experienced a repugnance that was almost impossible to overcome by natural means.”
Chapter 2: A Question of Timing
St John Bosco’s prediction of 1862:
“There will be an Ecumenical Council in the next century, after which there will be chaos in the Church. Tranquillity will not return until the Pope succeeds in anchoring the boat of Peter between the twin pillars of Eucharistic Devotion and Devotion to Our Lady.”
When Sister Lucy was asked by Fr. Fuentes during the 1957 interview:
“Why the Third Secret is to be revealed no later than 1960?”
She simply responded:
“Because it will be clearer then.”
And indeed it does start to become “clear” when we explore events that took place in the Church between the date of the ‘question,’ in 1957 and the date the ‘events’ reached their completion.
On January 25 1959, Pope John XXIII called for an Ecumenical Council ‘as a means of spiritual renewal for the church and as an occasion for Christians separated from Rome to join in a search for Christian unity.’ The Council, was subsequently opened by him on 11th October 1962, (exactly 100 years after St John Bosco’s prediction of 1862). The Council was closed under Pope Paul VI on the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception on 8th December 1965. Significantly, the Council ended the very same year the final message of warning to the Church was issued by St Michael the Archangel to Conchita on behalf of Our Lady of Mount Carmel de Garabandal.
It would be naive in the extreme for any sensible person of Faith to conclude that the timing and content of these distinctly prophetic events are simply coincidental in regard to the timing and purpose of the 1962 Ecumenical Council. A Council judged by some to have ‘demolished the Bastions of the Faith.’ Interestingly, Pope Paul VI stated, during his June 29 homily in 1972 on the ninth anniversary of his coronation:
“It is as if from some mysterious crack, no, it is not mysterious, from some crack, the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.”
But then also states:
“We believe … that something preternatural has come into the world specifically to disturb, to suffocate the fruits of the Ecumenical Council, and to prevent the Church from breaking out in a hymn of joy for having recovered in fullness the awareness of herself.”
Today, with the benefit of hindsight, one may ask: Could it be that, Pope Paul VI’s second statement is in fact a misinterpretation of his initial prophetic words, especially given his legacy was always going to rest, to some degree, on the success or otherwise of the Council? One interpretation of this second statement is that it’s an intended shot across the bows of those who would voice serious concerns regarding the output of Vatican II, such as, it will inevitably lead to an ever-increasing crisis of faith and morals.
- Announcement of Pope John XXIII in 1959.
- An instruction that the Third Secret must be made known no later than 1960.
- In 1960, the Pope refuses to make known the secret and instead commands that the Third Secret remain forever in its’ envelope unopened. (Vatican communique via the A.N.I. press agency February 8th 1960 source: The Devils Final Battle pages 52 to 53).
- 1960 Sr. Lucia is silenced on orders of the Vatican apparatus (ref: foot note 5 to comments on page 53 of The Devils Final Battle).
- There is a subsequent necessity for Heaven to intervene once again, but this time from Garabandal beginning in 1961.
- The Council proceeds as planned in 1962.
- The final formal Garabandal message of warning to the Church is announced in June 1965 just prior to the close of the Council.
Chapter 3: A Question of Severity
Given there is unequivocal evidence provided under numerous books, articles and media outlets supported by eminent Prelates, theologians, Fatima experts and trustworthy commentators that the Church hierarchy is yet to reveal the exact content of the Third Secret, there is no gain in my reiterating the same under this Article. My purpose rather is to give testimony to conclusions (albeit necessarily speculative), concerning its’ as yet unrevealed content and in consequence, understand better Sr. Lucia’s impediment to put pen to paper due to its possible severity.
As stated earlier, the severity of the Third Secret, pertains not to worldly catastrophes, but “internal strife within the Church and of serious pastoral negligence on the part of high-ranking members of the hierarchy.” The Third Secret of Fatima is nothing less than the continuance of Heaven’s dialogue with the Church throughout the centuries, giving warning in regard to mankind’s iniquity and the accompanying dangers to the Church and the World such represents. This Chapter 3. gives evidence of that ‘dialogue,’ which, one may reasonably speculate culminates in the content of the Third Secret. A secret singularly purposed for the attention of Pope Pius XII and his successor’s subsequent action at the appointed time (1960). If this is indeed the case, then as you journey through this discourse, I hope it will become apparent why Sr Lucia suffered such a state of terrible indecision, for in committing such facts to paper, once done it cannot be retracted.
In the Gospel, of Matthew (24:10) in speaking of the signs pointing toward the end of the age, Our Blessed Lord informs his disciples:
“At that time many will turn away from the faith [general apostasy] and will betray and hate each other.”
Our Lord further implies (Mat 24:15-22) that the ‘apostasy’ will be a prelude to the appearing of the Anti-Christ by following His earlier pronouncement with:
“When you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel.” (Dan 9:27, 11:31, 12:11)
St. Paul reminds the Thessalonians (2-Thess 2:3-12):
“Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day [when the Lord returns] will not come unless the rebellion [general apostasy] comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one destined for destruction.”
The Book of Revelation warns of the rise and apparent success of that Dark Bride of the Anti-Church, (a Counterfeit Church), that through her cunning deceptions seeks to appropriate the Throne belonging to the True Bride of Christ:
17:1 “Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who is seated upon many waters, 17:2 with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and with the wine of whose fornication the dwellers on earth have become drunk.” [i.e. wine of mortal sin redefined as virtue, as if a mercy or opportunity for grace, alongside adopting heterodoxy and heresy]
17:4 “The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, [stolen vestments of Bishops and Cardinals] and bedecked with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her fornication; 17:5 and on her forehead was written a name of mystery: “Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth’s abominations.” 17:6 And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.”
17:9 “the seven heads (of the Beast), [the Beast represents the empire of the Secret Society and the Antichrist: described by Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich-Volume II page 259] are seven mountains [Rome] on which the woman is seated [seizing the Throne of St. Peter].”
17:15 “The waters that you saw, where the harlot is seated, are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues [perhaps representing those who have given themselves over to the counterfeit church and to Mammon].”
An often, common trait of private revelation is the warning of chastisements both close at hand and in the far distant future if mankind does not desist forthwith from so grievously offending God. Of particular note for this topic of ‘severity’ are the prophesied calamities that will befall the Church if She does not comply with the requests of Heaven, calamities as we shall see, seeded from within Her own hallowed halls and as possibly reiterated under the Third Secret of Fatima.
St. Hippolytus (3rd century)
“And the churches too will wail with a mighty lamentation, because neither oblation nor incense is attended to, nor a service acceptable to God; but the sanctuaries of the churches will become like a garden-watcher’s hut, and the Holy Body and Blood of Christ will not be shown in those days. The public service of God shall be extinguished.”
St. Nicholas von Flue (15th century)
“The Church will be punished because the majority of Her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until She will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, She will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters.”
Our Lady of Good Success (16th century)
Our Lady and Our Lord appeared to the Venerable Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres a Conceptionist nun and gave her many revelations, that included prophecies, some especially relevant for our time such as the present crisis in the Church, for example:
in 1582, Mariana saw the tabernacle door open and Christ emerged in his sufferings at Calvary while his Blessed Mother Mary Most Holy cried tears of pearls. Our Lady confirmed this suffering and sorrow is due to:
“the criminal world of the twentieth century.”
Mariana saw three swords above the head of Christ and heard God the Father say these represent punishments reserved for the twentieth century and beyond. That each sword was a symbol of Divine intention explained to Mariana as:
“I will punish heresy”; “I will punish blasphemy”; and “I will punish impurity.”
Mother Mariana was also given notice of the chaos that would reign in the Church during the 20th century and thereafter, due in great part to the diabolical influence of Freemasonry (the Secret Sect) particularly after the century’s midpoint and how the Secret Sect would wreak havoc on Her. That as a result, unfaithful prelates and religious would do much damage, as described under the following quoted announcements:
“under the appearance of virtue and bad-spirited zeal, would turn upon [True] Religion, who nourished them at her breast.”
“…the enemies of Jesus Christ, instigated by the devil, will steal consecrated Hosts from the churches so that they may profane the Eucharistic species. My Most Holy Son will see himself cast upon the ground and trampled upon by filthy feet.”
A general falling away of devotion and belief toward the Sacrament of Holy Unction due to the laxity of prelates and compromise with the world means souls will pass to judgment without receiving the Holy Eucharist. Our Lady predicted that, because of this:
“…souls will be deprived of innumerable graces, consolations and the strength they need to make that great leap from time to eternity.”
All seven of the Sacraments will come under attack, Holy Matrimony will be profaned in a multitude of ways because:
“…the passions will erupt and there will be a total corruption of morals… As for the Sacrament of Matrimony, which symbolizes the union of Christ with His Church, it will be attacked and deeply profaned. Freemasonry, which will then be in power, will enact iniquitous laws with the aim of doing away with this Sacrament, making it easy for everyone to live in sin and encouraging procreation of illegitimate children born without the blessing of the Church… In this supreme moment of need for the Church, the one who should speak will fall silent [Pope Benedict XVI?].”
“…the devil will make a great effort to destroy the Sacrament of Confession by means of people in positions of authority…”
“Lacking a Prelate [i.e. a Pope: imbued with Apostolic Catholic Orthodoxy] to guide them . . . with strength, wisdom and prudence, many priests will lose their spirit, placing their souls in great danger.”
“The Christian spirit will rapidly decay, extinguishing the precious light of faith until it reaches a point that there will be an almost total and general corruption of customs.”
Our Lady of La Salette (19th century)
In 1846, Our Sorrowful Mother gave the Seers many warnings on how God will punish mankind if mankind did not desist from sinning and return to the road of conversion and maintain a prayerful penitential life. Our Lady stated that:
“Lucifer, with a great number of demons will be unchained from Hell. By degrees they shall abolish the Faith, even among persons consecrated to God.”
“In every place there will be extraordinary prodigies, because the true Faith has been extinguished.”
“The abomination shall be seen in holy places, in convents, and then the demon shall make himself the king of hearts.”
“Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of Antichrist.”
The following extract is taken from the book “The Secret of Melanie [Calvat] and the Actual Crisis” by Abbot Combe, 1906; Courtesy of marienfried.com:
“The Church will be eclipsed. At first, we will not know which is the true pope. Then secondly, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass will cease to be offered in churches and houses; it will be such that, for a time, there will not be public services any more. But I see that the Holy Sacrifice has not really ceased: it will be offered in barns, in alcoves, in caves, and underground.”
St John Bosco 1862:
“There will be an Ecumenical Council in the next century, after which there will be chaos in the Church. Tranquillity will not return until the Pope succeeds in anchoring the boat of Peter between the twin pillars of Eucharistic Devotion and Devotion to Our Lady.”
