Catholic Tradition Newsletter B46: Holy Eucharist, Twenty-fourth Sunday after Pentecost, Saint Albert

Saint Albert the Great | Good News Ministries Daily Prayers with Saints

Vol 13 Issue 46 ~ Editor: Rev. Fr. Courtney Edward Krier
November 14, 2020 ~ Saint Josaphat, opn!

1.      What is the Holy Eucharist
2.      Twenty-fourth Sunday after Pentecost
3.      Saint Albert the Great
4.      Family and Marriage
5.      Articles and notices
Dear Reader:

This week I want to explore the question, Do homosexuals love each other? And give an answer. This point is important because the world raises the prospect that homosexuals love each other and that it would be cruel to deprive them of that love. So, do homosexuals love each other? Only if you place it in the context that love equates to enjoying the pleasure received from an object—and here, the word object can be used. The word is so loosely used that it is common to say one loves pizza, or one loves its pets. But the usage as such is obviously an abuse of the word love and the word like or enjoys should be employed. One can like pizza; one can like their pets. One can enjoy eating a pizza; one can enjoy the company of its pet. But one cannot love pizza because it is not a person; and one cannot love its pet because the pet is not a person. Love is an interpersonal relationship, a giving of oneself to the other. But not all interpersonal relationships are the same. There is the relationship between husband and wife seen in Genesis 2: Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh. And in this verse one can see that there is a relationship also between a father and a child and a mother and a child—but a relationship that is intrinsically different from that of husband and wife—for here the man leaves father and mother but cleaves to his wife, that is, cannot leave the wife. The relationship between a parent and a child is best found in the Fourth Commandment, where the child is to honor father and mother (cf. Exod. 20:12; Matt. 15:4) in the giving of self to be formed by them in listening whereas the father provides for the child and the mother nurtures the child in the giving of self. The relationship of the giving of self is found in that of siblings who live in peace and harmony supporting one another and respecting one another. The relationship of the giving of self is found in friendship, in which friends share common interests and support each other. The relationship is found in the giving of self to each person of humanity in fulfilling the Golden Rule: And as you would that men should do to you, do you also to them in like manner. (Luke 6:31; cf. Tob. 4:16 and Matt. 19:19).

The relationship between two men or two women, if they are not the parent and child or siblings, cannot be more than that of friendship at the most. For a man to consider another man in a sexual relationship or a woman to consider another woman in a sexual relationship would change what love is—giving—and change the nature of a relationship into enjoying sex. If a relationship of love is sex, then there should be sex between a parent and child, between siblings, and between friends (which, unfortunately, there is in promiscuous and depraved societies). Pedophilia and incest would be acts of love rather than abuse in this exchange of relationships rather than the giving of the respect of obligation one has in the relationship. It would also erase the boundaries of what is the relationship, that is, that there is no difference between the love a parent has for a child and that which the adult stranger has for the child.

This means that in homosexual relationships there is not love, but rather a desire to obtain sex from the other and the supposed commitment is none other than an assurance that one can receive sexual gratification without being stigmatized for using a person as an object of relieving their sexual drive. To legitimize this as love raises prostitution, pedophilia, incest, adultery and fornication to acts of dignity and a model of what love is in opposition husband and wife, parent and child, siblings and friendships that demands self-sacrifice, self-renunciation, self-control, and the imperative chastity, modesty and continency that holds any relationship honorable and inviolable.

I doubt any true parent who sees a man enter one’s home and seduces one’s young daughter, who, because of her immaturity, thinks she now loves him, will agree her words hold any weight of value as being love—experience telling one that the girl will soon return impregnated as the puppy love dissipates and reality sets in. Nor do I expect any honest person with common sense really thinks the sexual interaction of dogs is an example for humans to consider as a role model. Therefore, no, homosexuals do not love each other–nor do partnerships of a sexual relation and why civil unions are unacceptable–for only within marriage (and why the homosexuals demand it be called marriage) is there a sexual relationship within the context of love. God defined marriage (cf. Gen. 1:27f) as a relationship between a man and a woman and what God has joined together let no man put. (Cf. Matt. 19:6)

