Beware the Coming Attack Against the Eucharist

Readers have asked me to clarify my point on the Eucharist from the last post, so that is what I will now do. First, I’ll note that I always hesitate before clicking “publish” on any post, like the last one, which summarizes prophetically relevant developments in the Church and the world, as I know that within mere minutes of doing so, more such things will transpire. Never was that truer than with my last post. Since publishing it just 48 hours ago:

News just came out that Sweden has developed an implantable vaccine passport microchip. Aside from the beast himself assuming power, nothing would be a clearer indication that the Mark of the Beast is imminent than such a chip becoming common. (Note: France24, the news site there linked, is entirely mainstream; according to them, 6,000 people have already received the chip implanted in their hands so that they can do what is required of them in relation to their ability to “buy and sell” certain goods/services. Ring any bells? Hint Revelation 13:16-17. “And [the Beast] causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”
Putin just stepped up the ante in the war-foreboding saber-rattling. Just yesterday, His defense minister made the (likely fabricated) claim that the U.S. is preparing a “chemical attack.” Of course, it is probably Russia itself planning this attack, and once it happens, they’ll blame it on the U.S./NATO, and thereby justify a Ukrainian invasion. As the (excellent and level-headed) National Review wrote just today, “evidence is piling up that Vladimir Putin really does intend to invade Ukraine later this winter.”
Pope Francis, just today, met with Metropolitan Hilarion (the chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate). The two “discussed specific dates and venues” for the Pope’s trip to Moscow, making it clear that this is actually going to happen.
The elite’s Omicron fear-mongering has drastically stepped up. Bill Gates just announced that he expects at least three months more Communist Covid Tyranny due to Omicron, and the politicians around the globe who are desperately clamoring for his campaign contributions will diligently submit. (Indeed, “Democracy” has now proven far more effective in enslaving the masses than Dictatorship ever did!) But someone like Gates would never put an implicit deadline on one Tyranny without already having another one in mind, though we can only speculate about what the elite have in store for us for late Winter/Spring 2022 as they put the finishing touches on the Infrastructure of the Antichrist.

(What autocorrect suggested I write as I misspelled “Covid”)

In the arena of prophecy and signs of the times, everything is falling into place, just as foretold by Heaven’s messages, with an accuracy that is stunning to watch even for those who have carefully observed these things for many years. The long prophesied events are at hand. Repent. While you still can. Live in the Divine Will. Proclaim His Mercy. Trust Him and have no fear. He’s coming. This is incredibly exciting; therefore, do as Our Lord commands upon hearing such news! That is:

“Now when these things begin to take place, look up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”
Luke 21:28

Let’s pause to consider how extraordinary point 3 above is. In 1965, when Conchita stated that a Papal trip to Moscow would immediately precede the Warning, the assertion itself was considered outlandish. No Pope has ever gone to Russia, much less its capital, Moscow. It just doesn’t happen. One would have considered himself practically safe, on that count alone (of supposing a Papal Moscow trip must precede the Warning), in concluding that the Warning would never happen! Now we have such a trip not only finally possible, but nearly certain to happen very soon. This is incredible. This alone should give all of the Warning scoffers great pause!

Now, on to the subject of the present post. A number of readers reached out to me requesting clarification, regarding my last post’s assertion, that if the words of consecration were changed to “this is Christ’s body,” that would render the Consecration (and thus the Mass and the Eucharist) invalid in such cases.

The Church (/the Pope) certainly has the right to make modifications to the Liturgy without these modifications being tantamount to invalidity. Whether or not these modifications are a good idea is another matter, but the Church/the Pope can certainly, for example, change the language of the Liturgy, the number of readings, who can do the readings, how old one must be to receive Communion, how long one must fast before receiving Communion, what collects/antiphons/prefaces are said, what vestments the priest wears, etc. But the Church has absolutely no authority to substantially change what Christ Himself has set down regarding the number, matter, and form of the Seven Sacraments. Should anyone in the Church – even the Pope himself – attempt to do so, he would only render the Sacrament invalid. Both the matter and the form of each Sacrament are set in ontological stone, and will remain as they are until the end of time.

Let us examine some Magisterium from the Catechism of the 16th-Century Council of Trent (the “Roman Catechism”), which is just as binding in its doctrinal teachings now as it ever has been (Obviously, however, some Church disciplines have changed since its promulgation). I of course submit to and love the new Catechism also, but Trent deals with these matters with even more directness, which is why I’m using that Catechism here.

The Catechism goes on to insist “there are neither more nor less [than 7 Sacraments]…” To claim there are any more, or fewer, than precisely 7 Sacraments would be heresy. To contradict either the “matter” or the “form” of any Sacrament would be heresy.