Pope Leo XIII (19th Century)
Thirty-three years prior to the Great Miracle of Fatima, Pope Leo XIII in 1884, composed his prayer of petition to St. Michael the Archangel. A prayer of such import that he directed it to be recited at the conclusion of every Low Mass everywhere in the world. The prayer in its original 1884 form made specific reference to a perilous situation the Church would one day find Herself, the whole prayer was added to the Leonine Prayers in 1886.
The prayer to St. Michael was subsequently rewritten without explanation in 1934. The changes were extensive and included the removal of texts relating to the approaching apostasy and its reaching the very highest places in the Church:
“These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.”
Regrettably, Pope Paul VI in 1964 removed the mandatory recital of the Prayer as a conclusion to every Low Mass. The two versions of the prayer are provided in full under this article’s Addendum.
Concerning the Pope’s vison, which led to his composing the prayer to St Michael, there are a number of differing versions in circulation that purport to recount its’ actual content. It is important to note that, Pope Leo XIII is not known for having committed to paper the subject matter of his vision nor of having spoken publicly of his experience. In consequence the most credible accounts of the event that we have available are:
An article in the Italian journal La Settimana del Clero in 1947 by Domenico Pechenino, who worked at the Vatican during the time of Pope Leo XIII, in which he said:
“…that after Leo had celebrated a Mass, he seemed to be staring at something, then went to his private office, with his attendants asking if he was well. Half an hour later he had written the Saint Michael prayer.”
According to the article in Ephemerides Liturgicae, Giovanni Nasalli Rocca Cardinal di Corneliano wrote in his Litteris Pastoralibus pro Quadragesima (Pastoral Letters for Lent) that according to Pope Leo’s private secretary, Rinaldo Angeli:
“Pope Leo XIII had seen a vision of demonic spirits who were congregating on the Eternal City (Rome); he wrote the Saint Michael prayer, and often said it, in response to the vision.”
Other accounts published during the 20th and 21st Century unfortunately offer no credible reference to source material that indisputably supports the veracity of their statements. These emerging commonly held assertions padded with extra detail can, in my view, only be the product of conjecture and speculation and should therefore be treated with a certain caution. They generally report the event as follows:
“When the aged Pontiff had finished celebrating Mass in his private Vatican Chapel, attended by a few Cardinals and members of the Vatican staff, he suddenly stopped at the foot of the altar. He stood there for about 10 minutes, as if in a trance, his face ashen white. Then, going immediately from the Chapel to his office, he composed the prayer to St. Michael, with instructions it be said after all Low Masses everywhere.”
“In 1884, following his morning Mass, Pope Leo XIII became ashen faced traumatized to the point that he collapsed. Those in attendance thought that he was dead. After coming to consciousness, the pope described a frightful conversation that he had heard coming from near the tabernacle. The conversation consisted of two voices – voices which Pope Leo XIII clearly understood to be the voices of Jesus Christ and the Devil. The Devil boasted that he could destroy the Church, if he were granted 75 years to carry out his plan (or 100 years, according to some accounts). The Devil also asked permission for “a greater influence over those who will give themselves to my service.” To the Devil’s requests, Our Lord reportedly replied: “you will be given the time and the power.””
In summary, the lesson from Pope Leo XIII’s prayer and the content of his experience which is known with some certainty to have occurred, evidentially demonstrate his experiencing a supernatural event. A warning, concerning a direct attack of the diabolical upon the Bride of Christ from both within and without. A furious attack directed against Doctrine on Revealed Truths, the Bastions of the Faith, the Holy Priesthood and the Church’s very Soul. A vision and a prayer familiarly consistent with Heaven’s appeals prior to and post Pope Leo XIII’s tenure as the Vicar of Christ.
Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli (20th century)
Msgr. Roche’s biography of Pius XII, Pie XII Devant L’Histoire (Paris: Editions Robert Laffont, 1972, pp. 52-53), records him speaking to Count Enrico Pietro Galeazzi and Msgr. Slozkaz, in 1931 (some state 1933) whilst still a Cardinal, about the apparitions at Fatima and the apostasy of the Catholic Church:
“I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide that would be represented by the alteration of the faith, in her liturgy, her theology and her soul….”
“I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her ornaments and make her feel remorse for her historical past.”
“A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, “Where have they taken Him?”
Anyone walking in to the Cathedral Church of the Diocese to which I belong, will not find a tabernacle or red lamp. They have been removed (or never installed – its a modernist architecture). They are in a completely separate and small side chapel which, from a certain angle can be seen through the window separating it from the main body of the Church.
Our Lady of Akita (20th century)
On the subject of internal chaos let us also keep in mind the more recent prophetic warning from Our Lady of Akita announced on the anniversary of the Great Miracle of Fatima: (Oct 13th 1973):
“The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The Priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres…churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.”
Hints of Severity from what is said of The Third Secret of Fatima
Father Paul Kramer in Fatima Network Crusader (Issue No.80 page 32) states:
‘On the 2nd of September, 1952, when Father Schweigl had been sent personally by Pope Pius XII to Coimbra, to interview Sister Lucy on the Third Secret, he spoke personally with Sister Lucy. He returned to Rome and at the Russicum, where he lived, he told his confreres, when they asked him about the Third Secret of Fatima:
“I cannot reveal anything of what I learned at Fatima concerning the third secret, but I can say that it has two parts: one concerns the Pope. The other, logically — although I must say nothing — would have to be the continuation of the words: In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved etc.”
So, it is an established fact that the words of Our Lady of Fatima continue after the “etc.”
In the memoir of Sister Lucy, after that “etc.” she puts in parenthesis the words:
“Here begins the third part of the Secret”.’
The Third Secret by Frère Michel de la Sainte Trinité, states that Father Alonso, the official Fatima archivist had this to say on the Third Secret:
“In the period preceding the great triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, terrible things are to happen. These form the content of the third part of the Secret. What are they?
If ‘in Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved,’ … it can be clearly deduced from this that in other parts of the Church these dogmas are going to become obscure or even lost altogether.
Thus, it is quite possible that in this intermediate period which is in question (after 1960 and before the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary), the text makes concrete references to the crisis of the Faith of the Church and to the negligence of the pastors themselves.
One conclusion does indeed seem to be beyond question: the content of the unpublished part of the Secret does not refer to new wars or political upheavals, but to happenings of a religious and intra-Church character, which of their nature are still more grave.”
The below text is claimed by Fr. Raymond Arnette (a French Priest) to be the true content of the Third Secret revealed to him By Our Lady in 1994 when he was listening to a CD entitled Mysterium Fidei (Mystery of Faith).
“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.”
At the conclusion of this message and after a short pause, Fr. Arnette then heard:
“This is the Third Secret of Fatima.”
It is noteworthy that this message, if authentic, occurred whilst Fr. Arnette was listening to a CD of devotional hymns, the title of which directly relates to the Sacred Act of Consecration, (i.e. the Priest, during the consecration of the wine would also whisper over the chalice “Mysterium Fidei” words used prior to their removal under the Novus Ordo Missae promulgated by Pope VI in 1969). It may be surmised therefore that this locution tentatively points to an accelerating situation in the Church of “less and less importance being given to the Eucharist” by Prelates who in consequence impart the same attitude among the Laity. A mindset thus formed fashioning an unintended sacrilegious state of affairs regarding the Holy Eucharist which, is unequivocally concomitant with the ambitions and errors of the 1962 Ecumenical Council. Of this Sr Lucia in a letter to her friend Mother Martins writes:
And the worst is that he [the Devil] has [not ‘will’] succeeded in leading into error and deceiving souls having a heavy responsibility through the place which they occupy …! They are blind men guiding other blind men. …”
One might also add, if this is indeed a true private revelation, it is no wonder Pope John XXIII forever forbade the public reading of the Secret, as far as he and Pope Paul VI were concerned, this Council was going to go ahead no matter what!
For the record, there is no explicit evidential proof that this version of the Third Secret is authentic, its’ validity remains unanswered. I simply offer it for your own reflection primarily because it in many respects says nothing new and if anything, is a summary of prophesies already set out in this Article. I will add that this locution was published in Fr. Paul Kramer’s book ‘The Devil’s Final Battle’. Fr. Kramer reports that a seminary professor, a priest that Fr. Paul Kramer knows personally, who was a close friend of Pope John Paul II, and knows personally Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, confronted Cardinal Ratzinger in a meeting at the Vatican. His intent, to question the truthfulness of the published Vatican interpretation of the Third Secret (Yr. 2000). Cardinal Ratzinger after much persuasion and insistence by the professor, is said to have confirmed to him that:
“Our Lady warned of an evil council. And She warned against the changes; She warned against making changes in the liturgy; changes in the Mass. This is explicitly set forth in the Third Secret.”
Finally, Fr. Arnette’s version of The Secret, was also published in an SSPX newsletter by Bishop Richard Williamson in 2000. Clearly there are respected well informed persons who believe they have good cause in making known this version of the Third Secret of Fatima. We should therefore listen! Need I say more concerning the ‘severity’ of the Third Secret or demonstrate why Sr. Lucia had such difficulty in committing its’ content to paper?
Chapter 4: Vatican II, was this ‘The Wicked Council?
An example of the danger to the Faith that Vatican II appears to have engendered, is set out under Father Paul Kramer’s discourse published by the Fatima Network Crusader (Issue No.80 page 32), for instance:
‘There are grave errors in the Second Vatican Council. The teaching on ecumenism, strictly speaking, is heretical.’ (See also The Fatima Crusader Issue No. 79, “Errors of Ecumenism”.)‘
‘Pope St. Pius V teaches in his Catechism, the Roman Catechism, also known as the Catechism of the Council of Trent, that all of the Protestant religions are false religions. The Decree on Ecumenism in the Second Vatican Council says that God uses those churches and Ecclesial Communities… as means of salvation.’
‘Now the teaching of the Church, the Catholic Faith, is very clear that the means of salvation are the Sacraments of the Holy Catholic Church. Along with this is the teaching, the Deposit of Faith, that is set forth by the Church, and the Church’s Magisterium, the divine revelation. It is the Catholic faith, it is the practice of the Catholic faith, it is the seven Catholic Sacraments, that are the means of salvation. These alone.’
‘The Council of Trent and Vatican II cannot both be right! You have diametrically opposed teachings. Only one can be true, the other is false.’