On another note, we need to pray for our country. The recent election was, as even the media admits, a fight over the heart and soul of America. The implication that those who vote conservative are evil because they understand the socialists and globalists will deprive Catholics the right to live their faith and families be supported by the husband working at a decent job is ad hominem attacks that show the socialists and globalists want to take that right away but refuse to acknowledge publicly because they know it did not bode good four years ago when they called Catholics anti-American. Catholics were a major factor in winning the American Revolution and the Constitution [no religion test] and the First Amendment [Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech (censoring sermons), or of the press (censoring writings); or the right of the people peaceably to assemble (in Church and outside for religious purposes), and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances (if the state or federal government transgresses a person’s right to freely practice Catholicism uninhibited)] were the guarantees to Catholics they would be allowed to practice their faith without question or opposition.

Until the twentieth century, the family was universally considered the foundation of society—now it is individualism, because division weakens a union and this is brought to the fore when the individual supersedes the family. No one really believes two men are a family, or two women—just as no one believes a man claiming to be a woman is a woman or a woman claiming to be a man is a man. Therefore the state makes it a law you have to believe it just like when the Roman Emperor had a law enacted that claimed he was a god and everyone had to offer incense to him to show they acknowledged him as a god—though nobody really believed it and that was why he had to make it a law. One might here also recall the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes. We must confront the lies not by conformity but by standing up for the truth—by knowing and understanding the truth. May the present events motivate you to find the answers to respond to a world that has returned to despotism.

As always, enjoy the readings provided for your benefit.—The Editor



By Rev. Courtney Edward Krier

Part V

Reception of the Holy Eucharist: Holy Communion

The Reception of the Body and Blood of Christ

Receiving Holy Communion as a Sacrament

Since the Holy Eucharist is a Sacrament, it is only proper to treat of the matter, form, intention, minister and recipient of the Sacrament. This pertains to the outward sign of the Sacrament.


The material matter for the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is wheat bread and grapes from the grapevine naturally fermented. The wheat bread may be leaven or unleavened. For the Latin Rite it is prescribed to be only unleavened bread. All other bread or juice is invalid matter.

During the Council of Florence, in which the schismatic Eastern Rite Catholics were invited to obtain union with the Universal Church, this doctrine was laid out by Pope Eugene IV in his Decretum pro Armenis, in the Bull Exultate Deo of November 22, 1439:

The third is the sacrament of the Eucharist, its matter is wheat bread and wine of grape, with which before consecration a very slight amount of water should be mixed. Now it is mixed with water because according to the testimonies of the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church in a disputation made public long ago, it is the opinion that the Lord Himself instituted this sacrament in wine mixed with water; and, moreover, this befits the representation of the Lord’s passion. For blessed Alexander,  the fifth Pope after blessed Peter, says: “In the offerings of the sacraments which are offered to the Lord within the solemnities of Masses, let only bread and wine mixed with water be offered as a sacrifice. For either wine alone or water alone must not be offered in the chalice of the Lord, but both mixed, because it is read that both, that is, blood and water, flowed from the side of Christ.” Then also, because it is fitting to signify the effect of this sacrament, which is the union of the Christian people with Christ. For water signifies the people, according to the passage in the Apocalypse: “the many waters . . . are many people” [cf. Apoc. 17:15]. And Julius, the second Pope after blessed Sylvester, says: “The chalice of the Lord according to the precept of the canons, mixed with wine and water, ought to be offered, because we see that in water the people are understood, but in wine the blood of Christ is shown. Therefore, when wine and water are mixed in the chalice the people are made one with Christ, and the multitude of the faithful is joined and connected with Him in whom it believes.” Since, therefore, the holy Roman Church taught by the most blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, as well as all the rest of the churches of the Latins and the Greeks, in which the lights of all sanctity and doctrine have shown, have so preserved this from the beginning of the nascent church and are now preserving it, it seems very unfitting that any other region differ from this universal and reasonable observance. We order, therefore, that the Armenians themselves also conform with all the Christian world, and that their priests mix a little water with the wine in the offering of the chalice, as has been said. The words of the Savior, by which He instituted this sacrament, are the form of this sacrament; for the priest speaking in the person of Christ effects this sacrament. For by the power of the very words the substance of the bread is changed into the body of Christ, and the substance of the wine into the blood; yet in such a way that Christ is contained entire under the species of bread, and entire under the species of wine. Under any part also of the consecrated host and consecrated wine, although a separation has taken place, Christ is entire. The effect of this sacrament which He operates in the soul of him who takes it worthily is the union of man with Christ. And since through grace man is incorporated with Christ and is united with His members, it follows that through this sacrament grace is increased among those who receive it worthily; and every effect that material food and drink accomplish as they carry on corporal life, by sustaining, increasing, restoring, and delighting, this the sacrament does as it carries on spiritual life, in which, as Pope Urban says, we renew the happy memory of our Savior, are withdrawn from evil, are greatly strengthened in good, and proceed to an increase of the virtues and the graces. (Cf. DB 698)

