General Discussion…

If there’s something of interest in the news that’s not covered in one of the topic threads, or you have a question to ask, a comment you’d like to make about anything under the sun, more or less, this is the thread for you.

Feel free, also, to share your favourite prayers and devotions. Whatever.

Enjoy!

630 responses

  1. Did anyone else read the article by Monsignor Basil Loftus in the Catholic Times yesterday?

    It was dreadful in the extreme. He wrote about the new Pope Francis “rejecting clown-like outfits” when he took up papal office.

    The article was crammed with mockery of the Faith, the headline being Musical jokes mark the ‘new Pentecost’ (i.e. Vatican II)

    The headline is taken from his comment about an organist at the end of Mass playing the “well loved hymn” ‘Vaster than any Ocean, deeper than the deepest sea if the love of Christ my saviour etc” to the tune of “The Carnival is over” – something Pope Francis is supposed to have said when he refused to wear the papal stole for his first appearance on the balcony.

    Mgr Loftus makes me very sad, more than anything. He seems to be out to make fun of everything before Vatican II yet he looks elderly from his photo. Was he an unhappy priest before the Second Vatican Council, I wonder? He seems very bitter. Does anyone know anything about him?

    • I read that disgraceful article in the Catholic Times. Utterly and totally disgraceful. I believe the same article more or less appears in the SCO. Liz Leydon should be thoroughly ashamed of herself for permitting this heretic to write in her newspaper.

      The good news is that – at long last – a priest (Fr Paul T Brooks) was published in the letters page of the Scottish Catholic Observer correcting Loftus on his error about the physical Real Presence.

      But I repeat. Liz Leydon should be hanging her head in shame at permitting Holy Mother Church to be savaged in her newspaper by this heretic. He threatened a priest in England with legal action for calling him a heretic. That priest removed the word. Watch this space.

      • Well, slow but DEFINITELY, more parishes do not have Scot Cath Observer on sale at back of church anymore.
        More priests are becoming dis-satisfied with Leydon and removing her publication to somewhere less visible in their parish; it is small at present but it has been happening, noticably over last 6 months and is increasing.

        • That’s great news, Scotus Priest – who’d have thought it! Progress, however slow, is more than welcome right now.

      • Thanks for posting that, Augustine – I’ve just skimmed it and it is brilliant. Will reprint in our August newsletter if I can work out how to seek permission!

  2. Loftus heretic, Loftus heretic, Loftus heretic, Loftus heretic….. How many times can he sue?? I don’t have any money but I do keep bees……..

  3. I don’t understand why Catholic Newspapers continue to publish Mgr. Loftus’ many heresies. What he says is complete tosh.

    Editor – I thought the article was in the “Catholic Times”… not the Observer. Nonetheless, it could have been an honest mistake for whoever the editor was. We should all know that if an Editor strived to Publish heresy in their Newspaper, Mother Church would have intervened (Remember how the US Bishops disapproved the NCR for it’s rubbish?)

    Also, I’m pretty sure if I called someone that denied Church Teaching a “Heretic”, it would be a valid statement. Therefore, we, as Catholics, shouldn’t be bothered if someone threatened such legal action, when we all know the truth – the Catholic Truth

    • Iacobus,

      Well said.

      I’ve just amended my previous post – thanks for highlighting my mistake. I’d meant to point out that the same articles, slightly edited (probably for reasons of space) appear in both the Catholic Times and SCO. The article to which I refer is in the Catholic Times and is utterly diabolical. He is also published on the same them “New Pentecost” in the SCO, with his usual nasty swipes at “fundamentalists” (i.e. real Catholics).

      And yes, you are correct in that both editors are disgraceful to permit him to write in their newspapers. Shows you the kind of Catholics who get the job of editing these newspapers. Both Kevin Flaherty (Catholic Times) and Liz Leydon (SCO) should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves and if the bishops had an ounce of integrity they would instruct parishes not to take these papers any more.

  4. By the way, Editor in particular, we had a bit of a family situation last Monday night and I was unable to attend the Voris Talk, much to my regret. I remain anonymous to you all… 😛

    I must say, as a Catholic, the opinions expressed on this blog can be awfully extreme, then awfully liberal and “meh” from others at times. It’s interesting to see. I continue to hold my sincere loyalty to Rome and to the Holy Father, but the insight given on this blog is indeed interesting and it is also truly comforting to know that there are still Catholics in Scotland that care about the Authentic Faith and the Traditional Rites – which is as we all know, the only way Holy Mother Church can continue her mission in Evangelisation.

    • Iacobus,

      Love your avatar!

      I’m glad you mentioned the Voris talk because I’d meant to say in our discussion about the possibility of meeting – I would never EVER ask anyone if they were x, y or z on the blog. I met a priest whom I suspect may be Pasletanus, but made no reference to that at all. I could be wrong of course, but the point is, I would never say “Are you Iacobus” or whatever. So forget about that worry if you see me at any events. The only way I will ever know that you are Iacobus is if you tell me.

      Correction: you hold your loyalty to Rome since 1962. There’s a difference. You have yet to grasp the fact that our loyalty is to the Faith – and so, incidentally, has Michael Voris who wrote off Pope John Paul II’s blasphemous kissing of the Koran by describing is as a “mistake”. “Should the Pope have kissed the Koran?” he said and answered himself thus, with a grimace…”Proooooooooooobably not…”

      I would, however, Iacobus, be interested in your opinion of the current newsletter which you can read here Is there anything “anti-Catholic” in it?

      Racing off now, I should have been elsewhere half an hour ago, but my motto for today is “better late than never…”

      • That was my question to Michael Voris. I’m glad that he didn’t try to justify what John Paul II did (which is what one Glasgow priest did last year in the letters page of the Scottish Catholic Observer and even went so far as to say it was an example for Catholics) I didn’t feel satisfied with his answer either since it seemed to suggest that since we all make mistakes then this particular mistake is really no big deal. But then the mistake in question – like the late Pope’s active participation in an Animist rite in Togoville on August 8th, 1985 – was a material violation of the First Commandment by the Roman Pontiff, which is a big deal!

        So, at the end I went up and said to Mr Voris that I feared that the inevitable canonisation of John Paul II (and it does seem inevitable given the noises emanating from the Vatican) would almost certainly not point out that he was being canonised despite these terrible acts and not because of them, thus giving ammunition to those who would want to pretend that such violations of the First Commandment are somehow good and praiseworthy. He agreed that this is what would probably happen and that would not be good. But, sadly, he said no more on the subject.

        Apart from that, I found his talk extremely good. But, yes, the worm that eats insidiously away at my own faith is the knowledge that the magisterium will soon canonise a Pope who performed actions that would have made Catholics of every other age but our own cry out in horror.

        • Augustine,

          I was absolutely appalled at Michael Voris’s remarks about Pope John Paul II’s kissing of the Koran. If the old adage “not to condemn is to condone” is still true, then I’m afraid he condoned it – big time.

          He admitted that it was only when Pope Benedict asked for prayers that he may “not flee the wolves” that it dawned on them at RealCatholicTV that the crisis was IN the Church, not in the world. That makes him an extremely late-comer to this fight. He still has a long way to go, judging by his performance at the Little Flower Hall in Carfin. From the git-go he minimised the crisis, arguing that it wasn’t just here in Scotland, but everywhere. Adding that that should make us all feel better…

          EH?

    • Iacobus,

      Please do not fall into the classic error of thinking that we here on this blog are somehow less loyal to Rome and to the Holy Father because we reject the modernist novelties of ecumenism, inter-religious dialogue and other such practices condemned by the Magisterium of the Church, or that our loyalty is somehow compromised because we insist exclusively on the Tridentine Rite of Mass. In fact, we are the loyal Catholics, the ones who are prepared to undergo persecution and false accusation for the sake of holding and practicing the Faith handed down through the ages unaltered.

      Remember, we’re not the ones who have changed things. We believe and practice exactly as the saints and martyrs did. Can you say the same for what you witness every week in your parish? Yes, it is paradox indeed that those faithful to Sacred Tradition are the ones called disobedient and disloyal while heretics everywhere are praised as Catholics “in good standing.” No wonder Sister Lucy of Fatima described the chastisement mentioned in the Third Secret of Fatima as a “diabolical disorientation.”

      Those who truly love the Pope and the Church, then, are those who are prepared to make a stand against the Modernist hereises that have invaded our holy religion and changed it beyond all recognition. The disobedience is in those who illicitly introduced such attrocities as Communion in the hand and EMHC without Council or Papal approval. It is also in those who pretend loyalty to this episcopal disobedience for convenience’ sake. They don’t want the stigma and persecution that comes with defending the Faith in its entirety, so they turn true Catholic obedience to the entire Magisterium of the ages into unquestionable subservience to the whims of individuals to suit their cowardice, the end result of which is that the freedom of the children of the Church is turned into slavery. The saints and martyrs will be spinning in their graves at this inversion of truth and justice!

    • @ Iacobus

      Hi there,

      ——–
      we had a bit of a family situation last Monday night and I was unable to attend the Voris Talk, much to my regret.
      ———-

      Shame you didnt make it, I thought he was very good. I was very impressed by how much time he gave (we didnt get out till nearly midnight!) and the general atmosphere of the evening.

      I thought Voris was excellent regarding Catholic exclusivity and the need to challenge errant clergy (such as Loftus, who is mentioned in this very page). However, he didnt really address liturgy at all, despite my attempting to prompt him with a submitted question (you had to write them down and hand them in).

      He was a breath of fresh air compared to the typical novus ordo clergy, who almost seem apologetic to be what they are at times.

      It turns out the Voris event was quietly attended by gay activist(s) as well. I came across postings on “The Herald” website, by known-homosexual Gary Otton (a Scottish Peter Tatchell wannabe).

      Gary spend his life trawling the Scottish press, seeking stories to use a vehicle to put the boot into Catholicism. He is the kind of person who cannot discuss religious people without dropping in terms such as “nutters” every few words. (These quirks seem to be how he copes with daily life). He has previously written a book attacking the Church over sexual morality, with an intro penned by his idol, Tatchell.

      He was ranting and raving and, though he didnt identify Voris by name, he called him a “right wing extremist” and criticised his view that only Catholics go to heaven (bizarrely, Gary is an atheist). I knew which event he was refering to because he quoted the attendance and approximate time. He had obviously gone along seeking some juicy gossip; or something to run to the media with, to play the victim over, but found nothing of the sort.

      I have also seen Otton reference (in print) the forthcoming Catholic Truth Conference at Celtic Park and so he may be attending it too.

      Anyway, I am firmly looking forward to the Catholic Truth Conference, Voris was a good warm-up!

      • I spoke to Gary at the Voris event and he took one of our leaflets. He didn’t hide his ID – when I asked his name he gave it and I told him that I recognised his name, that he’s not slow to have a go at yours truly when it suits, and he seemed rather uncomfortable.

        Anyway, he won’t get into our conference without pre-booking. Nobody will.

      • Gabriel Syme,

        I’m afraid you’ll hear things at our conference of which Voris wouldn’t approve. For example, we won’t say “this crisis is everywhere, so no big deal – don’t worry about it”

        Nor are we afraid to lay the blame squarely where it belongs. We don’t stop half-way up the tree…

  5. I’m not saying Liz Leydon is a terrible Catholic or that she is a bad person, quite the opposite. Her and her Newspaper do a lot of good work, please consider this. I am very much in support of the SCO. However, I re-iterate that the publication of such a document could be an honest mistake – let’s face it, most Catholic Editors may not be Theological Experts such as His Grace ++Tartaglia on such matters as the Eucharist, and thus I think that it’s a possibility that it was an honest mistake, that they have not realised that it is heresy.

    To be perfectly honest, I haven’t read the document you describe yet, so I cannot vouch for it’s authenticity or validity. However, I can tell you that in the past I have read Mgr. Loftus’ articles and they have rife with heresy and incorrect statements – we all remember the fuss about the Real Presence thing. I read another about Vatican II and Ad Orientem Worship – again completely atrocious and insulting to Holy Mother Church.

    I’d say your Catholic Newsletter is indeed very authentic, but can be a little overpowering at times, the works are great, and nothing that was taught by the Church before 1962 should not be regarded different nowadays. As we all know, the Church went into Chaos after V-II because it was the People of the Church that decided to say that everything had changed, when in fact only another way of Celebrating Holy Mass was implemented. As we have discussed before, if anything the Second Vatican Council was there to handle Pastoral Matters, and anything doctrinal mentioned in it’s documents was simply another form of explaining previously established doctrine. The Holy Roman Church, as established by Our Blessed Lord defines my beliefs and my faith, in order that I, and others, may attain Salvation and Redemption. Howzat?

    I don’t care what any man has to say; Whether before or after 1962 – I’m faithful to Rome.

    Godspeed, Editor (literally, you’d better move!)

    • Iacobus,

      I would sure like to see evidence of where the documents of Vatican II call for a New Mass. I do know that Pope John XXIII said that Latin must always remain the language of the liturgy and I know that Sacrosanctum Concilium declared that the essential part of the Mass, the Canon, was to remain in Latin, so I would be most interested to learn how any Catholic can be reconciled to the New Mass in the name of the Council.

      Also, it should be remembered that Fr. Bugnini, the chief architect of the New Mass, declared iin 1965 that he was set to strip the Catholic Mass of all that could be the shadow of a stumbling block to Protestants. If you have a knowledge of Cranmer’s heretical changes during the Protestant Reformation, then you will easily grasp the blueprint that Fr. Bugnini followed. The similarity between Cranmer’s and Bugnini’s new liturgical services, obscuring the Catholic sacrifice, is striking. That’s why Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci wrote to Pual VI that the New Mass represents in whole and in its parts a grave departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass. These were two very senior Roman Cardinals and theologians.

      As regards Liz Leydon and other Catholic editors, it is absolutely incumbent upon them, in peril of their own salvation, not to print heresy or give space to heretics in their publications. The Church is very clear on the duties of Catholic editors in this regard. Ignorance is no excuse because these are educated people. This week’s SCO article from Mgr. Loftus is appalling, as his last one was. Liz Leydon is not unaware of this, she obviously values his opinion, Catholic or not.

  6. Athanasius, I believe that just about everything you have said there is correct.

    Although, I find it fitting to say that I am not one for conspiring about Fatima and the “Real Third Secret”. I’ll just go with the one that Rome released. It’s not really for me to be conspiring; if there is a falsehood there, it will eventually be exposed. If not, then the Holy Spirit will then continue to aid us in our efforts to repair the mess that the “Church of the People” has got itself into, let us return to the “Church of God”. I think Pope Francis himself has even been to implement such a process when he talked about the “Evangelisation of Rome” when he became Pope, he seems to say that Rome needs to be converted before we can reach out to the rest of the world, and Rome of course, being the Eternal City and the Centre of Christianity and the One, True Faith needs to be Holy and Lively. We should continue to Pray for Pope Francis and for the Guidance of the Holy Ghost.

    • Iacobus,

      Very senior prelates in the Vatican have spoken about the real Third Secret of Fatima, or, to be more precise, the text that has not yet been released. Cardinal Ratzinger, for example, in a 1984 interview with Jesus magazine, spoke of it is a loss of the faith in Europe. Cardinal Luigi Ciappi, personal theologian to four popes including John Paul II spoke of it as describing “apostasy from the top down.” And the late Fr. Malachi Martin, who read it but was under oath not to speak of it, would only say that it was terrifying, much more serious than any global nuclear war. Now there is only one thing more serious and that is apostasy from the true Faith, the loss of countless souls.

      It should also be noted that Pope Benedict XVI described the clerical sexual abuse scandal as being related to the chastisement announced in the Third Secret. He further added that Catholics would be very foolish to think the Third Secret is in the past because it is ongoing.

      So you see, this has nothing to do with conspiracy, unless we are speaking of a conspiracy on the part of certain Vatican sources to suppress that 25-line text of the Third Secret which is known as an established fact to exist. In fact, the Vatican itself declared in 1960 that “The text of the Third Secret will probably never be released.” Why state such a thing of there is no text?

      We know it begins with the words “In Portugal, the dogmas of the Faith will be preserved…” This is recorded in Sister Lucy’s own hand and has been verified as the introductory line to the Third Secret, which introduction appears to compliment what Cardinal Ciappi said about apostasy, so there is no doubt that we did not get everything in the year 2000. Whatever the text announces, they are terrified to release it to the general public.

      By the way, that mess you say is a mess of the “Church of the people” is in reality a mess of the “Church of the Bishops, including Modernist Popes.” Let us not pretend that the people had any say in what happened after Vatican II. Remember, the apostasy begins from the top down. If the laity is to blame in any sense for the mess, it is in the sense that they have failed publicly to defend their holy Faith and take the necessary steps to secure for their souls and the souls of their children the Traditional Mass, Sacraments and Catechetics. They have all rather decided on the easy option to acquiesce in the destruction of the Faith under the pretext of being obedient and leaving everything to the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost acts through the members of the Church. He expects our co-operation, which is called correspondence with grace. Sloth or cowardice in doing our duty, then, is certain to cause us to lose rather than save our souls.

      Now, as regards Pope Francis and all this talk of “Evangelisation.” I’m afraid that unless and until that Evangelisation returns to the Catholic dogma “outside the Church no salvation,” putting an end once and for all to false ecumenism and religious liberty, then it is a sham that will end in further obscurance of the known truth (divinely revealed) and erosion of the true Faith. Right now, Pope Francis is showing no sign of returning to the infasllible, militant teachings of his predecessors on that score, so I pray for him but respectfully refuse this Modernist ruse of Evangelisation which is inclusive and respectful of every religion and none. That’s a worldly doctrine, not a supernatural Catholic one.

  7. Vatican II did call for a minor reform of the Liturgy. It went of on a MASSIVE tangent. What you say is correct about Sacrosanctum Concilium etc. Even the GIRM (the rubrics for the New Mass) says that the Canon should be in Latin. Bugnini did take it too far, the whole thing went too far, the Mass as it was compiled in 1969 or even in 2002 is not a reflection of the Council Documents or the intentions of the Council, Pope Benedict said himself that Sacrosanctum Concilium was certainly NOT a blueprint for the Novus Ordo Missae.

    • Then there is only one way for Catholics to respond and that is to find a Tridentine Mass to sanctify themselves and escape the dangers of the Novus Ordo that have caused tens of thousands of priests and religious, not to mention millions of laity, to abandon the Faith. It’s useless to acknowledge the problem and not act. We each have a soul to save and we are not permitted by God to deliberately put it in obvious danger, especially if the Tridentine Rite is available to us.

  8. Clown like outfits? What?!

    As if. His ilk are the ones who invented Rainbow chasubles.

    In fact, as I was preparing to serve Mass in a sacristy in Glasgow, I noticed that there was a rainbow chasuble in one of the cupboards.

    It belonged to Cardinal Winning and it was worn at a World Youth Day Mass at which an identical one was worn by the other celebrants and Pope John Paul.

    I brought it up with the priest, but it turns out JPII could do no wrong.

    Even the secular press admits the former Pope was the real deal when it came to outfits:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/fashion/fashion-blog/2013/mar/03/pope-benedict-true-legacy-fashion-sense

  9. Could any of you good people tell me the Church stance on the death penalty? Also, I was talking to a 17 year old Anglo-Spanish friend whose entire family are in Opus Dei. He said Anglican orders are invalid, whereas Orthodox one’s are not. Could someone explain this to me? He is very conservative and traditionalist- against gay, married and women priests and he supports the Latin Mass. I might recommend the blog.

    Also, to the purpose who was discussing Her Majesty going to Rome, The Queen has met every Pope since Pius XII, when she was a Princess. Card. Murphy O’Connor told a story about when he was a seminarian in 1951, the Princess Elizabeth met the Pope, and the UK seminarians were told not to cheer her. In the end they did. Can anyone verify something? A Catholic friend told me how George VI converted to Catholicism secretly, and that Charles in private wants to do the same in private.

    Any Jacobites on the blog?

    Pius X

    • Since Iacobus (and Athanasius) has answered your questions below, very well too, I will merely comment on the absolutely hilarious idea that Prince Charles of “I want to be Defender of Faiths – not THE Faith” – wishes to convert to Catholicism, secretly.

      Firstly he would have to publicly recant his heresy that “all Faiths” are pleasing to God and thus worthy of defending and secondly he’d have to explain how he planned to be a Soldier of Christ, defend and promote the Catholic Faith if nobody knows he’s a Catholic.

  10. “His ilk are the ones who invented Rainbow chasubles.” – You do make me chuckle at times Miles.

    Pius X, Salve!

    “Could any of you good people tell me the Church stance on the death penalty?” The Church has a sort of unofficial Stance. The Church says that now there are more civil ways of dealing with criminals, but if these methods are not available, then it justified that the state incur the Death Penalty;

    “Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” Cathechism of the Catholic Church, § 2267

    Anglican Orders are invalid, simply because of the method that they use to Ordained their Priests/Deacons/Bishops. Pope Leo XIII issued a Papal Bull in 1896 called Apostolicae Curae which declared all kinds of Anglican Orders to be “absolutely null and utterly void”. John Lawson, a Canonist mentioned this in an article in a Newspaper, he said:

    “The principal objection to Anglican orders being valid, according to Pope Leo XIII, was the alleged deficiency of intention and of form of the Anglican ordination rites. In the case of deficiency of intention, Leo XIII declared that the rites expressed an intention to create a priesthood different from the sacrificing priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church and to reduce ordination to a mere ecclesiastical institution, an appointment or blessing, instead of a sacramental conferral of actual grace by the action itself.”

    That’s also interesting what you say about George VI and Charles. But, I tend not to get involved with the whole Catholic Royalty ideology myself, but that’s just my opinion.

    Pax.

    • Pius X,

      To fully answer your question, I would add to what Iacobus wrote that the schismatic Orthodox have maintained the Apostolic succession in their rites of episcopal and priestly ordination. Consequently, they do validly, though illicitly, ordain and consecrate, unlike the Anglicans.

  11. Iacobus

    I am mystified by your comment above, ie “I must say, as a Catholic, the opinions expressed on this blog can be awfully extreme….”

    As a Catholic myself, I wonder if you could be more specific. Which views are “awfully extreme”?

  12. Miles Immaculatae,

    I still remember images of the Novus Ordo priest celebrating Mass dressed as a clown, and the one who celebrated with Mickey Mouse ears on. Do you think Mgr. Loftus was referring to these treacherous priests? No, neither do I.

  13. Athanasius, I think you should watch this for some nostalgia; http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rLlCLtPQeXE

    And Therese, I meant that some people, which I will not name and they aren’t frequent posters, can come up with some whacky conclusions and make comments about things that can be highly right-winged yet have absolutely nothing to do with the faith. And when I talk about the liberals, well, there have been a few of them too. Editor, how many have called you a heretic (when it’s clear you are not)? I remember you all ranting on about TruthUnited user that was quite dodgy as such too.

    I’m not necessarily saying that what these so-called “extreme” views are heresy, but more that they have taken me by surprise at times!

  14. A friend just sent me this in regards to Motherwell Cathedral. It’s just so saddening to see such magnificent works of art that were made for the greater glory of God to be stripped away so irreverently: http://i.imgur.com/Gvjlzn5.jpg

    Worse still, it was a poor community that worked hard to build such a magnificent Church, and much of the work put into the Sanctuary has been destroyed.

  15. Editor

    I agree with you. Charles must stop spouting his flower power, teach the world to sing tripe.

    Jacobos

    OK then, so should a dangerous serial killer or terrorist be executed? The fact is all people who take a life without repenting, or may do it again, including Abortionists should be executed. Some people can change but not all. If a person asks for forgiveness they should be given it.

    Athanasius

    How do you mean ‘illicitly’? How can Orthodox be part of the Apostolic line when they separated in 1054?

    All

    Please pray for the UK and the world, I have just been watching the same sex marriage debate in the gateway to Hell- or the House of Commons as it is known. Edward Leigh is putting forth a clause to grant teachers, registrars, and military places of worship a dispensation. I beseech God that our Church will never allow gay marriage, or recognise homosexuality as not sinful or gay unions.

    I wonder why Catholic MPs who vote for this, in Britain and abroad have never been withdrawn the Sacraments? I know this happened in America and Spain,

    Pius X

    • Pius X,

      By “illicitly” I mean they still have valid bishops but are not in communion with the Holy See. The Apostolic succession just means that their bishops, since the schism, have maintained a valid episcopal line by using the same rite, and having the same intention, as the Church to consecrate. The Anglicans lost that validity because they lost the intention of the Church and changed the words of the rite.

      Concerning the same-sex marriage debate in the Commons today, I note from the news tonight that it will go ahead. I also note that the Church of Scotland, which is really no church at all, has voted to employ gay ministers. I simply cannot get my head around the thought processes of these people who defy reason itself, not to mention God and nature.

      Here is part of the prophecy made by Our Lady of Quito in 1610 concerning these present times. How accurate is this? How incredibly similar to the Message of Fatima in 1917? More can be read here: http://www.michaeljournal.org/goodsuccess.htm

      Our Lady continued, describing the abuses that would attack each of the Sacraments: “Woe to the children of these times because it will be difficult to receive the Sacrament of Baptism and also that of Confirmation.” She warned that the devil would assiduously try to destroy the sacrament of Confession and Holy Communion. She lamented the many sacrileges and abuses of the Blessed Sacrament that would occur. The Sacrament of Extreme Unction would be little esteemed and many people would die without receiving it, thus denied assistance they would need for that “great leap from time to Eternity.”

      The Sacred Sacrament of Holy Orders would be ridiculed, oppressed and despised. The demon would labor unceasingly to corrupt the clergy and would succeed with many of them. And these “depraved priests, who will scandalize the Christian people, will incite the hatred of the bad Christians and the enemies of the Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church to fall upon all priests. This apparent triumph of Satan will bring enormous sufferings upon the good pastors of the Church.”

      About the Sacrament of Matrimony, which symbolizes the union of Christ with His Church, she said this: “Masonry, which will then be in power, will enact iniquitous laws with the objective of doing away with this Sacrament, making it easy for everyone to live in sin. The Christian spirit will rapidly decay, extinguishing the precious light of Faith until it reaches the point that there will be an almost total and general corruption of customs. In these unhappy times, there will be unbridled luxury that would conquer innumerable frivolous souls who will be lost. Innocence will almost no longer be found in children, nor modesty in women. In this supreme moment of need of the Church, those who should speak will fall silent.”

      Our Lady told Mother Mariana, the religious Conceptionist who received the revelations, that the souls who would remain faithful in those difficult times would need great strength of will, constancy, valor and confidence in God. Moments would come when everything would seem to be lost and paralyzed, but that would be the moment, she promised, of the “happy beginning of the complete restoration.” “My hour will arrive” she foretold, “when I, in an amazing manner, will overthrow proud Satan, crushing him under my feet, chaining him in the infernal abyss, leaving the Church and the land free of this cruel tyranny.”

  16. “OK then, so should a dangerous serial killer or terrorist be executed? The fact is all people who take a life without repenting, or may do it again, including Abortionists should be executed. Some people can change but not all. If a person asks for forgiveness they should be given it.”

    No, no, no, no. The Catholic Church is completely against executing sinners when there are other punishments and methods of dealing with criminals; the death penalty is the last resort. We must have a forgiving nature no matter what. Torture and Imprisonment, surely commendable, as long as such actions are carried out with dignity and compassion, but Death is a last resort, and even if a necessity exists for such an atrocious form of punishment, it should still be carried out with dignity and compassion.

    The Orthodox Church have a Valid Rite of Ordination that is recognised by Holy Mother Church, therefore the Orders are conferred upon the men validly (and only men). The Anglicans however, do no have a valid Rite of Ordination and thus the Apostolic Succession died in their “Church” along with the Last validly ordained Bishop.

    Although Orthodox Ordination may not be issued with full permission of the Holy See, the Ordination in itself is still valid; in the the same way the SSPX Bishop’s Orders are certainly valid, as they were ordained by Bishops that had received valid consecration, but the Ordinations were not permitted.

    Thus any breakaway and Orthodox ordinations are fully valid but they are not licit.

    The difference between validity and licity would be… A Holy Mass celebrated without a Crucifix on or near the Altar would be illicit (illegal) but in changing the words of the Consecration, it could become invalid.

    Pax.

  17. Also, your request for prayers is indeed of nobility and great intention, we have to keep such causes in mind and sword in hand to battle against such evils, particularly fostering the younger generation in ensuring they are taught the true and authentic faith.

    “I wonder why Catholic MPs who vote for this, in Britain and abroad have never been withdrawn the Sacraments? I know this happened in America and Spain”

    It should happen, even Pope Francis and Benedict do/did their best to emphasise the importance of this (yes, we all know both of them have accidentally gave Communion to such heretics etc. but they still promote such practices). We should ensure that the authentic faith is preserved through prayer, word and deed.

    It’s funny… a certain Old-timer Scottish Bishop has gave Communion many-a-time to the “Catholic and openly-gay” Leader of Glasgow City Council, yet he has refused a friend of mine Communion when he was kneeling. The shock and horror.

    • a certain Old-timer Scottish Bishop has gave Communion many-a-time to the “Catholic and openly-gay” Leader of Glasgow City Council, yet he has refused a friend of mine Communion when he was kneeling.
      ————————–

      Thats a disgrace.

      I am aware of a priest who, if ever confronted by someone kneeling to receive holy communuion, makes a big show of stepping back and waving his arms about, as though in shock or surprise over this “kneeling” malarky.

  18. There are those with a Novus Ordo mentality who think that because the Church is pro-life that one can never support the death penalty.

    Romano Amerio’s book on the changes in the Catholic Church (titled Iota Unum) states that the death penalty is like the highest form of penance that can be given. The Church teaches that if one is completely repentant of the sin that caused the death penalty, and is put to death, then that sin is already remitted by one’s own death. In other words, someone who repents and is put to death actually does not have to suffer for it in Purgatory. In fact, in the Middle Ages there were priests devoted to accompanying convicts who had repented to the scaffold, and they reported feeling spiritually edified while doing so.

    And remember Christ died for our sins, the ultimate Reparation – he was put to death, not slain, but sentenced.

  19. Thurifer

    So, do you support the death penalty in law?

    Iacobos

    How can the death penalty be carried out with dignity and compassion? Do you mean a non-violent type such as lethal injection?

    Pius X

  20. No, I do not necessarily mean any non-violent methods of death. I mean it should be ensured that those preparing for the death penalty should have spiritual and pastoral guidance at hand, a little like what Thurifer was talking about there; “In fact, in the Middle Ages there were priests devoted to accompanying convicts who had repented to the scaffold, and they reported feeling spiritually edified while doing so.” Also, such processes should be carried about with full respect for the dignity of Human Life and remembering how precious a sacrifice they will be making for their sins. Also, particularly remembering that sanctity of human life and that the state must respect that and not desecrate it in any shape or form.

  21. Iacobus,

    I am not saying I support the death penalty per se but I do think there are some good arguments for it.

    I think St Thomas(?) argued that the death penalty gave the criminal the opportunity to repent because their impending death would compel them to face up to what they had done and seek pardon, quickly.

    It is really really hard to imagine what it feels like being the loved one of a victim of a capital crime, but lets suppose a relative was murdered. In time one might forgive the perpetrator, and one needn’t necessarily wish death upon him, but there are cases where criminals never repent, and sometimes even scoff the family. If some sociopath continues to gloat over what they did, the fact they are still around in prison (writing cold menacing letters to the victim’s family and attracting press attention a la Brady) would be tormenting. The death penalty would stop them from perpetuating their malice. It would bring closure. One family member once said this about Ian Brady “[he] has tortured me for almost 50 years and has enjoyed every minute of it”. His mind games could have been put to an end decades ago.

    In cases of terrorism, keeping a terrorist imprisoned on enemy territory for years and years will cause great political tension. They will have to be released eventually. Keeping someone imprisoned who is considered a ‘political’ prisoner is very volatile. Libya was always on and on and on at us. In cases of mass murder by terrorists the poison could be neutralised.

    Also, if I committed an utterly heinous crime (hopefully not though), I would be so horrified at myself I would rather receive the ultimate penalty for what I had done and atone for it, rather than live out my life as a monster. That is just a personal feeling on it. You could say the death penalty was an act of mercy. Some criminals do wish for it, that is a known established phenomena.

    Finally, it could be argued that a country that has recourse to capital punishment is actually honouring the value of life. It is a pro-life position. Because to make the ultimate punishment the forfeiting of life, it shows how highly life itself is regarded.

  22. Also, if forgot to add, just because a criminal is locked up doesn’t mean they’ll stop their crimes. Unless you put them in solitary isolation. In more corrupt countries some very unpleasant persons, gang leaders for example, can continue their reign of criminal terror from behind the walls, like that Mexican jail on Prison Break.

  23. Pius X, how else would one support it if not in law? Or do you mean that do I support it in an ideal Catholic state? I’m just a layman so I really only defer to the traditional teachings of the Church. How/when/if the death penalty is carried out is a practical situation I think…

    And when I mean these priests found it spiritually edifying, I mean they actually were present when criminals were put to death, praying for their souls the whole time… they don’t just hear their confessions and leave.

    • The story of the conversion of Claude Newman on death row, is amazing – gives us some supernatural perspective on the issue of the death penalty.

      I’d read his story some years ago so thought it might interest you all – click here and marvel yet again at Our Lady’s power to touch souls.

    • 3littleshepherds

      Well, you got here. Now let’s hear what you think! Or, more accurately, READ what you think!

  24. Following the comment somewhere above, that “gay” activist Garry Otton had reported on the Michael Voris talk, I Googled it and to my surprise, he is attacking the whole event, while crediting Catholic Truth with organising it. Read Garry’s commentary here

    I posted a comment (which immediately went into moderation) to explain that we had nothing to do with inviting Michael, that, in fact, he had declined an invitation from the organisers to interview li’l ole me and that, WOW, Garry had been very positive about the evening when I spoke with him on the night.

    I was giving out leaflets for our conference in the aisle during the tea-break when I came across Garry (not knowing his identity of course). He was very friendly toward me, I have to say, took a leaflet willingly, but then, I think, taken aback when I introduced myself. Slightly uncomfortable after that and no wonder, reading his report. Maybe I should write the book about The Two Faces of Garry Otton.

    • editor,

      I read Garry Otton’s commentary and just shrugged my shoulders and navigated away from his web page. His is typical of the writings of people who try to convince themselves that there is no God, despite the evidence. I remember Bishop Fulton Sheen saying that it is useless to engage with such people on a religious level. Rather, one should try to discover what it is that troubles their conscience and results in their projecting their own self-hatred on to God.

      I have never believed that there is, or can be, such a thing as a true atheist, given that God speaks to every human heart. My own experience is of people who rebel against God and His laws under the pretext of not believing in Him. That’s why they are driven in militant fashion to oppose all that is of God in the private and public arena. One does not act militantly against a deity one does not believe exists!

      Poor souls! If they could only grasp the unending torments of the damned and comprehend the shortness of life and the length of eternity.

      • @ Athanasius,

        That is an excellent comment regarding atheists, their turmoils and their contradictions.

        When I was “non religious” I didnt give God or atheism a second thought, so it is very astute of you to highlight the curious behaviour of atheists: that they spend so much time ranting and raving over something they claim not to believe in.

        It is a good point you make, that God speaks to every human heart and so how can there genuinely be atheists?

        In my experience, atheists tend to be one of two things:

        (i) a person looking for an identity, seeking somewhere to fit in

        (ii) someone who is deeply troubled, often because of their lifestyle eg homosexuality, and who latches onto atheism as a possible antidote to the religion which frowns on their lifestyle. Such individuals always seek to project all of their woes onto religion.

        I am always struck how angry / hysterical atheists are. I dont think I have ever met one who seemed secure in his or her position, or who was comfortable with the idea of others having different beliefs or values.

    • semperfidelis,

      You are on the wrong thread for Archbishop Muller – there is a separate discussion on his forthcoming visit to Glasgow, raging as we speak! Click here

      However, although I linked the CDF email address on our website, I deliberately didn’t put the email address on the article about Archbishop Muller since it is very unlikely indeed that he will read those emails. Best to be reasonably certain by sending a letter. See Muller thread for postal details.

  25. It is a sad day for Christianity now the Church of Scotland has allowed the institution of gay minister in liberal parishes. These people weren’t true Christians in the first place, as they are not Catholic, but now they are even less so. The Church should do what the Russian Orthodox Church did with the Lutheran Church in Sweden, and totally cut ties. If I were Francis, or John Paul II as was, I would have cut ties with the Anglican Church, post haste. Homosexuality is of the Devil, and is more dangerous to stability in society than climate change, as it destroys the family. We should love homosexuals don’t get me wrong, and I echo the Editor’s sentiments, as it is beyond their control as it is a distortion of the human personality like drug addiction- maybe they could do therapy for gays, like the AA? Is AIDs a punishment from God- Paul said that they will receive a due penalty for their perversion? I do not know.

    Pius X

    • Hi Pius X,

      Of course, there was never any real chance that the craven Church of Scotland would affirm the natural law, or even their own principles of Bible supremacy. They and credibilitity parted company quite some time ago! (about 450 years, to be precise!).

      One wonders what the point of it all is; they are not a Church (never were) and these days little more than a loose collection of people with little or nothing in common. If you randomly selected people from public transport, that random group would have as much unity and commonality about it as does the Church of Scotland.

      I definitely agree ecumenism should be stopped – if anyone, (even Pope Francis), said to me that they felt there was even an outside chance of reconciliation with (eg) the Church of Scotland, or England, I would laugh that person right out of the room. What a joke that would be.

      As time goes on we will see female clergy, homosexual clergy etc appearing in these ecumenical events which is to both damage and heap secular pressure on Catholic consciences. Enough is enough. These protestant organisations are not centered on Christ, but centered wholly on man and on secular values. (They call this “being relevant to society”).

      I have long thought that the only thing ecumenism was good for was to needlessly dignify protestant denominations and make them dream as though they have similar status to the Catholic Church.

      I have never met any protestant (certainly no presbyterian) who had even the slightest shred of respect for the Catholic Church or its adherents. Their only interest in ecumenism is that they enjoy being made to feel important and pandered to, via mixing with Bishops and being invited into Cathedrals etc. If you read Peter Mackins excellent criticism of a recent ecumenical event at St Andrews Cathedral, (in a previous CT newsletter), you will see that all Catholicism is brushed to the side to accomodate protestants. There is certainly no two-way process or reciprocal respect from protestants.

      But then, who could really blame them, in their ignorance? These are misguided people who are members of a secular social club, which they think is a Church. They have no concepts such as truth: for them truth can be reinvented at the drop of a hat, to suit secular society. People who are genuinely religious, and so have long-standing beliefs and practices and things – such as we Catholics – must present a curious spectacle indeed for such people.

      Really, the Church of Scotland has wholly secular values and is more of a well meaning social club, than it is a Church. I have long said that the only reason it keeps going is because it plays more of a cultural role these days: providing wedding ceremonies and baptisms for people who are not religious in the slightest, but who like a veneer of tradition for their family events.

      For example, I have been to 7 Church of Scotland weddings. Of these 14 people, how many do you think were members of the Church of Scotland, or even just sometime attendees of that denomination? None of them were, not one. What a joke, eh?

      The lowest ebb came at a Church of Scotland wedding for two people who couldnt pick Jesus out of an identity parade. When it came to the Our Father, (“Lords prayer”), it was painfully obvious that myself and the minister were the only ones, out of about 100 people, who confidently knew the words.

      Its my opinion that the Church of Scotland, by contuining to masquerade as a Church, causes great damage to the view and understanding which people have of Christianity.

      • Gabriele Syme,

        Your post absolutely hits the nail on the head!

