Tuesday, September 22, 2020



"When a Catholic stops going to Confession and is abandoned to himself, he walks from abyss to abyss and as a weak plant without protection, exposed to the force of the winds, falls into the most terrible excesses." 

 Saint John Bosco 

Sunday, September 20, 2020


Oh my Lady, oh my Mother, I offer myself entirely to you. As proof of my filial affection, I consecrate you on this day, my eyes, my ears, my tongue, my heart: in one word, my entire being. Since I am all yours, oh Good Mother, keep me and defend me as your child, and your possession. 


Friday, September 18, 2020


Conference of Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of Astana, Kazakhstan, and Titular Bishop of Celerina 

Bishop Schneider is a specialist in Patristics and the early church, no one better than him to explain this subject perfectly well and indicate the correct and true interpretation of the Church. This conference refutes many false opinions and misrepresentations not only of simple lay people, but also - sadly - of many modernist priests and even bishops. Let us pay attention to a true expert on this subject of VITAL IMPORTANCE AND THE MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL: THE BODY OF CHRIST HIMSELF IN THE CONSECRATED HOST. Let's not be fooled. Under any circumstances should the laity receive Holy Communion on their hands that are not consecrated and from which the consecrated particles that will remain will fall to the ground. The pretext of the pandemic is not only insufficient but, in addition, it is ridiculous because there is true contamination when taking the Eucharist with a hand that has greeted other people, touched the pews, taken money to give alms, etc., than to receive it in the mouth from the clean hands of a priest, as eminent doctors have explained. The indult granted by Paul VI for those places where the instruction that the Eucharist should be received on the mouth was disobeyed, was a concession so that they did not depart from the Church and was allowed only under certain conditions that avoided the danger of desecration and the weakening in the Eucharistic faith. Conditions that in practice were not viable, as it has been seen in the course of these decades in which carelessness with particles and the theft of Hosts is scandalous, and it also has weakened the faith of many people, to the extent that many receive Communion sacrilegiously in mortal sin without prior confession, a clear sign of lack of faith. The fact of legitimizing disobedience and turning it into a source of law has demonstrated its absolute ineffectiveness and, furthermore, it has paved the way for that terrible and irreverent custom to spread to places where this disobedience was not common when the indult was granted. If the conditions established in it were not viable, the indult cannot be applied, and if it was only for those places where the laws of Church were not obeyed, the spread of this terrible custom - which leads to desecration - makes no sense whatsoever under any pretext. Finally, Bishop Schneider's conference shows that it is false that the current custom of receiving Communion in the hand is the same as that used by the Church during the first centuries and explains the difference between the two forms.


The manner in which the faithful receive Holy Communion shows if Holy Communion is for them not only the most sacred reality, but the most beloved and the most sacred Person. The reception of the Body of Christ in the little host requires therefore deep faith and purity of heart, and in the same time unequivocal gestures of adoration. This was the constant characteristic of Catholics from all ages, beginning with the first Christians, the Christians in the time of the Church Fathers until the times of our grandparents and parents. Even in the first centuries when in many places the sacred host was deposited by the priest on the palm of the right hand or on a white cloth which covered the right hand of the women, the faithful didn’t touch the consecrated bread with their fingers (with their tongue they took the host from the palm of their hand -or from the white cloth- and also with their tongue they picked up the loose fragments of the consecrated bread that could have been left there so that none of the particles could be lost). (1) The Holy Ghost guided the Church instructing her more deeply about the manner to treat the sacred humanity of Christ during Holy Communion. Already in the 6th century the Roman Church distributed the sacred host directly in the mouth, as it is witnessed by Pope Gregory, the Great (cf. Dial., 3). The next step we observe in the Middle Ages, when the faithful began to receive the Body of Christ kneeling, in an exteriorly clearer expression of adoration (cf. St. Columban, Regula coenobialis, 9). In our times, and there has passed already 40 years, there is a deep wound in the Mystical Body of Christ. This deep wound is the modern practice of Communion in hand, a practice which essentially differs from an analogous rite in the first centuries, as above described. This modern practice is the deepest wound in the Mystical Body of Christ because of the following four deplorable manifestations: (1) An astonishing minimalism in gestures of adoration and reverence. Generally, there is in the modern practice of Communion in hand almost an absence of every sign of adoration. (2) A gesture as one treats common food, that is: to pick up with one’s own fingers the Sacred Host from the palm of the left hand and put It by oneself in the mouth. A habitual practice of such a gesture causes in a not little number of the faithful, and especially of children and adolescents, the perception that under the Sacred Host there isn’t present the Divine Person of Christ, but rather a religious symbol, for they can treat the Sacred Host exteriorly in a way as they treat common food: touching with his own fingers and putting the food with the fingers in one’s own mouth. (3) A numerous loss of the fragments of the Sacred Host: the little fragments often fall down in the space between the minister and the communicant because of no use of Communion plate, often the fragments of the Sacred Host stick to the palm and to the both fingers of the person who receives Communion and then fall down. All these numerous fragments are often lying on the floor and crushed under the feet of the people, without them noticing the fragments. (2) (4) An increasing stealing of the Sacred Hosts, because the manner to receive It directly with one’s own hand effectively greatly facilitates such theft. There is nothing in the Church and in this earth, which is so sacred, so Divine, so alive and so personal as the Holy Communion, because It is the Eucharistic Lord Himself. And such four deplorable things do happen to Him. The modern practice of Communion in hand never existed in such an exterior form. It is incomprehensible that many persons in the Church don’t acknowledge this wound, consider this matter as secondary, and even wonder why one speaks about this theme. And what is even more incomprehensible: many persons in the Church even defend and spread this practice of Communion. It was the constant belief and practice of the Church that Christ, really present under the species of the bread, must receive an exclusively Divine adoration, which is realized interiorly as well as exteriorly (3). Such an act of adoration was called in the Holy Scripture “proskynesis”. Our Lord Jesus Christ rejected the temptations of the devil and proclaimed the first duty of all creatures: “Thou shalt adore God alone” (Math. 4, 10). Jesus used here the word “proskynesis”. In the Bible the act of adoration of God was performed exteriorly in the following manner: kneeling and bowing the head to the earth or prostration. Such an act of adoration was performed by Jesus Himself, His holy Mother the Blessed Virgin Mary and Saint Joseph when they annually visited the Temple in Jerusalem. In this manner of “proskynesis” the Body of Christ, the Incarnate God, was venerated: firstly, by the Three Wise Men (Math. 2, 11); the numerous people, who were healed be Jesus, also performed this exterior act of adoration (cf. Math. 8, 2; 9, 18; 15, 25); the women who saw the risen Lord in the Easter morning fell down in the presence of His glorious Body and adored him (Math. 28, 9); the Apostles as they saw the Body of Christ ascending into Heaven fell down and adored Him (Math. 28, 17; Luc. 24. 52); the Angels and all the redeemed and glorified Saints in the Heavenly Jerusalem prostrate themselves and adore the glorified humanity of Christ, symbolized in the “Lamb” (Apoc. 4, 10)
This gesture symbolizes that it is Christ in the person of the priest who is nourishing the faithful. Furthermore, this gesture symbolizes the attitude of humility and the spirit of spiritual infancy, which Jesus Himself requires from all who want to receive the kingdom of God (Math. 18, 3). During the Holy Communion, the sacred host is the real heavenly kingdom, because there is Christ Himself, in whose Body all the Divinity dwells (cf. Col. 2, 9). Therefore, the most appropriate exterior gesture is to receive the kingdom of God like a child, is to make oneself little, to kneel and to allow to be fed like a little child, opening the mouth. Consequently, the rite of receiving the Divine Body of Christ during Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue was elaborated during several centuries in the Church by the guidance of the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of sanctity and piety. The abolishing of explicit gestures of adoration during Holy Communion, that is the abolishing of kneeling and the abolishing of the biblically motivated gesture of receiving the Body of Christ like a child in the tongue, will surely not bring a deeper flourishing of the Eucharistic faith and devotion. The following words of the Ecumenical Council of Trent remain always valid and continue to be very up to date: “There is, therefore, no room for doubt that all the faithful of Christ may, in accordance with a custom always received in the Catholic Church, give to this most Holy Sacrament in veneration the worship of latria, which is due to God Himself. Neither is it to be less adored because it was instituted by Christ the Lord in order to be received. For we believe that in it the same God is present of whom the eternal Father, when introducing Him into the world, says: And let all the angels of God adore him (Hebr. 1, 6) (session 13, chapter 5).”

