Meg, Atila showed that the docuмent put out by the nuns is not credible because of fundamental insufficiencies. Further, the nuns in Quito do not speak English, and Fr. Purdy does not speak Spanish. "So then, we have a decision issued in Spanish by nuns who do not know English on the best and most authentic way a Spanish title should be translated into English; this decision is being spread in English as being the best translation from that Spanish title by a priest who does not know Spanish."

Also, another serious problem with the docuмent is the fact that the docuмent states that the "Good Success" of Our Lady (and the focus of the feast of Feb. 2) is the Presentation, not the Purification (as the Church has always taught). Read below to see the whole explanation.

-----------------

CONFUSED LANGUAGE, CONFUSED THOUGHTS - The docuмent issued by the Superior of the Convent of the Immaculate Conception in Quito was not credible, as I showed in my last column because it suffered from some fundamental insufficiencies.

The principal of them is that the Rev. Mother Abbess who signed that docuмent declaring how the Spanish title of Nuestra Señora del Buen Sucesso should correctly be translated into English does not know English, nor do any of the other three signers. Since no one can legislate on a topic he does not know, obviously, the Rev. Mother Abbess is neither qualified nor entitled to decide definitively what is or is not common usage in English.

Today, I will go one step further.

The chief promoter of the new English titles Our Lady of Buen Suceso and Our Lady of the Good Event, as proposed in that docuмent, is Rev. Fr. Adam Purdy, an American SSPX priest.




If I am to believe what he said in his sermon on February 2, 2019, delivered at the High Mass in the Conceptionist Convent in Quito, Fr. Purdy

• has been going to Quito for several years on that date;
• is now playing an active role in organizing the Procession of the Dawn (Procesión de la Aurora), which used to be a single procession made in the early morning hours of February 2 and now has been replaced by the SSPX with a series of processions made at dawn on the days preceding that Feast Day, and
• is the SSPX spokesman on this topic. Followers of the SSPX who are now publicly opposing the title Our Lady of Good Success in English always quote him as the final authority on this matter.

What seems bizarre to me is that Rev. Fr. Adam Purdy does not know Spanish. So, if my information is not mistaken, the main SSPX expert in English-speaking countries on how the title Nuestra Señora del Buen Suceso should be translated from Spanish to English is ignorant of the Spanish language…

So then, we have a decision issued in Spanish by nuns who do not know English on the best and most authentic way a Spanish title should be translated into English; this decision is being spread in English as being the best translation from that Spanish title by a priest who does not know Spanish.

Doesn’t it look like blind men making decisions about color hues?

What value should a serious person give to that decision and this propaganda?

Confused thoughts

Our Lady told Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres in an apparition that she wanted to be called Virgen del Buen Suceso or Maria del Buen Suceso or Nuestra Señora del Buen Suceso. I will leave the precision on the first part of these titles for another time.

When the docuмent signed by the Rev. Mother Abbess tried to explain the Buen Suceso to which Our Lady referred, it affirmed that she was referring to the Presentation of Our Lord in the Temple. The emphasis is placed on Our Lord and not on Our Lady. With this focus as the starting point, the three central paragraphs of the explanation attempt to show that the Purification of Our Lady is subordinate to the Presentation of Our Lord.



I believe that both the emphasis and the term good success (buen suceso) in this docuмent are different from what the Catholic Church habitually teaches.

1. The emphasis: The whole Roman Catholic Church has always considered this Feast of February 2 to be a Marian feast, with the emphasis placed on the Purification of the Virgin Mary and not on the Presentation of Our Lord. Dom Guéranger is quite clear on this regard:

“The Greek Church and the Church of Milan count this feast among those of Our Lord. But the Church of Rome has always considered it as a feast of the Virgin Mary. It is true, it is Our Savior who is this day offered in the Temple, but this offering is the consequence of Our Lady’s Purification. The most ancient of the Western Martyrologies and Calendars call it the Purification. The honor thus paid by the Church to the Mother tends in reality to the greater glory of her Divine Son, for He is the Author and the End of all those prerogatives which we revere and honor in Mary.” (Prosper Guéranger, The Liturgical Year, Fitzwilliam, NH: Loreto Publications, 2000, vol. 3, p. 469)

Dom Guéranger stresses the Church’s long tradition of commemorating the Purification in this way:

“Several learned writers, among whom we may mention Henschenius and Pope Benedict XIV, are of the opinion that this Solemnity was instituted by the Apostles themselves. This much is certain, that it was a long-standing feast even in the fifth century.” (Ibid.)

So, the three principal paragraphs of the docuмent where supposedly the Mother Abbess set forth how we should understand the Presentation in order for us to comprehend the significance of this Feast do not reflect the sentire cuм Ecclesia.

2. The buen suceso: To determine what suceso Our Lady was referring to when she spoke to Mother Mariana, I distinguish different perspectives:

A. According to the Jєωιѕн Law, every mother who gave birth to a child should stay away from the Temple for a period of 40 days to purify herself from the prosaic conditions of a normal birth under the rule of original sin. After that period, the mother would go to the Temple and end the period of purification by offering either a pair of doves or a lamb, depending on the family’s financial situation. After making that offering the woman was considered pure. As a pure lady, she would present her child to God.



That purification cannot be understood without parturition; parturition cannot be understood without the birth of a child. Therefore, the suceso upon which the Law was focusing was the birth of the child. This was the buen suceso to be considered, with the necessary consequence of the purification.

B. We know that Our Lady did not need purification because she was born without original sin and her virginal parturition was spared the normal conditions of other mothers. Consequently, she fulfilled the Law as a manifestation of her humility and obedience. For her, the good success was not to be purified since she was never impure, but the successful birth of her Child.

C. In the Liturgical Year, the Feast of the Purification closes the Christmas season. The good news is still the Birth of Christ, this is the good success. If the Presentation were the good success, as the docuмent pretends, the Feast should start a new cycle instead of ending the Christmas cycle. Since this is not the case, the good success should be considered the Birth of Christ.

D. For centuries pregnant women were inspired by grace to have recourse to Our Lady on this Feast Day of February 2, asking her to give them a happy delivery. The Feast of Candlemas, the Feast of Our Lady of Candelária, the Feast of Our Lady of the Light all represent a single devotion under different invocations asking the Virgin Mary on the same day for the same precise favor: to have a successful parturition. This traditional devotion seems to establish that the good success to which Our Lady referred when giving her title to Mother Mariana was the happy Birth of Our Lord.



Based on these facts, I have to say that it is particularly sad to see that, in a Convent of Conceptionist nuns who should be particularly turned toward the contemplation and admiration of the conception and birth of Christ, the Mother Abbess issued a public docuмent affirming to any and all readers that the reason Our Lady chose the title of good success is not based on the Birth of Christ, but on his Presentation.

This seems to me so awkward that I am led to imagine that either the Mother Abbess did not read with close attention the docuмent she signed or she was obliged to issue it under obedience. Someone else would have given to her a docuмent she did not write for her to sign.

Who would be this person? In the absence of material evidence, juridical tradition leads us to ask: Quo bono? Who benefits from that docuмent? I mentioned three persons acting together: the “good” Arch. Travez, who has obliged those nuns to do many other things against their will, the SSPX agent Liboro who is acting inside the Convent, and Fr. Adam Purdy, who is incessantly repeating in the U.S. the same awkward arguments of that docuмent.

The common goals of these three persons were (a) to expel from the Convent the disciples of Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira who were in charge of moving the Statue of Our Lady of Good Success from the upper choir to the main altar of the Church, and (b) to take over this devotion in the United States.

To be continued

What Atila lacks in the quality of his writing, he certainly makes up for in quantity.


How very sad that his devoted followers substitute emotion for rational thought.


How very sad that Atila's followers either don't know or refuse to deal with the fact that Atila was slave to Plinio and "prayed" to Plinio (while Pliniio was still alive) in a mockery of the Hail Mary.


How very sad that Atila's followers either don't know or refuse to know that Atila's "slave name" (slave to Plinio) was Plinio Marcus. He routinely made a mockery of the Sacrament of Confession by lying face down before his master Plinio, as Plinio put his foot on Atila's neck, to make his pseudo-confession.


How very sad that Atila's followers either don't know or refuse to know that Bishop Mayer condemned TFP as an "anti-Catholic . . . anti-clerical . . .  heretical sect."


How very sad that Atila's followers refuse to watch the Fr. Purdy videos to see the numerous ways Atila lies and misrepresents what the good priest actually says.

This is from:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03245b.htm

Purification of the Blessed Virgin (Greek Hypapante), Feast of the Presentation of Christ in the Temple. Observed 2 February in the Latin Rite.


According to the Mosaic law a mother who had given birth to a man-child was considered unclean for seven days; moreover she was to remain three and thirty days "in the blood of her purification"; for a maid-child the time which excluded the mother from sanctuary was even doubled. When the time (forty or eighty days) was over the mother was to "bring to the temple a lamb for a h0Ɩ0cαųst and a young pigeon or turtle dove for sin"; if she was not able to offer a lamb, she was to take two turtle doves or two pigeons; the priest prayed for her and so she was cleansed. (Leviticus 12:2-


Forty days after the birth of Christ Mary complied with this precept of the law, she redeemed her first-born from the temple (Numbers 18:15), and was purified by the prayer of Simeon the just, in the presence of Anna the prophetess (Luke 2:22 sqq.). No doubt this event, the first solemn introduction of Christ into the house of God, was in the earliest times celebrated in the Church of Jerusalem. We find it attested for the first half of the fourth century by the pilgrim of Bordeaux, Egeria or Silvia. The day (14 February) was solemnly kept by a procession to the Constantinian basilica of the Resurrection, a homily on Luke 2:22 sqq., and the Holy Sacrifice. But the feast then had no proper name; it was simply called the fortieth day after Epiphany. This latter circuмstance proves that in Jerusalem Epiphany was then the feast of Christ's birth.

From Jerusalem the feast of the fortieth day spread over the entire Church and later on was kept on the 2nd of February, since within the last twenty-five years of the fourth century the Roman feast of Christ's nativity (25 December) was introduced.