The False Mystical Experience of Fr. Fredy Leonardo Herrera Fuentes

LifeSiteNews has the story: “On February 7, 2021, at the conclusion of the 11 a.m. Sunday Mass, Fr. Fredy Leonardo Herrera Fuentes, pastor of Immaculate Heart of Mary parish in Bogotá, Colombia, told parishioners that “from this moment in our parish, it’s only going to be possible to receive Holy Communion on the tongue and kneeling down.’ ”

During the Mass, the priest stopped, turned away from the people, bent over while standing, and was shaking. This lasted about 20 seconds. Then he spoke to the people. This priest is from the Parish of the Immaculate Conception of Mary in Bogota, Columbia.

Actual video of the event: Himmel associacion. You can see the priest begin to bend over at 11 seconds into this particular video. He is fully bent over (90 degrees) at the 18 second mark. And by 36 seconds, he is upright and the claimed vision is over. That is 25 seconds of vision. Please click the setting on the video and choose “auto-translate” and then “English”. The priest then says the following (in Spanish), which is here translated using the YouTube auto-translate. My additions or corrections are in brackets:

“I appreciate your participation in the holy Mass. We continue united in prayer. There are things that sometimes cannot be explained or rather what happens is that it hurts a lot when the Lord allows [us to] share or see certain things. From this moment on in our parish, they will only be able to receive Communion in the mouth and on their knees. It cannot be otherwise. Well, Christ is alive, is between us [perhaps “among us”] in which it hurts a lot not only when he does not receive Communion because it is already a very great for him, but when it is received and even being aware of who is receiving and when it is received as if any food was received as if you did not believe in his presence there he is very active. And if I told you, receive not in this way, be careful and do not do it like that, be a little the smallest particle there is there is the whole so always be as careful as possible.”

That is the auto-translate. If anyone can provide a better translation, please add in the comments.

Some persons are claiming, as in this video, Chosen, that the priest described a vision of “Jesus trampled underfoot by those faithful who receive Communion on the hand and standing up.” Perhaps he described this part later, I don’t know.

Communion on the Tongue Kneeling

The Lord Jesus is present in holy Communion in body, blood, soul, and Divinity. His whole human nature and the Divine Nature are present. But this same Lord established the Church, with Peter and his successors as the visible Head of that Church, and the other Bishops as the successors to the other Apostles. They teach and guide with the authority of Jesus Christ, the very same Lord in Communion. So it is a grave error to say we can only receive Communion on the tongue while kneeling, when the Popes and Bishops who speak with the authority of this same Lord Jesus, whose teaching is the teaching of Christ, permit Communion on the hand while standing. And it is a grave act of disobedience to Christ, to refuse to receive Communion at all, unless on the tongue, kneeling. The Church, which is the body of Christ, which has the Holy Spirit as Her soul, whose teaching is the teaching of Christ, permits Communion in the hand, standing.

The Church does not teach that Communion in the hand, standing, is a grave sin or grave offense. The Church has permitted this type of reception for many years. Pope after Pope, Pope Saint after Pope Saint, and the body of Bishops dispersed in the world, successively, have permitted Communion in this manner. And since the Church is indefectible, She cannot err gravely in doctrine or discipline. She cannot lead the faithful astray by telling them to do something that supposedly gravely offends the Lord.

When you reject this decision of the Church, you are disobedient to Christ. When you say to the Lord Jesus that you will never receive Him unless you have your way, on the tongue, kneeling, that is when you offend the Lord greatly. Imagine the Lord Jesus, during His ministry, coming to your town. And you have a chance to meet with Him in person! But you refuse to meet with Him in person unless the conditions are exactly as you have demanded. He is the Son of God. How dare anyone refuse Him unless they get their way in the manner of reception. The Church speaks with the authority of Christ, and She permits Communion in the hand, standing.

If you have a preference for Communion on the tongue, kneeling, that is only acceptable and faithful, if you are also willing to receive in the hand, standing — to show that your preference is not an act of disobedience, nor an act of rebellion against Church authority. For there are many persons who think themselves so holy and faithful, while denigrating every recent Pope and Council, that they accept nothing of what the Church decides, unless they evaluate it and approve it. They usurp the role of God himself over the Church. They refuse submission to Church authority. They accuse Pope after Pope of grave errors against the faith. They do not worship the Lord Jesus, but inwardly they worship themselves, while outwardly they worship a particular subculture in the Church (such as conservatism or traditionalism or liberalism).