Theological and liturgical reasons for receiving Holy Communion on the knees and in the mouth

The sacred host is the most sacred and great on this earth, because here it is about the Lord Himself. Consequently there should be provided also exteriorly a manner to receive Holy Communion in such a way that will guarantee a greatest possible security against the loss even of the most little fragments of the sacred host and against the stealing of the hosts. Furthermore, the rite of Communion should express possibly in a most evident manner the sacred and sublime aspect, that means should clearer be distinguished from the gesture of taking a profane food. These exigencies express undeniably the rite to receive Communion kneeling and to allow to be “fed” by the priest, that means to allow that the sacred host be put on the tongue. On the contrary, the modern manner to receive the sacred host on the palm of the hand and after to put the host by oneself in the mouth is more likely similar to the manner to take profane food (this essentially differs from an analogous rite in the Ancient Church). Such scenes one can observe often in receptions “buffet” or in the distribution of sweets in kindergartens.
The interior aspect alone is not sufficient in the Divine worship, for God became man, became visible. An exclusively or predominantly interior worship of the sacred host during Communion with the exclusion of the exterior aspect is not incarnational. Such a Eucharistic worship is “platonic”, is protestant and ultimately gnostic. Man is essentially also visible and corporal. Consequently, the worship of the Eucharistic Body of Christ should be necessarily also exterior and corporal. Such worship is adequate to the dignity of man, even if the most important of such worship remains the interior aspect. Both aspects are inseparable one from the other.
3 The whole human body and each of his part is a temple of the Holy Ghost. Therefore, it is wrong to contrast the hand with the tongue. One should not say: “The hand is more worthy than the tongue” or the contrary. 4
Who sins is not the tongue or the hand, but the person. The sin begins in the thoughts and is imputed to the will. Therefore, it is wrong to say: “One dies sin more with the tongue than with the hand”. The tongue remains innocent, because the person is who sins with his faculties of the intellect and of the will.
5 The symbolism of the mouth expresses in a more convincing manner the spiritual and religious content: the kiss as an image of the interior and spiritualized act of love (cf. the Book of Song of Songs; Ps 84:11: “Righteousness and peace kiss each other”), but above all the liturgical kiss or the “holy fraternal kiss” (cf. 1 Cor 16:20 etc.). The word “adoration” is derived from the Latin words “os ad os” (from mouth to mouth). The word proceeds from the mouth: this is an image for the procession of the ETERNAL WORD from GOD. Jesus breathed from His mouth the Holy Ghost (cf. Jn 20:27). 6 The words “take and eat” (in Greek “labete” [λάβετε]), Mt 26:26, should be translated correctly “receive (accept) and eat”. These words were addressed immediately to the Apostles, the priests of the New Covenant and not to the totality of the faithful. Otherwise the words “Do this in memory of Me” (Lk 22:19) should consequently be addressed to the totality of the faithful, who by this would partake on the ministerial priesthood. Furthermore, the word the Greek word “lambanein” (λαμβάνειν) does not mean the touching with one’s hand, but the act of receiving. This word “lambanein” one find e.g. in the following expressions: “receive the Spirit of truth” (Jn 14:17), “Receive the Holy Spirit” (Jn 20:22) etc. In the reception of Holy Communion the question isn’t about “taking or touching with one’s hand”, but the question is about a profoundly spiritual event: “to be allowed to receive” the Eucharistic sacrament with the heart, with the souls, but also obviously with the bodily and this conveniently by tongue and kneeling. 7 The risen Lord didn’t allow that His glorious Body be touched by everybody indiscriminately (“Do not hold on to Me”, “Do not touch Me”, Jn 20:17). However, He permitted that the Apostle Thomas, therefore a priest of the New Covenant, should touch His glorious Body, and one could say His Eucharistic Body (cf. Jn 20:27). 8 In the case of the practice of Communion by tongue, a practice which lasts more than a millennium (witnessed already from the times of Pope Gregory the Great), and in the case of the Catholic Oriental churches and of all the Orthodox churches and the ancient-oriental churches, where the Holy Communion is put in the mouth and often even with a spoon, there are not known cases of deceases because of infection. From the hygienic point of view the hand has more bacteria than the tongue. 9 When nowadays one receive a very important or a venerable person, there are prepared all details in a scrupulous manner and nobody would say: “One can greet such a person also with unwashed hands or without clear signs of respect” (e.g. a King or a President). Isn’t Our Lord, present under the species of the little host, more important than a President or a King? Should there in the case of the reception of the Lord under the species of the host not be taken more detailed and more scrupulous measures than in the case when one receives of a King or a President and treats their persons? 10 In the case of the Communion in the hand the faithful himself puts the sacred Host on his tongue, ultimately also in this case we have Communion on the tongue. The difference is in the following: in the case of Communion by tongue it is the priest, representing Christ in this sacred moment, who puts the sacred Host on the tongue of the faithful. In the case of Communion in hand however, it is the faithful himself, who puts the sacred Host on his own tongue. 11 The gesture of “putting the host by oneself on the tongue” expresses surely less the aspect of receiving in comparison with the gesture of “allowing the host be put by another person”. This last gesture expresses in a very impressive way the attitude of being child before the greatness of God, Who is present in the sacred host. This gesture expresses also the truth: “unless you become like little children…” (Mt 18:3), and one could say: “unless you become infants”, for the Holy Scripture says: “Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may taste that the Lord is good” (1 Pet 2:2-3). Ultimately the “spiritual milk” is Christ Himself, and especially Christ in the Eucharistic food. The babies receive food only by mouth, the adult, however, puts himself with his hands the food in one’s mouth. The following words could be applied to the Holy Communion: “as a child that is weaned of his mother: my soul is as a weaned child”. (Ps 131:2). Indeed, Jesus didn’t say: “Unless you become adults…”, but the contrary. 12 When there is the case of the Most Holy, of the Lord Himself, then there has to be valid this principle: “What you can, you must dare to do” (“Quantum potes, tantum aude”, sequence Lauda Sion of Saint Thomas Aquinas). Therefore, here must be valid the maximum, and not the minimum of interior and at the same of exterior reverence. The littleness of the sacred host doesn’t justify treating it in the moment of Holy Communion with minimalistic gestures of adoration and sacredness.

