Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church

Author Archive

When is a priest not a priest? When he isn’t baptized!

September 23rd, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

In the last month, two prominent cases were brought to light in which a man, who became a ‘priest,’ had not even been baptized. Thus, without baptism, neither of those individuals had received any of the other sacraments validly, including ordination.

The very real pain for them is exacerbated by all the individuals who received ‘sacraments’ at their hands, for those sacraments too are invalid (except Baptism, if done properly). Penance, Confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Anointing of the sick or dying, marriage and ordination to both the diaconate and priesthood, are all invalid when received from a ‘priest’ who is not baptized. One priest expressed his own grief that he had given the Last Rites to his grandmother, invalidly. 

For more details of the reasons and conclusions in these young men’s cases, see the two links:


The recent problem

What is more important, it would seem, is to realize it is highly unlikely that these are the only two men who have had this experience, and for the sake of the souls of others, for the sake of justice, the painful realization is essential to bring forward so that it can be corrected, as soon as possible. In one of the cases, the local diocese had explored the situation and decided that reconsecration to the priesthood was not necessary, only to find that the Vatican has a different opinion. There may be cases with a flawed assessment of the need for re-baptism, or of the obligation to receive the other sacraments leading to the priesthood.

Pope Benedict decided

I believe it was soon after Pope Benedict was elected that a situation was brought before him regarding changing part of the prayer said by the priest or deacon at baptism. The case I remember was clearly driven by feminist ego, nibbling around the edges of coveting the male priesthood. The words were different from the two cases mentioned above; it was basically a renunciation first of all of God’s presenting Himself as the male Father, and Jesus as male Son, and the Holy Spirit to whom the bible refers in the male gender. Hence, the revised words presented and being used I was told already, at that time in some Protestant churches, were: “I baptize you in the name of the Creator, the Savior, and the Sanctifier.” Absolutely not, ruled Pope Benedict, saying that any baptism using that formula was invalid and would have to be repeated. Speculations abounded at that time: “Suppose the boy became a priest?” and here we are today.

Reasons for problems

For the sake of souls, I hope anyone, especially priests, with the slightest doubt, will quietly launch an investigation and do whatever is needed, no matter how late it is, no matter how many years have gone by, no matter how great the personal cost. For they haven’t done anything wrong, just been victimized by the smoke of Satan entering the Church, unless guilty of keeping the secret. Before Vatican II, which may not be a clear cut-off, some priests who grew up as Protestants were ‘automatically’ baptized before priestly ordination, usually I think before entering the seminary. But some of the sloppy thinking toward ecumenism that arose post Vatican II can explain a lot of reason for errors. So too can militant feminism, and the desire to change words for the sake of ego. “We wrote our own vows” is one example, cherry-picking and splicing readings and ‘designing’ liturgies are others! The constant rewriting of scripture even within the Church (thinking about the papal changes recently in Italy to the Our Father and Gloria) sometimes happens in order to create more differentiation for the sake of a copyright.

Taking matters into one’s own hands

There is another issue which few people discuss but seems more common than once suspected. I have been told of several situations in which Catholics who want their grandchildren to be baptized take care of the matter with the babies at their own kitchen sink when the parents are away. When the correct words and formula are used, it seems to be a valid baptism which can’t be undone unless being against the parents’ will it might be seen as ‘forced’ against the child’s will. Where this has already been done, those involved should seek out a thoughtful priestly opinion.  While it is really an offense against the parents, the children will need to know at some point, maybe through a codicil in the grandparents’ will or a private letter in case they grow up and decide to become Catholic and unknowingly seek a second baptism at some point, and then realize they will have to confess all past sins, rather than have a baptismal cleansing.

How Joe Biden is “hoist by his own petard.”

September 21st, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

If anyone is unfamiliar with the expression in the title, it simply means to be caught in one’s own trap, and to be blown up in that trap. How is Biden ‘caught’ in a trap? Well, technically, he has just played into the claws of the evil one, who is a very clever architect of the demise of souls. Joe Biden, in his efforts to be seen as a ‘good Catholic,’ cloaked in campaign rhetoric, even solicits testimony and personal witness from others who are likewise deformed in their Faith. Such falsehood enables Biden to promote serious sins against souls, sins such as abortion, same-sex activism, and receiving Holy Communion unworthily, and so much more. He argues for being accepted as a Faithful Catholic just by saying empty words, and in so doing shows that he knows exactly what is necessary to be and do in order to be ultimately judged Catholic, and what is not. He knows; he now cannot not know. It is a particularly sturdy trap because he’s built it himself, for himself. He can no longer plead ignorance as an excuse because he knows, very clearly, what he is and is not. His own words convict him and the churchmen and leaders who support him. Yes, he can ask for mercy. But he should also remember that God is a just judge and, in leading souls astray, one pays a price that  is all the greater. 

When the Flock isn’t fed, it starves …

September 21st, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

When I wrote “Feeling Angry and Betrayed” back in early August, I said that 75 days without the Eucharist was “starving,” and so it was. Some folks might have felt that in a world where human beings are sadly dying every day, from lack of food or from contaminated water, my words were inappropriate, lacking in sensitivity, or melodramatic.  I disagree, and I hope in this post to explain why, and to propose principles to limit such an offense against souls in the future.

Is it worse to starve souls than to starve bodies?

Yes, I would say so. Consider Matthew 10:28 “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” What does starving from lack of our “soul-food” actually mean? Likely it is different for each person, regarding his or her own spiritual practices before and during withholding the Holy Eucharist, the resources one has available, the length of time involved, the spiritual activities, if any, which one tries to substitute, the support or harassment one receives, and the trauma associated with the reason for a lock-down, such as riots, plague, war etc. Some effects may be more temporary, others more enduring. Because it is the Church herself, administering both the rules and the pain through her bishops and priests, even if at the behest of civil government, it would not be surprising to have pastoral relationships damaged, burdening attempts to return to ‘normalcy’ in spiritual practice. It would not be surprising to have permanent soul-damage done through long term denial of the Holy Eucharist at the hands of the most trusted.

What is meant by “long term?”

Certainly the 75 days and longer, without any end announced or anticipated during the COVID-19 lock-down, is long term. Consider that God Himself uses 40 days as an expiatory period or a testing period, for the rain in the flood, for the exploration of the promised land by a delegate from each tribe, for Christ’s 40 day fast in the desert, for Lenten fasts and practice. Forty years of wandering in the desert tracks similar “40” imagery. In beatings and whippings, the number of lashes was not supposed to exceed 40, and just to be sure there was no error in counting, the limit was often set at 39 as a mercy (Christ may have received more due to the leaders hatred of Him, and their judgment of blasphemy.) St. Paul makes this ‘mercy of 39’ clear in 2 Corinthians 11:24 when he describes physical abuse by the Jewish leaders:  “Of the Jews five times I have received at the hands of the Jews forty lashes less one.”

Is it a sin to deny Communion to someone who would otherwise be permitted?

It is just a matter of my opinion, and looking forward to some discussion, but I believe it is wrong to be deprived of the Holy Body and Blood of Christ, at the hands of her presbyters, which exceeds Christ’s own fasting from bread; i.e. forty days. It seems more appropriate to make 39 days the absolute limit without receiving relief, significant relief, and not a mere token day or two. The figure of 75 days is grossly excessive and damaging, and I believe the Church should explicitly have a rule for the protection of her flock that a Church-imposed Eucharistic deprivation on a community may not exceed 39 days in any liturgical year or longer.

Why is this so important to declare now, before the next lock-down?

Church governance during the pandemic has already become the basic practice one can AT A MINIMUM expect in the next plague and thereafter. If there isn’t some self examination, reform, and accountability, longer and longer periods will prevail until the churches are de facto closed. Prayer for more courage in the leadership of the Church is also absolutely needed. Bishops are given control of their dioceses but it is highly unlikely that every single bishop chose the same policy for his diocese, and that not one diocese nationwide broke ranks for the good of souls.

What does the Church Herself say about the importance of Holy Eucharist?

There is a mandatory annual period in which a Catholic MUST receive Communion. When I was growing up there were six precepts of the Catholic Church. Now there are seven, but there is still the requirement “to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least [once] during the Easter season.” But that doesn’t condone only receiving once a year. How could a gift so precious, if truly believed, not be sought weekly, or even daily? Daily? Really?

In the wonderful and illuminating book by Brant Pitre “Jesus and the Jewish roots of the Eucharist”, in the chapter on the Manna of the Messiah, the author analyzes the words of the Lord’s Prayer, the prayer that Christ Himself gave us. Pitre focuses on the words “Give us this day our daily bread” and wonders at the repetitive aspect of “this day” and “daily.” His analysis leads to the better translation through St. Jerome: “Give us this day our supersubstantial bread” and “Give us this day our supernatural bread.”

With such a prominent position in such a prominent prayer, one cannot help but wonder how frequently the real meaning of that verse is ignored – praying to have access to the Holy Eucharist, and wondering why the presbyters don’t tremble at taking away from the people what God asked them to request!

What should we expect in such crucial times from papal leadership?

Let’s consider the words associated with the first papal installation, on the shores of the Sea of Galilee. Some people (in my opinion) seem to miss the point and only see what they think is a 3-part ritual by which Peter reaffirms his love for Christ and is forgiven of his sins. But I don’t believe that happened after brunch on shore; it seems to have happened instead on Resurrection morning, and here’s why.

To remind ourselves of the ‘forgiveness” event, separate from the ‘installation’ even, we need to revisit the Gospel of John, which logically reads as being the last of the four Gospels composed, or at least the last published. While corroborating the Synoptic Gospels, there is still quite a bit of new information found in John’s Gospel. That he lived well into ‘old age’ gives perspective to his words — John basically saw it all. He was also the apostle who was part of the threesome – Peter, James and John – which often accompanied Jesus as a witness to private miracles, and who also could speak authoritatively about the details long after all the other apostles had been martyred.