Every heresy is not true, never has been true, and never can be true, no matter who says otherwise. Now, our very salvation demands doctrinal orthodoxy regarding the Sacraments, but the supreme importance here regards the one sacrament we rightly call Blessed: the Eucharist. The same Catechism continues:

The Antichrist’s supreme attack, therefore, will be directed at this “eminently superior” Sacrament.

Before getting to the Eucharist, let us take a few other examples of the same dynamic:

First, the Sacrament of Penance (Confession). The form of this Sacrament are the words pronounced by the priest, “I absolve you…” and the matter of the Sacrament is the penitence (sorrow for his sins) of the one being absolved (Trent defines this as “quasi materia,” not to imply it isn’t truly the matter of the Sacrament, but only to point out that, in the case of this Sacrament, we aren’t dealing with physical matter). If either is absent, it is impossible for the absolution to be considered valid. Powerful as it is, Confession has no ability to effect the forgiveness of one who isn’t in any way sorry for his sins (hence the extreme importance of rejecting the heretical interpretation of Amoris Laetitia — the interpretation which is leading souls to hell by pretending that unrepentant adulterers may be validly absolved — as I explained in great length here in 2017 and here in 2018), and one has not actually received Absolution if all the priest says is “I pray that Christ forgives you of your sins…” (God, of course, is always free to directly forgive whomever He pleases; the point is merely that that particular absolution itself wouldn’t be a valid one.)

Second, the Sacrament of Holy Orders (Priesthood). The Form of the sacrament is the Bishop’s consecratory prayer, and the matter of the Sacrament is the Bishop’s laying on of hands upon a baptized male. This is why any ordination attempted by one who is not a valid Bishop is impossible, and why women’s ordination is also utterly impossible: as Pope St. John Paul II infallibly declared in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the Church does not merely “refuse” to ordain women; rather, it is that the Church “has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and … this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.” This is the key to understanding the present matter; we are dealing with something that the Church has no authority or ability to do.

Third, the Sacrament of Matrimony. The Form of this Sacrament is the exchange of vows, and the matter of the Sacrament is one man and one woman each promising permanent faithfulness to the other (along with consummation). This is why forced marriage is impossible (marriages not made in freedom do not truly entail the exchange of vows and thus are invalid); the form is absent. This is also why marriage between two people of the same sex is impossible; the matter is absent.

Fourth, Baptism. The matter is water and the form is the words “I baptize you…” This is why the Vatican decided that Fr. Matthew Hood had to be “re” baptized: it was discovered that the Deacon invalidly baptized him as a baby, since he said “we” baptize you, instead of “I.”

Now, the Sacrament of the Eucharist also has a matter and form, and – as with any Sacrament – each is absolutely required for its validity. There is less ambiguity here than anywhere else: Christ laid it down with utter clarity in the Gospel. The priest must use wheat bread and wine, and he must say, “This is my body” (Matthew 26:26) just as Christ did at the Last Supper (which was the first Mass.) If the priest deliberately says anything that is not the words “This is my body,” then the Consecration is invalid, and therefore the Mass too is invalid. (I say “deliberately” because intention is key here – if, for example, the priest has a bit of a slip of the tongue and the word “body” sounds more like “boly,” we should not regard that as invalidating the consecration.)

In my last post, I speculated that a decree may soon come from the Vatican, changing the words of consecration – in the name of “Ecumenism” or “dialogue” – to “This is Christ’s body,” which would invalidate the Eucharist (and thus the Mass). But the Mass would be equally invalidated if, perhaps in deference to the “gluten free” phenomenon spreading across the globe, there was a decree mandating that corn flour be used for the host, or in deference to “fighting alcoholism,” mere grape juice were mandated to be used for the chalice. But I think a diabolical decree directed against the form (the words) is more likely, as it is precisely the type of thing that Modernists would love to do in the name of a false Ecumenism.

As the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches:

As we can see, there is absolutely no leeway here.

The matter and form of the Eucharist are permanent and unchangeable. Any attempt at substantial changes made to either would invalidate the Sacrament. Be on guard against such a change, as it is may be coming soon. If and when it does, seek out Masses said by those faithful priests who refuse to change the words of Consecration to another form which would be invalid.

It is both wise and prophetic that, for over a year and a half now, Cardinal Sarah’s pinned “tweet” has been one reminding us to disregard unjust decrees:

In the times to come, which will only grow more confusing by the day, stick with those shepherds you can trust. I’ll give here a list of trustworthy Bishops, as I did back in February (though, obviously, I am not claiming that these are the only trustworthy ones! This is just a sampling.)