Saint Augustine used to require his monks to eat meat and drink wine on Sundays, so that they would not fall into an error of that time of rejecting the good things of this life as evil, and rejecting the body as evil. The error claimed that the soul is good, and is trapped in the evil body, and that bodily goods are evil. Such persons rejected meat and wine, and fasted very strictly. Augustine had his monks show that they had not fallen into that error by eating meat and drinking wine.

If you claim to be faithful and obedient to the Church, and you prefer to receive holy Communion on the tongue, kneeling, I suggest you prove that you are truly faithful and obedient. Receive Communion in the hand, standing, from time to time. If you refuse, you have rejected the authority of Jesus in the Church He founded. You have rejected His own decisions through His Church. You are the one offending God by your reception of Communion. It is not sufficient to receive with the supposedly proper externals of kneeling and on the tongue. You must have the proper inner disposition of love and obedience to the Lord. Rebelling against Church decisions on Communion is not obedience, and therefore shows a lack of love.

I recall the story of an elderly woman, on her way to Mass in winter. The sidewalk was icy, and so she went down on her hands and knees and crawled in the snow to go up the hill to the Church for Mass. Would you crawl in the snow to receive Jesus in Communion, as this elderly woman did? Or would you reject Communion unless you get your way?

The Vision of Fr. Fredy

I have made a study of claimed private revelations here. Over the course of years, I have read thousands upon thousands of claimed messages and descriptions of visions. And what I have found is that the vast majority are false. They often present ideas that are contrary to the teachings of the Church. That is the most common and clearest sign of falsehood. The visions can be accompanied by false signs and wonders, caused by fallen angels. And certainly most of these false claims of private revelation are from devils. The only other possibilities for false revelation is that the visionaries are lying or mentally ill, both of which are rare. The vast majority of the false revelation are the work of devils, of literal fallen angels. As the beginning of the End Times draws near, these false claimed private revelations have increased.

True visions usually occur when the individual is in prayer. The reaction to the vision is usually peaceful. The person has a look of holiness and love on their face. By contrast, false visions often occur with the individual’s body bent or contorted, accompanied by pain or distress, as was the case with Fr. Fredy: “it hurts a lot when the Lord allows [us to] share or see certain things.” In addition, a true vision or message from Heaven never contradicts the authority, teaching, or discipline of the Church.

If Jesus wished to have people receive Communion on the tongue, kneeling, only, do you not believe that He has the power to teach through the indefectible Church? Do you not believe that He sent His Spirit on the Church to teach His own teachings, which are truly from the Father?

{16:12} I still have many things to say to you, but you are not able to bear them now.
{16:13} But when the Spirit of truth has arrived, he will teach the whole truth to you. For he will not be speaking from himself. Instead, whatever he will hear, he will speak. And he will announce to you the things that are to come.
{16:14} He shall glorify me. For he will receive from what is mine, and he will announce it to you.
{16:15} All things whatsoever that the Father has are mine. For this reason, I said that he will receive from what is mine and that he will announce it to you.

I believe that the experience of Fr. Fredy was not from Jesus or from Heaven at all. It was likely from a fallen angel. God does not give a supernatural vision or experience in order to contradict His own Church. The most holy Trinity guides the Church and teaches through the Church. The Lord Jesus certainly is able to cause any Roman Pontiff at any time to teach whatever the Lord wishes. He does not need to choose a single parish priest in Bogota, Columbia in order to supposedly correct a decision by the Church which has stood for many years. Some persons have lived their whole lives and died during the time when the Church permitted Communion in the hand, standing. So it makes no sense for Jesus to allow such a supposedly grave error, for so long, affecting so many persons, and then make the alleged correction in one parish priest.

Do you not believe that the teaching of the Church is the teaching of Jesus? Do you not believe that the Lord Jesus is able to issue whatever doctrine or discipline He wishes through the Roman Pontiff and the body of Bishops? But many persons today have lost their faith in the Church entirely. Some do not have the infused theological virtue of faith itself anymore. They are instead following a subculture, and focusing on externals, rather than on love, faith, and hope.

