I’m about 100% shadow-banned. Digital evangelization is so difficult these days. Perhaps better times will come.
The homily itself is very long, just over 30 minutes. I get carried away.
Having said all that, I have to say that I don’t hear anyone else saying the things I say here about our Lady. However inept I am at stating what should be obvious, I’m guessing it would be best to put such things down in hard-copy.
Meanwhile, I’m sprinting more than ever. It seems I just had an oil change for Sassy the Subaru, and now she’s due again, already. That’s 6000 miles, just like that. Much of that is Communion Calls, Last Rites, Burials, Rehabs/Nursing Homes, and more recently Behavioral Unit availability. The staff at the latter say I’m the only one to bring some people out of their shell regardless of what religion they are. Thanks to my guardian angel is what I say.
Meanwhile, I’ve not been doing much blogging. Sorry about that. I’m about 100% shadow-banned. Some of you get through. I put up this homily for those who aren’t blocked. This homily is where I’m at in my life.
Above is an icon of Saint Anne with Immaculate Mary, her infant daughter, who is already by vocation Mother of God, respected as such by the Holy Angels.
Anne in Hebrew is Hannah, חַנָּה. Most translate this name as grace, favor. That’s appropriate, since Saint Gabriel’s greeting to Mary so as to announce to her that she is to be the Virgin Mother of God, was this: “Rejoice, you who perfectly continue to stand perfectly transformed in grace since the instant…” [in context, that Mary’s vocation to be the virgin Mother of God was received, that is, at the first instant of her conception].
I first heard this explanation – grace, favor – of the name Hannah when I was slogging through the propaedeutic year of languages at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome. But with me being freaky pedantic, I sought philological extravaganzas and, the next day, raised my hand to ask Sister Timothy Elliot, our professor, whether or not there was another possibility for the name Hannah, say, perhaps “womb”, indeed, “mercy.” She thought for a second and, eyes bright, said yes. Emboldened, I added a few philological notes, and she waxed poetic on that philology for a minute, confirming my findings.
Anyway, you’ll remember that Hannah is the prophet Samuel’s mother. She was granted the mercy of being a mother by God Most High, and she brought her little son to the temple to grow up there. “Here I am, Lord. I come to do your will.” Hannah sang about her experience, a hymn of praise and thanksgiving which, we can be quite sure, had been memorized and sung by another Hannah more than a thousand years later, the mother of Immaculate Mary. And surely Mary heard this, memorized this, carried this, sang this, the song of a Maternal warrior:
“My heart exults in the Lord; my strength is exalted in the Lord. My mouth derides my enemies, because I rejoice in thy salvation. There is none holy like the Lord, there is none besides thee; there is no rock like our God. Talk no more so very proudly, let not arrogance come from your mouth; for the Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed. The bows of the mighty are broken, but the feeble gird on strength. Those who were full have hired themselves out for bread, but those who were hungry have ceased to hunger. The barren has borne seven, but she who has many children is forlorn. The Lord kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up. The Lord makes poor and makes rich; he brings low, he also exalts. He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap, to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor. For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and on them he has set the world. “He will guard the feet of his faithful ones; but the wicked shall be cut off in darkness; for not by might shall a man prevail. The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces; against them he will thunder in heaven. The Lord will judge the ends of the earth; he will give strength to his king, and exalt the power of his anointed.” (1 Samuel 2:1-10)
Sound familiar? Let’s see how Immaculate Mary, The Warrior Woman of Genesis 3:15, recast this for her own circumstances as Virgin Mother of God, Jesus being the fulfillment of the new priesthood which Samuel, son of Hannah, put into motion back in his day:
“My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name. And his mercy is on those who fear him from generation to generation. He has shown strength with his arm, he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts, he has put down the mighty from their thrones, and exalted those of low degree; he has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent empty away. He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy, as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his posterity for ever.” (Luke 1:46-55)
To sing with such humility, truth, reverence, praise, with a military edge, demands of any singer, Hannah/Anne/Mary, an experience of suffering.
And that brings us to Mary’s name, Miryam, מִרְיָם, “bitterness” and “sea”. We recall once again the Lamentations:
“Is this nothing to you, all you who pass by? Look around and see! Is there any sorrow like mine, which was inflicted on me, which the LORD made me suffer on the day of His fierce anger?” (Lamentations 1:12)
Back to Miryam, Mary. When I lived atop the cave of Elijah atop Mount Carmel for a month, I would sometimes look over the sea. I wondered out loud to my guardian angel what it is that Elijah saw coming out of the sea as a sign that the terrible drought of years was now over, you know, upon his praying seven times. The Hebrew is ambiguous, simply mentioning that his servant reported to Elijah that a small cloud (laden with rain) was seen arising from the sea, a cloud like a man’s hand/foot. הִנֵּה־עָ֛ב קְטַנָּ֥ה כְּכַף־אִ֖ישׁ עֹלָ֣ה מִיָּ֑ם
Forget translations, which often say “hand”. I think not. I think it was a small cloud laden with rain looking like a man’s foot. Why’s that? Because the cloud laden with rain as salvation for Israel is arising out of the bitter sea, that is Miryam, Mary. The first image of salvation we see in the Sacred Scriptures is in Genesis 3:15, whereby salvation is being brought by the initiative of the Savior to reach out His heel to crush the head of the great serpent, the ancient dragon, Satan, with that Redeemer/Savior Himself being crushed as indeed we saw with the crucifixion of Jesus, Son of Miryam, Mary, that Bitterness immense as the Sea under the Cross.
The moment I had asked my guardian angel about that cloud laden with rain back in the Book of Kings, a small cloud laden with rain immediately formed directly in front of me, over the sea, directly in front of Elijah’s cave. That’s the picture I took of that cloud above. Yikes!
The name Father Tissa Balasuriya was brought to mind in the past week. He was a “liberation theologian” from Sri Lanka, an Oblate of Mary Immaculate, excommunicated for a while because of his many and disgusting heresies regarding our Blessed Mother. He died in early 2013, a week or so after Pope Benedict XVI did what he did (whatever it is that he did). It was Cardinal Ratzinger who had published the excommunication so many years earlier (1997). Here’s an excerpt:
“A fundamental aspect of the thought of Father Balasuriya is the denial of the dogma of original sin, held by him to be simply a product of the theological thought of the West (cf. pp. 66-78). This contradicts the nature of this dogma and its intrinsic connection to revealed truth. The author, in fact, does not hold that the meaning of dogmatic formulas remains always true and unchangeable, though capable of being expressed more clearly and better understood. [In contrast, I was able to demonstrate the “mechanism” (well, God’s justice precisely in view of how He created us), regarding the transmission of original sin not by imitation but by propagation, showing the inescapable logic of this from the Hebrew text, a first as far as I can tell after a quite exhaustive examination of millennia of commentary on the matter.]
“On the basis of these positions, the author arrives at the point of denying, in particular, the marian dogmas. Mary’s divine motherhood, her Immaculate Conception and virginity, as well as her bodily Assumption into heaven, are not recognized as truths belonging to the Word of God (cf. pp. 47, 106, 139, 152, 191). [In contrast, in my own work, I demonstrated how all these dogmas are necessary upon the examination of the text of the Sacred Scriptures, again, a first as far as I know in the history of Judeo-Catholicism.] Wanting to present a vision of Mary free from «theological elaborations, which are derived from a particular interpretation of one sentence or other of the scriptures» (p. 150) [In contrast, I demonstrated how Genesis 2:4a–3:24 is a tightly scripted equation, a syllogism], Father Balasuriya, in fact, deprives the dogmatic doctrine concerning the Blessed Virgin of every revealed character, thus denying the authority of tradition as a mediation of revealed truth. [In contrast, I demonstrated the revealed character of all the present Marian dogmas, and more, that is, regarding Mary as Advocate, Mediatrix, Co-Redemptrix.]
“Finally, it must be noted that Father Balasuriya, denying and relativizing some statements of both the extraordinary Magisterium and the ordinary universal Magisterium, reveals that he does not recognize the existence of an infallibility of the Roman Pontiff and of the college of Bishops cum et sub Petro. Reducing the primacy of the Successor of Peter to a question of power (cf. pp. 42, 84, 170), he denies the special character of this ministry. [In contrast, I have attempted, as a courtesy, to correct Francis’ assertions of power as an attempt to control Sacred Tradition (he taking up Balasuriya’s heretical assertions), pointing Francis instead to correct philological exegesis of Matthew 16 regarding the limits of infallibility apart from Sacred Tradition. This is speaking with parrhesia, with charity. I must say, this has been quite the exhaustive, comprehensive examination, though spread out over very many articles over very many years.]
