It's really soul-disturbing when you go to Mass and realize that what the priest is doing and saying is so wrong, you don't even feel as though you've been to Mass. And, for the record, of course you've been to Mass: The priest, no matter how off base (to put it very mildly), does not alter your intention, thankfully.
So to the point, this past weekend, I happened to attend Mass at a Detroit parish I sometimes go to, but it was not the usual faithful pastor. It was, in fact, a Redemptorist missionary, who seemed to use the entire Mass as a personal showcase just to collect money, blowing off theology as some kind of irritant.
He changed the words here and there to his own fancy (not the words of institution, by the way) and made some rather strange connections between the readings, which you might recall were from Samuel, where Nathan is sent by God to tell David why he is concerning himself with building God a place to dwell.
This notably happened with the gospel, where the angel Gabriel comes to Our Lady to announce God's plan of salvation and her critical role. As the priest read the gospel, he dropped a key word here, like, for example, "He shall be called holy, the Son of God." He just blew over holy. Okay, maybe he just misread it. It's possible, but that's such a familiar passage that even the laity practically have it memorized.
But the goodwill you extend was already wearing thin up to this point because, even before the homily, he'd already talked about giving him money, changed from "the Lord be with you to the Lord is with you," which is a hallmark of these modernist priests — they freelance their way through the prayers.
And he was winging his way through some other parts, including using the phrase "Father God," which, while not incorrect, is first not in the sacramentary and typically associated with some Protestant denominations.
So the goodwill was quickly evaporating. And here's a point on this: The Mass does not belong to the priest, not even the pope. He is merely the man who offers it. It is the Church's, so it is arrogant as Hell for a priest to enter the sanctuary in the temple of God and ignore the prayers, butcher the readings and freelance his way through various parts.
But then came the "homily" — and we use the term with great warning. I didn't stay for all of it because, about two or three minutes into it. I got up and left and went to the back of the Church and into the vestibule because I could not sit there and listen to him insulting the Queen of Heaven as well as lying to the people.
Again, modernist priests destroy innocent souls. They deprive them of the truth. So here's what he said. He said what we learn from the first reading is that we oftentimes have to change our plans. He said that Nathan told King David that he didn't think it was a good idea for him to build a temple. No, God told Nathan to tell David. Nathan didn't do that on his own accord.
But "Father" attributed the direction to Nathan, leaving God completely out of the account, and then he segued to saying that, just like Nathan told David to change his plans, the angel told Mary to change her plans. What plans would those be? According to "Father" (this is almost a direct quote), "Mary had planned to marry Joesph and raise a family with him and have lots of children."
No, she had not planned that. That was it. I got up and went to the back fuming, wondering if I should confront him after Mass and if I were to do so, should I do it within earshot of other people or not. Standing in the back, I sort of came to the conclusion that I wouldn't because he was just another modernist cleric who uses the Mass as his own stage to promote his own heresy. (So what good would it do?)
That was my mind when I went back to the pew. But, at some point, it came to me that, change his mind or not, the Queen of Heaven deserved to have her honor defended to this impostor.
So I did approach him privately, and, given his somewhat advanced age, I held out a hope, dimly, that he was just another man who had been theologically perverted in seminary and just didn't know about Our Lady's vow of chastity — even after marrying Joseph.
So I said, "Father, I wanted to ask you about something you said in your homily, about Mary having plans to have lots of children. She had no such plans. She had taken the lifetime vow of chastity which is laid out in the book of Deuteronomy." He said, "How do you know what was in her mind?" This, of course, begs the question, "How did he know what was in her mind when he claimed she was planning on raising a big family?"
I said, "Because it says it in the gospel, Father: That's why she was confused when the archangel Gabriel said she would conceive." The rite for all this is from Deuteronomy, which says that a woman may choose this path and still get married if her father and future husband both agree to it.
While not common, it was common enough that there was a process for it in the law. And, moreover, it was done to preserve oneself for God and God alone, a higher calling because of the sacrifice involved. Likewise, the future husband would also have to consent because of the sacrifice that would automatically be imposed on him as well.
So Mary was already of the frame of mind and heart that, even though she was betrothed to Joseph and soon to marry him, there would never be relations between them. Given this, it was ludicrous for the priest to suggest that Mary's "plans" were to have a large family, and the angel came and told her to change those plans.
No, the angel came and told Mary that her plan was to be sanctified in the most singular way. She would still never have relations, but she would conceive a son, and not just any son, the Holy Son of God.
So, understandably, Mary was confused, and as "Father" was singing and dancing his way through the Mass and the gospel, perhaps he missed the part where she revealed her life plans precisely by expressing her confusion. If, as the priest incorrectly and wrongly said, she was planning on having many children, why would that seem so strange and confusing to her? She was going to be married shortly.
You don't exactly need a heavenly apparition to tell you that, if you get married, you're probably going to have children, and the woman most definitely would not be confused and flustered at the idea. It's kind of the point in most cases.
Her confusion reveals her plans, and her plans were to never have marital relations. Again, this is the reason why she responds the way she does, and Sacred Scripture records it. This is why what the priest (I have a hard time calling him "Father") said was so horrible. It busts Our Lady down to just some ordinary teenage girl all excited about getting married and having a family.
She was anything but. To deny that is to indirectly attack all the Marian dogmas as well. In St. Anne's womb, Mary was conceived without original sin — the Immaculate Conception — not because of her own merit or accord but because the eternal God was preparing her for this very moment, the visit by the angel Gabriel.
So when I said to the priest that this is all in the Scriptures and is what the Church teaches, he retorted, "That's what you say the Church teaches." Okay, I will admit at this point, any goodwill I had toward him completely evaporated (sorry, but I'm Irish and human).
I had begun the exchange with a small glimmer of hope that perhaps he hadn't heard any of this, again, being one of many malformed priests. Well, he blew that up almost instantly. I said, "No, Father, this is what the Church teaches; I'm just repeating it. It's not my opinion or version."
He replied, "Well, it's just your understanding of what the Church teaches." I said, "Father, no, you're wrong." And then it came out what was hidden from the congregation just below the surface — the man's arrogance. Frankly, you have to be pretty arrogant to skirt the teachings of the Church, make up your own prayers saying Mass and, for the record, skip out of confession 10 minutes before Mass with a line of about a dozen people (which, yes, he did as well).
He responded to me, "So, I'm the priest, and you're the layman, and you're telling me, the priest, I'm wrong?" I said, "No, the Church is telling you you're wrong, and you clearly don't want to know the truth, so I have nothing else to say." I turned around and left.
Modernist clergy are always arrogant. They try to mask it as best they can, but when confronted it always comes out. They use the Church, they insult Heaven and they lie to the people — the innocent, unsuspecting sheep sitting out in the pews. And, for the record, the priest created an impossible situation for faithful Catholics to receive Holy Communion reverently.
He had the female lector (which there should never be) announce that he was only going to give Communion in the hand. If you wanted to receive on the tongue, go to the "Eucharistic minister." And, for the record, there is no such thing as a "Eucharistic minister." There is only the minister of Holy Communion, which is only a member of the ordained class, and when it might be a layman because of extraordinary circumstances, then for that Mass, the layman becomes an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, not a Eucharistic minister (which is only an ordained male).
So what the priest created was a kind of Communion-reception blockade. By refusing to give on the tongue and only in the hand, you couldn't receive from him. And by chasing those who wished to receive on the tongue over to the good young man serving (who was not a minister of Holy Communion), he made it impossible to receive.
There were no extraordinary circumstances at Mass where someone other than the priest had to distribute, so there was no need for the young man to do so. Likewise, the priest forced the young man into a kind of impossible situation as well. The priest is the authority, and here you are at Mass as a young altar server, and, bam, the priest orders you do to something you'd really rather not do.
It's not a sin certainly, but that's not the point. The priest is twisting and perverting people's consciences and disturbing their souls during Mass unnecessarily. He's changing the words, throwing in Protestant references, preaching errantly about the Queen of Heaven and raising questions for the faithful about how they can receive reverently.
But he did manage to get his money to "help the poor." It's always about helping the poor with the heretics, just like it was with Judas. And, likewise, when it came to the sign of peace, something we have been mercifully spared during the pandemic scam (no problem there), "Let us offer each other the sign of peace." Well, hold the horses there, Father. You can't distribute Holy Communion on the tongue because of the pandemic, but everyone in the Church (who are all social distancing) can all of a sudden shake hands and turn around and start talking to each other?
Man, this is one smart virus. It knows whether you are shaking hands or receiving on the tongue. Shake hands and no problem; receive on the tongue, and it becomes deadly. These malicious men have got to be confronted. And, yes, it is malice. Likewise, the bishops who allow them to come to their dioceses and further deceive the faithful: They have to be confronted.
The whole phony social justice narrative used to subvert the Faith has got to be called out for the you-know-what that it really is. After Mass, a group of people was speaking, and one of them said to me, "You challenged him on what he said, right?" And, still a little hot, I said back, "Oh yeah." She said, "Good. I thought what he said was wrong or off, but I didn't know exactly why."
So confronting doesn't always solve the problem outright, but it can help others to understand they're being deceived. Truth deserves a defense and a witness.