Receive the Lord Jesus in Communion standing, on the hand, at least from time to time, in order to show that you are obedient to the only Church that Jesus founded and still guides. And recall the dogma (as I explained in previous posts) that Christ and His Vicar, the Pope, constitute only one Head of the one Church. The Lord Jesus teaches and guides through the Church. He does not let the indefectible Church fall into supposedly grave error, and then offer correction in a vision to a parish priest.

The vision to Fr. Fredy is false. It contradicts the decision of the Church, of successive Popes and Pope Saints, and of the body of Bishops dispersed in the world. If you think yourself faithful to Christ, and prefer Communion on the tongue kneeling, you should receive Communion on the hand, standing, from time to time, as an act of obedience to Christ.

Pope Pius XII, 1943: “They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.” [Mystical Body of Christ, n. 41]

Ronald L. Conte Jr.

This entry was posted in commentary. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to The False Mystical Experience of Fr. Fredy Leonardo Herrera Fuentes

  1. Tweaks regarding the auto-translation. As a person who speaks Spanish, the following is closer to what Fr. Herrera said:

    “I’m grateful for your participation in the holy Mass. We continue united in prayer. There are things that sometimes cannot be explained, or rather -yes; what happens is that …it hurts a lot when the Lord allows [us to] share or see certain things. [Big pause] From this moment on, in our parish, Communion can only be received in the mouth and kneeling. It cannot be otherwise. Christ is alive, [He] is among us, and it hurts a lot… not only when [we] do not take Communion because that is a very great sorrow for Him, but [also] when [Communion] is received not being aware of Whom we are receiving, and when [Communion] is received, [we do so] as if [we] receive any food, [we receive Communion] as if [we] do not believe in His presence. There He is. [He] is very alive. And if [or when] I told you, receive [Communion] this way, be careful, and it’s not done…. even if it is a little particle, the smallest one, there He is, whole; therefore, [we] always have to be the most careful as possible.”

    Another note that this is a false revelation is that true ones tell the visionaries to obey their superiors even if the message they receive tells them to do things contrary to what their superiors have told them to do. For example, Jesus told St. Faustina to obey their superiors when she sees a conflict between what her superior has told her and her private revelation.

    This alleged vision makes it seem that the Holy Spirit is not present in the decisions of the Magisterium or that the Magisterium can err gravely which is contrary to the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church.

    • Amal says:

      Receiving communion while standing and on the hand was only permitted as an exception and not as a norm. But the modernist “spirit of vatican II” bishops and priests have thrust them on the faithful and made it as a norm. For the last 1700 years of Christianity it was only received on the tongue. You have to take anything that happened after the modernist Vatican II council with a pinch of salt. Many questionable practices have crept into the church after this council.

    • Ron Conte says:

      Whoever rejects Vatican II is a schismatic. Every Council has the full authority of the Church. You are not above the Church to judge which Councils to reject or to denigrate. You are not above the Church to judge which practices are “questionable”. That is pride. Faith accepts the teachings and practices decided by the Church.

  2. Adding to my comment above, just to clarify regarding apparent conflicts between the true messages of Jesus and an order given to St. Faustina by her superiors, is not about a contradiction between Jesus’ messages and the teachings of the Church. Rather, St. Faustina is called to obey her *particular* superior over her private revelation messages when she sees an apparent conflict (Read Diary # 32, 895). The point is that, even more so, when the Magisterium teaches something, we are called to obey, for the Magisterium can never err gravely, but a particular superior can. It is God’s will to obey what the Church teaches us.

    On another note, something to think about, many of those who want Communion only on the tongue, have killed using the tongue, have cursed using the tongue. Great faults are committed using the tongue, and that is not a small thing. “The soul will not attain sanctity if it doest not keep watch over its tongue” – St. Faustina (Dairy # 92).

  3. Michael says:

    If a tell tale sign of a false revelation is a contorted body during the vision, how might the visionaries of Garabandal be claimed to be true? It seems that during many of their visions, they were in somewhat contorted form with their necks extended backwards a bit far and overall just moved in strange ways. This is one of the things that’s always bothered me about Garabandal.

  4. Daniel says:

    With respect and love.

    As a theologian you must know our directive for the reception of communion comes from Vatican II. And what is written is to Permit reception on the hand but reception on the tongue is preferred.
    The following quote gives a false idea of what’s actually taught by the church when you say “telling them to do” as if the church has explicitly asked the faithful to receive on the hand.