And, later the following was added to the Decree in Behalf of the Jacobites in the Bull Cantata Domino of February 4, 1442:

But since in the above written decree of the Armenians the form of the words, which in the consecration of the body and blood of the Lord the holy Roman Church confirmed by the teaching and authority of the Apostles had always been accustomed to use, was not set forth, we have thought that it ought to be inserted here. In the consecration of the body the Church uses this form of the words: “For this is my body”; but in the consecration of the blood, it uses the following form of the words: “For this is the chalice of my blood, the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which will be poured forth for you and many for the remission of sins.” But it makes no difference at all whether the wheaten bread in which the sacrament is effected was cooked on that day or before; for, provided that the substance of bread remains, there can be no doubt but that after the aforesaid words of the consecration of the body have been uttered with the intention of effecting, it will be changed immediately into the substance of the true body of Christ. (Cf. DB 715)

The Roman Missal, in the De Defectibus instructs the celebrant: If the bread is not wheat, or it is mixed with other grain in such a quantity that it does not remain wheat bread, or otherwise corrupted, the Sacrament is not confected. (III—De defectu Panis, 1.) Regarding the wine used, the Defects of the matter states: Defects on the part of the matter may arise from some lack in the materials required. What is required is this: bread made from wheat flour, wine from grapes, and the presence of these materials before the priest at the time of the Consecration. (II—De defectibus Materiae.)

As to the custom that the bread be unleavened, the Church always has referenced the bread used at the Last Supper, which could only be unleavened: Now on the first day of the unleavened Bread. . . (Matt. 26:17).

According to the time and according to Scripture the wine would be grapes from the vine. Therefore the confirmation in Matthew: And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father. (Matt. 26:29; cf. Mark 14:25)

Water is to be mixed with the wine. The symbolism was already mentioned in the Bull, Exultate Deo, above. In the prayer over the water in the offertory of the Mass while the priest blesses the water he says:

O God, Who hast established the nature of man in wondrous dignity, and still more admirably restored it, grant that through the mystery of this water and wine, we may be made partakers of His Divinity, Who has condescended to become partakers of our humanity, Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord. Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen.

It is also repeated by the Council of Trent in its seventh chapter on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:

The holy Synod then admonishes priests that it has been prescribed by the Church to mix water with the wine to be offered in the chalice [can. 9], not only because the belief is that Christ the Lord did so, but also because there came from His side water together with blood [John 19:34], since by this mixture the sacrament is recalled. And since in the Apocalypse of the blessed John the peoples are called waters [Apoc. 17:1, 15], the union of the faithful people with Christ, their head, is represented. (Session XXII; cf. DB 945)

This followed by Canon 9 that condemns anyone saying it should not be done:

If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned, or that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular only, or that water should not be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ: let him be anathema. (Cf. DB 956.)

Not mixing the water does not invalidate the Sacrament. On the other hand, Pope Honorius also condemns the abuse of using more water than wine:

A pernicious abuse has prevailed in your district of using in the Sacrifice a greater quantity of water than of wine; whereas, according to the rational practice of the universal Church, the wine should be used in much greater quantity than the water (Decret. lib. iii, tit. 41. c.12).