Pastoral reasons for the general return to Communion on the tongue and kneeling down

1 The current rite of Communion in hand was never practiced in the Catholic Church, because the so called Communion in hand in the Ancient Church differed substantially from the current use, which was introduced by the Calvinists and not even by the Lutherans, who however till our days kept the traditional rite by tongue and kneeling. 2 The rite of the first centuries was in the following manner: the consecrated bread was put on the palm of the right hand, then the faithful bowed profoundly (similar as today is the gesture “metanoia” [μετἀνοια] in the Byzantine rite) and took the Communion directly with the mouth without touching the consecrated bread with the fingers. Furthermore, with the tongue the faithful could collect from the palm of his hand the fragments which eventually were loosed from the consecrated bread so that none of the fragments might be lost. Women received the consecrated bread upon a white cloth, called “dominicale”. 3 In the current rite, wrongly declared as a rite of the ancient Church, the faithful receives the host not upon the right but upon the left hand and then he takes the host with the fingers and puts himself the Communion in his mouth. This manner was invented by the Calvinists already in the 17th century. From the point of view of the gesture such a rite rather is like a form of self-Communion and like the manner to take common food. 4 Pope Paul VI, giving the possibility of an indult for receiving Communion in hand (cf. Instruction “Memoriale Domini” from May 29th, 1969), requested however that the traditional rite be retained in the whole Church: “This (i.e. the traditional) manner of distributing holy Communion must be retained, regarding the current state of the Church as whole”. All the more: in the same document the Holy See exhorted vehemently the bishops, priests and faithful to observe diligently the currently valid law and confirms again the law to receive holy Communion in the traditional manner (cf. ibd.). Already during the Second Vatican Council the Pope Paul VI stated in his encyclical “Mysterium fidei” from 1965, that there should not be changed the rite of the Holy Communion with reference to a custom from the Ancient Church: “Nor should we forget that in ancient times the faithful—whether being harassed by violent persecutions or living in solitude out of love for monastic life—nourished themselves even daily on the Eucharist, by receiving Holy Communion from their own hands when there was no priest or deacon present. We are not saying this with any thought of effecting a change in the manner of keeping the Eucharist and of receiving Holy Communion that has been laid down by subsequent ecclesiastical laws still in force; Our intention is that we may rejoice over the faith of the Church which is always one and the same” (nn. 62–63). Some years before the Pope Pius XII in the same sense warned against changing current reverent Eucharistic rites and customs “No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation. This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism” (Encyclical “Mediator Dei”, nn. 63–64). 5 The reasons of Paul VI in favor of the traditional rite of Communion are also today valid and even more than ever: 1. The truth about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharistic mystery was deeper penetrated by the Church (cf. ibid.). 2. The urgency of a greater exterior reverence (cf. ibid.). 3. The feeling of humility towards this Sacrament on behalf of who receives It (cf. ibid.). 4. It is about a tradition of many centuries (cf. ibid.). 5. It guarantees in a more efficacious manner the solemnity and dignity of the moment of the distribution of Communion (cf. ibid.). 6. It prevents in a more efficacious manner from the danger of profanation of the sacred species (cf. ibid.). 7. By the traditional manner is retained in a more diligent way the care of the Church that no fragment of the consecrated bread might be lost (cf. ibid.). 6 The misgivings of Pope Paul VI were realized in an indisputable manner, based on the experience of Communion in the hand in the past 40 years: 1. The diminishing of the reverence towards the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Altar (cf. ibid.). 2. 2) The profanations of the same Sacrament (cf. ibid.). 3. 3) The alteration of the right doctrine and the Eucharistic faith (cf. ibid.). 7 The conditions under which Pope Paul VI granted the possibility of such an indult have not been observed or fulfilled in a general manner today such a required observation of the conditions became even worse. Paul VI required that any danger had to be avoided (cf. ibid.): 1. the danger of the defect of reverence, 2. the insinuation of wrong opinions about the Holy Eucharist, 3. other improper things. 8 Furthermore, Pope Paul VI expected that the new manner of the rite of Communion would bring an increase of the faith and of the piety of the faithful (cf. ibid.). This expectation, however, is contradicted nowadays by the facts because of the Communion in hand. 9 In view of the real dangers and considering the negative opinion of the majority of the Catholic episcopate, which was consulted on this subject in 1968, the Instruction “Memoriale Domini” says that Pope Paul VI doesn’t think that the traditional rite of administering Communion to the faithful should be changed (cf. ibid.). 10 The current rite of Communion in hand, which never belonged to the liturgical patrimony of the Catholic Church (because it was invented by the Calvinists and differs substantially from the rite in the first centuries of the Church), caused and continues to cause a damage with real worrying dimensions, that is: damaging the right Eucharistic faith, the reverence and the care with the Eucharistic fragments on the limit of the bearable. 