We don’t need to revisit Chapter 16 of the Gospel of Matthew, in which Christ names Peter as the future head of the Church on earth; i.e. the Vicar of Christ. At that point in His ministry, Christ makes known his choice of Peter, but in the future tense:  That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (KJV)

Yet Peter denied Christ three times during the Lord’s trial. Can you imagine being Peter and waking up that Saturday morning to the cockcrow, if indeed he could have slept at all, and feeling an overwhelming sense of guilt and shame in the eyes of Christ, the Father, and the entire world! And the torment of living through the entire day of what we call Holy Saturday, into the wee morning hours of Easter Sunday!

It seems as if Christ’s own compassion for Peter led to an early meeting between them soon after the Resurrection, and is mentioned by both Luke and later by St. Paul, that Christ met with Peter prior to including the other 10 Apostles at the Sunday night supper. There are some who would delay the reconciliation meeting to the breakfast reported by John on the shores of Galilee, but I don’t think so. I think the first order of the day on Easter Morning was to bring forgiveness to Peter, and that we know little of that meeting is because it was effectively a meeting under what we would later call the seal of confession.  After the disciples return from Emmaus, presumably early evening on Easter, we read Luke’s recounting:

Luke 24:34-36: “… the Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon! Then they (the disciples from the road to Emmaus) told what had happened on the road, and how He was known to them in the breaking of the bread. As they were saying this, Jesus himself stood among them.”

It seems not too much of a stretch to perceive Christ’s tending to the forgiveness of Peter’s sin as a top priority on Easter Morning, especially with John’s recounting of the institution of the Sacrament of Penance on that very evening in the Upper Room. So, what then happened on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, when Christ asked Peter three times “Do you love me?” Although Peter’s answer was lacking the word ‘agape,’ for a truly sacrificial love, nevertheless, it was sufficient for Christ to install Peter as His Vicar on Earth, in a three-part ‘swearing in’ ritual. Why didn’t Christ do it immediately after Peter was forgiven? One might surmise that since Peter was being given leadership over the whole church, including over the other disciples, it was important for them to witness the ‘ritual,’ and that Peter hadn’t lost his stature due to denying Christ. John was certainly a witness to all of this story; he was the only evangelist to mention it, as he added to the fourth Gospel what was already known among the Christians, but still needed to be said.

What powers did Christ give to His vicar? and why?

Relative to the suspension of the Holy Eucharist during the pandemic, it is important to ‘hear’ what powers and orders Christ gave to His Vicar. He did not tell Peter to get a bible recorded, or to avoid persecution, or to build structures, organize committees or assemble a catechism. He told Peter in the very last of all the Gospel chapters: “Feed My lambs … tend (feed) My sheep …feed My sheep.” The emphasis is clearly to make available to God’s flock the food they need. Can anyone doubt that is the Eucharist? The singular command given by Christ to His Vicar was to feed the flock. Again, let’s ask, how can prelates and presbyters not cringe at the idea of personally denying the flock their food for 75 days? And how far are they willing to go in the next pandemic? With precedent unfortunately already set, now it must be clearly and forcibly reformed well before the next lock-down occurs. I do wonder how Jesus would feel about every diocese in the entire country basically being cowed by the government or by their own fear; i.e. being more sheep than the sheep.

Without belaboring the subject much further, it is also important to remember that Christ came to tend His own flock because they had been so neglected by the Levitical priests. One consideration of the end-times may be that Jesus comes again because of neglect of the flock, as well as to judge. When I read how the shepherds feed themselves and not the sheep, I think of 75 days of their confecting and consuming the Eucharist while the sheep received none. And from Jeremiah and Ezekiel, we can read warning words:

“Therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning the shepherds who care for My people: “You have scattered My flock, and have driven them away, and you have not attended to them. Behold, I will attend to you for your evil doings, says the LORD.” Jeremiah 23:2

“Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say to them, even to the shepherds, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: Ho, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep?”’ Ezekiel 34:2

“You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fatlings; but you do not feed the sheep.” Ezekiel 34:3 

“Thus says the Lord GOD, ‘Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require My sheep at their hand, and put a stop to their feeding the sheep; no longer shall the shepherds feed themselves. I will rescue My sheep from their mouths, that they may not be food for them.” Ezekiel 34:10


Cardinal Sarah demands return to the Eucharist

September 15th, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

September 15, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — “In a letter entitled Let us return to the Eucharist with joy!,’ addressed to the presidents of bishops’ conferences around the world, the head of the Congregation for Divine Worship, Cardinal Robert Sarah, spoke of the need to return to normalcy and asserted that virtual Masses are no substitute for being physically present at the liturgy.” 

“As soon as is possible,” LifeSiteNews recounts Cardinal Sarah writing in his letter, “we must return to the Eucharist with a purified heart, with a renewed amazement, with an increased desire to meet the Lord, to be with Him, to receive Him and to bring Him to our brothers and sisters with the witness of a life full of faith, love, and hope.”

“Broadcasts alone risk distancing us from a personal and intimate encounter with the incarnate God who gave Himself   to us not in a virtual way, but really, saying: ‘He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood remains in Me and I in him’ (Jn 6:56),” said Sarah, declaring, “This physical contact with the Lord is vital, indispensable, irreplaceable.” (Red letter emphasis on Cardinal Sarah’s words is added below.)

“The faithful should be recognized as having the right to receive the Body of Christ and to worship the Lord present in the Eucharist in the manner provided for, without limitations that go even beyond what is provided for by the norms of hygiene issued by public authorities or Bishops,” said Sarah. 

“In the Eucharistic celebration the faithful adore the Risen Jesus present; and we see with what ease the sense of adoration, the prayer of adoration, is lost,” noted Sarah to the bishops. “In their catechesis we ask Pastors to insist on the necessity of adoration.” 

Cardinal Sarah lists 6 reasons why we cannot and certainly no longer should do without what has been lost. And we might at least ask ourselves if that list is complete, and might even venture to say that it is not by any means a complete list. The point at which nurturing hunger for the Eucharist hangs by the thread of desire to view video may have long since passed into one more stage setting, where the reality of Presence becomes more and more difficult to discern. It is worth more deeply understanding why some priests deliberately delayed (and still are delaying) a complete return to the fullness of pre-pandemic liturgies and why some Catholics can more and more easily talk themselves into not being ‘ready’ to return. Both priests and people have suffered from the continued distancing into the  masked image of unreality, doing far more persistent damage to their communities than was done by the COVID-19.

After presenting Cardinal Sarah’s 6 points, LifeSiteNews returns to the Cardinal’s words: “… Let us … continue to entrust ourselves confidently to God’s mercy, to invoke the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary… to  persevere in prayer for those who have left this life, and … renew our intention to be witnesses of the Risen One and heralds of a sure hope, which transcends the limits of this world.”

Cardinal Sarah’s letter was written on August 15, the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary; approved by Pope Francis on September 3; and published in Italian on September 12, 2020. The English translation was provided by the Catholic News Agency (CNA), which is carrying its full translation.

Related story re Abp. Jerome E. Listecki of Milwaukee: 


Lack of Credibility: Immunization and the mark of the beast (Part III)

September 10th, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

Facing the Mark of the Beast (Part II)

August 30th, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

Foreword: This is a long post, I admit. But there is a certain unity and integrity between the various parts, since five different but compatible strategies are being considered for a complex subject, but also one for which much is unknown at this time, but should be included in planning. The reader may want to scroll first the entire post, looking at the titles in red, for some orientation to the subject.

Recently we noted the parallels between the Bible’s mentions of the ‘mark of the beast’, and certain medical doctors’ advocating mandatory vaccination (with a mark on the forehead or right hand) of virtually the entire population, with no allowance for religious or moral exemption, and with strict and difficult punishments for refusal. See prior post in the matter of doctors’ statement:

There certainly is a great desire on the part of the ‘left’ to be able to wield control over the bodies of their dissenters. And, now it seems, their souls as well. The following includes five potential strategies and background to consider as we work our way through a very dangerous time.

I. The Biblical basis for the mark of the beast 

If one wonders where those doctors got the idea to mark the right hand and/or forehead of someone as an indelible information symbol of their having been vaccinated against COVID, the answer is in that last book of the New Testament, Revelation, which is also called the Apocalypse.  That prior post listed the references (12 verses in 5 chapters:  Revelation 13:15-18; 14:9-13; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4) mentioning the “mark of the beast.” No other book in the bible mentions the mark of the beast. That doesn’t mean God is planting the seeds of such abomination for the doctors to find. Rather, He is all knowing and what was written in prophecy two millennia ago may well be coming realized in our time, encouraging us by verifying the excellence, truth and accuracy of the Holy Word, which breakaway priests like Luther wanted to remove from the Bible, perhaps because it seemed so unlikely or difficult for them to imagine?

Notice the particular language of Revelation regarding the mark of the beast in that prior post. The language is one of worshiping (or acting as worshiping) the beast and being MARKED on the right hand or the forehead as choosing the beast. In another passage the mention is “RECEIVES OR HAD RECEIVED a mark” or “HAS” the mark. Yet another passage mentions people who “BORE” the mark. The triumphant people “HAD NOT RECEIVED a mark on their foreheads or their hands.” From Revelation it does not appear that someone will receive the mark without his or her consent, i.e. not by being operated on or mutilated against one’s will, but that choosing the mark rather than death, albeit under great pressure and even deception, is still a person’s CHOICE, even if perhaps their prior sins make them weaker and more susceptible to the evil one. Apparently the recipient makes a CHOICE, God or the beast. How ironic that an eternal decision might come down to the very language which has so misdirected souls — “my body; my CHOICE.”  And how appropriate that those who touted their CHOICE of sin such as abortion should now have to make their final CHOICE for God or the beast!


II. The medical establishment’s support of the beast

It is also appropriate that the part of today’s medical establishment, which defends and administers abortion, should appear as an ally of the beast!  In 2012 an article coming from England reported a decision to refuse a doctor’s license to anyone who had not participated in the OB-GYN rotation, and actually committed abortion as part of their training.

