What People are Commenting
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Too Costly & Counter-Revolutionary Priest
Counter-Revolutionary Priest
Thank you for always writing with such boldness and clarity about the state of the Church. It has helped me immensely to navigate the ongoing crisis and consider how I am to serve Christ in this age. I want to immerse myself in the battle, and as I look at the Church, I see how deeply the enemy has infiltrated her. I now find myself uncertain as I discern a priestly vocation.
I am currently altar serving with the ICKSP, and I plan to make my vocational visit soon. I have been involved in the community for a few months, and I haven't heard any concerning ideas from the canons or in the community. In fact, all seems rather quiet regarding the church crisis. This is now my concern, that the Institute does not engage issues surrounding liberalism in the hierarchy.
They seem to be the least polemical of all the traditional societies; all I can find from them is on their website, where they say that most of the changes to the mass took place after the Council, and how Sacrosanctum Concilium does not mention most of the changes that are now commonplace in the Novus Ordo. Having read what TIA has written about the former Ecclesia Dei groups and about the problems with the Novus Ordo, this sounds a bit suspicious to me.
Recently, these concerns prompted me to investigate other societies, and I grow weary the more I look. I appreciate the outspoken polemics of the SSPX, but I've read critiques of how they are moving closer to Rome and may compromise. I also recognize the problems with their own hierarchy and how they conduct themselves.
Some aspects about the IBP are attractive to me, particularly how they encourage their priests to pursue degrees in ecclesiological sciences and critique Vatican II and the post-conciliar church. However, I do not know much about them, and I am unsure whether this is still just controlled opposition. I never considered the FSSP, since they seem very obviously to be compromised. The same goes for the diocesan route.
At this point, I am starting to sympathize with Our Lord, who has nowhere to rest His head. It seems like I would have to compromise no matter where I went. I have read some TIA articles that mention independent priests. This is something I know nothing about, and I would like to learn about it if it is the best option to be a Counter-Revolutionary priest.
Regardless, I am wondering if my current assessment of the landscape accords with TIA's understanding of the current state of the traditionalist societies. What would be the advantages and disadvantages of these routes?
Also, am I viewing the problem the right way? Is it more productive for the Counter-Revolution to be a priest who focuses on the liturgy and letting Our Lord fix the Church through His Sacraments (as I would likely be in the ICK), or a priest who engages more in polemics? Any advice or perspective would be appreciated.
Yours In Christ,
A.C.
______________________
TIA responds:
Dear A.C.,
Thank you for your letter. We commend you for the clarity of your overview and the honesty of your approach. Most persons in similar circumstances would try to fraudulently pull curtains over the problems to hide the compromises and wrongdoings of the traditionalist organizations you mentioned. You did not. You had the courage to not sell your innocence to have a “career,” as most of persons in analogous circumstances do. May Our Lady preserve you in these dispositions.
Answering your question: Your analysis of these organizations is correct and your suspicions are sound. We are on the same page.
We do not believe that priests should focus only on the liturgy and let Our Lord save His Church through the Sacraments. They, on the contrary, should in the intellectual/moral realm lead the resistance against the usurper Progressivism just as St. John Capistrano in the military realm led the warriors against the Muslims at the Battle of Belgrade.
It is our policy not to give specific advice about what to do or not do to young men looking at the priesthood or religious life. We recommend them to pray Our Lady of Good Counsel to enlighten them in their decisions. We do the same for you.
May she continue to help you and not allow you to fall into the many traps and snares that are set to prevent her from having real counter-revolutionary priests. We will be praying for you.
Cordially,
TIA correspondence desk
______________________
Resisting Bad Shepherds
Here is what was also slipped into that infamous Vatican Note attacking the Blessed Mother's roles as Mediatrix and Co-Redeemer which earlier headlines evidently missed. This was found and reported today, thanks to Chris Jackson.
Our response? Our task? Here are Mr. Jackson's closing lines which echo the exile forecasted by Greg Reese for those who will not go along with the new ways.
Our task, then, is brutally uncomplicated: refuse the swap. Keep the old God, the old Mass, the old Marian courage, the old moral clarity, even if you have to live them in exile. Let them have their processes and paradigms. We keep the Faith.
God bless you in these perilous times,
With Our Heavenly Queen,
E.Z., Ph.D.
"The most revealing line in the whole Mater Populi Fidelis rollout wasn’t in the text but in the commentary. Father Maurizio Gronchi, one of the DDF’s experts, said it is “superstition” to think the Virgin Mary “has the role of holding back God’s wrath,” and that whoever thinks this way “is not in accordance with the Gospel.” Suddenly it’s not just Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix on the chopping block; it’s the entire idea that Our Lady’s intercession can avert chastisement.
But the logic he condemns is simply the biblical logic of intercession. Abraham bargains for Sodom; Moses stands in the breach for Israel; God “relents” from punishments in response to the prayers of His friends. Not because He changes His eternal will, but because He freely wills to tie certain graces to their prayers. That is what it means when we say the saints “appease” or “avert” God’s wrath: divine justice is real, and so is the fact that God has chosen to factor their petitions into His providence.
If that is true of ordinary saints, it is strange to suddenly declare it dangerous when applied in a unique way to the Woman at the foot of the Cross. The entire Marian tradition, from the Fathers through the great Doctors, assumes that her intercession has real weight in the order of grace. Popes have called her Reparatrix, “suppliant omnipotence,” treasurer of graces, and Mother to whom we fly precisely in times when chastisement threatens. Fatima’s basic structure is nothing else: a world hanging under judgment, and a Mother whose requests for prayer and penance obtain delays and mitigations.
The trick in Gronchi’s line is a caricature of God. No Catholic who knows his catechism imagines Mary “talking down” an irritable Father. Classical theology has always been clear: God does not change; “wrath” is analogical for the effect of divine justice on obstinate sinners. To say that Mary’s intercession “holds back” wrath means that God has eternally willed to grant certain graces, conversion instead of hardening, protection instead of punishment, because she asks for them. Deny that, and you don’t just flatten Marian piety; you gut the entire doctrine of the Communion of Saints.
So when a Vatican official tells the faithful that seeing Mary as a real shield against judgment is “not in accordance with the Gospel,” he isn’t just trimming excesses. He is sawing off a branch Scripture, the Fathers, the popes, and the great apparitions have all been sitting on for centuries.
The revolution doesn’t just want a smaller Mariology. It wants a safer, softer God; one whose justice never really threatens, and whose Mother no longer needs to stand in anyone’s way.
Posted November 20, 2025
______________________
The opinions expressed in this section - What People Are Commenting - do not necessarily express those of TIA
______________________
______________________
 |
 |
 |
Got this in my mailbox this morning. So, Pope Leo XIV is “backing down” on applying the restrictions against the Latin rite Mass being said, but the restrictions remain... This is to make the traditionalists happy, and sadly it may do so.
Despite his lunching with transgenders, despite his approving the affront to Our Lady by taking away her titles of Mediatrix and Co-Redeemer, despite his support of the Communist Chinese Party and the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Church (which is not Catholic at all but nationalist run by the Communist Party), despite his concessions to the Schismatics (and it looks like there is more to come) – can we forget/forgive all this because he will allow some TLM to be said once in a while?
Are we really so gullible and stupid to stop all resistance to these errors because it looks like a few concessions have been made on the ‘62 Mass? I hope not.
M.G.
G.L.