“In publishing this Notification, the Congregation is obliged also to declare that Father Balasuriya has deviated from the integrity of the truth of the Catholic faith and, therefore, cannot be considered a Catholic theologian; moreover, he has incurred excommunication latae sententiae (can. 1364, par. 1). [In other words, the automatic nature of the excommunication was now also declared, therefore having external penalties imposed and supervised.]
“The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Notification, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.
“Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2 January 1997, the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Joseph Card. Ratzinger Prefect” [So, that’s weird. I think the multiple dates here refer, perhaps, to the approval, and/or the signing, and/or the publishing.]
A year later, in 1998, this excommunication was lifted upon Tissa’s admission that there might be “perceptions of error” in his writings, whatever that means. While teaching in major seminaries in Australia a few years later, I saw a BBC interview with Tissa in which, if I remember correctly, he mocked this decision of the foolish Holy See rehabilitating him. I was intent on getting him excommunicated once again (with full encouragement of the Holy Office), and so contacted the BBC to get a DVD copy of the interview (which they advertised at the end of the program). To their credit, they responded and took my phone calls. But they got nervous and said that sharing a copy was, in this case, forbidden by the interviewee. Who would’ve guessed? The BBC guy was super nervous, as denial is against government policy (the BBC being a government agency). Anyway, you can fool what is now called the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith some of the time, but not Jesus, not Mary at any time. One way or the other, now Tissa knows the rest of the story, with great clarity. I hope he turned around before he died. I don’t wish anyone any harm, even with the infliction of penalties which are medicinal in nature. For the eternal repose of Tissa’s soul (We’re to pray for our enemies, right?): Hail Mary…
Whatever the perception of Tissa as a full-on heretic, he did get due process. That’s charity, right?
If you peruse that for a second, you know I have to do up a popular version.
Meanwhile, I did give a conference on that thesis, further developing some points on the Immaculate Conception as that which lays the foundation for Mary’s maternal warfare. A good friend, the President of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, was in attendance.
Any links in that last pdf are all broken, defunct, dead. Sorry. Life goes on.
It’s really painful to put those two pdfs up “as is.” After so many years one would surely rewrite the lot of it. Be that as it may, there’s plenty there in which to rejoice:
The anthropology extracted from the text by which we see how it is that the transmission of original sin is not by imitation but by propagation. This is the first time this has been demonstrated from the text in the history of Judeo-Catholicism. It is what it is. There are historical and linguistic reasons.
Because of this, the Immaculate Conception is also demonstrated from the text (Lk 1:28 being another place this happens).
Because of this, we also see clearly what our spiritual lives are to be following original sin, and also what Mary’s spiritual life was like being the Immaculate Conception. It’s not what you think, at all.
Because of all of this, an ex-Cathedra infallible pronouncement on Mary co-Redemptrix would be most appropriate. Etc. Etc. Etc.
This is a re-posting of what I had written in seems in another life very many years ago while in Lourdes, France, as a “permanent chaplain” of the Sanctuaries for a couple of years. I must admit to being rather distracted, time and again, by the exclamatory words of the Immaculate Conception — now highlighted in raised gold lettering under the statue of the grotto — which are usually translated as “I am the Immaculate Conception.”
Going down from the Chaplain’s house on the “zig-zag path” to the grotto to offer Holy Mass followed by adoration (from 11:00 PM until midnight, my favorite time in Lourdes), or passing by the grotto on my way to the Rosary or Eucharistic Processions, or to hear Confessions in the morning and afternoon, I would stare hard at these words. I knew I just had to hunt down some of the rapidly diminishing in number local Bigourdan speakers. You probably can’t tell it from my blog posts, but I’m a bit of a grammar, syntax and literary analyst academic freakoid, and these words just bothered me to no end. Sorry. I think I was born this way. Be forewarned, we’re heading into extreme analytics here…
I went Bigourdan-speaker hunting and spoke with an elderly, retired gentleman who, though not knowing anything about grammar or spelling, was quite certain of the following, for he has lived the language. If I remember rightly, he was the legendary head sacristan who retired just days after my speaking with him.
The “què” [yes, with the grave accent, impossible in French], he said, has nothing to do with the French subjunctive. It means “je” in French (or “I” in English). I’m sure he’s correct, though I bet this derived from the subjunctive as a cultural oddity, which speaks to the humility of the locals, not wanting to put themselves forcefully forward, but always using the subjunctive for themselves.
Anyway, the “soy” is “suis” in French (or “am” in English).
“Immaculada Councepciou” is clearly “Immaculée Conception” in French (or “Immaculate Conception” in English).
The “éra” [yes, with the accute accent], he continued, is not part of a compound verb (perhaps giving us something like a presently continuing situation of a past event [and wouldn’t that be interesting?]) but is rather what he called a definite article, as in “la” = ” l’ ” in French (or “the” in English). But then he backtracked and said that, in reality, “era” is the Bigourdan way of saying “elle” in French (or “she” in English), giving us something exclamatory like: “I am she: Immaculate Conception!” Wow… I can’t imagine that being said except with much joy. No wonder Bernadette ran, ran, ran to the parish priest, repeating what our Lady had said the entire way.
But then this elderly gentleman got complicated on me, saying that, in his opinion, it is not written the right way, that “Què soy éra Immaculada councepciou” is unacceptably too proper. The “éra”, he says, would be contracted into “Immaculada”, giving us this: “Què soy érimaculada councepciou”. So, not an exclamation. The pronoun was simply used over time as a definite article: “I am the Immaculate Conception.”
But then, why was the phrase written the way it was written, especially if this is so unacceptable? Did the parish priest try to clean up the language a little bit, falling into a linguistic error himself? No. I doubt that. I mean, when the words ‘Que soy era Immaculada Concepciou’ were put up, wouldn’t all the locals who knew how to read know exactly what the words meant? And wouldn’t they have realized that there was a mistake if there indeed was one?
So, back to the exclamation: “I am she: Immaculate Conception!”
I should be satisfied with that, I suppose. But the accent in “éra” bothers me. The opening deadened “e” in the French “elle” would hardly develop into “é”, even if the double “ll” easily turned into an “r”. A self-proclaimed expert said that this could be a past tense verb of some kind, but that surely it was just a definite article. Given the difficulties with the “unacceptable” nature of the “éra” standing on its own, I’m guessing that it is some kind of past tense verb, giving us presently continuing action begun in the past. This would be the perfect rendition of the Greek perfect in Luke’s Gospel, where the angel says, “Rejoice, O you who stand transformed in grace” (in context, from the first moment of her vocation to be the Mother of God, from the first moment of her conception). Now, wouldn’t that be wonderful? This would be a gentle push for the Church at that time (1858) to look more closely at the Gospel, and this just a short time after the very correct definition that Mary was immaculately conceived (1854). The doctrine of Sacred Tradition is not only reflected in the Sacred Scriptures, but it is in the Sacred Scriptures themselves (not only in Luke 1,28, but also in Genesis 2,4–3,24). Mary was not only immaculately conceived, but she is still perfectly what she was when she was just conceived, to wit, the Immaculate Conception. Wonderful.
While in Lourdes, I kept asking Bigourdan speakers about the “éra”. While they admit that Bigourdan is way closer to Italian than it is to Spanish, and while they admit that however much French there is in this dialect, there really is quite a bit of Italian influence, some are adament that this is a definite article, or, at least, something along the lines of “She is”, giving us “I am she is… Immaculate Conception.” More smoothly: “I am she: Immaculate Conception.” So, does that solve the mystery? Perhaps the “definite article” did not have to be in a contracted form at that time. Moreover, the continuing action begun in the past is perfectly rendered here: “I am” is present tense, while “Immaculate Conception” hails to the time of her conception. Again, that perfectly reflects what’s happening in Luke 1,28, where we read of Mary perfectly continuing to be perfectly transformed in grace from the first instant she could begin to live her vocation to be the Mother of God, that is, at her conception, her Immaculate Conception!
How very humble of Mary. Instead of pointing to her being the Mother of God, she instead emphasizes the glory of being the Mother of God, which is doing the will of God, which she did perfectly, by the way, at the time of her being immaculately conceived. She was always, from the first instant, utterly transformed in grace, just as she is today as Queen of heaven and earth, angels and men, the Virgin Mother of God assumed soul and body into heaven. It is God’s life within us that counts the most, doing God’s will.