But there is no deception in Christ’s having warned us that we cannot serve two masters. And as I look at some of the violent upheavals in our world today, especially the satanic forces which are seemingly unleashed, it becomes increasingly believable that people can reach such a dire point — of choosing the beast over God. It points out, too, that it is foolish to wait for the moment to arrive and then begin to commit ourselves to what might well be a call to martyrdom. One of the requirements for such preparation is prayer, prayer and more prayer. And then, being in Christ’s words in Matthew 10:16 “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” These words not only refer to abortion, but also to other abominations in which many parts of the medical system participate and support themselves, including transgender surgery, forbidding psychological counseling on same-sex sins, sterilization and euthanasia.  That so much of the medical establishment would seek to vaccinate God’s people into the mark of the beast is really not such a surprise after all, is it? St. Luke, pray for us!


III. Five strategies to consider / evaluate /use:

A number of strategies could be implemented to oppose and/or to delay , but first we never forget what medical doctors have revealed about their strategies and the similarity of their ‘rules’ to the mark of the beast. If we always begin with the mark of the beast  in mind, with our highest priority — souls, we won’t be on the wrong track.  Here are five areas for strategic concentration:

  • Fear the mark of the beast. And share the fear with others. We lose momentum when we hesitate and dither about the issues, or become subdivided in our priorities. Given the punishing words of the doctors involved in pushing a vaccine, measured against the prophecy of the Book of Revelation, makes it hardly a stretch to see the verification mark on forehead and/or right hand as being the fearsome mark(s) of the beast. So I am not going to write a thesis here to convince anyone who can’t see the connection. But the similarity to end-times prophecy is startling, and for those who have ears to hear, fear of the mark of the beast should not be left out; it should be part of righteous discernment since it has been given to us by God. It is
  • front and center, because it is of concern for our own souls as well. We might wonder why accepting the mark of the beast isn’t being treated as more of a secret by the forces of evil, to keep us less prepared. What I believe is that when Satan is involved in unleashing his plans, he can’t help but brag about how he thinks he is beating God Himself! Whether leading pride parades, burning down cities, pushing the drug culture and so much more, it is all about pride, his hatred of God, and of wresting souls into the flames. It is one of the signs of who is behind events as they unroll.
  • Re-examine, lobby and implement the anti-malarial strategy for widespread treatment. Let’s begin with an obvious statement of which we may have lost sight. Remember! A vaccine is NOT a treatment; it is supposed to be a preventative. And it puts a lot of the eggs into one basket if we are not simultaneously looking for and pursuing treatment. If the vaccine fails or kills many or needs frequent updating behind the infection curve, it may never catch up to the next variation. The Chinese are not stupid. One should expect they have built into the virus a number of surprises. What we know we have available is the antimalarial, hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, with antibiotic, which has had good results both when the COVID is early stage and when such medicine is a last resort.
  • Mysteriously, scientific articles quickly appeared denouncing the antimalarial which has been on the market for nearly half a century. Why? One suspects it is because the antimalarial was widely available (especially in more sub-tropical areas), inexpensive, stable and trusted by doctors. Apparently it can be used multiple times, and as a pre-infection booster and has application to similar respiratory viruses, thus hopefully to the application for the biological warfare likely to be released in the future. A new wave of COVID may well drive people to seeking the chloroquine and derivatives, as seemingly much less risky than a relatively untested vaccine with beastly side effects.
  • It seems essential to keep pushing the antimalarial treatment strategy, so that people will realize a vaccine isn’t their only alternative, and not be dragged into compromising themselves. Otherwise, we may find ourselves with NO TREATMENT and just an ineffective vaccine, sowing for the grim reaper all over the world.
  • This past week some Republican members of the US Senate wisely demanded the FDA stop fighting against the chloroquines. Why? In June it was reported that the FDA actually took the antimalarial off the market, stranding people who need it for other purposes, like arthritis. One can only imagine the desperation of the vaccine producers and those who are funding the dream vaccine, to find themselves competing against a now unpatented half-century old effective product.
  • See here:
  • If the FDA doesn’t let the antimalarial back onto the market, which prescriptive use has been within easy use of family doctors for years, there will surely open a black market here and outside the US. I can imagine efforts to stockpile, and to hold the antimalarial hostage during sieges from Wuhan. Lobbying for access to the antimalarial will be absolutely necessary, with much attention on the real agenda of the vaccinists. It may also be worth seeking the antimalarial in advance through medical channels or foreign sourcing to have it available in case we are denied out of deference to the big money vaccine. I can totally understand why people especially at risk would like to have the antimalarial in their medicine cabinets.
  • Although the famed Lancet Medical Magazine renounced the article it published against the antimalarial, and issued a correction in their false reporting, admitting their publishing false data, nevertheless the articles are still available on line, misleading those searching for information into believing those false reports. Why was it opposed when clearly that drug has been in use for decades in the general dispensary, without the dangers touted? Is it not because the profit margin, reduced by lack of patent coverage, lacks profits anywhere near a vaccine and its ‘marker’ system? It seems to be about money, first and foremost. See retraction here:
  • The antimalarial story would not be complete without mentioning the personal initiative shown by President Trump. I also must personally take this opportunity to say that President Trump’s choice to take that drug at his own risk (and under his doctor’s oversight) was heroic and self sacrificing, placing himself in God’s hands, yet all he aroused was anger from his opponents! Indeed, he entered the fray, when impeded by the drug blockade, with the heart of a first responder. And it is because he was so successful and without apparently experiencing any side effects, that the Lancet medical journal had to retract and apologize for having printed a lie, a scam. Again, I believe that deep money is behind the vaccine impetus and its attacking the anti-malarial treatment, in order to allow people no choice.
  • Be reasonably critical of the many unknowns associated with rushing a vaccine to market. If drug development were following its normal course, it would be a few more years before testing had been completed, contraindications identified, modifications made for optimization, and choosing the best of the vaccines available, with great and probable safety risks averted. Instead, the drug blockade crows over how fast they have developed a vaccine! That should be a warning, not a point of pride, not an implication of success. Once the first person receives the first ‘dose’ there may be side effects, deliberate or not, that cannot be reversed, and there may be no going back for those recipients. Likely those first doses will be administered in parts of Africa where the people are not infrequently victimized as “guinea pigs,” often with devastating results, and begging the serious and relevant moral issues.
  • Part of the strategy must be delay, until more is known and alternatives are offered. Delay at a minimum means keeping options open as long as possible. Even if a vaccine is effective, how long before it fades in effectiveness? What are the odds of re-infection? Of chasing a mutating virus? How many and how often would doses be required? What are those side effects? Where is a development protocol to try to avoid abortive ingredients? And what is the relative weighting of each such goal? Rather, it sounds a bit like whatever engineered vaccine is available will be the framework of the goals, rather than the other way around. Publicity around all these unanswered questions for the opponents of the vaccine scenario, is a sound strategy. Remember, many of those with much to gain have been also associated with the desire for 80% population reduction. Why give them another chance? Some of the questions which seem to be ignored in rushing a vaccine to market are the very ones those opposed to antimalarials complain have to be tested first and only used in small and very controlled protocols.
  • Urge rapid clarification of whether or not a vaccine program can be effective. Is a vaccine program the way to go when we don’t even know if the virus itself creates immunity, let alone does a vaccine create immunity? Right now there is beginning to be identified reinfection of individuals who had COVID-19 earlier this year. Is it a fluke or the onset of a new wave of infection? Or does it simply demonstrate that this is a virus that does not lend itself to producing immunity after infection, so what good is a vaccine? If there can be no immunity even for those who recovered from the virus, any vaccine program will likely be a total waste. Or has COVID-19 morphed so that immunity becomes a meaningless concept?
  • This is a very serious question for scientific and public discussion – how long (if at all) does immunity last? This is why unreasonable acceleration of vaccine development may lead nowhere, except to a beast marker. Think about it – there are many ways drugs can be tested, but time doesn’t come in a bottle. Only prolonged testing can lead to a reasonable understanding of how long immunity can last, if indeed immunity is produced. Here’s an update on skipping standards on the COVID vaccine:
  • If the virus does creates immunity, consider deliberately getting the virus and not needing the vaccine or mark of the beast. This concept was described here for measles, from the 1950’s when no vaccine had been developed: It certainly is not without risk, but since the mark of the beast is about eternal punishment, perhaps dying from the virus is not as frightening. How long does immunity last? Would you have to do this every year or just once? Can the virus be moderated to a low level with an anti-malarial for safety and still register immunity? Would civil authorities bother testing or honoring testing that had been done to bypass the vaccine and the mark of the beast? It is not all about risk either. It may create a pool of people who refuse the vaccine, can no longer buy or sell or receive medical treatment, but would create a community taking care of each other, as in the early Church when Rome administered similar penalties, including burning as a living torch. Implementing such a strategy will depend somewhat on what we learn about immunity, but the rush to market for the vaccine may keep us from knowing much for a while, hence the recommendation for a delay strategy.
  • Launch a protest on moral and religious grounds if a pro-life vaccine is not developed but an abortive lines vaccine is–  (revised).  There is a momentum right now, especially as the political campaigns shed light on the evils of abortion, to oppose any development which seems to depend on abortion. The prominent and heroic work of Daleiden and Merritt also remains on appeal. While still on appeal in the courts, there may well be hope for a deferral to delay a vaccine too, at least for safety sake or to repudiate use of baby parts that may be involved in the research. Legal action may also force release of documents which are ‘company confidential’ at this point, but show deliberate choice of an abortive cell line as discriminating against people of faith who choose not to use abortion-based vaccines, or to use work based on dissection and sale of baby parts.
  • Unfortunately, this approach (demanding a vaccine free of abortive lines) will likely have to be implemented without much Vatican support, which, since around 2005, has been weaker it seems against the  issue of using abortive lines in vaccines. Nevertheless, there is still a popular window which might be exploited, through which protests might be made for a COVID vaccine which totally avoids any abortion linkage. Since vaccines such as for rubella had used abortive lines, the Church’s position had often seemed that such use was a kind of cooperation with the evil of abortion. (In my opinion it was also a pretty disgusting thought to vaccinate one’s child ‘using’ another child’s death in the womb, the child of a mother who chooses abortion.) There was apparently (at that time) an effective non-abortive-line vaccine in Japan, but not cleared in the US, so most parents had little recourse. Parents had invoked their own conscientious objection to reject vaccines from abortive lines on grounds of their religion or morals, and based on serious health matters as well. Linkages such as to autism is frequently denied by some scientists but, nevertheless, parental concern has been persistent. Now, after a pandemic, conscience doesn’t seem to carry as much weight, and the ‘doctors’ recently cited have tried to exclude such excuses, as has government. The Church’s role in openly challenging the use of abortive cell lines also seems diminished, but resistance is still worth considering as a delay strategy by demanding (and suing for) a vaccine which does not use abortive lines.