11 The Eucharist is the culmination and the source of the entire life of the Church (Vatican II), the Church lives from the Eucharist (Encyclical and testament of John Paul II) and the Eucharist is consequently the very heart of the Church. The real crisis of the Church of today reveals itself in the manner in which this source and this heart are concretely treated. However, because of Communion in the hand and standing, the Most Holy is treated with a real minimalism of exterior reverence and sacredness and moreover the consecrated bread, the most precious treasure of the Church, is exposed with an astonishing carelessness to an enormous loss of the Eucharistic fragments and to an ever more increasing steeling for sacrilegious aims. These are facts no one with good faith can deny. 12 The very crisis of the Church of today is a Eucharistic crisis and more concretely the crisis caused in a decisive manner by Communion in hand, a crisis prognosticated by Paul VI and demonstrated nowadays by the facts. An authentic reform of the Church and a real new evangelization remain less efficacious, if the principal disease is not cured, that is the Eucharistic crisis in general and more concretely the crisis caused by the rite of Communion in hand. A disease is cured more efficaciously not with the cure of the symptoms, but with the cure of the concrete cause. One speaks certainly in a more general and theoretical manner about the necessity of a greater reverence and care of the consecrated bread. However, until there will remain the concrete cause of irreverence and of the generalized carelessness, i.e. Communion in hand, the speeches and necessary programs of a reform and of a new evangelization will not bring a great effect in the sphere of the faith and the Eucharistic piety, which is the heart of the life of the Church. 13 The littlest one, the most fragile one, the most defenseless one nowadays in the Church is the Eucharistic Lord under the Eucharistic species in the moment of the distribution of Holy Communion. Would it be not a most logical demand of the faith and of the love towards the Eucharistic Lord and a most necessary pastoral measure to provide that there might be a possibly most sacred and most safe manner of distributing Communion in order to defend the Eucharistic Lord Who is the most fragile and in the same time the most sacred? Such a more sacred and more safe manner is the rite of Communion by tongue and kneeling, which has borne abundant fruits during more than a thousand years, as has been recalled by Pope Paul VI and also his successors, especially Pope Benedict XVI. 14 One can adduce pastoral reasons in favor of continuing with the practice of Communion in the hand, as for example the right of the faithful to choose. Such a right, however, violates—considering the general proportions of the practice—the right that the Eucharistic Jesus has, i.e. the right to the greatest possible sacredness and reverence. In this regard it is about the right of the most fragile in the Church. All the reasons in favor of the continuation of the practice of Communion in the hand lose their weight confronting the gravity of the situation of the minimalism of reverence and sacredness, the obvious danger of carelessness and loss of the fragments and of the increasing steeling of the consecrated hosts. The continuation of the use of the indult of Communion in the hand cannot be said to be a pastoral need, because it damages the faith and the piety of the faithful and it damages the rights of the Eucharistic Lord Himself. 15 Great Saints who reformed the Church and true apostolic souls in the history of the Church have said: the spiritual progress of an epoch of the Church is measured by the manner of reverence and devotion towards the Sacrament of the Altar. Saint Thomas Aquinas has expressed this truth very concisely: “Sic nos Tu visita, sicut Te colimus” (Saint Thomas Aquinas, hymn “Sacris solemniis”): Lord, visit us to the extent as we venerate you! This is valid also for our days: the Lord will visit His Church nowadays with special graces of an authentic renewal. December 15, 2013, Hong Kong Liturgical Formation Seminar 2013-2014 *NOTES (1) The text in brackets is explained by Bishop Schneider later in this conference. (2) There will be those who say that it is exaggerated, that there can always be particles in one way or another, but it is one thing that a microparticle cannot be humanly controlled, for example, flying unnoticed to our eyes, and another very different is that it falls down through our fault, negligence, cowardice and / or the way we receive Holy Communion. It is true that even receiving it on our knees, in the mouth and without a tray this can also happen -another irresponsibility of the priest-, but it is infinitely less possible than if we subject the Host to the friction of contact with the hands. (3) The Catechism of Saint Pius X teaches: 6 Q. Is it not enough internally to adore God with the heart alone? A. No, it is not enough internally to adore God with the heart alone; we must also adore Him externally with both soul and body, because He is the Creator and absolute Lord of both. 3 Q. How do we fulfill the First Commandment? A. We fulfill the First Commandment by the practice of internal and external worship. 26 Q. Ought the Eucharist to be adored? A. The Eucharist ought to be adored by all because it contains really, truly, and substantially, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. (4) Other multiple biblical references like these ones can be made. _________________________________________ Bishop Athanasius Schneider Anton Schneider was born in Tokmok, (Kirghiz, Former Soviet Union). In 1973, shortly after receiving his First Communion from the hand of Blessed Oleksa Zaryckyj, priest and martyr, he went with his family to Germany. When he joined the Canons Regular of the Holy Cross of Coimbra, a Catholic religious order, he adopted the name Athanasius (Athanasius). He was ordained a priest on March 25, 1990. In 1999, he began teaching Patrology at the Mary, Mother of the Church seminary in Karaganda. On June 2, 2006, he was consecrated bishop on the Altar of the Chair of Saint Peter in the Vatican by Cardinal Angelo Sodano. In 2011 he was appointed as auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Holy Mary in Astana (Kazakhstan), which has about one hundred thousand Catholics out of a total population of four million inhabitants. Bishop Athanasius Schneider is the current Secretary General of the Episcopal Conference of Kazakhstan. Source: Adelante la Fe. Introduction and notes from Catolicidad

Tuesday, September 15, 2020



 Does how I dress make a difference in how a guy treats me? 

Absolutely. Men can tell how much a woman respects herself by how she dresses. If her sexual value is the first impression she gives to a man, she’ll be more likely to encounter the type of guys who want to use her body. They might say or do whatever is necessary to get access to it. But after she gives in, they often lose respect for her, get bored, and leave. Meanwhile, she’s left thinking, “Maybe if I had been skinnier, or had done more with him sexually, he would have liked me more and stayed longer.” No, but he may have used her longer… 

 Modesty is a bold statement of your worth because it invites men to consider something deeper about you. It tells a guy that he can take you seriously as a woman, because you don’t need to make boys gawk at you in order to feel secure. I’ll grant that guys will stare at a girl who wears a short skirt that could be mistaken for a wide belt. But none of them respect her more because of it. As a woman, do you long to be gawked at or to be loved? 

 If your heart is saying, “Is this too short?” or “Is this too tight?” listen to that intuition because it has answered your question. Stand in front of a mirror and ask, “What am I drawing attention to with this outfit?” Is this outfit saying that the best thing about me is my body, or does it announce that I’m worth waiting to see?” 

 Modesty does not mean looking unattractive or covering every inch of your body as if it’s bad or dirty. Like a bride wearing a veil, clothing conceals a woman’s body as an invitation of respect. Your body is a tabernacle for life and a temple of the Holy Spirit, not a collection of body parts. But if you don’t realize this about yourself, how will a man? 

 - Jason Evert, Pure Love Taken from La Dama Católica https://www.facebook.com/damacatolica/

Sunday, September 13, 2020


Oh my Lady, oh my Mother, I offer myself entirely to you. As proof of my filial affection, I consecrate you on this day, my eyes, my ears, my tongue, my heart: in one word, my entire being. Since I am all yours, oh Good Mother, keep me and defend me as your child, and your possession. Amen. 

Friday, September 11, 2020



 Then, forced by God, the demons said to Saint Dominic: 

“… This Mother of Christ is omnipotent, and can prevent her servants from falling into hell. She, like a sun, dissipates the darkness of our cunning machinations. Discovers our intrigues, breaks our nets and reduces all uselessness our temptations WE ARE FORCED to confess that no one who perseveres in his service condemns with us. 

“A single sigh that she presents to the Holy Trinity is worth more than all the prayers, vows and desires of all the saints We fear her more than all the blessed together and we can do nothing against her faithful servants. 

"Also keep in mind that many Christians who invoke her at death and who should be condemned according to ordinary laws, are saved thanks to her intercession. We have to add, with greater clarity and precision - BOUND by the violence they cause us - that no one who perseveres in the prayer of the Rosary will be condemned. Because she obtains for her faithful devotees the true contrition of sins, so that they may confess them and achieve their forgiveness.” 

 Saint Louis Marie Grignion de Montfort, The Secret of the Rosary 

Tuesday, September 8, 2020



It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins." (2 Machabees 12:46) . 

Who is in more urgent need of our charity than the souls in Purgatory? What hunger, or thirst, or dire sufferings on Earth can compare to their dreadful torments? Neither the poor, nor the sick, nor the suffering, we see around us, have such an urgent need of our help. Yet we find many good-hearted people who interest themselves in every other type of suffering, but alas! scarcely one who works for the Holy Souls. When they are finally released from their pains and enjoy the beatitude of Heaven, far from forgetting their friends on earth, their gratitude knows no bounds. Prostrate before the Throne of God, they never cease to pray for those who helped them. By their prayers they shield their friends from many dangers and protect them from the evils that threaten them. 

Sunday, September 6, 2020


“Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the Apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism”may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that “those who are not with Christ are against Him,” and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.”


Encyclical Letter of Pope Gregory XVI promulgated on August 15, 1832.

Friday, September 4, 2020


"Christian life is not for cowards, for those who want to make a pact with their enemies, and win a false peace, the peace of the defeated and of the slave. With the weapons of faith, with the weapons of prayer, with the weapons of flight of occasions, in a permanent state of militia, we will win under the banner of our high King and Captain Jesus Christ. He told us: "Have confidence. I have overcome the world." We must all fight behind Jesus Christ the great battle of our fidelity to Him until the end!"

Father José María Alba Cereceda

Tuesday, September 1, 2020


"All sinners must bear in mind that there is a great difference between sinning by habit (with obstinacy) and sinning accidentally (by weakness); and know that it is necessary for us to stop committing habitual sins while WE ARE IS STILL ALIVE and not wait at the time of our death..."

"For the salvation of my soul, it is so necessary for me to get out of the habit of sinning, because habitual sins are the ones that lead men to Hell ..."

Saint Francis Xavier

Friday, August 28, 2020


Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.

Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

-MATTHEW 7:15-23, Douay Rheims

For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.
But be thou vigilant...

-2 TIMOTHY 4:3-5, Douay Rheims

Monday, August 24, 2020


Hopefully parents will never forget that their authority comes from God! And hopefully family life will be founded on this holy foundation! The whole society creaks and wobbles. Who will save it? The government? Politicians? Political parties? Social policies or reforms? What will save it? Rallies or strikes? Or perhaps speeches? None of this can save it.

The remedy is this: strengthen family life, renew it on Christian grounds.

We need a regeneration, but a spiritual regeneration, a moral regeneration. We need families, fathers, mothers, children, to faithfully observe the Decalogue. Families in whose sanctuary the Kingdom of God is respected. Families in which Christ is the law. Families that in the midst of this frozen world raise the Cross of Christ, and be raised by the Cross of Christ.

Bishop Tihamer Toth

Saturday, August 22, 2020


Just as in the natural life, a child must have a father and a mother, so in the supernatural life of grace a true child of the Church must have God for his Father and Mary for his mother. If he prides himself on having God for his Father but does not give to Mary the tender affection of a true child, he is an impostor and his father is the devil.

Saint Louis Marie de Montfort
“The Secret of Mary”

Wednesday, August 19, 2020


By Carlos Esteban

She is a staunch supporter of induced abortion in all cases and in all terms.

INFOVATICANA. “Catholic” candidate Joe Biden has already chosen who is going to accompany him the to the White House as his vice president: the Democrat, also a candidate for the nomination in the Democratic primaries, Kamala Harris, an unconditional ally of the abortion multinational, Planned Parenthood.

Biden often uses his status of practicing "Catholic" in his electoral campaigns, although he is an advocate of abortion, homosexual marriage and whatever the platform of the Democratic Party submits to him, which does not prevent many "Catholic" publications, drawing on the doctrine of the 'seamless robe' formulated by the late Cardinal Bernardin, to make an ill-concealed campaign for him.

It is very likely that it was the party that “suggested” Harris's presence and, on the other hand, that the figure of the vice president - a normally almost ornamental position - becomes essential, since she has all the ballots to 'inherit' the most powerful judiciary on the planet.

And that's the problem, because Harris is hostile to religious freedom and an abortion fanatic. While she was Attorney General of California, Harris came to defend Planned Parenthood with all her might when the abortion giant was accused - with video recordings that do not allow the slightest trace of doubt - of selling to laboratories at a very good price tissues of aborted fetuses. Instead of investigating Planned Parenthood for this outrageous trafficking, Harris announced that she would investigate those responsible for the recordings and, therefore, of the scandalous discovery, the journalists of the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), even ordering an immediate and exhaustive search of the home of CMP head David Daleiden, whilst accepting huge donations from Planned Parenthood for his Senate campaign.

A campaign, by the way, during which she boasted of forcing companies owned by religious people and pro-life centers to violate their consciences. What better partner for 'Catholic' Biden?

Saturday, August 15, 2020


“After we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory."

~Pope Pius XII under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and after consulting all the bishops of the Catholic Church, and listening to the sentiments of the faithful, on November 1, 1950, solemnly defined with his supreme apostolic authority, the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This was proclaimed in the Constitution "Munificentissimus Deus"

Wednesday, August 12, 2020


In an official statement, the Vatican has indicated that Baptism is not valid when these words are used with a modified formula invented by Modernists.

Vatican, 7.08.2020. - Changing the words of the formula for baptism render the sacrament invalid, said the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Specifically, a Baptism administered with the formula “We baptize you …” instead of “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” is not valid because it is the person of Christ through the minister who is acting, not the assembly.

The doctrinal congregation’s ruling was published yesterday as a brief response to questions regarding the validity of Baptisms using that modified formula.

The congregation was asked whether a Baptism was valid if it had been performed with a formula that seeks to express the “communitarian significance” and participation of the family and those present during the celebration.


For example, it said there have been celebrations administered with the words:

“In the name of the father and of the mother, of the godfather and of the godmother, of the grandparents, of the family members, of the friends, in the name of the community we baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.”

A Baptism administered with this kind of modified formula is not valid, the Congregation said, and the Baptisms would have to be redone for those individuals who had been baptized with the improvised wording.


The correct formula in the Rite of the Sacrament of Baptism spoken by the bishop, priest or deacon is:

“I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

The doctrinal congregation said modifying “the form of the celebration of a sacrament does not constitute simply a liturgical abuse, like the transgression of a positive norm, but a ‘vulnus’ (wound) inflicted upon the ecclesial communion and the identifiability of Christ’s action, and in the most grave cases rendering invalid the sacrament itself".

Friday, August 7, 2020


Gabriel García Moreno (Guayaquil, December 24, 1821 - Quito, August 6, 1875) was an Ecuadorian statesman, lawyer, politician, journalist and writer, twice constitutional president of the Republic of Ecuador, Catholic and martyr.

On the First Friday of August 1875, while leaving the Cathedral of Quito, after spending a Holy Hour before the Blessed Sacrament, as the great lover of the Sacred Heart of Jesus he was, he was assassinated by the henchmen of the Masonic sect. He died exclaiming: "God does not die!"

He is known as the "Thomas More of America." Lawyer, politician, president of Ecuador from 1861 to 1865, and from 1869 until his assassination, Gabriel García Moreno forms part of the history of Latin America as the important statesman who had a providential task: to bring Ecuador out of chaos, to sign a Concordat with the Holy See and consecrate his country to the Heart of Jesus.

He always denounced, with great wisdom, the evil that since then already afflicted our nations:

"Gentlemen, the great crime of our days is the vile apostasy of all the nations of the earth. All governments have failed to recongnize the social rights of Jesus Christ and His Church.”

Wednesday, August 5, 2020

Joe Biden endorsed by pro-abortion NARAL

NARAL announces its support for Joe Biden without subterfuge to "protect and expand access to abortion and birth control." Joe Biden even criticized the Roe vs. Wade who legalized abortion in the United States, but today is a convinced pro-abortionist.

CNA Staff, Jul 29, 2020 / 12:30 pm MT (CNA).- The abortion-rights group NARAL has endorsed Joe Biden for president, just over a year after the group issued a scathing statement demanding he reverse his support for the Hyde Amendment.

“NARAL Pro-Choice America and our 2.5 million members are committed to powering Vice President Biden to victory this November and working with his administration to protect and expand access to abortion care and birth control,” said a statement from NARAL President Ilyse Hogue announcing the endorsement on July 27.

A Biden presidency would “stand for freedom over Donald Trump’s desire to control women,” and would “put a stop to Trump’s dangerous anti-choice political agenda when so much hangs in the balance,” she said.

As recently as 2003, while still serving in the U.S. Senate, Biden received a 36% rating from NARAL. In 2007, his last full year as a senator prior to being elected vice president, Biden received a 75% rating from NARAL, although he had received perfect 100% ratings in 2004, 2005, and 2006. Those years featured one roll-call vote on abortion legislation.

In June 2019, NARAL released a statement criticizing Biden for his support of the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of taxpayer funding for abortions. Hogue said at that time that there was “no political or ideological excuse for Joe Biden’s support for the Hyde Amendment, which translates into discrimination against poor women and women of color plain and simple.”

Hogue added that Biden’s support of Hyde “further endangers women and families,” and that abortion protections are one of the Democratic Party’s “core values.”

Shortly after NARAL’s statement, Biden flip-flopped on his decades-long support for the Hyde Amendment and announced he was opposed to the policy.

NARAL’s endorsement of Biden is another milestone on the Democratic candidate’s journey to full support for abortion.

Shortly after the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, Biden stated that he believed the court went “too far” in its ruling making abortion legal.

In the following decades, Biden’s pro-life votes and opinions continued. He lent his name to the “Biden Amendment,” which banned the use of federal funds for biomedical research involving abortion or involuntary sterilization in 1981. In 1984, Biden voted for the Mexico City Policy, which bans the use of federal aid money to pay for abortions.

Biden repeatedly voted in favor of the Hyde Amendment, and in 1995 and 1997 he voted to ban the late-term abortion technique partial-birth abortion.

In 2003, he broke with the Democratic members of the Senate and voted again for a ban on partial-birth abortion, helping to pass that bill into law.

Three years later, in 2006, Biden told Texas Monthly in an interview that he did “not view abortion as a choice and a right,” and that he considered it to be “always a tragedy.”

Biden, in 2006, said that he believed that abortion should be both “rare and safe,” and suggested that “we should be focusing on how to limit the number of abortions.”

In 2012, when running for a second term as vice president, Biden stated during the vice presidential debate that his personal social doctrine has been “particularly informed” by his Catholic faith.

“With regard to abortion, I accept my Church's position that life begins at conception,” said Biden. “That's the Church's judgment. I accept it in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews and--I just refuse to impose that on others.”

The 2016 Democratic Platform included, for the first time, a plank in its platform pledging to overturn the Hyde Amendment.

By 2019, Biden, defending himself against Sen. Kamala Harris during a Democratic presidential candidate debate, stated that he believed abortion to be a “constitutional right.”

“I've supported it and I will continue to support it and I will, in fact, move as president to see to it that the Congress legislates that that is the laws as well,” said Biden.

Biden, who has made his Catholicism a campaign issue, has clashed repeatedly with Church authorities over his growing support for abortion.

In October 2019, he was refused Communion at a Catholic church in South Carolina. The priest denied Biden Communion in accord with a 2004 diocesan policy that prohibits politicians who have been supportive of legal protection for abortion from receiving the Eucharist.

“Catholic public officials who consistently support abortion on demand are cooperating with evil in a public manner. By supporting pro-abortion legislation they participate in manifest grave sin, a condition which excludes them from admission to Holy Communion as long as they persist in the pro-abortion stance,” says a 2004 decree signed jointly by the bishops of Atlanta, Charleston, and Charlotte.

At the time Biden was denied Communion, his website stated that one of his priorities as president would be to “work to codify Roe v. Wade” into federal law, and that “his Justice Department will do everything in its power to stop the rash of state laws that so blatantly violate the constitutional right to an abortion,” including laws requiring waiting periods, ultrasounds, and parental notification of a minor’s abortion.

“Vice president Biden supports repealing the Hyde Amendment because healthcare is a right that should not be dependent on one’s zip code or income,” said his website.

More recently, Biden has vowed to overturn religious freedom protections and force the Little Sisters of the Poor and similar groups to provide contraception, sterilizations, and abortifacients through employee health coverage.

Earlier this month, following a Supreme Court ruling upholding an executive order by the Trump administration providing conscience protections for the so-called contraceptive mandate, Biden expressed his “disappointment” in the court’s decision and disagreement with the exemption for the sisters, adding that there is “a clear path to fixing it: electing a new president.”

Taken from: CNA

Friday, July 31, 2020


WE ARE WHAT WE ARE, NOT WHAT WE WANT OR IMAGINE TO BE  We once again recall what Gilbert K. Chesterton already warned: "There will come a time when we will have to prove that the leaves of the trees are green." That time has come!  Geneticist Nettie Stevens (Cavendish (Vermont), July 7, 1861 - Baltimore, May 4, 1912) found that an egg fertilized by a sperm carrying a large chromosome ("X") produced a female and, conversely, if the sperm carried the small chromosome ("Y"), it would give rise to a male. The graphic illustrates -in human beings- the pair of sex chromosomes of men and women.  Labels: Homosexuality, memes

We once again recall what Gilbert K. Chesterton already warned: "There will come a time when we will have to prove that the leaves of the trees are green." That time has come! 

 Geneticist Nettie Stevens (Cavendish (Vermont), July 7, 1861 - Baltimore, May 4, 1912) found that an egg fertilized by a sperm carrying a large chromosome ("X") produced a female and, conversely, if the sperm carried the small chromosome ("Y"), it would give rise to a male. The graphic illustrates -in human beings- the pair of sex chromosomes of men and women. 

Tuesday, July 28, 2020

Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart by Pope Leo XIII

Most sweet Jesus, Redeemer of the human race, look down upon us humbly prostrate before Thy altar. We are Thine, and Thine we wish to be; but, to be more surely united with Thee, behold each one of us freely consecrates himself today to Thy Most Sacred Heart. Many indeed have never known Thee; many too, despising Thy precepts, have rejected Thee. Have mercy on them all, most merciful Jesus, and draw them to Thy Sacred Heart.

Be Thou King, O Lord, not only of the faithful who have never forsaken Thee, but also of the prodigal children who have abandoned Thee; grant that they may quickly return to their Father's house lest they die of wretchedness and hunger.

Be Thou King of those who are deceived by erroneous opinions, or whom discord keeps aloof; call them back to the harbor of truth and unity of faith, so that soon there may be but one flock and one Shepherd.

Be Thou King of all those who are still involved in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism; refuse not to draw them all into the light and kingdom of God. Turn Thine eyes of mercy toward the children of that race, once Thy chosen people: of old they called down upon themselves the Blood of the Savior; may it now descend upon them a laver of redemption and of life.

Grant, O Lord, to Thy Church assurance of freedom and immunity from harm; give peace and order to all nations, and make the earth resound from pole to pole with one cry: Praise to the Divine Heart that wrought our salvation; to It be glory and Honor forever. Amen.

Saturday, July 25, 2020


If I could give one single advice for my friends who are married it would be this: Be generous in having children. Children make us better human beings. What a child does for you, no other experience will do.

Traveling the world makes you successful and it is very rewarding, independence is nice. Still nothing will change you so permanently as a child does.

Forget about that story that children cost a lot of money. Children turn you into a conscious and economic consumer: you start buying your clothes in outlets instead of buying them in Calvin Klein, because after all it is only clothes. And your tennis shoes from last year are still good and comfortable, they can last 5 more years... you already have other priorities and only two feet.

You work heartily and with more dedication, after all there is a little being totally dependent on you, and that gives you a push that no other situation would give you. Children make us exceed all limits.

You start to worry about doing something for the world. Separate waste, community work, products that use less plastic. You are your child's example of being a good human being and nothing can be greater than that.

Food becomes important, it is no longer a good option to eat between meals chocolates with Coca-Cola, you offer your child a banana and water. You start to take more care of your health, you eat the vegetables that they leave on their plate. You plant vegetables in your garden to have fresh food.

You can stop drinking sodas even for weeks. A child gives you about 25 more years of life.

You believe in God more than ever and even learn how to pray. In your child's first illness, almost as an instinct you kneel down and ask God to take care of him. And so, your child teaches you how to have faith and gratitude as no priest is capable of teaching you. And you also learn that you must raise your children with deep convictions that allow them to be good people to one day come to God.

A child makes you a more prudent person: never again will you drive without your seatbelt on, risky drive, or drink and drive, for the simple fact that you cannot die (not so early) Who would raise and love your children in the same way you do if you die?! A child makes you want to be alive more than ever...

But if you still do not think that these reasons are worth it, let it be because of that indecipherable charm that sons and daughters have...

Have children to feel the smell of their hair always scented, to have the pleasure of feeling their little arms around your neck, to hear your name (now mom or dad) being said with that squeaky little voice.

Have children to see that smile and get that tight hug when you get home and feel that you are the most important person in the whole world for that little being.

Have children to get kissed with that breath that no Listerine can give. Have children to see in them your same smile and the walk of their dad, and understand the importance of having a part of you loose in the world. Have children to re-learn the delight of a bubble bath, of cold water in the heat, of running with your dog, of eating a mango without cleaning.

Fulfill the duty of fertility. Have children, knowing that very few things will teach you so much. Have children because you have a lot to learn from them.

Unknown autor
Image taken from Flores Photography Studio

Wednesday, July 22, 2020


"The demon takes away the shame to sin and returns it to you so you don't confess."

Saint Augustine

Monday, July 20, 2020


"The Lord revealed to St. Catherine of Sienna, that he, in his goodness, had granted to Mary, from love to his only begotten Son, whose mother she is, that not even one sinner, who commends himself devoutly to her, should be the prey of hell."

Saint Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, The Glories of Mary, Chapter VIII, 1

Friday, July 17, 2020


Keep, therefore, the words of Holy Scripture before your eyes: "He who loves his life, loses it; and he who hates his life in this world, keeps it unto life everlasting" [John 12:25].

"Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, that we should live according to the flesh, for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the spirit you put to death the deeds of the flesh, you will live" [Rom. 8:12].

Wednesday, July 15, 2020


“There is no other subject on which the average mind is so much confused as the subject of tolerance and intolerance. Tolerance is always supposed to be desirable because it is taken to be synonymous with broadmindedness. Intolerance is always supposed to be undesirable, because it is taken to be synonymous with narrow-mindedness. This is not true, for tolerance and intolerance apply to two totally different things. Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to principles. Intolerance applies only to principles, but never to persons. We must be tolerant to persons because they are human; we must be intolerant about principles because they are divine. We must be tolerant to the erring, because ignorance may have led them astray; but we must be intolerant to the error, because Truth is not our making, but God's.”

Bishop Fulton J. Sheen.