        To think that Fr. Annibale Bugnini, creator of the New Mass, deliberately removed (or obscured) all reference to Our Lord’s sacrifice on Calvary to please Protestants while bishops consciously removed altar rails everywhere and illicitly introduced Communion in the hand and EMHC to bring Catholics into line with Reformation beliefs.

  26. Therese,

    I agree with you to an extent, but for some people it would be extremely hard and nigh on impossible to get rid of these urges. We are all fallible and weak in the face of sin, and the Devil, from whom homosexuality originates, is very powerful. If they cannot change, they should be celibate.

    Pius X

  27. Quick comment – love the look of the new-style blog, well done to the Webmaster, Editor and all concerned.

    • Thank you, Gabriel Syme. I’m glad you like the new-look blog. More improvements to come, so hang in there!

  28. Hello everybody,

    We’ve been reading about the Third Secret of Fatima and would like to ask if anyone can give us a good explanation for a part of the released vision. Sr. Lucia writes that the angels gather up the blood of the martyrs and sprinkle the souls making their way to God with that blood.

    Has anyone read or heard a good explanation for this part? Is there anything similar in the Apocalypse?

    We believe the vision is authentic and also believe there is an unreleased single page.

    • 3littleshepherds,

      The phrase you quote from the Third Secret vision is, in fact, a common teaching of the Church that the blood of the martyrs waters and fertilises the garden of the Church, winning graces for souls. There is nothing specifically telling about the use of the phrase in the Third Secret, or indeed in Apocalyse.

      The difficulty for all of us is that, as you rightly suggest, the text of the Third Secret has been withheld. We may speculate with some accuracy as to why that text was withheld. It announces a crisis in the Church that calls into question the spirit that has come to dominate since Vatican II. Sister Lucy herself gives us clues, first by making known the introductory line “In Portugal the dogmas of the Faith will always be preserved, etc.”, the “etc” indicating that elsewhere they will not be preserved. And secondly, by the words of senior prelates who have read the Third Secret text. Cardinal Ratzinger, for example, is on record from 1984 as describing a great loss of faith in Europe as central to that text, while Cardinal Ciappi, personal theologian to four popes, describes the text as announcing the apostasy “from the top down.”

      There is no question for me, then, that the text of the Third Secret relates to the time of apostasy indicated by St. Paul, who wrote: “There will come a time when they will not endure sound doctrine but according to their own desires will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears, and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.

      Modernism, which has seriously infected the Church at every level, both during and after Vatican II, is based on fables. Pope St. Pius X’s Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis exposes with great skill the falsehoods of Modernist doctrines, which doctrines, sad to say, have come to obscure our holy Faith. How the hierarchy today can continue to promote these Modernist ideas in the face of St. Pius X’s Encyclical, not to mention the utter moral/religious devastation that confronts them, is itself a great mystery. Perhaps it was this blindness that Sister Lucy was referring to when she spoke of a “diabolical disorientation” affecting the shepherds of the Church. I have no doubt that all will finally be revealed within the next few years when Our Lady intervenes in the miraculous way she has promised.

  29. 3littleshepherds

    A good, thorough and well balanced book about the subject is the Italian journalist Antonio Socci’s book ‘The Fourth Secret of Fatima’

  30. 3littleshepherds

    I don’t think there is an explanation of that part of the vision. I think that’s the problem, that the Vatican won’t release the explanation. In the other parts of the Fatima Secret, there was a vision and an explanation. Only in the third part if there a vision without the explanation. The Vatican don’t want us knowing the explanation which makes me think that the experts are right when they say it is about the consequences of the loss of faith within the Church.

  31. I’ve had a short letter, dated 19th May, from Father Matthew Despard, thanking us for our support and prayers at the release of his book Priesthood in Crisis. Apologises for delay in responding to my email, but he’s been exceptionally busy.

  32. Miles Immaculatae, Josephine, Athanasius

    Thank you much for your information.

    Athanasius
    Do you think 2017 will bring about the triumph?

      • 2017 isnt that far off and what is going to happen before then gives one pause for thought to say the least.

        Our Lady has warned of the chastisements to come. Franscisco a holy child, was told that he would have to say many rosaries and look how he suffered.

  33. Gabriel Syme

    Couldn’t agree more with you about the C of S and C of E. I had a heated email exchange with the Bishop of Leicester about burying Richard III. I said RIII was a devout Catholic, truly devoted to the Church, and a merciful King, not the Shakespearian ogre. This twit in a Mitre said ‘I do not know which Church RIII would recognise more, the present Catholic Church, or the Church of England, and also all Monarchs must belong to the C of E’. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I didn’t know you could change the religion of a dead person? All protestant churches are craven. They would do better to worship a golden calf. As for the Archbishop of Canterbury, or Lorna whatserface, their people might just as well be ‘blessed’ by a voodoo witchdoctor.

    Pius X

  34. Pius X,

    “This twit in a Mitre”
    You see, that’s a perfectly appropriate phrase to describe the Archlayman of Canterbury and his Brother laymen that like to play fancy dress.

    On the Richard III controversy – I’m not sure what to think any more, but the man was a Catholic, and I’m sure that Requiem Masses have been offered in his name. Therefore, it is simply important to me that he has been prayed for in the Holy Mass.

    Gabriel,

    What you say is just about stop on. Honestly, they are more like a Sunday Club nowadays rather than anything that could resemble a Worship service – some of the Liberal Parishes are literally just meetings where someone gives their own interpretation of religion to everyone, then they sing some pop-rock tunes. I remember attending a Baptist Funeral once, where they had drums and a soul style band there. The song was simply the word “Jesus” sung about 30 times… my friend’s poor grandmother was bowing at every mention of the Holy Name, she looked like Churchill the Dog, but she was only paying appropriate reverence to Our Blessed Lord, something that is not found in the non-Catholic Churches of today sadly.

    Pax.

  35. I think he is encouraging them to live and appreciate the Christian message even if they lack faith in God.

    It is clearly a misinterpretation… This is the same Pope that reaffirmed that there is no Salvation outside the Church two weeks ago.

    All Pope Francis is doing is encouraging them to be good people nonetheless. “Just do good, and we’ll find a meeting point,” – I doubt he is referring to Salvation, but simply to earthly and political matters.

    Secular Press can come up with some whacky conclusions.

    • It is the duty of the Pope to tell all souls in no uncertain terms what they must do to save their souls. Anything short of this is dishonest and opposed to true charity. The problem with those of Modernist mindset is that they say something completely in harmony with Church teaching one minute and then state something opposed to that teaching the next. They are people of two minds, one orthodox, the other heterodox. That’s why they use ambiguous language when they speak and write.

  36. As I thought, Pope Francis, if he is reported accurately, is fudging the truth.

    From the Encyclical Quanta Cura of Pope Pius IX:

    “…From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press or in any other way.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they preach liberty of perdition.

    …Nor are you ignorant also that in this our age some men are found who, moved and excited by the spirit of Satan, have reached to that degree of impiety as not to shrink from denying our Ruler and Lord Jesus Christ, and from impugning His Divinity with wicked pertinacity. Here, however, we cannot but extol you, Venerable Brethren, with great and deserved praise, for not having failed to raise with all zeal your episcopal voice against impiety so great…”

    From Mortalium Animos of Pius XI:

    “…Nevertheless, when there is a question of forstering unity among Christians, it is easy for many to be mislead by the apparent excellence of the object to be achieved. Is it not right, they ask, is it not the obvious duty of all who invoke the name of Christ to refrain from mutual reproaches and at last to be united in charity? Does anyone dare say that he loves Christ and yet not strive with all his might to accomplish the desire of Him who asked His Father that all His disciples might be “one”? (John 17:21). Did not Christ will that mutual charity should be the distinguishing characteristic of His disciples? “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another.” (John 13:35). If only all Christians were “one,” it is contended, then they might do so much more to drive out the plague of irreligion which, with its insidious and far-reaching advance, is threatening to sap the strength of the Gospel. These and similar arguments, with amplifications, are constantly on the lips of the “pan-Christians” who, so far from being a few isolated individuals, have formed an entire class and have grouped themselves into societies of extensive membership, usually under the direction of non-Catholics, who also disagree in matters of faith. The energy with which this scheme is being promoted has won for it many adherents, and even many Catholics are attracted by it, since it holds out the hope of a union apparently consonant with the wishes of Holy Mother Church, whose chief desire is to recall her erring children and to bring them back to her bosom. In reality, however, these fair and alluring words cloak a most grave error, subversive of the foundations of the Catholic Faith…”

  37. Pius X

    ” had a heated email exchange with the Bishop of Leicester about burying Richard III. I said RIII was a devout Catholic, truly devoted to the Church”

    Bless you for that.

  38. Will it be possible for exceptions to be made to allow entry at the door at the June Conference? Should I email privately about this?

  39. Sorry, no exceptions. We’ve advertised the conference in plenty of time for anyone who wishes to come, to send for their tickets. Nobody who has not pre-booked and paid for their tickets in advance will be admitted on the day. We need to pay for the catering in advance, so there will be no tea, coffee, biscuits etc ordered for anyone who has not booked. Sorry, but that’s it. We’ve put tomorrow’s date as the deadline – if any orders come in over the weekend, we will accept them, but after we’ve paid the bill next week – any ticket orders received will be returned and anybody turning up at the door on the day will be refused entry.

  40. I expect many, if not all of you receive the emails from the Coalition for Marriage (CFM), but in case not, their latest email today requests us to email the House of Lords prior to the 3rd June vote on the same-sex marriage bill. This, of course, is another “lost cause” but we battle on…

    In case it helps others, here’s my own email to Lord Maclennan today – the CFM give his email address as maclennanr@parliament.uk and give the correct salutation as below – he’s a Lib-Dem peer.

    I’ve used the points the CFM give, adding my own comments here and there, as it might not be too effective if we all write exactly the same thing!

    Dear Lord Maclennan,

    I write to seek your support in preventing the same-sex marriage Bill – due to come before the House of Lords on 3rd June – being passed into law. Please vote against this Bill.

    There was no mention of this legislation in the Lib-Dem manifesto and if the Liberal-Democrats support the re-defining of marriage, it will absolutely affect my vote at the next General Election. Nick Clegg imagines himself to be in touch with popular opinion on this, as on other issues. I do not believe this to be true at all. I think he’s completely out of touch with what the majority of the public think on the absolutely ridiculous notion of two people of the same gender “marrying”. In saner times it would have been the stuff of pantomime comedy – taken no more seriously than that.

    I am gravely concerned, then, that this Bill has been pushed through the Commons without any serious debate, and – manifestly – without taking into account the majority view which is opposed to re-defining marriage. Already, on radio discussions such as that which took place recently on Radio Two following reports of the heckling in Scotland of Nigel Farage for his policy on this matter, those of us who object to the redefining of marriage to appease the homosexual minority, are being described as “homophobic”. Indeed, those who wish the legalisation of same-sex marriage are themselves a minority, so we are talking about a minority within a minority exercising undue influence (to put it mildly) on the Government and the majority of the public in the UK.

    The Government is acting without any mandate from the public and since the House of Lords is intended to be a check on governments, with the remit of safeguarding the public from rogue legislation like this, I urge you to vote against this Bill which changes the meaning of marriage for everyone – something which is out-with the authority of any civil government. Given the current economic difficulties, the Government of the UK should be focused on fixing the economy and creating jobs – not interfering with the nature and purpose of marriage. Politicians have no right to do so and I will most definitely be making this my key voting rationale at the next election. My recommendation to our readers across the UK will be to do the same.

    In short, Lord Maclennan, I urge you to vote against all attempts to legalise same-sex marriage – it is imperative that the Bill due to come before the Lords on 3rd June is not passed into law.

    God bless you.

    Yours sincerely
    (signed)
    Editor, Catholic Truth

    • Gee, got logged in at last. All the news from Scotland is bad news as far as the Church is concerned. The trouble seems to be that you have no clergy or bishops in the mainstream Church giving any lead to the people to return to orthodoxy. As the editor knows I have often come on and said “Yes, it is improving in England” and I can understand now after the O`Brien affair and the insight it gave, why she was so sceptical. About 5 years ago my Diocese, Portsmouth, was the leading liberal diocese in England. But things began to change even before the arrival of a solid Bishop Egan. Suddenly Catholic practices began again. The reason was that seminary training had changed. We now have seven young men training to be priests and everyone from a traditional background which is nurtured now in the seminary. My parish was the most unlikely parish ten years ago that would ever have agreed to a Tridentine Mass, it was sorun by modrnists, but we now have been guaranteed at least 4 a year, and remember funeral Masses can be Tridentine Masses if this is requested and I attended on recently. The priests have been changing under our new bishop. I sense now the parish priest is in control and not the `modenist rulers`. Every Monday at 8am we have the Blessed Sacrament exposed and we pray, have Benediction and pray Lauds. For me, who was almost expelled from the parish in the eighties for making a nuisance of myself it is unbeleivable. So Catholic Truth there is good news but your clergy will change I am sure and give you a proper lead. Now the Pope gave a very fine talk the other day about St Paul. He made a nuisance of himself by not tolerating anything which could be contrary to the Faith. He advised us that we too must `make a nuisance of ourselves`. So carry on Catholic Truth.

  41. Editor

    Will you be recording the conference speeches? I will buy a dvd if you do.

    • Sorry, no. I’m not even going to write up a detailed report, although we will publish feedback comments from the audience in our next edition.

      The time for sitting back and reading/viewing TV is over. We need to send clear signals to our bishops that we’ve had enough. Our hall should be packed to overflowing. Won’t be, but it should be and it would be if everyone who reads our newsletter really understood what is at stake. It’s not all bad news, of course – we have lots of new people coming, not even on our mailing list (yet!) so that is great. But an awful lot of the names who’ve been on our list for years have not ordered tickets. Something tells me that the next time I’ll hear from them will be when they contact me to ask why they are no longer receiving the newsletter!

      Did I say “steak” – off to eat!

  42. Editor

    I was just thinking of how many can’t go and how many would buy a video. And how that money could be used to buy stamps (for Athanasius). hehe

    But I understand.

    • 3littleshepherds,

      You’re darn tootin’! At 60p a time, I’ll take all the free stamps I can get. In fact, I think we should all learn how to communicate with smoke signals!

  43. You’re a right smart bunch, you 3littleshepherd & Athanasius. If you want to move up the pay scale, you’ll all start behaving yourselves!

    3littleshepherds, I’m presuming you can’t come to the conference because you live in Portugal?

    No excuse! If you live on Mars, I’d say “maybe, there’s an excuse for them…” But anywhere else on the Planet Earth – get yourselves here!

  44. Sr.Lucia prayed “Sweet Heart of Mary be Portugal’s salvation. Sweet Heart of Mary be Spain’s salvation.”
    Our Lord told her this prayer pleased Him very much and to pray it for each country by name.
    Sweet Heart of Mary be Scotland’s salvation.
    Everyone can pray this, it’s so simple.

  45. I wouldn’t even waste time discussing the Church of Scotland. To say they are irrelevant is to do a disservice to the irrelevant!

  46. Petrus,

    Who is discussing the C of S ? Are you referring to our earlier comments (of a couple of days ago) on the topic of the C of S “gay” marriage for clergy?

    This provides an opportunity for me to point out what some of our bloggers might not have noticed – that we can now click on “reply” to a particular comment. No need to go to the end now, as in the old blog.

    Still, I laughed a hollow laugh at your “disservice to the irrelevant” – well said!

  47. Further to the brief discussion about Gary Otton above, he has a letter in todays Herald.

    It follows the usual hostile secular pattern of rambling back and forth across a few topics, without an obvious point, glibly attacking any religious element in society and associating faith schools with Islamic terror. Notice how quick Gary is to label reasonable people who hold different opinions to him as “extremists”.

    He says the Government is “cash strapped”. Perhaps they could stop giving public money to homosexual lobby groups to pursue their own interests then?

    He also mentions condoms; if condoms are so wonderful then perhaps Gary (a gay man) could explain why gay men in the west – where condoms are freely and easily available – are now starting to record worse HIV rates than even the worst hit African Nations. In San Francisco, 50% of gay men have HIV, rising to 1 in 5 US-wide. In the UK, 1 in 20 gay men have HIV, rising to 1 in 12 in London. (The US shows the way ahead, as usual). Why arent the condoms working, Gary?

    (Incidentally, it costs £20 – 30,000 per annum, to treat a single HIV patient. This is another reason for the Government being “cash strapped”).

    Of course, in future, when we reach the point where most gay men have HIV – and we will get there, no doubt – then HIV will be officially reframed in the public eye: from deadly, incurable disease, to a benign condition barely worthy of comment.

    The Catholic Churchs policy on contraception has been fully borne out by study and public health experts (such as Dr Edward Green) recognise this. Both Green and the Church recognise that behaviours, not pieces of latex, are key with regard to fighting STDs.

    Green has openly stated that the empirical data fully supports the Churchs stance. It is a disgrace that secularists like Gary promote falsehoods and tell lies to a gullible public.

    And at the same time as claiming concern about sexual health, Gary promotes the disordered homosexual ‘sex’ which is – by far -the #1 reason for HIV proliferation in the West.

    Very sinister and duplicitous people, secularists.

    See below:
    ——————

    “On the same day as this week’s terrorist attack in London, the Government announced 15 new faith schools in England; six for Muslims. There are plans for an Islamic school and one for the Free Presbyterian Church in Glasgow.

    This cash-strapped Government will struggle to regulate what goes on in them.

    In just one week in May, I witnessed two US religious extremists invited to speak to Catholics. One was Pam Stenzel, an abstinence-only advocate who told 200 children from the Paisley diocese that “condoms are not safe” and anyone who had sex out of marriage “would pay”. The other was Michael Voris who told a crowd of 150 Catholic activists in Motherwell: “We need to explain why contraception and same-sex marriage is evil”, adding: “there is no-one in Heaven; except for Catholics.”

    It is time we stopped encouraging examples of religious extremism.

    Garry Otton,
    Secretary,
    Secular Scotland,
    58a Broughton Street,
    Edinburgh.”

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/letters/case-for-status-quo-in-tricky-balance-between-church-and-state.21167332

    • Gabriel Syme,

      Thank you for your terrific post, interesting to me on a number of fronts. Firstly having met Garry Otton and thus now knowing from personal experience how two-faced he is, I’m very interested in what you say about him – especially the fact that he has had a letter published (again) in The Herald.

      This interests me immensely because I am blatantly excluded from The Herald, both their letters page and their blog. I seldom blog there but recently tested the waters by submitting a short comment which, despite carefully observing all their rules, and despite the fact that their blog isn’t exactly packed with contributors, did not make it onto the page.

      The failure of my letters to make it onto the letters page, indicating, possibly, (another spate of) deliberate exclusion prompted me recently to pen the following letter to the Editor. No reply to date – and I don’t expect one, either.

      Magnus Llewellin
      The Herald
      200 Renfield Street
      Glasgow
      G2 3QB 1st May, 2013

      Dear Mr Llewellin,

      Some years ago, I wrote to one of your predecessors – Mark Douglas-Home – to express my concerns about the fact that, following an unprofessional instruction from a former Deputy Editor at The Herald (Kevin McKenna), letters submitted by any member of the Catholic Truth team were banned. They were not to be published in the paper.

      Our then Media Officer uncovered this blatant censorship when enquiring about the fact that our letters were no longer making it into print at The Herald. The Letters Editor revealed that Kevin McKenna had instructed that all letters from Catholic Truth be sent “upstairs” (i.e. to him).

      Mr Douglas-Home kindly telephoned me at my home to assure me that Kevin McKenna was no longer employed at The Herald and that I was welcome to submit letters once again. I did so, and for a time my letters were included in the letters page – although not as frequently as they were under Harry Reid’s editorship, when all but one of my letters were published. So, despite my hard-hitting letter (enclosed, 20 March) in response to one of his articles, I do hold Harry in some high esteem for his fairness in that regard.

      Once again, however, I find myself in the position of submitting letters which are not published. I am aware that I have no “right” to demand publication and I trust that this letter is not misinterpreted as being any such demand. However, given that the Catholic Church in Scotland is currently in turmoil, and that we are the only organisation of our kind within the Church, it seems strange that our contribution is not welcome in, frankly, any Scottish newspaper, including The Herald. We are unique in that we have been criticising the Scottish Bishops for years now, and making the link between their unorthodox positions on many Church matters and the likelihood of something being seriously wrong in their personal lives, so it seems self-evident that we have something important to contribute to the debate about the state of the episcopacy in Scotland. As one blogger noted when the Cardinal O’Brien scandal broke: Catholic Truth will now be saying ‘chickens coming home to roost’. Quite.

      I enclose the most recent two letters which I have submitted, unsuccessfully, for publication in The Herald. And I enclose, too, a copy of our current – May 2013 – newsletter, for your information.

      You may conclude that neither of my enclosed letters merited publication, in which case I would appreciate learning your reasons at your earliest convenience. It does seem odd to me that both television and radio producers have included me in their programmes, while I am excluded from The Herald correspondence columns.

      If it transpires that you agree with your Letters Editor that I have nothing to contribute to the debate about the Catholic Church in Scotland, then, of course, I will not submit any further letters for publication, be assured.

      Kind regards – God bless you.

      Yours sincerely,
      (Signed)
      Editor

    • Did Michael Voris really say: “…there is no-one in Heaven; except for Catholics.”?

      I was there and I am sure I would have noticed if he had said something like this. He did say that other religions are wrong, but thst is quite different from saying that only Catholics get to Heaven.

      • Hi Eileenanne,

        I attended the talk too, and Voris explicitly stated “Only Catholics go to heaven” (this was quite early on in his talk – start as you mean to continue, and all that!).

        I think he did temper this with the argument about “Invincible ignorance” (is that what its called?) but there is no doubt he clearly stated “Only Catholics go to heaven”.

        I remember it well, because I have never heard such a bold, confident statement from any Priest (not including the bullish SSPX) or Catholic teacher.

        • Thanks for the clarification Gabriel. I am astonished that I didn’t pick that up.

  48. For those of you who saw Question Time from Belfast last night, I submit, for your interest, my email to the Protestant Northern Ireland politician, Ian Paisley Jr, copy to the “Catholic” politician John O’Dowd, Sinn Fein: subject: “same-sex marriage”….

    Dear Mr Paisley,

    I write, on behalf of our readership, both at home in the UK, Ireland north and south of the border, and abroad, to thank you most sincerely for your courageous defence of traditional Christian marriage on tonight’s edition of Question Time. You were superb.

    In recognition of your father’s staunch Protestantism, I have been heard to describe dissident Catholics as being “about as Catholic as Ian Paisley’s granny” – which usually raises a laugh.

    That description easily fits the disgraceful John O’Dowd, who sat alongside you on the panel and failed to support you in the face of the (typical) hostility thrown at you from the brainwashed audience and the brain-dead members of the panel, not least Peter Tatchell who has made a living out of undermining sexual morality, not least among the young. O’Dowd, of course, is one of a growing band of heretics who are, in fact, Catholics- in-name-only. Church law actually prohibits him and his ilk from approaching for Holy Communion. In saner times, his local bishop would have enforced this legislation, but now, of course, in the midst of the worst crisis ever to hit the Catholic Church, that is highly unlikely to happen.

    Please continue your staunch defence of marriage. What active homosexuals do IS obnoxious, you are absolutely right: their unnatural sexual appetites and behaviour is gravely offensive to God, who has designed our bodies to be used in complementary fashion, between one man and one woman in lifelong marriage. That the numpties alongside you on the panel cannot see that, speaks to their diabolical blindness. You are to be highly commended for speaking the truth, without apology.

    I’m copying O’Dowd into this email because I wouldn’t waste my time writing personally to him – or to any of the other useful idiots on the panel. As you will know, it was Lenin who coined the term “useful idiots” to describe those who unthinkingly promoted the Communist agenda, despite the fact that it militated against their own best interests. That is what the O’Dowds of this world are doing by going along with the crazy re-definition of marriage. God help them at their judgment.

    Again, sincere thanks for your courage and for speaking so very well in defence of God’s natural law, and in defence of traditional marriage. I must pray for you to join us – you’re tailor made to be a Catholic!

    God bless you.

    (signed)
    Editor
    Catholic Truth
    http://www.catholictruthscotland.com

    Ps before anyone jumps to accuse me of double-talk by saying I wouldn’t waste my time writing to John O’Dowd, when I urged doubters to write to Archbishop Muller, I DID – in fact – write to O’Dowd by copying him into the email. My statement about not wasting my time writing to him is a linguistic device to.. well… er… insult him (so to speak!)

    • My MP who I often see at Mass voted in favour of the same sex marriage bill at the first reading. I had been emailing him prior to the second and third reading trying to persuade him to change his mind. But to no avail. He wouldn’t even support the amendments to protect conscientious objectors in public office. When I saw him going to Holy Communion at Mass today I felt so angry which I know is not right.
      Yes I should forgive him but when he is so publicly going against the teachings of the Church and publicly supporting legislation that is so damaging for society, it doesn’t seem right that he should be waltzing up to Communion a couple of days later.
      Speaking to other parishioners about this they were totally unaware of how the MP had voted on same sex marriage. Some were very cross saying they vote for this MP at elections because they see him at Mass and presume he will represent the Catholic viewpoint.
      I spoke to the priest about this as well and he said he would not enter into a discussion of another person’s conscience. He also reminded me of Pope Francis’ saying that politics should not enter the Mass; and that we are not the gatekeepers. I can see where he is coming from, and respect his integrity for giving this reply.
      It is not right to discuss another person’s conscience but this is not hearsay or gossip. The MP publicly declared he was in favour of same sex marriage and continually voted to support the Bill. Just in case he didn’t know the Church’s teaching on homosexuality or the Scriptures on which it is based I had emailed the MP the relevant paragraphs from the Catechism with citations. He still voted wholeheartedly in favour of the Bill.
      Editor, on reading in your letter to Iain Paisley that Church law actually prohibits O’Dowd and his ilk from approaching for Holy Communion I wondered if perhaps I should write to the Bishop to ask if he will enforce Church law? Then I question my motives, as the parish priest says, we are not the gatekeepers. We should not be obstacles to Christ. I would appreciate views on this.

      • Marjory,

        Wonderful that you spoke up about this. Your priest is either ignorant or cowardly – probably both. Would he say the same thing if you had approached to tell him about a parishioner who was distributing racist literature at the back of the Church? No way. He’d have raced (pun intended!) to the back of the Church to demand an end to the scandal. Heavens, priests like him refuse Holy Communion to traditionally minded Catholics who want to kneel! Truly, you couldn’t make this stuff up.

        The issue is not about judging someone’s conscience. And, sorry, but the priest IS the “gatekeeper” – he should have spoken to the MP to make sure his conscience is informed (as you have done by sending him the necessary literature) and, ultimately, it’s the priest’s duty to withhold the Sacraments from public sinners. That is Canon Law – and your MP is a public sinner. He has publicly voted in Parliament to attack God’s natural moral law on human sexuality and marriage, in order to normalise the evil of homosexual activity. You don’t get much more “public” and much more “sinning” than that.

        It’s the false charity (or, more likely, weak human respect) exhibited by your PP which is an obstacle to Christ, not the correction of a grave public sinner who is causing offence to God and scandal to the faithful, by receiving sacrilegious Communions. Your priest is seriously wrong on this. Be confident: you are right and he is wrong, wrong, wrong, big-time, on this.

        So, yes, please do write to your Bishop to ask him to enforce Canon Law, # 915

  49. Gabriel Syme & editor,

    I congratulate you both on some excellent posts and letters, so concise and straight to the heart of the matter.

  50. Eileenanne,
    It appears from your comments above that you do not believe that only Catholics go to heaven, which rather begs the question: Do you reject the infallible Church dogma ‘outside the Church no salvation’?

    Anyway, here is one of many quotes from the Papal Encyclicals laying out clearly what is today obscured, viz., true Catholic teaching. This quote is from Pius XI’s Mortalium Animos.

    “…Thus, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics. There is but one way in which the unity of Christians may be fostered, and that is by furthering the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it; for from that one true Church they have in the past fallen away. The one Church of Christ is visible to all, and will remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it.

    The mystical Spouse of Christ has never in the course of centuries been contaminated, nor in the future can she ever be, as Cyprian bears witness: “The Bride of Christ cannot become false to her Spouse; she is inviolate and pure. She knows but one dwelling, and chastely and modestly she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber.”

    The same holy martyr marvelled that anyone could believe that “this unity of the Church built upon a divine foundation, knit together by heavenly Sacraments, could ever be rent asunder by the conflict of wills.” For since the Mystical Body of Christ, like His physical body, is one (I Cor. 12:12), compacted and fitly joined together (Eph. 4:16), it were foolish to say that the Mystical Body is composed of disjointed and scattered members. Whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member thereof. Neither is he in communion with Christ its Head.

    Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors…Let them, then, return to their Father, who, forgetting the insults in the past heaped upon the Apostolic See, will accord them a most loving welcome. If, as they constantly say, they long to be united with Us and Ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, “the mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful.”

    Let them heed the words of Lactantius: “The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of faith, this the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, and these will be lost forever unless their interests be carefully and assiduously kept in mind.”

    • Eileenanne is correct. In your quotation there is nothing whatsoever that contradicts her statement. Yes, all who have left the Church, the heretics who made a choice to leave or try to find salvation without the church these may well encourge the wrath of God. But in China a little boy growing up who has never heard of the Church is not a heretic therefore “Outside of the Church there is not Salvation does not apply to him” What you are doing Athanasius is limiting the love of God to his `favourites`. You are also teaching a doctrine of Pre-destination, in so far that when God gave me a soul he destined me for heaven, for I was born into a Catholic family. The poor little boy in China is pre-destined for Hell because he was born in a pagan land. Where is God`s justice in this? Yes, you are correct, Bhuddism, Protetantism, Islam, and any other faith cannot bring a soul to Heaven. But the little boy in China is saved by the existence of the Catholic Church, for without her none can be saved. She it is who pours out her grace by the Holy Mass and the Sacrifice of Christ to all men. The Holy Spirit moves where he likes. No, it does not mean that he can live any way he pleases, that little boy, he must follow the natural law of justice to his neighbour and strive for goodness. But many outside the church do this. What I find sad Athanasisus is that your views seem to be some sort of banner of orthodoxy in the St Piux X Society that keeps you from unity with the mainstream Church. That is sad. You find this phrase `Outside of the Church there is no Salvation` used for example at the Council of Florence when Philip IV of France was threatening to withdraw the French Church from unity with Rome, That is it s true meaning. I pray for the unity of St Pius X and the Mainstream Catholic church that such obstacles will be removed.

  51. Athanasius,
    I don’t believe that only Catholics go to Heaven, and I don’t believe the Church has ever taught that to be true.

  52. Eileenanne,

    The Church has always taught that to be true, both by the infallible dogma ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’ and by such teaching as quoted from Pius XI above, even in cases of invincible ignorance. You are in grave error, then, if you believe that non-Catholic religions can save souls.

    There is but one Church, one fold and one shepherd, visible to all, as Pius XI says, apart from which no one can be saved.

    From Humani Generis: Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.”

    Are you reducing this necessity to a meaningless formula, Eileenanne?

    Or perhaps you are confusing the Church’s infallible dogma with its doctrine relating to invincible ignorance, which teaches that certain souls, by the mercy of God, having had no way of knowing and entering the true Church in life, nevertheless died united in spirit with the Church in that they lived a moral life consonant with Catholic teaching and the law of God written in the hearts of all men?

    This is what the Church means when she declares that certain souls can be saved in their false religions but not by their false religions.

    Here’s another quote, this time from the Encyclical Mirari Vos of Gregory XVI:

    “Now we consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the Apostle that there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism,(Eph. 4:5), may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbour of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever.

    They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself who said “He that is not with me, is against me,” (Luke 11:23), and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with him. Therefore, “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.”

  53. pew catholic,

    God alone knows who is good and who is not good, so we really have to leave individual souls to Him. A lot depends also on what God deigns to be “good” and what we consider to be “good.” There is, as you know, a vast difference between natural good and supernatural good. The chief and perfect good that God demands of all of us, which is essential for our salvation, is to know, love and serve Him. That necessarily means believing what God has revealed and being united with the Church He has established for the salvation of men. I think this is all basic stuff that Catholics should really be familiar with from Catechism, Encyclicals, etc.

  54. pew catholic,

    Do you think it is possible for people to get to heaven who reject the Church when the Fathers said that those who either refuse to remain in it, or reject it, cannot be saved. That was quoted in one of the VII documents.

  55. Athanasius,

    I did not say tha “non-Catholic rel;igions can save souls. If we are to disagree, then let us at least be clear about the nature of that disagreement.

    I completely accept the doctrine of “No salvation outside the Church”. I do NOT believe that means only Catholics go to Heaven and, in fact, your post at 6,50pm seems to indicate that you do not believe only Catholics go to Heaven either.

    • Eileenanne,

      You know the infallible dogma of the Church, it is quite explicit, and you can see the clear teaching of the Popes above. I accept this because I have the Catholic Faith. I do not doubt it or question it in any way because it is divinely revealed teaching. If you choose to question the Church’s infallible teaching then that’s your business. You won’t be the first or the last to protest at those articles of faith that require complete fidelity to supernaturally revealed truths.

      As regards my explanation of the Church’s doctrine concerning invincible ignorance, you are interpreting it in a way that was neither intended or suggested. That doctrine is absolutely consonant with “outside the Church no salvation.” I recommend you read it again, slowly. You may also wish to research by yourself what the Church means by the term. I am not aware that Catholics have had difficulty understanding this doctrine in the past. It is very clear and concise teaching, not to mention restrictive to extreme circumstances.

      • I do understand it and it does NOT mean only Catholics are in Heaven. Before I go to the trouble of explaining what it means, I want to be clear about the starting point for the debate. You seem to be fudging it a bit with your references to leaving individual souls to God’s judgement and invincible ignorance.

        So please just reply Yes or No – are Catholics the ONLY people who can go to Heaven?

  56. Maybe there’s a separate heaven for good Protestants. ‘Many mansions’ and all that.

  57. pew catholic,

    The ‘many mansions’ description is merely reflective of the different degrees of sanctity amongst the Blessed in heaven. It does not mean that heaven is an ecumenical paradise filled with the souls of all religions and none! But, then, I think you know that already.

  58. Eileenanne,

    Michael Voris’s meaning was very clear. He repeated the dogma “outside the Church there is no salvation” and then said that (in other words) only Catholics are in heaven. Clearly, that was his way of saying that anyone who is in Heaven is NOT there due to their false religion but thanks to Christ’s Church.

    Talk about making a drama out of a crisis.

    pew catholic – are you daft? Didn’t think so, so stop playing silly beggars. For your penance read Athanasius’s reply to you 100 times.

  59. Of course there are only Catholics in Heaven! There is only one Church – which has three parts – the Church Militant, Church Suffering and the Church Triumphant. If a soul is in Heaven then it is a member of the Catholic Church Triumphant.

    If they were not within the bounds of the Catholic Church Militant (on earth) and were saved, it is only through the grace of God. There must have been a very good reason that prevented them entering into the Church on earth. Only God will know this reason.

    It is God’s desire that all souls be saved, that is why the Church teaches that She is the only means by which to be saved. Therefore, we have a solemn duty to reject ecumenism and pray for the conversion of those outside the Church. We should also pray for the souls of Non-Catholic who have died, entrusting their soul to God.

    • Petrus,

      Excellent point about people BECOMING Catholic, part of the Church Triumphant, once they are in Heaven. I totally accept that.
      It’s not what I was thinking about and not what I thought Athanasius was saying. I wonder if it is what Michael Voris meant too. If so, I wish they had clarified it. I suspect others who have contributed to this discussion were, like me, worried that anyone reading the blog, who didn’t know what the Church actually teaches would imagine only people who are Catholic in THIS life can go to Heaven, which would of course be nonsense.

      Thanks for your valuable input.

  60. Another way I’ve heard it put is that if a soul isn’t Catholic before he arrives in Heaven, he is one after arriving.

  61. Eileenanne,

    The clarity you mention in your comments to Petrus is in the very concise teachings of the popes I quoted earlier. So tell me, do you reject that clear Papal teaching? If not, then please stipulate precisely what part of it you don’t understand or have a problem with. Never mind your opinion, my opinion or anyone else’s opinion. What do you make of the teaching of these Popes and of the dogma outside the Church no salvation? Do you accept that infallible dogma as essential to keeping the faith? This is what is important, not personal opinion. Protestants base their faith on personal opinion, not Catholics. We have dogmas guaranteed by God Himself.

    • Ahanasius,

      Do you believe that only people who are Catholic in this life go to Heaven. Yes or no will do. Many thanks,

      Eileenanne

      • It really matters not a jot what Athanasius ‘believes’ – it matters what the Church teaches as an infallible dogma and that you believe that. His response was very clear but just to reiterate:

        The Catholic Church has solemnly defined three times by INFALLIBLE declarations that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. The most explicit and forceful of the three came from Pope Eugene IV, in the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441, who proclaimed EX CATHEDRA: “The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her… No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

        The other two INFALLIBLE declarations are as follows: There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved. Pope Innocent III, ex cathedra, (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215).

        We declare, say , define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Pope Boniface VIII, (Unam Sanctam, 1302).

        This means, and has always meant, that salvation and unity exist only within the Catholic Church. This doctrine has been the consistent teaching of the Popes throughout the centuries. Further, it is dogmatically set forth that no authority in the Church, no matter how highly placed, may lawfully attempt to change the clear meaning of this (or any) INFALLIBLE dogma

        The INFALLIBLE DOGMA that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church has been supported by all the saints from every age. Here are just a few:

        St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori (1696-1787), Bishop and Doctor of the Church: “All the misfortunes of unbelievers spring from too great an attachment to the things of life. This sickness of heart weakens and darkens the understanding, and leads to eternal ruin. If they would try to heal their hearts by purging them of their vices, they would soon receive light, which would show them the necessity of joining the Catholic Church, where alone is salvation. We should constantly thank the Lord for having granted us the gift of the true Faith, by associating us with the children of the Holy Catholic Church … How many are the infidels, heretics, and schismatics who do not enjoy the happiness of the true Faith! Earth is full of them and they are all lost!”

        St. Augustine (354-430), Bishop and Doctor of the Church: “No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the Name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.”

        St. Fulgentius (468-533), Bishop: “Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only pagans, but also Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”

        St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), Bishop and Doctor of the Church: “Outside the Church there is no salvation…therefore in the symbol (Apostles Creed) we join together the Church with the remission of sins: ‘I believe in the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins”…For this reason the Church is compared to the Ark of Noah, because just as during the deluge, everyone perished who was not in the ark, so now those perish who are not in the Church.”

        Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604): “The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in Her and asserts that all who are outside of Her will not be saved.”

        St. Thomas Aquinas (1226-1274), the Angelic Doctor: There is no entering into salvation outside the Catholic Church, just as in the time of the Flood there was not salvation outside the Ark, which denotes the Church.”

        St. Louis Marie de Montfort (1673-1716): “There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Anyone who resists this truth perishes.”

        You may also like to listen to this timely sermon

        [audio src="http://www.audiosancto.org/auweb/20130519-Outside-of-the-Church-There-Is-No-Salvation.mp3" /]

  62. Eileenanne & pew catholic,

    I lifted the following text from Fr. Stephen DeLallo’s book ‘The Sword of Christendom.’ It’s fairly lengthy but gives a crystal clear explanation of the Church’s teaching on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and invincible ignorance. Well worth a read.

    Baptism and Membership in the Catholic Church:
    Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire

    “It would be good at this point to call to mind the importance of the Sacrament of Baptism, for it is by Baptism that one becomes a member of the Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ. Consequently, it is only by means of the Church that one can be saved, for it is only by belonging to the Church that one can belong to Christ.

    When speaking of the Sacrament of Baptism, one often makes reference to “Baptism of blood” and “Baptism of desire.” Now it is important to understand first of all that Christ instituted only one Sacrament of Baptism, and that is Baptism of water. Baptism of blood and Baptism of desire are called “Baptism” not because they are other forms of Baptism, but because they can supply for Baptism of water in the case of necessity when a person is not able to receive Baptism of water. In such a case, Baptism of desire or blood would produce the same effect in the soul as Baptism of water, namely the remission of sins and the infusion of sanctifying grace, by which a person becomes an adopted son of God through Jesus Christ (thus a member of His Mystical Body, the Church), and an heir of heaven. Only Baptism of water, however, imprints an indelible character on the soul.

    Now Baptism of water was instituted by Christ as the means to enter into His Church and, ultimately, into heaven. It is necessary for salvation, for our Lord Himself has said: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven” (John 3:5). Before He ascended into heaven, He also told his Apostles “to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19), and “to go into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature; he who believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he who does not believe shall be condemned” (Mark 16:15). The Council of Trent also has defined: “If anyone says that Baptism is free, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be ‘anathema!’, which means, ‘let him be condemned!’” The Council also explains that this obligation to receive Baptism of water began after the promulgation of the Gospel.

    The Church also teaches that in the case of necessity, i.e., when a person is unable to receive Baptism of water through no fault of his own, e.g., in the case of invincible ignorance,[1] he may still obtain its principal effect, namely the remission of sins and sanctification of the soul, by means of Baptism of desire and Baptism of blood. He, thus, becomes a member of the Church, Christ’s Mystical Body, but he is said to belong to the soul of the Church, and implicitly to the visible Church. However, there are certain conditions which must be fulfilled, as will be seen below.

    Baptism of blood refers to dying as a martyr for Christ. By martyrdom, a person endures patiently grave tortures and death out of love for Jesus Christ. Our Lord says that “everyone that shall confess me before men, I will also confess before my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 10:32). He also says that “he who finds his life, shall lose it; and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it” (Matt. 10:39). Surely our Lord will take into heaven a person who has laid down his life for love of Him, for “greater love than this no man has, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (Jn. 15:13). Martyrdom can supply for Baptism of water also in the case of infants, for children who are killed for hatred of Christ or the Christian religion do indeed confess Christ before men, not by speaking, but by dying for him. An example would be the massacre of the Holy Innocents by the wicked king Herod.

    Concerning Baptism of blood, St. Cyprian says: “Let them know…that the catechumens are not deprived of Baptism, since they are baptized with the most glorious and supreme Baptism of blood.”[2] St. Augustine says: “To all those who die confessing Christ, even though they have not received the laver of regeneration, martyrdom will prove as effective for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the Baptismal font.”[3] St. John Chrysostom says: “As those baptized in water, so also those who suffer martyrdom are washed clean, in their own blood.”[4]

    Baptism of desire may also supply for Baptism of water in the case of necessity. We could say that Baptism of desire differs from Baptism of water in the same way in which spiritual Communion differs from actual Communion. Consequently, Baptism of desire would produce the same effect of actual Baptism of water (namely the sanctification of the soul), except that an indelible mark would not be imprinted on the soul. We can see the doctrine of Baptism of desire both in the Council of Trent and in the writings of the Fathers of the Church.

    In Chapter Four of the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent, the Church defines the doctrine of justification by means of the translation from the state of original sin as a child of Adam, to the state of grace and the adoption of sons of God through Jesus Christ, our Savior. The Council defined that, “this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it.”

    Saint Augustine says: “I find that not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting of Baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the mystery of Baptism for want of time.”[5] The most striking pronouncement, however, on baptism of desire comes to us from St. Ambrose, in his sermon on the death of the Emperor Valentinian II, who had died as a catechumen before being baptized. “I hear you express grief,” he says, “because he did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism. But he had long desired to be initiated before he came to Italy, and expressed his intention to be baptized by me as soon as possible… Has he not, therefore, the grace which he desired? Has he not received that for which he asked? Surely, he received [it], because he asked [for it].”

    The reason for this is clear. When an unbaptized person is moved by the grace of God to make an act of perfect contrition for his sins and perfect love of God, his soul is cleansed from original and actual sin (but not necessarily from all punishment due to actual sin) by the infusion of sanctifying grace and the virtues by God. He thereby becomes an adopted son of God and an heir of heaven at that very moment. Of course, supernatural faith must exist in such a person, “for he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a Rewarder for those who seek Him” (Heb., 11:6). By this faith, he is moved to ask God to forgive his sins and assist him in the pursuit of sanctity by a virtuous life, avoiding all sin with God’s help.[6]

    As well, he must have the desire to receive Baptism of water. This desire could be either explicit, as in the case of a catechumen who is expressly preparing to receive Baptism to enter into the Christian faith, or implicit, as in the case of a person who, through no fault of his own, does not know of the necessity of Baptism, yet does ardently desire to do whatever God would want him to do to be saved. Evidently this would include the reception of Baptism of water were God to reveal it to him somehow.

    As St. Thomas Aquinas says: “A person receives the remission of sins before Baptism when he has the desire of Baptism, either explicitly or implicitly.”[7] An example of Baptism of desire would be the good thief to whom Christ said, “this day, thou wilt be with me in paradise” (Lk., 23:43). That is why we do not judge the hearts of other men, although it is true that such people cannot be secure about their salvation, according to the words of Pope Pius XII, who says that these men are not excluded from eternal salvation, but they are in a condition “in which they cannot be secure about their salvation…since they lack many great gifts and helps from God, gifts they can enjoy only in the Catholic Church.”[8]

    Pope Pius IX as well condemned the opinion which said that “we must have at least good hope concerning the eternal salvation of all those who in no wise are in the true church of Christ.”[9] This is why the Church desires so ardently to send missionaries to preach the Gospel of Christ to all men, for it is the will of God our Savior, “Who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (I Tim., 2:4).

    In conclusion, we must firmly believe, according to the teaching of the Church, that there is no salvation outside the Church. The reason is because there can be no salvation outside of Jesus Christ, and the Catholic Church is nothing other than Christ’s Mystical Body. As the Fourth Lateran Council defined: “The universal Church of the faithful is one outside of which none is saved.” St. Cyprian declares as well: “Outside the Church there is no salvation.”[10]

    But we must understand this doctrine as the Church understands it. For the Church teaches that one may be saved who is not in the visible Church by means of Baptism of blood or Baptism of desire (as we saw above), by which he implicitly becomes a member of the Church. In such a case, the saving grace of Christ’s redemptive sacrifice is applied to his soul, effecting his sanctification and salvation, but through the mediation of the Catholic Church, Christ’s Mystical Body (for salvation can only come through the Catholic Church).

    In his encyclical, Quanta conficiamur, of August 10, 1863, Pope Pius IX declares:

    It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God, Who clearly beholds, searches and knows the minds, souls, thoughts and habits of men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin.

    The Church’s doctrine on Baptism of desire is admirably illustrated by Archbishop Lefebvre in his book, A Bishop Speaks, pp. 152-153:

    The Church is the only Society which Our Lord founded for our salvation: the Church is not a society merely useful for our salvation, but indispensable and necessary for our salvation. Without the Church we cannot be saved; we cannot reach Heaven or attain eternal life save through the Church.

    You will say: ‘Then, Monsignor, will no Protestant, no Moslem, no Buddhist, no Animist be saved?’ I did not say that, but I do say, I affirm and reaffirm, since it is not I who speak, but the Church, which has always proclaimed and always believed it, that none, not even among the Moslems, not even among the Protestants, not even among the Animists, can be saved save through the grace of the Catholic Church, save through the grace of the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ. There is but one Cross through which one may be saved, and this Cross is given to the Catholic Church: it is not given to the others.

    This Cross and this sacrifice of the Cross are continued on our altars, and it is precisely this which is the heart of the Church, which is the reason for the Church’s very existence. All graces come to us through the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Our Lord has but one Mystic Bride, that is the holy Catholic Church. Without doubt, souls are saved outside the Church visible, but you are well aware that there are three baptisms: the baptism of water, the baptism of blood and the baptism of desire.

    The baptism of desire may be explicit—that is the case with our catechumens in Africa who are preparing for baptism and have expressed the explicit desire for baptism. God knows how often, when we were in Africa, we heard Catechumens say to us: ‘But, Father, you must baptize us. If we should die, we should go to hell!’ We used to answer: ‘No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience, because you have the desire for baptism, you already have the grace of baptism within you. Baptism will clearly give you graces more abundantly, but by the very fact that you have had a sincere desire for baptism, and if your heart is free from sin, you have the grace of baptism, because you have the baptism of desire.’

    And one may have the baptism of implicit desire, in great good will. At that moment, God alone is Judge. We do not know what takes place in souls. God knows all souls, and for that reason, knows that in Protestant communions, in Moslem communions, in Buddhist communions, in all humanity, there are souls of good will. God knows the souls disposed to serve Him, disposed to do His holy will. And, by the very fact that they seek to do His holy will, they have the implicit baptism of desire: baptism, which is the means of joining the Church.

    These souls do not realize it, but they receive the grace of baptism through the Catholic Church; they cannot receive a grace outside the Catholic Church. One cannot be saved by Islam, by Buddhism or by Protestantism—one is not saved by error. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, there is no Protestant church in heaven, there is no Moslem church in heaven; there is only one Church in heaven, the Catholic Church. God Himself founded it.

    These may seem hard sayings, but they are the truth. It was not I who founded the Church, it was our Lord, it was the Son of God, it was He Who created it. And we are obliged, we, priests, to tell the truth. One may be saved within Protestantism, within Buddhism, within any religion whatsoever; but one cannot be saved by that religion. The difference is enormous!
    ——————————————————————————–

    [1] For example, a person would be at fault and would not be in invincible ignorance, if he knew the Catholic Church was the true Church yet refused to join it; or if he had a serious doubt about his religion and refused to seek the truth; or if he denied one or more of the truths taught by the Catholic Church knowing in his heart that they were truly revealed by Christ. In such cases, because he is in bad faith, he would not be saved (if he died in that state).

    [2] In his Epistle 73 to Iubaian, n. 21.

    [3] In The City of God, Ch. 13, n. 7.

    [4] In his homily about the martyr, Lucian, n. 2.

    [5] In De Baptismate contra Donat., IV, 22.

    [6] Thus it can be said that he must have at least an implicit faith in Jesus Christ. For the name Jesus means Savior, or God is Salvation, and as St. Bernard says, the Second Person of the Trinity is Savior from all eternity. Consequently, if one is not able to have an explicit faith in Jesus Christ, (e.g., because he is invincibly ignorant of Him), he must at least believe in Jesus Christ as God the Savior, i.e., by acknowledging that only God can forgive his sins and open the gates of heaven. By doing this, he would actually be turning to God the Son for salvation.

    [7] In III Sentences, Q. 69, Art. 4 ad 2.

    [8] Encyclical of Pope Pius XII on the Mystical Body of Christ.

    [9] In the Syllabus of Errors against Indifferentism, n. 17.

    [10] In Epistle 73, 21.

    • So do you believe, Athanasius that not only those who are Catholic in this life can go to Heaven?

  63. That is a very good article indeed, very clear.

    I remember being taught at school that an indelible mark is imprinted on the soul at ordination and that this meant that a priest would always be a priest even if he no longer worked as a priest, i.e. left the priesthood. I never heard the concept mentioned in relation to any other sacrament.

    So I presume that when Fr DeLallo says that in baptism of desire “an indelible mark would not be imprinted on the soul” he means that this desire might change and someone no longer wish to be baptised. In other words, it would be only in danger of death than baptism of desire would take effect.

    • Margaret Mary,

      Yes, absolutely right. It would only be in danger of death that baptism of desire would take effect, presuming that the person wanted baptism. Otherwise, baptism has to be administered via the Sacramental rite.

  64. I had a phone call from a reader alerting me to the fact that there is a letter in today’s Herald Scotland claiming that Catholic Truth paid for the Michael Voris trip.

    I’ve emailed a very short letter for publication to correct that error. It will beggar belief – and stretch my tolerance just a tad too far – if it’s not published. So watch this space.

    The comment I submitted to Garry Otton’s website to correct HIS error that we had organised the Voris talk has not been published. His article on the Voris talk remains but “no comments” underneath. Isn’t that incredible? The man’s obviously utterly dishonest.

  65. Yes, editor, dishonesty reigns today, and there are no more dishonest people than liberals.

    • @crossraguel – very heartening, our priest moaned that no one would turn up – poor old him, having to get off his backside to finally provide decent adoration for the parishioners.
      This has been endemic in the st andrews & edinburgh diocese, st columbas closed its adoration facility and then a petition to the cardinal to provide adoration got absolutely nowhere – i guess we now know why.
      Bishop Robson has put his own personal spin on Adoration – that it be for new leaders and renewal in the diocese, perhaps he might like to help renew the diocese by cancelling yoga classes at the cathedral, which 2 or 3 parish council members there attend – the adverts plastered over gillis college and the facilities provided for yoga at jericho house don’t exactly help either.

      • Do any of you Edinburgers ever complain to the priests about these Yoga adverts? We’ve discussed them more than once on this blog, but I’ve yet to read any claims from bloggers that they’ve tried to end the scandal.

        Well, neri?

  66. Just a quick question about the Afterlife: do Catholics believe that we are either punished, or rewarded immediately, in ‘particular judgement’, or do we linger in Purgatory until the Final and General Judgement?

    Pius X

    • Pius X,

      This is a good question. I will try to answer but I will probably make some mistake so I encourage those better informed to correct me.

      Our particular judgement happens right after death and we are sent to either Heaven, Purgatory or Hell. If we are sent to Purgatory, we are saved. After a set time of purification we will enter into the glory of Heaven. If we are sent to Hell, we will be there for all eternity.

      The General Judgement is when we will see the consequences of our actions. My understanding is that this does not alter our destination for eternity.

      • Got it in one!

        And remember, pius X / Petrus, we can help speed a soul to Heaven from Purgatory by praying for them, and they, in turn, while they can’t help themselves, can help us, so worth praying for the release of the Holy Souls. Ever the ulterior motive. What am I LIKE?!

  67. Hi there,

    Recently, I have become interested in the whole question of vaccinating children. As a Catholic pro-life parent, I obviously want to make the right decisions.

    I have discovered that the “so-called” measles epidemic in Wales is no such thing. While news reports on TV spoke of over 1, 000 cases, closer examination of the statistics shows that there were only 26 confirmed cases so far for 2013, although 60,000 children have since been vaccinated, largely through media-inspired fear.

    This is one of the reasons why I have become suspicious of the government drive to mass-vaccinate all children.

    I remember reading on this blog about the HPV vaccine for teenage girls and how the Catholic schools shockingly agreed to allow the vaccine to be given before proper testing. Yet now, quietly this vaccination programme has been withdrawn for under 17 year olds.

    My confidence, therefore, has been diminished in government health advice, and I am left with the dilemma of whether or not to vaccinate my new-born baby.

    I am at the early stages of research, so would welcome all the help and advice I can get from the bloggers here, especially parents, teachers, nurses and doctors. Even any lawyers who may have experience of such cases. I would especially love to hear from parents who have decided against child vaccinations – in particular anyone who has memories of life before mass-vaccinations began.

    Please see below a couple of links to help bloggers understand were I am coming from.

    This first link is about a doctor named Dr. Jayne Donegan who won the court case brought by the GMC and this link shows the GMC findings.
    http://www.jayne-donegan.co.uk/articles

    This link below is a presentation from a lady called April Renee, who lost her child through vaccination.

    I am really looking forward to reading all your comments.

    • Hi Catherine,

      Great question. I had German Measles, Mumps and Whooping Cough when I was young and I have lived to tell the tale. When I became a parent I didn’t think twice and gave my first child all the injections. MY second child got the first bought. However, my wife encouraged me to read a book called “The Truth About Vaccines” and my eyes were opened. Many of the diseases that vaccines are credited with reducing were naturally declining anyway. The book is well worth a read. It is available here:

      http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Truth-About-Vaccines-Decision/dp/1906142440/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1369600386&sr=8-3&keywords=the+truth+about+vaccines

      It might be worthwhile to google Dr William Sears and read some of his stuff. As a result of all of this research, my third son hasn’t had any vaccinations at all. We were up front and open with the health visitor and she was fine about it.

      In short, there are definitely moral reasons to avoid these vaccines, but for health reasons too I think they should be avoided. The ingredients are awful.

  68. Catherine,

    I didn’t get any inoculations as a child, my parents having decided against it on moral grounds. They never really explained it well enough to me as to why, what I remember is sitting it out when the class was going to get it done. As a parent I hadn’t enough reason not to get them done so far, only recently my sister speculated a link with embryos, which would rule them out for Catholics if it were the case – trouble is I haven’t found anything conclusive – which may be deliberate on the part of the pharmaceuticals/government.

    Will be interested to see if anyone has better info.

    • Crossraguel,

      I wonder if you’ve read the first link given by Catherine, because that contains plenty of reasons not to vaccinate your children. I’ve not finished reading the articles by Dr Donegan but I was very struck by this extract from the one about mumps:

      “‘MUMPS HITS UNIVERSITIES’, scream the headlines as universities set up mass vaccination programmes advising students to have the MMR jab as an epidemic of mumps threatens to sweep through campuses across the country. Figures from the Health Protection Agency show an increase in mumps from about 1,500 for all age groups in 2003 to almost 2,000 cases in only the first six months of this year.
      We are told that most cases of mumps are among people in their very late teens and early 20s who have not been vaccinated with the MMR and are therefore vulnerable to infection (1).

      Mumps vaccine was added to the UK schedule in 1988 in the form of the MMR vaccine, but during 1988-1991, in a catch up campaign, MMR vaccine was also offered to all children up until the age of school entry’ (2). This means that children with a birth date from 1983 would have been included in the campaign.These children will now be 21 years of age and younger, yet this is the very age group that we are told are getting mumps because they were too old to have been given the MMR vaccine in 1988…”

      The more I’m reading that website (Dr Jane Donegan) the more informed I’m becoming and if I were a young mother now, being called on to have my children vaccinated with the MMR, I would be holding fire until I got myself fully acquainted with the facts, all the facts, not just the ones on offer from the health professionals. At least in past years the jabs were one at a time. I’m not convinced that it’s a good thing to have them all in one go.

      I’m also very suspicious that the doctor who raised the alarm about the MMR jab has been forced out of Britain and banned from returning/speaking here. What are they afraid of?
      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/02/11/696083/-MMR-Controversy-160-Wakefield-Responds-to-Fox-Media-Hatchet-Job

  69. Catherine,

    I had two different types of measles and one bout of whooping cough in the first six months of my life. I got over them without vaccinations.

    Like Crossraguel’s parents, mine didn’t have their children vaccinated. I have to say that it did us no harm. In fact, during the recent media frenzy about measles my mother remained completely indifferent. She said that measles was very common in children back in the 60s and 70s and she never knew anyone to die of it. Besides that, I am very dubious about vaccinations being administered to infants. I wouldn’t have it done, but that’s just my opinion.

  70. Crossraguel

    Thanks for the link. So, after death we are either rewarded or punished immediately, or sent to Purgatory. What’s the point in the General Judgement? Or is particular punishment temporary until that time?

    Pius X

    • pius x,

      The particular judgement is so that you know your destiny right away, and this happens immediately upon death. The general judgment will be to show forth at last the justice of God in respect to all.

      Here’s a link to a youtube video about the particular judgment that might be of interest to you.

  71. Great new website. Some big topics in the melting pot and must get my pennyworth in.

    As far as I know many Catholic parents opt out of the MMR vaccinations as the measles vaccine is derived from embryos.
    I didnt know about this when my children were immunised although my son had measles before he was inoculated.

  72. Athanasius

    Thanks for the video. When I die, and if I go straight to Hell (hopefully not), I’ll still be there after the general judgement for all eternity, while all you lucky people are reaping your Paradisical rewards.

    I went to Mass yesterday evening, for the ‘Solemnity of the Holy Trinity’. Now, I thought ‘Solemnity’ was the operative word. ‘Solemn’ it was not. Guitar music, happy clappy hymns like ‘Shine, Jesus, Shine’ and music recitals whilst I was trying to recite the Rosary. What’s more a squawking kid all the way through. I’m the living epitome of patience, but why me Lord?

    Quick Rosary question. When you start, you say the Apostle’s Creed, 3 Hail Mary’s, Our Father, Glory Be, but do you have to say these in conclusion? After my Rosary, I just say the Hail Holy Queen, and the Memorare.

    Pius X

    • This is the full video instead of the abridged version that you were given.

      Although Fr. says he may be ‘theologically off’ he attributes a great deal to ecumenism(10. 59) in the video.

  73. A little question…

    We know that Our Lord is both fully God and fully Man. The substance of his Divinity is begotten from God the Father, and the substance of his humanity is begotten from his Blessed Mother. Our Lord had no human father. Our Lord is male, and Our Lady lacks in nothing, except a Y chromosome, I would have thought. How then did the generation of Our Lord’s human body come about, genetically speaking?

    • Miles Immaculatae,

      A very good question.

      It seems to me that the whole thing about miracles is that they are not explained by science. Sometimes, of course, God works within his laws of nature – for example to effect a cure – but, generally speaking, what constitutes a miracle is an event which can only be explained by supernatural intervention. This is why the medical council (or whatever it’s called) in Lourdes have to thoroughly examine patients who appear to be miraculously cured. They are checking for any possible natural or scientific explanation. Only when the doctors can say that this healing cannot be explained by science, is it declared a miracle – that is, something that has healed by supernatural means, not natural / medical means.

      So it is with the Virginal conception and birth of Our Lord. The Archangel told Our Lady (and later St Joseph) that, in answer to her question, what Mary had conceived was “because the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee…” – i.e. not by any human means. We read this, not just in the account of the Annunciation in St Luke’s Gospel, but in the first chapter of St Matthew’s Gospel where he details the “generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matt: 1-1) – see verse 18 ff for reference to the Annunciation event.

      Your question reminds me of those who argue that, because there is no scientific record of the miracle of the sun at Fatima, it couldn’t have happened. But that is to ignore God’s power over his own laws. God may choose to suspend or “over-ride” those laws for the purposes of effecting a miracle.

      That’s my tuppence-worth, for what it’s worth – although given the state of the banks these days, probably not worth tuppence!

  74. Thank you for all your comments on childhood vaccines. I am grateful of your thoughts on the matter would love a thread dedicated this topic. Its good to hear that Athanasius and Petrus who have have not been vaccined and had caught some of these illness and were okay. Is good to hear that Petrus and his wife decided not too vaccinate. I hope I have the same luck with my health visitor. I would be interested in knowing out of the cases of numbers over the years vaccinated against measles and those who did not get vaccinated, how many actually caught the measles – the vaccinated or the unvaccinated – especially in the Wales epidemic.

    • Catherine,

      I note your desire for a thread dedicated to the topic of vaccinations, but I’m not sure there’s much more to be said. I’m sure it was normal for us to catch measles and mumps, have time off school, get well and return hale and hearty. I can remember that much, and also chickenpox which had an off-school value time of 3 weeks. So, I think these mass vaccination programmes are of fairly recent origin (and I think it says so in one of your links – 1988, I believe)

      I’m, thankfully, not in the position of having to make a decision about this as a parent – I mean, if I were a parent, and me not married, can you imagine the scandal? “The editor of Catholic Truth is an unmarried mother” would reverberate around the Yoga classes in Edinburgh parishes and the Tablet would be urging readers to write to the Vatican without delay… So, I’m happily NOT in that position, but my gut feeling, having read all of the above posts and skimmed the links, is to give your health visitor a detailed map indicating where to take her vaccinations…

      However, I could be wrong about the dedicated thread. If anyone else is of the opinion that we need a special “mass vaccinations” thread posted, would you speak up here and now or forever hold your peace…

      Please and thank you!

    • The reason the small number of people who are not vaccinnated are OK is because of the “herd immunity” that exists when most of the population have been vaccinated. Most children who get measles, chickenpox, mumps etc. will recover fully and easily. A few will not.

      Similarly, every day many people walk out into the road without looking and survive unscathed. I still think it is a good thing to teach children to cross the road safely.

    • Thanks for that spiritustempore – isn’t it crazy that given all that eye-witness documentation, anyone would argue that the miracle of the sun couldn’t have happened because it wasn’t recorded in the nearest scientific laboratory! Gimme the proverbial strength!

    • Does anyone know of a link between any of childhood vaccines and a condition called endometriosis? I know of a few young girls that have fertility problems that they have endometriosis. Seemingly endometriosis has no known cause.

      • Catherine,

        I found this link when I Googled causes of endometriosis
        http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/149109.php

        I was very interested to note that one of the reasons is given as women delaying pregnancy. Perhaps that’s why so many have that condition, as it is now the in-thing to wait to have children so that careers etc are not affected.

  75. Help!

    I’ve had an email from a man in America asking if we can help him to find somewhere that sells “the best book” he’s ever read on conversions to Catholicism, entitled You and Thousands Like You, by Father Dudley (an English priest, published circa 1946). Don (the American) wants to purchase 5-10 copies of it.

    I’ve never heard of this book – what about the rest of you? Especially ROY – our Researcher of the Year, alias spiritustempore …

        • I have received an email from the American man searching for the book, thanking us/Veritas for unearthing where to buy Fr Dudley’s book “You and Thousands Like You” (circa 1946-9) which, he tells me, an SSPX priest claims is the best he’s ever read for informing non-Catholics and re-catechising novus ordo Catholics.

          So, sincere thanks yet again, Veritas – I’ve had a look at that link and plan to buy a copy of Fr Dudley’s book myself.

  76. Somewhere up above, I think someone referred to the problem of Yoga classes in Catholic parishes. I’ve just scrolled quickly but can’t find it to reply directly. Anyway, I have just received the following email on the subject:

    First of all can I say how enriching I have found your blog . The reason why I am contacting you is that I wanted to reply to a comment about Yoga but am currently unable to (think it is on the General Discussion in a reply you make to a reader). For some unknown reason (think it is my laptop) I cannot register on your blog. Have to admit that I have nowhere near the knowledge of your seasoned bloggers – but on this issue of New Age I have insider knowledge.

    Here is the email I have sent to yoga-friendly parishes:

    Dear Father

    Did you know that each yoga “pose” is, itself, an act of worship directed toward a particular deity in the Hindu pantheon and that you cannot practise yoga with our breaking the First Commandment?

    I am writing to express my shock that the parish is to run Yoga classes. I left a church to come to ********** (name of church) specifically because my former parish was running these classes.

    As an ex-New Age Occultist and former Yoga devotee I can confirm that Yoga is not Christian at all. This is causing untold spiritual damage to unwitting Catholics – laity and clergy alike. Below is just a little of the mass of documentation about Yoga and Christianity that I believe you will find most instructive. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_new-age_en.html
    PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR CULTURE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE
    JESUS CHRIST THE BEARER OF THE WATER OF LIFE: A Christian reflection on the “New Age”

    Yoga in philosophy and practice is incompatible with Christianity
    http://www.jmanjackal.net/eng/engyoga.htm
    Fr James Manjackal.

    http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8763
    The Exercise of Religion: Yoga

    A New Age of the Spirit? A Catholic Response to the New Age Phenomenon: The Irish Theological Commissin
    p71 Yoga

    http://www.catholicnews.sg/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2491:is-yoga-harmful-for-catholics&catid=173:article-contributions&Itemid=112
    Is Yoga Harmful for Catholics?
    Ex- yoga teacher (a Catholic!)

    http://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2008/05/father-jeremy-davies-avoid-yoga-massage.html
    Fr Jeremy Davies – Exorcist of the Archdiocese of Westminster )

    Catholic Literature:
    • The Unicorn in the Sanctuary – The Impact of the New Age on the Catholic Church: Randy England
    Ref p36 ‘ New Age Practices: Yoga , TM & Visualization.

    • Catholics and the New Age – Fr Mitch Pacwa, S.J

    I pray that these classes do not go ahead. If people wish to practise Yoga then they have the free will to do elsewhere – but outside the Church – because that is where they are by practising this.

    Some classes have stopped; some haven’t started – however in no way due to me. I pray for intercession especially from Our Lady, St Joseph, St Benedict, St Michael the Archangel and Blessed Bartolo Longo ( ex-Satanist priest). The latter is mighty in his assistance. Prayer and fasting are essential too in this battle with the demonic.

    Send me the details of any church/parish in Scotland – in fact anywhere – and I will most gladly contact them. END.

  77. My…

    I wonder if Abp Mueller’s visit and Fr Despard’s book are entirely unconnected with this welcome news.

    Looks like the Church is cleaning house. Alleluia.

  78. It is very much the end of an era; the retirement of the last of those young appointees of the 80s – those whose ministry would be defined by driving the post-conciliar revolution: O’Brien, Winning, Conti, Mone, Taylor, Logan and now Devine. With the exception of the imminently retiring Bishop Cunningham all of the present hierarchy were ordained post-VII and we can be thankful that none have that degree of pride invested in stubbornly persisting with flawed innovations, dodgy theology and initiatives.

    As with the wider Church, Cardinals particularly, the next decade will see the thaw of winter pass and inevitably the true springtime of Vatican II, Deo Gratias.

    • Crossraguel,

      Your post just leaves me open-mouthed. If, as you say, “none of the present hierarchy have that degree of pride in stubbornly persisting with flawed innovations, dodgy theology and initiatives” that means there are no extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, Communion In the hand generally, no novus ordo Masses, no ecumenism, etc across Scotland – all of which are “flawed innovations, dodgy theology and innovations” – and these are just a selection! That’s the problem we now have – Catholics of a certain age, and the completely Protestantised older generation, now think that “dodgy theology and flawed innovations” are normal.

      And what do you consider will be the “true springtime of Vatican II”?

      • editor,

        Normal order restored, after some hiatus, that I have provoked such facial contortions; we must do this more often (though perhaps post-conference, lest there be a rolling pin at Parkhead!).

        You omit ‘invested’ from your quotation and therein lies my point, which you neatly conclude with: these innovations etc. ARE normal to the younger generation, hence they do not have the degree of pride invested in stubbornly persisting with them. Human nature – we are the last to own up to our own failures, recognising wrongdoing, lacking in objectivity. Reason is what the malformed clerics and laity are/will be at liberty to apply, without fear of upsetting a collegial episcopy whose legacy depends on stubbornly maintaining the virtue of their ‘flawed innovations, dodgy theology and initiatives’.

        What do I consider will be the the true springtime of Vatican II? Why restoration, of course. Just like the recovering addicts I met with in a rehab today, sometimes it takes hitting rock bottom to provide the impetus to get on the right path. It’s not for me to speculate as to when the Church has descended that far, please God in Scotland it is now! I am confident though that the absence of those who inflicted the aggiornamento upon us is a necessary milestone on the road to restoration. Vatican III in our lifetime anyone? I’m voting for Trent II, if the participating laity get a democratic vote on the matter.

        • Crossraguel,

          I read your post as referring to the BISHOPS, not the younger generation:

          With the exception of the imminently retiring Bishop Cunningham all of the present hierarchy were ordained post-VII and we can be thankful that none have that degree of pride invested in stubbornly persisting with flawed innovations, dodgy theology and initiatives…

          Sorry if I’ve misread your comment.

          I look forward to your input during the discussion slots at the conference – will sparks fly? We’ll soon find out! See you at Celtic Park!

  79. “Do any of you Edinburgers ever complain to the priests about these Yoga adverts? We’ve discussed them more than once on this blog, but I’ve yet to read any claims from bloggers that they’ve tried to end the scandal.

    Well, neri?”

    – yes we have ! it’s been brought up at parish council meetings at the cathedral no less – to pretty much no action whatsoever, 2 or 3 parish council members indicated they took part in the classes themselves and the priest in attendance said very little – this is without looking at the minutes.

    I thank both yourself and the person above who replied – we’ve gone so far as to take their signs down from the outside of the cathedral — there is now a note in cafe camino asking people to stop taking signs. The current cathedral newsletter is presently effusive in its promotion of the world community for christian meditation at present, who recommend using mantras in prayer.

    The tide of new age rubbish coupled with a marks and spencer style catholicism here is very hard for us few Edinburghers to turn back-the only bright spot is that the welcome influx of Poles here provides us with much needed support, they aren’t fooled either. Personally I think we need an importation of some hard-core no nonsense priests from whatever fervent country can spare them.

    • Well done, neri, for taking down those posters. You’ve restored my faith in Edinburgers! Keep up the good work. Annoy them to death. The cheek of them.

      Since they have the sheer nerve to post notes saying not to remove signs, maybe you (and others) should lodge a formal complaint with the PP/administrator or whoever? Ask that cowardly priest why he remains silent at the parish council meetings – does he, in fact, approve of this diabolical activity going on within the cathedral walls? Get on his case and stay there. Just don’t mention Catholic Truth… !

  80. Editor,

    I was wondering if you had heard anything about the talks in St. Peter’s, Partick on the Council of Trent? Apparently, the Archbishop of Glasgow gave one of the talks. Any info?

    • Have I HEARD anything about the talks on the Council of Trent in St Peter’s Partick , Petrus? “Any info”? You kidding? I went along to two of them. A lot of incredible stuff to report but not here, not there, not anywhere until we’ve telt our conference audience…

      I think we ought to give those who attend the Conference first hearing on this subject. There will definitely be a report on the Council of Trent talks in the next edition, scheduled now for August, but I want to reward those who went to the trouble of booking tickets for our Conference by giving them a first-hand account before going into print. You know it makes sense!

      Unfortunately, I only attended two of the talks – the one by Archbishop Tartaglia last week and then this past Tuesday, Father William McFadden – every word a jewel. Had I known what I was (likely to be) missing, I’d have made every effort to attend all five sessions. Still, one lives and one learns…

      So, yes, I will definitely report on the talks in the newsletter in due course. All in due course, folks. All in due course! Conference audience get preferential treatment, though, as I’m sure you will all understand.

      PS – no, don’t ask – we cannot take any more ticket bookings. Ye had yer chance!

  81. Did anybody else think that Bishop Devine of Motherwell looked very ill when he was interviewed on the BBC Scotland news tonight? He was wearing sunglasses but even so, he looked haggard around the eyes and very drawn, I thought.

    • I agree Josephine. I also heard Bishop Devine speak at a pro-life event about a year ago and thought he didn’t look or sound well then.

    • I will make sure Fr Gruner knows about this. I’m bitterly disappointed, not to say astonished, that Fr Kramer for siding with the handful of dopey rebels.

  82. All the more astonishing as Bishop Fellay has confirmed that he will attend “Fatima: The Path To Peace!” in September. His talk is titled “The Rosary Crusade and the Need for Catholic Nations”. Should be interesting as Fr.Paul Kramer is also a speaker at this conference.

    • I have now emailed the Fatima Center in Canada, copy to Fr Kramer. Wish I’d known about Bp Fellay’s plan to attend the next Fatima conference when I wrote.

      The crackpot “resistance” (to what?) group are making manifest fools of themselves, since none of their dire warnings and prophecies have come to anything. Dopes. I’m truly surprised that Fr Kramer has been taken in by them.

      • I have had the following reply from Father Kramer re his attendance at the “resistance” meeting:

        Dear Patricia,

        I will be speaking on Fatima. I am not involved with the internal squabbles of the SSPX.

        Fr. Paul Kramer

        • I’m glad Fr Kramer isn’t supporting the resistance but they will use his attendance at their meeting to make out that he is. It’s a pity he accepted their invite. I think he ought to withdraw, to stop them using his name in their attacks on Bishop Fellay.

        • Hmm. I think Fr Kramer should avoid this collection of extremists , nazis, and downright head cases !

          • I agree and I’ve emailed to suggest that he withdraw from the event. He has been invited to speak about Fatima – what, in between organising the revolution?

            Gimme strength…

        • Perhaps Fr Kramer hasn’t checked out who the ‘resistance’ are? This is not an “internal squabble” of the SSPX – this is a determined attempt to split the Society by those involved in extremist politics. This can only damage the Fatima apostolate that Fr Gruner has worked so hard to build up, and I, for one, will no longer support the Fatima mission if its priests are involving themselves in extremist activities designed to destroy Abp Lefebvre’s apostolate.

          Shame on Fr Kramer.

  83. With regards to the Confessional, we know the purpose it to seek forgiveness and reconcile with God. But is there no situation whereby a Priest would break the Sacrament, to tell the Police, if he heard the Confession of a dangerous criminal, and what if a person was later found out by the authorities, would he or she still deserve punishment by the civil authorities after being forgiven by the Church? Also, will the ‘sinner’, as it were, be punished for the sin which they confessed in the next life? Sorry for such a deep question, but it’s a bone of contention over my conversion.

    Yours
    Pius X

    • Pius X,

      I will try to answer your questions.

      There is no justification for a priest to break the seal of the Confessional. He would face excommunication if he did so. Under no circumstances should he ever breathe a word to anyone.

      If someone has been forgiven by the Church of course they can still be punished by the State.

      Absolved sins cannot lead to eternal punishment/damnation. However, temporal punishment due to sin is a different matter. This is the consequences of sin which is like a debt that has to be paid, either on earth through penance, or in Purgatory.

      I hope this helps. Please someone correct me if I’m wrong.

    • Nobody but nobody has the right (and certainly not the duty) to come between a soul seeking absolution in Confession, and God.

      The penitent is not telling the priest his sins, seeking forgiveness from HIM; the priest is merely the intermediary through whom, by the will and grace of God, we are absolved from our sins. He is many things in the Confessional, including a “judge” so he may refuse absolution if necessary, in certain circumstances. Someone guilty of a serious sin which is also a criminal offence will not necessarily receive absolution. The priest may well (I’m sure would) urge that person to go to the cop shop, but – whatever – he, the priest, cannot do so. He cannot tell anyone anything he’s heard in Confession.

      So seriously does the Church treat of the seal of the confessional, that one priest explained it to me like this:

      If someone confesses a particular sin to the priest and meets him in the street later and raise the sin for discussion, not only may the priest not even enter into that conversation with the penitent, but he is to appear as if he doesn’t know what the penitent is talking about – he does not respond, would seek to change the subject. If the person persists in wanting to discuss that sin, then the priest will suggest he make an appointment to come and see him in the parish in the same way as we would make an appointment about anything else.

      That’s very wise if you think about it. The above route means nobody can accuse a priest of accosting them in the street or anywhere else and mentioning something confessed in the Sacrament of Penance. Some scoundrels would do that sort of thing. Take Petrus for example… Kidding!

      This debate anyway, is a non-starter. An awful lot, if not most, Catholics will go to a parish other than their own for Confession (if they’ve any sense! Kidding again!) and so the priest wouldn’t know their identify anyway, even if they confessed to murdering their granny. Just imagine going to the cops with that story: somebody confessed today that he’s murdered his grandmother, don’t know his name or where he lives, haven’t a clue about the identity of his granny or where she lived, and he can’t remember what he did with the body. Oh yeah, sure would speed up the detection rate if priests were allowed to break the seal!

  84. Athanasius,

    Concerning your point on the Catholic Church being the only route to salvation, we know all other Christian denominations to be faulty and not wholly true, due to their rejection of the true Apostolic faith, line and the rites and doctrines of the early, with the exception of the Orthodox, but can you honestly say that a Protestant who goes to Church every week, prays and loves Christ, will not go to Heaven. We know that the Christ founded His Church through Peter, and only people can be saved through Him, and therefore His Church, won’t they be offered another chance in the next life to accept His true Church, or face damnation. What about non-Christians, such as Jews, Muslims or Buddhists? Do they get another chance after death?

    Pius X

    • Pius X,

      I’m sure Athanasius will provide a much more eloquent response than I will. We’ve been over this issue quite recently.

      Whilst not putting limits on the mercy of God, we must completely accept the dogma “Outside the Church there is no salvation”. Of course those who are truly ignorant, or those who die with the intention of joining the true Church (baptism of desire/blood) can be saved. More than that we cannot say. I do not believe souls get another chance when they die. This would seem to make a mockery of the dogma.

  85. Petrus

    I repeat my original question- would a devout and Christ-loving Protestant get to Heaven? Christ is the operative word here. So, Muslims etc, have no chance. I just can’t swallow the belief that other Christians can’t get to Heaven.

    Pius

    Editor

    So if I went into the Confessional and said, ‘Father forgive me, I’ve killed my wife’, he’d throw me out and call the cop-shop? Is the Confessional only for venial sins?

    Pius X

    • pius X

      I’ve taken great care to clearly explain that the priest may NEVER divulge ANYTHING learned in confession, so you have either not read my comment carefully or you need help.
      You tell me!

      As for which sins to confess – strictly speaking we are only bound to confess mortal sins but the Church has always encouraged us to confess venial sins because that helps to break the habit and venial sins, of course, may lead to mortal sins.

  86. Pius X,

    All I can do is repeat the teaching of the Church – Outside the Church there is no salvation. Unless the devout Protestant could claim invincible ignorance then it is clear – he cannot be saved. Let me ask you this: if you cannot accept this doctrine, why are you bothering becoming Catholic? If you believe a good Protestant can be saved, then why bother?

    I include the following quotes from the Magisterium that may help you understand:

    Fourth Lateran Council (1215): “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.”

    Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam sanctam (1302): “We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one holy Catholic Church, and that one is apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. One is she of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her’ (Canticle of Canticles 6:8); which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism’ (Ephesians 4:5). Certainly Noah had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one Church which perfect to one cubit having one ruler and guide, namely Noah, outside of which we read all living things were destroyed… We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

    Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the “eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”

    Pope Leo XII (1823–1829), Encyclical Ubi Primum: “It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth Itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members. For we have a surer word of the prophet, and in writing to you We speak wisdom among the perfect; not the wisdom of this world but the wisdom of God in a mystery. By it we are taught, and by divine faith we hold, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and that no other name under heaven is given to men except the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth in which we must be saved. This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church… For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: ‘If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.'”

    Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Encyclical Singulari Quidem March 17, 1856): “Teach that just as there is only one God, one Christ, one Holy Spirit, so there is also only one truth which is divinely revealed. There is only one divine faith which is the beginning of salvation for mankind and the basis of all justification, the faith by which the just person lives and without which it is impossible to please God and come to the community of His children (Romans 1; Hebrews 11; Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 8). There is only one true, holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded on Peter by the word of the Lord (St. Cyprian, Epistle 43), outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church (ibid, On the Unity of the Catholic Church). … Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.”

    Pope Leo XIII (1878–1903), Encyclical Annum Ingressi Sumus: “This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God’s commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church.”

    Pope Benedict XV (1914–1922), Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum: “Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

    Pope Pius XI (1922–1939), Encyclical Mortalium Animos: “The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation… Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.”

    Pope Pius XII (1939–1958), Encyclical Humani Generis, August 12, 1950: “Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.”

    Pope Pius XII (1939–1958), Allocution to the Gregorian University (17 October 1953): “By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth.”

    Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 14: “They could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it.”

  87. Would all contributors pray for my little grandson born last night and my son in law and daughter. He is experiencing difficulties. Thank you Gerry

  88. Will certainly keep the little one and his parents and grandparents in our prayers.

    Editor,
    I’ve often thought it would be really good to have a separate link just for prayer requests.

  89. Pius X,

    I think your questions have been quite thoroughly answered by others, so I will just summarise in a general way.

    No priest can EVER break the seal of Confession upon peril of his own soul. He is not there as an arm of the State. He is there as the merciful Christ. The State must pursue its own lines of enquiry where crime is concerned. The business of the Church is to heal souls supernaturally so that they do not suffer eternal punishment.

    As regards a priest’s refusal to absolve, this is only in cases where a penitent declares his unwillingness to give up a particular sin, or announces that he is not sorry for his sins, or even goes into the confessional to blaspheme. But even if the priest refuses absolution, he is still bound by the seal of confession and can therefore NEVER discuss with a living soul what has just taken place. No, not even with the person who he has refused to absolve.

    In respect to the eternal salvation of well intentioned Protestants and non-Christians, it is quite obvious that these will be known to God alone and so we cannot go into great detail.

    What is absolutely certain is that there can be no such thing as a well intentioned non-Catholic who has had the opportunity during life to discover the true Faith but has failed to seek it out.

    Salvation by invincible ignorance basically means that the person not only had no chance of discovering the true Faith (say, for example, a man living in the remotest Amazon jungle, or a poor mentally retarded person), but that he lived by the law engraved by God in every human heart, which is to say he lived morally and uprightly in accordance with the lights he was given. In that way he was united in spirit with the Catholic Church.

    According to the dogma of the Church, salvation outside of her is to be considered a rare event rather than a common event. But even in those cases, the person saved is always saved in their false religion and never by their false religion.

    There are no limits to the great mercy of God, but that fact should not be used to obscure the truth that God founded one Church on earth for the salvation of souls, which Church He has made known throughout the world and has commanded that all enter for salvation. There is very little excuse for anyone, then, when they go to their judgment to say that they were ignorant of the fact. There is certainly no second chances after death. The mercy of God is infinite during our lives. But that mercy ends with death and strict justice is then applied.

  90. Athanasius,

    Great comment. I truly believe that if a sincere person seeks God with a pure heart, he will be led to the Catholic Church. However, what you usually find is that Catholicism is usually too much like hard work. I’ve noticed that when good people, who claim to be religious, are given the opportunity to discover Catholicism it’s usually sins of the flesh that hold them back. I’ve lost count of the amount of Protestants that have expressed their disappointment with Protestant sects. Whenever I start speaking about the Catholic Church the frist thing they say is , “Oh I couldn’t accept the teaching on contraception, sex before marriage, divorce, homosexuality”. So, it is quite clear that whilst they claim to “love Christ” they don’t want to follow His laws. Not good enough.

    I repeat, if a person is truly seeking God with a pure heart he or she will be led to the Catholic Church. I think of the Protestants I know. Not one of them can claim invincible ignorance. A big part of the problem is that they do not want to accept God the way He is; they want God to change God to suit themselves.

  91. Two very well put comments from Athanasius and Petrus. As you say, God’s mercy knows no earthly bounds. People are saved by virtue of faith in Christ, not by the doctrines of their false religion.

    Pius X

    • Pius X,

      Yes, but true Faith in Christ cannot exist unless you are in communion with His body, the Catholic Church. So, a Protestant cannot be saved just because he claims to have Faith in Christ. Remember the words of Our Lord in Matthew Chapter 7:

      “Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. [22] Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? [23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. [24] Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, [25] And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock.”

      The rock Our Lord speaks of is the the Church, with Peter as Her Head. There is a very strict requirement for all souls to belong to the Catholic Church. This is the only way to salvation.

      • Pius X,

        I should have said, please feel free to keep asking questions. That’s what we are here for!

  92. Petrus

    Fear not said he for mighty dread had siezed his troubled mind. Ignore my ramblings, I’m tapped. I am bothered because God led me here, but I do not believe that a devout Protestant whose doctrines and practices are similar to ours will perish. My grandmother was a devout Protestant. I cannot and will not accept she is not saved. How very dare you. Which Church is that on the homepage with the packed congregation?

    None of you have really answered my question on the Confession. You’ve told me what it’s purpose is, and under what circumstance it can be refused, but not whether my sins which I’ve confessed to will be punished in the next life. Imagine I’m a killer, I go to my Priest, and I beg for forgiveness on my knees and prostrate, will I go to Hell for this mortal sin in the next life. Also, if the police found out the Priest knew via the Confessional, could the Priest be locked up, for perverting the course of justice?

    Pius X

    • Pius X,

      If you cannot accept this infallible doctrine of the Church, I suggest you think very carefully about becoming Catholic at this time. It’s not an optional doctrine. Was it St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas who said that if we deny one doctrine than we place ourselves outside the Church?

      We cannot speculate on the destination of any soul. What we can say is that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. Unless a soul can claim invincible ignorance or has the firm intention to become Catholic and dies before he/she can be received into the Church, they cannot be saved. This is the infallible teaching of the Church which all Catholics MUST accept. If you believe you can be saved in a false religion, why are you wanting convert?

      Your question on Confession has been answered several times. Let me try again.

      If you go to Confession and confess a mortal sin then you will not go to Hell if you have a firm purpose of ammendment, express sorrow for your sins and receive absolution. This sin has now gone.

      However, with all sin there is still a debt to be paid through penance in this life or Purgatory in the next. Does this make sense?

  93. “Also, if the police found out the Priest knew via the Confessional, could the Priest be locked up, for perverting the course of justice?”

    I don’t know, but this doesn’t really change the nature of the Seal of the Confessional. If push came to shove, the priest in question would have to go to prison rather than break the seal.

  94. Petrus

    Thanks for clearing the Confessional part up. I’m a Protestant at present, forgive my ignorance. It’s not that I don’t accept it as a doctrine being saved outside the Church, but my Priest told me non-Catholics can be saved, if they believe in Christ, and doctrines that are similar to Catholicism. He said they will be saved through their faith in Christ as it stands, with a faith of good intentions, not by virtue of their false Church. I believe without question ALL Catholics will be saved, if they go to Confession, participate in the sacraments, but only some Protestants. Or am I wrong there as well? No non-Christian will go however. So can Orthodox get to Heaven, the Church says they are true in rites, doctrines and practice, and accept the Apostolic line in practice, just illicit?

    Pius X

    • Pius X,

      The Church teaches that outside the Church there is no salvation. That includes all who are outside the Church, be they Orthodox, Protestants, Jews, Muslims etc. Only in the exceptional circumstances described above can those outside the Church be saved.

      I think you should seriously consider finding a new priest. What your priest told you was wrong. Think about it: “they will be saved through their faith in Christ as it stands, with a faith of good intentions”? This is baloney. That means that erroneus Faith can save. It is not enough to simply say “I believe in Christ”. This is impotent unless you are in full communion with His Church. Remember Our Lord’s words in Matthew Chapter 7?

      Neither can we say that “No non-Christian will go however”. We cannot say this. Please read up on invincible ignorance.

      I would get myself to the nearest Traditional priest. Don’t accept phoney baloney Catholicism. Accept that the Catholic Church is the only means of salvation and those outside of her cannot be saved. Work for the conversion of your non-Catholic family and friends and leave the rest to God.

      • I should have said, maybe ask your priest about the old adage:

        “The path to Hell is paved with good intentions”

  95. Pius X,

    Petrus has given you some very sound answers to your questions, which I hope you have managed to grasp.

    It is absolutely futile for any of us to discuss who is and who is not saved by invincible ignorance outside the Church, since such souls are known to God alone. Suffice it to say the general rule in life is that if you do not belong to the Catholic Church then you are not going to heaven, unless in exceptional circumstances.

    There are sufficient proofs for all that the Catholic Church is the Church establised by God for the salvation of souls, but, as you say yourself, many reject them because they do not want to be bound by the laws of His Church. If they claim to believe in God then let them be obedient to the Church He has founded, simple as that.

    Remember the words of Our Lord Himself: “Not all those who say Lord, Lord shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven. But those who do the will of my Father, they shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven.” It is the will of the Father that we keep His Commandments and enter the Church He has established through His Son.

    As regards the forgiveness of sins in Confession and punishment in the next life, this all depends on whether our sorrow amounts to perfect contrition or simply “attrition.”

    Perfect contrition for our sins is a supernatural sorrow based on the love of God. We repent of our sins primarily because we love God and are truly sorry for having offended Him by our infidelity. In cases of perfect contrition, all temporal punishment is removed along with the stain of our sins so that if we were to die at that moment we would go straight to heaven.

    Attrition, which, sadly, is the most common kind of sorrow, is a sorrow for sins and a confession of them more out of fear of Hell than regret for having offended God. It is still contrition and God still forgives through the Sacrament of Confession, but it is imperfect in that it is borne more of servile fear than true love of God. Hence, since nothing imperfect can enter heaven, we must spend time in Purgatory after death in order to be purified of our imperfections.

    It is the doctrine of the Church that Purgatory is a realm of Hell. The suffering of the souls there is great. However, unlike the damned, the holy souls in Purgatory do not suffer the greatest of all torments, which is separation from God for all eternity and the impossibility of ever being able to love Him again.

    On the contrary, the suffering souls in Purgatory have, amidst their great sufferings, such a love for God as cannot be expressed. They also have the greatest joy in knowing that their souls are saved for all eternity and that they will one day be in heaven with God. Part of their suffering is that they cannot fly to Him immediately, which is the only thing they desire. So they suffer greatly in many ways, but with great love and resignation knowing that they are future saints.

    We should always offer prayers for the souls in Purgatory, that God will end their purification and bring them to Him. The Holy Souls never forget those who helped bring them to heaven sooner by their prayers. They are very powerful allies whose prayers are strong with God for us, but they cannot pray for themselves in Purgatory. They rely on our charity.

  96. Athanasius

    Thanks for that response. So, even if you confess a Mortal sin, seeking forgiveness and not out of fear of Hell, you’ll still go to Purgatory to be fully cleansed.

    Petrus

    OK, so glad we’ve cleared up whose going to Hell and who is isn’t. As you say the circumstances are a) Total ignorance, and b) Baptism of Desire. My sainted Grandmother was neither of those, she was Anglican and darn proud of it. If she is in Hell, I’m not sure I want to go to Heaven, I want to burn with her. I love God, but I love her as well.

    Pius X

    • Pius X,

      I fear you still haven’t grasped what we are saying to you. It is indeed futile and completely pointless to speculate who is saved and who isn’t. If I were you I’d pray for your grandmother’s soul, commending her to God. I am in a similar position myself. My Protestant grandmother died two years ago. Pray for her soul and put your mind at ease.

      I suggest you get down on your knees and pray an act of contrition for your comments above about “wanting to burn”. Your comments indicate that you do not have a supernatural bone in your body.

      We are more than happy to answer your questions, Pius X, but you are still very much a Protestant. You want God on your own terms. Stick with us, but I think you need the guidance of a sound priest.

  97. Petrus

    Are you a convert? I understand perfectly well what you are saying, but if I pray every day and commend anybody’s spirit to God, can he just go ‘yoink’ and pull them out of Hell? I don’t want God on my terms, it’s just difficult for a convert to hear. By the way by parents are Atheists. It is impossible to convert them.

    Pius X

    • pius x,

      Are you having us on? Asking “can God jut go ‘yoink’ and pull them out of Hell” suggests to me – with the greatest possible respect etc etc ETC that you are either daft or dopey.

      Which is it?

  98. Pius X,

    No, God will not take a soul from Hell. What I’m saying is this – do not torture yourself over it. You will not know in this life the eternal destination of your grandmother. Remember this, God is infinitely just and we are all judged fairly. Pray for your grandmother and pray the rosary for the conversion of your parents. Perhaps you could pray a novena to the Holy Ghost, asking for His gifts?

    • Petrus,

      I admire your patience. Personally, I think pius X should offer a novena to St Jude – patron saint of hopeless cases!

      Now, piux X, do not launch a string of posts asking for scriptural evidence or quotes from the Father about either St Jude or “hopeless cases”.

      If you really do want to become a Catholic, the first thing you need post-Baptism is a sense of humour – if only to keep a straight face when asked to answer questions like “can God go ‘yoink’…”

  99. Editor

    A) I am not a hopeless cause, and B) Gerrasenseahumour and gerragrip. Go to see your Priest and ask him to forgive you for being rude to me- I was using a colloquialism to illustrate a point. And by the way I’m both, but it’s better than being gibba gibba. Also, I won’t need to get baptised, already happened in the C of E. What’s the point of running this blog, if your just going to poo poo everything that people- be more contrite.

    Lord you came to call sinners.

    The respectful and civil Petrus,

    Thank you, I see what you mean and I’ve come around to your way of thinking. I’m staying with you. Although I don’t about the Editor (joke- in case in wasn’t obvious).

    Pius X

  100. Ii understand that Fr Kramer spoke today at “The Recusant” conference. I’m sorry to say that I will no longer support the Fatima Centre.

      • I emailed Father Kramer about this and he replied:

        “I was invited to speak on Fatima. I am not involved in the resistance movement. I don’t think Bishop Fellay will get bent out of shape over my speaking on Fatima. I have been on very good terms with Bishop Fellay for many years and I do not think the misguided efforts of his overly zealous supporters will change that.”

        • editor,

          I think Fr. Kramer should have worded the last paragraph of his response with a little more charity. There are no over zealous supporters of Bishop Fellay here, just loyal faithful who defendd His Excellency’s good name against the public calumnies of those he has chosen to associate himself with. No one is trying to spoil his good association with Bishop Fellay.

          We merely pointed out to him that he cannot, in the name of Our Lady of Fatima, close his eyes to the injustice these rebels are guilty of in respect to Bishop Fellay, with whom he claims a good association. With the greatest respect to Fr. Kramer, that sounds to me like sitting on the fence.

          Father should recall also that it wasn’t that long ago that many of us here went to his defence when he was calumniated in certain so-called Catholic newspapers. He knows, then, how it feels to be calumniated and how comforting it is to have friends who were prepared to support him.

          Some might have called us over zealous supporters for our defence of Fr. Kramer’s good name, but we know that we were merely Catholic faithful who knew what our public duty was in repsect to priest in good satnding who was being falsely accused. Fr. Kramer should reflect seriously on this.

    • I think that’s a little unjust, spiritustempore, since Fr Gruner is unlikely to have known about this invitation or, at least, unlikely to have known the true nature of the meeting and its organisers.

      • I’m glad you exchanged e-mails with Father Kramer and posted his reply. It sounds to me rather as though he doesn’t really know or care what this group is up to, having far more important things on his mind. And perhaps one of his talks on Fatima might be just the medicine they need.

        • Christina,

          That bunch of rebels are about as interested in Fatima as David Cameron and Alex Salmond are interested in democracy.

          They’re obviously using Fr Kramer to boost their own agenda and he has fallen into their trap. Disappointing. I’d have given him more credit. But, then, one lives and learns…

      • Editor

        The Fatima Centre knew the nature of the conference last week, as did Fr Kramer. If they choose to support an organisation which just last week was calling for Fr Morgan and the GB priests to leave the SSPX and set up a new organisation, that’s their choice.

        Mine is to stop supporting the Fatima Centre.

  101. Regarding comments on Purgatory recently, I would like to mention (especially to converts, or those new to the Faith) a little book called ‘How to Avoid Purgatory’ which is available online from Tan Books. Also, souls can be helped ‘post mortem’ by our prayers. As I understand it, if say someone in their 80’s dies and has led a good Christian life (but not a Catholic), and a Grandchild in time becomes Catholic and then prays for their dead family, those prayers can indeed be applied to that particular soul – ‘outside time’. God created time, and therefore is outside time. So, anyone who is now considering becoming a Catholic and now prays for their beloved family, those prayers will be applied to that soul at their judgement, i.e. before they are said! A great comfort to us all surely. I would suggest great patience and compassion for anyone who has not had the benefit of being born into the Faith.

    • You’re going to cause an awful lot of confusion here! One’s judgement follows immediately after death and is determined by the state of the soul at the point of death. Unless the grandchild’s prayers can go back in time to influence the grandparent’s final moments then I just can’t see it. Sounds more like science fiction than Catholic theology.

      • Christina,

        You’re absolutely right in your response to Yorkshire Rose. In fact, what she says is very closely aligned with Mormon belief that their ancestors can be posthumously baptised and saved. It’s patent nonsense, not something the Church has ever taught or even hinted at.

        • Purgatory: I am recalling passages in a book on Padre Pio called ‘The Holy Souls’ by Fr Allessio Parente. It mentions therein Padre Pio explaining to someone that the prayers they have now said for a long-deceased relative would have been applied to that soul at its judgement after death. I have understood this to mean that, being outside time, God knew those prayers were going to be said, and applied the merits of them to that particular soul. I have checked this out with a Priest recently. (A trad one!)

  102. Re the extensive posting about extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, which causes me terrible grief because one of my sons apostatised upon marrying a fervent Anglican. Recently I was overjoyed at the thought that my prayers were about to be answered when he told me casually that he had been to a three-day retreat conducted by Jesuits (he was also educated by Jesuits). As he talked about receiving ‘spiritual direction’ and going to Mass hope soared, only to be dashed when he said that he didn’t go to Communion of course because he isn’t a Catholic.

    Full marks to the priest at Mass who (surprisingly) did not give Communion to him, but what about the ‘spiritual direction’? Presumably this Jesuit was fully aware that he was talking to an apostate Catholic, and yet all he seems to have done is to confirm him happily in his apostasy. It is so appalling that these Jesuit ‘retreat centres’ (I know of two of them) continue to do this diabolical work unhindered.

    Will kind bloggers please pray for him, and for all our sons and daughters who have given up the faith. This is a source of the greatest sorrow for a Catholic parent. St. Monica pray for them.

    • Christina,

      If your son is visiting Jesuits, even if they are mostly heretics, then it suggests to me that he’s not as convinced an apostate as he would like you believe. There’s something going on in his conscience.

      My advice is that you place a blessed Miraculous Medal somewhere in his house. It is renowned for its power to convert sinners back to the Faith.

      In the meantime, take heart from these words of St. Ambrose to St. Monica in response to her tearful requests for his intervention with her wayward son: “Go your way; as sure as you live, it is impossible that the son of these tears should perish.”

      • Athanasius,
        Thank you for your post, and especially for the advice. I was unaware of this particular ‘property’ of the Miraculous Medal.

  103. I have read the book Yorkshire Rose refers to and it definitely doesn’t make those erroneous claims. It’s well worth a read.

  104. Yesterday I had the great privilege to partake in the blessing of a new Catholic Church in Liverpool: a very rare event these days. It’s an architecturally superb renovation of a former Christian Science hall. It puts Paddy’s Wigwam ten minutes down the road to shame. Then we assisted at Solemn Pontifical High Mass with His Lordship Bishop Fellay, superior of the SSPX, after which he gave a most informative talk about the current state of the Church and the discussions between Rome and the society. Please keep this good priest in your prayers. He has a lot of enemies, surely a great sign of God’s favour.

    It occurred to me this morning as I lay in bed that about a year ago, when I was a Neo-Catholic I was very excited about the possible unity between the Society and Rome which was being talked about. I dreamed of them ‘coming back’. I craved the Traditional Faith, but at this time wouldn’t have dared crossed the line and actually entered one of their chapels.

    So I prayed earnestly for their regularisation knowing what a blessing they would be. I realised today that my prayers had indeed been answered. God answered them by leading me to the society. Doesn’t Our Lord work in mysterious ways?

    • Yes, He does, Miles Immaculatae – God works in very mysterious ways.

      But keep up those prayers for regularisation – if ever the Society priests were needed “within the walls” (and Bishop Fellay in the College of Cardinals) it’s right now!

  105. When one is confirmed, why does the Bishop or Priest slap your cheek? Also, do you have to adopt a Saint’s name? If so, what could I pick? I could choose Pius after St. Pius X, is that a common one?

    Pius X

  106. If true, reports of what Fr Kramer said at last weekend’s conference are worrying:-

    “Fr. Kramer said in his talk today, backed up with much explanation, that to say the Novus Ordo was “legitimately promulgated” was “fraud, schism and heresy“.

  107. Spiritustempore

    What are the common confirmation names? Also, could you answer my other question if possible?

    Pius X

  108. Pius X,

    That’s not to say that no-one chooses Pius…I just haven’t come across it. Perhaps because St Pius is very difficult to live up to, I don’t know. Mostly, people seem to choose the more mundane: Joseph, Paul, Anthony, Mark, etc. It’s very much a personal choice of the saint whose example you find most inspiring.

    As for Confirmation, my understanding is that the slap on the cheek is to wake the confirmand to the combat for the Faith:-

    http://catholicharboroffaithandmorals.com/The%20Sacrament%20of%20Confirmation.html

    The person, when confirmed, receives a gentle slap on the cheek from the hand of the Bishop, to remind him that as a courageous champion he should be prepared to brave with unconquered resolution all adversities for the name of Christ.

    Pope Melchiades marks the difference between them Baptism and Confirmation with minute accuracy in these terms: “In Baptism,” says he, “the Christian is enlisted into the service, in Confirmation he is equipped for battle; at the baptismal font the Holy Ghost imparts the plenitude of innocence, in confirmation the perfection of grace; in Baptism we are regenerated to life, after Baptism we are fortified for the combat; in Baptism we are cleansed, in Confirmation we are strengthened; regeneration saves by its own efficacy those who receive Baptism in peace, Confirmation arms and prepares for the conflict (Loco citato).” These are truths not only recorded by other Councils, but specially defined by the Council of Trent, and we are therefore no longer at liberty not only to dissent from but even to entertain the least doubt regarding them (Laod. can. 48, Meld. c. 6; Florence, Constance, Trent, sess. 7).”

      • You mean it is no longer part of the NEW confirmation rite – but Pope Benedict freed up the old rite Sacraments as well on publication of Summorum Pontificum, not just the Mass. The traditionally minded Catholics continue to follow that daft old idea that we are being Confirmed to be Soldiers of Christ, with the token “slap” a symbol of that fighting spirit.

        What, please tell us (in case anyone doesn’t know or can’t guess) is the emphasis in the new rite?

    • spiritustempore,

      I’ve heard that before, and – if true – it is very revealing indeed.

    • He should say the black and do the red as the Rite requires rather than risk the validity of the Sacrament. And anyway giving the “slap on the cheek” when it is not part of the Rite probably counts as assault nowadays especially if it is harder than the token tap that used to be administered.

      • The tap on the cheek is part of the old rite – I remember all the talk at school prior to my own Confirmation, when pupils (stupidly) agonised over whether or not it would be a hard slap – not at all. It is a token gesture to emphasise that we are being confirmed as Soldiers of Christ.

        Doesn’t surprise me that it’s been removed from the new rite – the very idea of “fighting for the Faith” would shock the modern Catholic to death.

  109. One of our priests would give some of the confirmands a firm slap before confirmation. He did this to prepare them for Bishop Williamson’s slap so it wouldn’t shock them. All of them told me the Bishop was alot more gentle than Father.

    I was confirmed by Archbishop Lefebvre and he just barely touched my cheek.

    • This gets worse! If I were that priest, and I knew that the bishop (any bishop) gave an (uncalled for) hard slap at Confirmations, I wouldn’t prepare the children by giving them another whack, I’d tell the bishop to stop being sadistic and I’d hand him the address of the nearest shrink because (as we know anyway) he clearly needs professional help.

      • Editor

        The confirmands wanted to know what to expect. They weren’t little kids. Everyone agreed the Bishop’s confirmation slap was not so hard as imagined.
        Now the Confirmation sermon! No one prepared anybody for that!

  110. Does anyone know anything about Our Lady of Grace? I found an old holy card printed in Belgium. It looks to me to be a print from the 1940’s and it says Ven. Dominic of Jesus found the picture in the 17th Century.

    • Spiritustempore

      Thank you for the link. The holy card says Our Lady of Grace and the back reads Our Lady of Grace Society, Inc. but the picture isn’t the Padre Pio madonna.

      I just looked up Ven. Dominic of Jesus and the site says he found a picture called Our Lady of the Bowed Head. Much more similar to this print. There’s a nice prayer on this card too.

      Lord Jesus, the hour is come; glorify Thy Mother that Thy Mother may glorify Thee. Manifest to all her power and efficacious meditation (mediation?) and grant us the favors we implore through her intercession.
      Hear us for Thy Mother’s sake, hear us for love of Thy Mother, we beseech Thee, Lord Jesus! Show Thyself her Son and procure her triumph which we desire in view of Thine Own.
      That Thy Kingdom may come, may we have the kingdom of Mary, Mother of Grace. Amen.

  111. N O T I C E . . .

    In case any of you are in the (very bad) habit of coming straight through to the blog without visiting the homepage of our website, there is a petition on our website which is destined for the EU re. the Consecration of Russia. I urge everyone to read it, follow the instructions for signing, print off and send, either to us at Sandyford Place or directly to the Roman office of the Fatima Apostolate.

  112. FATHER WILLIAM DOYLE, S.J.
    I would like to draw peoples’ attention to Fr Willie Doyle who was an Army Chaplain and died a hero’s death at Ypres in 1917. There is now a website in Ireland and it is intended to promote the cause of Fr Doyle for Beatification. In addition, it is proposed to obtain for him a posthumous Victoria Cross. Another Catholic Army Chaplain in America has recently been awarded the equivalent honour, the Medal of Honour, and this was achieved mainly by the efforts of the Catholic laity there. Surely, we can do the same for Fr Doyle.

    Ireland does not have any recent Saints and, bearing in mind, the many recent scandals in that ‘fair isle’, it would be wonderful to have a Saint Priest Hero to inspire the young in particular. The website is: http://www.fatherdoyle.com, and the email address is: frwilliedoyle@gmail.com. The man in charge is Pat Kenny.

    There are indeed many problems in the Church in general; and with Priests in particular – both trad and modern. Getting involved in these issues can often disturb our ‘peace of soul’. Perhaps, therefore, giving attention to a saintly Priest like Fr Doyle would be of more help to us all.

  113. Homosexual marriage. If anyone needed proof of the intentions of the EU, there it is, in a nutshell. God help us.

    • I think it was Normans Tebbitt who came up with an interesting question,

      Suppose at some time in the future we have a queen “married” to another woman who gives birth to a child. Would he/she be heir to the throne desoite not being a blood relative of the monarch?

      I don’t know if anyone has come up wth an answer.

      • Excellent question. Let us know if anyone ever answers it! I, for one, will visit him/her in prison!

  114. I mention the scenario of a lesbian queen to highlight the fact that as well as ignoring the moral reasons not to allow same-sex “marriage” the government has simply not addressed the practical implications of its action.
    The politicians have allowed themselves to be swept along by the campaigners and seem scared to raise any objection. Not only is it impossible in a moral sense to make a same-sex relationship equal to marriage, but with all the talk of equality and fairness the government has introduced a version of marriage that is NOT the same as marriage or the equal of marriage as it does not require consummation for validity, unlike real marriage between a man and a woman.

  115. Editor

    Did you know in Spain that parents are referred to as ‘Progenitor A’ and ‘Progenitor B’? Gay marriage is one thing but obliterating the two words of Divinely ordained parenthood is another. I hope the Church excommunicates all ‘Catholic’ politicians who voted for this. Also did you know the French President is an honorary Canon of St John Lateran? This is a role that descends from the role of French Monarchs.

    Eileenanne

    There won’t be a gay or lesbian Monarch as a sperm donor or surrogate would ruin dynastic legitimacy. With the royals it’s all about breeding, pure breeding. AIDS/ HIV is a punishment for human fecklessness and promiscuity, and they deserve it.

    Pius X

    • Is that written into the new law allowing same sex “marriage”?

      Is a legitimate heir to be prevented from ascending to the throne on the grounds of sexual orientation? I would be surprised.

      • The entire population should raise legal action demanding the right to a same-sex marriage with future heirs to the throne!

  116. Yorkshire Rose

    Very well done on mentioning Father William Doyle SJ. Pat Kenny’s website dedicated to promoting the cause of Father Doyle is well worth a visit. I really can’t recommend highly enough the priest’s biography written by Professor Alfred O’Rahilly which can be purchased through the link on the right hand site of the website. I don’t think it is any exaggeration to describe it as a spiritual classic. I hope it’s not above my station to say that it would be an especially inspiring read for any priest.

    Father Doyle was renowned as a confessor and spiritual director before facing the horrors of the trenches in the First World War. The many extracts from his diaries which are quoted in the book contain many nuggets of inspiring Catholic pastoral guidance. The details of Father Doyle’s experience’s as a military show clearly that he should have won ten VCs, instead of one Military Cross. No question.

    What also comes across very strongly in these pages is the supreme, absolutely irreplaceable role of a priest. Time and again, Father Doyle records that once the Irish soldiers had the Mass, and the other sacraments, they were ready to face extreme danger and physical hardship with remarkable equanimity, and even good humour. I don’t mind saying that this book shows a lot of the best qualities of the Irish, qualities that badly need to be restored right now. For what it’s worth, I would say that Father Doyle is without doubt the greatest Irishman of the twentieth century. A modern day version of the desert fathers, in fact.

    • Hello, thank you so much for your kind comments. Well, with the 100th anniversary of WWI next year, this is an excellent time to really promote information on Fr Doyle – both for the posthumous VC, and Beatification. Pat Kenny is in need of as many people from around the world to join this campaign. As mentioned, Catholics in America managed to get their hero Fr Kapaun awarded the Medal of Honour, now surely we can do no less for our Priest-hero. However, it does take dedication and commitment. Can I please suggest that people look up the website and offer their support to Pat Kenny.

  117. On the question of ‘same-sex marriage’, can anyone tell me why the Scottish Parliament, David Cameron, and the leaders of so many other countries are so keen to promote this? Surely it can’t be a question of vote catching as the homosexual groups are in a minority. Also just why does this minority have so much power and influence?

    • Magdalene, there has to be a higher agenda at work here. Why else would such a ridiculous amount of time and effort be spent pandering after the ‘rights’ of a tiny minority? A mere 2% of the population identify themselves as ‘homosexual’ and it is questionable just how many of these have any interest in ‘marriage’.

      The very idea of same-sex marriage is nonsense, but indeed it is dangerous nonsense – pursued with subversive intent and purpose far beyond the issue at hand. Atheistic political and media elites do not expend such ferocious energy promoting this half-baked issue for nothing. It is all about the insatiable quest for control – and domination of the public square by demonising all Christian thought and practice. Supporters of secular values do not tolerate dissent and their ambition to eliminate religious belief is very alarming. In the name of tolerance it appears tolerance itself is being abolished. The propaganda of secularism and its high priests want us to believe that religion is ‘dangerous for our health’. It suits them to have no opposition to their vision of a ‘brave new world’, the world which they see as somehow governed only by people like themselves.

      For example, at this time last year the Law Society revoked the booking of their premises for a major marriage conference hosted by Christian Concern and the World Congress of Families (“One Man One Woman – Making the case for marriage, for the good of society”). Although the conference was to feature a contribution by senior High Court Judge Sir Paul Coleridge, the Society claimed that the event was contrary to its ‘diversity’ policy. In a stroke, it effectively reduced ‘diversity’ to ‘deviancy alone’ (i.e. to unnatural sex, its practitioners and advocates).

      In response, Christian Concern’s David Skinner wrote this……’the daylight appears to be drawing in when we will no longer be able to write or say anything that does nothing less than celebrate homosexuality. Perhaps we have only a matter of a few years or even months before the LGBT juggernaut silences us completely. Stonewall would now seemingly exert almost total control of the judiciary, legislature and political machinery of our once-free nation. Let us not forget how Stonewall and the Equality and Human Rights Commission attempted to destroy Mr and Mrs Bull and their B&B business, Chymorvah, in Cornwall , because they refused to allow two men to have sex under their roof, in their beds. Here we are being denied access to a major event in the heart of London because we affirm the traditional view of marriage. And just last month, our [Christian] advert, on 26 London buses, was banned by Boris Johnson, who abused his position to silence our voice. In my view, this is merely a rehearsal for a fast-approaching totalitarian state’….

      For those who still don’t get it, the higher agenda here is formulated by the New World Order generals, eagerly assisted by their media lieutenants and various other facilitators. Their quest is for absolute power – and insofar as ‘gay’ ideologues help them reach this objective, these higher powers will pander to their obsessions, assisting their mutually-beneficial war against the Catholic bulwark and nature itself. Ultimately, when they have outlived their usefulness and the ‘powers that be’ have achieved their goal, the entire homosexual collective will be summarily discarded, as always happens to ‘useful idiots’. Until that fateful day, the ‘gay’-driven PC oppression engineered by the secular elite intensifies, betraying its essentially Marxist pedigree. Among 45 Communist Goals exposed in the US Congress by Hon. A.S. Herlong Jnr on Thursday, Jan. 10, 1963, as listed on pp. A34-A35 of the Congressional Record, we find the following entry….

      26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as ‘normal, natural, healthy.’

  118. N O T I C E . . .

    For those of you who will be in Glasgow on Friday night 7th June, prior to our Saturday Conference, please note that there is First Friday Mass in the SSPX chapel in Renfrew Street at 6.30pm, if you are free and wish to attend.

  119. What a very illuminating post, Padraig54 – that last sentence and it’s source is very interesting indeed. I’ll need to read your comment again and again to take it all in but thank you for it – very educational indeed, especially that information about the Law Society. You’d hardly expect them to be “useful idiots” but just shows how stupid even the most intelligent people can be when it comes to political correctness.

  120. Josephine, the credit for most of this belongs to Rod Pead, the Editor of ‘Christian Order’.
    See http://www.christianorder.com/editorials/editorials_2012/editorials_junjuly12.html

    I expect you’ve seen the recent media reports about the Bilderbergers, meeting in the UK for the first time this weekend. Despite all their denials (e.g. about their very existence) , I suspect there’s a fair sprinkling of ‘New World Order Generals’ among these creeps.

  121. Padraig54

    Great post on homosexuality. Nice also to see you quoting Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor, who i regularly have a friendly correspondence with- should I say such a thing on this blog? ‘In the name of tolerance it appears tolerance itself is being abolished’.

    Also, I’ve just been watching the French Open, does anyone know if Nadal is religious? I know Juan Martin Del Potro is a practising Catholic.

    Pius X

  122. Padraig54,

    Thank you for your most interesting and informative reply to my questions. It confirmed suspicions I’ve held for some time. I find the ideologies and intentions of the ‘New World Order’ quite chilling!

  123. For further reading on this very subject, may I also recommend ‘Brotherhood of Darkness’ by Dr Stanley Monteith (ISBN 157558063-2).

  124. Gay marriage, together with the pressures being brought to bear in its support, have nothing to do with Equal Opportunity legislation. That is just a mask. The objective is the destruction of everything that society holds as deserving respect. It is a push towards an “anything goes” society and once that has been achieved and ordinary folk no longer know the difference between right and wrong, anything will go.
    That is the time when Our Lady will cease holding back the arm of her Son, and that is when the game will be up.

  125. leprechaun,

    I would go even further and say that it is demonic in origin. Our Lady of Quito predicted today’s events 400 years ago. She spoke of the Sacrament of Marriage coming under assault by means of evil legislation by governments, etc., adding that it would be precisely at the point when all seemed lost that she would intervene in a sudden and miraculous way. Our Lady reiterated this again at Fatima in 1917 with the words “My Immaculate Heart will triumph. I do believe this triumph is now very close.

    We have the assurance of God Himself, who said in Genesis: “She shall crush thy head.”

    By the way, I note that the Bishops of the Philippines consecrated their country to the Immaculate Heart of Our Lady on June 8. Things are beginning to turn!

  126. May I take this opportunity to thank Editor and her team for organising the conference which I enjoyed so much during the weekend.

    And “thank you” to all of the speakers too, who were very interesting and engaging.

    I found the day both educational and motivating, and welcomed the chance to speak with similarly-minded Catholics, in addition to taking-in the presentations.

    Hopefully, the occurance of such a lay-led conference in Glasgow will indeed “send a message” to our local Hierarchy about the direction and general state of the Church.

    Thank you to all involved once again, for a very worthwhile day.

    • Gabriel Syme,

      Thank YOU for your kind and encouraging words – much appreciated.

      Your words about sending a signal to the hierarchy are spot on. That’s why every Catholic within reasonable travelling distance of Celtic Park should have been there.

      Happily, we had a wonderful turnout, a brilliant audience, a mixture of those who’ve probably heard most of it before a million times, and those good souls from various dioceses, who hadn’t heard it all at all. In fact, every diocese in Scotland was represented on Saturday, with a number of English diocese also and, of course, the Archdiocese of Dublin. Hierarchy take note!

      So, while I am very touched that you thank the Catholic Truth team for organising the day, Gabriel Syme, it just would not have been the same without you!

      God bless

  127. Gabriel Syme,

    Thank you for your kind words. I think you and all the others who attended should also be thanked for caring enough about the Church and souls to be present at our humble Conference. Holy zeal for the Faith is a wonderful gift from God that every Catholic should use to the full. The alternative is indifference, or lukewarmness, as Our Lord calls it in Sacred Scripture, where He says: “I wish you were either hot or cold. But because you are lukewarm, I am ready to vomit you out of my mouth.”

    Isn’t it true that indifference, not heresy, is the main problem with most of the Catholic laity today? So different from how it used to be. Still, little efforts like Saturday are good signs that some lay Catholics at least are willing to do their bit for Our Lord and His Church. It was a very good day.

  128. Very well said, Gabriel Syme in your remarks about Saturday’s Conference.

    I would just like to add my thanks to Editor and all those who contributed to making the day so enjoyable, not least the blog’s “webmaster” who did a great job as MC. It is certainly not flattery to say that the four talks were really superb : thought-provoking, highly informative and very well presented. I can honestly say I don’t remember being at any sort of talks where the time passed so quickly.

    That’s my one complaint, Editor, about Saturday. It ain’t your fault, but the whole day went far too quickly.

    I know that in these dire times, all of us who are trying to cling to the true Catholic Faith, the faith as held and defended by saints and martyrs for twenty centuries, can feel slightly like isolated outcasts in our own lands. Apart from the Conference talks, I have to say it was great to meet and be amongst so many friendly, good-hearted Catholics who care about the Faith.

    Those who weren’t at the Conference, for whatever reason, really missed a great Catholic occasion. Maybe the Catholic Truth Newsletter and blog, like the Society itself, will remain an irritant, annoyance, or a “sign of contradiction” to all the right people for some time to come. That seems like a pretty good commendation to me. The ways of God aren’t always measured in terms of numbers, or quick success. Ask many of the saints. That said, once the seed is cast, the Holy Ghost and Our Lady will take over. I’ve no doubt whatsoever, Editor, that the Catholic Truth blog and Newsletter have contributed much to the Church’s task of bringing the true Faith to those in need.

    The words of Saint Teresa of Avila give all of us much to think about:
    “Everything comes to an end, but the good or the evil we do in this life is endless and eternal.”

    We know which side wins in the end. We have Our Lady’s assurance of that.

    • Leo,

      What a beautiful post – thank you so much for your encouraging words.

      I’ve been neglecting both website and blog this past while due to conference matters but I’ve now delivered our Irish priest friend (who shall remain nameless folks!) to the airport, so my days of shaky chauffeuring and theo-socio entertaining are over (i.e. theology lectures over coffee!) so I can return to my duties, pronto.

      I echo Athanasius’s words about those who attended. A truly wonderful audience, with special word of thanks to those who participated actively in the Q & A sessions.

      I’ve also written briefly to Celtic Park to thank the staff there. They were absolutely terrific, helpful and interested and did everything they could to make the day the fantastic success it turned out to be.

      One lady told me that she had been in the habit of receiving Holy Communion in the hand but that would now cease with immediate effect. Others wanted details of where to attend the Traditional Mass. All in all the day was – well… beautiful is the word which springs to mind. Absolutely beautiful. Do you know what I mean? (In case anyone thinks I’m banging on again about being slim, glamorous, etc!)

  129. Just watched an interview on EWTN regarding a petition to Cardinal Wuerl in Washington to revoke Georgetown University’s Catholic/Pontifical identity. I’m pretty interested in the apparent concept of cannon law provision for the laity to petition such a thing, initially to the local bishop, and then to Rome if necessary.

    Anyone (Athanasius) aware of our entitlements in this regard? Have found a link to the initial petition:

    http://www.gupetition.org/

  130. Can someone help me? I have a fervent desire to always question things, and seek the truth. Of course, I shouldn’t care about causing offence, this is a sign of weak character. Although I would be particularly upset if someone perceived me as racist or anti-Semitic. Even from an early I have had a profound distaste for racism and a great concern for victims of unjust oppression.

    One particular topic that comes up in some Traditional Catholic literature is the question of an International Jewish conspiracy. I do not know what to make of this. I do not want to be duped by genuinely anti-semitic claims containing untruthful and poisonous attacks against an entire group of people. However, when I hung around with Neo-Catholics I was exposed to this peculiar ‘Salvation-comes-from-the-Jews’ theology. One Jewish convert to Catholicism I lived with even saw himself as a kind of superior more ‘fuller’ kind of Catholic. It annoyed me. Revolting, Zionist Catholicism. I never subscribed to this and always instinctively adhered to the authentic Catholic belief that the Holy Catholic Church is the true Israel, and Her members the true Children of Israel. When I recently read about the religious history of Talmudic Judaism my suspicions were confirmed: the Catholic faith owes nothing to that false religion. Biblical Judaism is not the same as Rabbinical post temple Judaism which is man-made.

    So what about a Jewish conspiracy? Is there a link with Jews and Freemasonry? With Bolshevism and world Communism? The New World Order? The media and international finance? Surely some particular views of Bishop Williamson should be held in contempt? That’s what my emotions tell me anyway.

    I mentioned the Jewish link with Bolshevism to another Catholic friend. I had read it on the ‘Fisheaters’ website (an excellent resource). I was unaware this was an already well-known anti-Semitic conspiracy. He rebuked me fiercely and made known his absolutely horror and disgust. I recanted there and then. I felt a bit foolish and feel I have discredited the Traditional views I am trying to win him over to.

    Is there a religious link between the Talmudic cult and Freemasonry? Is Freemasonry really the ‘Synagogue of Satan’ with designs of becoming the New World Region for Gentiles founded upon Jewish Noachide laws? If so this is terrifying and must not be ignored. If it’s false, it is a terrible calumny. How do I discern the truth?

    My former-Jewish Catholic convert former friend had a great devotion to Padre Pio. He was unaware this great Saint once said “The Jews are enemies of God and foes of our Holy Religion”. Seems every Catholic thought that before Vatican II.

    I have thought about these things before – I don’t believe in thought crime – but I have never brought these questions up with anybody. Please don’t feel the need to respond unless you are firm in your intellectual convictions, I don’t want to be responsible should anybody be arrested for hate crime. Might I be arrested for hate crime? Perhaps instead you could direct me to reliable and well-informed articles on the internet.

  131. Miles Immaculatae,

    It is a sad sign of the times that such subjects as you raise can no longer be discussed objectively without cries of Anti-Semitism being heard from the rooftops. I tend not to discuss these matters in any great detail, or even think much about them, beacuse they can become a distraction from the most important duty for every Catholic, which is to save his soul. Getting caught up in conspiracy theories only detracts from that main duty and it has lead some into bitterness.

    Like all races, the Jews have their good and bad elements. Some prominent Jews have lied about Pius XII, for example, saying that he assisted the Nazis in their pogrom against the Jews. Then again, other prominent Jews have come forward and publicly defended the good name of Pius. These have used true historical data to show the truth. So I think it is fair to state that there is an element within the Jewish race which does hate the Church and another element which is not so hostile. But then, there are factions even within the Jewish race that hate each other. I am thinking here of the antagonism that exists between the Torah Jews and the Zionist Jews, the Zionists being generally non-religious, political Jews.

    There is no question that the Jews generally lean towards Socialism, and in fact have been numbered greatly amongst the theoreticians and overlords of Communism. Marx, Lenin, Bronstein and Trotsky, for instance, are just four of the better known names in the history of that evil ideology, but there are many others who could be named. But let us not forget also that many non-Jews have willingly ascribed to the evil along with them.

    The same must be said of Freemasonry, whose more senior members in many cases were allied with the Communist uprisings at the beginning of the 20th century. Freemasonry has a very Jewish feel to its imagery, such as the Temple of Solomon, Hiram Abif, etc., and it is a fact that the highest orders of Freemasonry are exclusively Jewish in membership. But what has any of that to do with Catholics keeping the true Faith given them by God in the true religion of God? Nothing really. We leave all these matters, then, in the capable hands of God who knows the hearts of men and who knows how to reward each person by his fruits.

    One thing is for sure, the Catholic religion alone can save souls. That the Jewish religion is able to save souls while denying the true Messiah is just so much nonsense, as is the nonsense that Islam or Protestantism or any other non-Catholic religion has salvific qualities.

    The Jews indeed were the chosen people of God, highly favoured by God throughout many centuries, but also frequently punished by Him for their infidelity, the greatest example of which was, and is, their rejection of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, it is certain that when a Jew does accept Our Lord he becomes, so to speak, the first among believers because this is the beautiful destiny willed by God for that people before all others. There are prophecies that say the Jews will one day accept Our Lord Jesus Christ as the Messiah and will become the greatest Apostles amongst the nations, but that is not the situation at the present time.

    Suffice it to say that I personally bear no hatred towards Jewish people. In fact, they are generally very personable people and greatly talented as a race. But it would be foolish in the extreme not to recognise that some of them use their gifts to undermine rather than to build up the Kingdom of God on earth.

    We leave all these things to God, as I say, knowing that every time a Catholic commits a mortal sin he crucifies His Saviour just as surely as those who nailed Him to that Cross 2000 years ago. That’s the real thought for Catholics to dwell on. Let the conspiracists waste their time fixating on others while never looking at themselves. Best leave all these secret societies and evil ideologies to God, then, who will eradicate all of them in due time. It is sufficient for us to listen to the Popes who have condemned both Communism and Freemasonry as manifestations of the demonic in the world, to be avoided at all costs by those who claim allegiance to the true God.

  132. The Herald is reporting that a Fr Kane is suing Fr Despard – the Motherwell priest who named and referred to alleged homosexually active priests, in his book Crisis in the Priesthood. Read the article here

  133. In the light of the ongoing efforts to drive St Margarets Adoption service out of business, I thought this was a good letter in the Herald today:

    (Shows up Tim Hopkins for the government funded liar he is).

    No backing for gay parenting
    Wednesday 12 June 2013

    WHY does Tim Hopkins of the Equality Network state “research evidence shows clearly that children do as well with same-sex parents as they do with mixed-sex parents” when there is no such evidence? (Letters, June 11).

    Since 1995 there have only been 55 studies into same-sex parenting, 29 of which are written by the same five authors using the same data set.

    The majority of these studies are not based on random samples, preferring instead to interview the author’s friends and their friends. Many of the studies are based on small sample sizes and do not ask objective questions.

    A notable exception to these failings was a recent study with more than 16,000 data points which studied a child’s progress through school. However, the author excluded more than 8000 data points because the participants did not meet a five-year residency criteria. Rather than controlling for this group, he omitted the vast majority of gay and lesbian households, skewing the results in favour of a small group of children raised by same-sex parents who made normal progress through school. A recent review of this work has since corrected the original study and found that “compared with traditional married households – children raised by same sex couples are 35% less likely to make normal progress through school” (D W Allen, Demography, 2013).

    Furthermore, a recent review of same-sex parenting studies found “no studies of planned gay fatherhood” (Biblarz and Stacey, Journal of Marriage and Family, 2010), and yet it too found in favour of same-sex parenting.

    It would appear that at best there is no evidence supporting Mr Hopkins’s assertion, and at worst such research is biased.

    Ian Maxfield,

    Curlers Rest, Roberton, Biggar.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/letters/no-backing-for-gay-parenting.21321592

    Has anyone seen the massive, building size poster Glasgow City Council have put up, (where the M8 joins the M77) championing gay adoption?

    Its clear the whole “gay adoption” palaver is based on ideology and not on evidence. Childrens welfare does not seem to come into it.

    • Gabriel Syme,

      Brilliant letter. Thanks for posting it.

      And yes, I saw those adverts in passing on the motorway the other day. Perhaps we ought to write in to demand by what right the local authority uses public money in this way? I’m sure we’d all be allowed to write to one another in prison…

      And has nobody any thoughts on the decision of Fr Kane to sue Fr Despard?

      • Well, I have some thoughts. Take this couple of sentences from the Herald article, e.g.

        While he is not named in the book, it is understood Father Kane, who serves St Teresa of Lisieux in Newarthill, believes he is referred to several times. It is understood he denies any wrongdoing.

        So, a priest who is not named in the book, denies any wrongdoing of the kind revealed in the book, is taking legal action against Fr Despard? Sounds like flying a kite to me. Scare tactics. I hope Fr Despard does not panic, keeps his cool and makes sure he has solid evidence to hand. In other words, call their bluff – I say “their” because I doubt if Fr Kane, or any other priest, would institute legal proceedings against a brother priest without the blessing or at least tacit approval of the diocesan authorities. That, of course, is merely my humble opinion…

        • Do you suppose Fr Despard had the approval of the diocesan authorities to write his book? If he can do that independently, surely another priest can sue without approval? And presumably the same diocesan authorities know more than we do, so maybe Fr Kane HAS been given the green light to sue, in the interests of justice.

          I have not read the book, but it is possible that Fr Kane, though not named, is identifiable from what is said. In that position, I think I would sue. The delay between publishing and legal action suggests he has had time to think and take advice, so this is probably not a hasty or ill thought out decision.

          Much as I dislike the Church’s dirty linen being washed in public, it could turn out that having this dealt with openly in court is the most effective way to sort it out. All we can do till then is wait and see and pray for justice.

          • Eileenanne,

            Fr Kane is highly unlikely to be suing without diocesan approval. And since very few ordinary people can afford to sue to protect their good name, there is the legitimate question of who is paying for this action. I note you say that Fr Kane will pay if he loses, Fr Despard if Fr Kane wins, but nobody in their right mind, surely, will enter into such litigation unless they were able to pay the costs. Full circle, then, to the question, who is paying for this legal action. If the diocese is funding this then, in my opinion, that is disgraceful. In the interests of justice, the diocese must, surely, at least pay for Fr Despard’s defence as well.

            In all the conversations I’ve had with people and priests about the Fr Despard situation, there is one common theme: there is truth in Fr Despard’s allegations, certainly about the seminary, although perhaps not with the kind of evidence required in a secular court of law. I know there is truth in his allegations relating to the seminary myself from sources quite independent of Fr Despard. I’d never heard of Fr Despard before the publicity surrounding his book. Whether or not Fr Despard has been wise in his approach to publicising the situation in the Church in Scotland is another matter. We may disagree on that score. But if, as some claim, Fr Despard has psychological problems (I’m paraphrasing) then it is the utmost lack of charity for his bishop and/or brother clergy to pursue him through the courts, an action which may, effectively, destroy him.

            All the talk of restoring one’s “good name” is unimpressive. Some of us have had our good names raked through the mud for no good reason and had little alternative but to accept it, although I do recognise that there are occasions when it is necessary to sue, perhaps in an employment situation. However, in the Church, surely things are different. The Cure D’Ars had HIS good name dragged through the mud – he suffered it in silence. He is now St John Vianney, Patron Saint of Priests.

  134. I’d also like to know if there has been some indult given because I’ve been told that priests are not allowed to sue each other – see Canon Law.

    • Josephine,

      You are spot on there. It is absolutely disgusting that one priest should sue another in the public courts. St. Paul forbade this kind of disgraceful behaviour. It brings our holy faith into disrepute and it demonstrates that Fr. Kane needs to pray seriously for the grace of divine charity. Is this a priest who is imitating his Lord and Master? Hmmm!

  135. Miles Immaculatae,
    Since Fr Kane seems to be in the mood for suing, I suggest you ask editor to remove your accusation that he would misuse – i.e. steal – parish funds to pay for his court case.

    • I think there are more than a few in this country who have completely lost the Catholic spirit. Priests simply do not sue other priests if they have the spirit of Our Lord in them, and lay people don’t defend such abhorent behaviour unless they too are of the world. Tragic times indeed.

      • If someone makes a PUBLIC accusation against another – priest or lay – it may be that the one accused has no other way of clearing the matter up. We just do not know what has been going on in the background here, so we can’t know exactly how it has got to this stage. Fr Kane has a right to his good name, andif it has been publicly taken away, it must be publicly restored.

        • Eileenanne,

          Another sign of the absence of good holy bishops, is what I think you’re alluding to here. But regardless of this, Our Lord was more publicly calumniated than Fr. Kane. I don’t read in the Gospels that He sought redress in the courts of the time! It is, as I said before, a complete loss of the Catholic spirit.

    • I’ve made a minor alteration to Miles’ post to make it a question – which it was, anyway, since – obviously – he cannot know, nor do any of us, whether or not Fr Kane is using parish money for his law suit. But you are correct, Eileenanne, in that a mischievous person might pick up on such a technicality (e.g. “no doubt” without the question mark) to threaten legal action, so let’s not give anyone any opening to do that. One thing is certain though – we have a right to know who is paying for this legal action against Father Despard.

  136. We are to be saved? NOT!

    Pope Francis has brought in a McKinsey & Co consultant [no not related to the late and unlamented sex doctor] to advise upon the reform of the Curia. McKinsey were brought in to advise on the Health Service all those years ago and it has been down hill all the way since. Getting their foot in the door, heaven only knows where it will lead.

    • Sixupman,

      Do you have a name or a link to a report about this “McKinsey & Col consultant”?

    • I read that report – truly unbelievable. As I posted on the Herald blog, I’ve heard it all now. “Joke” doesn’t begin to describe it.

      So much for the “poor” Church of Pope Francis! Employing a firm of Management Consultants will cost the earth. Truly unbelievable stuff.

  137. News of a new encyclical on ‘faith’ due shortly, “the work of four hands”:

    Pope Francis Says Upcoming Encyclical on Faith Is Nearly Complete

    Meets with Ordinary Council of the General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops

    By Junno Arocho Esteves

    VATICAN CITY, June 13, 2013 (Zenit.org) – This morning, Pope Francis met with members of the XIII Ordinary Council of the General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops.

    Although he had prepared remarks, the Holy Father decided to forego his original statement, and engaged the members of the Council on several themes of the Synod which focused on the “New Evangelization for the transmission of the faith.”

    The Holy Father also revealed that the upcoming Encyclical letter on the Year of Faith is nearly complete. Pope Francis stated that the encyclical was the work of “four hands”. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI had handed over his draft of the encyclical which deals with several themes.

    Among the themes are the nature of ecclesial collegiality and the synodal structure in the service of the Church’s universal mission and in cooperation with the Petrine ministry, the crisis of the family, care for the created order, and the recovery of a whole and wholesome understanding of human being.

    “It is an extremely powerful document,” Pope Francis said. “The majority of the work was done by him [Benedict XVI].”

    “I felt that the Year of Faith would end without a good document that can help us,” the Pope said. “And so I thought this: an exhortation on the evangelization that references the Synod. It can be taken from the Synod but with a much broader framework. I liked the idea and I will go down this path. I have written something and in August, where I will be more relaxed at home, I can [continue writing] and go forward.”

    The Holy Father also discussed several themes after giving the Bishops gathered an opportunity to raise any questions or suggestions. Among the matters discussed were the human ecology, anthropology. “We live in a new anthropology,” the Pope said. “where secularism has become secularization. This is a serious problem. In the plane of meeting with God, we are living in a gnostic age.”

    The Holy Father addressed the crisis of the family, stating that it needs to be addressed by both the Church’s pastors and teachers working in tandem.

    Quote from Zenit’s bulletin.

    • Crossraguel,

      What do you think of the Pope’s decision to employ a firm of management consultants to reform the curia?

      • I don’t see what the problem is with the Vatican paying for a management and marketing company to help sort its problems out and improve the image. It needs it! And so does the Society which is why Bishop Fellay is doing just the same thing by hiring a Dutch marketing company to improve the Society’s image. The rebel’s are up in arms about it so it must be a good thing. The idea is that all the Society’s publications and websites throughout the world will be rebranded and carry the same design features. And the content will be strictly controlled to push the right message all the time and everywhere. Have you seen the new USA-Canada website? It’s fantastic. I can’t wait for the dire British district website to get the same makeover. If it’s good for the Society then it must be good for the Vatican. I don’t understand why it’s unbelievable or staggering.

        • Helen,

          It’s staggering for a number of reasons. Firstly, by what criteria is a management consultant going to help reorganise the Curia? Will he look at the “talents” and “gifts” of the various priests – or will he be concerned that the head of the various Congregations holds to the Catholic Faith in its entirety? It is “unbelievable” for two key reasons: firstly, Pope Francis has made such a song and dance about being a “poor” Church which doesn’t quite fit in with the big bucks required to employ a management consultant company. And because it’s the POPE’S role to run the Church, not some man or woman with a degree in management.

          As for Bishop Fellay doing the same thing – I hadn’t heard that but I’m extremely disappointed. The very idea of paying someone to improve the Society’s “image” is totally at odds with the Gospel warning that as the world hated Christ, so it will hate His followers. Christ didn’t say a word about cultivating an acceptable image, but about preaching the Faith in season and out of season. I’d be astonished if Bishop Fellay doesn’t know this, and has fallen prey to the kind of worldliness that worries about “image”.

          Of course, If he is merely paying for someone to update the Society’s websites, that’s fine – long overdue even. But if he, like Pope Francis, is employing a firm of Management Consultants to help him decide who should be the next District Superior of the UK, etc then that is disgraceful.

          • Well Fr. Wenger explained about it in the Angelus last year. He said that “”A renowned European branding firm developed a corporate style for the Society which is supposed to be used not only for The Angelus but for all kinds of publications, for correspondence as well as for the also renewed website” and that “Bare of any aggressive and imposing element it commits us to a positive way of writing.” And Brother Gabriel-Marie said that “The idea is that the SSPX in all the world will, in time, have a large, single website – all with unification of style and purpose. You will be able to navigate to the SSPX sites in all the world. The US district and Canada are the prototypes for this unification. Once we get the bugs worked out of the system, then we’ll start adding the other sites around the world.” Sounds good to me. All that negative complaining and pointing of fingers because this bishop said this or the pope did that gives a bad image of the SSPX to other Catholics and possible converts. Bishop Fellay knows that and I’m glad the SSPX will now give them honey instead of vinegar just like the Ecclesia Dei groups do who are expanding quickly and have beautiful churches to attract people to.

          • Helen,

            I think you may be missing the point. Bishop Fellay has engaged a marketing company to help in the re-branding of the Society’s websites. The Pope, if I understand this correctly, has employed a similar type organisation to help him run the Church. There is a huge difference in matter, form and intention between the two. This is very serious and potentially catastrophic.

  138. FOR YOUR INTEREST….

    Question Time on BBC 1 (10.30-ish) is from Edinburgh tonight, with an audience of, exclusively, young people to discuss the independence referendum. Might be interesting, since there is, apparently, research around which suggests that a majority of young Scots are NOT inclined to vote to leave the UK.

  139. This McKinsey Consultants story is staggering. Truly mind boggling. Surely somebody is having a laugh. What must Saint Pius V, or Saint Robert Bellarmine, or Saint Charles Borromeo be thinking now?

    Are we going to get some slick marketing campaign next? That’s Saatchi and Saatchi, right?
    Are we going to have the money changers waved into the temple? How about asking Goldman Sachs or Rothschilds to run the Vatican Bank? OK, we might just leave that one alone.

    This follows hot on the heels of His Holiness’ meeting with the presiding board of the CLAR (the Latin American and Caribbean Confederation of Religious Men and Women). There were several very troubling elements in the report of the meeting. Here’s one of the issues, in the words of Pope Francis, as reported:

    “But there also is a stream of corruption, there is that as well, it is true… The “gay lobby” is mentioned, and it is true, it is there… We need to see what we can do…”

    With the greatest respect, I think the Pope, like everyone else should be a lot more accurate with his language, and stop using the word “gay” once and for all. Also, coming from the Vicar of Christ, seeing “what we can do” sounds pretty underwhelming and indecisive to me.

    Has everyone forgotten about the two hundred or whatever, page report prepared for Pope Benedict before his abdication? Who’s working on that reported filth?

    If you ask me, what the Vatican and the Church needs right now are a couple of battalions of rigorous Dominicans of the medieval school. While that’s being organised, and it might take rather a long time, quite a few individuals in the Curia would no doubt benefit from being sent on retreat to Econe.

    Your Holiness, please forget about the salesmen in the two grand suits.

  140. The only legitimate orientation to offer Holy Mass is facing God, ad oritentem (to the east).

    We’ve all heard the canard “the Mass simply had to change because the priest had his back to us”. I therefore make a point of referring to the direction the priest should offer Mass as versus Deum, facing God.

    I am not comfortable letting the Liberals and smug Neo-Catholics who defend them get away with legitimising their error with the pretentious phrase versus poulum. This was never part of the liturgical vocabulary. It’s made up. But because it’s Latin and sounds sophisticated they get away with it.

    I am afraid I don’t know Latin. Are there any competent Latinists here who know what the most neat translation for with his back to God is?

    I insist on everyone here using these two terms from now on versus Deum, and, with his back to God (in the Latin of course). Play them at their own game. The [mis]use of language is one of the main ways modernism took over the Church, the clear and noble use of language is a powerful way of proclaiming the Truth.

    • Both the churches I attended as a child were built north – south, so the priest could not be ad orientem. In those days of curse. both priest and people faced the same direction, and I am aware of the symbolism of the priest leading the people to God.

      God is everywhere, not only in the east, so we cannot turn our backs on Him in that literal sense. The priest who now offers Mass from the other side of the altar is still facing God, still facing Jesus in the Eucharist – just from the other side.

  141. Miles Immaculatae,

    I’m not a Latinist but I used the Google translate and it says that “With his back to God” is “cum ad Dei”

  142. Re: Fr Despard’s book. Did anyone notice the following allegation about 73% through the book (in the Kindle edition) concerning a boy who was subjected to abuse by a “ring of priests in Glasgow” and whose parents approached Fr Despard in East Kilbride:

    As a teenager in school, he had been kidnapped and was held hostage at one of the priest’s houses. The police were called in but, as the father told me, it seemed that the priests had undue influence over the police at the time and nothing was done. It was several days before the boy was finally allowed to return home to his family….I heard nothing more about that situation nor did I ever hear of any sanctions applied to the priest. I remember the helplessness.

    If this true then shouldn’t this be the subject of a criminal investigation?

    • That is definitely something the police should investigate. Maybe that is going on right now. I think it says in some of the newspaper reports that there is an investigation being carried out. Does it name the person who had been kidnapped as a teenager?

        • Augustine,

          I really do find that story in Fr. Despard’s book hard to believe. There’s no way priests would hold a young boy hostage for several days and there’s no way the police would turn a blind eye to such a thing.

  143. As the name of Monsignor Basil Loftus is oft raised in anger / frustration on this blog, I thought this link (below) would be of interest to readers. Its a current exchange of letters between Loftus and the excellent Dr Joseph Shaw, of the Latin Mass Society (in England). Loftus had the audacity to write to Shaw, opening with:

    “Dear Dr Shaw,
    May I once again ask you to refrain from garnishing your ‘blog’ with offensive illustrations when you refer to me”

    Which already had me braying with laughter and singing the praises of Dr Shaw.

    Shaw responds…..

    “I am sorry you feel hurt and harassed by my blog posts about you. You may like to consider, however, the hurt and harassment you cause each week in your columns in that once respected Catholic newspaper, The Catholic Times.”

    ….and then proceeds to give Loftus a damn good shoeing over several examples of his writings and personal conduct, in a lengthy and long overdue rebuke.

    Check it out:

    http://www.lmschairman.org/2013/06/an-open-letter-to-mgr-basil-loftus.html

  144. Gabriel Syme, thanks for that link to Dr. Shaw’s blog. It’s very good and I’m glad the good doctor is giving the old heretic a run for his money! We stopped taking the Catholic Times years ago and mainly due to his garbage. We also stopped taking the Scottish Catholic Observer for similar reasons and have even convinced the Parish Priest not to order any for our church!! Hit those Catholic editor impostors where it hurts……

  145. What do you all think about Il Papa meeting Archlayman Welby? This disgusting behaviour on the Pope’s part is shameful, and is sending the wrong message, i.e that Protestants have truth, which they don’t, and that Catholicism is just ‘another’ denomination. Also, as you know I have a soft spot for the Orthodox Church, but they are more Christian than the Pope- they totally broke relations with the US Episcopals and Lutherans over gay marriage, the Pope (former) restored them. Thankfully the Lutherans and Anglicans are dying along with their followers, and we are growing- over 10,000 converts over the last three years in the UK. I think the election of Francis was a mistake, I wanted someone less ecumenical, like +Ranjith or +Thorne. Pray for the Church and Pope.

    Pius X

  146. I remember a long time ago, there was a thread on the HPV-Gardasil Vaccine. Well, I have been recently researching it and come accross much interesting material. See below a young 23 year old whose story is very sad – she is a victim of this terrible vaccine. See link below

    Brittney Feist – Victim of HPV Gardasil Jab

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/01/24/hpv-vaccine-victim-sues-merck.aspx

    Also note (the very unsual case of a Scientist who approves a vaccine but later questions it) “I want to be able to sleep with myself when I go to bed at night,” Harper said

    Dr. Diane Harper, the scientist who was in charge of approving the safety of the vaccine, speaks out saying she can’t sleep at night – she says that she is angry at how Merck marketed and advertised the HPV Vaccine Gardasil. Diane Harper also states that the HPV Vaccines (3 shots over 6 months) only covers the individual for 5 years. See link below

    http://offtheradar.co.nz/vaccines/53-researcher-diane-harper-blasts-gardasil-hpv-marketing.html

    I thought some of you may be interested in this.

    • Catherine,

      That’s all really interesting and quite shocking. I think I am correct in saying that the discussion on the old Catholic Truth blog was because Catholic schools were allowing the HPV vaccine and if so, shame on them.

      I really am more and more convinced that all these vaccinations are unnecessary. We didn’t used to have them and folk survived. At a time when the NHS is supposed to be strapped for cash, you have to wonder why they are spending money on these vaccine programmes when they are, to say the least, not sufficiently tested to be sure they are safe.

      • The NHS spends billions on ‘reproductive health’, i.e. abortion, contraception. Think of all the condoms, implants, coils, pills, sterilisations etc. that are offered. They should spend the money on mental health and old age care, the two biggest health crises facing our society.

  147. Marjory

    Who is your MP?

    All,

    Don’t you think that Monsignor Andre-Jozef Leonard, Archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels would make a good replacement for Archbishop Muller at the CDF? He supports the Latin Mass. I had also heard under his Primacy the number of vocations and Church attendance has been steadily growing. The Belgian Church has no thanks to give to John Paul II for putting that monster Godfried Danneels in charge.

    Pius X

  148. Let’s assume that a priest knew with certainty that I went to regular confessions, received Holy Communion and fulfilled the Sunday obligation at an SSPX Mass. If he withholds absolution because he falsely believes these things to be sins, and I didn’t confess and/or show sorrow for them, what would the proper congregation in Rome to complain to be. This hasn’t happened to me, but I ask in case it did.

    • Miles Immaculatae,

      I would imagine the Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments would be your first stop, followed by the Congregation for the Clergy.

    • If you don’t confess these things as sins the priest will have no knowledge of them. If he recognises you and knows about them, he is not allowed to ask.

  149. Maybe somebody on here can help me regarding the Orthodox Church. Before the Great Schism of 1054, did the Orthodox Church use Latin or Church Slavonic? Also, were the Byzantine Emperor Orthodox or Eastern Rite Catholics? I’m sure the last Byzantine Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos was a Greek Catholic.

    Pius X

  150. pius x,

    I asked a member of the Orthodox to answer your question. He answered by email, so here it is:

    The Church, before 1054, used the vernacular of the people in the East and Latin in the West. Church Slavonic was introduced during SS Cyril and Methodious’ mission to the Slavs.

    All Byzantine emperors were Orthodox – the Uniate churches only began to appear after the Ottoman occupation began. END.

  151. More depressing rubbish in today’s Herald about sex education.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/sex-education-in-nurseries-and-the-pill-for-13-year-olds.21377177

    Anyone like to attempt an explanation of this quote?

    A Catholic Church spokesman said: “The Church suspects we cannot keep going on with an approach which, by its own measures, accepts it has failed so far. The Church suspects it is time to re-orientate our approach to relationship and sex education.”

    • Eileenanne

      This brings to my mind the way the “Church spokesman” defended the decision to allow the HPV vaccine in Catholic schools (we discussed this on more than one thread on the old blog, if you recall) – and now that vaccine has been withdrawn from use with teenagers, due to its damaging effects (Catherine has posted a link above)

      Looks like the powers-that-be in Catholic education are now seeing the error of their ways in permitting sex education disguised as “relationship” education. Instead of being consistent and sticking with what is morally good and true in the face of passing fashions, they want to be seen to be going along with the received wisdom on sex education – to their eternal shame. And even now, instead of slamming the very idea that children in nurseries are given sex-education and thirteen year old the pill, they prefer to speak as if we are of one mind with the sex-educators, just need to rethink (re-orientate) our methodology. Disgraceful.

      Also disgraceful is this business of allowing an anonymous “Church spokesman” to offer his opinion in the media. Who is this person? Is it Peter Kearney? Ronnie Convery? Why do these men not have the guts to identify themselves when giving quotes to journalists?

      • Editor,

        I agree it could be read that way.
        It could also, I think, be interpreted, as saying ” Until now the Church has offered a DIFFERENT kind of sex / relationship education, and now we are going to go along with what everyone else says.” Don’t you think?

        I would be surprised if that was what was actually meant, but it definitely needs clarification.

        • I don’t like the use of “we” in that quote. The Church and society believe different things about sexuality and that doesn’t come across in that quote.

    • My wife phoned me at work about this article. In the context of the article the quote is ambiguous. The first time you read it it could seem the Catholic Church is agreeing to the changes, but if you read it a few more times it seems to says the opposite, albeit in a very low-key, apologetic way.

      “The Church suspects“? How about “the Church teaches“?

      • I don’t see that quote as ambiguous, personally. I think it is saying “we” as in “we all”, Church and society and that is quite accurate in this context because the Scottish church definitely did go along with the sex education policies of the government, and is now saying “we” all need to think again. I can’t see any other interpretation, to be honest.

  152. I tend not to pay too much attention to what “a Church spokesman” said. The “Church spokesman” regularly comes out with controversial statements, always anonymously. In other words, it’s some liberal expressing his dissent from Church teaching while pretending that he speaks officially. The Church’s moral teaching is protected by the Holy Ghost so no one, not even a Pope, will ever change it.

    Mind you, that’s not to say that Bishops everywhere will not undermine the Church’s moral teaching by silence, by insinuation, by sloth, by neglect or by bad example. God knows, we have seen a lot of that in the last 50 years and it destroys morality more surely than all the hostile secular forces put together.

    • Can you post a link please? It doesn’t seem to show up on the Rorate Caeili web page. Ta.

    • Tirrey,

      I watched those short videos. Not short enough. Still, bishops will continue to warn those who ask if it’s OK to attend an SSPX Mass that they must guard against ending up with a “schismatic mentality” – unbelievable.

      Yet, there will still be clowns (pun intended) who fall for this propaganda. They should all be forced to watch that “Mass” and listen to that priest sharing HIS schismatic mentality with those poor souls.

      And notice how this priest describes the Soho “gay” Masses as “reverent” – as long as the new Mass is said with reverence, it’s fine. How many priests offer this defence day and daily? I’ve personally lost count. My routine reply is now… Gimme strength!

  153. How is the SSPX Schismatic? They acknowledge the Pope as the Supreme head of the One, True, Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church, the traditions of the Church. The Pope surely is more of a schismatic, as he doesn’t recognise the latter. It’s the SSPX keeping Church truth alive dagnabbit.

    Pius X

    • pius x,

      The SSPX is not schismatic and the Pope has never said that it is. In fact, the Holy See, through the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, has on several occasions specifically stated that the SSPX is not a case of schism. Google the statements of Cardinal Dario Castrillion Hoyos on the subject of the SSPX and its status in the eyes of the Roman authorities.

  154. I’m really concerned about this canonisation thing. October!?

    If it goes ahead, not only will John Paul II be canonised, but his attitude towards the SSPX will be canonised as well. The Luminous Mysteries will be canonised. The entire thrust if his theology will be canonised. In the future, whenever we will disagree with aspects of, lets say for example, his distorted ecclesiology, we will be confronted by Neo-Catholics who will say: “ah, but he is a Saint now, so surely he must have been right. Who are you to disagree with someone who has been infallibly declared a Saint etc. ?” How very annoying this will be.

    When he is canonised, because Pope Saint John Paul II the Great will share in the the beatitude of the all-knowing God, he shall now know how silly he was, and he’ll be agreeable when I pray to him to help clear up the mess he contributed to.

    • Miles Immaculatae,

      What will you say when someone asks who you are to disagree with someone who has been infallibly declared a saint?

      • Eileenanne,

        It’s perfectly acceptable to disagree with someone who has been canonised. Canonisation does not mean that the person canonised was completely infallible all their earthly life. I don’t think it will happen anyway.

        • Of course canonised saints don’t have to have been infallible – or even impeccable – in life. St Paul and St Augustine are two obvious examples of saints who would not have made it if that were the case. No-one talking about these two great saints refers to their lives before their conversion except to demonstrate how a sinful life can be turned around, There is no suggestion that we should copy the wrong things they did, only that their later lives are worthy of imitation.

          The declaration that someone is a saint is, however infallible and that is what Miles Immaculatae was talking about. If Pope John Paul is canonised Catholics are obliged to accept that he is among the blessed in Heaven. We should not then harp on about his faults and wrongdoing any more than we would if we were talking about St Paul or St Augustine. We can safely asuume that if he is canonised, the good out weighs the bad.

    • Things are going to get an awful lot harder for those of us who do not hold to the sedevacantist thesis and yet do not believe that the late Pope should be canonised without at least some statement from the magisterium that he is not being canonised because of the many problematic things he said and did (Assisi 1986 and 2002, active participation in an Animist rite in 1985*, kissing the Qur’an, invoking the protection of St John the Baptist upon Islam, etc) but despite them.

      In a way, I envy the serenity of those who will not be disturbed by this: either because they are sedevacantist and see nothing more than yet another act of an ‘imposter Church’ or because they venerate Pope John Paul II as a saint already and believe him a great Pope.

      For me the forthcoming canonisation will be very troubling indeed since it is probable nothing will be said about those pontifical acts of Pope John Paul II that simply cannot be squared with Scripture, Tradition, or the Dogmas of the Church. And nothing – for as long as I have reason and accept the principle of non-contradiction, which is the very foundation of reason – will persuade me otherwise. There may perhaps be mitigating factors that reduce the culpability of the late Pope but those acts (judged in the external forum) will never be made less wrong by his canonisation.

      The fact is, Catholics will assume that such acts are good and holy because they were performed by a Pontiff whom the Church has named a Saint.

      Imagine this scenario: Antichrist has finally come and offers the followers of Christ comfort and a position if they but make some small outward act of pagan worship. What will go through the mind of a Catholic husband and father who stands, wife and children crying with fear, before the terrible altar hesitating? Will he recall the sacrifice of the Early Martyrs whom the Church has canonised and be glad that God has called him out of life in such a way? Or will he recall Saint John Paul II who did not refrain from praying with pagans, gathered persons of every religion together in Catholic churches that they might perform their rites, and even kissed a ‘holy book’ that is full of fables, blasphemies, and malice against Christians and be glad that God will not mind if he just burns the grain of incense and gets on home?

      *The first gesture which was made by John Paul II after arriving in Togoville was an act of homage to the ancestors. A gourd was filled with water and dry corn flour. The Pope took it between his hands and bowed slightly after the water was scattered all around. The same gesture was made ​​this morning in Kara, before celebrating mass. This is a custom to which the Togolese are particularly attached. The guest accepts the water, a symbol of prosperity, and shares it with his ancestors by scattering it on the same ground that houses their mortal remains and their spirit. The brief ceremony was held in the most absolute silence.” [L’Osservatore Romano, Italian edn., August 11, 1985, p. 5]

      • “The fact is, Catholics will assume that such (pagan/blasphemous) acts are good and holy because they were performed by a Pontiff whom the Church has named a Saint. “

        Got it in one, Augustine. That is why any such canonisation of Pope John Paul II would be an horrendous scandal of gigantic proportions. The theologians who studied the nature of canonisations and pronounced them infallible acts, would have to look again if, in fact, their nature has changed, in my humble opinion, and changed so drastically that a person, not to mention a pope, who has caused such dreadful scandal could be considered for canonisation and even get through the beatification stage. Unbelievable. Instead, the faithful should have been exhorted to pray for the repose of his soul daily for the rest of their lives.

        As for your earlier “condition” – I’m sure that a statement to that effect has already been made by the Vatican spokesman or whoever (that he would be canonised for his personal holiness not his pontificate) and it just doesn’t wash. That nonsense falls into the same category as Enda Kenny’s “I’m a Catholic, not a Catholic Taoiseach”.

        • I don’t understand why more Catholics don’t see this. The Popes – in fact, every Catholic – of every age but our own would have cried out in horror at the sight of a Roman Pontiff taking part in a pagan rite*.

          A few months ago I got into a debate on a Catholic forum with an otherwise very intelligent poster on whether the active participation of a Catholic in non-Catholic worship is contrary to natural and divine law. I drew upon the previous code of canon law (can. 2316 and 1258)† , rulings of the Holy Office, which was an organ of the magisterium, on worship with non-Catholics, the Fathers, Tradition, and Inerrant Scripture to argue that such participation is inherently wrong. Against that he just kept repeating that if a man far more holy than he (viz. Pope John Paul II) actively participated non-Catholic worship this demonstrated that the Church’s previous condemnations of – and prohibitions against – this species of communicatio in sacris were merely provisional, disciplinary, and time-bound.

          This is to pervert the rule of faith in that the perennial teachings of the Church – i.e. the deposit of faith – must be turned on their head to conform to the non-infallible words and actions of Pope John Paul II. It’s rather like letting the tail wag the dog.

          Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter. (Isaiah 5:20)

          *****

          *Of course, it may be that L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, calumniated the late Pope by printing a false story about his participation in the Animist ceremony. But since their own reporter, Mario Ponzi, accompanied the Holy Father on his visit to Togo in 1985 and the Vatican never contradicted this report there is little reason to believe – unfortunately – that he did not do what L’Osservatore Romano reported.

          † From the Code of Canon Law (1917):

          Canon 1258: “It is forbidden to actively participate in the worship of non-Catholics.”

          Canon 2316: “One who cooperates communicatio in sacris contrary to the provision of Canon 1258 is suspected of heresy.”

          • Phew! I’m glad I’ve never actively participated in the worship of a non-Catholic!
            (God is a Catholic isn’t He?)

            There is a more recent Code of Cabon Law (1983 I think) which supercedes that of 1917.

        • If Pope John Paul is canonised it will no longer be necessary to pray for the repose of his soul. We will have an infallible declaration that he is in Heaven.

          • Note these words from the ceremony of canonisation:

            “In honour of . . . we decree and define that Blessed N. is a Saint, and we inscribe his name in the catalogue of saints, and order that his memory by devoutly and piously celebrated yearly on the . . . day of . . . his feast.”

            I wonder how many Catholics will be able to “devoutly and piously celebrate the memory of” Pope John Paul II?

  155. Eileenanne,

    Of COURSE God isn’t a Catholic! He is an ecumenical, inter-faith Being who doesn’t really CARE what religion people follow. What, you stupid or somefink?

    And of COURSE you are right about there being a new Code of Canon Law – it was given to us by none less than the (soon to be) sainted Pope John Paul II* and upon his novel provisions, all sorts of scandals are permitted – read this….

    When will silly Augustine learn, Eileenanne? Not to mention all those fuddy duddy previous popes who thought it was wrong to offer God, Father, Son & Holy Spirit, false worship. What are they LIKE?

    * John Paul II also did away with the Devil’s Advocate for canonisations. I wonder why?

  156. Eileenanne,

    Yes, but just because the 1983 Code has superseded the 1917 Code it doesn’t mean that every canon in the former code is thereby abrogated. On the contrary, the 1983 Code stated that if a previous law is not expressly revoked then it is still in force. There is no such abrogation of the canons I cited in the 1983 Code. QED.

    Furthermore, some canons are matters of reformable discipline and some are matters of natural and divine law. Please read this article on the clear teaching of the Church that such active participation is against the Divine and Natural Law and is, therefore, inherently wrong.

    • Exactly right, Augustine. Unless there is a clear statement that this or that new provision replaces an old one, the rule of thumb is that what is not abrogated in law remains in force.

      • The 1983 Code of Canon Law says:
        Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:

        1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

        • Eileenanne,

          Canon Law is not of itself infallible. Church teaching on faith and morals is infallible but Canon Law is disciplinary and therefore only infallible when referring to a matter pertaining to faith and morals.

          Now, from Augustine’s earlier post, we have this from the 1917 Code:

          Canon 1258: “It is forbidden to actively participate in the worship of non-Catholics.”

          That particular Canon is infallible since it deals with a matter affecting faith, which means that it cannot be abrogated by the 1983 Code. Are you catching my drift here? If a new Code of Canon Law contradicts the former Code in a serious matter of discipline concerning the faith, then we are obliged to abide by the former Canon and ignore the new. We shouldn’t have to be making these distinctions as children of the Church, but such is the harsh reality of today’s Modernist-infected hierarchy.

        • Eileenanne,

          I hope your devotion to Canon Law has motivated you to sign our petition for the application of Canon Law # 915.

          If not, there’s no time like the present!

    • Eileenanne,

      A new Code of Canon Law can in no way contradict the old Code. If it does contradict the old Code in a matter of faith then we are obliged to disregard it and abide by what the Church has always taught. But does the new Code contradict the old Code in respect to ecumenism? I notice that you didn’t give an example of contradiction but rather just stated that the 1917 Code has been replaced by the 1983 Code. I think we knew that already.

        • Because there is no explicit statement on such participation in the new Code and, therefore, we must cite the canons from the older Code which, as we saw, are still in force.

          The fact is, that very few Catholics want to look the facts straight in the face that Pope John Paul II did this. I do not deny whatever good that the late Pope did – on the contrary – but for the Vicar of Christ to take part in non-Catholic worship – indeed, the rites of one the most degraded religions imaginable – is a very serious business to say the least. But if you raise the subject with most Catholics they either deny (contrary to the report from the Vatican’s own newspaper) that such participation ever took place or they try invoke the excuse of “charity”.

          It is an indictment on the state of the Church that Catholics try to excuse or even justify what is clearly contrary to the virtue of religion, which is a species of the virtue justice, whereby we worship God in the way that He has revealed to us. For a Catholic to actively participate in the rites of another religion than the true one is to prefer one’s own to the will of God.

          • I don’t suppose approving the stoning of St Stephen was a good act either,but it didn’t stop St Paul attaining sainthood.

          • I don’t suppose approving the stoning of St Stephen was a good act either,but it didn’t stop St Paul attaining sainthood.

            Eileenanne,

            That is a false comparison because St Paul clearly repented of his actions and did it publicly. Pope John Paul II never gave any sign that he believed that he had anything to reproach himself with.

  157. Josephine,

    Very interesting article. Thansk for the link. It does seem to confirm that the declaration of canonisation is infallible. There are several bits worth quoting, but I decided on this:

    Although the saint is proposed as a model of virtues and Christian living, it is not the specific object of canonization. For example, it is quite possible that a martyr show heroic virtue in the face of death without necessarily having lived all the virtues to an exemplary degree. Nor does canonization make the saints immune from the judgment of history insofar as hindsight might show that some of their external actions proved to be unwise or had negative consequences.

    That seems to leave people free to disapprove of Pope John Paul’s actions in life if and when he is a saint .

    The article pretty much answers my questions on the subject for which I am grateful.

    • I agree Augustine. Pope John Paul II never showed the slightest sign of remorse for all the scandals he caused. I cannot see how he could possibly be canonised and that be an infallible act. I really can’t, and I think an awful lot of people would have a big struggle with it.

      I think there is a difference between a person who can be shown to have heroic virtue on earth despite their various sins and failings, and someone who failed to live up to the basic duties of their state of life. I will be horrified if Pope John Paul II is canonised and I really don’t think it will happen.

      An example of a canonised saint who was less than perfect and said things open to criticism, is Padre Pio, in my view. Even though he had exalted graces and the stigmata and was clearly a special soul before God, still his refusing to hear confessions of women wearing trousers or whatever, can well be open to criticism. Saints were not perfect in this life, that is for sure (and it is what can make them useful role models) but that is different from canonising a Pope who appeared to publicly break the First Commandment, condoned ecumenism and inter-faith activities and even organised them (Assisi) so I really will have a problem if he is canonised.

      • His being canonised is not a logical contradiction since, materially speaking, canonisation tells us that someone is now enjoying the Beatific Vision and that his prayers have great efficacy in Heaven. There is no reason to say whether the Pope might have sincerely repented, offered his final sufferings in reparation, and was purged in the fires of Purgatory. His salvation is a thing devoutly to be wished, as is the case with everyone’s salvation.

        However, I think it would be very imprudent to canonise the late Pope without at the very least some statement to clarify that what he did in Togo etc was wrong and incompatible with the Catholic faith. But somehow I don’t think that will happen, which, I believe, will be a terrible act of injustice to the Catholic faithful and set the Church for a renewed slide into doctrinal chaos.

  158. I asked a traditional priest about the canonisation of JP11 and this is what he said:

    “My position on this is that over time the popes reserved the power to canonise to themselves, and made of canonisation such a solemn definition, with so many safeguards built into the process, and so much of their authority bound up in it, that the common opinion of theologians is that canonisations became infallible. Nonetheless it would certainly be possible that the popes could downgrade the whole procedure to its earlier status, which was certainly not guaranteed by their infallibility.

    There is no doubt that canonisation was greatly devalued under John Paul II, with the requirements having been greatly relaxed. We cannot say, however, whether this has meant that the modern canonisations are or are not an exercise of infallibility (perhaps some future pope will clarify matters). Nonetheless we can say the following in any individual problematic case (e.g. if John Paul II were to be canonised): either their canonisation is infallible (in which case we know they have saved their souls by dying in the state of grace, which is certainly always possible), or it is not, in which case infallibility is not compromised. Even in the first case, an instance of infallibility need not be prudent or advisable (this is a general principle about all infallible acts); it merely entails that whatever is defined is free from error. Thus in the first case it would mean that JP II had certainly saved his soul, but would not necessarily mean that he should be considered a role model, or that his canonisation was a good idea.”

  159. At the Council of Constantinople (680), Pope Honorius I was posthumously condemned for his part in allowing the Monothelite heresy to spread. Here’s what that Council declared in his regard:

    “…we decide that Honorius also, who was pope of elder Rome, be with them cast out of the holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, because we have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things, and confirmed his wicked dogmas”….”

    Pope Agatho confirmed the findings of this Council and upheld its decision regarding his predecessor. Pope Leo II, Agatho’s successor, also upheld the Council’s decision and added this: “We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius, …and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.”

    Now, Pope John Paul II, regardless of his intentions, whether or not his heresy was material or formal, polluted the purity of the Catholic Faith when he kissed the Koran, received the mark of a Hindu deity on his forehead and masterminded the Assisi atrocities. His actions, in fact, were far worse than those of Honorius, who had merely remained silent in the face of heresy.

    We should also consider that Pope John Paul II was a notorious Modernist, a very active liberal at Vatican II, who ended by excommunicating Tradition with his Motu Proprio of 1988, which declared the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre and the four bishops he consecrated to help save the sacred priesthood and Mass. Benedict XVI revoked that act, of course, and made plain that which John Paul II denied by his personal celebrate stunt, namely that the ancient Mass of the saints and martyrs had never been abrogated and that all priests were free to celebrate that venerable rite without permission.

    Not meaning to judge the Pope’s soul here, I leave that to God, he most certainly is not the kind of person the Church should be holding up as a saint. He was, frankly, a scandal to the faithful in so many ways. And let us not forget that it was under this Pontificate that clerical sexual abuse became more rampant in the Church and that marriage annulments in the U.S. jumped from 368 in 1968 to 52,000 by 1991.

    How they ever came up with “the great” for this Pope is beyond me. The great what? He is a Modernist icon whose cause is promoted in a desperate attempt to canonise the conciliar revolution. The Holy Ghost will never allow this canonisation to take place.

  160. Eileenanne,

    I’m responding briefly to your comments on the Priesthood thread, where you express the view that God would not punish us directly through natural disasters like floods etc. You say this on the grounds that it’s not the bad people who are guilty of whatever angers God who are punished, but good people, e.g. those who are running businesses in Lourdes to promote the pilgrimage site and not the people who are guilty of immodest dress and impure behaviour etc.

    All of that is true, but as someone else has said, that is all part of the mystery of iniquity; why do the good seem to suffer while the evil flourish (in this world)?

    The fact is, however, that God has revealed a number of things about Himself to us in Scripture including the fact that He does not change. Thus, even though 21st century psychology tells us that it’s not too “cool” to show anger, especially furious anger, God remains, as He has always been, a God of wrath as much as of mercy. He cannot change from century to century. He can’t have been angry God in the first century and now be a God of mercy in the 21st. Not on.

    What am I saying? It’s not “either/or” – God’s wrath is, in fact, a manifestation OF his mercy. God is perfect. He cannot be or do anything “bad” or “evil”. That he may choose to use His power over the weather to warn us of His displeasure, cannot ever be a bad or evil thing. One of the headlines in the local press at the time of the Tsunami in Indonesia began with a quote from a local person expressing the belief that he what he had witnessed that day, was the “wrath of God”. The world has turned violently away from God – even top prelates within the Church have turned away from God. We’ve had popes who have refused to listen when God sent His Mother to Fatima with a sure-fire plan for peace in the world. Would it be any wonder, then, that God’s holy impatience may now be showing itself in the world in the form of violently changeable and unpredictable weather?

    Dr. James Hansen, the “godfather” of global warming alarms and head of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York, stated: “It’s becoming clearer each year that there is something unusual going on” (San Diego Union-Tribune, Jan. 14, 2000).

    Most scientists are beginning to realize that the normal weather patterns are not holding and that something they have never experienced may be building up in the weather cycles. A few years ago, horrifying floods affected tens of thousands of people in Ohio, Kentucky and neighbouring states in America. The New York Times on March 3, 1997 reported:

    “From Arkansas, where tornadoes devastated a small town, to Ohio and Kentucky, where floods swept cars off the roads and sucked two people down into culverts, a front of deadly storms splintered homes and killed at least 35 people over the weekend.

    People who survived Saturday’s pounding winds called it the most violent day of weather in memory. The storm front sent floods, tornadoes and spring-like thunderstorms through eight states, as far south as Mississippi and Tennessee and as far north as Ohio, but no state suffered worse than Arkansas. There, the twisting winds of several tornadoes flattened buildings and houses, killed 24 people and injured 200 in a few short hours Saturday night….

    Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas warned that the death toll could rise as rescue workers continue to sift through the rubble of homes and businesses. ‘This was an absolutely extraordinary event of weather,’ Huckabee said as National Guard units helped police officers and fire-fighters search through the damage. ‘We had more tornadoes and more damage than in all of last year…. I’m calling it apocalyptic.'”

    There is clearly something going on with the weather and the idea that it is caused by human beings is nothing short of ludicrous. It would be wise of us all to recognise that with the descent from relativism to nihilism, where very few people know right from wrong any more, where evil is now taught as good in schools and churches, where priests defend politicians who vote for abortion and same sex marriage etc., I repeat, it would be very wise of us to recognise that God will, indeed, intervene to warn and to punish us.

    And, Eileenanne, that’s because He is a loving God. You appear to make the classic mistake of thinking that God is unloving and vengeful when He disciplines and punishes us. Yet any truly loving parent does not hesitate to do whatever it takes to save his child from perdition.

    What a shame that priests have stopped explaining this in the parishes. Instead, many of them are stupidly peddling the eco-lie, that we can end the natural disasters and improve the weather by following the daft advice from pseudo experts not to drive our cars or buy an airline ticket. Gimme strength!

  161. Editor,

    Your second sentence misrepresents what I said. If you go back and check it you will see what I mean. I also mentioned the mystery of suffering, which I don’t claim to understand, and nor would most theologians or philosophers – it’s still a mystery.

    I never suggested God was either unloving or vengeful. I did not claim any direct relationship between wrong doing and natural disasters. I do not believe that floods, earthquakes, tsunami or typhoons should lead us to assuime that God is actively punishing wrongdoing in the place affected, any more than we should think that if a person gets cancer or another serious illness, it is because he is more sinful than his healthy neighbour.

    I don’t know why extreme weather such as we have seen in many places happens. I will not be persuaded that floods are a sign of God’s displeasure with people’s behaviour in that place.

    I have never heard a priest say any of the things you mention in your final paragraph.

    • Eileenanne,

      I acted on your suggestion that I check back to see what you said in your original post. I’ve put what you said in italics, from your original post(s) on the subject of God/natural disasters/chastisements – I will inject my response in bold as appropriate in the hope of making my meaning clear:

      I do not believe God directly punishes or shows His disfavour by actively sending down natural disasters on places where He sees things that displease Him.

      Why not? Is there anywhere in Scripture or in the writings of the Fathers which demonstrates that God has never, never does or will never do such a thing?

      People in Lourdes rely for their livelihood on the pilgrims who come there during a relatively short pilgrimage season. I don’t believe God would deliberately send such devastation on their homes and businesses in order to show His displeasure with the behaviour of a few of those who respond to Our Lady’s invitation to come in procession.

      With respect, the nub of the problem here seems to be that you think material and temporal wellbeing is more important to God than our eternal salvation. This mentality underlines the sad reality of our age which has lost all sense of sin and certainly all sense of the enormity of sin in the eyes of God. It’s only when we grasp, however dimly, the gravity of offending God at all, let alone in the very serious defiance of His moral order in our times, that we can begin to appreciate that we merit, whole nations of us, much more devastation than we have witnessed to date.

      Now, to your post of June 21, 9.45:

      Your second sentence misrepresents what I said. If you go back and check it you will see what I mean.

      Answered above

      I also mentioned the mystery of suffering, which I don’t claim to understand, and nor would most theologians or philosophers – it’s still a mystery.

      Yes, but a mystery of Faith doesn’t mean a puzzle to which there is no answer. We can know that there is an answer, even if we do not fully understand it in this world. We may not understand why God would allow the (relatively) good to suffer (we’re all sinners, so none of us is innocent) along with the wicked, but we have the evidence of Scripture to demonstrate to us that this is, in fact, the case.

      I never suggested God was either unloving or vengeful.

      No, but that’s the implication, the logical conclusion of your apparent shock horror at the very idea that God would directly intervene in history to “punish” – “punishment” being, of course, something bad, rather than God’s merciful love at work.

      I did not claim any direct relationship between wrong doing and natural disasters. I do not believe that floods, earthquakes, tsunami or typhoons should lead us to assume that God is actively punishing wrongdoing in the place affected, any more than we should think that if a person gets cancer or another serious illness, it is because he is more sinful than his healthy neighbour.

      Your analogy creates a false dichotomy. It may be that someone with a serious cancer is more sinful than his healthy neighbour but we cannot possibly know that in this world, nor should we make the assumption. Thus, it’s not a helpful analogy. And as already stated, God has intervened directly through what we call natural disasters – He might call them “chastisements” whether in a particular place for reasons connected to that place or – as in our times – all over the place, since His moral order is being attacked all over the place! Given that Our Lady mentioned immodest dress and sins of impurity during the Fatima apparitions, it does not seem too much of a stretch of the imagination to argue that God has intervened directly at Lourdes in these recent days, to make a point! Last time I went to Lourdes I was appalled at the disgracefully immodest dress of some of the women and less than impressed with the casual behaviour of seminarians and priests in the company of young girls. So, yes, if I could struggle to keep my cool and NOT say what I’d have liked to have said, I suspect God might feel like expressing His righteous anger given that such behaviour at one of the holiest shrines in Christendom is, to put it mildly, inappropriate.

      I don’t know why extreme weather such as we have seen in many places happens. I will not be persuaded that floods are a sign of God’s displeasure with people’s behaviour in that place.

      I repeat. That is more likely than not because you do not – with respect – have a sense of the enormity of sin in the eyes of God. Following years of listening to homilies about a loving God coupled with a denigration of “rules”, the very idea of a “punishing” God may well seem ridiculous to you.

      I have never heard a priest say any of the things you mention in your final paragraph.

      Well, then, recall the report in our newsletter about Cardinal O’Brien, no less, who told a reporter that every time he saw a primary school child he worried about their future – would they have trees? And other such baloney. You seem to be in an exceptional parish, right enough, with a priest who is just about perfect, so I hope you sent him a Father’s Day card! But, believe me, from the reports I hear, there are plenty of eco-friendly priests out there who are more interested in saving trees than saving souls.

      In summary,

      I don’t know any more than you do, Eileenanne, whether or not God is intervening in our history today by means of the erratic weather. I just don’t know. But I do know this: it’s not impossible. And I know, too, that it would not at all be incompatible with the nature of God, so to do. Far from it – there is plenty of evidence in Scripture of precisely such direct intervention. And by the way, I noted your reference to scriptural scholarship, the literal versus non-literal interpretation of certain passages, but such considerations do not apply to this subject. That is because whether or not a passage should be interpreted literally, in the very nature of things, God is revealing Himself to us through Scripture. Thus, we learn throughout Scripture that God is a loving God; whether that loves shows itself in gentle compassion (as in the story of the faithful husband’s unfailing love for his unfaithful wife in the book of Hosea, or in His stern warnings “Woe is you…” to His “apostate children” (e.g. Isaiah) God is a God of love.

      The trick for Catholics is to try to think like God – that is, to allow for the supernatural – but to think like God as He has been revealed to us in Scripture, not as the “gentle Jesus, anything goes as long as it makes you happy in this world” non-existent God of the “liberal” mindset.

  162. Eileenanne

    While you might not have heard a priest preaching about man made global warming, have some petty for Catholics here in Ireland.

    A few weeks before the Murphy Report concerning the handling of clerical abuse cases in the Archdiocese of Dublin was published in 2009, the Irish Bishops Conference issued “The Cry of the Earth- A Pastoral Reflection on Climate Change”.Talk about misplaced priorities. I couldn’t find any authors’ names on the document. No Imprimatur or Nihil Obstat either. Are they now a thing of the past?

    Anyway, here’s a little sample of the contents, to be skim read:

    “Global climate change is one of the most critical issues of our time.”
    “For followers of Jesus Christ, climate change raises urgent spiritual and moral concerns.”
    “Our responsibility for the well-being of other species must also be taken into account as part of the universal destination of the goods of the earth”.
    “In Ireland at the moment, we are in breach of our moral and legal obligations to the rest of the world by exceeding our greenhouse emission targets.”
    “In this pastoral letter, we renew the appeal we made in Towards the Global Common Good when we said: “It is a moral imperative that the measures set out in the National Climate Change Strategy 2000 are implemented with greater speed. All of us have a part to play.”
    “Failure to act now to address global warning and sustainability may well make areas of the earth uninhabitable for humans.”
    “The implications of climate change for humanity and for our planet are so serious that we should take the warnings of science seriously and make changes to our behaviour.”
    “We believe that the Holy Spirit, the “Lord and Giver of life”, is now inspiring people to dedicate themselves to “renew the face of the earth” by serving others in solidarity and by living a more just and sustainable lifestyle rooted in the principles of Catholic Social teaching.”
    “As the bread and wine is transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ for our nourishment, we are also drawn into ever-deeper communion with the Blessed Trinity, with humanity, past and present, and with all God’s creation.”
    “One of the great legacies of Francis (of Assisi, note no mention of his title of saint) is that he expanded the concept of “neighbour” to include not only the human race, but the whole of creation and all its creatures.”
    “Time is running out. We need to act now for ourselves, for future generations and for the future of our planet.”

    Under the section entitled What Can Our Parish Do? we’re told the following:

    “Conduct an “Environmental Audit” of your parish. This might include:
    Establishing a group with responsibility for auditing current environmental practice;
    Drawing up an environmental policy;
    Monitoring targets and promoting good practice in the parish.”

    “Join with Churches Together in Britain and Ireland (CBTI) each year in celebrating the “Creation Time” in initiative.”
    “Enrol in the Eco-Congregation Ireland environmental programme for Churches.”
    “Include the theme of care for God’s creation in homilies, prayers of the faithful and examinations of conscience.”
    “Use recycled and recyclable materials wherever possible: For example:
    Refrain from using disposable plastic cups and other utensils at parish functions;
    Use recyclable shrine candles. Ask your supplier to provide them;
    Use more of your page when typing letters or other documents. Review the default margin settings on your computer software to use more of the page.”

    I think everyone will have had enough by now. Is anybody else thinking pantheism, naturalism, immanentism? Remember this was the Bishops Conference of Ireland speaking. So much for Collegiality. These men are the successors of the Apostles in Ireland.

    At the time of the above was written, we had apostasy affecting nearly every family in the land, the aftermath of an appalling series of abuse scandals, open and unfettered dissent amongst a large section of the clergy, ever decreasing religious observance, plummeting priestly and religious vocations, dire catechesis and religious knowledge among the vast majority of the population, rejection of the Ten Commandments and Church teaching, withdrawal of the Church from Education and Health provision, constant attack by a virulently anti-Catholic media. The legacy of a scandalous Eucharistic Congress and the prospect of legislation for butchering unborn children can now be added to the list. Saving all those oh so friendly polar bears can, I think, be put on the back burner.

    I couldn’t help laughing at some of the stuff I was reading- recyclable shrine candles and default margin settings. Some of the rest is just plain disturbing, or worse. No elaboration needed.

    Neither could I avoid the thought that this was scrupulosity for New Age tree-huggers.

    “Examinations of conscience”- Puh-leaze, Your Lordships.

  163. If God is actively punishing people for their sins by sending floods and other natural disasters. he seems to do it in a highly selective manner. If the floods in Lourdes are a punishment for sin IN THAT PLACE then can we assume that at the moment God is displeased with people in Calgary and India, who are also suffering severe flooding, but quite happy with us in Scotland where extremes of weather are rare?

    Do you think this act of God, intended either to warn or punish those who behave inappropriately, will be effective? Will it change the behaviours to which you refer? Very few people will even make the connection that you have, and those who are “punished” are those who live and work in Lourdes, as well as the families of those who lost their lives, not people who enter the domain in a sleeveless top – the only example of immodesty I have ever witnessed in Lourdes. I think if God wanted to warn or punish He would do it rather more effectively and would target His punishment rather more efficiently.

    You said that I
    “…think material and temporal wellbeing is more important to God than our eternal salvation”.

    You are making an unwarranted inference there. I did not say anything about how IMPORTANT I thought the damage to homes and businesses was. I merely stated that people’s whose livelihoods depend on the pilgrimage season are the ones most affected by the floods, not the visitors who I take to be the ones you accuse of inappropriate behaviour. I stand by that statement.

    As regards my “false dichotomy”. You said:
    It may be that someone with a serious cancer is more sinful than his healthy neighbour but we cannot possibly know that in this world, nor should we make the assumption.

    I actually said we should NOT make such an assumption. My words were :

    I do not believe that floods, earthquakes, tsunami or typhoons should lead us to assume that God is actively punishing wrongdoing in the place affected, any more than we should think that if a person gets cancer or another serious illness, it is because he is more sinful than his healthy neighbour.

    I have been saying that we cannot assume bad things happening are a direct punishment for sin in the affected place. YOU speculated from the start that the floods were a punishment for things that happen in Lourdes. You agree that we cannot and should not assume that the sins of a person with a serious illness are worse than those of a healthy person. Likewise we cannot and should not assume that the floods that have affected Lourdes twice in less than a year are God’s response to sin in Lourdes.

    • Eileenanne,

      You tend to pick up on a word, ignoring the sense of what I say, such as when I said “it seems…. temporal wellbeing…”. I only have time for a brief comment right now, so will merely repeat that I don’t know whether or not the floods etc are divine chastisement, but that I do not agree with you that God would not do that. That’s all I’m saying. All the details upon which you base your argument that God would NOT do that, are part of what you yourself describe as a “mystery” – why God would choose this particular place, that particular place etc. The key point remains: it is not incompatible with the nature of God and it is absolutely clear from God’s revelation of Himself in Scripture, that God DOES chastise. End of.

      All the rest is incidental.

  164. Leo,

    I believe we have a duty not to abuse God’s creation and if there is evidence that some of our behaviours have a negative effect on the earth we should consider changing them. I don’t know whether I believe that because I am a Catholic or because I was brought up by parents who had known poverty and war, so waste was anathema in our house. We didn’t call it being “green” – we just thought of it as being thrifty and canny. I am still the same today – can’t abide waste – even though there is not the same financial imperative to re-use and re-cycle, I still do it.

    Most of the things in your parish audit suggestions are things I do anyway and I do think they are common sense. I see nothing sinister in people being encouraged to do any of them. None of them can do any harm and they might do some good.

    I have never heard more than a passing reference to environmental issues in Church and I certainly don’t think they are the be all and end all of Christian life. Looking after the Earth matters, but it is only one aspect of what we must do to fulfil our duty to love God and love our neighbour and far from the most important.

  165. Eileenanne

    Thank you for your reply.

    I couldn’t agree more with you about the merits of being thrifty and avoiding waste. And yes, it is indeed a question of plain “common sense”. Absolutely. In recent times, speaking from experience of Celtic Tiger Ireland, that once common currency often appeared to be in rather scarce supply.

    While you may have been spared silly sermons about man made global warming, I have tried to demonstrate that not everyone, in Ireland anyway, has been so fortunate. Everyone who cares to read the quotations I gave, if can bear to do so, can judge for themselves. I’ve expressed my views already. Populist pandering to political correctness and dodgy science is another impression I got.

    To be fair to you, Eileenanne, you did say that looking after the earth was “far from the most important” aspect of our duty towards God. I wish such common sense was a bit more prevalent on this whole subject. The task of the Bishops is the salvation of souls. The Church is undergoing an unprecedented crisis, Catholics rarely if ever hear a word about the Four Last Things, and we have Bishops issuing a “pastoral reflection” which tells us that “for followers of Jesus Christ, climate change raises urgent spiritual and moral concerns”, that we are “drawn into ever-deeper communion with the Blessed Trinity, with humanity, past and present, and with all God’s creation” and that “one of the great legacies of Francis (of Assisi) is that he expanded the concept of “neighbour” to include not only the human race, but the whole of creation and all its creatures.”

    If that’s not knocking on the door of pantheistic gobbledygook, I don’t what is.

    Let’s say nothing about the advice to “review the default margin settings on your computer software to use more of the page.” I wonder how much paper was used to provide us all with such nuggets.

    I’m glad to say that where I attend Mass there is no danger of hearing anything from the pulpit about an “Environmental Audit”. The Society are really only interested in saving souls.

    On a natural level, I also think the priests of the Society have far too much common sense.

    • Leo,

      “…If that’s not knocking on the door of pantheistic gobbledygook, I don’t what is.”

      And so say all of us! And I’m sure that includes Eileenanne!

      About the Society priests having far too much common sense… you just get more charitable by the minute, our Leo! By the minuet!

  166. Sever flooding in Calgary: I have checked with Fr. Leo Boyle and am pleased to report all is well with him, his confreres and church.

    DG

  167. No doubt some poor sinners will have suffered greatly from the flooding in Calgary, as well as in Lourdes and India in the past few days. I’m sure we will all want to keep them in our prayers.

    • Eileenanne,

      We most certainly should keep them in our prayers and pray God that He does not visit His wrath upon the rest of the world, all of us included, should the loss of faith in the Church and the global spread of the demonic continue unhindered.

      I recall here the warning of Our Lady of Fatima: “When you see a night illuminated by a strange light, know that this is the great sign given by God that He is about to punish the world for its crimes by means of war, famine and persecutions of the Church.”

      That light was seen in the night sky on January 25, 1938, and was quickly followed by WWII. There have been numerous other disasters since then, many wars, famines, floods and other natural disasters, such as tsunamies. The world still refuses to pay heed to its God and the modernists in the Church continue to abandon the ancient Faith in search of an earthly ecumenical paradise. What, I wonder, awaits us if it doesn’t stop soon, if there is not soon a return to Tradition in the Church and morality in the world. There are many authorised prophecies about this age, too terrible to recount, but all speaking of a sudden intervention from heaven, a wiping out of two thirds of the planet by fire. It’s quite frightening to see how every day we get closer and closer to this wrath of God, especially now with the introduction of gay marriage. That particular sin is more than just human weakness, it’s the governments of the world thumbing their nose at their Creator with such incredible arrogance and saying basically – we will not have this man (Christ the Lord) rule over us. It is terrifying pride and rebellion that God will punish severely unless there is soon a global change of heart followed by much penance.

  168. Talking of Fatima, does anyone know if Fr Kramer is still associated with Fr Gruner’s apostolate?

    In a letter from Fr Chazal, published on one of the rebel websites, it appears that Fr Kramer is expected to provide assistance in forming priests for the Williamson sect. It’s also a little worrying to note that Bp Williamson appears to be mandating that seminarians should be kept away from “spirituality” :-

    “….Another thing worthy of note; His Lordship told us to do all we could for the three or four aspirants to the Priesthood; then he went down and blessed the future house in Batangas. It should open in September. But if candidates can be shipped over to you, that would be still a solution that i would prefer, because there is not enough of us, (even if Fr Kramer comes for a few months), to train them fully.

    The Bishop told me to teach them the elements: Latin, Scripture, Encyclicals, History and English. No spirituality. Nothing going in to their heads, the total opposite of the Castle in Spain in Virginia. I really trust that you are going to do the same with the Seminary on the Hillbelly, under the laughs of the fancy clerics of our time….

    • spiritustempore,

      I’ve just emailed your post to Fr Kramer for his comment. I’m sure (as I said in my email to him) that he is far too intelligent and far too “on the ball” to get involved with those nutty extremists and the disoriented Bishop Williamson. Will let you know when I receive his confirmation that I’m right (yet again!) Although he may reply himself, if he is feeling well enough.

      • Thanks, Editor. It would be useful to know whether Fr Gruner’s apostolate is now aligning itself with a movement which sees the Church as effectively having defected:-

        God wants a loose network of independent pockets of Catholic Resistance, gathered around the Mass, freely contacting one another, but with no structure of false obedience, which served to sink the mainstream Church in the 1960’s

    • spiritustempore,

      I’ve received the following reply from Fr Kramer to whom I sent your post:

      “Those are speculations. I am a retired priest. I have made no arrangement to teach.”

      • How gnomic. Does Fr Kramer make no comment as to why these speculations should have arisen….or what arrangements he HAS made with the Williamson sect?

        • Nope. What Father has written, I have posted. Perhaps having been told I think he’s too intelligent and too “on the ball” to get mixed up with them, he doesn’t want to point out that I’m wrong! Seriously, I’d be surprised if Father Kramer has fallen for their nonsense.

  169. As a side-note, anyone considering allowing their son to attend the sect’s “seminary” in either Kentucky or Asia should ensure that they know the names and backgrounds of all priests and staff involved in priestly formation.

    Some of Bp Williamson’s less than savoury proteges from his days in Winona appear to have attached themselves to the resistance.

  170. Do traditionalist Catholics have a major problem with Opus Dei, and also does anyone on this blog believe that Giuseppe Siri was elected in 1958? Would that be classed as Sedevacantism?

    Pius X

    • pius x,

      The so-called election of Giuseppe Siri in 1958 is a myth. It would most certainly be sedevacantism to maintain that Cardinal Siri was the real pope elected at that time. John XXIII was properly and duly elected pope in 1958.

      As for Opus Dei, I personally find its willingness to compromise by silence on doctrinal issues since Vatican II to be objectionable. Opus Dei, like many other organisations in the Church that maintain the Tridentine Mass, have this one major failing in common. They dare not speak out about certain errors following the Council lest the liberal bishops deprive them of their right to operate in their various dioceses.

      • Athanasius

        I had read on a link from this very website (the Fatima page for images of the Miracle of the Sun) that in 1958 the smoke came out white, then went black again, then white when John XXIII was elected. Does Opus Dei use the Tridentine Mass?

        Lastly will I gain everything I need to know on the faith from the Catechism of the Council of Trent? What concerns me is that the new Catechism says that homosexuality is NOT a choice. I want a Catechism that is free from that muckment.

        Pius X

        • Short answer, no, they don’t. At least not in Scotland. Their liturgical practice is traditional in many ways, for example I attended Benediction in their beautiful chapel in the Glasgow house once and they showed much appreciation for Latin and Gregorian chant. Generally however they lean more towards ‘the-Novus-Ordo-reverently-celebrated’ camp. I was disappointed to see that Mass ad orientem would not possible in this same chapel.

          I would recommend you read the affordable, accessible, and thoroughly traditional Baltimore Catechism (No. 3). I noticed these are the texts the SSPX use for Confirmation catechesis.

          I would reconsider how you phrase your statement on homosexuality, because having same sex attraction is not a choice per se, rather it is how the person deals with it is that matters. Of course, the CCC is mistaken when it states that homosexuality’s psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. It probably says this because there is no scientific consensus, which is purely because of politics. There is however plenty of evidence which demonstrates the psycho-social origin of this condition.

        • pius x,

          I wouldn’t get overly caught up in conspiracy theories about the election of John XXIII. Suffice it to say, John XXIII was legally elected Pope.

          Yes, Opus Dei priests celebrate the Tridentine Mass.

          And yes, definitely get yourself a Council of Trent Catechism if you want to learn the Faith in all its purity.

  171. It is an absolute myth that Opus Dei maintain the Traditional Mass. They don’t. A tiny number of Opus Dei priests may indeed celebrate the TLM, but the vast majority celebrate the New Mass. The founder, St. Josemaria Escriva, celebrated one New Mass and then offered the Traditional Mass until the day he died. The Traditional Mass has never been part of the liturgical practice of Opus Dei.

    Their New Masses do tend to be free of the most horrendous liturgical abuses. They don’t use Extraordinary Ministers and they don’t give Communion in the hand. I once asked a Director of an Opus Dei centre if they would use altar girls and the answer was an emphatic “no”.

    However, Athanasius is right. They wouldn’t ever speak out…unless their founder was criticised.

    • Petrus,

      I stand corrected. I had thought that Opus Dei priests celebrated the Tridentine Mass routinely. There you go, we learn something new every day!

      pius x,

      Ignore what I said about Opus Dei.

  172. I have some sympathy for Opus Dei who do try and do God’s work. Traditionalists accuse them (rightly) for compromising on doctrinal matters so as not to feel the wrath of liberal bishops and liberals accuse them of being ultra-conservative. They just can’t win. I well remember when the Archbishop of Dublin handed over a big parish for them to run, the media were baying for their blood.

    • semperfidelis

      I can’t help wondering if those who compromise the truth, no matter what the motive, are doing God’s work. I have my doubts about that. Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX do God’s work. That’s why they are truly despised by the liberals and the neo cons alike, wherever they go.

      • Athanasius,

        Do you know, I think you are right. I never thought of it that way. Opus Dei presents a sort of hybrid Catholicism. Not good enough.

  173. Miles Immaculatae

    What do you think causes homosexuality? Do you think it is a mental condition or a personality disorder? I’ve heard that some people believe it is environmental factors that contribute to it.

    All on the Baronius Press website, I noticed the Roman Breviary. What does this book contain, and can lay people use it?

    Pius X

    • pius x

      The Roman Breviary is for priests mostly. The Roamn Missal is for lay people. But, hey, if you want a Breviary, go for it.

      As for the homosexual question, I’m afraid I can’t say what causes it. What I can say is that homosexually-inclined individuals need to abstain from that lifestyle if they want to save their souls. But, then, the Church gives the same admonision to everyone outside of a marriage between a man and a woman. The 6th and 9th Commandments are clear enough for those who love God and want to go to heaven.

      • Athanasius,

        Spot on. That’s why I never understand why Catholics are accused of being homophobic. It is an act of supreme charity to help someone save their soul.

        I would never treat a homosexual person uncharitably simply because they are homosexual.

    • Pius X,

      I know you didn’t ask me this question, but I hope you don’t me chipping in.

      I cannot believe an unborn baby in the womb is homosexual. It would be strange for God to create someone directed towards a moral evil. A baby in the womb is not alcoholic – lifestyle choices and other pyschological factors create the alcoholism. So, the inclination must come about afterwards.

      I’ve done some research on this. I believe that an absent, abusive or cold. father plays a part. Not because the boy learns to be like his mother, but because a young boys needs male love from his father. If a young boy doesn’t receive this love, he always feel unfulfilled. At puberty, this unfulfilment leads to a confusion and they can seek the love they have never had from the wrong sources.

      Another factor has to be the amount or hormones found in drinking water and processed foods. There’s real research that shows soy products can disrupt the male hormones. Interestingly, soy is an ingredient in formula milk.

      At the end of the day, I don’t think we can pinpoint exactly what causes it and there’s bound to be different reasons for each individual case. However, it is nonsense to suggest God creates someone homosexual.

      Whatever causes it, what is important is that a personal with these inclinations remains chaste.

    • Pius X,

      You might want to look at the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is part of the Traditional Breviary, but has been said by the laity for centuries.

    • Pius X

      Well, Personality Disorder is itself a mental condition, and homosexuality is neither. Rather, it is a symptom of an underlying problem. I don’t know anything about female homosexuality, I think that is more complicated. Remember, there are lots of ways men are broken. Some are alcoholic, some are promiscuous, addicted to body-building etc.. Homosexuality is a disordered, ‘pseudo-reparative’ way a man medicates his underlying sense of inferiority about his own gender, essentially his low self-esteem about his masculinity.

      The cause of this ‘gender inferiority complex’ (a neurotic wound) occurs during adolescence and is caused by various traumas, primarily pederastic abuse by an older male and a sense of rejection by the boy’s same sex peers.

      There is no childhood cause, although certain children may be ‘at risk’, but definitely not predestined. An example of these childhood problems is ‘childhood gender nonconformity’, i.e. not being as boyish as other boys can lead to a boy not developing sufficient same sex bonds later on. Developing gender non-conformity in childhood is probably due to a boy’s personality, and a real or perceived rejection from the same sex parent, and perhaps (although not necessarily) a problematic relationship with the opposite sex parent.

      So, a sensitive, non-athletic, intelligent and perhaps artistic boy perceives his father as threatening. Maybe the father is good and loving, but he might just be different to his child, and the child in order to protect himself from rejection might ‘defensively detach’ himself from his father, and also all other males and identify instead with his mother and females. This might be exacerbated if the parents have problems with their own relationship, and the child might perceive the mother as emotionally overbearing and have an unbearable sense of over-responsibility for her.

      When he gets to secondary school he doesn’t fit in with other boys, he is too delicate, a sissy, not good at sport etc., and the overwhelming feeling he has is that of shame. Specifically, shame he is not worthy enough to be like his peers. Subconsciously he blames the rejection he feels on himself. He still craves this acceptance from other males and crucially, his feelings become sexualised during puberty. This might not necessarily persist, but if a boy is abused by an older male this will confuse him and he might seek to repeat this abuse through homosexual sex for the rest of his life.

      If an at risk child or teenager receives confusing signals about sex and gender identity then this can cause them to be more confused, and intensify their felling of ‘gender-differentness’. This is happening at the moment through schools, television and the ‘Gay Agenda’, and therefore the number of Gay teenage boys ‘coming out’ is epidemic.

      Consider there are five factors involved in the formation of a person’s character: biological inheritance, environment, free will, divine grace and demonic interference. Homosexuality is determined by all these. It is difficult for homosexual persons to seek sound psychological help. Recently Dr Paul Miller a psychiatrist in Northern Ireland was investigated by the GMC because he allegedly helped people overcome their same sex attraction. The Holy Spirit is able and willing to heal these broken men. Homosexual activity can be a channel for preternatural interference and possession.

      Finally, considering the wounds these men carry, is it any wonder sexual bullying and sexual humiliation are so common in places where there is a predominant homosexual atmosphere?

      Petrus, it is an interesting theory, but I must disagree that hormonal imbalances are a determining factor in the development of sexual orientation.

      • Miles,

        It is nothing more than a theory, just like your lengthy post above. At the end of the day, I don’t really know what causes it. However, I’d be interested in knowing why you disagree.

        • I suppose because it’s not something I’ve ever read before. I did a lot of research about it, and I am fairly confident that most of what I have written is more than just theory. There is plenty of evidence to support it. This article by the American Catholic Medical Association is helpful. Much of what I know is from a book by a Dutch Catholic layman and psychologist called Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, who funnily enough is Opus Dei.

          When I read a recent Vatican document on priestly formation, it was strikingly obvious to me that model I have explained above is the precisely the one the Church has come to unofficially accept. I know this document was criticised by some traditionally minded Catholics, and I am not saying it is perfect, but overall I feel the document was very insightful.

          • Miles,

            It is all theory, because it’s very difficult, almost impossible to prove either way. The field of psychology has always been one of educated hypothesis. Having said that, some studies are clearly more reliable than others.

            Thanks for those links – I will study them later. I think the link between synthetic hormones and sexual orientation is sketchy for now, but well worth exploring further. I know that research in rats that had been injected with synthetic hormones showed that it increased sexual activity between rats of the same sex. However, it is a giant leap (for Ratkind!) from rat to man.

          • Miles,

            I just want to clarify that I do not link a natural hormonal imbalance to same sex attraction. What I’m talking about is the ingestion of synthetic forms of hormones which could exacerbate things.

            However, I think it is more likely a result of a spiritual problem, either in terms of the same sex attractee (is that a word?) or the person(s) who have neglected/abused them in their youth.

    • Oh yes. That is virtually the norm for priests who live on their own. The ideal is that it is sung in choir. This is most common in seminaries and monasteries.

      Baronius do an excellent edition of The Little Office. I recommend that (unless you can afford the Divine Office, in which case go for it! It should last you for the rest of your life.)

      • Miles,

        Is the Baronius version still the leatherette with the gilt edge? If so, this version is full of inaccuracies (unless it has recently been revised). I have a sown hardback version, which is a reprint of the original text.

        • Really, the leatherette version with the gilt edge is full of inaccuracies? Typos? Missing prayers? What a nuisance! I should have known to avoid Baronius after the controversy about the Luminous Mysteries in their Missal. Are the inaccuracies so bad that it would be unwise to pray from it? Where did you get yours from, and was it cheap?

          • Miles,

            The Baronius version has incorrect endings to prayers and the wrong prayers in the wrong places – only in the English translation. As far as I am aware, the Latin is fine. It’s a real pain because it is a beautiful looking book.

            I got my version from Carmel Books and it cost about £10. It’s not as attractive, but much more accurate.

  174. Spiritustempore

    Do you know if Bishop Fellay has cancelled? I don’t see his bio listed in the Fatima Center’s update.

    I grew up reading The Fatima Crusader and Fr. Gruner really inspired me to love and pray for the Holy Father. I don’t really know how close his thoughts are to Fr. Kramer’s but sometimes Fr. Kramer’s writings or speeches kind of remind me of things Bishop Williamson might say. By this I only mean seeing and recognizing what they call false flags and the like. I’ve never picked up on Fr. Kramer sharing Bishop W’s hard over ideas about the Church.

    As for Mr. Fiore, I don’t know anything. The rule to live by is found in the book The Sword Of Christendom page 251, footnote 31, where Father explains that revolution is anti-Catholic.

    • I don’t mean Fiore has revolutionary tendencies I don’t know any facts and hope he doesn’t have them. But in judging far right politics one must avoid making the state a god, viewing solutions to world problems from a mere natural level, and using revolutionary tactics. Politics, yuck. I love only the Catholic monarchy, objectively.

  175. Aid to the Church in Need – France:

    For two years, Syria has been at the mercy of international punishment, and we have been asked to watch silently the annihilation of one of the most ancient countries in the world. With the matter being complex and with a unanimity imposed, it is true that the disagreeing voices were bound to be received badly. Yet today, with the American decision to arm the rebels, and the European, particularly French, blind following in the matter, the time has come to put an end to this charade.

    In the name of the Syrian population, all confessions together, this operation of destruction must stop. Yes, it is enough!

    Yes, the matter is complex, the government is authoritarian, but since when has this authorized the international community to decide the destruction of a nation? Is Syria the sole dictatorship in the region? Should we not include in that Saudi Arabia and Qatar, just to mention those two? And how can pulverizing a nation make it better?

    Two years ago, Syria had a growth rate of over 8% and it was, other than Lebanon, the least restrictive nation in the Middle East for Christians. Today, with over 90,000 dead and hundreds of thousands of refugees inside and outside the country, the clear improvement of the situation of the Syrian population is obvious, somewhat like the great service we have rendered to the Iraqi population for 10 years…

    Many countries have an interest in the disruption of Syria, beginning with the Americans – for energy-related reasons (control of the production and/or transit of oil and gas, and a hostile maneuver against the Russians) – or the Qataris (anti-Shiite struggle, and a contest for Sunni primacy), but France?

    French policy on the Syrian dossier is hardly understandable. What interests do we seek? Is it simply in order to please our American and Qatari patrons? Also there, one is led to believe that France has definitely abandoned all idea of sovereignty. And yet, France, due to its historic links with Syria and the Christians of the East, had a double responsibility and, therefore, specific duties on this dossier.

    How to imagine that we can arm the rebels when everyone knows the porousness of the Syrian rebellion with the Islamist milieux linked to Al Qaeda? Who could explain the absurdity that there exists with arming in Syria those whom France combats in Mali? And, after Syria, how not to foresee already the disruption of Lebanon? Do we seek the disappearance of Christians also there?

    What about the Syrian population? That seems to be the last concern of our strategists. Today, from the viewpoint of the whole Syrian population, and particularly for Syrian Christians, this chaos, instituted, fed, and financed in great measure from the outside, is purely and simply a crime. It is time for this to stop, and that a political solution be found as quickly as possible, in order to spare the civilian population exiled to the depths of hell. Yes, truly, that is enough!

  176. 3littleshepherds

    Yes, I noticed that Bishop Fellay’s name has disappeared from the list of guests. I doubt that Fr Kramer’s recent attendance at the resistance conference in London went down well….or that HE would have been overjoyed to discover that he was to share a platform with Roberto Fiore, but I’m not sure what his motivation will have been for dropping out of the conference. Assuming that he has, and the Fatima Centre haven’t just omitted his name by accident.

    Roberto Fiore is a revolutionary alright – you can see videos on Youtube for his political party, Forza Nuova – and he was a founding member of the International Third Position (along with his friends, Nick Griffin, John Sharpe and Derek Holland).

    Fiore was also a member of a banned revolutionary organisation in Italy and has extensive commercial interests with Nick Griffin which are used to fund European nationalist groups. He and Griffin are both MEPs and often share a platform, speaking on the usual topics of interest to the far Right.

    He was also a founding trustee of the Saint George Educational Trust, which was wound up after a Charity Commission investigation, although it’s now been brought back from the dead with new trustees, including Michael Fishwick, manager of Carmel Books and a close associate of Derek Holland, author of “The Political Soldier”, the ITP ‘bible’ of political activism and with whom he worked in the National Front.

    Most concerning is Fiore’s associations with the philosophies of Julius Evola and Codreanu, whose perennialist world views were incompatible with Catholicism, to say the least.

    Like you, I have no time for politics in religion. They serve only to bring matters of faith down into the gutter and to contaminate the holy with the mundane.

    I’m deeply worried at associations between the Fatima Centre and politicians like Fiore. Above all, I find Fr Kramer’s behaviour and public statements alarming – IMHO they can only damage Fr Gruner’s credibility and the Fatima apostolate. Just what the devil would like to happen, and a complete tragedy.

  177. In my post above, I have described the link between the development of homosexuality and being a victim of pederastic abuse, and I maintain that this is common, although I would like to clarify that very often this is not the case. Likewise, there is a link between homosexuality and perpetrators of pederasty, although this is very often not the case. Many people in our society would be horrified at these assertions, however, not just my research but my experience with people I have met has helped form my opinion.

    I first read about the preternatural dangers of homosexuality in a book by Fr Jeremy Davies, a doctor and exorcist of the Archdiocese of Westminster. Perhaps a lot of Catholics might accuse this of being an over-the-top, hysterical position, but consider that presently a scandal is making itself known concerning Roman clergy being involved in a pederastic prostitution ring and ritual desecration of the Blessed Sacrament by Satanists.

    • Miles

      I read a survey today that asked homosexuals why they thought they were homosexual. The majority said early sexual activity with older adults.

  178. Editor,

    Is my reply to Petrus above awaiting approval because it includes a link to a Vatican web page? Or have I crossed a line on some matter? I hope not!

    • Contains two links, Miles. That’s all. Sorry about that. I’ll change the settings when I get a chance.

  179. Spiritustempore

    Thanks. I never thought of looking on YouTube.

    I was wondering if Bishop Fellay has ever done anything against any far right political group? I mean Something wants him gone real bad.

  180. 3littleshepherds

    I think Bishop Williamson’s expulsion would probably do it. His political connections to Fiore, Sharpe, irving and others on the Far Right are fairly well-known.

    Through Williamson, these individuals and groups thought to influence the direction of the Society and to subvert its apostolate for their own ends.

    From a supernatural perspective, the forces driving the Far Right are no different to those driving the Far Left…..or to those which infiltrated the Church and brought about the Vatican II revolution. All seek the utter destruction of the Catholic Faith and all serve the same master.

    • spiritustempore,

      I think they call this tactic you refer to ‘Hegelian Dialectics,’ the controlled process of setting two apparently opposing ideological extremes against each other, such as unbridled Materialism and Communism, or Modernism and Sedevacantism, to bring about the same end.

      In the case you mention re Bishop Williamson, he appears to be the most zealous of Bishops for the Faith but his extremist tactics ultimately result in Catholics losing the Catholic spirit, just like the Modernists. The disciples of both extremes are recognised by their hostility towards those who refuse their agenda.

    • So far nothing in the mainstream news about the “Rome gay priests” scandal but there is this episcopal arrest, predictably to do with money matters and money does indeed seem to matter in Rome these days; as one man said on the phone to me yesterday, we do have a “poor pope” but not in the way he thinks!

  181. Thanks for showing us that video. I could not believe what I saw. Democratic governments do not treat women, children and the elderly like that. Francois Hollande is evil and will suffer manifest cancers in this life, like Herod in Acts 12:23, and will burn in the Lake of Fire in the next. I turned the video off after 2 minutes, I had seen enough. I hope those young people keep their (assumed) Catholic faith all ‘the days of their lives and will dwell in the House of the Lord forever’. Pure evil and scum. At the next French election, I will pray that Mme Le Pen will win the election, consecrate her to the Holy Rosary.

    Would someone tell me why parts of Douay-Rheims bear little or no similarity to the King James Version. An example would be Psalm 143. The King James Psalms are beautiful and I enjoy reading them.

    Pius X

    • This is the best parallel Bible translation site in my opinion. Select the KJV, the DR and the Vulgata Clementina, and any passage you so wish. A new window will open with the three texts either side, and by comparing them you will notice that in terms of lexicon, the Douay Rheims has more in common with the Vulgate than the KJV. You don’t need to know Latin for this to work, because lot of Latin-English words look the same. There’s your proof! Is that what you were looking for? (The passage I used was Philippians 2:14, and that will make my point clearly. My favourite as it happens).

      Also, select the RSV as well, and you will notice how similar it is to the KJV, and not the DR, and therefore is definitely not a Translation we should use (the RSV-CE is adored by American Neo-Catholics like Scott Hahn for example, however, his study bible published by Ignatius is outstanding and I would recommend this to everyone)

      If you’re interested in Bible translations, there is a rumour that the new lectionary to replace the the NAB/Jerusalem will be a Catholic edition of the ESV, and if this will happen it will be the closest any Catholic approved text will get to the KJV.

    • For the Psalms, the Coverdale translation is the classic text for Anglicans and not the KJV, and these are the psalms used in the Book of Common prayer. They are esteemed for their beauty by many, and you might enjoy them more. I think this is what the Anglican Ordinariate has received approval to use for their Divine Office. Interestingly, Coverdale translated the Roman Canon of the Mass, and this is used by some Anglo-Catholics and ‘Anglican Use Catholics’ (in the US for example).

  182. BREAKING NEWS…

    I’ve just had a phone call from an elderly gentleman – a Glasgow reader called Ronnie MacDonald. He’s given me permission to name him and to briefly recount his experience today outside the Pauline Bookshop in Glasgow.

    Ronnie has been putting together some very clear quotes from popes, saints and Church Councils about Communion in the hand and a couple of other key statements, e.g. Pope Benedict’s statement that Catholics must accept Church teaching in its entirety. Ronnie has had these few pages printed (at his own expense) on A5 size sheets, and put them in an envelope with a picture of Our Lady of Fatima on the front, headlined 450th anniversary of the Council of Trent.
    Ronnie has been distributing these envelopes outside churches, and he organised enough for us to give everyone a packet at our recent conference.

    Today he stood outside the Pauline Bookshop in Glasgow handing them to exiting customers.

    In no time at all (and predictably from my experience) a Sister came out asking him what he was handing out (using his name: “Mr MacDonald, what are you handing our customers” – she’d clearly forgotten that HER customers are also Tesco customers and M & S customers so unless she owns the pavement she should learn to mind her own blankety blank business)

    Ronnie handed her an envelope and she began to retreat into the shop, mobile phone at her ear. Then she turned and called out to him: “you don’t give up do you?”

    “NEVER!” Ronnie replied.

    Now, Ronnie is in his seventies. What say you lot that we youngsters (cough…) get together in the near future and position ourselves outside the same house of heresy?

    I’ve told Ronnie to count me in – what about you?

    • Athanasius,

      Thanks for that link. Talk about Hobson’s Choice. Which would you prefer…A priest who belongs to a homosexual ring or a priest who’s a liar?

      I’m off to dip into my copy of Saint John Eudes: The Priest, His Dignity And Obligations.
      Keeps me sane (no comments please and thank you).

      • editor,

        I think on this occasion I’ll go with the liar, unless of course the liar says he’s not a predatory homosexual, in which case my back will be against the wall!

        • You should be on the stage, Athanasius… it needs a good sweep and scrub!

          Off all religious topics but on a manifestly ethical issue taken from today’s local news broadcasts – if the Scottish Government think I’m going to pay 5p per plastic bag come October, they can think again. Unless, that is, the plastic bags are plain, no shop names. I’ll pay the 5p then, but definitely – without a shadow of a doubt, make no mistake about it, shooting straight from the hip – I ain’t paying 5p to advertise any supermarket chain. No – blankety blank -way.

          Phew! I feel much better now! Am I completely mad? Am I completely mad? (strictly rhetorical questions…)

          • editor,

            I remember someone else once saying to me that I should have been on the stage. He followed that comment up with: “it left town an hour ago!”

          • The whole idea is that people will stop using plastic bags and carry a re-useable bag instead. It seems to have worked in Ireland.

  183. Does anybody know the percentage of Irish TDs who are a) practising Catholics, b) those who oppose gay marriage and abortion and c) the opinion of the Church of Ireland on the latter two issues. I know Robin (now Lord) Eames voted to block gay marriage.

    Pius X

    • No. None of us knows that. And the only way any of us would find out would be to do the research. Why not do it yourself? Start with Google.

  184. Eileenanne,

    again no reply button at your post about plastic bags, my current hobby horse (second in line only to the Pope!) Webmaster says he will be getting to the blog to finish off the bits and pieces week after next when, I trust, we will see The Return of the Reply Button.

    Anyway, to answer your comment – of course, yes, we know what the idea is, but the sheer cheek of them (and the usual acceptance by the entire uncritical population of the UK) to expect us to pay money to advertise businesses. I won’t do it. Indeed, I don’t do – when I’m charged as has happened to my shock horror, I make a point of turning the bag inside out, informing all and sundry that I am not, repeat NOT going to pay to advertise this, or any other business, and went on my merry way, rejoicing. Eccentric, they called me, I’m sure of it. But since the option is to meekly go along with the scam, I don’t mind. I’d sooner be thought eccentric than compliant. Wouldn’t you? OK, maybe not.

    But take note, by October, if this goes through, I’ll be carrying umpteen shopping bags with me when I head for our local supermarket. And none of them will be purchased from any outlet which has it’s name scrawled right through it. Nope. There will be a set to match my every fashion outfit, and then some.

    The whole thing is a red herring anyway.. Everybody recycles their plastic bags – don’t you? People on radio have said they use them to line bins etc. It’s wacky. Not using them to line bins etc, that’s not what I mean – I mean it’s wacky to make out they are a problem. Those news reports with the odd plastic bag caught in a hedge or on a beach – well, big deal, end of world NOT!

    The whole thing’s crackers, Eileenanne. Big time. Trust me. Goodness, they’re passing laws to let men marry men and women marry women and they’re worried about a few plastic bags lying on the beach? It’s not as if we get enough sun for the HUMANS to lie on the beach, so what’s the big deal.

    Plastic bags at 5p each? Don’t get me started…

  185. Plastic bags are illegal where I live. We have to buy paper bags all of which have store logos.

    It’s wrong to make customers pay for a store’s advertising.

  186. I have recently received a copy of the periodical “Dowry” – an ‘English periodical of Catholic Tradition’. It is the silver jubilee edition of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP). It contained an article entitled “License to Serve” which bothered me a lot. it refers to the FSSP history – they all started out as SSPX but left the society when Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated along with the four bishops in 1988.
    The part of the article I found particularly troublesome was the following paragraph:

    “However, 25 years later, certain opinions professed by some SSPX superiors still raise serious concerns. In his editorial on 28 May 2013, Father Paul Morgan, Superior of the SSPX in Great-Britain wrote regarding his Superior General: ‘ Bishop Fellay has clarified that he does not accept the legitimacy of the New Mass’. One may respectfully discuss the comparative merits and deficiences of any liturgical form in relation to the sacrificial nature of the Mass, and consequently decide to draw one’s sanctification from one approved rite rather than another. But if by ‘legitimacy’ one means ‘validity’ it raises the question of the indefectibility of the Church. How can an invalid rite of the Mass be promulgated universally? This means that the Pope who made the decision was not the Pope. Then, for the last 50 years at least, that is from the death of John XX111 in June 1963 the sea of Peter would have been vacant. Hence either the world and the Church on earth have come to an end and Christ’s second coming should have taken place, or the true pope is not in Rome and the true Church is whichever particular institution is in communion with him, with its own See, its bishops and its tribunals located elsewhere. Such a conclusion is unlikely to be supported by the majority of SSPX clergy and laity. But its premises should then be clarified by their superiors for the common good.”

    I don’t know what to make of this. Did Fr Paul Morgan really mean this? If not why are the FSSP making such a big deal out of it? Any comments would be helpful.
    thanks,
    Marguerite

    • The position of the Society of Saint Pius X is that the New Mass is valid per se (although there are grounds to question the validity of individual New Masses due to the questionable theology of individual priests and a disregard for the rubrics).

      A big problem is that the New Mass was written by Protestants, for Protestants. It is a grave departure from the theology of the Eucharist as defined at the Council of Trent.

      The New Mass is illegitimate because it broke from Tradition. It was a new creation and not “received” by the Church, ie. handed down. The laity did not ask for a New Mass and the Second Vatican Council did not authorise a New Mass. It bears very little resemblance to the Roman Rite of Mass codified by St Pius V. The papal bull, Quo Primum, ordered that the Tridentine Mass by used in perpetuity. For these reasons, the New Mass is valid, but lacks legitimacy.

      • Petrus,
        Thank you very much for your reply and the reference to Quo Primum. What did they think they were doing when they arbitrarily decided to abandon the Tridentine Mass? It was (literally) diabolical. The fact that Archbishop Lefebvre said the new Mass fulfills one’s obligation to go to Mass clears up an argument that took place earlier on in this section of the blog between someone who said it did and someone who said it did not.
        Marguerite

    • Marguerite Finn,

      The difficulty with that statement of Fr. Paul Morgan is that it is deliberately vague as to meaning.

      As Petrus has already stated, the New Mass is illegitimate, a “b*stard rite,” as Archbishop Lefebvre called it, from the point of view that it does not flow from the parentage of the ancient Mass of the Church. It is an entirely New liturgical rite, created to please Protestants by obscuring the Sacrifice of Our Lord and presenting instead the notion of a “meal.” So it represents, as Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci so eloquently put it, “a grave departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as codied in perpetuity by the Council of Trent,” not to mention Quo primum of St. Pius V.

      Now, here’s the real question: Is it illegitimate in the legal sense, i.e., as a promulgated rite of Paul VI? The answer to that question has to be no, unless we wish to join the ranks of the sedevacantists and schismatics. Even though the promulgation of the New Rite was not entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis, as we would have expected, it was nevertheless promulgated by Paul VI in accordance with Canon Law and the law governing the indefectibilty of the Church.

      It is a complicated matter that the Church will have to deal with one day. Suffice it to say it is not within the remit of any subordinate of the Pope to declare that particular liturgical rite, poisonous as it is, to be completely invalid. All that is expected of us is a declaration that the New Mass is dangerous to Faith and as such must be resisted.

      This was the position of Archbishop Lefebvre. It is the position today of the SSPX. Here are a few extracts from Michael Davies’ Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre Volume II, Chapter XL:

      …”Those who feel themselves obliged in conscience to assist at the New Mass on Sunday can fulfil their Sunday obligation. But one cannot accuse a person of a grave fault because he prefers not to assist at Mass on Sunday rather than assist at the New Mass…

      Must one conclude further that all these Masses are invalid? As long as the essential conditions for validity are present (matter, form, intention, and a validly ordained priest), I do not see how one can affirm this.

      The prayers at the Offertory, the Canon, and the Priest’s Communion which surround the words of Consecration are necessary, not to the validity of the Sacrifice and the Sacrament, but rather to their integrity. When the imprisoned Cardinal Mindszenty, desiring to nourish himself with the Body and Blood of Our Lord, and to escape the gaze of his captors, pronounced solely the words of Consecration over a little bread and wine, he most certainly accomplished the Sacrifice and the Sacrament…”

      These are the words of Archbishop Lefebvre, words that a handful of SSPX personnel, and others, have disregarded in favour of their own dangerous opinions. These claim to be the greatest defenders of the Archbishop’s legacy, but their bitter zeal betrays what they really are. Here’s what Archbishop Lefebvre had to say on that score in the same document as just quoted:

      “…Thus, I have never refused to go to Rome at his request or that of his representatives. The Truth must be affirmed at Rome above all other places. It is of God, and He will assure its ultimate triumph.

      Consequently, the Society of St. Pius X, its priests, brothers, sisters, and oblates, cannot tolerate among its members those who refuse to pray for the Pope or affirm that the Novus Ordo Missae is per se invalid. Certainly, we suffer from this continual incoherence which consists in praising all the Liberal orientations of Vatican II and at the same time straining to mitigate its effects. But all of this must incite us to prayer and to the firm maintenance of Tradition rather than to the affirmation that the Pope is not the Pope…”

      I hope this clarifies matters a little.

      • Athanasius,
        Thank you for this comprehensive reply and for the quotes from Archbishop Lefebvre. They really do answer the question about the validity of the Mass – and the real direction of his thoughts and intentions. I wonder why Fr Morgan made such an indistinct statement. I have met Fr Morgan many times at the SSPX Masses and he is usually very much to the point !
        I liked your phrase “bitter zeal” very much and I think it is very apt. It describes the state we are currently in and it is a great pity – yet understandable – that it afflicts some people.
        I am a member of the SSPX and I have recently joined the FSSP. I am sorry they seem to be at odds with each other. Oh How I long for a time when I could hear the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, attend the Quarante Ore devotions, watch the little children strewing rose petals under the monstrance at a Corpus Christi procession etc. I was delighted to see the hymn “To Jesus Heart All Burning” on this website – I sang along to it and the years were rolled back and it did me a power of good.

        • Marguerite Finn,

          I think the main issue with the FSSP is that it does not dare take issue with the doctrinal errors of ecumenism, religious liberty, etc., that are causing so much damage in the Church. The SSPX has always quite rightly refused to compromise the Faith in this way.

          As for your desire to see all those wonderful Catholic practices of the past back in the Church, I think you speak for all of us. Please God, it will be sooner rather than later.

  187. What do you all think to Catholic Voices? I know that Jack Valero started blathering about condoms, saying the ‘Church isn’t against condoms, it’s against promiscuity’. Are they modernist? Editor, is your username ‘EditorCT’?

    Liam

    • Yes EditorCT on other blogs and Catholic Voices are supported by the English Bishops – go figure.

      There is a woman who sometimes appears on TV (she was on the Big Questions recently ) and she can be very good. For the most part, though, they go with the theological flow.

      • Editor

        Maybe you should go on the Big Questions. Whip the audience up into frenzy, you did on Sunday Morning Live with that stupid and chicken brained Anglican Bishop. You told him good.

        Pius X

  188. In today’s Catholic Herald is an article by Fr. Alexander Lucie-Smith entitled The bitterest medicine: why true ex communications are so rare.

    Two examples of ‘true excommunications’ are provided, prior to an overview of Canon Law. The first is Elizabeth I, the second is Archbishop Lefebvre:

    “The most famous excommunication of our own times was that of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who was excommunicated for consecrating bishops without the permission of the Holy See. This excommunication was formalised by an apostolic letter of John Paul II entitled Ecclesia Dei, which was dated July 2 1988. Again (referring to Papal Bull Regnans in Excelsis for Elizabeth), this excommunication recognised what had long been a fact: that the archbishop had abandoned any semblance of obedience to the Pope. This excommunication, which applied as well to the bishops consecrated, was later lifted in 2009. This removed an obstacle to the reconciliation of these schismatic bishops, but that reconciliation has still to take place.”

      • editor,

        I didn’t feel the need to point out the obvious chasm between the two examples – certainly as Athanasius has now pointed out even Luther has had his revoked in the name of ecumenism, so we may assume Elizabeth I is the queen of ecumenism, misunderstood in her own time.

        I actually find it remarkable that such an article can appear with any semblance of intellectual integrity given the context. In the same paper Dr. Shaw makes a reasoned case for the Tridentine Mass, protected by the society, being the sole point of authoritative liturgical reference amidst the chaos and dysfunctionality of the NOM. Endorsed elsewhere in the paper by a photo of an 18 year old Extraordinary Minister giving Holy Communion to his sister on her First Communion, the children of the Deacon. There’s so much wrong there I’m staggered they published it in the Carholic press, rather than try to keep a low profile.

    • Crossraguel,

      Fr. Lucie Smith obviously hasn’t compared the excommunication announcement of Elizabeth I with that pretended effort of Pope John Paul II in 1988 against Archbishop Lefebvre. The wording of a true and formal excommunication from the Church is a terrifying read. Still, Fr. Lucie-Smith’s insistence that Archbsihop Lefebvre was truly excommunicated will doubtless win him some kudos with his bishop.

      It’s actually tragically ironic that the Pope who seemingly excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre for disobeying him in the matter of episcopal consecrations to preserve the Traditional priesthood in a time of crisis was the same Pope who kissed the Koran, received the mark of a Hindu deity on his forehead and initiated the scandalous events at Assisi. You couldn’t make this stuff up! Oh yes, and it wasn’t too many years later when the excommunication of Luther was posthumously revoked. Mind blowing confusion, or what?

  189. A POWERFUL NOVENA TO GOD OUR FATHER
    Almighty and Eternal Father, in Jesus’ Name we humbly beseech you to Glorify Your Divine Mercy. Send forth Your Spirit and renew Your Church. Raise up multitudinous armies of Holy Priests, Religious and Missionairies in every part of the World and convert all Nations to the one True Holy Catholic Church and rule the World, for the Coming of Your Kingdom through the reign of Christ the King and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, for the Glory of Your Name and the triumph of Your Church, through the saving Power of the Precious Blood and Water which gushed forth from the Heart of Jesus as a fount of mercy for us.
    Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, Holy Trinity, One God, World without end, to whom be all Power and Glory now and forever, in, through and with the same, Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews, true God and true Man, Creator and Redeemer of all the World.
    AMEN

  190. I recently came across some interesting prophecies that I hadn’t seen put together before and thought I’d post them for opinions….all welcome!

    Sir Roger Bacon

    “…Forty years ago it was prophesied, and there have been many visions to the same effect, that there will be a pope in these times who will purify Canon Law and the Church of God from the sophistries and deceits of the jurists so that justice will reign over all without the rumbling of lawsuits. Because of the goodness, truth, and justice of this pope the Greeks will return to the obedience of the Roman Church, the greater part of the Tartars will be converted to the faith, and the Saracens will be destroyed. There will be one flock and one shepherd, as the prophet heard (John 10:16)…”

    referring to this, from Blessed Tomasuccio di Foligno:-

    “One from beyond the mountains shall become the Vicar Of God. Religious and clerics shall take part in this change. Outside the true path, there will be only disreputable men; I shrug my shoulders when the Bark of Peter is in danger and there is no one to lend it help…The schismatic shall fall into the scorn of the Italian faithful…By about twelve years shall the millennium have passed when the resplendent mantle of legitimate power shall emerge from the shadows where it was being kept by the schism. And beyond harm from the one who is blocking the door of salvation, for his deceitful schism shall have come to an end. And the mass of the faithful shall attach itself to the worthy Shepherd, who shall extricate each one from error and restore to the Church its beauty. He shall renew it. “

    …and La Salette :-

    “The faith will die out in France: three quarters of France will not practice religion anymore, or almost no more, the other part will practice it without really practicing it.

    Then, after [that], nations will convert, the faith will be rekindled everywhere. A great country, now Protestant, in the north of Europe, will be converted; by the support of this country all the other nations of the world will be converted.

    Before all that arrives, great disorders will arrive, in the Church, and everywhere. Then, after [that], our Holy Father the Pope will be persecuted. His successor will be a pontiff that nobody expects.

  191. spiritustempore,

    The prophecyof Sir Roger Bacon appears to refer to his time, which was, I believe, around the 13th century. It seems Sir Roger had a bit of a penchant for apocalyptic prophecies.

    The prophecy of Blessed Thomas of Foligno seems reasonable enough, although we are already one year further on from his stated time and still no sign of the great Pope who will set all things in order. I sure hope this prophecy is accurate, albeit a year or two late.

    LaSalette has always troubled me. I have difficulty with that message on a number of levels.

  192. Please pray for the repose of the soul of Fr. Francois Murad, who was beheaded by islamic barbarians last week in Syria, which heinous crime was broadcast on the internet in all its depravity. Whilst there’s limited scope for sympathising with the Assad regime, it’s clear why so many Christians in the region would prefer the status quo than be ‘liberated’ by these likes. I’d urge you also to contact your MP and convey your horror that we are providing assistance to these thugs and questioning why the mainstream media is all but silent on the matter:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100224075/syrian-rebels-behead-a-catholic-priest-before-a-cheering-crowd-wheres-the-msm-reaction/

    PS Damian Thompson had initially linked to a video of the beheadings, however the Telegraph has now unsurprisingly removed it.

    • Crossraguel,

      I saw that video yesterday when our blogger Augustine emailed the link to me. Absolutely shocking, barbaric and unconscionable. That the UK and USA Governments wish to arm these rebels is unthinkable. I completely second your appeal to write to MPs.

      I note from the Telegraph article to which you link, that there is a denial that it was the priest and his assistants who were beheaded, claiming the priest was shot, but even if that were true, the beheadings were barbaric, savage, and no right-thinking person (or Government) would even consider arming them.

      But then again if our Government were right thinking we wouldn’t be facing the prospect of priests being imprisoned for refusing to conduct same-sex marriages.

      And then again, WOULD they be willing to face imprisonment? Goodness, they won’t apply canon 915 to Catholic MPs who voted for same-sex marriage, so how on earth will they find the courage to refuse to conduct one when the time comes? Rhetorical question – I think we all know the answer to that one.

    • Crossraguel,

      The same kind of barbarity occurred in Iraq, which had been a welcoming place for Catholics until Saddam Hussein was removed and the country was plunged into militant Islamic chaos. It seems highly suspicious to me that Britain is now arming the very nutcases it has been highlighting for years as enemies in the ‘War on Terror.’ Who could have imagined this new policy of supporting Al Qaida operatives in these foreign lands, public denials notwithstanding.

      • editor,

        You’ll appreciate why I discerned not to post the link, though despite its utter barbarity I actually took from it how close to the horrendous suffering of Our Lord at the hands of a mob of thugs, whipped up by zealotry, was this callous end for a priest – what joy therefore can be found in such mindless hate – the contradiction of the cross. My daughter (5) mentioned when praying for Fr. Murad last night that ‘the bad men who killed him’ will be God’s friends again if we pray for them and they say sorry. With a brief reminder of firm purpose of amendment, I agreed that this were possible and her words have since led me to contemplate St. Paul’s conversion in that very country. Their hollering had some element of truth – God indeed is great!

        I agree with both of you about the hypocrisy surrounding the support of islamists and correlate this with the absence of mainstream media coverage.

        • Crossraguel,

          What a lovely post! Your beautiful little daughter has made my day and given us all plenty of food for contemplation.

          Keep up the good work!

          ps I drove past Crossraguel Abbey for the first time yesterday. Probably about twenty times since I was completely lost! Long story for another day!

  193. I just wonder if anyone’s take on the timing of this announcement is the same as mine, considering it emerged the day after ‘Peter’s Pence’…

    I can guarantee that the PP revenue would have been £millions less, had this come on Friday last.

    I’ve already heard people say that the Church is ‘just as slimy, grasping, bent and corrupt as any other multi-national corporation out there’ and that the Church is therefore ‘in no position to dictate how people should be living their lives’ etc. God help us, I’m inclined to agree!

    • Padraig54,

      We have to avoid confusing the Church with Churchmen. The Church is the spotless bride of Christ, untainted by corruption. Churchmen, on the otherhand, are quite capable of falling into corruption, as Judas Iscariot amply demonstrates. It’s worthy of note, though, that of the Twelve Apostles only one was corrupt. The same applies in our time – for every one corrupt Churchman there are many more faithful to Christ Our Lord. But even if that were untrue today, at least we know that the Church is pure and holy.

  194. Crossraguel,

    you wrote:

    PS Damian Thompson had initially linked to a video of the beheadings, however the Telegraph has now unsurprisingly removed it.

    The reason it was removed is that there is now considerable evidence to support the claim that Fr Murad was actually shot and that his Franciscan brethren removed his body as they fled from their monastery. This does not, in any way, detract from the fact he is a martyr, only the manner of his martyrdom.

    Additionally we must still utterly condemn those Muslim fundamentalists who carried out the atrocities on those unfortunates who were actually beheaded.

    • Benedict,

      Thanks for the information about the emerging evidence – I appreciate there is much scope for confusion in Syria at present. Whatever the truth these are truly barbarous individuals to have murdered a priest and butchered those others.

  195. We should all pray for that Priest, Fr Murad, and for the repose of his soul. You are absolutely right that Assad and Hussein protected religious minorities. Mary, pray for us.

    Can someone verify this? “A very common desire among Irish Catholics is for the Irish Church to become more separate – or completely separate – from Rome”. It came from this article-
    http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2012/03/21/the-irish-church-faces-yet-another-test-a-widespread-loss-of-faith/ Editor, please don’t read it you’ll have a connery.

    Pius X

    • The Association of Catholic Priests state clearly on their blog that they want a brand new Church separate from Rome Haven’t time to check out that link, pius x but at an intelligent (for me…) guess I’d say they’ve been canvassing their supporters again. So far, all the “research” I’ve read comes from that bunch of numpties and their merry men (and women of course)

  196. According to the BBC the canonisation of Pope John Paul II is imminent:

    At a plenary meeting of the Congregation on Tuesday, cardinals and bishops mooted a canonisation ceremony taking place in December, sources told Ansa.

    The Polish pope reformed the sainthood process in 1983
    One possible date would be 8 December, on which Catholics celebrate the feast of the Immaculate Conception, which this year falls on a Sunday.

    John Paul II could be canonised at the same time as John XXIII, Vatican sources suggested.

  197. Hmmm…that should be interesting.

    Every time Rome starts talking about canonising JPII, Lourdes floods….I hate to think what will happen if they actually go ahead and do it.

    • Well, one thing is certain: the ecumenical horrors of the pontificate of John Paul II will be given an aura of infallibility. Who will be able to state that the 1986 Prayer Meeting in Assisi was contrary to Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium without having the Sainthood of the very Pontiff who inaugurated it being flung back at him?

    • Exactly, spiritustempore. I think we might expect a tsunami if this canonisation goes forward.

  198. …and adding John XXIII to the mix is really asking for it. Interesting times ahead, I suspect.

    • “Interesting” is one way of putting it, spiritustempore! Yes, that’s one way of putting it!

  199. I still say that it will never happen, certainly not with John Paul II. But in the event that this canonisation does go ahead, then I would have to admit that my previous assertion upholding the new canonisation process to be valid would have to be seriously reviewed. Will the Holy Ghost permit a seeming canonisation of John Paul II? I still say that He won’t because canonisation is a formal act that impacts universally on the Faith. A lot can happen between now and December, floods and Tsunami’s not excepted.

    • Let’s hope you’re right – though not about the floods and tsunamis! We’re in totally uncharted waters now, so anything can happen. That there is one magnificent piece of writing – get it? floods, tsunamis, uncharted waters…? What a gal!

  200. I find myself in a bit of a dichotomy over the proposed Canonisation of Bl Pope JP2. On one hand it’s probably never advisable for canonisations to take place so soon after death, especially when there is potential for ‘dirt’ still to emerge.

    However on the other hand the process has established the required miracles etc so it leaves us to understand that he is indeed saintly.

    In this case Bl JP2 was quite obviously a man of personal holiness despite some of his ‘liturgical actions’. Can he be canonised purely on his personal holiness and not as some of his actions as Pope?

    I would suggest yes because the canonisation recognises holiness and not infallibility.

    • I’m afraid that the process in Rome does not give me an awful lot of confidence since it appears that the authorities ignored testimonies that militated against the assertion of heroic virtue in the case of the late Pope. This was the case with the book by Fr Patrick de la Rocque John Paul II: Doubts About a Beatification about which Bishop Fellay wrote:

      Although it arrived on time at the competent offices, our envelope was mysteriously set aside, only to be opened the day after the diocesan process closed: in other words, too late to be taken into consideration. Thus it will not figure at all among the tens of thousands of pages of testimonies solemnly submitted to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. Brought by another venue to the attention of the Roman tribunals, our questions unfortunately received no response, quite the contrary: on December 19, 2009, the Holy See declared the heroicity of the late pope’s virtues.

      I have also wondered about the reported relapse of Sr Marie Simon-Pierre in 2010. As I said in another thread, the Church never – until recently – accepted the cure of a neurological disorder (such as Parkinson’s) as evidence of a miracle since the pathology is unknown and a ‘cure’ may be nothing more than a temporary remission or because the symptoms may be related to another (undiagnosed) condition.

      However, in this case the traditional prudence of the Church’s authorities in this matter has been cast aside.

      • Thanks Augustine for making those key points. The whole process has been discredited in recent years. How very sad.

    • Nolite Timere,

      Is it not rather strange that the details of the alleged second miracle are not being published? I’ve never of such a thing, but then I lead a sheltered life.

      And in my humble opinion, it is not possible to separate the “personal holiness” from Pope John Paul II’s actions as Pope. I mean, would you separate the “personal holiness” of the father of a family who neglected his children, from his role as father and provider for the family? Surely it’s not possible to be truly holy if one is neglecting the elementary duties of one’s state in life?

    • A saint is a soul who has entered into Heaven. However, not all saints have been formally canonised – hence the reason for All Saints Day. Isn’t Canonisation an act of the Church that declares the soul is in Heaven and is worthy of PUBLIC veneration? The canonised person is held up as an example.

      So, surely it is reasonable to say that John Paul II may well be in Heaven but is unsuited for Canonisation?? For example, if Hitler received absolution and the Last Rites just before he died (I know he didn’t), there is a good chance he would be a Heaven. However, the Church would never dream is formally canonising him. Now, I’m not comparing Pope John Paul II to Hitler. However, I HOPE that the late Pontiff is in Heaven, but I think he’s totally unsuited for Canonisation

  201. Does the role of devil’s advocate still exist in the NO Church?

    While I understand the desperate hurry to try to cement the VII revolution, it must surely be apparent that this will simply debase the entire concept of sainthood ?

    The secrecy and doubts surrounding the alleged miracles sum up the whole desperate approach to the canonisations.

    Tsunamis and floods likely won’t be the half of it.

    • No, spiritustempore, Pope John Paul II, no less, dispensed with the office of Devil’s Advocate and reduced the time span before a cause could be introduced. Thus he has canonised more saints than all his predecessors put together. On one Protestant website, where they at least had the good grace to acknowledge that the process had previously been strict and credible, the opinion was expressed that perhaps the Pope was preparing the way for the introduction of his own cause. But, I mean, would he? Really?

  202. I have never heard the idea of a canonisation process being invalid, flawed perhaps but not invalid. But it makes perfect sense that considering the state of the Church it could well happen, it just doesn’t naturally cross ones mind, it’s quite dreadful to think about really.

    So hypothetically then, assuming Pope John Paul II is canonised later this year, and if a future Pope were to determine absolutely that his canonisation procedure was invalid, surely then this canonisation could be ‘annulled’?

    • When theologians debate whether or not this or that process is of an infallible nature, they are naturally debating it as it stands. If the process changes, then the status of the action has, logically, to be re-assessed. In my humble opinion.

      As for your second paragraph, I suspect he’d be quietly removed from the calendar and – like Vatican II – fall into the “don’t talk about the Council/Canonisation(s)” category…

  203. I suppose if you really wanted to esteem John Paul II’s post-conciliar ideas, the next logical step would be to make him a Doctor of the Church.

    There’s no shortage of priests in the Church who consider JPII a master divine and an outstanding theological genius, so be prepared, it could well happen. I once read (although I can’t recall where so I might have imagined it) some suggestions that Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska should be declared a Doctor of the Chruch.

    • Miles,

      Don’t put ideas into peoples’ heads! You never know who is reading this blog!

  204. I found the answer to my own question.

    The office of advocatus diaboli was abolished by none other than JPII himself….at the same time, he also removed the condition requiring a minimum delay of 5 years after death before canonisation procedures could begin.

    I wonder if he had his own situation in mind.

  205. It’s intriguing that Lourdes has flooded twice in the past 9 months….I wonder if the timing is purely coincidental:-

    A RELIC OF JOHN PAUL II WILL BE TAKEN TO LOURDES

    Vatican City, 19 October 2012 (VIS) – A relic of Blessed John Paul II will be transported to the French shrine of Lourdes during a pilgrimage organised by UNITALSI (Italian National Union for Transport of the Sick to Lourdes and International Shrines). The pilgrimage is to take place from 21 to 27 October.

    with this:-

    Hundreds evacuated as floods swamp Lourdes
    Sun, 21 October 2012

    LOURDES, France — Floods caused by days of non-stop rain in southwest France caused the closure of most of the Catholic sanctuary of Lourdes yesterday and the evacuation of hundreds of pilgrims, local authorities said….The water was around one metre deep in front of the grotto and 80 centimetres in the avenue du Paradis, where most of the hotels for pilgrims are located, after what officials said was the worst flooding in 25 years.
    Only the massive basilica, built on higher ground, was still accessible. “The space in front of the grotto is entirely covered with water, the altar is under water

    and then:-

    France gay marriage: Hollande signs bill into law
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22579093

    The first gay wedding can be held on 28 May – 10 days after Mr Hollande signed the bill. France’s president has signed into law a controversial bill making the country the ninth in Europe, and 14th globally, to legalise gay marriage.

    ……with this:-

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/19/lourdes-pilgrimage-site-closed-floods-catholics-evacuate_n_3465992.html

    Lourdes Pilgrimage Site Closed: Floods Force Catholics To Evacuate

    LOURDES, France — Heavy floods in southwest France have left two dead and forced the closure of the Catholic pilgrimage site in Lourdes and the evacuation of pilgrims from nearby hotels.

    Muddy floodwaters swirled Wednesday in the grotto where nearly 6 million believers from around the world, many gravely ill, come every year seeking miracles and healing….
    Heavy rains around the region inundated town centers and swelled the Gave de Pau river, forcing road closures.

    Rescue services evacuated hundreds of people from nearby hotels. Authorities were particularly concerned with bringing weak and sick pilgrims to safety…days of sustained rains and sudden snowmelt made the flooding worse, and left some villages isolated.

    The website for the pilgrimage complex, which includes several buildings and a sanctuary nestled beneath a rocky hillside, carried a dramatic rundown of the rising waters.

    Throughout Tuesday, masses were gradually cancelled. One by one, entrances to the sanctuary were cordoned off. The live video feed of the grotto went down. Then the electricity was cut off, and then phones.

    “A vision of the apocalypse in the Sainte Bernadette Church, where the big movable partition is threatening to fall. The water has risen above the stairs of the choir,” read one announcement….waters reached 1.5 meters (about 5 feet) in the grotto.

  206. It seems that there are some concerning allegations against one of members of the tribunal pushing for JPII’s beatification:-


    http://www.nationalreview.com/node/219739

    In January 2007, when documents disclosed that the newly appointed archbishop of Warsaw, Stanislaw Wielgus, had collaborated with Poland’s Communist-era political police, he admitted the accusation and resigned.

    The following day the rector of Krakow’s Wawel Cathedral, the burial site of Polish kings and queens, resigned for the same reason.

    Then it was learned that Michal Jagosz, a member of the Vatican’s tribunal considering sainthood for the late Pope John Paul II, has been accused of being a former Communist secret police agent; according to the Polish media, he had been recruited in 1984 before leaving Poland for an assignment to the Vatican.

    Currently, a book is about to be published that will identify 39 other priests whose names have been found in Krakow secret police files, some of whom are now bishops.

    Moreover, this seems to be just scratching the surface. A special commission will soon start investigating the past of all religious servants during the Communist era, as thousands more Catholic priests throughout that country are believed to have collaborated with the secret police.

    And this is just Poland — the archives of the KGB and those of the political police in the rest of the former Soviet bloc have yet to be opened on the subject of operations against the Vatican….”

    newspaper stated on 4 October.

    Jagosz has denied the allegation, saying in an interview with the newspaper that the claim was “completely at variance with the truth”.

    The newspaper reported that the priest had been exposed by a Polish fellow-cleric, Tadeusz Isakowicz-Zaleski, whose detailed study of the Polish church’s communist-era infiltration is due to be released this month.

    The tribunal considering John Paul’s beatification and canonisation as a saint was inaugurated in June 2005, less than three months after the death of John Paul II. In the Roman Catholic Church, candidates for sainthood must first be beatified, or declared blessed.

    “This is an unusually difficult situation, since John Paul II’s beatification process is a matter for the whole church,” Isakowicz-Zaleski told Rzeczpospolita.

    Krakow’s archbishop, Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz, who was John Paul II’s private secretary, said he had received news about Jagosz’s alleged activities “with true sorrow” and hoped the allegations would be proved untrue.

    • Well, well, well. Bella Dodds eat your heart out!

      Very interesting, very revealing spiritustempore. To say the least.

      And this perhaps answers the question above about future judgments on the possible canonisation of Pope John Paul II. If the process is this flawed, then, as we used to say in our childhood: “the game’s a bogey”!

  207. spiritustempore

    I remember a headline in the papers many years ago saying that two bishops close to Pope John Paul II had been unmasked as KGB agents. The story was then very quickly suppressed and we heard no more about it. So I am not surprised at this news. I think there are more than a few high prelates in the Church today who are not what they appear to be. Or should that be ‘appear to something they are not’? Anyway, I’m sure you’ll catch my drift. The Vatican has been infiltrated for decades by Communists and Freemasons posing as pious clergy. Archbishops Bugnini and Marcinkus are two examples of those suspected in this way.

  208. There is a post from spiritustempore today on this thread at 10.43 which I hadn’t noticed in the moderation queue – due to the number of links in it. As it won’t show on the most recent posts now (thanks to me trying to say a few words down the line before I disappear to get the August newsletter written up) I am alerting you all to it, as it is very interesting indeed. VERY.

  209. I think things are deteriorating fast and there will be some sort of divine intervention. With the canonisation of JP II and JXXIII looming, the errors of Vatican II are about to take on a whole new significance. I can’t believe God will allow it to happen. I’m certain His Mother will intervene.

  210. Petrus

    His Mother…the great protector of Bl.JP2

    Ed

    I take your point on board, however even though as Pope was he constrained by other forces within the Curia that had agendas. Perhaps if it wasn’t for His desire to set up Ecclesia Dei, the later chances of Summorum Pontificum being realised would have been slim to zero and the traditional Mass may have disappeared completely.

    • Nolite Timere,

      I don’t doubt that Pope John Paul II had a devotion to Our Lady and I am sure Our Lady could have answered his prayer when he was shot. However, I do question the general assumption that JPII was a “Marian” pope. No, if he was really a Marian pope he would have followed Our Lady’s request and consecrated Russia.

      • I find it strange that if the late Pope had indeed performed the Consecration to which the promise of peace had been attached in 1984 then why did he bring pagans (among others) to “pray for peace” in Assisi in 1986? Did he not trust her?

    • nolite timere,

      It is true that when he was recovering in hospital after being shot on the Feast of Our Lady of Fatima, the Pope said: “I know to whom I owe this” (meaning his life) and it is also true that at that time he sent for the Fatima file. Whether or not he’d read it before, I don’t know. But he read it then. It’s also true that he went to Fatima and placed the bullet into the statue of Our Lady and there is a story somewhere that there was a niche found that exactly fitted the bullet. Whether that is true or not, I don’t know, but there you have it, the Pope recognised the significance of Our Lady of Fatima and he knew that he had the power to fulfil her request to consecrate Russia, otherwise, she would not have asked for it to be done by “the Holy Father”.

      As for this persistent claim that successive popes – including John Paul II – have been and are “constrained by other forces within the Curia” – well, what would your Head Teacher say to you if you said you were being constrained by other forces from doing YOUR job properly? Let me tell you: he’d say “no excuses: do it, or resign”.

      And that, of course, is exactly what we’ve just witnessed in the resignation of Pope Benedict.

    • nolite timere,

      Pope John Paul II set up Ecclesia Dei as a means of wiping out the SSPX, not out of any pious intention of rehabilitating the ancient liturgy of the Church. Indeed, by making priests apply for personal celebrates before they could offer the old Mass, Pope JPII perpetuated the liberal myth that the Church’s ancient and hallowed rite of Mass was indeed abrogated by Pope Paul VI. It took a brave admission by Pope Benedict XVI to dispel that myth once and for all. Turns out all priests had the right to offer the Tridentine Mass all along, and without their Bishop’s permission. Why didn’t JPII tell the Church about that?

  211. Athanasius,

    The writer of the article I posted above about Polish priests collaborating with the communist regime was himself head of the Romanian security services, before defecting to the West.

    The linked article mostly covers KGB attempts to smear Pius XII (with some degree of success, as there are still those who falsely believe that he collaborated with the Nazis to persecute the Jews). It makes fascinating reading, as priests from Poland, Romania and especially Hungary were used by the KGB to infiltrate the Vatican and to work against the Church from within.

    Stefano Bottoni of the University of Bologna has a particularly interesting paper on the activities of the Hungarians here:-

    http://academia.edu/173991/A_special_relationship._Hungarian_intelligence_and_the_Vatican_1961-1978

    I guess it makes sense that atheistic Communism would do all in its power to compromise and destroy Christ’s Church…..we were warned, after all…..but it still feels a little surprising to realise that many of the collaborators are still in place and still doing their work.

    Whether it be forcing the canonisation of JPII and John XXIII or killing the faith of a new generation, as the British bishops have managed to do, with 96% of pupils from Catholic schools losing the faith (they do better if they attend secular schools, but not by much).

    It really doesn’t seem that we have much further to fall.

    • spiritustempore,

      I agree entirely with the latter half of your post and I look forward to reading up on the info you present in the former half. Yes, there has been infiltration by the enemies of Our Lord for a long time. The testimony of Bela Dodd, another KGB defector, supports what has already been said.

  212. I wonder if Pope John Paul attributed the fall of Communism and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, etc. to his Assisi meeting? He called it so they could all pray for peace, right? I know some point to it happening after he consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart as proof that that consecration was acceptable to God and sufficed for the consecration of Russia itself. But really all that fall of Communism and everything happened after the first big Assisi. Perhaps it reinforced his confidence that Assisi was good and pleasing to God. The whole collapse seems fake anyway. (Do I sound like +W?

    • 3littleshepherds,

      What occurred in 1989 did not symbolise the conversion of the USSR FROM Communism, but rather the completed conversion of the former Christian West TO Communism. That’s why the Berlin Wall came down and all apparent hostilities ceased. Communism had, as Our Lady warned, triumphed.

      Notice today how all the former Christian nations are described as ‘Socialist’ democracies and all the political parties, while appearing to be in opposition on certain points of proceedure, are identically set on a path of aggressively eradicating God and His laws from society. Two things mark out the nation that has fallen under the yoke of Communism. One is financial collapse, the other is moral bankruptcy.

      Communism can adapt to any ideology, especially Capitalism, because Communism is actually materialistic. So the way to tell if Communism is alive or dead in a nation is by that nation’s economic and moral health, both of which vital signs Communism destroys. Note how Russia and China now have all the money and the West is broke. What a triumph for them, to have pulled off such a role-reversal in just 20 years.

      • Athanasius

        I should have written “perceived fall of Communism”.

        Does anyone know how Pope John Paul II interpreted the events of 1989? There must be some writing or quotes that show his thoughts at the time. It’s just that I would guess he would believe communism was collapsing and I would also guess that he would believe that Assisi was the catalyst for it all.

  213. Athanasius

    Bella Dodd’s testimony to the US Senate was a good indication of what was going on from the 1930s and even before. It can’t have escaped those who heard her that the USSR wouldn’t have confined its tactics to the US…..and recent events with Cardinal Keith O’Brien and his harem serve as a reminder that Our Lord’s Church is badly in need of purging.

    I wonder if Pope Francis has the will to do something with the dossier left him by BXVI…..and whether he will give his approval for the canonisation of JPII this year. Both would be excellent indicators of the kind of pope he will be.

    3littleshepherds

    You raise a really interesting point.

    Assisi cannot possibly have been pleasing to God, so I can’t see that it could have produced good fruits. It must either have been irrelevant to the “fall” of the USSR or a part of the illusion, and I don’t know which it was.

    Gorbachev gave an interesting speech in 1987 to the Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU in which he sought to assuage concerns about perestroika and glasnost:-


    “Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about Glasnost and Perestroika and democracy in the coming years. They are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal changes in the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep.”

    “In October 1917, we parted with the old world, rejecting it once and for all. We are moving toward a new world, a world of Communism. We shall never turn off that road.”

    “Those who hope that we shall move away from the socialist path will be greatly disappointed. Every part of our program of perestroika … is fully based on the principle of more socialism and more democracy. … I would like to be clearly understood … we, the Soviet people, are for socialism. … We want more socialism and, therefore, more democracy. … More socialism means more democracy, openness and collectivism in everyday life.”

    ” … We will proceed toward better socialism rather than away from it. We are saying this honestly, without trying to fool our own people or the world. Any hopes that we will begin to build a different, non-socialist society and go over to the other camp are unrealistic and futile. Those in the West who expect us to give up socialism will be disappointed. … It’s my conviction that the human race has entered a stage where we are all dependent on each other. No other country or nation should be regarded in total separation from another, let alone pitted against another. That’s what our communist vocabulary calls internationalism and it means promoting universal human values.”

    “In our discussions here at the forum there was no trace of the futile debate about what is better, capitalism or socialism…We should seek a synthesis of ideas and values that have proven their viability…”

    “Further global progress is now possible only through a quest for universal consensus in the movement towards a new world order.”

    “I am a Communist, a convinced Communist! For some that may be a fantasy. But to me it is my main goal.”

    • “…and recent events with Cardinal Keith O’Brien and his harem serve as a reminder that Our Lord’s Church is badly in need of purging”.

      Unfortunately, our spiritually blind bishops think the Church is badly in need of purging the SSPX. Those in “good standing” are fine, no matter what they believe, or don’t believe. Incredible.

  214. When the Berlin Wall came down, and citizens of the former USSR and its satellites began to travel freely, they brought their ideas and ways of organising with them. Some were convinced democrats….others weren’t.

    The reunification of Germany in particular saw former communists gaining political influence within the EU. Angela Merkel was just one of them.

    The USSR state archives were opened to journalists and other interested parties in the 1990s. Information from those archives led to a few half-hearted prosecutions for treason, here in the UK (eg Melita Norwood), mostly of old traitors whose capacity to cause damage had long since passed.

    Successive UK governments seem to have been remarkably reluctant to do anything about the many figures in British public life who were revealed to have been on the Kremlin payroll. Jack Jones, the former head of the TUC being a case in point….nothing was said until after his death, when the government quietly let it be known that he’d been a paid traitor to this country all his working life.

    There was an interesting article in “The Spectator” about Jones and other traitors within the Labour Party, not least that the parliamentary seat now known as Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath was (still is) controlled by the TGWU. Without their nomination and support, no Labour candidate could take the seat. Fife being Fife, even a pig’s bladder on a stick with a red rosette would be the preferred candidate: the seat has been solidly Labour for generations.

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/5504183/reaching-through-the-iron-curtain/

    Which puts rather a strange complexion on Gordon Brown’s political career: a close friend of Jones and Alex Kitson – both paid, documented traitors, uncovered when Oleg Gordievsky defected to Britain in the 1980s – they selected him for the seat and supported him until they died……that, in turn, casts some degree of light on the economic policies followed by Brown and how we came to find our economy destroyed, along with the rest of what used to be known as the Democratic West.

    High-level defectors, such as Vasili Mitrokhin (“The Mitrokhin Archive”, searchable online) and Vladimir Bukovsky (Interesting comparison of the structures of the EU with those of the former Soviet Union available on Youtube) have sounded the alarm bell for years, with seemingly little reaction from governments in the West.

    Gorbachev’s comments on “our common European home, stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals” and his resurgent career as an icon of environmentalism point to areas of policy where communist influence is currently focused.

    Communism never went away….it continues to promote the policies of the Comintern, but in a way calculated to appeal to the values of the 21st Century. It’s probably more dangerous now than it ever was, particularly as it seems to have infected both sides of the political debate.

    • I’d agree that you could hardly get a cigarette paper between the two main parties in the UK now, but also the three main parties in Scotland.

      The Leviathan State of the modern liberal/neoconservative is a “jealous god who will brook no mediator between it and the individual. Hence the relentless corrosion of what are sometimes called “Intermediate institutions” which act as a buffer between the individual and the State i.e. the Church and the family. A very clear example of the attack against both of these institutions this is the relentless drive against home education and the introduction of “state guardians” in Scotland.

  215. Clarification: The TGWU is now known as Unite. The trades union currently pulling Ed Milliband’s strings and merrily organising demonstrations and calls for a general strike against government budget cuts.

    • I think some kind of fight-back against government cuts is understandable, welcome even. millionaire government ministers making the poor poorer is not something any Catholic can support.

  216. Augustine

    I couldn’t agree more. For all the window-dressing, I doubt that there’s much to choose between any of the political parties. All are hopelessly compromised and have lost any meaningful concept of public service…they’re all part of the problem and it’s hard to see them offering anything but more of the same.

    The errors of Russia have patiently rotted away the buffer institutions from within for almost a century. I suspect that the logical consequences aren’t too far in the future.

    IMHO the Church is the only credible organisation that can stand against the tide, and that probably explains the concerted attempts to destroy Her by corrupting the priesthood and separating Her from Tradition.

    I suspect we have some turbulent times ahead, but ultimately the comforting reassurance that the Church will eventually dust off Her feet and provide what we need.

    • spiritustempore,

      I agree with everything you and Augustine have written, but will add this: It was only when Russia managed to infiltrate its errors first into the Church via Vatican II that it was able to dismantle the one barrier that stood between it and world domination. The Traditional Catholic Faith and the Church’s consistent condemnations of Communism were the obstacle to be removed, and they were removed with the aggiornamento of Vatican II. Glasnost and Peristroika conned the Council long before it conned the rest of the world.

  217. Absolutely, Athanasius.

    The Church’s aggiornomento was like a starting pistol for the forces of “progressivism” and “modernity”. Communism itself is just a mask for a philosphy as old as the Church herself.

    The revolutionary principles of liberty, equality and fraternity found their echo in religious liberty, collegiality and ecumenism and are responsible for the smoking ruins of the Faith that we see around us.

    When we start to see those principles being rolled back in the Church’s actions and pronouncements, then we’ll know that the rebuilding is truly underway.

    • I agree entirely, spiritustempore. Of course, another of the clssic signs of Communism, whether in the Church or in society, is antagonism. Agitators are strategically positioned to draw the masses into opposition to established order.

      We see how the Modernists have achieved this in the various dioceses and parishes around the world, and we see it now within Tradition via Bishop Williamson and his very vocal supporters. I think they call it the “Hegelian” concept, which is that two seemingly opposing forces, controlled by the same people, are geared towards the same end. In this case schism with Rome.

      • I’m sorry if I’m not understanding these posts but what do you mean by “the established order”? If you are saying the poor who are massively hit by government cuts while the rich are being made a lot richer, then I am all for overthrowing “the established (by the rich) order”.

        • Sorry, should read “if you are saying the poor… should accept their lot” etc.

        • Josephine,

          No, I did not mean the established order as in the present Godless order. I meant the established order which has already been overthrown, which was the Christian order, more precisely the reign of Christ the King through His Catholic Church which was still present to a degree up to 1960.

          Once the moral order is back on track, based again on the laws of God, you’ll find that the rich and poor will get on a lot better. Both will have their eyes fixed once more on things eternal rather than on earthly treasures and pleasures.

          • Thank you Athanasius, that is clear and silly me for jumping to the wrong conclusions. That’s what happens when half your family is on benefits through no fault of their own and can’t get work! It’s maddening then to see the unemployed treated like pariahs and the millionaires tut tutting about benefit cheats. That does now seem to be the established order sorry to say.

  218. …I do find it interesting that those who seek to bring down the SSPX seem to be characterised by the same principles. There is no longer a “left” and a “right”, if ever there truly was.

    Just a Catholic via media and ultimate oblivion to either side.

    • Mcdevitt’s site seems to have some dedicated opinion shapers. I remember someone over there seemed very panicky when the Bishop released his thoughts on the Poem. They tried desperately to make it look like he was just making a humorous analogy or something!

  219. Thanks, Spiritustempore and everyone else for the all great posts on the plague of Communism.

    Indeed the errors of Russia have spread, as Our Lady warned at Fatima. On the subject of Communism, it’s surely time for Catholics to wipe the dust off the pre-Conciliar encyclicals.

    “The infamous doctrine of so-called Communism which is absolutely contrary to the natural law itself, and if once adopted would utterly destroy the rights, property and possessions of all men, and even society itself.” – Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus, #16, 1846

    Communism is “fatal plague which insinuates itself into the very marrow of human society only to bring about its ruin.” – Pope Leo XIII, Quod Apostolici Muneris, #1, 1878

    “This all too imminent danger, Venerable Brethren, as you have already surmised, is bolshevistic and atheistic Communism, which aims at upsetting the social order and at undermining the very foundation of Christian civilisation.” – Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, #3

    “Be vigilant, Venerable Brethren, so that the faithful do not allow themselves to be deceived. Communism is intrinsically perverse and collaboration with it cannot be accepted in any area on the part of anyone who wishes to save Christian civilisation. Those who permit themselves to be deceived into lending their aid towards the triumph of Communism in their own country, will be the first to fall of their error.” – Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, #58, March 19, 1937.

    Nobody can claim they weren’t warned. And as we all know, the promoters of aggiornamento and the Cult of Man at Vatican II said precisely zilch about the greatest evil in history, which was then staring the Church in the face. What a shame it was that Cardinal Mindszenty of Hungary wasn’t present.

    And of course there was the petition for the condemnation of Communism, signed by 454 Council Fathers, which conveniently got “lost” in a drawer, ensuring that the word Communism appeared nowhere in the Council documents.

    • Leo,

      Yes, the petition you mention was silenced because a deal had already been struck with Moscow to silence all such condemnation in return for Orthodox observers being granted permission to attend the Council. This happened despite Pius XII’s command that no deals were ever to be struck with Communists.

  220. Thank you, Athanasius for making that very important point about the pre-Council agreement with Moscow.

    That can’t be blamed on the media, or the “virtual Council” versus the “real Council”. Yep, the agreement was very real alright. Continuity was obviously off the agenda that day.

    Archbishop Lefebvre, as usual summed the whole thing up rather well:

    “The Council that had taken upon itself to discern ‘the signs of the times’ was condemned by Moscow to silence on this most obvious and monstrous sign of the times”! -They Have Uncrowned Him, p 215.

    • Leo,

      Talk about about making important points. How perfectly accurate is that point of Archbishop Lefebvre’s? Nail & head comes to mind!

  221. It’s funny how so many of the worst enemies of the Church were able to grasp very quickly what was going on in the Church in the 1960’s while those in the highest echelons of the Church deluded themselves with dreams of a “New Pentecost” or a New Springtime.

    A short book entitled Athanasius and the Church of Our Time by Bishop Rudolf Graber, published in 1974 is well worth reading. It informs us that The Italian Communist Party understood what was happening during its 11th Party Congress in 1966. Bishop Graber tells us on pages 63-65:

    “In the introduction to a special number of ‘Propaganda’ (the ICP’s magazine) there is an unambiguous reference to the ‘crisis’ of the Church: ‘The extraordinary “awakening” of the Council, which is rightly compared with the Estates General of 1789, has shown the whole world that the old politico-religious Bastille is shaken to its foundations. Thus a new situation has arisen which should be met with appropriate measures. A hitherto unfortunate possibility has emerged for us to draw nearer to our final victory by means of a suitable manoeuvre.’”

    Bishop Graber informs us that in the magazine, the ICP states that here “all the opportunities are brought to light to which the inner evolution of the Church offers us” and in another section that contains a large number of references to resolutions expressed by the Council, the view is expressed that “in this way the Council itself is providing us gratis with the best means of reaching the Catholic public”. This part of the Italian Communists’ commentary closes with the words: “Never was the situation so favourable for us.”

    That’s what the Communists had to say. Now for the Freemasons, operating, like their Communist siblings, out of the kingdom of satan. The following is truly, eerily prophetic. On page 70, His Lordship informs us that:

    “The Paris journal of the Grand Orient de France, “L’Humanisme” wrote quite openly in 1968: ‘Among the pillars which collapse most easily we note the Magisterium; the infallibility , which was held to be firmly established by the First Vatican Council and which has just had to face being stormed by married people on the occasion of the publication of the encyclical Humanae vitae; the Real Eucharistic Presence, which the Church was able to impose on the medieval masses and which will disappear with the increasing inter-communion and inter-celebration of Catholic priests and Protestant pastors; the hallowed character of the priest, which come from the institution of the Sacrament of Ordination and which will be replaced by a decision for the priesthood for a trial period; the differentiation between the direction-giving Church and the black-clad (lower) clergy, whereas from now on the directions will proceed from the base of the pyramid upwards as in any democracy; the gradual disappearance of the ontological and metaphysical character of the sacraments and then the subsequent death of confession now that sin in our days has become a completely anachronistic concept handed down to us by the rigorous medieval philosophy which was in turn the heritage of Biblical pessimism.’

    L’Humanisme continues: “When the traditional structures collapse, all that remains will follow. The Church did not foresee that it would be contested in this way and it is no longer anything like prepared to absorb and assimilate this revolutionary spirit…It is not the scaffold that is awaiting the Pope, it is the rise of local Churches organising themselves democratically, rejecting the dividing-line between clergy and laymen, creating their own dogma and living in complete autonomy of Rome.
    “Soon it will no longer be possible for the Vatican to keep control over the internal motions of a great body which used to be considered homogenous…Might it not be time to return to more ‘national’ Churches?”

    That’s what the enemy were saying 45 years ago. They haven’t had much cause for disappointment since. They must be absolutely loving all this neo-con New Springtime.

  222. Editor

    I suspect that our spiritually blind bishops are sticking their fingers in their ears and singing “la-la-la” very loudly. If Archbishop Mennini’s recommendations for the empty sees are accepted by Pope Francis, then I suspect that their days of subverting the faith are numbered. Deo volente.

    Leo

    Thanks for the info on the Italian Communists and the Freemasons’ reactions to the Church’s opening to the world. I hadn’t come across either before – both made interesting reading: confirmation, if it was needed, that the revolution in the Church was a well co-ordinated and carefully planned exercise intended to destroy our faith and our only means of salvation.

    The one positive is knowing that their revolution’s days are numbered and their time is short.

    I think some kind of fight-back against government cuts is understandable, welcome even. millionaire government ministers making the poor poorer is not something any Catholic can support.

  223. 3littleshepherds

    Mcdevitt’s site does indeed have a fair number of ‘opinion shapers’. Most of them seem determined to shape themselves right out of the Church.

    Watching them fall over themselves to spin the latest pronouncement of Bishop Williamson into something resembling Catholicism can be quite entertaining. There seem to be as many opinions as there are posters…not a great recipe for success.

    I suspect that they’ll end up tearing each other apart, and probably their priests as well.

  224. Catholic Herald online suggests that the canonisation of John Paul II is going full steam ahead. No surprise, but the most unexpected part of the article was this little snippet at the end:

    Francis also approved a decree recognising a miracle attributed to Fr Álvaro del Portillo, the late prelate of Opus Dei, meaning that he will soon be beatified.

    hmm

      • Well, it’s certainly a stumbling block (skandalos) to my faith.

        Forgive me for adding something I submitted to another blog:

        For me the forthcoming canonisation will be very troubling indeed since it is probable nothing will be said about those pontifical acts of Pope John Paul II that simply cannot be squared with Scripture, Tradition, or the Dogmas of the Church. And nothing – for as long as I have reason and accept the principle of non-contradiction, which is the very foundation of reason – will persuade me otherwise. There may perhaps be mitigating factors that reduce the culpability of the late Pope but those acts (judged in the external forum) will never be made less wrong by his canonisation.

        I ask: Will the late Pope be canonised without an explanation how his invitation to pagans to come to Assisi and celebrate their rites in places consecrated to Catholic worship is consistent with the perennial teaching of the Church that such rites are intrinsically pernicious (ST II-II Q. 93, a. 1)?

        Will he be canonised without an explanation of how his active participation in an Animist ritual in Togoville in 1985 (L’Osservatore Romano, Italian Edition, August the 11th 1985, p5) is consistent with the perennial teaching of the magisterium that communicatio in sacris activa cum acatholicis is “universally prohibited by natural and divine law” (Collectanea, vol. I, p. 100, n. 311 (1729))?

        Will he be canonised without an explanation how his words in Manila “In the Holy Spirit, every individual and all people have become, through the Cross and Resurrection of Christ, children of God, partakers in the divine nature and heirs to eternal life” (Message to the Peoples of Asia, Manila, February 21, 1981) – among many other similar statements – are consistent with the Church’s teaching that sanctifying grace (i.e. that whereby we become partakers in the divine nature and heirs to eternal life) is imparted only through the Sacrament of Baptism?

        To canonise the late Pope without the magisterium even offering an attempt at reconciling these words and deeds with the Faith of the Apostles will be an act of injustice towards the faithful and will only succeed in confusing the minds of Catholics about the nature of true holiness for generations to come.

        • Excellent, Augustine – very well put.

          But, difficult as it is, do not let this latest terrible scandal (if it happens) adversely affect your Faith. I’ve long said that, but for the apparitions/prophecies of Our Lady at Fatima, and at Quito before that (all of which we’ve seen coming true before our very eyes and on-going) I would have lost my Faith a long time ago. “Indefectibility?” I’d have said: “yeah right”.

          I decided not to post a separate thread on this until we have a final definitive announcement that it is going to happen and when. Then, please, post the above spot on comment again. It bears repeating – a lot…

  225. I submitted this comment to the Catholic Herald website, but it seems to have been rejected.

    • Well, Augustine, I’m surprised at that – I found them quite good, actually, at publishing comments, though it’s quite a while since I’ve been on there. Maybe a new blog editor or they’ve gone all papolatrist with the news of the possible canonisation (I won’t believe it until it happens!)

  226. Technically speaking (and a fact missed by the media) today’s announcement only clarifies that a second miracle can be attributed to the cause of Bl.JP2.

    The last line in the statement is “(the holy father)…and decided that a consistory would be convoked, to consider also the canonisation of Blessed John Paul II”

    No canonisation has yet been confirmed and cannot be until the consistory validates it… So Ed you may not have to believe it!

    However Bl JP 2, was a great and holy man and I for one am happy at today’s news (ducks for cover)

    • However Bl JP 2, was a great and holy man and I for one am happy at today’s news (ducks for cover)

      I cannot presume to judge the soul of anyone, least of all the Vicar of Christ. But I do genuinely want to understand how the aforementioned acts and words can be reconciled with Scripture, Tradition, and the Perennial Magisterium. I seriously doubt that they can but I am willing to have my misunderstanding pointed out to me.

      There’s no irony in what I have said. If I am wrong about this then please help me see the truth.

    • If the duty of our state of life means anything, then he’s about as holy as a mother who neglects her children.

  227. A decree of sainthood is not a decree of infallibility, even the best Saints made mistakes during their earthly lives.

    Are you suggesting that someone who has made mistakes is unworthy to be a Saint?