In a  related matter, the Pontifical Academy for Life (PAL) was totally dismantled by Pope Francis in 2016 and reassembled with all new members about a year later. Many of those unceremoniously dismissed were connected to PAL’s founder, Pope St. John Paul II. Now under the leadership of Abp. Paglia, who is himself of no small concern to those who follow closely, perhaps the best we can hope for at this point is ignoring PAL’s work in the future. In these matters, the Vatican seems unlikely to have much interest in or support for a protest in favor of using non-abortive lines in a COVID vaccine. Note: the foregoing comment appeared in this post about 30 hours before LifeSiteNews presented the following article:


IV. Emphasize the “moral objection” 

It is somewhat more practical and opportunistic to simply emphasize resistance as “moral objection” when the term fits the situation, and to avoid making an issue seemingly based only on personal opinion or specific religious teaching or practice, if possible. More emphasis on morality and not just religiosity, regardless of “why” one seeks to be moral, and even what it means to be moral, has merit for attracting a wider base of resistance against mandatory vaccination, and more cooperation. This point is NOT about minimizing the religious aspect, but rather as welcoming even those who do not identify with a religion, even those who are atheists or agnostics, to aspects of the vaccination resistance based on their own moral values, and to form a coalition, to avoid division and yet remain true to the objective. We experienced much of this type cooperation during the 2012 religious freedom program called for by the USCCB.

This explanation is offered because language is important, and often shapes the argument. For example, framing abortion as a woman’s health issue, and framing LGBT as a civil rights issue, advanced both “causes” without even addressing the real moral questions. So, too, we can expect the still-emerging assisted suicide issue to be framed as patriotic, and about “human dignity.” The vaccination issue will break some ground for assisted suicide as ‘patriotic.’ This is an especially relevant concern in a culture hurtling toward an objective of as much as 80% population reduction. For example, rarely is the word ‘murder’ spoken from the pulpit about abortion, and not speaking precisely and courageously has cost many babies their lives. The ‘mark of the beast’ may not be relevant to an agnostic who has never read the bible, but is a subject of great import for Catholics and many other Christians.

On the other hand, we shouldn’t minimize how God can turn hearts!

Thank you to all who lent assistance in the technical matters referenced above. I apologize for any misstatements which might have occurred on my part.


Joe, Joe …. What have you done?

August 25th, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

The first Democratic primary for the 2020 Presidential Race was held in Iowa on February 3rd, and Biden came in 4th, with 14.9% of the vote, behind Bernie Sanders with 24.7%, Pete Buttigieg with 21.3% and Elizabeth Warren with 18.5%.

The second primary was held on February 11th in New Hampshire, and Joe Biden came in 5th with 8.3%, behind Bernie Sanders 25.6%, Pete Buttigieg with 24.3%, Amy Klobuchar with 19.7% and Elizabeth Warren with 9.2%. It certainly looked like Joe Biden’s campaign had lost any fire it might have had.

Those results can be verified here:


What in the world (or outside the world) happened? One answer might lie in what was said and done on the day after the New Hampshire primary, when Biden’s campaign seemed to be falling apart. Politico reports the gist of a phone conversation Biden had with his supporters on Lincoln’s birthday (Feb. 12th), the headlines of which read:

“Biden on phone call: ‘I’ll be damned if we’re gonna lose this nomination’”


Do you see it? After two miserable showings, there is a hard-to-predict turnaround. The next primary, in Nevada on Feb. 22, has Biden in 2nd place with 19% to Bernie Sanders 40%, and then comes the big turnaround – the South Carolina primary, when Biden garners 49% of the vote, and Bernie Sanders 20% on Feb. 29th. And Biden never looks back. What happened? What really happened?

In what appears to be spiritual warfare, between great immorality and sin on one side, and the struggles to maintain a Christian and moral position on many fronts, disadvantaged by all the associated problems of a pandemic which reversed the extraordinary gains and successes of the current administration in three prior years, did Joe Biden call out for demonic reinforcement for the Democratic side and for himself?

“I’ll be damned” – I think most of us have some idea of what that means. One understanding is that a person who says those words is willing to be damned, offering himself to be damned, to gain an objective. That is not as strange as it first seems. The theme of selling one’s soul to the evil one permeates literature, art and opera. We seem to be sensing that this is a time to be very, very careful of what we say and do, with such forces astir. Words matter; they have effect. Did they hand Joe the nomination?

During this same period in February, Trump put the China travel restrictions  into effect on February 2nd, and expanded them to cover Iran on February 29th, the date of the South Carolina primary. Joe Biden’s campaign did pick up fire or, we might say, fire may have picked him up.

Ephesians 6:12 states: “For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.” It is not unreasonable to wonder what Joe Biden actually did with his words. And, if it is as it seems, the entire Democratic Party, activists and bystanders, may be drawn into supporting not only a platform against God, but also a campaign targeted against His sons and daughters.

What we are in now calls for much careful speech, and for much strong commitment. It is likely not to be what we have come to expect from prior conventions and elections. Personally, I will not be surprised to see weather and climate manifest the evil being precipitated, which happens when the ordered world can no longer contain it.

Joe, Joe…. What have you done? “I’ll be damned….” Yes, Joe, that is probably a fair assessment, unless we can all make a huge effort to pray to an incredibly merciful God for His enemies to repent.  

Excerpts from US Priest’s Review of Church’s ‘Misjudgment’

August 25th, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

Excerpts from LifeSiteNews on article by Rev. Michael Orsi:

[Red text is reviewer’s selected emphasis.]

US Priest: Our ‘biggest misjudgment’ amid COVID

was to close churches, suspend Sunday obligation


“In our anxiety about this new and mysterious plague, we’ve been too ready to compromise faith for the sake of civic duty,…”

“… we’ve had far too little concern for the transcendent dimension of life. Consequently, spiritual health has suffered. Probably our biggest misjudgment was the decision to close our churches and suspend the Sunday Mass obligation.”

“We could have maintained a regular worship schedule, or something like it. Reasonable, sensible adjustments would have provided a significant measure of protection.”

“Anyone whose health was compromised, or who feared they might be endangered by coming to Mass (or endangering others), would have had an automatic dispensation from attending — which is the Church’s regular, commonsense rule anyway.”

“The downside is that people were still denied the encouragement of sharing their faith in community. They were left to feel cut off from their fellow believers, and kept from reception of the Eucharist, an experience that’s caused much emotional deprivation.”

“We also should have placed greater emphasis on prayer, fasting, and other pious practices — even organizing rosary processions (properly distanced). All of these would have called upon the long history of intercessory prayer so well established in Church tradition.”

“… in our anxiety about this new and mysterious plague, and in a well intentioned effort to operate our parishes responsibly, we’ve been too ready to compromise faith for the sake of civic duty.”

“Perhaps we were being called to risk a certain kind of legal martyrdom for the sake of religious liberty. Many people have paid a price for our reluctance. And there might be long-term consequences of the failure to stand our ground…. We’re seeing signs of it already in the vandalism that’s occurred to some church buildings and religious statuary. These incidents can be understood only as efforts to intimidate Catholics into silence on certain issues and movements that faithful people would be expected to oppose.”

“…our willingness to curtail ministry for the sake of public health may suggest that we can be muzzled in other ways.”

“… we didn’t make nearly enough of the “teaching moment” nature provided. And that has been a great loss during the “Great Pandemic.”


The author, a priest of the Diocese of Camden, New Jersey, Rev. Michael P. Orsi currently serves as parochial vicar at St. Agnes Parish in Naples, Florida. Full article is here


Mark of the Beast — already a work in progress? (Part I)

August 12th, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris
  • CF rarely reprints almost an entire published article; we usually use relevant excerpts. But when great danger is involved, spiritually and/or physically, some concessions to urgency and importance make sense.
  • Lifesite News published the following article (blue text) on the evening of August 11, 2020 [a bit of repetition has been removed, and pictures, and a sneer at Putin] and it is a clarion call for concern and action. The bolded, underlined text is for emphasis; if not enclosed by quotation marks, it is attributed to the author, Claire Chretien.







By Claire Chretien    FOLLOW CLAIRE

“A coronavirus vaccine should be mandatory, and tax penalties, higher insurance premiums, and denial of many government and private services ought to be considered for those refusing the shot,” three doctors argued in USA Today.

“[W]hile the measures that will be necessary to defeat the coronavirus will seem draconian, even anti-American to some, we believe that there is no alternative. Simply put, getting vaccinated is going to be our patriotic duty,” wrote Drs. Michael Lederman, Maxwell J. Mehlman, and Stuart Youngner.

There is no “alternative to vaccine-induced herd immunity in a pandemic,” they argued. “Broad induction of immunity in the population by immunization will be necessary to end this pandemic.”

The USA Today article, published August 6, is titled Defeat COVID-19 by requiring vaccination for all. It’s not un-American, it’s patriotic.” Its original subhead read, “Make vaccines free, don’t allow religious or personal objections, and punish those who won’t be vaccinated. They are threatening the lives of others.” It has since been changed to “Make vaccines free, don’t allow religious or personal objections, and create disincentives for those who refuse vaccines shown to be safe and effective.”

“When a vaccine is ready,” the doctors wrote, it must be free and exemptions must only be made for people with “medical contraindications to immunization.” But “medical conditions that prohibit all COVID-19 vaccines will be rare,” they claimed. No religious or personal objections to receiving the shot or shots should be honored, they wrote, and harsh penalties should be adopted by important sectors of society to pressure the populace to comply.

The physicians proposed, “Private businesses could refuse to employ or serve unvaccinated individuals. Schools could refuse to allow unimmunized children to attend classes. Public and commercial transit companies — airlines, trains and buses — could exclude refusers. Public and private auditoriums could require evidence of immunization for entry.”

They then outlined how a “registry of immunization will be needed with names entered after immunization is completed.” People who receive the vaccine should be issued “certification cards” with expiration dates (“the durability of protection by different vaccines may vary and may require periodic booster immunizations”). The concept of “immunization cards” or digital vaccine records was floated shortly before the coronavirus outbreak and since the virus has spread.

A December 2019 article in Scientific American described the vision of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) researchers for embedding vaccine records “directly into the skin” of children. “Along with the vaccine, a child would be injected with a bit of dye that is invisible to the naked eye but easily seen with a special cell-phone filter, combined with an app that shines near-infrared light onto the skin. The dye would be expected to last up to five years, according to tests on pig and rat skin and human skin in a dish.”

The development of this idea, which the article proudly noted avoids using “iris scans” that might violate privacy, was “funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.” It “came about because of a direct request from Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates himself, who has been supporting efforts to wipe out diseases such as polio and measles across the world.”

Dr. Anthony Fauci, longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and one of Trump’s top pandemic advisers, said in April that he thought it was “possible” that one day Americans may have to carry certificates showing they are immune to the coronavirus. “I think it might actually have some merit under certain circumstances,” he said. Also in April, Gates speculated, “Eventually, we will have some digital certificates to show who has recovered or been tested recently or when we have a vaccine who has received it.”

Lederman, Mehlman, and Youngner concluded by comparing Americans’ fight against the coronavirus to World War I and World War II. Around 37 million casualties can be attributed to World War I, according to Encyclopedia Britannica. World War II was even deadlier, with 70 million to 85 million deaths– including those due to famine, the Holocaust, disease, and other war-related factors – being attributable to it.

As of press time, worldwide, there have been 20,383,417 million reported coronavirus cases but only 741,707 reported deaths. 13,281,928 people have contracted the virus and recovered. These numbers may not be accurate due to the unreliability of COVID-19 tests and reporting systems in the United States – which has seen people who were never even tested for the virus receive positive results, the governor of Ohio receiving both positive and negative test results on the same day, and at least one person who died in a motorcycle crash coded as a COVID-19 death – and the likelihood of communist China, where the virus originated, downplaying its infection and death rates.

During World War I and World War II, “Everyone contributed, no one was allowed to opt out merely because it conflicted with a sense of autonomy, and draft dodgers who refused to serve were subject to penalties,” the doctors wrote. “True, conscientious objectors could refuse to use weapons for religious reasons, but they were obligated to help out in other ways, serving in noncombatant roles. There are no such alternatives for vaccination.”

In a recent online debate on mandatory vaccinations, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.pointed out that a significant percentage of participants in a recent trial for a leading coronavirus vaccine have been hospitalized.

Kennedy, a liberal environmental attorney and member of the Kennedy political dynasty, also noted that several of the coronavirus vaccine developers, a number of which have received funding from Bill Gates, have been forced to pay billions of dollars in criminal penalties related to their medical products.

“It requires a cognitive dissonance for people who understand the criminal corporate cultures of these four companies to believe that they’re doing this in every other product that they have, but they’re not doing it with vaccines,” Kennedy said.

In an April 9 article, Kennedy wrote: “Vaccines, for Bill Gates, are a strategic philanthropy that feed his many vaccine-related businesses (including Microsoft’s ambition to control a global vaccination ID enterprise) and give him dictatorial control of global health policy.”

Kennedy has been raising awareness about those injured by vaccines since before the coronavirus outbreak and has now emerged as one of the strongest voices against a forced COVID-19 vaccine.

Many immunizations are made from cell lines of aborted babies, and a number of the coronavirus vaccines being developed are also using immorally obtained fetal cell lines. 


Comments from Cleansing Fire Author Diane Harris

Forcing people to choose between their faith and their life is not new and clever, it is as old as inhumanity. Just recite aloud the treasured bible story in Second Maccabees 6:18-31 of Eleazar, the Jewish scribe who died rather than eat pork or partake in a charade to mislead souls. Or remember how Christians were martyred for refusing to add just one grain of incense in idolatry of the Roman Emperor, or were made into human torches at Nero’s garden parties. Or remember any of thousands of martyrs who died rather than do something against God, or their Faith.

Where did this idea come from regarding mandatory marking of people and punishing those who refuse to be marked? You know — it comes from the Bible, the Book of Revelation specifically in which the Apostle and Evangelist John is shown the end-times (all the references are not included below, just the key items most related to taking the mark on forehead or hand):


 Revelation 13:15-18
“… and it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast so that the image of the beast should even speak, and to cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be slain. Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the foreheadso that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name. This calls for wisdom: let him who has understanding reckon the number of the beast, for it is a human number, its number is six hundred and sixty-six.
Revelation 14:9-13
“And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, ‘If any one worships the beast and its image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also shall drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured unmixed into the cup of His anger, and he shall be tormented with fire and sulphur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever; and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.’ Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. And I heard a voice from heaven saying, ‘Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord henceforth.’ ‘Blessed indeed,’ says the Spirit, ‘that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them!'”  
Revelation 16:2
“So the first angel went and poured his bowl on the earth, and foul and evil sores came upon the men who bore the mark of the beast and worshiped its image.” 
Revelation 19:20
“And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had worked the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulphur.” 
Revelation 20:4
“Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom judgment was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life, and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” 

I have much more to add on the decision we appear to be facing soon.; and I think perhaps even some helpful strategies. But this is a good point to leave us all to contemplate that it is possible we may even face such a decision in 2020, a seemingly accursed year? No, not accursed. Isn’t this what we so often pray?

“Amen. Come Lord Jesus.” Revelation 22:20-b.

Besides, here is a hint. It is mentioned in a March 2019 post on Vaccination:

Peace, d

Election Prayer for Life

August 9th, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris


The Life and Death Issues of COVID Vaccines

August 3rd, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris


In April, 2020, Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas, asked Catholics to “join your voices with mine in an effort to bring to a halt” any coronavirus vaccines which were derived from aborted babies.

“Tragically, people are not aware of or have chosen to turn a blind eye to the advances in medical science which allow vaccines to be developed with the wholesale use of aborted children’s bodies,” Strickland wrote in his pastoral letter. “Scientists I’ve spoken with assure me that there is no medical necessity for using aborted children in order to develop the much-needed vaccine to protect us from this particular strain of coronavirus,” he stated.

The August 2, 2020 Cleansing Fire Ticker included the following link: and it is a particularly disturbing article not only because the UK bishops are supporting use of aborted fetal cell lines for a Covid-19 vaccine, but even more of concern because those same bishops seem to be ordering Catholics to surrender their free will and consciences, mandating them to receive that same questionable vaccine. Here are some references to what we know about the vaccine and associated plans, which is very little indeed:

There is also a serious effort to ‘get the vaccine-scare toothpaste back in the u-tube’ due to earlier reports, video etc. that Bill Gates was quoted as saying up to a million people could die just from adverse reactions to a vaccine. A number of articles have now made a point of denying he said those words, but the original statement seems not to be available any longer, at least not by using common search tools. In the ‘cancel culture,’ deletion apparently now means it never happened.

One day, a month or two ago, I was praying after Mass about such a huge financial force as the Gates Foundation seemingly overwhelming its opposition on the issues they fund, like abortion and a ‘worldwide’ vaccine. I was remarking to the Lord how “Melinda and Bill” have been blessed with so much, and the pro-life effort seems so small by comparison, so vulnerable, and how weak the Church seems at such a crucial moment.  The Lord suddenly led me to remember Matthew 16:18b: “…and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” Neither shall the Gateses. Amazing, isn’t it?

While mandatory vaccine (by magisterial authority) ‘only’ applies to the UK at the moment, it is a dangerous precedent, and plays right into the weaknesses of so many bishops in the USCCB. See “God’s Fearful Frozen” here:  The weeds are indeed growing with the wheat, even among the members of a national conference of bishops. (“An enemy has done this.”)

We need courage from our prelates, like that of Bishop Strickland’s refusing to sign the Texas bishops’ statement permitting hospitals and similar institutions of ‘care’ to decide unilaterally how to ration life-saving equipment. It smells of rationing mortal sin: “Who gets to commit it and who doesn’t?” But sin is sin, and it is a sad situation when the majority of the successors of the Apostles, albeit in just one geographical area, presume to permit such sin in the same tone as permission to eat meat on Friday!


The Rest of the Story

This intrusion into civil rights by a bishops’ conference is an “emerging” issue of great significance in the Church, regardless of whether one believes the proposed vaccination is related to the “mark of the beast” or not , and regardless of the courage or lack thereof among the shepherds who seem far more willing to command irrational, risky behavior by the flock than they are to criticize the wolf.

But there is another issue clouding these matters, for which our often short term memory can be impaired — how the Church has been harmed by actions from high levels in the Vatican in the last 5 years. One Peter Five does an excellent summary of Pope Francis’s dismissal at the end of 2016 of the entire Pontifical Academy for Life (Founded by St. John Paul II) : See  That particular article is especially worth our careful reading, and remembering. It seems to be a template for  other possible changes.

During 2017 the Pontifical Academy for Life was almost completely reconstituted under Abp. Paglia, himself the center of much concern and accusation: One surprise is the contrast between the 2005 position of the Academy, and what was belatedly issued for 2017 regarding vaccines. We can wonder how much of the dissolution of the Academy was for the purpose of rewriting the vaccine guidelines, for it is certainly emerging that vaccination is a likely part of any plan for One World Religion/Government, and potentially for significant population reduction as well. And it may also be essential to the ‘mark of the beast’ (See Revelation, Chapter 13). It is only a small leap from legislating that everyone must accept a vaccine to saying they can’t do any business, pay bills, get groceries, own property, rent, drive or receive health care, etc. unless they obey. This is not like isolation was a century ago in TB Sanitaria of sick patients to protect the well. Being isolated (quarantined indefinitely) today is potentially a tactic against the healthy, to force compliance. 

Interestingly, Catholic Culture reported on March 21, 2019 a statement on vaccines by The Pontifical Academy for Life somewhat contradictory to its prior (2005) position. Their statement is dated July 2017 but apparently became only widely known nearly two years later. That article is shown below in the blue type. And, just a little over one year later, we now have the statement from the UK Bishops virtually mandating vaccination.

It now appears possible that the engineering of the entire demise of The Pontifical Academy for Life could have been a 3-5 year plan to revise the Church’s position on vaccinations, which of course inevitably weakens the strength of the pro-life movement. If the bishops really believe what they are trying to order done in the UK, they should be the first to receive the vaccine, except of course any who speak courageously from their own consciences against mandatory inoculation.

I have chosen not to argue the relative merits of the proximity in timing between the sin of killing the unborn and the use of the fetal cells, as I do not feel competent to make such a decision; that is one reason why it is so important for the Church to get it right, and for stability of the Church Teaching. Confusion is the fruit of the evil one. About 6 hours ago, I uploaded this post. Now I have just received the happy news from LifeSiteNews that Bp. Strickland has again asserted the same position he expressed previously.

From Catholic Culture and Catholic World News: 

Click here to read about Pontifical Academy for Life’s 2019 encouragement of vaccinations.  (more…)

Feeling angry and betrayed!

August 2nd, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

We were 75 days without Holy Communion. Our Daily Bread! And it was like starving. It wasn’t just “like” starving, it WAS starving. Instead of being a nutrient to our souls in a time of great anxiety, a stabilizing force to our families and communities in their duress, and a strengthening of our own faith, the lack of the Body and Blood of Christ contributed to the pain, the misery, the affliction. We as Catholics were less than we could have been during such a difficult period due to our weakness from starving souls.

We blamed the Chinese for the Wuhan Virus, appropriately so. We blamed the transparent motives of obvious political forces trying to destroy our country. We blamed the talking media heads for often contradictory healthcare advice and for pushing blatant errors in their widely touted opinions. And of course we blamed the governor of NY for violating appropriate and long standing boundaries between Church and State, and for causing so many needless nursing home deaths. When we did blame the Church, it was mostly about our resenting bishops’ surrendering to civil directives and lack of courage among the clergy at every level, especially in the episcopacy. What we most credited and praised were the priests who risked themselves to anoint COVID patients, and front line medical responders and caretakers, who put themselves at risk to help others.

Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”  John 15:13


Thomistic Institute Guidelines

Recently I peered into the Guidelines issued by the Thomistic Institute at the USCCB’s request, virtually completely accepted by dioceses and parishes, and which continue to prevail at large. Up until now I have just accepted the party line of what we can and cannot do, but lately I decided to read those Guidelines myself. If you want to do the same, those Thomistic Guidelines can be found here, for version 1.2 (May 7th) :

My feeling anger and betrayal is piqued by pages 22-24, and which are technically still applicable since not revoked. The relevant material from just those particular pages is posted in blue under the continuation “Read the Rest…”  at the end of this post. The title says it all: Distribution of Holy Communion to Individuals outside of Mass (may be done while observing strict limits to the size of public gatherings).

Read the document yourself and see if it doesn’t convey to you the implication (at least) that we could have been receiving Holy Communion even though “Public Masses” were shut down. If so, it surely raises the question of why we were soul-starved for 75 days if at least an occasional Communion had been allowed. And, we could have then been receiving all those hosts in the Tabernacles of the parishes, when the edict against Public Mass came down on a Monday, following the usual Sunday consecration.  If indeed we could have received Communion, wasn’t that a better alternative than a priest consuming those hosts in private Masses over the first few weeks? Or worse, destroying those hosts and thus revealing a sacrilegious attitude toward the Real Presence? 

Why was the alternative of receiving Holy Communion not presented to us as a possibility during those 75 days of starving in the bunker?  I have no doubt there are and will be, now that time has passed, some ‘logical explanation’ that was hidden during the quarantine. Remember, the Thomistic Guidelines were released May 7, version 1.2. That was a few weeks before public Mass was reopened in most parishes. It also begs the question of what is in the earlier versions of the Thomistic Institute document, to which I have not yet found access. Finally, the entire matter should be considered within the context of the right (yes RIGHT) of the laity to the Sacraments, which is clearly stated in Canon Law and which was ignored profusely:



If one needs further clarification of those rights, consider Canon 212, part 2:

It is about NEED, and we certainly were needy! Looking at the May 7th Guidelines of the Thomistic Institute (and perhaps some of earlier date?), upon which the USCCB and diocesan implementations were based, we read how even during the recent times of suspended public Masses there was provision to receive Communion! The reception process for a group (10 at a time, group after group) is explained in the Appendix to the Guidelines, but there is no minimum number of recipients, so it appears priests could have given us individual Communion. But apparently they didn’t because either they didn’t want to, were ordered not to (the obedience thing), just didn’t know they could, didn’t adequately research the possibility on our behalf, or some other opaque reason of which we are unaware? And haven’t yet told us the truth or at least communicated reasons which could give us some comfort? When does pastoral need get considered? What about a lock-down of one thousand, two hundred and sixty days? This is an important matter because what has happened during this lock-down, from Church policy, to relationship with civil authorities, to communication with the Faithful, becomes the text book for the next lock-down, i.e. abandonment of the Eucharist for the Faithful in times of crisis, and so begs the need to focus on the issues. (This paragraph was revised for clarity/reposted.)

For those who intentionally withheld from their flocks the Holy Communion that could have been given, I believe they are gravely in violation of Canon Law and have failed in the virtues of courage and charity as well. I hope they will realize the seriousness of what has occurred, confess and begin again to fully care for souls. Otherwise the dilemma we now have to live with is compounded by non-repentance on one side, and feeling betrayed on the other.


Other Considerations

But I do not mean to paint all pastors and bishops with the same brush. There was heroism of heart as well, charity for those suffering the loss of what Christ Himself gave to us to sustain us in just such a trial as we endured. As I have spoken to people from a few parishes so far, as I prepared to write these words, most were denied — by not all! I now know a few names of priests who quietly communicated some souls who particularly suffered from the loss of the Eucharist. I say bravo for their courage and charity.

More important from a practical point of view is making sure, when the next virus strikes (The Book of Revelation prophesies multiple plagues), we are not denied what we need most, food for our souls. When I wrote the series of posts on “Sheltering in Place” I mentioned how indispensable it is to have a priest we can trust and who can care for our needs at such a difficult time. What I had not sufficiently considered was the need to have such a relationship PLUS minimal access to several priests, in case the one is lost to martyrdom, transfer, or just lost to fear or other pressures. I hope to learn more of the identity of those priests who were willing to communicate souls during those 75 days of starving, unabashedly for my own sake and always for the good of souls and the honor and glory of God . 

Elsewhere on CF I have raised the question if we the laity were being quarantined from our pastors, or our pastors were being quarantined from us. It is as if we just had a shakedown cruise to see if the ship holds together or it needs some rehabilitation, repair and refitting for the storm that lies ahead. What we found out, also about the civil agendae and now the emerging local persecutions, we needed to know. Now we need to do, promptly,  what is required to be seaworthy.

Meanwhile, I am still angry and feeling betrayed, but I’m working on it.

Click below to read the Appendix to the Thomistic Guidelines regarding Communion.



Blessed Sacrament Returns to a Rightful Throne

July 30th, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

Yet another milestone is achieved in the Rochester Diocese! May others take encouragement to do the same.

Cleansing Fire has been told that thanks to Fr. George Heyman’s commitment and leadership, the support of the Knights of Columbus, and the prayers and sacrifices of the parish community, the Tabernacle of the church of the Assumption in Fairport has been finally relocated to the proper location and the goal to return Christ to the center of the Sanctuary has been achieved.



Previously,  the Tabernacle had been located in the chapel, walled off from the Sanctuary for many years. 

Sadly, Christ was hidden from the view of Mass goers in the main church during that time. 

Interactive Map from Complicit Clergy

July 18th, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris



Interactive Map of Attacks on Catholics

Distinguishing Priest Believers from Priest Non-Believers

July 14th, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

In another horrendous abuse of the Eucharist, a priest in Hattiesburg, MS devises a scheme in which families hold their own hosts during the consecration and self-communicate. Father Tommy Conway, pastor of Saint Fabian Catholic Church in the Diocese of Biloxi, apparently has distributed “sacred vessels” to the families in his parish, and unconsecrated hosts in zip-lock bags. The heads of household are to hold hosts during the consecration and then distribute Communion to their families. (The model anticipates all families have two adult parents plus children.) This communion absurdity is what happens when receiving in the hand is ‘no big deal!’

Why is such abuse happening?

One reasonably may speculate that while some churches may be ready to return to Sunday Mass, clearly some pastors are not! Instead of brain-storming ways to make the reception of the Eucharist all the more reverent for the time and sacrament foregone during the shut-down, some pastors seem to be concentrating on engineering clever ways to avoid all germs and lawsuits in case a parishioner does get sick, for any reason. More and more, it looks like spreading the sins of irreverence, sacrilege and scandal to parochial vicars, staff, and to the laity, reducing a congregation to a lifeless Protestant bread scenario. More and more, it looks like obeisance of cowards to a civil government which lacks the ability or right to enforce without such cowardly cooperation. More and more, it looks like protecting the corporate entity of the church, rather than the Sacred Body of Christ.

What is wrong with these pastors?

Perhaps these pastors have been traumatized by the shut-down? Maybe they are fearful of “catching the COVID” themselves? Perhaps they have slipped into so much sin in their machinations against the Eucharist that they no longer know how to recover their belief? But the deeper and greater reason for such failure is more likely to be that those pastors have lost their Faith that the Eucharist really and truly is the Body of Christ. If one truly believed, it would be impossible to put Christ in a bag, to place families between the priest and his confection of the Eucharist, to pinch the precious host with tweezers or any other tool, to drop the consecrated host into the hands of a recipient, to deny the communicant’s right to receive the Eucharist on the tongue.

It’s Really about Unbelieving Priests:

If one truly believed that the consecrated host is the Body of Christ, it would be impossible to act in such an egregious manner. Much commentary has been made on the loss of belief in the Real Presence by the laity, but what about by clerics? These ‘celebrants’ cannot possibly believe they are confecting the true Presence of Christ and then use bags, tools, or ‘intermediaries’ in the consecration. It is a debacle. It is a sin. They are the cause of lost faith in the Real Presence.

Perhaps they truly have forgotten (or are exposing their own ‘never knew’ limitations in) the fundamentals of the Catholic Faith? Those ‘celebrants’ expose their own lack of trust in Christ and His Teachings when it is about protecting themselves rather than the Eucharist or the good of souls.

What can the laity do?

The number one thing which laity can do is to refuse to participate in such sin and disbelief. Stay in the pew, but don’t get up for Communion. Write to the bishop and register your complaint. Warn other souls. Pray for conversions of heart to cherish Christ’s Eucharistic gift to us. Do not compromise just because a priest is compromising himself. Pray for deeper personal faith for self, family and friends.


The Biloxi story can be found here:


The Rochester story can be found here:


And now the ArchDiocese of Minneapolis has joined the shameful plastic bag bandwagon:

The Beauty of the Priesthood

July 11th, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

May we each have just such a priest in our lives, especially at the end.

Idea: read the full story on the link below, by Peter Jesserer Smith, and send the CF link to a priest you think is “just such a priest as this.”

Syracuse Diocese saves a church, cares for souls

July 9th, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

The beautiful Church of St. Mary of the Assumption in Oswego, NY had not held Mass since January, as it awaited a decision from the Vatican on whether or not it could become an Oratory, a Latin Mass Center, and of course while also weathering the COVID-19 storm. The good news was publicized May 21st, with the announcement that the Church would become an Oratory, a personal parish (as separate from a territorial parish.) And the new parish would become a Latin Mass Center. Its first Mass was celebrated last Sunday, July 5th, by Syracuse’s new Bishop Douglas Lucia, who offered a Novus Ordo ad orientem Mass, with a large serving of Latin. The July schedule calls for the Traditional Latin Mass on July 12 and July 26th, all at noon. And on July 19th, it is expected, tentatively, that Bp. Lucia will again offer a Novus Ordo ad orientem, with largely Latin content.



Bishop Lucia was joined by Father James Schultz, pastor of three territorial parishes in Oswego County, and the newly appointed parochial administrator of St. Mary’s Oratory. As an Oratory, St. Mary’s “will be supported by its current assets and by free-will donations,” Bishop Lucia said.  He also spoke about the future care of the parish. Canon Matthew Talarico, provincial superior of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, will visit St. Mary’s Aug. 4th, and Bishop Lucia’s hope is “to entrust the parish to the Institute’s care.” The society would “become responsible for the apostolate of the Extraordinary Form [of the Mass] in the Diocese….” The Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest is a Society of Apostolic Life founded in 1990. Its provincial headquarters in the U.S. is at the Shrine of Christ the King Sovereign Priest in Chicago, IL. The Institute’s motherhouse is in Gricigliano, in the Archdiocese of Florence, Italy.  It is reported that the Institute “celebrates the classical Roman Liturgy, the ‘Latin Mass,’ in its traditional form;” i.e. The Mass of the Ages.

Bishop Lucia announced in May that he would establish St. Mary’s as a personal parish and oratory. “Personal parish” is a canonical term that means the parish will have no territory attached to it except the land on which it is built; “oratory” designates a place of prayer. The bishop’s decision came seven months after he announced he would suspend the 2019 merger of Oswego parishes and conduct a review of the process that led to their merger. The review came after the St. Mary of the Assumption Preservation Group in July 2019 submitted to Cardinal Beniamino Stella, prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Clergy, an appeal asking for a review of the process. Christ the Good Shepherd Parish remains Oswego’s territorial parish, “here to serve all the people of Oswego,” said Bp. Lucia. (Excerpts are from

A congregation of about 160 enthusiastic worshipers attended the July 5  Mass.










CHURCH IS OPEN Monday through Friday 12-3PM


Sunday July  5 th –  Noon Mass with Bishop Lucia – Novus Ordo Latin, ad orientem

Sunday July 12th – Noon Traditional Latin Mass with Fr. Schultz

Sunday July 19th – Noon Mass expected with Bishop Lucia – Novus Ordo Latin

Sunday July 26th – Noon Traditional Latin Mass with Fr. Schultz

To find the Mass schedule and register to attend a liturgy, visit or contact Kristie Pauldine, President of the St. Mary of the Assumption Preservation Group and office manager of St. Mary’s at (315) 343-3953, or email to


First Encounter

July 5th, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

Just as we are born with a certain DNA of the body, in some way it seems we are also born with a certain “DNA” of soul; i.e. that God hasn’t created an assembly line of identical “souls” to put into varied bodies, but rather that each one of us is totally special, and in a completely unique relationship to God, and to the work which He offers us to do. Although we can hardly fathom the intimacy of God to each soul, and of each soul to God, it seems to be totally original, unique and irreplaceable. Perhaps we best gain a sense of who we are to ourselves when we begin to gain a sense of how God sees and relates to us, a sense of what we do right and in how we repent for what we do wrong, i.e. in becoming aware of and responsive to the protection by that still, small inner voice.

I was in first grade when I first encountered a call to respond to God’s insistent presence within myself, in a moment of need for protection of my soul.  It might also be called a first encounter with conscience, not in the sense of living up to demands of parents or teachers, but in the sense of standing against wrong, however uncomfortable. And, if such a subject is of interest to you, this is how it happened.

As best I can reconstruct, the event I want to describe happened very soon after Christmas, so I know I had just turned six years old. My great delight in first grade was encountering the alphabet, and that words could be made from letters.  So when my mother gave my father monogrammed handkerchiefs for Christmas and, since I had just learned the alphabet, I was entranced by the idea of a monogram! I had the same initials as my father: “DCQ”.  I liked some letters better than others, but my favorite was the “Q.” Not many words begin with or use the “Q” but I liked having a different initial from others in my class.  I learned to make the “Q” very carefully, so it would be a real letter and not just a big number “2.” (Yes, “in those days” we went right to cursive.) So,when I saw my father’s gift, I thought a monogrammed handkerchief would be a very fine thing to have for myself.

To set the stage further, I think the following events must actually have happened during Christmas recess since my father was not home (being at work) and I obviously was on some vacation from first grade. My mother had chores to do, and one of them was paying the bills. She was quite proud, for a woman of her generation, to have graduated from high school, landed a big NYC secretarial job, and married the boss.  When she married she “retired,” and was given the office typewriter, a symbol to her of what she had achieved and of the esteem in which she was held. She enjoyed continuing to use her typewriter at home, addressing envelopes for mailing the household bill payments, and writing cover letters with the proper headings and salutations, whether it was serious business, to family, or just mundane  “To whom it may concern” correspondence.

My mother’s typewriter was a large, shiny black Smith Corona, the kind with the round glass keys that had to be pressed very hard to type anything.  Standing beside her, I watched with awe as she pressed a key, and a letter came out.  A letter of the alphabet just like I’d learned in school!

When she left to go into the kitchen, probably to start dinner, my moment of opportunity had arrived! I didn’t ask permission; I was sure she’d be proud of my also being able to type. Or, perhaps I didn’t ask because something in me knew not to ask a question for which I’d have to obey the answer of ‘no’! All I could see clearly was that it was my big chance to have monogrammed handkerchiefs, just like my father. And surprise everybody!

So I stuffed Kleenex into the typewriter under the roller and pushed it up until it was where the keys would hit, and began to type my initials.  I found the “D” and hit the key hard. It stuck in the tissue. Then I tried the “C.”  It stuck to the “D” and to the Kleenex. Quickly, the roller and platen seized up, the keys stuck deep into the tissue, and the harder I tried to quietly free the mess, the more the Kleenex shredded, the ribbon got twisted around the keys, and I got smeared with ink.  Oh, too bad!  I was wearing my new embroidered dress my mother had made for me. I think I tried to wipe the ink off with the tablecloth or my dress, because it seemed to be everywhere – big black smears across delicate embroidery. Maybe the “Q” to the rescue? No, it got stuck too. While I was trying to at least free the “Q,” a shriek told me that my mother was back in the room, and that I was found out.

I was mortified and scared to death.  My mother was patient with many things I did, an abundance of which made a “mess,” but I guess this was one typewriter too far.  Her typewriter!  As she tried to repair the damage, it seemed to get worse, and she was alternately crying and angry and I was just stricken. She feared her typewriter was lost forever.  “I’m so sorry,” I kept saying.  She told me never to touch her typewriter again. “Okay.” “Promise me.” I promised.  Then, something startling happened, which I know today she didn’t mean as anything wrong. My mother, a convert to Catholicism, said: “Kneel down and tell me you are sorry.”  I froze.  “I can’t,” I whimpered.  “Kneel down,” she insisted.  And I said from some place deep inside myself, someplace I think I had never been before, and which I didn’t know existed until that moment: “I can’t.  I can only kneel to God.”  She stared at me.  Her eyes filled up with tears.  Mine too. Our eyes met, and held. She heard what I said. I trembled in uncertainty as to what would happen next. Then she said, softly, “Okay.”

The most startling moment for me in that experience wasn’t the mess, or my mother’s anger, or my own fear.  It was an “all-of-a-sudden” force from within, a warning, an insistence, a resistance – that something very big was at stake, and that if I had knelt down I would have passed some very dangerous point.  Was it my guardian angel, big and beautiful like the one protecting the little children on the bridge in that classic picture?  Was it God holding on to me?  I may not understand the details in this lifetime, but I have no doubt that this was my first experience of an intervention of conscience, which I had no desire to resist.

God bless Sister Thomas Gregory, O.P., my first grade teacher, who in three months had done a fine job in properly ordering adoration and the alphabet.


Why do I write this now? It’s because of the news stories covering US Congressional leaders kneeling to the Black Lives Matter demands. Their common sense is less than that of a six year old. How could their souls ever be sensitive enough to see how wrong it is to kneel to anything but God, when they vote to kill at birth babies who survive abortion? We can see how, compromising to more and more serious sins, makes kneeling to any force other than God seem like nothing by comparison. Yet there is no comparison. It begins with the first commandment. And such discernment is a gift from God. I struggled with how to write something about the kneeling in the BLM situation, and thought that perhaps I could explain best by sharing this little story, and to pray for continued protection in kneeling to nothing and no one, except Almighty God. Amen?



Heresy among the Hierarchy? Part VI: vs. Revelation

June 27th, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

This post is the conclusion of the 6-part examination of Sacred Scripture for indications that God does sometimes send plague or famine to call our attention to His Teaching, and to protect our souls. What provoked this series of posts was prominent members of the Catholic Hierarchy’s denying that plague may be sent by God.  Since we began with Part I in early May, the incidence of such “plague denial” seems to have ebbed. Nevertheless, the prophecy of the Book of Revelation is an entirely different genre, and would be worth completing the project if only for that reason.

Revelation (aka The Apocalypse) is admittedly a difficult book, yet deeply and widely of interest. And it has been given to us for a reason. Are we seeing signs of the end-times in current events? How would we recognize a fulfillment if it occurred? I hope in a future post to link Jesus’ own answers to the Apostles’ end-times questions to what we are seeing today. But first, let’s complete the inventory of the 13 plague and/or famine references in the John the Evangelist’s Book of Revelation.

Rev 6:8

“And I saw, and behold, a pale horse, and its rider’s name was Death, and Hades followed him; and they were given power over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by wild beasts of the earth.”

 Rev 9:18

“By these three plagues a third of mankind was killed, by the fire and smoke and sulphur issuing from their mouths.”

 Rev 9:20

“.”The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands nor give up worshiping demons and idols of gold and silver and bronze and stone and wood, which cannot either see or hear or walk;”

Rev 11:6

“They have power to shut the sky, that no rain may fall during the days of their prophesying, and they have power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to smite the earth with every plague, as often as they desire.”

Rev 15:1

“Then I saw another portent in heaven, great and wonderful, seven angels with seven plagues, which are the last, for with them the wrath of God is ended.”

Rev 15:6

“… and out of the temple came the seven angels with the seven plagues, robed in pure bright linen, and their breasts girded with golden girdles.”

 Rev 15:8

“…and the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God and from His power, and no one could enter the temple until the seven plagues of the seven angels were ended.”

 Rev 16:9

“… men were scorched by the fierce heat, and they cursed the name of God who had power over these plagues, and they did not repent and give Him glory.”

  Rev 16:21

“… and great hailstones, heavy as a hundred-weight, dropped on men from heaven, till men cursed God for the plague of the hail, so fearful was that plague.”

 Rev 18:4

“Then I heard another voice from heaven saying, “Come out of her, My people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues;”

 Rev 18:8

“… so shall her plagues come in a single day, pestilence and mourning and famine, and she shall be burned with fire; for mighty is the Lord God who judges her.”

 Rev 21:9

“Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues, and spoke to me, saying, “Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb.”

 Rev 22:18-19

“I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”


Preparing to Study Revelation:

Those who are interested in understanding Revelation more deeply have several options, some of which are obvious. Get a good bible with extensive footnotes which explains some of the symbolism used; and read one or more study texts that deep dives into particular subjects. This won’t give all the answers, but will make us a bit more comfortable regarding much that is recounted in Revelation, and in moving around among the chapters.

But also notice there is something in Revelation which is not in any other biblical book. Chapter 1:3: “Blessed is he who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written therein; for the time is near.”  If John believed the time was near more than 1900 years ago, how much nearer the time is today!  We are invited to read aloud, and to ‘hear.’ It would seem to make sense, in seriously studying Revelation, to have both read the book aloud, as to have also heard the book read aloud. One might suspect that even more will be revealed through the power of the oral words, especially if read aloud carefully by a priest from the pulpit!  (Deacons were set aside to do other work in the Church, while the Apostles preached the Word of God.)  Such preaching might well have been the way the early hearers of Revelation became acquainted with end-times Prophecy.

(The end of the 6 part post on plague and famine at the Hand of God.)


Jesus in Baggies at St. John of Rochester

June 25th, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

Here is the link to Sunday Mass, June 14th, at St. John of Rochester in Fairport. (Edit clarifications have been made to original text posted.)


The above link requires selecting the June 14 (Corpus Christi) Mass.  Some viewers have had trouble getting to the particular Corpus Christi Mass on which we are focusing. If you do not find at 44:50 the beginning of Instructions for Communion, you are viewing the ‘wrong’ Mass. If you have problems, please note the picture of the celebrant posted to help you identify the subject Mass.

This blog reporting goes back to the very roots of abuses seen in the Diocese of Rochester when Cleansing Fire first started (and which are archived still on this site.) Anyone familiar with the exact wording of the Novus Ordo quickly notices the word changes and the drama of presentation which color the Mass at St. John’s Rochester.

Whatever happened to “do the red; say the black” which appeals to the priests most humble in their celebration of the Holy Eucharist? St. John’s of Rochester is much more like a dramatic reading on a stage, and I had to keep wondering “Is this Catholic?”

And, regarding color, one wonders about the background behind the Crucifix which is behind the main altar. To someone unfamiliar with St. John’s politics, I must say it looks a lot like LGBTetc endorsement, and one suspects that the last half of Romans Chapter 1 may not often be preached at St. John’s. We don’t know whether the colors and prominence are intended to suggest LGBTetc or not, but it seems irresponsible to create the illusion of confusion. (Similarly, a dear priest friend of mine from Africa found a chasuble and stole, soon after he arrived, in the sacristy of another prominent DoR Church and he used it for Mass, only to be told it was a ‘plant’ of the relevant same-sex colors and he had fallen for it! When alerted, he never wore it again, but no one seemed to know how those non-liturgical colors had suddenly “appeared” in the sacristy.)

Such ‘other’ concerns are dwarfed by St. John Rochester’s Communion Rules, which begin around the 44th minute on the video. There we hear what is effectively a slam against all priests who carefully and faithfully deliver the Holy Host onto parishioners’ tongues. The celebrant at St. John’s Mass says: There is no hygienic way of giving communion on the tongue.” (46:11)

There we also hear an allegation against all the experts who say either the hand and tongue are equivalent risks, or that the tongue is even safer because it has been in the mouth covered by a mask, unlike the hands which open doors and touch pews. Try THAT with your tongue! But the people of St. John’s seemed, on the video, to embrace (or at least obey) the clericalist leadership all the way, even to the celebrant’s violating Catholics’ rights under Redemptionis Sacramentum, which documents the right of all Communion recipients to receive “either in the hand or on the tongue” at their choice (except in the Latin Mass where all communicants receive kneeling and on the tongue.)

Now we come to the headline grabber. Communion instructions begin at 44:50. If a Mass attendee at St. John’s has someone at home (or a friend or neighbor) “unable to be here,” he or she is welcome to bring Communion to that person. All they need to do is tell the “Communion minister” how many hosts they want, and the “minister” counts them out and, using what looks like tweezers, drops those hosts into a plastic bag! Jesus goes into the baggie! I shudder to think of the tiny fragments that must remain in the bag, of how the Lord is handled, carried in pockets and purses, maybe forgotten in the laundry by that friend or neighbor. And that ‘friend or neighbor’ is of concern too. Since when are we encouraged to bring Communion to unidentified recipients? It has been pointed out to me by a viewer that this weekend (June 20-21) is seeing a major increase in demonic activities and demonstrations. Wholesale giving out of hosts to unknown recipients risks demonic use of the Most Holy.








The pictures above show the celebrant (acting as a ‘Communion minister’) counting out the hosts one-by-one, using a tweezers -like device, and passing on the bag to the person to be entrusted with the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. How can parishioners, who have just heard a significant part of John Chapter 6 read in the Gospel, ON THE SOLEMNITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, actually participate in bagging Jesus?  I would like to see a Crusade to free the Divine Host-age.

This picture below follows a presentation (22:40) by a woman named Barb after the celebrant’s remarks following the Gospel. Didn’t we do away with sneaking women, lectors or not, into doing part of the homily (or using homily time) during Bishop Clark’s reign? It’s baaaack! Notice they are just starting to rise to give her a standing ovation. Well, there’s no ovation due to St. John’s of Rochester, in my opinion. It’s a travesty.





Post Script: Here are three pictures from Fr. Bradshaw’s Mass which illustrate the result of fumbling the tweezers. Priests who have given Communion for decades are still susceptible to fumbling when using a new tool at such a solemn moment. It is interesting to note the glow around the dropping host in the first picture below. (See comment #13)