‘In the Second Vatican Council we see that all of the non-Catholic and non-Christian religions are described as being good. In the Conciliar church (i.e. not the Catholic Church of all time) all religions are considered to be good, and true. According to the Conciliar church, they suffer the misfortune of having some errors, and there are some evils mixed in with the good, but they are good, and they are true.’
‘That’s the false doctrine of the new ecumenical church — the Roman Protestant conciliar ecumenical church. The Roman Catholic Church has always had a different teaching: there is only one true religion. There is only one true Church. There is only one true Faith, and it is Catholic. All other religions are false religions. All other churches are false churches. That has always been the teaching and the Faith of the Catholic Church.’
‘So here we see, already, the beginnings of what is going to become the greatest heresy in the history of the Church that, will bring about the greatest suffering that the world has ever seen, as foretold by Pope Pius XII.’
If you should have any doubt concerning the truth of the above, then I strongly urge you to read in full, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s recent address given on October 24th to the attendees of the 2020 Catholic Identity Conference. A full transcript is available at OnePeterFive
We know the final defeat of all Diabolical errors and the cleansing of their stain upon the Church and all mankind, during this epoch, will be the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Only this time it will be accomplished by a Holy Pope in the manner and formula requested by Our Blessed Mother at Fatima.
Chapter 5: The Twin Pillars as Absolute Remedies
Before we reach the Glorious Victory, Our Blessed Mother requests we accept and practice the only remedies left open to us, remedies that are participant and therefore necessary to usher in the mandated Consecration and defeat of the Anti-Church. The assured remedies are twofold:
The First Remedy: Devotion to the Immaculate Heart and the Daily recital of the Holy Rosary:
A sample of testimonies in respect to the First Remedy are offered as follows:
Our Lady of Good Success:
“In order to free men from bondage to these heresies, those whom the merciful love of my Most Holy Son has designated to affect the restoration will need great strength of will, constancy, valour and confidence in God… …These few, chosen souls would appear to be very similar to the apostles of the latter times predicted by St. Louis Marie Grignion de Montfort.” [An indirect reference to souls devoted to the Mother of God and recital of the Holy Rosary]
St Louis was especially successful in furthering devotion to the Most Blessed Virgin through the Holy Rosary. He also wrote a very popular book, True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin. In 1715, Louis organized several priests and formed the Missionaries of the Company of Mary.
Our Lady of Lourdes
The apparitions of Our Blessed Mother to St Bernadette, Lourdes (commencing the 11th Feb 1858), may be the first Church approved visions, that included a request for the reciting of the Holy Rosary for the conversion of sinners. Initially, the request was by example rather than the spoken word, St. Bernadette recounts the very first vision as:
“I raised my head and looked at the Grotto. I saw a Lady dressed in white, she was wearing a white dress and a blue sash and a yellow rose on each foot the colour of the chain of Her Rosary…I put my hand in my pocket and found my Rosary in it…The vision made the sign of the cross…I said my rosary. The vision ran the beads of Hers through Her fingers but did not move Her lips. When I had finished my Rosary, the vision disappeared…”
During the vision of the 21st February St. Bernadette was seen to cry and when asked why, she explained the Lady looked very sad and just said:
“Pray for sinners.”
On the 24th February Bernadette, during her vision, was heard to call out “Penitence, Penitence, Penitence.” Again, the Lady commanded “You are to pray for sinners.” Clearly the prayer for the conversion of sinners requested by Our Lady by Her example and St. Bernadette’s compliance is the recital of the Holy Rosary.
St John Bosco
St John Bosco had a supernatural dream concerning the power of the Holy Rosary, Confession and Holy Communion which can be read in full at St. John Bosco’s Dream:
The following are the parts pertinent to this Article:
St. John and the ‘Stranger’ slew a great, rather giant and formidable snake with a rope that was revealed to John to be the Rosary:
“The snake,” the man replied, “is a symbol of the Devil, whereas the rope stands for Ave Maria, or rather, the Rosary, a succession of Hail Marys with which we can strike, conquer and destroy all of Hell’s demons.”
The boys with St. John began then to eat the flesh and refused to desist despite St John’s efforts to intervene, the boys became sick:
“…they would crumple to the ground, and their bodies would swell and harden like stone. I was helpless, because, despite this, more and more boys kept eating that meat.”
“What does this mean?” I asked [the ‘Stranger’]. “These boys know that this meat will kill them, yet they eat it. Why?”
The Stranger answered. “Because ‘the sensual man does not perceive the things that are of God!’ That’s why!” He answered.”
“But isn’t there some way of saving these boys?”
“Yes, there is.”
“Anvil and hammer.”
“Anvil and hammer? What for?”
“To put the boys back in shape.”
“You mean I am to put them on an anvil and strike them with the hammer?”
“Look,” the stranger said, “this whole thing is a symbol. The hammer symbolizes Confession, and the anvil symbolizes Holy Communion. These are the remedies you must use.”
“I went to work and found the treatment very effective, but not for all. While most boys were restored to life and recovered, a few did not, because their Confessions were bad.”
Fatima: In her 1957 interview with Father Fuentes, Sister Lucy says:
“The two means for saving the world are prayer and sacrifice. [Regarding the Holy Rosary, Sister Lucy said:] Look, Father, the Most Holy Virgin, in these last times in which we live, has given a new efficacy to the recitation of the Rosary to such an extent that there is no problem, no matter how difficult it is, whether temporal or above all spiritual, in the personal life of each one of us, of our families, of the families of the world or of the religious communities, or even of the life of peoples and nations, that cannot be solved by the Rosary. There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we cannot resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary. With the Holy Rosary we will sanctify ourselves. We will console Our Lord and obtain the salvation of many souls.
In a letter to Don Umberto Pasquale, who was very devoted to the cause of Fatima, Sister Lucy wrote:
“The decadence which exists in the world is without any doubt the consequence of the lack of the spirit of prayer. Foreseeing this disorientation, the Blessed Virgin recommended recitation of the Rosary with such insistence. And since the Rosary is, after the holy Eucharistic liturgy, the prayer most apt for preserving faith in souls, the devil has unchained his struggles against it. Unfortunately, we see the disasters he has caused.
We must defend souls against the errors which can make them stray from the good road. … We cannot and we must not stop ourselves, nor allow, as Our Lord says, the children of Darkness to be wiser than the children of Light … The Rosary is the most powerful weapon for defending ourselves on the field of battle.”
“Finally, devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, our Most Holy Mother, consists in considering Her as the seat of mercy, of goodness and of pardon, and as the sure door of entering Heaven.”
The Second Remedy: Wholly Revitalised Return to Unequivocal and Universal Eucharistic Devotion
Of the two Pillars the ‘Boat of Peter’ is to be firmly anchored, that of Devotion to Our Lady (the First Remedy) is perhaps, on a private level at least, the easier to accomplish and thereby the first anchorage to be addressed. I suggestion this because:
- Permission from the Church is not a pre-requisite.
- It is for the individual to desire and foster, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, devotional love toward Our Lady. Such devotion only requires the movement of the will, that is, one’s “fiat.” In practical terms, this should in the very least accord with Our Lady’s urgent request that, we especially recite the Holy Rosary, offer much penance and make many sacrifices.
- In my experience, the practice of these daily devotional prayers cultivates an increasing respect and heartfelt love for The Mother of Our Lord which, contemporaneously sets fire to the heart with a burning unquenchable love for the Eternal Father, the Holy Spirit and our Blessed Lord, our Redeemer, our Brother and our very dear friend.
- In my opinion, a life lived in the company of Our Blessed Mother is the most direct route to discerning; our non-compliance with the commandments of God; the shallowness of our love for God; how we are lacking in the action of love toward others and what is required in order for us to come to know that Divine Love which rains upon us continually.
I have also come to realise that Graces received through a resolute devotion to Our Lady duly increases one’s comprehension of and thereby devotion toward Our Lord being truly present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, (in totality), in the Sacred Species of the Holy Eucharist. If as individuals we truly desire to provoke proper devotion to Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist, we must first become anchored to a devotional love for His Blessed Mother. We have read have we not, that in this epoch, Our Lord has made known His desire that the Church (all of us under the leadership of His consecrated sons) should highly honour and glorify His Beloved Mother as Advocate, Mediatrix and Coredemptrix. Hence, Mary alone is designated by the Holy Trinity to be the One that will crush the Serpent’s head whose sacrilegious filth has coiled itself around the Church and World. Hence among the manifold graces granted to souls devoted to the Mother of Our Lord is the Supernatural Grace to more perfectly perceive His Real Presence in the Eucharist. In so perceiving, the soul also receives the necessary Grace to know how to respond and the courage to do so if it will. It is Devotion to Our Lady that has become also a foundational precept by which we individually and as a whole can distinguish what becoming anchored to the pillar of Eucharistic Devotion involves.
As stated previously, anchoring the ‘Boat of Peter’ to the ‘Pillar of Eucharistic Devotion,’ ‘Wholly Revitalised’ is going to be a more difficult task than anchoring to the Pillar dedicated to Our Lady. The reason being, that, unlike Devotion to Our Lady, participative support from the Church’s hierarchy is a necessary requirement. What this entails will become apparent on subsequent pages, but first we must distinguish and define the ’10 Steps’ we as individuals can take, in order to maintain or begin to foster our own ‘revitalised’ Eucharistic Devotion.
- Devotion to Our Lady as defined earlier
- Regular, if not daily, examination of conscience and an increased determination through supplication and Grace to amend one’s life and better avoid all occasions of sin in the future.
- Correctly discern that which constitutes mortal and serious sin, avoiding all post Vatican II heterodox ideas and definitions of such.
- If there is unconfessed venial sin on one’s soul, only receive the Hoy Eucharist if one is truly remorseful, wholly repentant and determined to go to Confession at the earliest opportunity.
- Do not receive the Holy Eucharist if one has committed mortal or serious sin(s) until such time as one is truly remorseful, wholly repentant and having received absolution following a full and heartfelt admission during Confession and once again, in a ‘state of Grace.’ (Items f. to i. further reading, paragraph 11: The Table of The Bread of The Lord. St. John Paul II 1980 letter Dominicae Cenae).
- Take to heart and hold forever dear the millennial Dogmas and Canons of the Church concerning the substance of the Holy Eucharist as defined at the Council of Florence, and 100 years later, Transubstantiation, as set-out below and defined by the Council of Trent:
“The most holy Eucharist has indeed this in common with the rest of the sacraments, that it is a symbol of a sacred thing, and is a visible form of an invisible grace. But there is found in the Eucharist this excellent and unique thing, that the other sacraments have the first power of sanctifying when one uses them, whereas in the Eucharist, before being used, there is the Author Himself of sanctity….
And this faith has ever been in the Church of God, that, immediately after the consecration, the true Body of our Lord, and His true Blood, together with His soul and Divinity, are under the species of bread and wine; but the Body indeed under the species of bread, and the Blood under the species of wine, by the force of the words; but the body itself under the species of wine, and the blood under the species of bread, and the soul under both, by the force of that natural connection and concomitancy whereby the parts of Christ our Lord, who has now risen from the dead to die no more, are united together; and the Divinity, furthermore, on account of the admirable hypostatic union with His body and soul.”
The infallible Canons I and II of the Council of Trent respectively add:
“If any one denies that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but says that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or power; let him be anathema.’
‘If any one says, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood — the species Only of the bread and wine remaining — which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, 13th session). [Source www.ronconte.com Ronald L. Conte Jr., Roman Catholic theologian and Bible translator].
- Approach the Table of Lord to receive the Holy Eucharist in a state of penitence recalling one’s propensity to sin and recounting in gratitude God’s eternal patience and mercy, ready always to forgive the truly contrite.
- Do not receive, the Sacred Host which, is an encounter in the Flesh with Our Blessed Lord and King, in a contradictory manor. The way in which we receive Holy Communion symbolises and gives witness to the Truth of the Doctrine attached to the Sacred Species. So before receiving Holy Communion consider why:
- we genuflect when entering or leaving a Church or when stepping in to or out of the pew
- during the consecration and throughout most of the Communion Rite we remain kneeling
- at the Consecration we are kneeling and attention is brought to bear on the attendees that the Sacrifice is being enacted
- we kneel when the Tabernacle containing Consecrated Hosts is opened
- we kneel when the Priest on Holy Thursday carries the Ciborium containing Consecrated Hosts to the Alter of Repose at the end of Mass with much ceremony
- we genuflect on both knees, not one knee, when entering or leaving the church, when Our Lord is made visible to us in the Monstrance during Exposition
- at the Benediction following Exposition we fall on bended knees before the Lord
- the Priest at the Benediction does not directly hold the Monstrance in his consecrated hands.
Before going further, I wish to make it clear that my following comment does not make any judgment on the disposition of another’s heart and soul toward the reception of the Eucharist.
On reflection then, how is it right and proper and not contrary to due respect toward Christ, or traditional custom and practice, for you and I to present ourselves standing, as if an equal, one on one with the King of Kings the Holy One of God and then reach out and take hold of His Sacred Body in our unclean hands? What does this way of receiving portray and symbolise to those we encourage to believe it is the Christ we consume in the Holy Eucharist? To the uninformed onlooker, it may appear we are queuing to receive nothing more than a mere symbolic morsel of food from a common meal in memorial to the Last Supper.
- Seek permission from your Priest (even during this so-called pandemic) to receive Holy Communion kneeling before Christ and on one’s tongue. If the answer is no, find a Parish and Priest who will give you his consent to do so. It is a fact, that a Priest is not at liberty to refuse your request by decree of the Popes.
By way of encouragement and in addition to that which follows below, I offer, under Note 5 of the Addendum, something of my own experience in trying to follow Step 9.
Regardless of my experience however, please be assured that Step 9. is first and foremost the prescribed manner in which the Church of today as in the past formally prefers we receive Holy Communion. It is not therefore Communion in the hand as some would have us believe. Our being permitted to receive Holy Communion, now as in the past, is prescribed under: Memoriale Domini, The Instruction on the Manner of Administering Holy Communion (The Congregation for Divine Worship on May 29, 1969). This Instruction, prepared at the special mandate of Pope Paul VI, was duly approved by him, in virtue of apostolic authority, on May 28, 1969. Pope Paul VI also decreed that it be brought to the attention of the bishops through the presidents of the episcopal conferences. (source: Memoriale Domini).
“In view of the state of the Church as a whole today, this manner of distributing Holy Communion must be observed [on the tongue whilst kneeling and the use of a Communion Plate], not only because it rests upon a tradition of many centuries but especially because it is a sign of the reverence of the faithful toward the Eucharist. The practice in no way detracts from the personal dignity of those who approach this great Sacrament and it is a part of the preparation needed for the most fruitful reception of the Lord’s body.”
“This reverence is a sign of communion not in “common bread and drink” but in the Body and Blood of the Lord. By it the people of God shares in the blessings of the paschal sacrifice, renews the new covenant once made by God with man in the Blood of Christ, and in faith and hope prefigures and anticipates the eschatological banquet in the kingdom of the Father.”
“In addition, this manner of communicating, which is now to be considered as prescribed by custom, gives more effective assurance that Holy Communion will be distributed with the appropriate reverence, decorum, and dignity; that any danger of profaning the Eucharistic species, in which the whole and entire Christ, God and man, is substantially contained and permanently present in a unique way, will be avoided; and finally that the diligent care which the Church has always commended for the very fragments of the consecrated bread will be maintained: “If you have allowed anything to be lost, consider this a lessening of your own members”” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses Mystagogicae).
“On this account, since some few episcopal conferences and individual bishops had asked that the usage of placing the consecrated bread in the hand of the faithful be admitted in their territories, the Supreme Pontiff decreed that each bishop of the entire Latin Church should be asked his opinion concerning the appropriateness of introducing this rite. A change in a matter of such importance, which rests on a very ancient and venerable tradition, besides touching upon discipline can also include dangers. These may be feared from a new manner of administering Holy Communion: they are a lessening of reverence toward the noble Sacrament of the altar, its profanation, or the adulteration of correct doctrine”
“Three questions were therefore proposed to the bishops. Up to March 12 the following responses had been received:”
- “Does it seem that the proposal should be accepted by which, besides the traditional mode, the rite of receiving Holy Communion in the hand would be permitted?
- Yes: 567
- No: 1,233
- Yes, with reservations: 315
- Invalid votes: 20
- Should experiments with this new rite first take place in small communities, with the assent of the local Ordinary?
- Yes: 751
- No: 1,215
- Invalid votes: 70
- Do you think that the faithful, after a well-planned catechetical preparation, would accept this new rite willingly?
- Yes: 835
- No: 1,185
- Invalid votes: 128
“From the responses received it is thus clear that by far the greater number of bishops feel that the present discipline should not be changed at all, indeed that if it were changed, this would be offensive to the sensibilities and spiritual appreciation of these bishops and of most of the faithful. After he had considered the observations and the counsel of those whom “the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule” (Acts 20: 28. and Cf. II Vatican Council, decree Christus Dominus) the Churches, in view of the seriousness of the matter and the importance of the arguments proposed, the Supreme Pontiff judged that the long received manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful should not be changed. The Apostolic See therefore strongly urges bishops, priests, and people to observe zealously this law, valid and again confirmed, according to the judgment of the majority of the Catholic episcopate, in the form which the present rite of the sacred liturgy employs, and out of concern for the common good of the Church.”
- Avoid if at all possible, attending any Parish wherein the Priest invites non-Catholics to receive Holy Communion. To participate at a Mass or other service offering Holy Communion in this way is to be witness to a sacrilege. To continue to knowingly attend Services thereafter in which the invite remains open, is by implication to give one’s approval to the sacrilege and to passively participate in the sacrilegious act itself. I evidence Step 10’s legitimacy with the following:
St. Paul reminded the Corinthians: “Every time, then, you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes. This means that whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord.” (I Cor 11: 26-28).
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302: “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one.’”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441: “…that the unity of this ecclesiastical body [The Holy Apostolic Church] is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s Sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards…”
Pope Pius VIII, Traditi Humilitati (# 4), May 24, 1829: “Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats the Lamb outside this house will perish as did those during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark.”
Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum Divinitus (# 11), May 17, 1835: “… whoever dares to depart from the unity of Peter might understand that he no longer shares in the divine mystery… Whoever eats the Lamb outside of this house is unholy.”
Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (# 3), April 8, 1862: “… whoever eats of the Lamb and is not a member of the Church, has profaned.”
It is a matter of dogma that those who have elected to formally depart from the Church to form their own sect and whose teachings are heretical makes heretics of its members. They are in substance outside the Church and being heretical are in sin. Being outside the Church and in a state of sin, their members are prohibited from receiving the Holy Eucharist. To invite non-Catholics to receive Holy Communion and to suggest they may do so is a heresy. [For deeper reflection on this topic may I refer you to Volume I The Life and Revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich pages 364-368, in which, her ‘Spiritual Guide,’ reproaches her complaisant attitude in regard to pious Christians belonging to heretical faiths].
There are those who will assert that the edicts of the Ecumenical Council, and the post Vatican II revisions to both Canon Law and the Catechism, supersede that which went before. Even if one were to concede such a position, a correct reading of these demonstrates that they fundamentally remain consistent with that which went before. In fact, whilst Vatican II invited dialogue with those formally separated from the Church to discuss differences and find common ground, the updated Catechism states:
“these differences still “break the common participation in the table of the Lord” (No.1398).
An article provided by the Catholic Education Resource Center reminds its’ readers that:
“Besides rejecting papal authority, Vatican II recognized that the Protestant Churches “have not preserved the proper reality of the eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of holy orders” (“Decree on Ecumenism,” No.22). For this very reason, the sharing of holy Communion between Protestants and Catholics is not possible (Catechism, No.1400).
Protestant theology differs with Catholic theology concerning the holy Eucharist over the real presence of Christ, transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the Mass and the nature of the priesthood. the Code of Canon Law makes an exception in emergency cases: “If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic administers may licitly administer these sacraments (penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick) to other Christians … who cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest the Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed” (Canon 844, No.4).”
Please note in Canon 884, No.4, an important qualification that is required prior to a none-Catholic receiving the Holy Eucharist, (it also applies to Orthodox Churches) is restated below:
“who on their own ask for it provided they manifest the Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed” and not thereby permitted to receive it under a carte blanch invitation by the minister or anyone else.
If it is the case that a lapsed Catholic who receives the Holy Eucharist commits the sin of sacrilege, (the abuse of a sacrament), then the same must logically apply to non-Catholics who also receive the Holy Eucharist.
Any Priest who during Mass or any other service, invites lapsed Catholics, members of Orthodox Churches, Protestants or any other non-Catholic Christian, to “come and receive the Eucharist” commits a sacrilege, a heresy. Any person who applauds such misplaced sentimentality participates in the sacrilege and together they cause “scandal among the faithful.”
