I Will Leave This Up Here For a Few Days as I Make Revisions to It (please forgive typos, repetitions of the same thoughts, rambling, etc.)
So let’s go…
I’m surprised Fr. Imbarrato won’t examine the brief but potent contents of the book but perhaps not so surprised. I hope he puts my $40 contribution to fighting abortion to good use, and I believe he will. In this regard, he’s a man of passion wedded to action. And to his eternal credit I might add.
The point of sending him the book was for him to consider legitimate, scholarly criticism of the Novus Order/Regular Form of the Mass – which has been even altered more drastically, sometimes on an individual basis by some priests – but he won’t do it. Instead, he does cursory internet research of the people mentioned and shoots them down with personal criticisms and accusations of schism, while dodging the legit issues they bring up. He does this all the time with Vigano, Altman, John Henry Western Bacon Cheeseburger, Mel Gibson, etc.
I remember entering a Catholic Church in San Jose in the 1980s with my family and my dad walking us out as people were near the altar dressed as clowns and acting like clowns–face paint and all. That’s a pretty new feature of the new mass indeed! And more of an irreverence than respect.
Again, I say address the issues and let he who is without sin cast the first stone. At least they are bringing up valid issues of what damage the Liberals are wreaking in the Church. Yet, Imbarrato never goes after their excesses. He seems to focus on the sins of the Conservatives while giving everyone else a free pass. Hot + Cold = lukewarm. Why not go after both sides?
It costs nothing to go after Altman and John Henry Western Bacon Cheeseburger. Perhaps, if Fr. Imbarrato went against active church members he might be silenced also? At least debate them in person or on YouTube. Get some healthy Platonic Dialog going and let the audience decide.
I’ve noticed this unwillingness to confront facts with facts amongst some politically Liberal people that I have known, though Fr. Imbarrato considers himself a Conservative (religiously speaking). It’s a common tactic in debating to ad hominem attack the source and skirt the issue.
___
Quote: “ad hominem (Latin for “to the person”) is a logical fallacy where someone attacks the character, motive, or personal traits of the speaker instead of engaging with the substance of their argument.”
___
It’s interesting that Fr. Imbarrato said in a video last week that Celine Dion was a good Catholic, seemingly uniformed of the criticism she had taken for her bizarre, unisex/transgender, “New (World) Order” line of clothes for kids (see video below).
I commented on his video that Celine Dion wasn’t a good Catholic. Certainly not when making money off of morally influencing children into gender confusion as an influential entertainer. I hope Fr. Imbarrato reconsiders his view of Celine or at least posits a decent defense of why her clothesline for kids is OK from a Catholic point of view. Again, he’s seems superficial and uniformed in his praise as well as his criticism.
_____
Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy (see video below) was the son of the famous Indologist and Perennialist Anananda Coomaraswamy who wrote many books on world religions, philosophy, poetry and I believe art. He spoke 27 languages.
Rama, himself, was a surgeon who later trained in and taught Psychiatry at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and did exorcisms with his friend and noted author Fr. Malachi Martin. I believe Rama was aligned somewhat with the Sedevacantist movement but I’m not totally sure. He was a traditional Catholic to be sure, highly educated, taught theology and wrote the book I sent Fr. Imbarrato.
Fr. Imbarrato has a style (habit?) of criticizing (attacking?) some traditionalist and conservative Catholics while not addressing the issues they bring up and avoiding legit criticism of Vatican Liberal shenanigans. What I think he should do – like Dr. E. Michael Jones does – is debate his detractors live so they have a chance to state their case.
That being said, Fr. Imbarrato does great work fighting the evil of abortion and smoking out the conservative Catholics (Conservative Inc) that are pimping the conservative cause all the way to the bank and back. In other words, patriots for profit.
_____
On the First Time-Stamped Video by Fr. Imbarrato
At 15:24 Fr. Imbarrato says he’s not going to read the book. Well then please send it back and I’ll refund you the postage and give it to someone who’ll perhaps gain something from reading it.
At 15:28 Fr. gets into my thoughts on the changing of the language of the mass and dangers of altering the language of exorcism. Here’s where it gets interesting.
Obviously Fr. Imbarrato missed the whole point of altering the language and prayer of a formal exorcism. So, let me explain what I mean because his knowledge of exorcism seems to be lacking. In an exorcism there are stages: Pretense, Breakpoint, Clash, Expulsion, etc. When one is praying the formal rite one is to stick to the prayers and language given, as well as the instructions of the exorcist not to address the possessing demon.
Why? Because once the Pretense (that there is no possession it’s just a psychological problem) is shattered and the priest(s) and team come face to face with the demon they have to be careful not to confront the demon using their own natural faculties/powers but rely on Jesus.
If they try to confront the demon in their own name, for instance “You will leave when I say and do as I say” and not in the name of Jesus “I command in the name of Jesus that you declare your name” the exorcism can collapse because the demon exorcising preternatural powers will not obey simply natural human commands. The priest of his own will has no power but only by the exorcising the authority of Christ via the Church. Some demons are formerly exalted angels (Seraphs before the fall) with very high intelligence: higher than a human, and can lead one into confusion conversation, the collapse of the exorcism and psycho/spiritual harm. I believe Lucifer is of the Cherubim choir.
Some of the exorcisms in Malachi Martin’s book “Hostage to the Devil” make this painfully clear. Best-selling author and psychiatrist M. Scott Peck, MD in his book on the exorcisms of a few of his possessed patients “Glimpses of the Devil” confirms Malachi’s depth of knowledge and experience. Fr. Amorth, chief exorcist of Rome (before his death) has some good books on the subject.
As a matter of fact, in the story “The Virgin and the Girl Fixer” an attending psychiatrist at the exorcism deviated from the formal rite and began asking questions of the possessed. What happened is that the exorcism collapsed and something psychologically shattering took place. So much so, that the doctor left the practice of psychiatry all together, never went back to assisting at an exorcism and became a general practitioner, according to Malachi Martin. The victim of that possession was a transgender male to female who had dabbled in Satanism.
The priest casts out demons in the name of Jesus yes, via the authority of the Church. But what’s so crazy, and it was M. Scott Peck, MD who made the observation, is that many Liberal priests don’t even believe in a literal devil: a fallen angel named Satan and Lucifer (different spirits, by the way). They attribute evil vaguely to human error, psychopathology or wicked forces but lack a classical, Christian based cosmology. To them it’s all psychological. To the Liberation Theologians it’s sinful structures (mainly Capitalism) and not human sin or demonic evil that is the cause of pain, suffering and destruction in the world.
I’d like to know Fr. Imbarrato’s personal views on the devil. Does he believe the devil is real? That it’s a fallen angel? Just what are Fr. Imbarrato’s views on human and demonic evil? I can give you mine, at length, any time.
The Mass itself is not an exorcism proper, Fr. Imbarrato. An exorcism proper, using the solemn rite, is a confrontation where the priest assists in helping the possessed to make a free will choice to reject the devil because they cannot of themselves do this. Their will has – in part, unless it’s a “perfect possession” – been taken over and coopted. They are muted and it is the devil speaking and acting through them. The priest offers himself as a hostage, temporarily, in place of the possessed, so they can come to the existential realization their will is in the grasp of a possessing demon. Then they must reject him/it.
To his great credit, whatever his position on Sedevacantism (that the Pope is not a valid one) Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy had the courage, love and faith to assist Fr. Martin in exorcisms and free people from demonic bondage. He also healed people through psychiatry and counseling. Even people of other faiths like Muslims. Dismiss this highly-educated man if you choose. But choose wisely.
Depending on the depth and intensity of the possession will determine the length and violence of the exorcism. I suggest Fr. Imbarrato educate himself starting with the book “Hostage to the Devil: The Possession and Exorcism of Five Living Americans,” by Fr. Malachi Martin, “People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil” by M. Scott Peck, MD, and “Glimpses of the Devil: A Psychiatrist’s Personal Accounts of Possession, Exorcism, and Redemption.” Then I have a few more books after that. Better yet, get with some prominent exorcists and assist at an exorcism. Or, maybe Fr. Imbarrato will Google M. Scott Pecks name, find some half-baked criticism of his works by others and write him off too.
Fr. Malachi Martin’s last book called “Windswept House” got into the Satanist/Luciferian pedophilic (for blackmail purposes) cult (also known as “The Superforce”) within the Catholic Church. He bases his faction (factual book with names changed to protect the not so innocent) on testimony from the victims, and confessions of those involved in the Black Mass who wanted Malachi to hear of their transgressions before they died. Perhaps Fr. Imbarrato will just ignore Malachi’s assertions because he, too, was associated with Coomaraswamy and also subject to a Liberal smear campaigns himself, alleging affairs, improprieties, etc.
Again, Fr. Imbarrato starts suggesting – as he’s doing an AI search – that Fr. Martin left the Church and became a Sedevacantist, which he didn’t. Glad he sort of corrected himself there. I used to interview a friend of Fr. Martin’s when I was doing a radio show, his name was William H. Kennedy. The late William Kennedy was an author of several books and used to maintain Fr. Martin’s Wikipedia page and defend him from all kinds of outrageous accusations spread on the internet. He knew Coomaraswamy also. I was also friends with a Jesuit contemporary and friend of Malachi’s that lived near Stanford University in Palo Alto.
Fr. Imbarrato seems to put a lot of stock in AI search engines as opposed to digging a little deeper and thinking himself. It’s a good tool but needs to be cross referenced and checked. This superficiality can be problematic, as I illustrated above in his ignorant statement of Celine Dion being a good Catholic. By what measure is she a good Catholic? Certainly not by profiting off of her questionable clothes line for kids.
Again, read the book I sent- it’s short – and reply to Dr. Coomaraswamy’s criticisms. But what Fr. Imbarrato does here in this video, as he always seems to do (say with Cardinal Vigano, Mel Gibson, Altman, et al) – is attack (ad hominem) the character of the detractors without addressing their legitimate concerns. This is a convenient way of skirting the issue and verges on intellectual dishonesty, not to mention laziness. It’s easier to dismiss Coomaraswamy as a Sedvacantist schismatic than to address the points he raises.
If Fr. Imbarrato put as much energy into reading the book as he does trying to dig up dirt on the people who put positive notes on the back of Coomaraswamy’s book he’d be taken more seriously. Because he is not giving serious arguments to concerns he won’t address. He defers to the get out of jail free card that the Pope has the Keys of Peter to allow or disallow on earth whatever he deems fit. When he stand before God to give an account of his defense of the faith I wonder if he’ll say “I was only following the Popes orders!”
I know, I know. Who the hell am I to judge? I don’t know. I’m not judging. I’m using discernment to try to understand Fr. Imbarrato’s thinking. To judge is to pronounce sentence. Only God can do that. But I can use common sense to discern: right from wrong, truth from error, tradition from novelty. I mean the Pope may wield the “Keys of this Blood” to use a Malachi Martin phrase, but if the Pope said “jump off a bridge” would you do it?
Circling back a bit: The point of Latin is that it is a dead language and retains its meaning. The English language is morphing and changing all the time. For instance the meaning of words is being changed, and sometimes on purpose–and not always for the best. The word “gay” used to mean happy. Now it means homosexual relations.
It’s not that the new Mass is said in English its that the Latin words and precise meaning (intentionality) of those words were dropped. Whole parts were cut out, on purpose as Coomaraswamy demonstrates. If the new Mass was said in English as a direct translation – word for word – from Latin, I’m sure the Traditionalists would have no problem with it. But Liberal, high-ranking Churchmen have a problem with it. They will assent to having the Novus Ordo Mass said in Latin but they won’t consent to having the Traditional Latin Mass said in English. Why? Because the meaning of the Latin words if faithfully translated into English are powerful, precise and ancient. Connected to the source for centuries. The demons in an exorcism detest Latin.
The US government has stored radio active nuclear material deep in the mountains of Nevada. Because the half-life of the material is so long, thousands of years. As a consequence, they have put the instructions on how to handle the dangerous material, for future reference by future generations, IN LATIN.
Why? Because they say that the English language is changing so much that in hundreds of years whoever find the instructions in English may not be able to understand them since the meaning of the words is changing. Latin is a dead, precise language whose meaning – especially in terms of the ancient rite of the Latin Mass – must remain fixed. Wedded to intentionality of the priest – to effect the consecration of the host from bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ (Transubstantiation) – it becomes not merely a meal or remembrance but an immolation.
Let me give you an example of the importance of language and the right use of words from a church in Phoenix I attended. There were some shenanigans going on with known homosexuals kissing during Mass. My mom brought it up to her priest (a Hispanic from South America) and he told her to sit in the back of the church if she didn’t like it.
I told her to ask the priest the next time she sees him (she worked in the church as an admin assistant) if he believes in Liberation Theology. She asked him and sure enough he said “yes” and made an excuse for the Marxist heresy that basically it’s not the way it used to be (military, revolutionary communist in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Colombia, Peru…).
Well guess what? He wasn’t saying the prayer of Baptism the right way and the baptisms he was giving were deemed invalid. Now, what other important prayers was he altering? How about during Mass? See my point about allowing priests to alter the langaug of prayers and invalidation of the Sacraments? Multiply this possibility by many other loosy-goosy, Liberal or Liberation Theology priests and you can see the problem.
Here’s the article: https://www.ewtnnews.com/world/us/phoenix-priest-who-botched-baptisms-for-decades-apologizes-seeks-to-make-amends
_____
Quote:
_____END QUOTE_____
Now, back to Dr. Coomaraswamy’s book on the changes to the Mass:
_____
QUOTE (CHAT GPT AI SOURCE):
This book is a strongly traditionalist Catholic critique of the Novus Ordo Mass, introduced under Pope Paul VI in 1969 following the Second Vatican Council.
Coomaraswamy argues that the changes were not merely cosmetic but altered the theological expression of the Mass so substantially that its Catholic character, and potentially its sacramental validity, became questionable.
Coomaraswamy’s principal arguments
1. The sacrificial nature of the Mass was obscured. He argues that the traditional Mass unmistakably presents the Eucharist as Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice, whereas the new liturgy places greater emphasis on the communal meal and memorial.
2. The traditional Offertory prayers were removed. He considers this particularly serious because those prayers explicitly express sacrifice, sin, and atonement.
3. The words of consecration were changed. He questions whether certain alterations, including the former English translation “for all” instead of “for many,” compromise the sacramental form. The current English translation uses “for many.”
4. The priest’s role was diminished. He argues that the new liturgy emphasizes the priest as president of the assembly rather than as a sacrificing priest acting in persona Christi.
5. Protestant influences entered the liturgy. He contends that the reform deliberately introduced language and practices more acceptable to Protestant theology.
6. The Real Presence was deemphasized. He argues that changes in prayers, gestures, and the arrangement of the altar weakened the explicit expression of transubstantiation.
7. The validity of the new Mass became questionable. This is his most consequential argument: he suggests that changes in sacramental form and theological intention could jeopardize valid consecration.
Why the book is particularly interesting
Coomaraswamy goes considerably further than traditionalist Catholics who simply prefer the Tridentine Mass for its reverence, silence, and continuity with historical Catholic worship.
_____END QUOTE_____
Timestamped video one from October 23, 2026 where Fr. Imbarrato gets my letter:
_____
_____
Fr. Imbarrato keeps falling back on the Pope’s keys to “bind and loose” on earth as given by Peter. He seems to disregard that fact that Peter (the first Pope) denied Christ three times and was told by Jesus himself to “get behind me Satan [adversary] when Peter tried to stop Christ from going to the Cross (“Peter expected an earthly, triumphant Messiah who would reign with political power, not a suffering servant who had to die”).
Translation: (Marxist) Liberation Theologians, many in the Catholic Church, like Peter see the Church’s role more in earthly, Social Justice terms: feed the poor, resist fraudulent “climate change,” limit population growth, homosexual rights, economic justice–and not in heavenly terms. Therefore, they don’t see the Church’s role mainly as a supernatural one, saving people from going to hell, and as a natural, temporal one.
It’s interesting that approved apparitions of the Virgin Mary contain reference to corruption (apostasy?) at the highest levels of the Church. It would make sense that if the Pope has the keys of authority to bind and loose on earth, the Virgin Mary has the power to warn and correct. She would definitely outrank the Pope.
Sister Lucia, the seer of Fatima, “later explained that the year 1960 was chosen (to reveal the 3rd Secret of Fatima) because the contents of the message would be ‘clearer’ by that time… When the year 1960 arrived, the Vatican ultimately chose to keep the envelope sealed until its eventual publication in the year 2000.” Shortly after, Vatican II ensued, and all the changes in the Church, including the Novus Order Mass came to pass.
Malachi Martin, who read the 3rd Secret, said it referred to apostasy in the Church at the highest levels. This makes sense why Liberals within the Church would not want the secret revealed before Vatican II, since it would seem to suggest all the coming changes would not be for the better.
So, while the Pope is infallible on matters of dogma and Church teaching when he speaks ex cathedra, he’s also a human being with limitations and fee will to resist the inner-promptings of the Holy Spirit.
Saints and mystics of the Church have corrected Popes in the past:
_____
Source – Gemini AI:
____
Today’s October 24th video (below) is where Fr. Imbarrato criticizes what I said in the letter, etc. and refused to read the book and address the issues presented.
It’s interesting how he suggests the Latin Mass in Africa is a hindrance to worship. Well, my dad was stationed in North Africa in the Air Force in the 1950s and he commented that he went to a Catholic Mass in Libya and Morocco, off base, and felt right at home thousands of miles away from America. The Church was unified and universal. The Latin Mass was familiar and comprehensible throughout the world. Of course, they used to teach Latin in high school and pretty much don’t anymore, much less English, so people were literate in the ways of worship.
I suggest to the father that throughout history the masses were illiterate in their own languages, before the advent of universities, but the ceremony of the Mass in Latin could be understood by the faithful. Those only literate in their own language, like English, could follow along using a breviary (translation of the Latin words, prayers, songs, etc.).
____
Protestantized Novus Ordo Mass – No Longer the Sacrifice of Christ?
_____