Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Hideous Benediction Ceremony

MONSTER-ANCE:

Francis and the “Blessed Sacrament” at Fatima

It happened around 12:07 pm local time at Fatima, Portugal, on May 13, 2017. “Pope” Francis concluded his worship service on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the first apparition of Our Lady of Fatima and the “canonization” of Francisco and Jacinta Marto, and proceeded to the scheduled benediction rite of the “Blessed Sacrament”. This is when his assistants put a “ventilator monstrance” on the altar that was probably supposed to remind people of the Miracle of the Sun which took place at Fatima on Oct. 13, 1917.

Stiff-kneed as ever, Francis stood there like a stubborn little school boy, refusing to kneel before what he claims to believe is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. In vain had a prie-dieu been set before him to facilitate his kneeling. Kneeling is something this “Pope” reserves for the poor and the marginalized — in other words, for man –, not for God. He places material poverty far over spiritual poverty and deprives the One who was perfectly poor of His due honor, to which He has a strict right (cf. Mt 5:3; Mt 26:11; Lk 9:58). Needless to say, Francis did not genuflect during his “Mass” either.

At some point during the rite, there was a procession in which the “Blessed Sacrament” (invalid in the Novus Ordo) was carried to a place where sick people were waiting. As Francis “blessed” them with this veritable “monster-ance”, shrieks of excitement were heard (clearly audible in the video, from 2:48:12-2:48:38), and some were desperately trying to “touch but the hem of his garment” (Mk 6:56), as though Jorge Bergoglio were another Incarnation of the Messias.

Here are some images of the frightening spectacle, taken from the live video feed that was provided by the Vatican’s own television station (access recording here; benediction rite begins at 2:31:02):

Exactly 100 years after Our Lady of the Rosary first appeared to the little shepherds at Fatima, the world has fallen for the Vatican II apostasy hook, line, and sinker. The man who blasphemes God constantly and preaches the most odious of doctrines on an almost daily basis (see evidence here), is venerated and quasi-worshipped by the masses almost as though he were God Himself.

Is it any surprise that our Blessed Lord asked rhetorically: “But ah, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith left on the earth?” (Lk 18:8; Knox translation). “For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect”, the Son of God warned (Mt 24:24). And St. Paul predicted: “Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: that all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity” (2 Thess 2:10-11).

Could it be that the following text which allegedly appeared in miraculous fashion in 1994, describes the true Third Secret of Fatima?

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.

(Text related by Fr. Raymond Arnette)

But whether this is or is not the authentic Third Secret of Fatima, it is certain that 100 years after the first Fatima apparition, we are once again witnessing the fulfillment of prophecy.

53 Responses to “MONSTER-ANCE: Francis and the “Blessed Sacrament” at Fatima”

  1. Junior Ribeiro

    In the false Conciliar religion of the Man, all that was left was for his prophet and greatest preacher to be worshiped by the hungry and ignorant mob. May the Blessed Virgin Mary open the eyes of these poor souls and save them!

    • Kronae

      It is a beautiful modern piece of real art. It is a gift of Modernity to a waiting world. Not like the old heavy duty gold type monsters. This one is made of the same aluminum, highly polished, the same used in creating tire wheels. It will last an eternity and never corrode.

        • Kronae

          It is a beautiful work of art. Obviously you don’t understand what it represents. Perhaps you need to read the story of Fatima and what exceptions of nature occurred during the time of the visitations.

  2. Mary McMahon

    The Monstrance looks like it was designed to depict the dancing sun ,the miracle of Fatima ,far worse is the Christ detached from the Cross over the Altar ,there’s a concerted effort to put away the image of the Crucified Christ ,and replace it with the Risen Christ .

    • Kronae

      Haven’t you heard…Christ is RISEN. He is no longer the crucified that is gone that is the past. He is RISEN Alleluia!

        • Kronae

          Sorry, RC all the way through college and grad school. I happen to love our Pope Francis and those priests and monsignors who surround him and protect him from the haters. He is the only one who can save the old dying form of catholicism.

          • Michael S

            1st. You’re not Catholic. Modernism is condemned as the “synthesis of all heresies”. You are a heretic and Francis is your heretical Grand High Pooh Bah.

            2nd. To claim “He is no longer the crucified…” is not only moronic but blasphemous. St. Augustine says that there is no more meritorious meditation than meditation on the sufferings of Christ.

            “But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus
            Christ; by whom the world is crucified to me, and I to the world.” (Gal 6:14)

            3rd. Pull your head out of your backside HIPPY.

    • Mary McMahon

      The Crucifix reminds us of the price Christ paid for the sins of the World ,at Mass the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is offered to God not the Resurrection.

      • Kronae

        What you need to be reminded of is that He rose again not that he died. Everyone does but no one rises again in glory to proclaim the victory over death, sin and evil.

  3. Kronae

    This is the most beloved POPE ever seen in this church. Today was a great day and evidence of his forward thinking and allowing women and girls to be a part of the MASS. Girls were there with Mons. Guido Marini, M.C for the pope to lead them in the tasks at hand. They had a full fledged Sister singing the Liturgy. How marvelous is that. The new Sisters and Nuns are now wearing the white collar as a part of their habit. Another statement that women are equal to any male priest. It is only a few moments away that we will see full fledged Women Deacons and then the last stroke to conquer and claim their rights as fully ordained priests.

    • Jim Moriarty

      Kronae, Your report here is another reason my wife and I left the Novus Odro Circus for the SSPX and the Trad. Latin Mass of all times. In 1997 we went to the SSPX Chapel in Detroit and have never look back. You are truly lost in the heresy of Modernism described by Pope St. Pius X in his 1907 encyclical, Pascendi. (sspx.org/en/pascendi-exposes-modernist-tactics). Read it, study it. We are all living the heresy described in it. Francis is just the latest Pope to push it which started with Paul VI.

      • Kronae

        I hope you don’t follow the rule of 1907! Why would you follow the errant proclamations of a rather deranged Pope Peeus the X or XII. jUST TWO OF THE MOST EVIL POPES OF ALL TIME. Our Pope Francis is beloved by the clergy, the people and religious. At least those who are sane and want to see this church grow and not fade into obsolescence as happened under the aegis of the closed and simple minded popes. The world is change or die out. You people have chosen the later.

      • Kronae

        Live in your world of fantasy and false so-called Catholic beliefs. Enjoy your time on this earth and hope you are ready to explain your denial of the real truths of the church.

      • Michael S

        Heretics can’t be popes Jim. SSPX is schismatic with a fake pope. Recognizing a heretic as your pope puts you into a non-Catholic theological conundrum. Stop drinking the SSPX koolaid as it has tragic effects on the soul.

    • Eric H

      You just contradicted yourself. From your comment on the “Anything but Sedevacantism” article:

      And where do you place the members of Pope Francis Masters of Ceremonies? They are as traditional as they can get starting with Monsignor Guido Marini and the other 18. They along with Monsignor Ganswein are the closest members to His Holiness.

      Now those people who “are as traditional as they can get” are bringing in striking novelties, and you applaud them for it. Makes perfect sense.

      When you get your “women priests,” that will be just another step in the Vatican II program to revolutionize the Catholic religion. Every sane person who is aware of the facts knows that things are being revolutionized. Some like it, some dislike it, but only a lunatic would say that it’s not a revolution.

      If you believe that religious doctrines can and should change with the times, how can you believe that they are true? Today’s exciting new advance will soon become an old and backward custom. Why bother with the whole charade?