The above having already begun to demonstrate why “… anchoring the Boat of Peter to the Pillar of Eucharistic Devotion is a more difficult ask than “… anchoring to the Pillar of Devotion to Our Lady, is additionally supported with evidence provided below and as such qualifies and completes our understanding of difficulties to be overcome. Of note, the principal ‘difficulty,’ is the courage and humility required to make the necessary about turn in current practice. In fact very great courage will be needed for as warned in Akita “The Priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres.” To enact the necessary changes, to abolish Communion in the hand, is to concede we, Shepherds and laity, have been wrong throughout all preceding decades. To make such an admission will require very great humility.
A falling away in belief that the Holy Eucharist is in Substance the Person of Christ
Polls from Pew Research Center and Gallup have shown that less than 4 in 10 self-described U.S. Catholics attend Mass weekly. The recent poll by Pew Research found that more than one-third of weekly Mass-going Catholics (37%) do not believe that they receive the “whole Christ” at Holy Communion. [It would not be too unreasonable to assume that the outcome of this poll equally represents views of Catholics across the World, perhaps excepting of Africa and some Baltic States?]
A Way Forward to Restore Belief
The poll makes clear that all clergy and laypersons must develop an implicit understanding of what constitutes the Substance of the Holy Eucharist. It must be universally re-taught, if to be properly understood, acknowledged and all errors expunged forthwith. The means by which this could be accomplished in the immediate term, could be as simple a task as a formal statement by Bishops to their Diocese concerning a mandatory return without delay, to receiving Holy Communion in the manner prescribed before Vatican II. The Bishops may then mandate thereafter that, all Priests re-catechise their congregations at each Mass on the theme of the Holy Eucharist. And do so as illuminated by the radiant Dogmas and prevailing devotional practices of the Church preceding, and in some instances post, the Ecumenical Council. In this way will the Shepherds restore and revitalise a correct disposition toward and sense of importance owing to the greatest miracle God performs on Earth every day during the Sacrifice of the Mass with the Priest In persona Christi, i.e. the miracle of Transubstantiation!
By way of example in respect to some of the Church’s apologetics against Eucharistic heresy, I offer you the following:
Council of Trent Decree on the Sacrament, Canon XI. “If anyone says that, in ministers, when they effect and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema.” [Any minister who does not believe Holy Communion is in substance the Son of God]
To explain further Ronald L. Conte, under his article ‘Invalid Consecration of the Eucharist due to Heresy,’ asks the question:
“What constitutes a failure to intend to do what the Church does, on the part of a Catholic priest attempting to consecrate the bread and wine?”
His answers his own question by way of the following example:
“One such failure would be a heresy on the Eucharist. If the priest adheres to a heresy on the Eucharist, particularly on its consecration, on transubstantiation, or on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, then he does not intend to do what the Church does. His attempted consecration would therefore be ineffective and invalid. The bread would remain bread; the wine would remain wine.”
“Unfortunately, it is well attested that a large percentage of lay Catholics, even those who regularly attend Mass, do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.” [ As detailed earlier in this Article].
“They think of the host as merely a symbol. They believe neither in transubstantiation, nor in the real presence of Christ’s body, blood, soul, and Divinity, in the Sacrament. For them, it is essentially not a Sacrament… This failure to believe on the part of many laypersons is a grave heresy. All Catholics who know what the Church definitively teaches on the Eucharist, and yet who reject that teaching, are guilty of formal heresy and are automatically excommunicated.”
“Is this possibility merely theoretical? No, it is not. The priests of the Church come from the laity. Whenever there is a sin of any kind among the laity, it is also found among the priests (though hopefully to a much lesser extent). It is not unheard of for a priest to publicly reject the infallible teaching of the Church on abortion, on contraception, on women’s ordination, on gay marriage, and on many other topics. And so, it is certain that at least some priests in the world [could] hold to this heresy on the Eucharist, a heresy very popular among the laity.”
The points espoused in the paragraph above, re: a falling away from the infallible teachings, does indeed appear to becoming a more prevalent attitude among a growing number of Catholics who are increasingly leaning toward opinions that are consistent with post-Vatican II heterodoxy (one must also acknowledge an observation that during the COVID situation there are others returning to more orthodox views). In fact, a tendency to question and surreptitiously alter long held views regarding “… the infallible teaching of the Church,” seems of late to becoming a recurring theme of Pope Francis. As a result, he does seem to be inadvertently encouraging a view that he is other than the rightful holder of the Chair of St Peter. Even to the point of dangerously being seen as an Anti-Pope, as one of those persons seeding the Counterfeit Church i.e. sowing darnel amongst the wheat as described in Scripture and a number of private revelations from approved Saints and Mystics. A Counterfeit Church that is taking for its diabolical deception the Bride’s places of worship, Her Liturgy, Her garments, is altering Her Dogmas and is seducing many of Her children in to serious error, apostasy and if there is no intervention, perdition. A sobering thought on how this may be resolved is exemplified in Volume I of the Life and Revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich (pages 130-131):
“The year 1803 opened most disastrously for the Catholic Church in Germany. It would doubtless have been utterly annihilated were its’ founder and defender other than God Himself. As formally He has permitted the destruction of His Holy City and temple, as a punishment for the infidelity and apostasy of His people, so now the Church’s powerful enemies were to be for Her the instruments to separate the good from the bad grain.”
If too many Priests and Bishops obstinately refuse to be awake to the “Smoke of Satan” choking the Church, in Her theology, Her practices, Her Sacraments, (with particular respect to the Holy Eucharist), then it will likely be impossible under this present generation to anchor the ‘Boat of Peter’ between the ‘Twin Pillars.’ We will have to wait for others, “the good grain.” In the meantime, we are to do all we can to foster and practice these holy devotions for ourselves (the 10 Steps), with our families and with those Prelates who with Our Lady battle against the influence of that infernal smoke!
The last word, of course, is always one of hope, just as the narrative from the Revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich explains (Page 131):
“While this sentence was being executed, while the ‘abomination of desolation’ lasted, the Lord hid the holy things of His Church, as the priests of the temple the sacred fire, until crime being expiated, it might be enkindled with greater brilliancy than before.”
Chapter 6. Lessening of Faith in the Divine Presence: A Consequence of Communion in the Hand
Lastly, in a hope to further promote Devotion to The Eucharist, I want to offer some final thoughts evidencing, why the practice of ‘Communion in the hand’ is utterly wrong and from where I think it originated. I therefore present for your reflection a few examples taken from Papal documents and what Saints, Mystics and prominent Clergy have said in this regard.
Papal and Magisterial Statements.
On previous pages, I offered exerts from Memoriale Domini endorsing the distribution of Holy Communion according to the traditional practice of the Latin Church. The very same document also makes provision for not complying with “this law” that is meant to be “zealously observed by Bishops, Priests and lay people.”
“If the contrary usage, namely, of placing Holy Communion in the hand, has already developed in any place, in order to help the episcopal conference, fulfil their pastoral office in today’s often difficult situation, the Apostolic See entrusts to the conferences the duty and function of judging particular circumstances, if any. They may make this judgment provided that any danger is avoided of insufficient reverence or false opinions of the Holy Eucharist arising in the minds of the faithful and that any other improprieties be carefully removed.”
“In these cases, moreover, in order to govern this usage properly, the episcopal conferences should undertake the appropriate deliberations after prudent study; the decision is to be made by a two-thirds majority by secret ballot.”
“These deliberations should then be proposed to the Holy See for the necessary confirmation, together with an accurate explanation of the reasons which moved the conferences to take this action. The Holy See will weigh the individual cases with care, remembering the bonds which exist between the several local Churches among themselves and with the entire Church, in order to promote the common good and edification and the increase of faith and piety which flow from mutual good example.”
And so, we see the first tendency toward a practice that was in time to become a norm for the many, and I wonder did “appropriate deliberations” take place in all cases and the Holy See be properly informed of the outcome?” One may argue that Pope Paul VI should have advised the episcopal conferences in those places where Communion in the hand had already developed, to desist and revert to “… that the long- received manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful…” Reminding them that: “this law” is to be “zealously observed by Bishops, Priests and lay people.”
The Congregation returned to this issue in the instruction Immensae Caritatis, January 29, 1973: under Part 4. ‘Devotion and reverence toward the Eucharist in the case of communion in the hand.’ This particular instruction wherein “Pope Paul VI has decided it opportune to authorize special ministers who will be empowered to give communion to themselves and others” was instrumental in furthering a “… lessening of reverence toward the noble Sacrament of the altar, its profanation, or the adulteration of correct doctrine…”
The General Instruction of the Roman Missal says the following:
“160. It is not permitted for the faithful to take the consecrated Bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them on from one to another among themselves. The faithful receive Communion kneeling or standing, as established by the episcopal conference. However, when they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that the faithful make appropriate reverence, according to the norms established, before receiving the Sacrament.”
“161. If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the Priest raises the host slightly and shows it to each, saying, The Body of Christ. The communicant replies, Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed, in the hand, the choice lying with the communicant. As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes the whole of it. If, however, Communion is given under both kinds, the rite prescribed in Nos. 284-287 is to be followed.”
His Excellency Juan Rodolfo Laise, Bishop Emeritus of San Luis (Argentina), in his book Communion in the Hand: Documents and History (1969), describes three major reasons why Communion in the hand spread throughout the world:
- “Episcopal Conferences did not follow the conditions outlined by Pope Paul VI::“It is true that the practice spread but this was due only to the fact that the Episcopal Conferences allowed its introduction without the demanded conditions being in existence and without taking into consideration the exhortation of Paul VI.”
- “The bishops did not want to submit to the law in force (Communion on the tongue)::“If the legislation did not change, the obvious conclusion is that the only reason for the extension of the rite [of Communion in the hand] is that the bishops did not listen to the vehement exhortation of Paul VI to diligently submit to the law in force and again confirmed.”
- “The “fundamental sense of the ecclesiastical” was lacking in many bishops: “Knowing the history of this clandestinely reintroduced rite, and spread based on equivocations and confirmed through incessant disobediences, we cannot doubt that ‘the fundamental sense of the ecclesiastical’ is what was lacking in those who, throughout twenty-seven years [as of 1997] have been imposing a practice that the Pope did not want to authorize because he considered it dangerous for the good of the Church (MD 12), until they finally achieved the spreading of it throughout the world.””