    “And since the Church is indefectible, She cannot err gravely in doctrine or discipline. She cannot lead the faithful astray by telling them to do something that supposedly gravely offends the Lord.”

    And I understand you go on to use the correct language by saying permit the rest of the article but the damage might be already done.

    Once you know that the church prefers reception on the tongue it’s prudent to ask yourself 2 questions. Why does the church prefer reception on the tongue? And do I have a real reason not to accept the churches preference?

    • Ron Conte says:

      The Church says preference on the tongue, permission on the hand. The false teachers say NEVER on the hand, as if it were a grave sin; only on the tongue. That is not what the Church decided. As I said in the article, if you wish to prefer Communion on the tongue, fine, but don’t fall into the false teaching that Communion on the hand is gravely wrong. If it were, the universal Church would not have permitted it for so long, since the Church is indefectible.

      Also, in some dioceses, the Church has decided to tell the faithful to receive on the hand, due to the pandemic. This is clearly a way to see who is obedient to the Church, and who is not. Receive on the hand, despite your preference, when your bishop says to do so. Show your obedience to the Church. Instead, many Catholics have fallen into the error of pride, to put their own judgment above what the Church decides.

  5. mauratp says:

    Shame on you. I will never ever receive Communion in the hand! Other than a priest giving Communion, where has the hand(s) of that lay person been? We are all sinners, otherwise we would not be here on earth. The only person worthy of CONSECRATED hands is the duly ordained priest. Not the nun not the lay minister(?). Wake up and save your souls. This original and for years; communion on the tongue was done prior to Vatican 2. Vatican 2 was aandora’s box. should never have happened! Priests and nuns leaving their callings. Folk Masses, etc. Altar rails disappeared as did silence and respect before and during Mass. Peace? shaking of hands during Mass; yapping? all an Insult to the King of Kings House of Worship. I want to save my soul and I will continue to do things prior to Vatican 2.

    • Ron Conte says:

      Shame on you for your rejection of the Second Vatican Council. Throughout the history of the Church, every group which has rejected a Council has fallen away and been judged by the Church to be heretics and schismatics. And listen to what Pope Francis says:

      “This is magisterium: the Council is the magisterium of the Church. Either you are with the Church and therefore you follow the Council, and if you do not follow the Council or you interpret it in your own way, as you wish, you are not with the Church. We must be demanding and strict on this point. The Council should not be negotiated….”

      As for the hand touching Communion, Jesus touched lepers before healing them. He could have waited until they were healed to touch them. And the tongue is no less sinful than the hand. “And so the tongue is like a fire, comprising all iniquity. The tongue, stationed in the midst of our body, can defile the entire body and inflame the wheel of our nativity, setting a fire from Hell.” (James 3:6). As for you, who rejects Vatican II, your tongue attacks the Church by rebelling against Her authority, which is the authority of Christ. You reject Christ in Communion, and you reject Christ in Vatican II. At least you are consistent in your sinfulness.

      It offends Jesus to say that we will not receive Him, unless we are given our preference, to receive on the tongue.

    • Jacques DUMON says:

      Attn Ron Conte
      You cannot deny that the Vatican II council outcomes were catastrophic for the Church. This council was a pastoral council with no infallible teachings, only repeating previous teachings in such ambiguous wordings so that many people and false pastors in wolve’s clothing interpreted them according to their will.

    • Ron Conte says:

      The teachings of every Ecumenical Council on faith and morals are infallible (per Bellarmine and Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma). Perhaps Vatican II did not issue infallible definitions, but the Council did teach definitively, and such teachings of the Pope gathered with the Bishops is infallible. Then, too, the teachings of Vatican II have continued to be taught by the successive Popes and by the body of Bishops dispersed in the world, making those teachings also infallible under the ordinary and universal magisterium. Then there is the Vatican II definition of the ordinary universal magisterium, and the Council’s reaffirmation of the teachings of Vatican I.

      There is nothing wrong with the teachings of Vatican II. As for the problems in the Church today, some are merely a case of conservatives not agreeing with the sometimes liberal teachings of Christ; other problems are real but would have occurred even without Vatican II. Those who use Vatican II as an excuse for their disobedience to the Church (on the left) would have found some other excuse.