      • Kronae

        Growth is everything. We should be thankful that those who serve as Masters of Ceremonies who know the Liturgy inside and out. It is time for it to be revised, rewritten and mistakes removed. Can you say Liturgical practices of the 1200’s are valid for today? They have all changed during this time. We don’t live in the dark ages any longer. You need to read the latest book on St. Charles Borromeo and his thoughts on change and the strength of the church. This book was released in February of this year and is a great book. Suggest you read something written by those who really know the church.

      • Kronae

        Not so! We are indeed, in a revolution…small r. A much needed cleaning of an old, dusty house where no one wants to go. The windows, doors are open and the lights are on in the Vatican. No mysterious old men hiding in the dark trying to make up rules to punish a young, vibrant generation of Roman Catholics. Stay in your stuffy groups studying nonsense from 1907. Have a great time knock yourselves out. But, growth will occur in the true church of St. Pope John Paul, II, Pope Benedict and our now gracious Pope Francis. He doesn’t hide in the closet neither do those who surround him live amongst cobwebs of ancient days. They are bringing light into a church that was dying. Today we have, in formation, new priests who will become the cardinals, bishops, arch bishops, arch deacons, monsignors in this bright new church. If you want to stay in the dark and believe in myths please do so. Be happy there. There are many mansions for other paths in the heavens and they will be recipients of the beneficence of the face of God. It isn’t one track only to our Father’s rewards for ALL!

        • Eric H

          Empty rhetoric. The revolution is against truth, beauty, and holiness. Out with Solemn High Mass, out with Palestrina, in with picnics and Marty Haugen and rap music and bikinis.

          Attendance is way down in your revolutionized church where anything goes except the true religion.

    • Kronae

      That is exactly what the Host is…a piece of bread of sorts…or cookie as we who train priests call it. That is until it is Consecrated. Perhaps you need to return to the study of the Eucharist and the species.

      • Tom Healey

        I’m not convinced you’re a troll even though you are making a nuisance of yourself. And everything you say is “empty rhetoric”.

        You said this is not the “dark ages”. That is just mindless blather. The world has never been as “dark” as it has been since the end of the 19th century.

        However, to make a long story short: Christ came into this world as an infant. Why? Because original sin is real, and only Christ’s death could redeem or reconcile humanity to God.

        Christ founded the Catholic Church, and it was His Divine Will that the mass, we now call the TLM, be said in perpetuity. And the crucifix is necessary to remind us of our fallen condition. And the post Vatll notion that the Resurrection is all that matters, is nothing more than fluffy nonsense at best.

        Absolutely nothing concerning the human condition has changed. We are sinners. Only the technology has changed. Jorge Bergoglio is a wolf in a Roman collar.

    • Sancho Panza

      In the Catholic Church, nothing changes except the bread and wine, in the Vatican II church everything changes except the bread and wine.

      Does anyone know the origin of this saying?

  4. Julia O'Sullivan

    I was a medical technologist at one point in my life. The very first thought that came to my mind on seeing this monstrosity of a monstrance was “It’s an AMOEBA!!!!!!!!!!!!!” What a shameful exhibition of obviously deliberate “in your face” ugliness to any possible understanding of traditional reverence.

  5. Michael S

    He’s not pope. He’s not even a priest. Vatican II did a whole lot more than show tunes and a new Protestant style clown “mass”. Serious problems all around. Time for research. But you’re off to a great start on this site. Try the “start here” button.

    • Tom A.

      Thats a shame. He shouldnt be banned. He argues like a true NO V2 relativist. I think its refreshing to have some banter going on. It helps illustrate the ansurdity of the modernist view. I hope you could reconsider. I find it edifying countering his posts. He is basically reducing the NO theology down to the absurd conclusions it mist descend to. Hell, Francis does it evey time he opens his mouth.

  6. Theycallmechuck

    When I look at the third photo in the series, I see the the chief priests with the scribes and ancients,standing before the cross, saying:
    If he be the king of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.
    It is in this sense the modernists believe He has come down from the cross.
    This is the way they dress up their altars.