Cardinal Carberry reached out to the Catholic laity for assistance and their prayers a couple of months prior to the Bishops of the United States General Meeting of May 1977. The intention being to implore Heaven’s intervention in respect to Cardinal Joseph Bernardin’s, seeking yet again approval for Communion in the Hand as a general practice. [Bernardin was then President of the United States NCCB and sought the same during 1975 and 1976]. Cardinal Carberry writes:
“We are facing again another struggle in our Bishops’ Conference in May. It has been decided, for the third time now, that we have to talk about Communion in the hand…. So I would be grateful beyond words for any way that you could possibly help by prayer. I’m thinking, I know I can use a great deal of canonical reasons and law and the rest of it, but you don’t get very far with these. People don’t seem to want to listen to this kind of reasoning. But some kind of reasoning that would reach into the hearts of the Bishops, and to place it, I hope, on the basis of danger of irreverence to the Most Blessed Sacrament which is growing and growing and growing throughout our country. And if any of you have any reading matter on this, or any thoughts on how it could be presented; ways that it could be presented; ways that it could be presented before us, I would be so grateful to hear and receive any suggestions. And I pray most earnestly to our Most Blessed Mother that the beautiful prayer, ‘O Sacrament Most Holy, O Sacrament Divine’ might be an ejaculation of all of us who want to preserve the reverence and devotion by the traditional way of receiving Communion, which has the blessing of our Holy Father, the Pope.” (Cardinal Carberry, St. Louis, Missouri, March 12, 1977)
Cardinal Joseph won the day but did so by evading Pope Paul VI’s restrictions as is evidenced in the UCCB’s minutes of the May 3-5, 1977 General Meeting in Chicago, Illinois. (tldm Web Site: Communion in the hand)
Fr. George Rutler in his Good Friday sermon at St. Agnes Church, New York in 1989 reported that when he asked Mother Teresa of Calcutta,
“What do you think is the worst problem in the world today?”
she said without hesitation, as also attested to by Fr. Emerson of the Fraternity of St. Peter (tldm Web Site),
“Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.”
In an article published by a magazine called Aquinas (page. 13, Vol 2, No 1 March 2000), Mother Teresa is quoted as confirming in 1995 that:
“It is the custom in our society and my known wish that the sisters receive Communion on the tongue which to my knowledge they are doing everywhere.” (tldm Web Site)
In 1980 St. John Paul II wrote in the apostolic letter Dominicae Cenae:
“In some countries, the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the Eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behaviour but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist. It also happens, on occasion, that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. It is therefore difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the sad phenomena previously referred to. This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized.”
Pope Benedict XVI During a long interview with Peter Seewald, said according to ICN Independent Catholic News Nov 21st 2010:
“The idea behind my current practice of having people kneel to receive Communion on the tongue was to send a signal and to underscore the Real Presence with an exclamation point. One important reason is that there is a great danger of superficiality precisely in the kinds of Mass events we hold at Saint Peter’s, both in the Basilica and in the Square. I have heard of people who, after receiving Communion, stick the Host in their wallet to take home as a kind of souvenir.
“In this context, where people think that everyone is just automatically supposed to receive Communion — everyone else is going up, so I will, too—I wanted to send a clear signal. I wanted it to be clear: Something quite special is going on here! He is here, the One before whom we fall on our knees! Pay attention!
“This is not just some social ritual in which we can take part if we want to.”
Cardinal Robert Sarah, in the preface of a book, by Don Federico Bortoli called: ‘The distribution of Communion on the hand: a historical, juridical and pastoral survey’ writes:
“The most insidious diabolical attack consists in trying to extinguish faith in the Eucharist, by sowing errors and fostering an unsuitable way of receiving it. Truly the war between Michael and his Angels on one side, and Lucifer on the other, continues in the hearts of the faithful.”
“Satan’s target is the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence of Jesus in the consecrated Host.” Lifesitenews: Crdnl Sarah and the Eucharist
Clearly that which Pope Paul VI feared the most, in allowing Communion in the hand to be propagated, has not been averted. A circumstance that is now statistically proven to be the case among the greater proportion of Baptised, lapsed or otherwise, (i.e. don’t believe in the Divine Presence). As a result, they may receive our Lord most carelessly, not be in a state of Grace and go so far as to treat His Sacred Body sacrilegiously. Earlier this year, on my return to the pew from the alter rail, having just received the Holy Eucharist my self, I came upon a consecrated Host lying on the isle floor. This would not have occurred had the recipient received on the tongue. Naturally I knelt down and as devoutly as possible consumed the discarded Host. I do wonder how often this carelessness or indifference toward the Holy Eucharist is repeated weekly across the Church as a whole!
A summary of other Episcopal statements is provided under this Article’s Addendum: Note 6.
Admonishments from the Mystics and Seers
Maria Simma was very traditional in her beliefs and practice of the Catholic faith–and these views, she stated, were because of what the ‘holy souls’ had taught her. For instance, she was very much against the reception of Communion in the hand. According to her, the holy souls taught her that receiving Communion in the hand was offensive to God, and moreover that the Bishops who had pushed for this practice in their Dioceses had committed a grave sacrilege, and would have to pay dearly for this in Purgatory. In fact, the holy souls had allegedly told of one certain Bishop who had to stay in Purgatory until the end of the world, apparently for this very reason. And then she also stated that there is a bishop who is going to have to stay in Purgatory until the permission for Communion in the hand in his diocese is rescinded. To illustrate this point, she would state that none of the Popes (so far) will give Communion in the hand, nor have they ever permitted it in the diocese of Rome (the pope is the bishop of Rome). Additionally, Maria was very much against the use of Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers and felt that they should only be used in extreme cases—again, she said that this was something that the holy souls had taught her. Mystics of the Church
Catherine Passananti: About receiving Holy Communion in the hand, Jesus told her, “I am not pleased but it must be accepted.” (A Mystic of Boston, page 618)
Volume I of the Life and Revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich (page 171). Anne Catherine Emmerich’s sufferings for the Blessed Sacrament were great… “for no sins cried more loudly to Heaven, none had greater need of expiation than those directed against the faith in the Real Presence.” (Jansenism at this time aimed at banishing the Unbloody Sacrifice of the Alter and the veneration of Mary the Mother of God) See also Volume II of the Life and Revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich (page 126)
At Fatima the Angel of Peace teaches the Seers how we are to receive Holy Communion: The three children were reciting the prayer the Angel had taught them when suddenly he appeared to them, this occasion was the third visitation.
In his left hand he held a Chalice over which was suspended a Host and in to which fell some drops of Blood from the Host. Leaving the chalice and Host suspended in mid-air, he prostrated himself on the ground and prayed three times:
“Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, I adore Thee profoundly, and I offer Thee the Most Precious Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the same Son Jesus Christ, present in all the tabernacles of the world, in reparation for all the sacrileges, outrages and indifferences by which He Himself is offended. And by the infinite merits of His Most Sacred Heart and through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I beg of Thee the conversion of poor sinners.”
He then rose and gave Lucia the Sacred Host on the tongue and gave the Precious Blood from the chalice to Francisco and Jacinta, saying:
“Take and drink the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, horribly outraged by ungrateful men. Make reparation for their crimes and console your God.”
We must surely take note of the manner in which the Angel gave Communion to the children. Particularly now, during this current crisis of faith in the real presence and the heterodoxy being espoused by certain Church pastors, some of whom are very senior. In the case of Lucia, he placed the Sacred Host on her tongue while she was kneeling, and also while kneeling, out of respect for the Real Presence, gave Francisco and Jacinta the Blood. They then spent a great length of time adoring God while remaining prostrated.
The narrative of Garabandal has so many instances that give witness to the manner in which Our Lord and Our Lady desire we receive the Holy Eucharist. They are not reiterated here, simply because many examples are provided throughout this WEB site garabandalnews.org which, is dedicated to Our Lady of Mount Carmel.
In Concluding the topic of discerning that which constitutes a ‘revitalised’ Devotion to the Holy Eucharist, I leave with you Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s views on Communion in the Hand: (2 No. Videos courtesy of Reverence Restoration YouTube site).
Note 7 under the Addendum presents the text of a letter entitled ‘Declaration of Truths relating to some of the most common errors in the life of the Church of our time.’ The letter is date 31st of May 2019 and written by Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke and several other Bishops. Their purpose, to remedy the “almost universal doctrinal confusion and disorientation” endangering the spiritual health and eternal salvation of souls in the Church today.”
Note 1. Pope Leo XIII Prayer to St Michael: As recorded in the Raccolta 1930, Benziger Bros., pp. 314-315.
“O Glorious Archangel St. Michael, Prince of the heavenly host, be our defence in the
terrible warfare which we carry on against principalities and Powers, against the rulers
of this world of darkness, spirits of evil. Come to the aid of man, whom God created
immortal, made in his own image and likeness, and redeemed at a great price from the
tyranny of the devil. Fight this day the battle of the Lord, together with the holy angels, as already thou hast fought the leader of the proud angels, Lucifer, and his apostate host, who were
powerless to resist thee, nor was there place for them any longer in Heaven. That cruel, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil or Satan, who seduces the whole world, was cast into the abyss with his angels. Behold, this primeval enemy and slayer of men has taken courage. Transformed into an angel of light, he wanders about with all the multitude of wicked spirits, invading the earth in order to blot out the name of God and of his Christ, to seize upon, slay and cast into eternal perdition souls destined for the crown of eternal glory. This wicked dragon pours out, as a most impure flood, the venom of his malice on men of depraved mind and corrupt heart, the spirit of lying, of impiety, of blasphemy, and the pestilent breath of impurity, and of every vice and iniquity. These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred
possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered. Arise then, O invincible Prince, bring help against the attacks of the lost spirits to the
people of God, and give them the victory. They venerate thee as their protector and Patron; in thee holy Church glories as her defence against the malicious power of hell; to thee has God entrusted the souls of men to be established in heavenly beatitude. Oh, pray to the God of peace that He may put Satan under our feet, so far conquered that he may no longer be able to hold men in captivity and harm the Church. Offer our prayers in the sight of the Most High, so that they may quickly conciliate the mercies of the Lord; and beating down the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, do thou again, make him captive in the abyss, that he may no longer seduce the nations. Amen.”
“Behold the Cross of the Lord; be scattered ye hostile powers.
The Lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered, the root of David.
Let thy mercies be upon us, O Lord.
As we have hoped in thee.
O Lord, hear my prayer.
And let my cry come unto thee.”
“Let us pray.
O God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, we call upon thy holy name, and as
suppliants we implore thy clemency, that by the intercession of Mary, ever
immaculate and our Mother, and of the glorious Archangel St. Michael, thou
deign to help us against Satan and all other unclean spirits, who wander
about the world
for the injury of the human race and the ruin of souls. Amen.”
The abbreviated version is as follows:
“St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle, be our protection against the
and snares of the devil; may God rebuke him, we humbly pray; and do thou, O
the heavenly host, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan and all evil
wander through the world for the ruin of souls. Amen.”
Note 2. written comments between [….] within “quoted” remarks represent my thoughts only.