  6. King Robert the bruce says:

    I see this blog post has made it on to Spirit Daily today Ron.

  7. Philip says:

    What can be allowed is not always optimal for our souls. I think there is a good reason we went to receiving on the tongue. New understandings were revealed to us. The way so many go up in a line as not to lose human respect, regardless of having committed a mortal sin, if one even knows what those are after Catholic schooling in many such schools (the soul knows), is reason enough to receive in the more humbling on the knees and on the tongue style. I thought it was just that, but also that the priest has consecrated fingers and lay people use their unconsecrated with Holy Orders fingers. Thd bowing that the last Pope of two instituted that has us bowing before receiving on the hand was a big improvement, but not enough. It’s faulty logic to ignore the reality of our impiety needing to receive in a most humble form just because a relative handful might go too far in protecting such righteous gestures as was had pre-N.O.. There are some of the N.O. Kind that have brought it back as at least an option, if not regular. Can you handle not Traddies finding it the most reverent form? How about Eastern-rite Catholics? How many of them make disparaging remarks about leadership, which they should be careful about making regardless if it’s deserved (not deserved from us, anyway). Would you go to a fancy dining party of friends in a t-shirt and shorts? They would love you, anyway, right? Why the obsession for the externals? Would you really be respecting them? Really? We have the externals because we are connected to this world by our senses and symbolism. It might be as much prideful to do things your way against the time-honored traditions taught by numerous saints as to blow off clergy that reject what can be allowed. Let what is allowed be, but do what is better. We should always do what is better. The externals/internals debate is a false dichotomy. Both should build upon both. We don’t need suits or dresses to show Christ and the Wedding Supper of The Lamb respect, but why do we dress less for that than we do a fancy secular event? Both extreme sides need to think more objectively. It has taken me time to get this far.

    • Ron Conte says:

      The faithful obey the Church. We are not called to decide each question with our own reason, as you are doing. Faith is first. We are called to obey Christ through His Church, out of faith. Recall that Jesus approved of David and his men eating the bread that was reserved for the priests. When Jesus tells me, through the Bishops and Pope, to receive in the hand, I receive in the hand.

  8. nancy spinney says:


    • Ron Conte says:

      “the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him” Vatican II, LG 8.
      “He [Jesus] willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world.” LG 18.
      “Bishops, therefore, with their helpers, the priests and deacons, have taken up the service of the community, presiding in place of God over the flock, whose shepherds they are, as teachers for doctrine, priests for sacred worship, and ministers for governing.” LG 20.
      “Therefore, the Sacred Council teaches that bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles, as shepherds of the Church, and he who hears them, hears Christ, and he who rejects them, rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ.” LG 20.

      the Bishops speak with the authority of Christ, and of His Church. They have authority over discipline, such as how to receive Communion, as well as doctrine.

  9. Tim Morgan says:

    I think it important to also state that Communion on the hand is a “permission” from the normative which is Communion kneeling and on the tongue. It does seem that what is only a permission has become the normative but this is not so. Also the Church in the early centuries ruled Holy Communion on the knees and tongue as a response to the problems associated with other practices. The recent permissions were only granted in the 1970’s as a response to what was originally a liturgical abuse (spreading out of Holland) of the normative. Personally I have assisted our Parish Priest in rescuing Our Lord from the carpet 21 times. That is rescuing small but visible particles of the living Host destined to reside in the vacuum bag. The same reason why the Church in the early centuries prescribed more fitting practices for receiving our God.

  10. Pavia Milne says:

    To resolve this issue , priests must allow communicants who want to receive Our Lord in the hand to do so and those who prefer to receive Our Lord on the tongue must also be allowed to receive
    Our Lord on the tongue .
    Majority of the priests in our Archdiocese (Brisbane, Australia) refuse to give Holy Communion on the tongue. This is the problem, it is a one-sided decision. Priests tell us , no communion on the tongue.
    I prefer to receive Communion on the tongue but the priest forbids me to do it.
    God is the Judge , this is one judgement that cannot be rigged ..

    • Ron Conte says:

      In my parish, people generally receive standing on the hand, but some parishioners in line for Communion kneel, and they are then given Communion on the tongue without a problem. The parish accommodates those with that preference. My objection is to those who claim it is dogma that everyone MUST receive on the tongue or else they offend God greatly (supposedly).

Comments are closed.