  7. EIA

    While I don’t believe that Mr.Bergoglio can be the Vicar of Christ, I do believe that this article is objectively blasphemous and sacrilegious if indeed that is the Most Blessed Sacrament (as I believe it is) which is touching the Monstrance which it mocks.

    Whoeever wrote it is either certain it isn’t the Most Blessed Sacrament or has doubts.

    If the author has doubts he thereby concedes there is q possibility that it might be. Therefore he has blasphemed, for he recognizes that he may be referring to God.

    If he is certain that it is not the Most Blessed Sacrament, he must be certain that either (1) the matter was missing (bread or wine); or (2) the form (words Christ used) is missing; or (3) that the person(s) who consecrated the bread and wine did not intend to consecrate; or (4) that the bishop who ordained the person(s) who intended to consecrate did not intend to ordain him; or (5) that even if the person who ordained the person who intended to consecrate intended to ordain him, he couldn’t, because he didn’t use exactly the right words, and the author is certain that Christ requires exactly specific words the author has in mind; or (6) the bishop who ordained him was not a validly ordained bishop, for a reason the author has in his mind, and therefore he couldn’t ordain anyone.

    Now, which of the foregoing explains how the author of this article justifies that this is not the Most Blessed Sacrament, and that he can, and should, mock it and the monstrance touching it? The article doesn’t say.

    —————————————————————-

    Also, does N.O.W. contend that all sedevacantists agree that the Most Blessed Sacrament is not found in the Post Vatican II Church?

    • Eric H

      An excellent resource on the invalidity of the Novus Ordo Mass is The Robber Church by Patrick Henry Omlor, online here.

      Do you think there’s an obligation to treat anything that MIGHT be the Holy Eucharist as if it really were? Surely it depends on the circumstances.

      All sedevacantists agree on one thing only: that we have no pope.

      • EIA

        Thanks very much for the reading suggestion.

        In response to your question, we are not obligated to adore what may objectively be the Most Blessed Sacrament if we have valid reasons to suspect that the bread and wine have not been consecrated. But neither is it acceptable to treat it mockingly, disparigingly, with ridicule if one is unsure.

        Consider two large sound proof hermetically sealed boxes. Say nothing can be detected from the outside or by any means. Both contain something weighing exactly 200 pounds. In one there is a rock. In another there is a living human being who could survive for more than 1 day. One could only open either immediately by massive brute force, but it is certain that the human being would be killed. Or one could wait 1 day and open it with a key. What should one do?

        Consider two other small hermetically sealed boxes. Again, nothing can be detected from the outside or by any means. In one of them there certainly is a validly consecrated host. A priest who has certainly been validly consecrated has told us he consecrated it, and that he has the key. In another there certainly is a host which has not been consecrated. A priest who has certainly not been validly consecrated has that key. No one knows which is contained in which. Both the valid and the invalid priests are temporarily, perhaps indefinitely, unavailable. Is it acceptable to treat both boxes as if the Most Blessed Sacrament were not inside? Can one toss both one around like a ball, pile garbage on both, ridicule both as containing (cough) “The Blessed Sacrament”? Or should one wait until the validly consecrated priest returns with the key and opens it, and one is thus certain that one treats the Most Blessed Sacrament with the utmost reverence, and not in any way irrverently?

        I’m glad to hear that sedevacntists unanimously agree only on that there is no pope. But why then was this article published?

        • Eric H

          You’re quite welcome.

          The article says that the “Blessed Sacrament” is invalid in the Novus Ordo, so it sounds like the author regards this as certain. There are strong arguments for the invalidity of (1) the Novus Ordo Mass, (2) the new rite of priestly ordination, (3) the new rite of episcopal consecration, and one or more of these affects almost every “Mass” in the Vatican II church.

          I think your analogies miss the point because there’s a big difference between talking about and having possession of a Novus Ordo “consecrated host.” It’s no disrespect to Christ to ridicule a false religion for its fake Eucharist, and that’s the real point; it’s not directed toward that specific “host” in the MONSTERance. On the other hand, if Catholics got hold of a Novus Ordo “host” that might possibly be consecrated, they would do the usual thing in that situation and of course would not treat it disrespectfully.

          The point of this website is to defend the Roman Catholic Church and to expose the false and evil Vatican II religion. It’s not just about sedevacantism. The liturgy and the sacraments are among the most important matters.

          I only meant that there are a lot of disagreements among sedevacantists. Fortunately one can be saved without being right about everything. 🙂

          • EIA

            By “strong arguments”, in your opinion, do you mean infallible, or only strongly probable?

            I understand you believe that a false religion, in certain circumstances, may have validly consecrated hosts. Is that right? If so, I have the following questions:

            Do you mean it’s not blasphemy to disparage a specific host in a false religion without mentioning (1) that it may be validly consecrated, and (2) that other hosts in said religion may also be validly consecrated?

            If there are two hosts in a tabernacle in a false religion, and one is objectively a validly consecrated host, and the other is not, in your opinion, one can publicly disparage the tabernacle and it’s not blasphemy? One can disparage both hosts in the tabernacle and it’s not blasphemy? One can disparage all hosts in all tabernacles of said religion, and, in your opinion, it’s not blasphemy?

          • Eric H

            By strong arguments, I mean arguments that are sufficient to convince a reasonable man.

            Yes, a false religion can have validly consecrated hosts, if a heretical sect with validly ordained priests counts as a false religion.

            Of course it is blasphemy to show any willful disrespect to a Host that one believes is consecrated, no matter where it is located or who consecrated it. No question about it. We agree on that.

            If I were out walking and happened to encounter a Novus Ordo Corpus Christi procession, I would go the other way as quick as possible. That’s my reaction to the almost certainly fake Novus Ordo Eucharist. On the other hand, I’ve read from a Catholic source that one should kneel and adore our Blessed Lord in the same circumstances if it were an Eastern Orthodox procession, because they have a valid Eucharist. (This would not be considered participation in their religious rites, in the circumstances.)

            I don’t see how this NOW article disrespects a specific host, and I’ve never seen any Catholic mistreat a Novus Ordo cookie as if to show everyone that he doesn’t believe it’s valid. What exactly are you finding fault with, that someone has actually done?

          • EIA

            If you answer the all the exact questions I asked in the order I asked them, it would help.

          • Eric H

            Could you just make your point more clearly? Some examples of how to “disparage” a Host or tabernacle would be helpful.

          • EIA

            To refer to it by words or deeds as if hosts were certainly not consecrated when one is fact not sure. For example, one might say “that’s just bread” or “those cookies”, tell others not to genuflect or to not make the sign of the cross, laugh at it, sarcasm. One might stand or walk past a tabernacle indifferent to what may be inside or tell others that it’s ugly. Get the picture?

          • Eric H

            Yes, I get the picture. According to you, it is blasphemy to say a tabernacle or monstrance is ugly IF it contains something that might possibly be the Blessed Sacrament. One can only comment on its aesthetic qualities when it certainly doesn’t contain a consecrated Host.

            I think that is nonsense. An ugly monstrance or tablernacle remains ugly whether or not it’s empty. There’s nothing inherently wrong with saying that it’s ugly.

            Here’s an analogy. A holy priest has an ugly skin graft on his face where he suffered a bad burn. It’s no dishonor to him or to the priesthood to say that it looks ugly, if there’s a good reason for saying so. It would be ridiculous to pretend that it’s NOT an ugly spot just because he’s a priest.

            The ugliness of the Novus Ordo monstrance, and the more obvious ugliness of the Novus Ordo church buildings, symbolizes the ugliness and falsehood of the religion itself. That should be pointed out. Would you agree that a lot of Novus Ordo church buildings are hideous? Or can you only admit that when you are sure that no consecrated host is present at the moment in one of those ugly buildings?

            What you say about disparaging a particular host, directly, is a different case. Please note that nobody here has done that. To say that the Novus Ordo religion is false and evil, has corrupted the sacraments, and has replaced beauty with ugliness is not to disparage any particular host, consecrated or not. There is nothing wrong with criticizing the detestable Novus Ordo services, whether or not they have a validly Eucharist in any particular case. I think it’s obvious that such criticism doesn’t involve any blasphemy against any particular host. If you think differently, you are welcome to try again to make a convincing argument.

            I think your comments imply that Catholics should consent to evil, or cooperate with it at least by silence, out of reverence for the Holy Eucharist. I don’t agree. What if a burglar pulls out a consecrated Host and tells you to kneel before it while he robs the house? Or he threatens to profane the Host unless you collect all your valuables and hand them over? The problem with consenting to demands of this nature is that you’re basically submitting to be blackmailed in this way as long as consecrated Hosts are available in the world. It’s the same situation as if someone threatens to kill himself unless you do this or that. He will be able to make that threat as long as he lives.

            The Anglicans before Apostolicae Curae were in a similar situation as the Novus Ordo: a reasonable man could be convinced that their Eucharistic rite and their ordination rites were invalid, but (as far as I know) the Church had not yet ruled on the matter. It would be helpful to read about how Catholics behaved toward the Anglican “priests” and “consecrated hosts.”

          • EIA

            Before I further respond, let me get something unambiguosly clear: this is what I asked:

            “Do you mean it’s not blasphemy to disparage a specific host in a
            false religion although (1) it may be validly consecrated, and (2) other
            hosts in said religion may also be validly consecrated?

            “If there are two hosts in a tabernacle in a false religion, and one is
            objectively a validly consecrated host, and the other is not, in your
            opinion, one can publicly disparage the tabernacle and it’s not
            blasphemy? One can disparage both hosts in the tabernacle and it’s not
            blasphemy? One can disparage all hosts in all tabernacles of said
            religion, and, in your opinion, it’s not blasphemy?”

            In your opinion, which of these these cases would be blasphemy? Just write “Yes it is blasphemy” or “No it isn’t blasphemy” next to each.

          • Eric H

            I think I’ve made my position clear. To mistreat the Holy Eucharist is a grave sin. If there’s a host that might or might not be consecrated, it should be treated the way Catholic moral theologians say it should be treated. I haven’t been able to find that in four different books. If you or someone else finds it, that would be great.

            Earlier you asked if the arguments for the invalidity of the Novus Ordo rites are infallible or only strongly probable. I wonder if you are misinformed about moral certainty that we operate on most of the time. Moral certainty is not infallible; it does not exclude all possibility of being mistaken, but it is qualitatively different than being unsure. It is sufficient to act upon with a clear conscience in grave matters. Not to be sure about things that are morally certain is a kind of mental illness, akin to scrupulosity.

            For example, a responsible driver is morally certain that nothing is coming when he pulls out onto a busy street. But it’s always possible that by some freak accident there was a car or a bicycle that he didn’t see.

            There is no contradiction in admitting that it’s within the realm of possibility that a Novus Ordo host might be validly consecrated and at the same time regarding it as morally certain that it is not. I don’t wish to debate how exactly such a host should be treated; I’d rather find a moral theologian who discusses the matter. Lacking better counsel, I would not adore such a host, but I would not do any positive injury to it either.

          • Michael S

            ” I’d rather find a moral theologian who discusses the matter. Lacking
            better counsel, I would not adore such a host, but I would not do any
            positive injury to it either.”
            Wise words. Well said.

          • EIA

            This discussion is not about the case where someone claims certainty that a host inside a monstrance (etc.) is not consecrated, but only about the case where someone believes that there could be validly consecrated hosts in a false religion. This is clear in the initial conditional proposition which you had to agree to earlier for discussion to continue (“If you believe…religion). The case where someone claims certainty that the host is not consecrated is another matter.

            In the case where someone believes there could be validly consecrated hosts present in a false religion, these either objectively are present, or are not. The person simply does not know. But because there objectively may be consecrated hosts present one should make the safest choices possible. What follows is my response to the comments you published, instead of answering my initial questions:

            1. Your contention that Transubstantiation can occur by “freak accident” is erroneous. What you contend is impossible. It requires the intention to do, and doing, as Christ commanded.

            2. Any place where Our Lord is present or dwells is holy. Moses is told to take his shoes off when Our Lord appears to him in a bush, for he is on “sacred ground”.

            “And when the Lord saw that he went forward to see, he called to him out of the midst of the bush, and said: Moses, Moses. And he answered: Here I am. And he said: Come not nigh hither, put off the shoes from thy feet:for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground“ (Exodus 3: 4-6).

            The woman afflicted for years with a hemorrhage was instantly healed when she touched only the robe covering Our Lord, while He felt power going out from Him.

            “She came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment; and immediately the issue of her blood stopped. …And Jesus said: Somebody hath touched me; for I know that virtue is gone out from me” (Luke 8: 44-46).

            The psalmist tells us:

            “How lovely are thy tabernacles, O Lord of host! …For better is one day in thy courts above thousands….” (Psalm 83:2-11).

            The monstrance, tabernacle and building where Our Lord is present are no less sacred than the ground where Moses had to take his shoes off or the Holy Robe the woman touched. They are holy for the same reason: the Lord is there, robed in said places, and He extends beyond to those with faith, touching them. Wherever He is present is sacred, and should not be disparaged.

            3. You contend there is nothing wrong with saying something is ugly. I agree on this point.

            “There’s nothing inherently wrong with saying that it’s ugly.

            Then you contend that a tabernacle is ugly whether the Lord is present or not.

            “An ugly monstrance or tablernacle (sic) remains ugly whether or not it’s empty.”

            And finally you add that the ugliness symbolizes “falsehood”.

            ”…… “The ugliness of the Novus Ordo monstrance, and the more obvious ugliness of the Novus Ordo church buildings, symbolizes the ugliness and falsehood of the religion itself.”

            Thus, according to you, even if the Most Blessed dwells in a place (building, tabernacle, monstrance) it remains ugly. But if you mean that ugliness symbolizes falsehood, by depicting the place where the Lord dwells as ugly, one would be implying it’s false. But a place cannot be both false and sacred. And, as demonstrated in #1, a place where Our Lord dwells, for certain, is sacred. To claim that what’s sacred is not sacred is to disparage it. Therefore, to claim that where the Lord dwells is ugly in order to point to the falsehood or profanity of said place or dwelling, is to disparage it.

            4. However, according to the prophet Isaiah, ugliness doesn’t symbolize falsehood, for he describes Our Lord as not having a good appearance:

            “… there is no beauty in him, nor comeliness: and we have seen him, and there was no sightliness, that we should be desirous of him…” (Isaiah 53: 1-5).

            Surely you wouldn’t contend that Our Lord’s physical appearance symbolizes falsehood. Why then should a place where He is present, but which some consider ugly, be presumed to be indicative of something that is false?

            5. You profess that the Holy Eucharist should be revered. Of course, it’s God; the first commandment requires one to adore Him with all of one’s heart, mind and strength. But let’s evaluate this assertion in the light of an example you provide:

            “What if a burglar pulls out a consecrated Host and tells you to kneel before it while he robs your house? Or he threatens to profane the Host unless you collect all your valuables and hand them over? The problem with consenting to demands of this nature is that you’re basically submitting to be blackmailed in this way as long as consecrated Hosts are available in the world…”

            Are you asking if to deter a blackmailer in order to preserve one’s valuables is or could be more important than to prevent profanation of the Most Blessed? Don’t you know that regarding anything as more valuable than God is idolatry, a violation of the first commandment?

            “Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment” (Matthew 22:36-38; 4:10; Exodus 20:1-5;; Deut. 6:4-5; 5:6-9; 6:13-15).

            One should do what would please God the most. Therefore, one should voluntarily choose to prevent profanation of the Most Blessed, and without sinning in the process. If profanation is threatened by someone unless one kneels and adores the Most Blessed, one kneels. One’s intention is to adore God and prevent profanation by kneeling, not to submit to a criminal. On the other hand, if someone demands that one profane the Most Blessed, or allow it to be profaned, one should unconditionally refuse, regardless the consequences. The greatest reverence for the Holy Eucharist, God, is always required. No exceptions.

            6. You wrote that you think that my “… comments imply that Catholics should consent to evil, or cooperate with it at least by silence, out of reverence for the Holy Eucharist.” But I implied no such thing.

  8. Michael S

    My friend… you are breaking my heart. So much error, so much sincerity… so much that will lead you to damnation if you don’t wake up before the ship sinks into the abyss with you in it.

    Mr. Bergoglio aka “Francis” is not a priest, nor are any of the “cardinals” who invalidly elected him, nor are any of the Novus Ordo sectarians who parade around in vestments since 1968.

    Anti-pope usurper Montinni aka “Paul VI” changed the form of the sacrament of ordination in the Latin rite. This directly flies in the face of what Pope Leo XIII (Apostolicae curae) and Pope Pius XII (sacramentum ordinis) spell out for requirements of a valid Latin ordination. Paul VI’s new rite does not meet the minimum qualifications.

    But my friend… this is not the only problem (invalid ordinations), but the tip of the iceburg. Even if the Novus Ordo sect had valid ordinations, they are open heretics and schismatics. It is not possible to remain in communion with them and remain an orthodox Catholic for long. Similarly, if you were to attend one of the Schismatic “orthodox” church’s and receive sacraments from them, you would cease to be Catholic very quickly, not to mention commit MORTAL sin everytime you do so.

    Vatican II was an open break from the Catholic faith that has lead to a very large and very new (50 year old) sect that claims to be Catholic. They even have their own false “pope”. The Arians claimed to be Catholic too, as well as the Anglicans. IT DOESN’T MAKE IT TRUE.

    It takes much more to be a Catholic than to simply claim to be so. You must profess the faith in its entirety, and the NO sect does not.

  9. Michael S

    Laudatur Iesus et Maria! Well done. The Truth is hard, but its the Truth. Jesus Christ tells us “I am the Way and the TRUTH and the Life…” To love Truth is to love God.

    Hard decisions and divisions to come “I came not to bring peace but the sword…” but choosing God first ALWAYS pays off exponentially in my experience.

    I don’t know anything about the church you mentioned, but the ordinations were not bogus until 1968 so anything before that should be valid in most cases. I highly suggest avoiding any “priest” with ANY ties to the Novus Ordo and who have “orders” of questionable validity.

    Most importantly… PRAY THE ROSARY EVERY SINGLE DAY. Read the “Secret of the Rosary” by St. Louis de Montfort. If you’ve already read it… READ IT AGAIN. I got WAY more out of it the second time. He’s also written “Friends of the Cross”, “True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary” and “Love of Eternal Wisdom” which are ALL magnificent books full of practical use.

    St. Alphonsus Liguori is also of tremendous value today. His Sunday sermons are available in print still unmolested as well as “Preparation for Death”, “Uniformity to the Will of God” and “Incarnation Birth and Infancy of Christ”, among others.

    Hang in there brother, this exile cannot last forever. The Church will be RESTORED or our Lord will come back. It’s a win either way!

    May Almighty God bless you and keep you and welcome you into His Kingdom.
    Pax Christi

Leave a Reply