The use of only water was already rejected by Saint Cyprian of Carthage (+258) writing a letter to Cæcilis the following:

Christ says, I am the true vine. (John 15:1) The blood of Christ is assuredly not water, but wine; neither can His blood by which we are redeemed and quickened appear to be in the cup, when in the cup there is no wine whereby the blood of Christ is shown forth, which is declared by the sacrament and testimony of all the Scriptures. (Letter 62/63, 2)

Since the introduction of the Novus Ordo by the Conciliarists, there have been a number of instances that other matter has been used—e.g., rice and corn—besides wheat bread and natural grape wine without declarations that their service had also invalid matter.

(To be continued)


The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers

M. F. Toal


MATTHEW xiii. 31-35

At that time: Jesus proposed to the multitude another parable, saying: The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field. Which is the least indeed of all seeds; but when it is grown up, it is greater than all herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come, and dwell in the branches thereof.

Another parable He spoke to them: The kingdom of heaven is like to a leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, until the whole was leavened.

All these things Jesus spoke in parables to the multitudes: and without parables He did not speak to them. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden from the foundation of the world.


31. Another parable he proposed unto them, saying: The kingdom of heaven . . .

CHRYSOSTOM, Hom. 47 in Matth.: Because the Lord had said that three parts of the seed would be lost, and another saved, and of that saved some again would be lost, because of the tares that were sown among it, lest anyone might then say: Who then, and how many, are the believers, He takes away this anxiety by the parable of the grain of mustard seed. Accordingly, it is written: Another parable he proposed unto them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field.

JEROME: The kingdom of heaven is the preaching of the Gospel, and the knowledge of the Scriptures, which leads to the true life: concerning which He said to the Jews: The kingdom of heaven shall be taken from you and shall be given to a nation yielding the fruits thereof (Mt. xxi. 43).

AUGUSTINE, Liber Primus Quaest., Evang. XI: For the grain of mustard seed relates to the fervour of faith, in this, that it is said to drive out poison.

There follows: Which a man took and sowed in his field. JEROME: The man who sowed seed in his field is by many interpreted as the Saviour, Who sows in the souls of the believing; by others he is believed to represent man himself, sowing in his own field, that is, within his own heart. Who indeed is it that sows save our own mind and soul, which receiving the grain of the word of God, nourishes the seed sown with the moisture of faith, and causes it to grow in the field of his heart? The Gospel goes on:



St. Albert the Great, Bishop, Confessor, Doctor of the Church

1. Albert was born of noble parents in Germany, in 1193. Having completed his studies in Padua, he became a Dominican in 1221. Following his novitiate, he won brilliant success in philosophical and theological studies, and soon became the most celebrated teacher of his time. His assignments were to the schools of his Order in Hildesheim, Freiburg i. Br., Regensburg, and Cologne. From 1245 until 1248 he also studied and taught with outstanding success in Paris, where he was called “the Wonder and Oracle” of the century. After that he taught in the school he had founded in Cologne. Here he had as one of his pupils St. Thomas Aquinas and was the first to recognize the significance of that young Dominican’s gifts. From 1254 to 1257 Albert was provincial of the German Dominicans. He was then called by the Holy Father to Italy, and was made Bishop of Regensburg, in 1260. Two years later he resigned this office, and in 1264 he again submitted to the jurisdiction of his Order, living in Cologne after 1269. In 1277 he was called to defend the teachings of St. Thomas, who had died several years before. St. Albert himself died on November 15, 1280. On December 16, 1931, Pope Pius XI canonized him and declared him a Doctor of the Church. His was the most universal spirit in the field of Scholasticism; he was a pioneer in the introduction of Aristotelianism into Western philosophy and the natural sciences, as well as exercising a significant influence on medieval mysticism and piety.

2. “You are the salt of the earth . . . the light of the world” (Gospel). Albert received the title, “The Great,” during his lifetime. His chief claim to greatness lies in the sphere of ecclesiastical science: he dared to substitute for the hitherto accepted Platonism the philosophy of Aristotle as being closer to reality. As a result, Aristotle received the title of “The Philosopher.” Of him Albert says: “Nature has placed him as the rule of truth, as the highest perfection of human thought.” Previously, study of the pagan Aristotle had actually been forbidden in Church circles. St. Albert’s authority, Christian and human, in the difficult philosophical and theological shift of the thirteenth century was a guarantee that Aristotle could be assimilated into Christian thought without harm. Albert proved, in fact, that the philosophy of Aristotle could, when rightly viewed and employed, raise sacred sciences to new heights; and time has shown him to have been correct. He did this at a time when the pagan Emperor Frederick II posed a great danger to the faith and culture of the Christian West. Albert truly became the “salt of the earth” and “light of the world.” We gratefully acknowledge the grace that God gave him for the advantage of His Church.