A great young priest, now dying (prayers for him please!!!) had written to tell me that he was offering the Emergency Chaplet of the Immaculate Conception for me, but with some changes. He said that before and after this chaplet, on the three beads one finds by themselves at the beginning of any rosary, he added the words three times each: “Que soy era Immaculada Councepciou!” He called these statements “prayers”… This young priest is very close to Saint Bernadette. I got to thinking about that repetition of those words, and Bernadette’s breathless run came to mind, from the grotto to her parish priest up the steep hill, way up in town, incessantly repeating these words, “Que soy era Immaculada Councepciou!” Imagine what the parish priest would have thought with such a child, totally out of breath, utterly uneducated, stammering on his doorstep: “I am she: Immaculate Conception! I am she! Immaculate Conception! I am she! Immaculate Conception!” …. and only after barely catching her breath explaining that this was the name of the lady she had seen in the grotto. To repeat those words with the innocence of a little child, with such enthusiasm, yes, this also is a prayer, not as if in the first person singular, but as in being in awe before the great mystery of the Lord’s goodness and kindness and truth.
Oh, and about that flower for the Immaculate Conception. It’s the “Morris Rose” today.
My one-time parishioner in Australia and great friend Charles Morton, an attorney, a filmmaker, a father of ten, has made it a lifetime mission to promote consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. In his determination and by Divine Providence he has spoken to key people through the years. In this interview with John-Henry he drops a few now-we-know bombs and also has a great path forward with some piercingly simple insights.
[[The original post follows. Scroll down for the UPDATE.]]
A note on time-lines: While in feverish preparation for the Amazon Synod and the world-wide promotion of idol worship of the most blood-thirsty idol-goddess (Pachamama) and the release of the Wuhan virus and then it’s papal sanctioned abortion-tainted fake-remedies, Pope Francis decided that it was a perfect time to reject the Immaculate Conception. Here’s the essential paragraph of the Pope’s address to the employees of the Holy See and Vatican City State in the Paul VI Audience Hall on Friday, 21 December 2018:
“So who is happy in the crib? Our Lady and Saint Joseph are full of joy: they look at the Child Jesus and are happy because, after a thousand worries, they have welcomed this Gift of God, with so much faith and so much love. They are “overflowing” with holiness and therefore with joy. And you will tell me: of course! They are Our Lady and St. Joseph! Yes, but we don’t think it was easy for them: saints are not born, they are made, and this is also true for them.”
That’s true for Saint Joseph, who was sanctified post-reception of original sin, and also daily saying yes to God’s grace in difficult circumstances. Dearest Mary also daily saying yes to God’s grace in difficult circumstances grew in sanctification throughout her life, but was sanctified at the moment of her conception, never tainted with original sin or, for that matter, any personal sin later in life. Meanwhile, John the Baptist was in reception of original sin in his conception, but was freed from this before his birth during the visitation of Mary to Elizabeth.
Here’s the deal: I’m not judging the soul of Pope Francis. I don’t see his soul. I don’t have the beatific vision. I have no standard of comparison by which, by Whom to judge that which I cannot see. But I must, we must judge that which is presented on the outside. It’s judging external matters: is this statement consonant with the truth or is it not? I’m not judging the soul of the guy who’s driving against traffic in my lane, but I am judging what is external, that he is going to cause a head-on-collision and I need to make a judgment about external circumstances in order to avoid him. If Pope Francis rejects the Immaculate Conception, I’m not going to judge his soul, but I am going to judge that what he says is incorrect.
By the way, just to be clear: Just because I criticize something that the Pope says doesn’t mean that I am against him personally. No. I’m not judging his soul, merely what he presents externally.
There is probably no one in the world who prays more for Pope Francis than myself.
How can I be so sure of that? Because I not only very frequently include Pope Francis in public prayers, and not only in the Roman Canon of Holy Mass (the Eucharistic Prayer), but also and primarily because I offer Holy Mass for him. No other intentions. Just him. A lot. Who does that? I do. I offered Holy Mass for him on none other than 8 December, Feast of the Immaculate Conception. That Holy Mass was the main parish Mass in the parish church at 12:00 PM. Yes.
P.S. For the second year in a row, Pope Francis cancelled the traditional pilgrimage to the other side of the Tiber River to the statue of the Immaculate Conception at the Spanish Steps. Then he secretly went there just after 6:00 AM, just to make sure no one was there. Is this because of Covid? Let’s take a look at this picture, taken just days before 8 December 2021, that is, 1 December 2021:
Lots of masks and social distancing there, yes sir-ee, sooooo careful!
And yet he brutally smashes down everyone in Vatican City and on his trips to ensure everyone gets the abortion-tainted fake-vaccine. Taking that vaccine is like taking a machete to the wombs of Mary and Elizabeth, extracting Jesus and John, taking out their organs, murdering, researching, developing and testing babies-as-cash-cows for what? Big-Pharma?
And that‘s how the Pope confirms his brethren in the faith?
Tell us, Pope Francis, why is it that Mary and Joseph are joyful?
Answer: because they escaped from you.
On 13 December 2021, I put up the above post about Pope Francis dissing the Immaculate Conception. I did that based on a Christmas address to the workers of the Holy See / Vatican City State. Just before Mass, I saw some alarming comments in the moderation queue. With no time to answer them I just took the post down until such time as I could take a closer look. It’s surprising to see – from my stats program (now with fully eight algorithms – how very many can break into the admin section of the blog and take a look at what’s going down behind the scenes despite otherwise impossible passwords. There were three comments rolling in from the same troll:
(1) This is a flat out lie. Pope francis over and over has AFFIRMED the IC. Just do a one minute google of Pope Francis Immaculate conception. It’s easy so you are culpable.
(2) Those who bear false witness should not receive communion until they repent.
The third comment was filled with proof texts of his Google search. Just below I’ll take a look at just those proof texts that he himself provided.
Before doing that I should like to note that much of that post above was about not judging the soul of Pope Francis or anyone else for that matter, but that we must judge what someone presents, particularly the Pope, so as to understand if what is presented is in accord with the faith… or not. This is an obligation of the faithful inasmuch as any of us is able to do this in our daily circumstances.
Alright, let’s jump into to this guy’s Google search. I gotta think that there’s more than this across the years, and there is a risk that he’s cherry picked these as proof-texts, but that’s fine with me. There’s more at play when it comes to clear teaching, such as the correct maxim: “Bonum ex integra causa sed malum ex quocumque defectu.” A thing is good if it is integrally so but it is evil by whatever defect. So, we already have a defect as presented in the original post above. But let’s see if there are any more provided by the troll himself. I’ll assume he is sincere and did not provide skewed texts:
2015 – Today the Feast of the Immaculate Conception leads us to contemplate Our Lady who, by unique privilege, was preserved from original sin from the very moment of her conception. Even living in a world marked by sin, she was not touched by it: Mary is our sister in suffering, but not in evil or in sin. Instead, evil was conquered in her even before deflowering her, because God had filled her with grace (cf. Lk 1:28). The Immaculate Conception signifies that Mary is the first one to be saved by the infinite mercy of the Father, which is the first fruit of salvation which God wills to give to every man and woman, in Christ. For this reason the Immaculate One has become the sublime icon of the divine mercy which conquered sin. Today, at the beginning of the Jubilee of Mercy, we want to look to this icon with trusting love and to contemplate her in all her splendour, emulating her faith.
[My comment: Sounds great! Yay! But my question is about the timing of the Immaculate Conception. Does “conception” mean, you know, when sperm enters egg and FLASH, there is conception, there is life? Pope Francis is ambiguous about when conception occurs. Think not?Let’s continue with his other comments. But keep this on the back burner…]
2019 – Today we celebrate the solemnity of Mary Immaculate, which takes place within the context of Advent, a time of expectation: God will accomplish what he promised. But on today’s feast day we are told that something has already been accomplished, in the person and the life of the Virgin Mary. Today we consider the beginning of this fulfilment, which is even before the birth of the Mother of the Lord. In fact, her immaculate conception leads us to that precise moment when Mary’s life began to palpitate in her mother’s womb: already there was the sanctifying love of God, preserving her from the contagion of evil that is the common inheritance of the human family.
[So, we are narrowing down on the time frame of the Immaculate Conception: before birth. So, sometime in those nine months between what science calls conception and her birth. Let’s see: Pope Francis has it that the Immaculate Conception takes place at the time of… of… palpitation. Seriously? This recalls the heart-beat anti-abortion legislation which limits abortion to a time before palpitation, because the legislature cannot yet get this limitation all the way back to actual conception. At this point, review statement at the very top of this post from 2018, where it seems that sanctification for Mary is what happens after birth.]
2020 Today’s liturgical feast celebrates one of the wonders of the history of salvation: the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. Even she was saved by Christ, but in an extraordinary way, because God wanted that the mother of his Son not be touched by the misery of sin from the moment of conception. And thus, for the entire course of her earthly life, Mary was free from any stain of sin, she was “full of grace” (Lk 1:28), as the angel called her. She was favoured by a unique action of the Holy Spirit so as to always remain in perfect relationship with her Son, Jesus. Indeed, she was Jesus’ disciple: his Mother and disciple. But there was no sin in her.
[So, this adds nothing to the previous weirdness about conception taking place… um… long after conception… you know… as “the thing” for those pre-palpitation weeks wasn’t, like, alive.]
2021 The angel calls her “full of grace”. If she is full of grace, it means Our Lady is void of evil: she is without sin, Immaculate. Now, at the angel’s greeting, Mary — the text says — is “greatly troubled” (Lk 1:29). She is not only surprised, but troubled. To receive grand greetings, honours and compliments sometimes brings the risk of provoking pride and presumption. Let us recall that Jesus is not gentle with those who go in search of greetings in the squares, adulation, visibility (cf. Lk 20:46). Mary, instead, does not exalt herself, but is troubled; rather than feeling pleased, she feels amazement. The angel’s greeting seemed too grand for her. Why? Because she feels “little” within, and this littleness, this humility attracts God’s eyes.
[Again, this adds no nuance to the timeline as to whether Mary’s conception takes place at… conception… or just sometime before birth, like at palpitation.]
Just to be clear: Pope Francis is trolling the Immaculate Conception. I find that disgusting. I am indignant. It’s certainly necessary to correct the record: Mary is perfectly transformed in grace from the first scientific moment of her conception, you know, the whole Joachim and Anne thing. Get it? Not at palpitation or sometime before or even after birth: at her conception.
Let’s review: Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu. A thing is good if it is integrally good, but is evil if it suffers any defect whatsoever. Pope Francis is increasingly less ambiguous. His clarity of defect is becoming ever more integral. Say a good thing, say a bad thing, say a good thing, say a bad thing, say a good thing, say a bad thing… The kids don’t like it:
You know, like on the plane: In one breath: abortion is like hiring a sicario (a hitman); in the next breath: giving pro-abort-politicos Communion is a pastoral decision by pastors who cannot be mistaken in pastoral decisions. That means abortion is just fine. That means that the Most Blessed Sacrament means nothing. What a crock.
Pope Francis needs to be called out. This is for his own good.
To “protect” Pope Francis from being called out is not for his own good.
The exuberance of the exclamation “Que soy era Immaculada Councepciou” in 1858 is set against the rising of “modernist” “biblical scholarship” that will shred Genesis 1-3 in a mill of intensifying political-correctness of anti-Semitism. Mary is today, in fact, she who is, in fact, The Woman of Genesis 3:15 back in the day, she who is, in fact, not the wife of fallen Adam, but rather the Immaculate Mother of the Redeemer closer to our own time. So, if we were to respect the inspired text, going against all politically correct anti-Semitism, what would we have? Behold:
Thank you, Jesus, for granting your own Mother such purity of heart and agility of soul and clarity of spiritual sight and such immensity of understanding. Thank you, Mary, for suffering the beholding of the reality of who we are in our fallen state before God, for beholding your Son standing in our place, the Innocent for the guilty. Sorrowful because Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us that you might have the joy of bringing us to our Savior, bringing other brothers and sisters of Jesus to the Light of the Nations.
The Queen Mother, Mother of God, Mother of her Divine Son, Christ Jesus, conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, most powerful, calls herself The Immaculate Conception, transformed in grace from the first instant of her conception (see Gn 3:15; Lk 1:28), kept from from the macula of original sin. In other words, she is of as much worth (how can we even speak like that?) when just conceived as she is now as the glorious Mother of God.
Joe Biden insults her so that he can push the murder of those as tiny as she was and older, with abortifacients, abortion, the killing of children for pharmaceutical research.
Wilton Gregory instructs Joe Biden that the Catholic Church is pro-life, but then gives Joe Biden Holy Communion. That means that the “teaching” is that life doesn’t matter, Jesus in the Most Blessed Sacrament doesn’t matter. People don’t matter, including Joe Biden. What rank hypocrisy.
Pope Francis has it that abortion is really, really, really, really, really bad, but then immediately says that Joe Biden, pro-abort demon, is good to go to receive Christ Jesus our Lord in Holy Communion. That means that the “teaching” is that life doesn’t matter, Jesus in the Most Blessed Sacrament doesn’t matter. People don’t matter, including Joe Biden. What rank hypocrisy.
When someone insults the Immaculate Conception, saying that she is NOT the Immaculate Conception, Christ Jesus takes notice. He was conceived in her womb by the Holy Spirit, and was there for nine months.
Joe Biden should take notice of Jesus being indignant right now. You don’t want His wrath after you die. That goes for Wilton Gregory as well. That goes for Pope Francis as well.
[[[ This is a guest post of Aussie mum. We all owe her a debt of gratitude. Hail Mary… ]]]
Our Lady of Guadalupe, “Ahh… a close up of her face”.
Yes, the gentle face and compassionate gaze of a true mother looking upon her children, her Immaculate Heart the complete opposite of the malicious heart of Pachamama. It therefore startled me when I discovered that the month of August dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary is also dedicated to her antithesis.
The Mother Earth fertility goddess, a demonic construct mocking our Blessed Mother, has been given various names in different parts of the world. She (Mother Earth) is best known in Latin America as “Pachamama” (translation: “World Mother”) in the Quechua language of the Inca, and “Tonantzin” (translation: “Our Mother”) in the Nahuatl language of the Aztecs, and is associated with the Sun-god with whom she supposedly brings forth and maintains creation.
In addition to the dedication of the whole of August to Pachamama in lands once hers and now seemingly hers again, her son and husband, the Sun-god Inti, has also returned to the region. He features on the current coat of arms of Argentina, Bolivia and Ecuador, and on the current national flag and state ensign of Argentina (see link below) and Uruguay; he also appears on the traditional, but not current, flag of Peru.
We are told in the 3rd article linked to above (sciencemag) that recent archaeological discoveries in Mexico are “testimony to an industry of human sacrifice (on a scale) unlike any other in the world”. Surely today’s abortion industry is “an industry of human sacrifice”, and given its slaughter of 40,000,000 to 50,000,000 infants globally per year (WHO stats) it functions on a scale greater than that of the Aztecs and Inca combined. Cannibalism also accompanied human sacrifice, at least in the Aztec Empire, and such goes on in our world today as well but now it is aborted baby body parts cannibalised for research and for use in manufacture (e.g. vaccines, face creams).
Clearly, barbarism is not confined to the past. In fact it is a recurring theme throughout history. We are trapped in a fallen world under demonic headship unless we are incorporated into Christ and remain faithful to Him, which explains why human sacrifice and its associated cannibalism disappeared from Latin America after the Catholic religion was introduced there in the 16th century, only to resurface in our modern world in the form of the abortion industry and its spin-offs as adherence to the Catholic religion wanes world-wide.
Because our world is now post-Christian, immersed in the culture of death as was pre-Christian societies, “modern” men and women tend to take a sympathetic approach to the horrific religious practices of the Inca and Aztecs. The following snippets of an extract from Lehigh University re the film “The Other Conquest” is a disturbing example. “… blood was seen as especially pleasing to the gods, especially blood from the heart, … many of the ritualistic practices involved the cutting out of hearts, and almost all of the practices resulted in cannibalism of the victim … This was an important and irreplaceable aspect of the culture … To be chosen as the sacrifice was an honor and a type of heroism … Carrasco’s subtle references to the Sun God and the Mother Goddess, as well as the dramatic ritualistic sacrifice scene, seem less abrupt and confusing when a viewer can understand them within the organizational framework of a well organized and methodical ancient religious tradition. The Aztecs were not the hateful barbaric cannibals a top-level knowledge of their religion can paint them as. Rather, they were an organized group who committed some unorthodox practices based on their highly revered religious traditions.”
It therefore comes as no surprise that modern man, wishing to defend the indefensible, also portrays the overthrow of the Aztec Empire by Catholic Spain in a most cynical light. They don’t want to know what really happened when the Spanish arrived – the replacement of false religion and its culture of death with the true religion and its culture of life – and incorrectly claim (1) that the natives didn’t really convert to the Catholic religion but embraced the Virgin Mary as just another iteration of Mother Earth, and / or (2) that all religions are basically the same and so it makes no difference which one is followed.
Actually, the post-Christian world is worse than the pre-Christian in that pre-Christian societies had no previous contact with the Catholic religion but our modern world has and yet it prefers idols of one kind or another. No wonder our Blessed Mother exhorted: “Do not offend the Lord our God any more because He is already so much offended” (Fatima, October 1917), and made clear that her divine Son requires reparation for sins committed against her Immaculate Heart (Fatima, July 1917). How incensed He must be when men and women who have the opportunity to know and love His Mother are instead indifferent, ignoring her suffering united to His on Calvary – such immense suffering endured for our sakes – and yet are open to honouring an horrific Mother Earth fertility goddess. As we all know Pope Francis even welcomed the Pachamama idol to Rome (Oct, 2019); two months later he denied that Mary is Co-Redemptrix (Dec 12th 2019, Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe).
Oh, how we need to pray for Pope Francis. Not even the most corrupt popes of the past went this far!
Medieval Times (late 5th to the end of the 15th century) showed us that Christendom – a Catholic civilisation – is attainable, while Modern Times (16th to the 21st century) shows us what happens when the Catholic religion is widely rejected.
The following events stand out as marking the beginning of our times:
(1a) 1517 Germany – the Protestant Reformation, a revolt led by Luther sparking a world-wide Religious Revolution that would replace the Church with the anti-Church if it could.
(1b) 1517 Turkey – the Abbasid Caliphate replaced by the Ottoman Caliphate, making Turkey the centre of the Islamic world with a bridge into Europe via Constantinople (Istanbul).
(2) 1519 Mexico – the beginning of the end of the Aztec Empire as the Spanish arrived under Cortez, finding a level of barbarity they could neither understand nor tolerate. Conversion to the Catholic religion would overcome the deeply ingrained culture of death but most of the conquered population were resistant to converting.
(3) 1531 Mexico – God’s response to (1) and (2) above: He sent His Mother into what had been the heart of the Aztec Empire (Dec 9th) as the Woman of the Apocalypse, “clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet …” (Apocalypse 12:1). Her appearance was miraculously pictured upon Juan Diego’s tilma and she directed that she be called “Holy Mary of Guadalupe” (Dec 12th).
Note: What the native people “read” in the picture of Our Lady of Guadalupe and a summary of the surrounding events can be found at:
The most obvious reason for the appearance of Our Lady of Guadalupe is that she came to convert the Aztecs, and that is certainly true. Their “‘reading’ of the Sacred image brought whole tribes from all over Mexico, led by their chiefs and rulers, to be received into the Faith. And so it happened that the worship of pagan idols was overcome” and “more than 8,000,000 natives in seven years (were converted) to the Catholic Faith.” (Father Rahm cited in Thomas Mary Sennott, Acheiropoeta: Not Made by Hands: Miraculous Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe .., p. 27). However, there is much more to Our Lady of Guadalupe’s appearance:
– It was the one and only time in history that the Mother of God has appeared as the Woman of the Apocalypse, and as such it is of particular universal significance;
– It stands at the head of other Marian apparitions of world-wide import that followed (Rue de Bac, 1830; Lourdes, 1858; and Fatima,1917);
– And unlike pictures painted to commemorate other Marian apparitions, science – for all its supposed brilliance and authority – is unable to explain how the original was made (it has no brush marks), why it has lasted (its “canvas”, a tilma made of fabric that decays within 30 years) or how its visual effects are accomplished.
Moreover, the original picture of Our Lady of Guadalupe has miraculously lasted throughout Modern Times (just on 5 centuries) to date, suggesting that what she came to do is not yet complete. Could it be that Our Lady of Guadalupe and Our Lady of Fatima “bookend” Modern Times; that is, that Modern Times is the battleground upon which the triumph of her Immaculate Heart will stand?
I have not yet explained how the Reformation, Islam and all four apparitions mentioned above are linked, but I have taken up so much space already in the comment box and am very unwell presently, so I will have to leave it at this for now.
Dearest Aussie mum. Thank you so much for this. We pray for your health and strength. I am distressed at the words “very unwell.” You give us much encouragement with the clarity of your faith. We look forward to a continuation of this your heroic effort.
I simply must write a popular version of this before my time in this world is over.
I put up the way too academic version here, again, as a matter of prudence.
And, yes, there are tiny roses all around our Lady in that picture above which I took now many years ago, whilst re-establishing the “Extraordinary Form” in the Sanctuaries of Our Lady of Lourdes (beginning again after decades immediately after July 7, 2007. I’m hoping that the thesis is also a tiny flower for Jesus’ good mom.
I’ve written out some 25 summation paragraphs about the thesis, which add much about the Immaculate Conception. I’d like to re-write those as a start to the popular version of the thesis.
Request: I’m meeting up with some great priests from all around the world. Might I ask any reader willing to do so for a Hail Mary every day April 12 to 16, 2021. Thank you. Prayers for ye all as well. There may be some small time dedicated to conversation about what happened with this thesis…
“Let’s go to die with Him!” exclaims Thomas, who clearly loved Jesus. But we are weak. That the King of kings, who raised people from the dead, worked great miracles, spoke with authority, no political correctness, would have to fulfil being the Suffering Servant caught Thomas off guard. He ran with the rest of the Apostles, Judas already going to his own place.
Doubt comes upon us when we run after mercy not founded on justice, nice stuff from God without anyone paying the price in God’s justice. It’s like Thomas and the other Apostles say, “Why does this always have to happen to me? This isn’t right? Where’s God in all of this? I’m gone!” We’re such entitled brats, all of us, without exception. “I deserve to be able to sin because, you know, yeah.” Something like that. We’re so tough. But, no. At the very first opportunity we can say that we deserve to be able to sin. I’m too weak anyway, and that has to be God’s fault, not mine. I’m sinless. I’m immaculately conceived. There is no such things as sin, and I don’t need forgiveness.”
And there’s Jesus’ Immaculate Mother, having seen all the sin of all mankind from Adam until the last man is conceived, with purity of heart and agility of soul and clarity of vision – so totally unlike us – not at all blinded to all the hell vomited out on her Son.
If anyone had the right to be cynical – and of course no one does – it would be Mary. No one has ever suffered as has she and she remained entirely faithful to the Lord Jesus, her Son, in solidarity with Him, also for us.
How dare we think we have something more to be cynical about than her. We cave. She didn’t. She’s the heroine whose example we strive to follow with the mercy won for us in justice by her Son, He standing in our place, the Innocent for the guilty. She’s the one who intercedes for us that we become members of the Body of Christ.
How dare we offend her by still thinking that we are entitled to steal our souls away from God, away from her, our mother. Cynicism is a sin against God, but it’s also a sin against Immaculate Mary.
Dear Pope Francis, remember when you said that women with lots of children – more than two? – were nothing but rabbits? Yes, well, I’m child number four of my own mom, whom, according to you, Pope Francis, is therefore just another brainless idiot who is merely a copulating damned rabbit. You reduce my dear mother to a rabbit. And you laugh. Why do you hate my mom and motherhood, Pope Francis? Am I indignant? Yes, rightly so. Do I think you are a fraud with your hateful, misogynistic and altogether damned by God “teachings”? Yes.
Dear Pope Francis, to be consistent with your self-absorption, your propose Pachamama as a mother-creator of all there is, replacing the Most Holy Trinity, having the pretense in your own dark world that this idol worship is honoring motherhood. But your image of motherhood is so deficient that you can only come up with a wooden carved idol representing all that is death and darkness and demonic. Do I think you are a fraud with your hateful, misogynistic “teachings”? Yes.
Dear Pope Francis, remember when you said that many of your predecessor Supreme Pontiffs are damned heretics, you know, because they said, according to you, that Jesus is not fully our redeemer, but that Mary is also our redeemer? You should recall this, since it was on the Vigil of the great Solemnity of the Annunciation to Mary, 24 March, 2021. But your predecessor Supreme Pontiffs never pronounced such heresy. You are either ignorant or a malicious liar who is purposely causing scandal, purposely making your predecessors look like damned fools so as to make yourself a Promethean figure, the greatest, the only One!
Dear Pope Francis, you take those Supreme Pontiffs out of context. Taking their text without their context is your specious pretext. Your predecessor Supreme Pontiffs refer to Mary as Co-Redemptrix simply because it is fitting in justice that one of us – Mary – not divine, asks for the grace of redemption and salvation both of which entirely come from her Divine Son, Christ our God, Jesus. The “Co-” of “Co-Redemptrix” does not necessarily refer to equality, such as is to be seen in the usage of “co-worker” among those at the same level of service on a manufacturing assembly line. There is another usage for the prefix “co-” such as ourselves being “co-workers” with the Almighty Creator in the care of His Creation, such as is Adam’s vocation to till the ground, walking in the presence of the Most High. There is an infinite difference between the Creator and the creature even while the Creator calls His creature to be a mere co-worker in the garden all around us.
Dear Pope Francis, let me be pedantic in answer to your condescending insults to your predecessor Supreme Pontiffs and the very Mother of God. What is meant by your predecessor Supreme Pontiffs with their usage of “Co-Redemptrix” has reference to the fact that it is fitting in justice that a non-divine human being perfectly ask for the graces of redemption and salvation which only Christ our God can provide. That’s it. Mary does this. She is Co-Redemptrix.
Dear Pope Francis, you nevertheless claim that your predecessor Supreme Pontiffs are the most damned of all heretics because of their making, you say, the Blessed Virgin into some kind of goddess. They did not claim Mary to be a goddess. These assertions of yours, Pope Francis, are most dark, most evil. Your statements are blatant lies. It is as if to see the fires of hell flashing in your eyes, you who continuously claim that you are most humble of all, that only your humility can accomplish all you want, you know, because what you want is of sole importance.
Dear Pope Francis, do you laugh in scorn at Jesus and other members of the Body of Christ who are indignant with your insulting of Jesus’ mother, having it that she cannot be Co-Redemptrix? Well, let me tell you Pope Francis, it has been said and written about the Immaculate Virgin Mother of God, the most humble of all, more than you:
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior for He has looked upon the humility of his slave, for behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed.
Dear Pope Francis, it seems that you hold Mary to be an idiot who cannot know our need perfectly so as to intercede for us perfectly, that which is needed for her to be Co-Redemptrix. But do you not commit THE psychological sin of projection of yourself unto her? She is the Immaculate Conception, you are not. She has purity of heart and agility of soul and clarity of vision and understanding so perfect – and truly beyond anything Promethean you think you have – that she can in fact see our need perfectly and, in solidarity with her Son under the cross, she can herself present that need perfectly to Jesus, who is alone our Redeemer and Savior. Jesus knows our need all too well, tortured to death on the Cross from the original sin of Adam and all the sins of all men throughout time until the last man is conceived, but, again, it is fitting in justice that she makes perfect intercession for us. It is fitting that she fulfil Genesis 3:15, She is in solidarity with Jesus, with His providing the graces of redemption and salvation which smash down the guilt of sin by filling us with God’s life. And she can see our need perfectly by simply looking to her Son upon the Cross taking on all that sin for this redemption and salvation. It is fitting in justice. She is our Co-Redemptrix.
Dear Pope Francis, the ever Virgin Mary miraculously gave birth to Jesus, remaining a Virgin to indicate that she conceived Jesus in Faith by the power and overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, remaining a Virgin still as she has not completed giving birth in faith to the members of the Body of Christ throughout time, but right there on Calvary. Haven’t you heard that it was said by Saint Paul how very many times that Jesus is the Head of the Body of Christ and we are the members of the Body of Christ? The mother of the Body of Christ is the same. The Fathers say that Mary did not give birth to a monster, just a head, but to the Head of the Body and the members of the Body. The members of the Body are birthed throughout time with her intercession she made under the Cross for us, her birth pangs, that perfect intercession. You, Pope Francis, cannot begin to understand the pain of motherly love she went through. You insult her. She is Co-Redemptrix precisely in her motherhood of Jesus and in becoming our mother. It is fitting in justice. You have been a novice master of Jesuits and you do not know these things, Nicodemus? She is not a goddess, but she is the Immaculate Virgin Mother of God. She did not redeem us or save us, but she continues to give birth to the Body of Christ throughout time.
Dear Pope Francis, she remained under the Cross while all the Apostles ran away, including Peter, your predecessor. But they ran out of fear. They could not look at the Mother of God, the Co-Redemptrix, in the face. Neither can you. You coward. Go ahead and try:
Dear Pope Francis, you can’t do it, you can’t look into her eyes, can you? What’s the matter, Pope Francis? Not enough humility? You insult the Immaculate Virgin Mother of God just as you insulted my own earthly mother. In saying that Jesus’ mother cannot intercede for us with motherly solicitude – that which would instead make her Co-Redemptrix -you are also saying that she cannot be our mother by that maternal intercession under the Cross with her Son being tortured to death right in front of her.
Dear Pope Francis, I’m sorry. I forgot. That makes sense for you. You are actually not insulting her in your own mind, because then, if she were not our mother but Jesus’ mother alone, then she would not exceed your limit of children, a limit which if crossed makes any woman a rabbit. You wouldn’t dare claim that Mary is a god-damned rabbit like my mom. My mom had four children, I being the baby of the family. You damn her for her four children. But Jesus’ mom is safe from your demonic attack because according to you she only had one Son, Jesus. But you actually do condemn her as a monster, the mother of a god-damned demonic monster who only has a Head, Jesus, but no Body, no Body of Christ, no Corpus Christi mysticum.
Dear Pope Francis, who are you, really, holding yourself to be so clever, Promethean, the all-enlightened one, so self-absorbed, so very humble in your own eyes, so very much better than Jesus’ Immaculate Mother?
Dear Pope Francis, the Immaculate Virgin Mother of God, Co-Redemptrix, Queen Mother, Queen of Heaven and Earth, of angels and men, also interceded for you, though you are so very, very ungrateful; you so easily insult her as you insult your predecessors, ingratiating yourself with the fallen world, with heretic Protestants who hate Jesus’ good mom, ingratiating yourself with freakish “catholic” heretics from whom you gain applause, ingratiating yourself, you think, with the great red dragon, the ancient serpent and Satan. She is powerful in exorcisms. But you insult her?!
Dear Pope Francis, you run away, not Mary. She was strong enough to stay with her Son. But you run, run, run. You coward. John came back, and, aside from Judas Iscariot, all the other Apostles would beg her forgiveness. But you? You insult her as being too clouded in her vision, too dark in her heart, too clumsy in her soul to be in solidarity with Jesus in our redemption and salvation, unable to intercede for us so perfectly for those graces of Redemption and Salvation that she cannot be Maternal Co-Redemptrix?
Dear Pope Francis, you claim that Jesus’ good mother cannot be The Woman singled out in Genesis 3:15, The Woman of Cana whose Hour of Intercession is to be during Jesus’ Hour on the Cross, The Woman singled out under the Cross to be our Mother, The Woman who is the Ark of the Covenant, clothed with the Son, with a crown of stars about her head, the exalted enemy over against the great red dragon, the ancient Serpent and Satan?
Dear Pope Francis, you say that the Immaculate Virgin Mother of God cannot do this? Who in hell are you to raise your heel to crush Jesus and His Blessed Mother and ours? Who in hell are you to raise yourself above her and above her Son who willed this humble economy of salvation with such mercy based on such justice?
Dear Pope Francis, Jesus stood in our place, the innocent for the guilty, to have the right in His own justice to have mercy on us. He did this with His dear mother accompanying Him, true accompaniment. It is wondrous to behold.
Dear Pope Francis, you instead hold up Pachamama as a goddess, as the mother-creatrice of the universe. Who in hell are you, Pope Francis?
Dear Pope Francis, do you hold yourself to be Saint John, who returned after he fled, so as, in your mind, to ever so condescendingly accompany Mary under the Cross? And when you march up to Calvary, do you not violently thrust Mary aside, saying that you know better how to to intercede for the world, more than Jesus own mother? You make a show of yourself. You make of yourself our true intercessor, a kind of god, one whom people can worship. And what does all that self-absorbed proclamation of yourself get you, Pope Francis?
Dear Pope Francis, you are violating Jesus’ good mother by insulting her Immaculate Conception, insisting she is too stupid to intercede for us, too lacking in understanding to fulfil appropriate justice that one of us ask Jesus for the graces of redemption and salvation (that being the definition of what it is to be Co-Redemptrix). Just because the archangel Gabriel does not strike you dead for insulting Mary on his own feast day in the traditional liturgical calendar (24 March, 2021) does not mean that Jesus is pleased with what you do against her, His mother. You rape her with your insults. Am I indignant with you, Pope Francis? Yes.
Dear Pope Francis, let me be pedantic for you, for it is you who lack understanding. We see in the logic of the Hebrew text of Genesis 3:15 in context that the Mother of the Redeemer stands apart from Adam’s sin, that she is immaculate, that she is enemy number one of the great red dragon, the ancient Serpent and Satan. We see in Luke 1:28 (in understanding the perfect participle in New Testament Greek), that Mary perfectly continues to stand perfectly transformed in grace since the instant she received her vocation (in context) to be the Virgin Mother of God (receiving that eternal vocation when she is conceived). Therefore:
Dear Pope Francis: It is because she is immaculate that she has the purity of heart and agility of soul and the clarity of vision and the breadth and depth of understanding to see what we need perfectly and intercede for us in perfect solidarity with her Son: she gave birth to Jesus, the Head of the Body, and by these birth pangs of her intercession for us, she gives birth to us as the members of the Body. Her perfect maternal solicitude is precisely what makes her Co-Redemptrix.
Dear Pope Francis: How dare you think to know what she went through, as if you could judge her from your fallen perspective. How dare you insult her as being incapable of perfect intercession, meaning that she cannot fulfil the appropriate justice of intercession. How dare you say that see cannot in this way of perfect intercession be Co-Redemptrix. How dare you insult your predecessor Supreme Pontiffs. How dare you insult the Sacred Scriptures…
Dear Pope Francis: Mary is our advocate as our intercessor, our mediatrix in this way of all graces, our Co-Redemptrix with such maternal solicitude to have us be members of the very Body of Christ. Yes.
Dear Pope Francis, are you that Pope who is a sign of unity below the one mother of the One Body of Christ? I think not.
Dear Pope Francis, GO TO CONFESSION. I’ll tell you this, unless you confessed, I wouldn’t give you Viaticum, I wouldn’t provide you the Last Rites. I’m not going to hell for the likes of scum like you Pope Francis. Sure, if you confess, I’ll absolve you, give you Viaticum, provide you the Last Rites, with joy. But if you do not submit to the mercy of God in all justice, I’m not going to accompany you to hell. I’m your Missionary of Mercy, but I cannot and will not act ultra vires, beyond my powers as a son of the Church: I will not condemn the justice of God and therefore the mercy of God. You’re on your own at the judgment. Just go to Confession.
Dear Pope Francis, don’t get me wrong. We love you to pieces, it’s just that we do so with objective reality: I want you to go to heaven. That would give greater glory to God. But I love God more than you, enough to want you to run from this oh-so-clever sophistry. I invite you once again to look into her eyes: she’s your Co-Redemptrix if you want:
From the Dominicans: Five First Saturdays Devotion of Reparation as requested by Our Lady of Fátima on July 13, 1917. Our Lady said: “You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. In order to save them God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. I will come to ask for the Communion of Reparation.” On December 10, 1925, Our Lady returned with the Child Jesus and spoke to Sr. Lucia about true devotion of reparation to Her Immaculate Heart. Jesus spoke first: “Have compassion on the Heart of your Most Holy Mother, covered with thorns, with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment, and there is no one to make an act of reparation to remove them.” Then Our Lady instructed Lucia about the Five First Saturday devotions. On the First Saturday of Five Consecutive Months
Make a Sacramental Confession [One can confess within 8 days of the First Saturday]
Pray the Rosary (5 decades)
Receive Holy Communion
Keep Our Lady company for 15 minutes while meditating on the Mysteries of the Rosary
The Great Promise of Our Lady: “I promise to assist at the hour of death, with the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, shall confess, receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary, with the intention of making reparation to me.”
As the Immaculate Conception, in perfect solidarity with her Divine Son Jesus, in such catastrophically sorrowful conditions became also our Mother under the Cross with her perfect intercession for us with Him, she surely also had the joy, in those birth pangs for us, the joy that Body of Christ was being born, not only Christ the Head of the Body, but we the members of that body, the children also now of the Holy Family.
I think Augustine, had he been equipped with a better understanding of original sin and therefore of the Immaculate Conception… I think Augustine would have spoken more of the joy of the Mother of God and the Mother of the Body of Christ, that the Body of Christ was being born.
O felix culpa! Yes, but let’s see her pronounce that in a preeminent way.
This is a re-publishing from years ago, a way to honor the Immaculate Conception on this day, 8 December, Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception. It’s set to snow today, ice all around, black ice on the roads in the mountains here in WNC as Sassy the all-wheel-drive 2016 Subaru Forester braves transport to three Masses. My parish sports the American-esque version of the Hautes-Pyrénées surrounding Lourdes, France.
Back in the day, when I was a permanent chaplain in Lourdes I took the picture above of fresh roses bursting from the ice next to the Grotto. It was February at the end of weeks of 24/7 sub-freezing temps with ice and snow precipitating down on the pilgrims daily. As you can see, the ice and snow are no match for the gentlest of petals when it is time to give due honor to the Immaculate Conception at the Grotto. Below is a view from above the grotto, and, yes, this is also a color picture. It was just that dark and dreary and ferociously cold:
Meanwhile, in the brutally hot August of Rome it snowed exactly where the Basilica in honor of Jesus’ good mom was to be built, and only there, you know, when tender snowflakes had rightly, for once, had something to do with water despite adverse temperature.
Today I am thinking about Saint John Paul II, how he used the phrase “co-Redemptrix” dozens of times, I think 29 times. This title for our Lady refers simply to how appropriate it was in justice that one of us who is not divine should ask for such graces perfectly, graces coming directly from her Divine Son. It was because of her Immaculate Conception that she had agility of soul, purity of heart, clarity of vision, see exactly what we needed from Christ Our God. Thank you, Blessed Mother, for being a good mother to us. Continue to show yourself a mother to us!
Perhaps this theme of co-Redemptrix is the key to my making a popular version of the thesis, finally. My hope is that this would bring some light to the darkness, including my own dark little life. The glory of the Divine Son of the Immaculate Conception entering this world to grab us and bring us to heaven fires me up, enough, methinks, to melt the ice and snow of my own heart and soul so as to finally start writing. [I know, I know, I just have to do it. Time goes on. Life is short. Yikes! And, I know, I know, I wrote these words years ago… I’m so bad and evil. I beg for the wherewithal to do this.]
When Saint Paul says that Jesus “became sin” for us, that’s rather a controversial statement. Speaking in shorthand begs some reflection, some questions. I take it all a step further, saying that “Immaculate Mary” “became sin” for us. This is a rather intense, if long, and emotional sermon for me to deliver.
I always and only speak from the heart, trying to listen as I speak to the my Guardian Angel and the Holy Spirit, since I know nothing and they know everything, and seeing that there is a grace for preaching in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I may not have cooperated with that grace. You be the judge.
Some parishioners were profoundly affected for the better. Those people have suffered immensely in life, in all the truth of God’s charity.
In summary of long reprimand of one parishioner, this sermon was an abject, total failure on my part, and was a perfect example of division instead of unity, horribly depressing and dark, but that I should be of good heart, as I can use this as an occasion for learning.
I still see the “great faith” of the “Dog-Woman” in all her hellish suffering as the brilliantly shining glory of God among us as grace upon this earth.
I still see the crucifixion of Jesus as the manifestation of glory upon glory of God’s truth in all charity upon this earth.
I still see the Woman under the Cross as the manifestation of God’s glory upon this earth in a mere human being, although the Woman of great faith, the ever holy ever virgin Immaculate Mary now assumed into heaven.
Perhaps I am to be anathematized for what I say, but this sermon is what I consider to be the best of my entire life, bar none. Of course, I am biased.
Again, it’s a little long, but I’m speaking about Mary – OUR MOTHER! – throughout, regardless of whether or not I mention the “Dog-Woman.” I can’t help but speak at length about my mother and yours, Jesus’ Good Mom…
It’s the “dead of winter.” February in the northern hemisphere. It’s not that there’re not any flowers in these dark days. You just have to know where to find them. They could be in bud-form. These buds were found on the very top of a mountain ridge at one of my Communion Call stops.
The other day we had a closing Mass for a Knights of Columbus sponsored novena of prayer for the establishment of a greater respect for life in these USA and around the world, that is, respect for life from natural conception to natural death.
So, “from natural conception…” Why is that? Surely that “product of conception” or that “tissue” or that “annoying multiplication of cells” – the deadly euphemisms the hellish “Planned Parenthood” would use… surely that little “thing” is not already a man, is it?
Yes. What will be a man is already a man. Those are the words of Saint Thomas Aquinas way back in the 1200s. His arguments, though he can also cite endless Scriptural texts and references to the great ecclesiastics throughout the millennia, his arguments are based on natural law, on philosophy, on reason, all of which applies to everyone whatever their religious background, whatever their opinion otherwise happens to be. In other words, that little one in the womb is not a salamander, or a cow. No. That’s what the money hungry abortion industry wants people to think. This is a vulnerable human being that we’re talking about.
Let’s take an example with Jesus. When He was just seconds old in the womb of His good mom, the Blessed Virgin Mary, she raced off to assist her cousin Elizabeth who was with child with John the Baptist in her old age. I imagine that at her age, she could have run from Nazareth down Ein Karem (Spring of the Vineyard), the tiny mountain village on the western cliffs of Jerusalem, where Elizabeth lived with her ancient of days husband, Zechariah. I walked just a bit more than that distance (except in the Jordan River Valley) in less than 24 hours as a crippley 30 year old two days before the outbreak of Desert Storm, some 50 miles. Fine, I was hurting for a couple of weeks after that, but – Hey! – I did it! I’m sure young Mary could have made much better time, especially since she had just become the Tabernacle of the Most High, a living Ark of the Covenant, she who stomps on the crescent moon, is clothed with the Sun, who is adorned with stars (as we read in the Apocalypse:
So, Jesus, just a few cells multiplying like mad in her womb, had his soul and divinity, was already a divine God-Man, and worked His first miracle of grace for His cousin, little John the Baptist, in the womb of Elizabeth. Elizabeth herself was filled with the Holy Spirit as well. Jesus did this when He was less than 24 hours old, just some cells. He’s already a Man, a God-Man.
Also, let’s call to mind dearest Mary calling herself “The Immaculate Conception” in Lourdes some 1858 years later. In other words, the Queen Mother, God’s good mom, Queen of Heaven and Earth, of angels and men, equated herself with her first moment of conception, for at that moment, just a cell, was already herself, and from the first moment of conception, as she was without original sin, she was already absolutely perfectly doing the will of God. And what can be better than that, being the Queen Mum? No. Jesus points to doing the will of God. No one did this better than Mary, and from the first moment of her conception.
So, a budding flower for you, dearest good mother of Jesus.
These are not flowers, but they do represent what I would give to my mom in a huge ceramic vase I made as a Sophomore (wise-fool) in high school for this very purpose. These are out on the ridge of the hermitage, though I’ve never seen them in Western North Carolina in the eight years I’ve been here. Up in Minnesota they are everywhere to be seen. I was fascinated by them as a kid and still am today. I love God’s good creation. That doesn’t mean I bow down to Pachamama. No. But I do think of friends who walk in the Lord’s presence in the Lord’s good creation and praise Him as might a little child for all the good God’s goodness. And after all the Pachamama rubbish, I think it’s imperative to give flowers (at least of sorts) to the Immaculate Conception, Jesus’ good mom.
But if you think all of this is irrelevant to the challenges of today’s society and culture, think again. I had a wild conversation with an unbaptized person the other day who grew up quite entirely unchurched, so to speak. That person had some questions, for which I attempted some answer, all of which is here paraphrased:
QUESTION: Would Mary, having been immaculately conceived, without original sin, have died, whether or not Jesus, the Word Incarnate, came among us.
ANSWER: Mary had to be redeemed like anyone else. Time is a creation of God, who holds time, as it were, in His hands, from beginning to end. If Mary were not to have been redeemed at the moment of her conception (which is indicated in the Hebrew text of Genesis), Mary would have died because of having been subjected to original sin with all of its consequences. Death is specifically pointed out as a consequence immediately in Genesis and then by Saint Paul.
Excursus: Saint Augustine, having been inspired by Saint Ambrose, exclaimed “Oh! Happy Fault!” regarding original sin, a bit tongue in cheek, in that this was the occasion for so great a redemption, so that with this, we not only walk in God’s presence once again, but we do so as united to the Mystical Body of Christ, brought through, with and in Jesus before the Father by the fiery Holy Spirit in this way. The great hymn at the Easter Vigil, the Exsultet, fully exclaims: O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem (Oh happy fault, which merited us to have such a great Redeemer!) But Mary’s exclamation is even greater, for not only was she redeemed, but she also became Jesus’ good mom.
QUESTION: So, how is it that Mary died if she still had a pristine agent-intellect (otherwise lost for us by Adam with original sin) that could draw matter to spirit with integrity and therefore have her live forever without dying at all?
ANSWER: Pius XII plainly says that Mary died prior to her assumption. We might split some hairs by saying that Mary didn’t really “die”, but that, in her assumption body and soul into heaven was rather changed “in the twinkling of an eye” as Saint Paul says for those who are alive when Jesus comes again, their mortal bodies putting on immortality (and so a kind of death to our present state).
But methinks such talk is wrought in fear of offending Mary’s immaculate conception: she was not subject to original sin and its punishment of death, so SHE DIDN’T DIE! But Jesus, the innocent and divine Son of the Living God died for us, right? What about that? Jesus came into this world to take our place, the Innocent for the guilty, so that having suffered our own punishment for sin even while being innocent, He could, in His own justice, justly have mercy on us: “Father, forgive them!” But He rose from the dead as one cannot keep the very Author of Life down. He didn’t have to die. Not only could He have kept aggressors at bay (Do you think that I cannot call upon my Father and He will not provide me at this moment with more than twelve legions of angels?”Matthew 26:53), but He could also have kept His body with full integrity by way of His pristine agent intellect. But He chose not to do this, in obedience to the Father (see John 3:16). He let Himself die on purpose.
In my not so humble opinion, although Jesus would have eventually died from the scourging and crucifixion, what precipitated His death is what happened in the Garden of Gethsemane. The sweating of blood indicates a trauma of such magnitude that it would be accompanied by a massive heart attack, so that even the pericardium, part of the heart surrounding the heart, would break. That would fill with blood, which in turn would separate into red blood cells and plasma, and gush out when Jesus’ heart was pierced the next day. Jesus’ dies from his broken heart beginning in Gethsemane, with the trauma coming about because of not wanting his good mom to see His sufferings. But: “Not my will, but Thine be done.” He did that for us. For us. That’s very good and kind of Him. Thank you, Jesus.
I believe that Mary also died in this way. She dies from the same kind of broken heart for having seen all the sin of all mankind from Adam until the last man is conceived by way of looking upon her Son tortured to death on the cross. That’s all of our sin written out in His wounds. She understood what His death meant, what with her purity of heart and agility of soul following upon her immaculate conception. We have no idea, but she saw our need perfectly. She was in perfect solidarity with her Son’s purpose. She interceded for us perfectly. She had in order to do this, to be in perfect solidarity with her Son.
This is only right in justice: if she is to ask for what Jesus gives to us because of her maternal solidarity with her Son, she then has to see what she is asking for, which means she has to suffer all the horrific trauma this will bring to her maternal and now literally broken heart, which means that she has to see it through to the end, all the trauma, all the death, no giving up, no compromise, no being a mother merely part-time or only until it gets rough. Mary lasted until Pentecost, but I don’t think long after that at all.
Excursus Question: Couldn’t Jesus have saved Mary, or vice-versa?
The shorter answer is that they wouldn’t have done this, as everything about the manner of our redemption requires that mercy is founded on justice, with God the Father’s Son, with Mary Immaculate’s Divine Son, standing in our place, the Innocent for the guilty. God is the one who works miracles, not us, not even the Immaculate Conception.
The longer answer that when the saints work miracles, it’s not them, but God happily following up on their intercession for others or even for themselves. Jesus often said: “Go your way; your faith has saved you.” We have no integral agent intellect, but Jesus does, and by living faith we become, as Saint Paul says, living members of His Body, the Body of Christ, or as Pius XII says, the members of the “Mystical Body of Christ.” The Person of the Divine Son of God Incarnate works the miracle also through His human nature.
So, that’s a pretty intense Q and A, don’t you think? Remember that this is with an unbaptized, quite entirely unchurched person. Methinks that the Lord’s little flock is hungry for the truth of the Son of the Living God, Jesus, so much so as also to want to know something of Jesus’ good mom. That’s as it should be. The weight of the glory of God bears down on us all in this sorry world, bringing us hopefully to our knees before Mary’s Son, Jesus.
Back to flowers for the Immaculate Conception, and looking at the milkweed above, and to use Jesus’ own parables: when the seed goes withersoever the wind blows, to that dark storm on Calvary, it is finally planted deep in the earth, and then bears much fruit, having witnessed to its vocation unto the end. And then Jesus rises and ascends to heaven. And then Mary, who gave Jesus His human nature, is rightly also assumed into heaven. All a pledge for us, that we are intended to go to heaven as well.