Note 3. The Raccolta is a collection of indulgenced prayers and good works by Vatican. Poenitentiaria apostolica; St. John, Ambrose, 1815-1875. Publication date 1910. English translation of the Raccolta was published in 1957 by the request of Francis Cardinal Spellman of New York under the Supreme Authority of Pope Pius XII, ex cathedra.
Note 4. When the Third Secret of Fatima was published in 2000. Fr. José Luis Saavedra explains that, before the Holy See published an interpretation carried out by Cardinal Angelo Sodano, “he [Sodano] showed it to Sister Lucia in order to know her opinion and find out if she shared the same interpretation. Sister Lucia,” explains Cardinal Ratzinger, “responded that ‘the vision was given to her, not its interpretation. The interpretation is not determined by the visionary but by the Church.” (www.garabandal.it). The vision has never been revealed, all we have in the public domain is a poorly constructed unendorsed interpretation.
Note 5. An account of my personnel experience in changing from receiving in the hand to receiving on my knees and tongue as an encouragement to others:
Some 8 years ago, I made a choice to receive our Lord only on my tongue. Since alter rails were not a feature of the new Church, I had to receive Our Lord standing. A few years later the then Parish Priest took it upon himself to invite all none Catholics to come forward and receive Holy Communion. it was Midnight Mass, the Solemnity of Our Lords Birth. As you would imagine the Church was packed to the rafters. Notably, this special and most popular of Solemnities is for a few Catholics their one and only annual attendance at Mass. The same can be said to apply to none Catholic spouses who are practicing Protestants, and others that are agnostic or atheists. To say I was shocked by the Priest’s announcement would be an understatement! From that very moment on I was resolute in my finding an alternative Parish. Fortunately, I knew of one that if not formally registered as belonging to the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter (FSSP), was so in practice. My new parish is served by a wonderful Priest whose devotion to Our Lady and the Holy Eucharist is abundantly clear to all and very inspiring. When I made my request to him (during confession) to join his parish and also to receive Holy Communion on my knees and my tongue, he unhesitatingly said yes. I have to admit that being one of only a very small number (less than 10 in a couple of hundred) that did so, sometimes the only one on the day, I on every occasion, prior to Holy Communion would suffer an onslaught of terrible scruples. These for example, would be accusatory self deprecating, finger pointing statements such as “you’re trying to teach others what to do,” “who do you think you are,” “why do you always have to be different,” “you’re a distraction,” “you’re tempting others to be scornful, to mock you when their minds should be focused elsewhere” etc. To overcome these, I would have to make every effort to remind myself that, I kneel before my Lord because He desires it of me. That to do so, is in some manner a mark of respect and veneration owing to Him who atoned for my numerous sins and also as a poignant reminder of who I am in my fallen state before Him.
When the Covid-19 first struck, all parishes were instructed by their Bishops to empty their fonts of Holy Water, give Holy Communion under one kind only and in the hand. For the first time for many years, I reluctantly received Our Lord this way. I knew immediately I could never do so again, for in doing so I had such an extraordinary sense that a terrible wrong had been committed by me. This translated as a momentary yet intense deeply felt sorrow in my heart, something akin to receiving a wound, or an agony of sorts. Consequently, it was with sadness that I had to then inform our Priest that I could no longer receive Holy Communion until such times as this prohibition was lifted. That I would offer this pain in reparation for my sins and in supplication for others. This was my last Mass, for it was then that the Government outlawed gatherings in doors, the Bishops then suspended all Mass attendances.
When we were once again allowed to return to Mass, we were told the Bishops’ prohibitions regarding Holy Communion etc. still remained in place. So, I had no idea when I would once again be able to receive Our Lord. To my delight and as a sign of the holiness and faith of our Priest, he announced that he would allow each to receive Holy Communion in the manner to which they were accustomed, including on the tongue. Only he and the ordained deacon now issue Holy Communion and do so from behind closed alter gates. Furthermore, I and others now have the luxury of kneeling on a cushion placed at the alter rails rather than having to kneel on the cold tiled floor of the Church isle.
Note 6. Excerpts promoting Communion on the Tongue courtesy of http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/apostolic-tradition.htm
St. Sixtus 1 (circa 115): “The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord.”
St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution.” St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.
The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.
The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.
6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication.
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): “Out of reverence towards this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this Sacrament.” (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8.)
The Council of Trent (1545-1565): “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”
Pope Paul VI (1963-1978): “This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” (Memoriale Domini)
Pope John Paul II: “To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained.” (Dominicae Cenae, 11)
Pope St. Leo the Great is less well known for something very important to liturgical studies. He is one of the most ancient witnesses to the practice of Communion on the tongue. Notably, Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John’s Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did). In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9), Saint Leo says: “Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur” (Serm. 91.3). This is translated strictly as:
This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith. “Ore” is here in the ablative and in the context, it denotes instrumentation. So then, the mouth is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received. The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but only in their mouths.”
Note 7 The Fundamentals of Faith
“The Church of the living God – the pillar and the bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15)
Declaration of the truths relating to some of the most common errors
in the life of the Church of our time
The Fundamentals of Faith
- The right meaning of the expressions ‘living tradition,’ ‘living Magisterium,’ ‘hermeneutic of continuity,’ and ‘development of doctrine’ includes the truth that whatever new insights may be expressed regarding the deposit of faith, nevertheless they cannot be contrary to what the Church has always proposed in the same dogma, in the same sense, and in the same meaning (see First Vatican Council, Dei Filius, sess. 3, c. 4: “in eodem dogmate, eodem sensu, eademque sententia”).
- “The meaning of dogmatic formulas remains ever true and constant in the Church, even when it is expressed with greater clarity or more developed. The faithful therefore must shun the opinion, first, that dogmatic formulas (or some category of them) cannot signify truth in a determinate way, but can only offer changeable approximations to it, which to a certain extent distort or alter it; secondly, that these formulas signify the truth only in an indeterminate way, this truth being like a goal that is constantly being sought by means of such approximations. Those who hold such an opinion do not avoid dogmatic relativism and they corrupt the concept of the Church’s infallibility relative to the truth to be taught or held in a determinate way.” (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration “Mysterium Ecclesiae” in defense of the Catholic doctrine on the Church against certain errors of the present day, 5).
- The Kingdom of God begun here below in the Church of Christ is not of this world whose form is passing, and its proper growth cannot be confounded with the progress of civilization, of science or of human technology, but it consists in an ever more profound knowledge of the unfathomable riches of Christ, an ever stronger hope in eternal blessings, an ever more ardent response to the love of God, and an ever more generous bestowal of grace and holiness among men. The deep solicitude of the Church, the Spouse of Christ, for the needs of men, for their joys and hopes, their griefs and efforts, is therefore nothing other than her great desire to be present to them, in order to illuminate them with the light of Christ and to gather them all in Him, their only Saviour.
This solicitude can never mean that the Church conforms herself to the things of this world, or that she lessens the ardour of her longing of her Lord and of the eternal Kingdom” (Paul VI, Apostolic letter Solemni hac liturgia (Credo of the People of God), 27). The opinion is, therefore, erroneous that says that God is glorified principally by the very fact of the progress in the temporal and earthly condition of the human race.
- After the institution of the New and Everlasting Covenant in Jesus Christ, no one may be saved by obedience to the law of Moses alone without faith in Christ as true God and the only Saviour of humankind (see Rom 3:28; Gal 2:16).
- Muslims and others who lack faith in Jesus Christ, God and man, even monotheists, cannot give to God the same adoration as Christians do, that is to say, supernatural worship in Spirit and in Truth (see Jn 4:24; Eph 2:8) of those who have received the Spirit of filial adoption (see Rom 8:15).
- Spiritualities and religions that promote any kind of idolatry or pantheism cannot be considered either as “seeds” or as “fruits” of the Divine Word, since they are deceptions that preclude the evangelization and eternal salvation of their adherents, as it is taught by Holy Scripture: “the god of this world has made blind the minds of those who have not faith, so that the light of the good news of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, might not be shining on them” (2 Cor 4:4).
- True ecumenism intends that non-Catholics should enter that unity which the Catholic Church already indestructibly possesses in virtue of the prayer of Christ, always heard by His Father, “that they may be one” (John 17:11), and which she professes in the Symbol of Faith, “I believe in one Church.” Ecumenism, therefore, may not legitimately have for its goal the establishment of a Church that does not yet exist.
- Hell exists and those who are condemned to hell for any unrepented mortal sin are eternally punished there by Divine justice (see Mt 25:46). Not only fallen angels but also human souls are damned eternally (see 2 Thess 1:9; 2 Pet 3:7). Eternally damned human beings will not be annihilated, since their souls are immortal according to the infallible teaching of the Church (see Fifth Lateran Council, sess. 8).
- The religion born of faith in Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God and the only Saviour of humankind, is the only religion positively willed by God. The opinion is, therefore, wrong that says that just as God positively wills the diversity of the male and female sexes and the diversity f nations, so in the same way he also wills the diversity of religions.
- Our [Christian] religion effectively establishes with God an authentic and living relationship which the other religions do not succeed in doing, even though they have, as it were, their arms stretched out towards heaven” (Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii nuntiandi, 53).
- The gift of free will with which God the Creator endowed the human person grants man the natural right to choose only the good and the true. No human person has, therefore, a natural right to offend God in choosing the moral evil of sin, the religious error of idolatry, blasphemy, or a false religion.
The Law of God
- A justified person has the sufficient strength with God’s grace to carry out the objective demands of the Divine law, since all of the commandments of God are possible for the justified. God’s grace, when it justifies the sinner, does of its nature produce conversion from all serious sin (see Council of Trent, sess. 6, Decree on Justification, c. 11; c. 13).
- The faithful are obliged to acknowledge and respect the specific moral precepts declared and taught by the Church in the name of God, the Creator and Lord. Love of God and of one’s neighbour cannot be separated from the observance of the commandments of the Covenant renewed in the blood of Jesus Christ and in the gift of the Spirit” (John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis splendour, 76). According to the teaching of the same Encyclical the opinion of those is wrong, who “believe they can justify, as morally good, deliberate choices of kinds of behaviour contrary to the commandments of the Divine and natural law.” Thus, “these theories cannot claim to be grounded in the Catholic moral tradition” (ibid.).
- All of the commandments of God are equally just and merciful. The opinion is, therefore, wrong that says that a person is able, by obeying a Divine prohibition – for example, the sixth commandment not to commit adultery – to sin against God by this act of obedience, or to morally harm himself, or to sin against another.
- “No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God, which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church” (John Paul II, Encyclical Evangelium, vitae, 62). There are moral principles and moral truths contained in Divine revelation and in the natural law which include negative prohibitions that absolutely forbid certain kinds of action, inasmuch as these kinds of action are always gravely unlawful on account of their object. Hence, the opinion is wrong that says that a good intention or a good consequence is or can ever be sufficient to justify the commission of such kinds of action (see Council of Trent, sess. 6 de iustificatione, c. 15; John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 17; Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 80).
- A woman who has conceived a child within her womb is forbidden by natural and Divine law to kill this human life within her, by herself or by others, whether directly or indirectly (see John Paul II, Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, 62).
- Procedures which cause conception to happen outside of the womb “are morally unacceptable, since they separate procreation from the fully human context of the conjugal act” (John Paul II, Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, 14).
- No human being may ever be morally justified to kill himself or to cause himself to be put to death by others, even if the intention is to escape suffering. “Euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium” (John Paul II, Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, 65).
- Marriage is by Divine ordinance and natural law an indissoluble union of one man and of one woman (see Gen 2:24; Mk 10:7-9; Eph 5:31-32). “By their very nature, the institution of matrimony itself and conjugal love are ordained for the procreation and education of children, and find in them their ultimate crown” (Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes, 48).
- By natural and Divine law no human being may voluntarily and without sin exercise his sexual powers outside of a valid marriage. It is, therefore, contrary to Holy Scripture and Tradition to affirm that conscience can truly and rightly judge that sexual acts between persons who have contracted a civil marriage with each other, can sometimes be morally right or requested or even commanded by God, although one or both persons is sacramentally married to another person (see 1 Cor 7: 11; John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 84).
- Natural and Divine law prohibits “any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means” (Paul VI, Encyclical Humanae Vitae, 14).
- Anyone, husband or wife, who has obtained a civil divorce from the spouse to whom he or she is validly married, and has contracted a civil marriage with some other person during the lifetime of his legitimate spouse, and who lives in a marital way with the civil partner, and who chooses to remain in this state with full knowledge of the nature of the act and with full consent of the will to that act, is in a state of mortal sin and therefore can not receive sanctifying grace and grow in charity. Therefore, these Christians, unless they are living as “brother and sister,” cannot receive Holy Communion (see John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 84).
- Two persons of the same sex sin gravely when they seek venereal pleasure from each other (see Lev 18:22; Lev 20:13; Rom 1:24-28; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 1 Tim 1:10; Jude 7). Homosexual acts “under no circumstances can be approved” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2357). Hence, the opinion is contrary to natural law and Divine Revelation that says that, as God the Creator has given to some humans a natural disposition to feel sexual desire for persons of the opposite sex, so also He has given to others a natural disposition to feel sexual desire for persons of the same sex, and that God intends that the latter disposition be acted on in some circumstances.
- Human law, or any human power whatsoever, cannot give to two persons of the same sex the right to marry one another or declare two such persons to be married, since this is contrary to natural and Divine law. “In the Creator’s plan, sexual complementarity and fruitfulness belong to the very nature of marriage” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons, June 3, 2003, 3).
- Unions that have the name of marriage without the reality of it, being contrary to natural and Divine law, are not capable of receiving the blessing of the Church.
- The civil power may not establish civil or legal unions between two persons of the same sex that plainly imitate the union of marriage, even if such unions do not receive the name of marriage, since such unions would encourage grave sin for the individuals who are in them and would be a cause of grave scandal for others (see Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons, June 3, 2003, 11).
- The male and female sexes, man and woman, are biological realities created by the wise will of God (see Gen. 1: 27; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 369). It is, therefore, a rebellion against natural and Divine law and a grave sin that a man may attempt to become a woman by mutilating himself, or even by simply declaring himself to be such, or that a woman may in like manner attempt to become a man, or to hold that the civil authority has the duty or the right to act as if such things were or may be possible and legitimate (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2297).
- In accordance with Holy Scripture and the constant tradition of the ordinary and universal
Magisterium, the Church did not err in teaching that the civil power may lawfully exercise capital punishment on malefactors where this is truly necessary to preserve the existence or just order of societies (see Gen 9:6; John 19:11; Rom 13:1-7; Innocent III, Professio fidei Waldensibus praescripta; Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. III, 5, n. 4; Pius XII, Address to Catholic jurists on December 5, 1954).
- All authority on earth as well as in heaven belongs to Jesus Christ; therefore, civil societies and all other associations of men are subject to his kingship so that “the duty of offering God genuine worship concerns man both individually and socially” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2105; see Pius XI, Encyclical Quas primas, 18-19; 32).
- In the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, a wonderful change takes place, namely of the whole substance of bread into the body of Christ and the whole substance of wine into His blood, a change which the Catholic Church very fittingly calls transubstantiation (see Fourth Lateran Council, c. 1; Council of Trent, sess. 13, c. 4). “Every theological explanation which seeks some understanding of this mystery must, in order to be in accord with Catholic faith, maintain that in the reality itself, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to exist after the Consecration, so that it is the adorable Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus that from then on are really before us under the sacramental species of bread and wine” (Paul VI, Apostolic letter Solemni hac liturgia (Credo of the People of God), 25).
- The formulations by which the Council of Trent expressed the Church’s faith in the Holy Eucharist are suitable for men of all times and places, since they are a “perennially valid teaching of the Church” (John Paul II, Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 15)
- In the Holy Mass, a true and proper sacrifice is offered to the Blessed Trinity and this sacrifice is propitiatory both for men living on earth and for the souls in Purgatory. The opinion is, therefore, wrong that says that the sacrifice of the Mass consists simply in the fact that the people make a spiritual sacrifice of prayers and praises, as well as the opinion that the Mass may or should be defined only as Christ giving Himself to the faithful as their spiritual food (see Council of Trent, sess. 22, c. 2).
- “The Mass, celebrated by the priest representing the person of Christ by virtue of the power received through the Sacrament of Orders and offered by him in the name of Christ and the members of His Mystical Body, is the sacrifice of Calvary rendered sacramentally present on our altars. We believe that as the bread and wine consecrated by the Lord at the Last Supper were changed into His body and His blood which were to be offered for us on the cross, likewise the bread and wine consecrated by the priest are changed into the body and blood of Christ enthroned gloriously in heaven, and we believe that the mysterious presence of the Lord, under what continues to appear to our senses as before, is a true, real and substantial presence” (Paul VI, Apostolic letter Solemni hac liturgia (Credo of the People of God), 24).
- “The unbloody immolation at the words of consecration, when Christ is made present upon the altar in the state of a victim, is performed by the priest and by him alone, as the representative of Christ and not as the representative of the faithful. (…) The faithful offer the sacrifice by the hands of the priest from the fact that the minister at the altar, in offering a sacrifice in the name of all His members, represents Christ, the Head of the Mystical Body. The conclusion, however, that the people offer the sacrifice with the priest himself is not based on the fact that, being members of the Church no less than the priest himself, they perform a visible liturgical rite; for this is the privilege only of the minister who has been Divinely appointed to this office: rather it is based on the fact that the people unite their hearts in praise, impetration, expiation and thanksgiving with prayers or intention of the priest, even of the High Priest himself, so that in the one and same offering of the victim and according to a visible sacerdotal rite, they may be presented to God the Father” (Pius XII, Encyclical Mediator Dei, 92).
- The sacrament of Penance is the only ordinary means by which grave sins committed after Baptism may be remitted, and by Divine law all such sins must be confessed by number and by species (see Council of Trent, sess. 14, can. 7).
- By Divine law the confessor may not violate the seal of the sacrament of Penance for any reason whatsoever; no ecclesiastical authority has the power to dispense him from the seal of the sacrament and the civil power is wholly incompetent to oblige him to do so (see Code of Canon Law 1983, can. 1388 § 1; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1467).
- By virtue of the will of Christ and the unchangeable Tradition of the Church, the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist may not be given to those who are in a public state of objectively grave sin, and sacramental absolution may not be given to those who express their unwillingness to conform to Divine law, even if their unwillingness pertains only to a single grave matter (see Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 4; Pope John Paul II, Message to the Major Penitentiary Cardinal William W. Baum, on March 22, 1996).
- According to the constant Tradition of the Church, the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist may not be given to those who deny any truth of the Catholic faith by formally professing their adherence to a heretical or to an officially schismatic Christian community (see Code of Canon Law 1983, can. 915; 1364).
- The law by which priests are bound to observe perfect continence in celibacy stems from the example of Jesus Christ and belongs to immemorial and apostolic tradition according to the constant witness of the Fathers of the Church and of the Roman Pontiffs. For this reason, this law should not be abolished in the Roman Church through the innovation of an optional priestly celibacy, either at the regional or the universal level. The perennial valid witness of the Church states that the law of priestly continence “does not command new precepts; these precepts should be observed, because they have been neglected on the part of some through ignorance and sloth. These precepts, nevertheless, go back to the apostles and were established by the Fathers, as it is written, ‘Stand firm, then, brothers and keep the traditions that we taught you, whether by word of mouth or by letter’ (2 Thess. 2:15). There are in fact many who, ignoring the statutes of our forefathers, have violated the chastity of the Church by their presumption and have followed the will of the people, not fearing the judgment of God” (Pope Siricius, Decretal Cum in unum in the year 386).
- By the will of Christ and the Divine constitution of the Church, only baptized men (viri) may receive the sacrament of Orders, whether in the episcopacy, the priesthood, or the diaconate (see John Paul II Apostolic Letter, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 4). Furthermore, the assertion is wrong that says that only an Ecumenical Council can define this matter, because the teaching authority of an Ecumenical Council is not more extensive than that of the Roman Pontiff (see Fifth Lateran Council, sess. 11; First Vatican Council, sess. 4, c. 3, n. 8).
May 31, 2019
Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, Patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta.
Cardinal Janis Pujats, Archbishop emeritus of Riga.
Tomash Peta, Archbishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana.
Jan Pawel Lenga, Archbishop-Bishop emeritus of Karaganda.
Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana.
Source Material, Publications:
The Whole Truth About Fatima, Volume III: The Third Secret by Frère Michel de la Sainte Trinité.
La Verdad sobre el Secreto de Fátima by Fr Joaquin Alonso (English version).
The Devil’s Final Battle by Father Paul Kramer.
Founded on a Rock (A History of the Catholic Church) by Louis De Wohl
The Life and Revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich: Carle E. Schmoger, CSSR Volume I
The Life and Revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich: Carle E. Schmoger, CSSR Volume II
Apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary Today: Rene Laurentin
Garabandal The Village Speaks: Ramon Perez
Our Lady Comes to Garabandal: Joseph A. Pelletier
Source Material, WEB Sites: