Today, the 11th of the month saw the sunrise on Rome at 5:52.
It will duly set at 20:22.
The Ave Maria Bell in the curial reckoning should ring at 20:45. A new cycle as of today.
This is probably NeoCat rubbish but it is instructive. BTW… the one who posted this tweet is not approving of what it shows, he’s explaining the underlying thought.
Todos a beber del cáliz. La Misa es un banquete fraternal, el altar es una mesa, no hay presencia real de Cristo después de la consagración. Así que nada, a beber el puro símbolo. pic.twitter.com/e0aAsY4OD2
— César Martín Pérez (@MartinP_Cesar) May 10, 2026
Everyone drinks from the chalice. The Mass is a fraternal banquet, the altar is a table, there is no real presence of Christ after the consecration. So nothing, let’s drink the pure symbol.
No “danger of profanation” there. Nope. Not at all. An the the TLM must be suppressed, right? But I guess what those folks are doing is okay because … why?… it’s in keeping with Vatican II and the TLM isn’t? Show me in Sacrosanctum Concilium anything that justifies that. Does anyone think that that is what the Council Fathers were voting for? Denial of transubstantiation?
I was thrown out of my US seminary by the prof (heretic priest slime) who, in class, explicitly denied the Church’s teaching on transubstantiation. I fought him in class when he stated that “no real change takes place”.
Shall I tell you about it? It was a matter of great personal suffering followed by years of more suffering.
This heretic stated in class that when the “ordained minister [we are all ministers, you see, some ordained and some non-ordained], says the words of institution [not consecration] over bread and wine “no real change takes place.” Wait for it. “No real change takes place. It becomes [and this is word for word] a symbol of the unity of the community gathered there in that moment”.
How many things are wrong with that?
I had been good. I had kept my head down. Then… I raised my hand.
I asked about transubstantiation.
“How”, I asked, “does that reflect the Church’s teaching on transubstantiation?”
“The Church no longer teaches transubstantiation.”
“When did that happen?”, I asked.
He said, “With Vatican II.”
“Okay,”, I admitted, “let’s say that Vatican II did that. Can you tell me how that harmonizes with what the Church used to teach on transubstantiation?”
He said that transubstantiation wasn’t a valid term, because we don’t adhere anymore to Aristotelean categories of substance and accident, form and matter, and all that.
I then asked him why Paul VI in his encyclical on the Eucharist, during Vatican II, said that we had to refer to transubstantiation, even when we use new ways to describe the Eucharist.
He became furious.
Purple, he ranted at me about outdated Aristotelean categories, blah blah blah.
I responded… and this, dear readers, was my Battle of Asculum,…
“I grew up Lutheran. Even Lutherans believe more than you do!”
Soon after, the rector had a heart attack and he, rector of vice (not kidding, but that’s another story), became the rector.
The next day he threw me out of the hell on earth that was our seminary, back in the day.
Yep. I’ve been fighting this fight for a long time. I take this issue seriously. Some of you younger priests and seminarians haven’t fought this fight yet. You will. In that day, find us older guys, with the scars. We’ll help you.
(BTW… a now well-know Archbishop and St. Therese de Lisieux got me back in.)
May I suggest to all priests reading this to review the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist and preach it clearly and boldly?
May I suggest to all priests and bishops to revive the Forty Hours Devotion?
May I suggest to all lay people to ask, request, beg, cajole, demand, urge the return of devotions such as Forty Hours and frequent Exposition and Benediction?
There there is this:
Black. Mate = 4 Easy