“A lamp is not lighted to be put under a bushel-measure; it is put on the lamp-stand to give light to all the people of the house.” St. Albert was such a light; all Europe looked up to him; adherents of the natural sciences, philosophy, and theology cried out to him in their troubles; cities and nations appealed to him to settle their feuds; as arbitrator he analyzed differences and pronounced judgments with such clear-cut finality that everybody came to trust him. He would say: “I, Brother Albert, take it upon my conscience.” During the Council of Lyons, 1274, when the fearful period without an emperor came to an end, King Rudolph of Hapsburg, who had been elected several years earlier, came to enlist the aged Albert’s support. Albert pleaded his cause before pope and Council, opening his speech with the words: ‘Behold, I send the savior and champion who shall liberate them.’ They were won over, and history has vindicated the wisdom of Albert’s advice.

3. With St. Albert we pray to the Eucharistic Lord: “Permeate our souls with Thy holy body as with leaven; satisfy our longings with good gifts, and grant that the wonderful Sacrament of Thy flesh and blood may communicate to us its treasures: truth and virtue, unity and love, purity and piety, resignation and sanctity. Cause us to be incorporated in Thee through Thy holy body, so that union with Thee may bring us salvation and we may rejoice over this partaking of Thee. May the spirit that lives in Thee also enliven us and bring light to our thoughts and renew in our souls the holy life that we have lost. Create in us faith and love, give us a spiritual outlook, anoint and strengthen us so that we shall dedicate ourselves entirely to Thee. Give us solicitous charity, a tireless zeal, and an attentive readiness to serve Thy brethren. Give us true faith, firm hope, and perfect charity.”

Collect: God, who didst make Thy blessed bishop and doctor Albert truly great in setting divine faith above his own human wisdom, we pray Thee grant that by closely following the path of his teaching we may come to enjoy perfect enlightenment in heaven. Amen. (Benedict Baur)



A Book for Young Women






THANKS so much for your more than kind acknowledgment of my last . I am flattered by your avowal that now you appear to know me in a new light and that you’ll gladly avail yourself of the permission to pester me with questions to your heart’s content.

Without actually putting any query in your letter, you really suggest one; for you say you are perplexed as to how to begin. You have so much to ask and yet you are not too sure that you are at all justified in asking.

Oh, my child, how well I understand such perplexity! I, too, was a victim for many, many years. Indeed (I never could tell you before), that perplexity accounts for my grey hairs. I was curious about everything under the sun and, occasionally, blamed for not being half as curious as I should have been (about musical scales and historical dates), but when I dared broach a question as to how I came into existence, or about the simplest facts of Creation, I was scowled at and frightened out of my wits. Nay, I was made believe that no virtuous child should ever dare wonder about such mysterious things.

It seems to me that you are now in a similar predicament, and so I had better begin by asking you to strive after a clear idea of God. At this you will doubtless open your eyes very widely knowing as you do the number and nature of His divine attributes; for you have not been at school all those years without being well-grounded in the dogmas and teachings of the Church.

Yet there is one thing that escapes most girls, and which I have never seen insisted on in print. It is this: God is modest.

That, dearest, is a point that I must insist on.

I need not, for the moment, give you the reason. Turn it over in your mind, repeat it with your lips, grasp it and keep it as a thing ever to be remembered. Its mastery is the key to profitable knowledge. Ignorance of this truth is the broad road to scrupulosity and, in some cases, to despair.

In my long lifetime I have heard statements which, if duly considered, were almost blasphemous; simply because the truth that I am now stating was ignored: God is modest.

Such people talked of “the immodest part” of the body; of the “immodest sanctions” of Holy Matrimony—obviously blind to the fact that they were calumniating the Omnipotent and all-wise Creator.

God is modest: therefore nothing that He has made is, in itself, immodest. God is modest: therefore nothing that He sanctions (if the act be in conformity with His divine intentions) is immodest.

If, at your leisure, and in a calm, deliberate, matter-of-fact way, you apply this to human existence, you will clearly see that many of the things which caused scrupulosity in your past life were really means of praising and adoring God, had you but known.

God is the great, good, and modest Creator.

“He made all the things that are and hateth none of the things that He hath made.”

God made all things.

God made all things as they are.

Now God, being infinitely modest, could not possibly create an immodest object. Therefore, things, as they come from the hands of God, have absolutely nothing immodest in them. When, therefore, pictures flit across the mind, of the creative work of God, in the human race, or in the animal world, far from occasioning distress, they should be calmly used for the glorification of the Mighty Being from whose pure hands they came.

For many years I have been accustomed, on such occasions, to say: “Blessed be God in all His works. May He be praised, honoured, and adored in all.”

Formerly, like so many others, I regarded such things as nasty and offensive, until the light dawned on me that in so doing I was merely playing into the hands of the evil one who is ever bent on blinding souls to the beauty of God’s works. I reasoned that if millions use those creations to God’s dishonour and to their own damnation, why should not I, in spirit, use them for His glorification?

You may say to me: ” But, mother, my difficulty is this: while I understand the justice of your explanation, I fear that I conjure up such pictures with—what shall I call it?—well, with a bad mind.”

That, dearest, is the great difficulty that all young people have to face, and it arises chiefly from lack of proper instruction in childhood. Children are driven to think that all reference to such subjects is improper, and they are seldom or never taught how to discriminate between the right and the wrong way of regarding them.

But even supposing that one, in her past life, did-knowingly and wilfully-picture things with what you call “a bad mind,” that is no reason why she should go blindfold for ever after. Let her now determine to have a good mind, and by the exercise of her will power turn, as I have already said, the picture of God’s creative work to His greater honour and glory.

If you press the question, saying: “Supposing the picture assumes a different aspect, and really represents sin—what then?” Well, my child, I should say, make (with the utmost composure) an act of reparation: “O my God, what a pity that Thy splendid works are thus abused! How awful to think that people do such wicked things! O my God, I am sorry. Deign to preserve me from like wickedness.”

You have noted, dearest, that I have referred only to things that are thrust on the mind, but what—you will naturally ask—about things which one does not quite understand and yet excite curiosity? It is precisely such things that cause most distress. One feels that one has a right to know—but how much, or how far? Then, again, one fears that one’s curiosity is inordinate, for, supposing one means to enter Religion, one will say: “Why should I bother about anything at all in the world except my soul’s salvation? And, especially, why should I be interested in or curious about a state of life that I do not mean to embrace?”

Are not these your thoughts? I should imagine they are, but as their discussion would take a much longer time than is now at my disposal may I ask you to wait until I write again? From what I have said, however, you can see that you are spontaneously provided with two useful means of getting, nearer to God—one by adoring Him through all the objects of His creation that are suggested to the imagination, the other by making reparation for the abuse (or sinful use) of such objects. Thus, far from plunging the soul into the pit of misery, literally all the suggestions that are thrust on us can and should be used to uplift us nearer and make us dearer to God.


Father Krier will be in Eureka, Nevada, November 19, and Los Angeles November 21. He will be in Albuquerque, New Mexico, December 14,


For those who purchase through Amazon, please help support the work here at Saint Joseph’s by going through this link:


The topics of Faith and Morals will correspond to the Roman Catholic Faith in Tradition and the Magisterium. The News will be of interest. The commentaries are for the reader to ponder and consider. The e-mail address will be for you to provide thought for consideration. The donations will be to support the continuation of this undertaking.

While the Newsletter is free of charge it is not free of cost. Please consider supporting St Joseph’s Catholic Church with a tax – deductible donation by clicking the secure link: Donate

  Or if you prefer send a check to

Catholic Tradition Newsletter

c/o St Joseph’s Catholic Church

131 N. 9th St

Las Vegas, NV 89101

Visit us on the Worldwide Web:

e-mail news and comments to: