General Discussion (3) …

The General Discussion thread will always remain at the top of the page.  Links to previous discussion thread appended.   New articles, newest first, will appear below…

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. However, please check first, to ensure that you haven’t missed a topic thread. Readers have occasionally gone straight to the General Discussion thread to post news that is already the topic of a thread or to ask a question that is already being discussed elsewhere. So, do your Sherlock Holmes before posting here, please and thank you!

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


To read General Discussion Thread (1) click here (2) click here


501 responses

  1. In case anyone hasn’t seen this newsflash from the Fatima Network:-

    Father Gruner to Speak at
    Fisher More Catholic College, Texas
    Una Voce Dinner at Harvard Club in NYC

    Our Lady’s Apostolate has made major gains through our recent conference and media campaigns in raising public awareness of the Message of Fatima and the possibility of world peace that obedience to Our Lady’s requests would bring about. Interest in the Message of Fatima is growing, as evidenced by invitations Father Gruner has received and accepted to address two groups in the coming month.

    Father has been asked to speak to the students at Fisher More Catholic College in Fort Worth, Texas on November 22 and 23. Fisher More (see: is a traditional Catholic College that has been consecrated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary. These talks are not open to the public, but our Fatima TV crew will be filming the talks and will later make them available on our web site at

    On Dec. 6, Father Gruner will address Una Voce New York at the prestigious Harvard Club in Manhattan (see: Fourth Annual Una Voce New York Dinner Symposium flyer). This will be a dinner symposium entitled “The Consecration of Russia: Ending 70 Years of Catastrophe and Escaping Future Disaster.”

    The event is open to the public. All who can attend are warmly invited and encouraged to do so. It will be a memorable evening. There is a cost of $75 for the dinner and event, with a $10 discount for early registration.

    Joining Father Gruner on the dais at the Harvard Club that evening will be John Vennari, editor of Catholic Family News, and Christopher A. Ferrara , Esq., president of the American Catholic Lawyers Association and author of The Secret Still Hidden and False Friends of Fatima.

    Mr. Vennari’s address is titled “The Rise of Antichrists” and Mr. Ferrara will speak on “The Unsinkable Fatima Message.” If you can attend, we encourage you to register as soon as possible. In any event, we ask for your continued prayers and support for the Apostolate. As long as we are faithful, we cannot be stopped or silenced, for Our Lady’s grace sustains and direct us. Who can withstand Heaven?

    • Westminsterfly,

      This is incredible news. Fisher More Catholic College extending an invitation to Fr Gruner to speak to the students. That this College has been consecrated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary is very telling.

      Also 2 days before the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, being invited to address Una Voce New York.

      Incredible indeed following upon the debacle on October 13 when Father Gruner was harassed by Vatican Security, who were terrified that he would attempt to speak to Pope Francis. We need not be reminded that His Holiness failed to consecrate the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary upon that date.

      Our Lady requested that Russia be consecrated to her Immaculate Heart, but it would be late. So far, Popes, Cardinals and Bishops have been terrified to carry out this consecration. How the Hierarchy need many Masses, Rosaries and Sacrifices offered up to God so that they will do what Our Lady asked.

  2. Some articles I thought might be of interest to bloggers:

    1) Eponymous flower reports on confusion over whether or not Pope Francis has personally condemned the recent protest against the interfaith event in Buenos Aires.

    It sounds to me like some people have been telling porky pies over this (by claiming he did condemn it). After the excellent statement from the SSPX Superior in Argentina, who showed that Papal documents on the Vatican’s own website fully support the action of the protestors, all Francis would achieve via condemnation would be to make a fool of himself.

    2) James McMillan attacks popular Catholic Music as “catering to old hippies”

    And I agree with him. However, I disagree when he goes on to talk about blending ancient gregorian music with vernacular lyrics. He seems to say that this is an expression of tradition but which maintains the participatory sentiments of Vatican II.

    I would argue that this “participation” (in any type of liturgy) tends to lead to the people glorifying themselves, rather than God. Additionally this vernacular music he talks up seems to be reinventing the wheel – why not just use Gregorian Chant in all its majesty? Why produce a lesser, modern copy?

    In general though, I like the savaging he gives to most modern Catholic music (“puerile stumblings and fumblings”) and those responsible for it ( “musically illiterate”).

  3. Bayside gives me the creeps. Sometimes I’ve clicked on some interesting info only to find out at the end that I’m on some bayside site.

  4. Fr Michael Rodriguez:

    He is a great Priest, who is unfortunately being treated like dirt by the idiot Bishop of El Paso and other members of the Hierarchy. Please pray for him. He deserves massive credit for being trained in the Novus Ordo, but training himself privately in the ‘old’ Mass.

    Just out of interest, in the old days prior to V2, for daily Masses would the Priest say a Low Mass including the Gloria and Credo, because in the NO these two are omitted. Also, in a private Mass, with only the Priest there, with no servers or congregants, would he have to say ‘Dominus Vobiscum’, and ‘Sursum Corda’ etc to himself, along with the responses, i.e ‘et cum Spiritu Tuo’, ‘Habemus ad Dominum’ and ‘Dignum et Iustum est’?

  5. How is the state of the SSPX in the UK? From what I have heart numbers have stagnated somewhat in the last decade or so?
    Up north here in Scandinavia we have the privilege of having SSPX priests from London make monthly visits. As has been reported in the UK newsletter we have been blessed with a certain increase in Stockholm and especially Oslo. Both places have Society-controlled premises for masses.

    • Can’t speak about elsewhere but in Scotland the Edinburgh and Glasgow chapels are flourishing with lots of young families.

    • As you have raised this question, it would indeed be interesting to know what exactly is the situation with Mass attendance in the UK at the Society churches/centres. Presumably, there is a blogger from most areas in the UK, and perhaps they can each tell us how things are at their individual Masses. Things that can affect Mass numbers will be local employment/redundancies, immigrants from other ethnic groups moving into an area, and so on.

      If numbers at some Mass centres are falling – can a specific reason be identified? Maybe, another group who have had the same problem in the past, would be able to offer some practical advice/suggestions.

  6. Sigfrid,

    It’s so good to hear from Socialist Scandinavia. I believe Fr. Lindquist is the SSPX Priest who visits Scandinavia on a regular basis, and he is Swedish but lives in London. Does the SSPX have a particularly great following where you are from? I would have thought Scandinavia was fairly liberal in it’s Catholicism. Also, if you only receive the Sacraments once a month from a Society Priest, what do you do on the other days- say a dry Mass or the Rosary?

  7. Yes, correct (you got his name wrong though), usually Fr L. Great following? Hardly. Oslo is largest, with a stable crowd of 30-50 mass goers. Stockholm isn’t far behind. Many diocesan priests here are Polish and rather “conservative” I suppose, as are most of the native priests. The worst are Jesuits (surprise!). There are motu masses with a resident ICK priest in Stockholm who also says mass in Lund each Sunday, and a few other diocesan motu masses spread around Sweden (of which one is every Sunday). Norway has just one, which has recently been resumed after a long break, in Oslo, and another in Stavanger, both just once monthly. Denmark has long had a twice monthly diocesan TLM in Copenhagen, and a small SSPX presence in Aalborg. A large part of the trads here come straight from secularism, rather few from the NO (except the many Poles in Oslo).

  8. Does anyone know the situation both in Northern and Southern Ireland? We were on holiday there a few years ago and were appalled at the liturgical abuses we witnessed. At one Mass, the priest actually changed the words of the Consecration!

    • I believe the SSPX is doing well in Ireland with flourishing churches in Dublin, Cork and Athlone and smaller chapels in Belfast , Newry and elsewhere. The British Superior is acting Superior in Ireland and it’s supposed to be temporary but has lasted a couple of years now. I know from Irish friends that people there are not too happy with this situation.

      • I am constantly being surprised and amazed by the enduring success and abundant vocations in the SSPX. Wherever it goes, it seems to flourish, even in the most unlikely places such as Scandinavia.

      • Ireland is listed as having an autonomous house. What does this mean in the SSPX? Some other countries have it as well. Does it mean that they are supposed to be independent from the UK’s district superior? No one around here knows.

        • A district is a country with more than one priory. A country with only one priory is an autonomous house. Since the opening of a second priory in Athlone Ireland is no longer an autonomous house but a district..

          Crofterlady, They are a separate district and I think what they want is a Superior of their own as they had since the opening of the Dublin house. The British Superior was only ever supposed to be temporarily in charge after the previous Superior resigned.

          • Oh, hark at you, Vianney, a right Clever Clogs these days.

            And tell the truth – the Irish want li’l ole moi over there, either as Mother Superior or Pastoral Assistant but Bishop Fellay continues to think it over… In fact, he’s taking so long to think it over that it looks like the first woman cardinal will have been appointed before I get what’s rightfully mine, a “superior” post with the SSPX 🙂

  9. Has anyone seen the Father Brown series with Kenneth Moore? Anything wrong with it? I’ve read Fr. Brown and I’ve see the Alec Guiness film but I’ve never seen any of the series. Is it worth buying the collection?

    • Haven’t seen it (too young, ha ha) so can’t comment on it but I did see the series which was on TV earlier this year with Mark Williams playing the lead. It was very good and my only criticism is that the chapel was very obviously an Anglican church. I’m sure they could have found an unvandalised Catholic church they could have used.

      • Thanks, Vianney. I thought it was a newer production! I see now it was made in 1974. It’s also packaged up with some Fr. Brown films. It’s kind of expensive too, for a TV series.
        I’ll check to see if the new one is showing here.

        • 3LittleShepherds,

          Like Vianney, I’ve also seen the Fr Brown series on television, and must agree that the Chapel used was an Anglican Church.

          I’ve discovered this link that claims G. K. Chesterton, author of the Fr Brown stories, wrote them about 10 years prior to taking instruction and becoming a Catholic. In this link, the actor Alec Guinness is mentioned too. He also became a Catholic following an experience while filming one of the Fr Brown stories in France.

          • Thanks Theresa Rose. I’ve never come across that site before. Looks like the 1974 series was good according to the reviewer.
            I knew that Chesterton converted but found out that it was later than I thought. I think someone wrote that he was waiting for his wife to convert with him.

            • Talking about Alec Guinness reminded me that people my age called Fr. Carl Pulvermacher, Ben Obi-Wan Kenobi, when they were children. The very young thought that’s who he was.
              Fr. Carl was the Franciscan who worked with Archbishop Lefebvre and I think he was the founding publisher of the Angelus Press and the Angelus magazine. He really did look like Obi-Wan Kenobi in his Franciscan habit.

  10. Would you believe Christopher Hitchens said

    The Catholic Church has never recovered from the abandonment of its mystifying Latin ritual.

    • Amazing that a nhilistic, alcoholic atheist can see the value of the Latin mass, yet the typical parish priest cannot.

      (Do you have a source for the quote Miles?)

  11. I am pleased to see reports appearing of Bishop Athanasius Schneider “getting about” and talking to diverse audiences around the globe. Hopefully this will help give what he has to say a higher profile. I think his appearances are connected with a tour to promote a book he has written.

    In November, he is appearing in Cork

    Bishop Anthanasius Schneider will offer Mass in the Old Rite at the historic Honan Chapel in University College Cork this Saturday at 11.00am, everyone is welcome.

    This is significant for several reasons:

    – It is the first Traditional Rite Mass there in forty years.
    – He will launch a new book, “Corpus Christi – Holy Communion and the Renewal of the Church
    – Perhaps most important, it is a deliberate policy statement by the newly appointed Dean and Chaplain about the future direction of the Catholic mission in the University College Cork and the use and purpose of this beautiful chapel.

    (Encouragingly, the chaplain who organised this is a young, recently ordained man – a Dominican – see the link).

    And in December, Hong Kong:

    A Pontifical High Mass will be celebrated by Bishop Athanasius Schneider in December (Gaudete Sunday) during his visit to Hong Kong, followed by a seminar on the history of Communion on the tongue.

    May God bless Bishop Schneider. Would that we had more like him in the Episcopate, instead of the usual muppets.

    I hope his appearances go well – its just a shame he isn’t visiting Scotland (maybe one day!).

  12. The first time that I heard of Bishop Athanasius Schneider was on a much earlier thread on this blog, where he said how shocking it was when he and his family arrived in Germany to discover how Communion was distributed on the hand.

    • Theresa,
      On the 3rd October 2013, I protested to Rome once again and in vain as usual, in these terms:
      “je pense intimement que la liturgie de la Messe dans la forme dite “ordinaire” n’a pas vraiment la même signification théologique que celle de la liturgie dans la forme dite “extraordinaire”; d’où une incompatibilité évidente entre les deux rites!… C’est là que se situe le nœud du problème.
      Hélas! à Vatican II, les évêques réunis en concile, ont, en “transformant” la liturgie, creusé un fossé entre catholiques et par voie de conséquence, rompu l’unité de l’Église. Si ces changements avaient été de pure forme, il n’y aurait pas eu de difficultés à ce que les deux rites cohabitent, comme c’est le cas pour ce qui concerne d’autres rites très anciens… Ils ont manqué de prudence et peut-être même de Foi. Ils ont commis plus qu’une erreur, ils ont commis une faute. Cette situation est donc dans l’impasse et c’est à eux, les premiers responsables, qu’il revient de trouver une solution juste et équitable.
      Saint Paul aux Galates 1,8: “mais, quand nous-mêmes, quand un ange du ciel annoncerait un autre Évangile que celui que nous vous avons prêché, qu’il soit anathème!” J’ai l’impression que les Autorités officielles de l’Église se moquent éperdument de ce qu’ont dit les Apôtres et notamment Saint Paul plus particulièrement!… Elles le citent mais n’en pensent pas moins; leurs arguments principaux pour s’en affranchir, ce sont “qu’il est d’une autre époque” et “qu’il n’a pas connu Jésus pendant sa vie terrestre”. Je les ai entendus maintes fois!
      “I think intimately that the liturgy of the Mass in the form called “ordinary” does not really have the same theological signification as the one of the liturgy in the form called “extraordinary”; whence there is an obvious incompatibility between the two rites!… This is where the crux of the problem lies .
      Alas! at Vatican II, the bishops assembled in council, were, in “transforming” the liturgy, digging a ditch between Catholics and consequently breaking the unity of the Church. If these changes were purely formal, there would not have been any difficulty that the two rites coexist, as it is the case with regard to other ancient rites… They ran out of prudence and perhaps even of Faith. They have made more than an error, they committed an offence. This situation is therefore deadlocked and it is up to them, primarily responsible, to find a just and equitable solution.
      Saint Paul to the Galatians 1,8: “but though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you any Gospel other than that which you received, let him be anathema!” I feel that the Church official Authorities do not care about what was said by the Apostles and notably Saint Paul more particularly!… They mention what he said but do not think less, their main arguments to free themselves from his teaching are that “he is of another time” and “he did not know Jesus during his earthly life”. I heard these arguments many times!”
      What can we do more besides praying?

  13. Could any parishioners of Saint Andrew’s SSPX Glasgow tell me if there is Mass for the feast of Saint Andrew tomorrow? Would it be at 11am as usual? And is it a sung Mass?

    • Yes, there is a Mass at 11a.m. and it is a Sung Mass. Unfortunately Edinburgh’s usual Saturday Mass has been cancelled which hasn’t gone down too well. Apart from the fact it’s our National Day St Andrew is also the patron of our Archdiocese.

      • Vianney,

        I read your post earlier and thought we could have a bit of fun tormenting you with it, so went looking for a video on YouTube, Googling “funny Scots videos”.

        I can truthfully say I have seldom felt so embarrassed about being Scots. On this, the eve – almost the day itself – of the Feast of our Patron Saint, I think, far from posting a Scots video or joke, I will merely make a plea for ever more urgent prayers for the return of our native land to the Catholic religion. Nothing less will eradicate what appears to be the innate crudeness of Scottish men (didn’t find any videos with women, so not being biased!) There were a couple that could have been hilarious but for the descent into bad language and crudity.

        Anyway, with five minutes to go, allow me to be first to wish everyone, a very happy St Andrew’s Day.

        • Oh that’s a shame. The Irn Bru adverts are always a good laugh. Like the one in the school:

          I went to a youth Mass like this once. Phenomenal liturgy. Now that’s what you call a sung Mass!

        • You torment someone Editor? Never! A happy St Andrew’s Day all the same although it will be a rather sad day across the country due to the helicopter crash on the Glasgow pub. Latest figures are 32 injured but still people trapped in the building.

      • Any explanation why this Mass was cancelled? For the people of Scotland, this feast of their Patron Saint is very important, so why cancel it? Has anyone asked the Priests about this matter?

        • When Fr Black (a Scot) was the District Superior he started the tradition of the Superior coming to Scotland to celebrate Mass in honour of St. Andrew and he would say Mass in Edinburgh in the morning and in Glasgow in the evening. After he left this changed, without any explanation, to just Mass in Glasgow presumably because the chapel there is dedicated to St. Andrew. This hasn’t
          gone down too well in Edinburgh given that it is the Capital City and being the National Day (as well as the saint being the patron of the Archdiocese) there was no real reason why there shouldn’t be a Mass. This year the Feast falls on a Saturday and as Edinburgh usually has Mass every Saturday morning folk naturally assumed there would be Mass but last Sunday it was announced there would be no Mass. No explanation was given but presumably as Mass in Glasgow will be at 11am and is a High Mass both the “Scottish” priests will be acting as sub deacons.

          • I see, well that is all a great pity. These cultural things are very important to people – particularly in these troubled times. I am just amazed that no-one has actually asked why these changes have occurred. Are the laity too afraid to ask the Priests anything? This is not a healthy situation as it creates a ‘bad spirit’ in a group – something the Devil will make best use of! Also, to create ‘a culture of fear’ is not good. Back in Ireland in times past, people were absolutely terrified of the Priest and no-one challenged anything. One would hope that the ‘restoration’ of the Church will not bring back those dreadful times. I would suggest you all turn to St Andrew in ardent prayer for help.

  14. You really can work to get more for Scotland from the SSPX. Just try to turn them into Scottish priests. Get flyers and pamphlets of historical places in your area to give to them. Plus give them books on your history and also research and write down all of the high or low points of your particular place. You can also give them Scottish food, etc. Help them to remember everyone’s first name at your chapel. Then you pray that they love Scotland like Our Lord does and that they have the grace to lay down their lives for their Scottish sheep.
    Also Little Therese is the patron of missionaries so she is a very powerful help.
    Just keep at it. Don’t be critical, just promote Scotland.

      • Being critical of the Society Priests in the UK, can earn you the warning: “Become a docile member of the congregation, or leave!” Maybe that is why no-one in Scotland has dared questioned these matters.

        • I sure have heard a lot of critism in the various missions where I’ve been. I never cared about the mundane things, like the layout of the bulletin or whether or not the priest wanted the parish dinner in room A or B. Whatever.

          Cancellations were another thing. If someone were sick or if there was a funeral or something that’s understandable. Otherwise I would call him up, express everyone’s disappointment, and ask if the chapel could have something extra to make up for it. This way if something is taken away, it’s an opportunity to get twice back.

          • Well, once again Dear Lady, that’s how you American folks would act, and American Priests would understand that perfectly. All I can say is that, here in the UK, things are very different, and (in my experience) it would not be tolerated.

    • Or, someone could just make sure they know that no. 174 in the black St Andrew’s Hymn book is the hymn to St Joseph, not St Andrew, before no. 174 is announced for singing at the end of Mass on St Andrew’s day next year.

      That would be “Scottish” enough, in my book (if you’ll pardon the pun.)

      • So did someone announce the correct number? Is that the black hymnal that came from Australia? Nobody likes them because a lot of our hymns aren’t in it and even when there is a hymn we use often it has different words.

    • My dear lady, I gather you live in the USA, is that right? Your lovely comments could only be written by an American! You are SO pro-active, enthusiastic and innovative. I love it.

      However, none of that will work here in the UK my dear. Nope, not a chance!

      When I read of the way that the St Andrew Feast has been ‘sidelined’, I found it hard to believe that the Scottish people have taken this lying down without a fight. Not what William Wallace would have done is it? (And yes, I do know he had his faults, but he did not have the ‘care of Souls’.

        • 3LittleShepherds,

          We are very blessed with the priests we have in Scotland and if we have to fight anything, let’s put our energies into fighting the modernism in the Church and thank God for the SSPX. The SSPX is not perfect, that’s for sure, but it’s perfect enough for us up here in Scotland – be assured. The alternative is just too awful to contemplate!

          • Hold your horses, Editor! 🙂 Fighting for, as in “for”. Not fighting against. Never thought it, never wrote it.
            If you want the Mass you will fight for it.

          • No-one is asking for perfection – just ‘Priestly Graciousness’ when lay people come to ask for help, support – and a reasonable explanation when problems occur. To feel that they are loved and cared for and that they matter!

            The problems outside the ‘Trad Church’ are bad enough, but if we ignore problems WITHIN the trad church, then that will finish us!

            The Irish Philosopher Edmund Burke said: “The only thing need for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing” Well, the good people in the Trad Church cannot afford to ‘do nothing’!

            • Yorkshire Rose,

              Please let this matter drop. You are completely misunderstanding things if you think Scots are afraid to speak out about anything. Now, please let the matter drop. For goodness sake, quoting Edmund Burke and Pius X about such a trivial matter. Gerragrip.

        • Well indeed, that should be true dear lady. However, in the UK, people have a tendency to be self-effacing and deferential – it’s a cultural thing – like not complaining about bad food in a restaurant.

          If a group of Catholics are worried, concerned, or want to know why there has been Mass cancellations for no apparent reason – why do they feel too afraid to ask for a reasonable explanation?

          This would suggest that there is not a healthy relationship of trust between the Priests and the laity. Indeed, maybe a ‘culture of fear’ has sprung up, and that is not right. Our Blessed Lord did NOT rule by fear.

          I would suggest that laity and Priests need to be aware of these situations occurring, and endeavour to ‘work together’ to find a resolution for the good of all.

      • Yorkshire Rose,

        I think you’ve misinterpreted the situation somewhat. Vianney would be the very last person to want to turn a mild annoyance about a Mass change into something else. Edinburgh and Glasgow are only about an hour apart, so don’t worry about ‘care of souls’.

        • With all due respect, I don’t think I have misinterpreted anything. There have been at least two post comments stating that these unexplained Mass changes in Scotland “have not gone down too well…”

          So, people are quite upset about things, but appear to be TOO AFRAID to ask for a reasonable explanation. The Catholic laity are adults, not school-children, and not illiterate medieval peasants. They simply need to be treated like mature grown-ups.

          As for laypeople being pro-active, I came across this statement made by St Pius X: “THE MAIN OBSTACLE IN THE APOSTOLATE OF THE CHURCH IS THE TIMIDITY, OR RATHER THE COWARDICE, OF THE LAITY…” Now, this would suggest that this wonderful Pope was quite comfortable with lay persons ‘doing their bit alongside the Priest’.

          • Wow talk about making a mountain out a molehill. As editor has said, there are excellent transport links between Glasgow and Edinburgh and the journey time is relatively short.

            Yorkshire Rose you seem to enjoy having something to complain about. Rest easy. There’s enough to complain about and fight against without getting your frillies in a twist about something that doesn’t even affect you.

  15. The Scots are certainly not backward at coming forward as the saying goes. In fact, some of the English and American priests seemed to think we had too much to say. As I have said before it was Fr Black when he was Superior who made sure both cities got Mass on St. Andrew’s Day. After he moved to Australia Edinburgh was dropped but this was long before the opening of the Scottish priory. We were still being served from Preston at the time and when anyone questioned the decision they were more or less dismissed as the Scots moaning again. Because the Feast fell on a Saturday this year, and as we usually have Mass on Saturday morning, folk just assumed we would have Mass and were a bit annoyed about not having one. We do have a priory now and as Editor says, we are very blessed with the priests we have here. Unfortunately they are not left in peace to work in Scotland as one of them is always being taken away to help out elsewhere leaving the other to do all the work. This decision comes from outwith the country as was, I think, the decision to cancel Edinburgh’s Saturday Mass. At the end of the day it all pales into insignificance given that on our National Day we a country in mourning at the loss of eight of our fellow Scots.

  16. Well, sheesh, why am I giving you guys helpful hints! I guess it’s in Edinburgh? I saw the pics of the two churches and read the history of the society in Scotland. I thought it was neat that the Edinburgh Chapel had a lending library (if they still do).
    I actually know more about the Church in Scotland than I do about my own country now that I’ve read this blog for awhile.

    • The priory is a town called Carluke which is in Lanarkshire. Frankly it is a daft place to have it as it means the priests have a lot of travelling to get to the chapels. Who’s idea it was to purchase a house there is anybody’s guess.and it would have made a lot more sense to have been nearer one of the chapels.
      Edinburgh still has the lending library and the chapel has just set up it’s own web site.

      • A library? Really? Can anyone pop in and use it? I might have to go there on Saturday. There is no first Saturday Mass in Glasgow this month.

        • Yes anyone can use it. It’s located in the cafe which is at the rear of the building so If you are in Edinburgh on Saturday come into the bookshop and I’ll take you through.

      • Hi Vianney,

        I chanced upon the Edinburgh SSPX parish website recently, I didn’t realise the site was quite new. The page on the history of the parish is interesting.

        Here is the site for interested parties:

        It would be a great idea for the Glasgow Church to have a website too, to increase its prominence, though I don’t know how feasible / affordable such is.

        • Hi Gabriel, I’m glad you found our web site interesting. We are only one of two SSPX chapels in the U.K. to have a web site, the other being the Leicester chapel.

          • A website is definitely a good idea, hopefully other SSPX sites will follow suit. I will look up the Leicester site too, you have pricked my curiosity!

            (Sorry I used the word “parish” before, I know the SSPX do not claim their churches are parishes – as that would be to usurp the authority of the local diocesan structure.)

              • A very good point editor!

                The Archdiocese of Glasgow is (in near future) running an event for Parish Council members (lay and clergy) from across Glasgow to attend.

                (A friend gave me a leaflet for the event, second hand – let me know if you want a scanned copy of it emailed FYI)

                The idea is to confront local decline in the Church and figure out ways to deal with it.

                The document states that mass attendance has decline 51% in the last 25 years. What better testament to the great incompetence of failures like O’Brien, Conti, Devine, Winning etc. And what better display of ++Cushelys naivety, following his recent comment that “the fundamentals are good” in Scotland.

                The document postulates that, in 20 years, the whole of Glasgow will only have 40-odd diocesan priests serving it (I forgot the exact number it states).

                That they are forecasting decline decades into the future shows that the Archbishop is content to simply manage decline and not try to combat it.

                This is where thinking outside the box is needed.

                For example, ++Tartaglia could give faculties to the SSPX in Glasgow, meaning he had another means of providing the sacraments and could demonstrate that he is including traditional in his view of the diocese.

                Or rather than close Churches, he could hand one over to the FSSP / ICKSP or similar, meaning he would then have a diocesan priest or two to redeploy elsewhere.

                Of course, these would just be stop-gap measures until the Church returns to tradition – and, in any case, Bishops do not like to experiment or think creatively, unless it relates direct to the liturgy and ways to make it even more groovy and funky 😉

            • 2 or 3 years ago the Episcopal church (or High English as they hate to be called) near to the Edinburgh chapel got a new minister who came up from England. He started advertising a “Parish Communion” but soon had to change it when it was pointed out to him that only the Catholic Church and the Kirk have parishes and all the rest, Methodists, Piskies etc have congregations. I know that officially the SSPX chapels are not parishes but many who attend do refer to them as such because they never go near their own parishes and regard the SSPX chapel as their parish. Someone pointed out to me that there are actually two different kinds of parish, The diocesan territorial parish and the personal parish which is usually a language parish for the likes of Poles, Italians etc. or a Rite parish such as the Ukrainian Rite or the Syro-Malabar Rite and, in some places, the Tridentine Rite.

  17. I was reading the new Fatima Crusader lately. I’m always interested in what Fr. Malachi Martin revealed about the Third Secret but the more people tell about their conversations with him the longer the secret grows. I don’t see how one could fit all of that into twenty five lines. Maybe some of it is interpretation or speculation? I would think the part about apostasy in the Church would take up quite a bit of those lines.
    What is the best explanation for Our Lady saying that in Portugal the Dogma of Faith would always be preserved? Everyone points to other parts of the Church losing the Faith while Portugal keeps It. Is Portugal presently more faithful than other Countries? Or does this point to a future decision that countries will make?

    • Church attendance in Portugal for Catholics is 30% per week, the same in Spain. The southern parts of these countries are more religious. Both have a couple of thousand seminarians, but don’t ask me for an exact figure. I believe in points to a future decision. Believe you me, once the Pope gets a grip and consecrates Russia then the world will become faithful.

    • It seems to me that everyone has taken those words of Our Lady to Sister Lucia “In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved etc.” as an absolute given that the Faith will always be preserved in that country, come what may. But we simply don’t know the words Our Lady spoke after the word ‘preserved’ other than the ‘etc’ subsequently inserted by Sister Lucia. What if Our Lady was giving a conditional prophecy – i.e. “In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved IF this or that is done . . . ” The fact that the Faith seems to be in crisis in Portugal, the same as everywhere else, seems to suggest something like that.

  18. What is the safest way to regard Garabandal? I am aware this apparition has not been approved, but I have done some research and I strongly feel it is authentic. I was previously sceptical because of what I had read by the the Mariologist D. Folly in an excellent book of his about the Medjugorje phenomena. However, he toes the party line regarding the Consecration and the Third Secret. He has some good insights but he’s not infallible. Could I have some advice?

    • Miles Immaculatae,

      I think 3LittleShepherds have said it all but I would only add this: why on EARTH would anybody want to bother about unapproved apparitions at this horrendous time of crisis in the Church, when the key to ending the crisis in world and Church is Fatima? Why not put all energy into spreading that message, instead of investigating unapproved apparitions? I just do not understand it. No offence intended – I suppose it’s a natural curiosity but my advice is, ignore Garabandal as you avoid Medjugorje. They’re both dodgy. To say the least.

  19. My mother had some early books about Garabandal written while Vatican II was going on. She didn’t follow it other than having the two books. I read them later and I can say that it was reported in one of those books that Our Lady told the girls that the Second Vatican Council would be a success. That and many other things turned me way off. I don’t like having to make excuses for weird stuff in apparitions. Some things I don’t trust about Garabandal are that the apparition told the children to bring unblessed objects for her to kiss, she kissed rocks!, she told the girls to throw holy water in the air instead of on her as someone had told them to do, (supposedly the holy water landed on a girl and converted her, so what) the nonsense about Padre Pio sending a letter to the girls but unfortunately the post mark was blurred! the girls running backwards, the girls saying they could not feel the baby Jesus when He was placed in their arms! All too weird for me. I’ve wondered if perhaps someone involved might have had some knowledge of the Third Secret but I don’t believe Our Lady appeared there. I don’t know why good people, priests believe in it some times. Probably because the message sounds so good. Maybe they thought the devil tried to confuse things. I reject all of it.

  20. Our favourite harpy, Collette Douglas-Home, seems to be promoting Mejugorje in todays Herald (probably because the Church has condemned it).

    I have read my quota of free Herald articles for this period, (!), so I cant read any more than:

    I WAS a sceptic when I went on a pilgrimage to Medjugorje.

    There were a dozen of us. We came from different backgrounds and religious traditions but each was on some sort of spiritual quest. By the end of our week together in Bosnia most, possibly all of us, had experienced something extraordinary.

    If anyone can give more info, Id be morbidly curious to see what nonsense she is talking this week.

    • Gabriel Syme

      Just tried and it’s asking me for a subscription saying I’ve exceeded my quota but it said that weeks ago when I got round to re-signing to read the Herald online. I don’t think I’ve read the allowed quote (4 or 6 articles) so I’m suspicious.

    • This is now an annual event.

      I don’t really see the point of people just standing there to act as targets for abuse.

      Where would such helplessness have got us at Lepanto or Malta?

      I wonder if there is not a more robust and effective way to respond to such behaviour, which would knock it on the head once and for all.

      • ‘I wonder if there is not a more robust and effective way to respond to such behaviour, which would knock it on the head once and for all’.

        I think burning at the stake is illegal.

    • I am truly humbled by the dignity of these young Catholic men in the face of the diabolical evils of the lesbian, gay, femi-nazi and atheist movement. Homosexualists and cohorts are the true enemy of civilised society, and we are reaping the pestiferous rewards of this.

      Where is Tomas De Torquemada when you need him?

  21. I attended the Sung mass for St Andrews day, at the Glasgow Church last Saturday.

    It went very well and the mass was beautifully celebrated. Fair play to the singing contingent – Fr McLaughlin and a male Parishioner. I thought they did very well, especially having had no organ to back them.

    I presume the celebrant was District Superior, Fr Paul Morgan? I was impressed by him (his homily and general demeanour).

    There was perhaps a congregation of ~40 people present in the small church – it struck me as sad to think of the many Catholics who would be passing-by outside in close proximity and who have never experienced such mass, and who are completely ignorant of the fullness and beauty of their faith tradition.

    It would be super to have a sung mass regularly at St Andrews, but I guess it is non-practical with current resources (esp if Fr McLaughlin is required to take on singing duties!).

    • I thought there was a monthly Sung Mass in the Glasgow chapel. In Edinburgh we have a Sung Mass on the first Sunday of the month and we have a very good choir of six who do a really good job.

      • Hi there,

        No, I think the regular sung masses ended in Glasgow a few years back, based on what others have told me.

        I have been going to St Andrews for about a year now; initially as just an occasional visitor, now most weeks. The St Andrews day mass was the 1st sung mass I have encountered there.

        If this recent event represents an effort to reintroduce them, that would be great news.

        In Edinburgh we have a Sung Mass on the first Sunday of the month and we have a very good choir of six who do a really good job.

        Thanks for the info, I will definitely need to visit that mass one day. (I have visited the FSSP in Edinburgh before, but not the SSPX as yet).

  22. Shocking story from down-south. These past few years I have heard many horror stories about forced adoptions in the UK, our secret family courts where victims of child stealing are gagged, and Stalinistic social services who prey on the vulnerable and voiceless (of course, they’re ineffectual in dealing with genuine abuse cases, i.e. Baby P, Victoria Climbie, Daniel Pelka). I also suspect there is an element of discrimination because of her mental heath problems. I hope someone stands up for her and takes them to court.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if they give this baby to homosexuals. I am sure there are going to be law suits and films made about this kind of stuff in thirty years.

    We’ve learned nothing since the Rochdale Satanic abuse cases in the 1990s (where loads of kids were wrongly stolen by hysterical social workers). These same Rochdale social workers did nothing to protect the victims of the Muslim paedophile gangs there.

    Positively Mengelian. Real horror-film stuff.

    • Absolutely chilling.

      And I agree that in a few decades we will have lawsuits and films made about the “devil may care” approach to childcare, sexuality, family matters etc which the Government are currently pursuing.

      • Even the Soviets were courteous enough to wait for the child to be actually born! I thought we had stopped forced surgery on the mentally ill in the 1960s? I’m surprise the social services didn’t go all the way and have her lobotomised.

  23. I’ve always liked this part of a letter St. Therese wrote. It’s a good reminder to pray that we keep the Faith.

    St. Therese wrote, ” If, for example, I were to say: ‘I have acquired such or such a virtue and I can practise it’; or again: ‘My God, Thou knowest I love Thee too much to dwell on one single thought against faith,’ straightway I should be assailed by the most dangerous temptations and should certainly yield. To prevent this misfortune I have but to say humbly and from my heart: ‘My God, I beseech Thee not to let me be unfaithful.’

    “I understand clearly how St. Peter fell. He placed too much reliance on his own ardent nature, instead of leaning solely on the Divine strength. Had he only said: ‘Lord, give me strength to follow Thee unto death!’ the grace would not have been refused him.

    “How is it, Mother, that Our Lord, knowing what was about to happen, did not say to him: ‘Ask of Me the strength to do what is in thy mind?’ I think His purpose was to give us a twofold lesson–first: that He taught His Apostles nothing by His presence which He does not teach us through the inspirations of grace; and secondly: that, having made choice of St. Peter to govern the whole Church, wherein there are many sinners, He wished him to test in himself what man can do without God’s help. This is why Jesus said to him before his fall: ‘Thou being once converted confirm thy brethren’; that is, ‘Tell them the story of thy sin–show them by thy own experience, how necessary it is for salvation to rely solely upon Me.'”

  24. I liked the interview very much. I would say it was one of his best. He reminded Catholics that we must know and love Our Lord first of all. There are those who put the knowledge of the crisis in the Church above the science of love and this is not right. He expressed a desire to help any priest, to help them to find the Mass, the Mass which belongs to them and in It’s offering to save souls and to overcome evil. His analysis of Pope Francis was interesting, and probably the best that can be done given that we don’t know the extent of the devil’s control.
    I thought his thoughts on the consecration of Russia were interesting, too. Our Lord told Sr. Lucia that it’s never too late to have recourse to Jesus and Mary. I would think that He said that because it’s going to be a very dramatic finish.

  25. Paris, le Mercredi 4 décembre 2013
    Commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the Constitution of Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium (4th December 1963).
    There is no room for complacency!
    Let us be clear:
    For more than half a century, the Church Authorities have acted without regard for the sensibility of the faithful who were rightly scandalized and mostly deserted churches, whilst the others most assiduous were precipitated into schism… Now, such authorities are undoubtedly responsible for this situation and will have to be accountable.
    It is sad to see, but after such conduct, the credibility of the Magisterium has been durably undermined and this could lead us to doubt the reliability and even the existence of papal infallibility… It would be very serious, possibly even worse than the antics and tribulations of the past!…
    How can we trust personages who have deceived us for so long?

  26. “Pray for him, he is a a bad pope”
    I would not criticize my Father, I will pray for him what ever he does…

  27. Please remember the late Nelson Mandela in your prayers, and pray for his Holy Soul, and commend him to God. Also remember his family.

  28. “Pray for him, he is a bad pope”
    I would not criticize my Father, I will pray for him whatever he does…

  29. A joyous Feast Day of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary to one and all. May we, on this holy day seek to ask Our Holy Mother for guidance, intercession and purity.

    Here’s my favourite Marian hymn, if you’re interested:

    • In my opinion, these words are synonymous with a shade size…
      I think that heterodoxy includes a general term while a heresy relates to a more precise particular point of doctrine.

  30. Bishop Stephen Robson appointed to Dunkeld. This is good news. He is VERY friendly to the Traditional Mass and has even learnt how to celebrate it himself (and did so in his last parish). He has condemned abortion in the very strongest of terms and is very intelligent. This is a big step in the right direction, especially after the mess Bishop Logan has left behind.

    • JustMeHere,

      I posted the news of Bishop Robson’s appointment on the lead thread this morning, rather less delighted about it than you appear to be. He’s certainly not applying Canon 915 to MPs who vote evil behavioiur into law. Click here to reach the lead thread

      Let’s see if he makes provision for the Dunkeld clergy to learn the TLM and we’ll keep an eye on his attitude to the moral issues. Don’t recall him contradicting the Pope, however, when he said not to “obsess” about abortion etc. And, as I say, we reported on his correspondence with a reader over Canon 915 in a recent newsletter.

      Still, maybe he will change his ways now. We can but pray and hope.

      Since the lead thread is about the salvation of souls, and I chose to post the news there for obvious reasons, I suggest anyone who wishes to comment on the new appointment does so on the lead thread, linked in this comment. Please and thank you 🙂

  31. Does anyone know of a publishing company, besides the Angelus Press, that has Catholic books and gifts for young children? Or an ebayer?
    I used to buy things at a NO store that were pretty good but I moved and there’s not much for children where I now live.
    I also googled around but either the books are vintage and rather expensive or they’re too contemporary and silly.

    • 3LittleShepherds,

      I’ve discovered that if you click on the word “Follow” at the top of the page, then WordPress will automatically email you the title of every new blog post as it goes online. Not every comment of course – just blog posts. That way you won’t miss any topics.

  32. From the SSPX’s US district.

    ” Fr. Rostand outlines the forthcoming Rosary Crusade what the USA District will be doing to promote it – such as the traveling Pilgrim Statue of Our Lady of Fatima to the SSPX’s chapels.

    December 8, 2014

    Dear Faithful,

    We are invited to a new Rosary Crusade from January 1, 2014 to the Feast of Pentecost (June 8, 2014). This is an occasion to revive our devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

    A Rosary Crusade is a spiritual expedition or campaign to obtain special blessings and graces from God. Here are the goals:

    To implore from the Immaculate Heart of Mary a special protection for the traditional apostolate; For the return to Tradition within the Church; For the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the consecration of Russia.

    In addition to saying the rosaries we are invited to special generosity, for example:

    Prayer and penance as asked for at Fatima; Sanctification through the duty of state; A spirit of sacrifice in union with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

    We need an ongoing spirit of Crusade, to renew our spiritual life, to participate in this triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, to obtain from God a blossoming of His Church, to be protected in danger.

    With that in mind, at the end of this Rosary Crusade on the Feast of Pentecost, we will have a statue of Our Lady of Fatima starting a pilgrimage across the District of the United States of America to maintain in us the crusader spirit and call many others to join us.

    This Pilgrim Statue of Our Lady will be taken from chapel to chapel all around the country. On that occasion, a Marian mission in honor of her Immaculate Heart will be held in order to form in our hearts a true and profound devotion to Her.

    Sure of your generous and enthusiastic response to this great cause, I am most happy to bless your efforts for the greater glory of God and of our Beloved Mother.

    In the Immaculate Heart of Mary,

    Fr. Arnaud Rostand

    • Thanks for posting that, 3LittleShepherds – sounds wonderful. There will, undoubtedly be lots of graces flow from this latest Rosary Crusade and the associated events.

    • I saw that on the BBC website during my weekend away.

      A long overdue statement by the Scottish Government, though it is sad that we require to state the obvious in modern Scotland. Especially when the Governments own figures show that over half of Scottish Catholics marry non-Catholics; this is hardly the fruit of an isolationist and bigoted educational system.

      Its strange that official discussions on sectarianism generally revolve around Catholic schools, yet never manage to address the very many obvious examples of specific anti-Catholicism in all sectors of Scottish society, including sport, religion, politics, media and law.

  33. Does anyone know the name and author of an explanation of what will be taught during the time of the anti-christ? I think it was written by a priest and was somewhat well known. It ended with something like, “they will teach that the way to heaven, is the road to hell.”
    I googled and all but can’t find it.

  34. In one of the city centre churches I picked up an order of service for the Requiem Mass of an elderly lady that had taken place a few days ago. The recessional “hymn” was “When you were sweet sixteen.” I kid you not. I’m thinking of having ye cannae shove yer granny of the bus at my funeral.

    • Vianney,

      That’s priceless. “Sweet Sixteen” as a recessional hymn? I’d love to have been a fly on the wall just to see if anyone, anyone at all, looked amazed or tried to suppress a smile at the nonsense of it all.

      As for your choice, love it, but I think I’d choose “Oh the wanderlust is oe-r me…”

      • Editor,

        I’d have thought “I’m no awa tae bide awa, I’ll aye come back and haunt ye” would be your choice, lol.

    • At my funeral my coffin is going to be carried down the aisle by two 6 foot tall men at the back and two 4 foot tall men at the front, dancing to the Laurel and Hardy tune.

  35. Incase anyone is interested:

    I have been informed that Immaculate Heart Of Mary Parish (Barlornock, Glasgow) is providing a sung latin mass (1962 missal) for midnight mass, preceeded by Christmas Carols at 11.30 pm.

    • I love Midnight Mass, it has an atmosphere all of it’s own. We are very blessed that the Edinburgh chapel has Midnight Mass and we have people attending who come from as far away as Brora parish in Sutherland, as well as some of the local Novus Ordo Catholics who come because, unlike the three local chapels, we have Midnight Mass at it’s proper time. if anyone is able to attend you will be very welcome and mulled wine and Christmas munchettes (as Hyacinth Bucket would say) will be served afterwards.

      • I agree Vianney, I love midnight mass too.

        I think the proliferation of the Christmas eve vigil-type masses at 5, 6 or 7pm is very sad. I call these the “get it out the way” masses, and they seem popular so people can still go to the pub / wherever afterwards.

        Some clergy defend this practice by saying the people want these earlier masses and they get a higher attendance. But I feel they should have stuck fast to midnight – better that 50 people turn up for midnight mass because they really want to be there, than 100 people turn up in a glib, unthinking fashion at 7pm (en route to the pub).

        • Yes Gabriel, I agree with you regarding these Vigil Masses. I know of one church in the Edinburgh Archdiocese where the Midnight Mass was replaced by two Vigil Masses at 5p.m and 7p.m. and the reason given was “safety” because too many people were attending the Midnight Mass. Why the couldn’t keep the Midnight Mass and have an earlier Mass for those who wanted it I don’t know. Perhaps the priest was like one I heard about in England who told his parishioners that the reason there would be no Midnight Mass was because he wanted to go to his bed. One of my colleagues told me about a church in one of the housing schemes where there had been no Midnight Mass for a few years. The parish was run by an order and they got a new Superior who wanted to reintroduce the Mass at Midnight. The other priest told him that people wouldn’t turn out at that time. “How many come to the 7 p.m.. Vigil Mass on Christmas Eve” the new priest asked. “About 50-60” was the reply. The Superior decided to go ahead with Mass at Midnight despite the other priests protestations that it would be a disaster and nobody would turn up and when Mass started the church was packed to standing room only.

    • Gabriel Syme,

      I think things are so very bad now in the Church that I’m unwilling to abandon the SSPX chapel for the purpose of attending these occasional Masses by priests who, however good they are personally, are propping up the revolution. All the people who will be present at that Mass, should be at an SSPX Mass. End of. After all, the only reason they have that Mass in Balornock is because of Archbishop Lefebvre.

      And as I’ve already said many times of late, I am increasingly of the view that it’s not possible to have a foot in both camps and that is what too many orthodox priests and laity are trying to do. Running with the hare and hunting with the hounds.

      Sorry if this all sounds harsh and “extreme” – but I’ll be attending Mass in St Andrew’s as usual on Christmas Day, although the thought of meeting Hyacinth Bucket just might encourage me to head for Edinburgh this year!

      • “although the thought of meeting Hyacinth Bucket just might encourage me to head for Edinburgh this year!”

        Editor, “It’s Bouquet,”

          • I saw that news about the names too Editor – in a way its not surprising, given the variety of modern, crackpot / “made-up” names which are so popular among secularists in our post-protestant society.

            One thing which baffles me at times is the popularity of Gaelic names in the central belt, though at least these many be directly related to Christianity or at least Scotland. (My own wife is a fan of these – eg prefers Mairead to Margaret etc).

      • Hi Editor,

        Sorry, I was not encouraging people to “abandon” the SSPX, I was only passing on something I had been told. I thought it an attractive prospect because most people of my generation (including me!) have never had the chance to attend such a midnight mass before.

        (I know ultimately that it is the content of mass and the sacraments which are important, but no-one can deny the special beauty of a sung mass – as we saw at St Andrews Church on St Andrews day).

        Ive always had a special affection for Midnight mass, even in preference to Christmas morning masses.

        I wholeheartedly agree that if it wasn’t for the brave efforts of ++Lefebvre, then no-one would have access to such masses and that all of us owe him the SSPX a great debt. (Just as do many Diocesan Priests, Una Voce etc also owe them too).

        I also agree that one cannot have conflicting loyalties, but I do think isolation / rifts between “traditionalists” are a great weakness, as they allow modernist hierarchs to easily ignore or compartmentalise them. I think people should work together as far as they are able for common goals.

        I think its a good thing that some diocesan priests try to promote tradition – even if (in some cases) its “just the mass”. (Though I must say that I personally have never encountered significantly different stances, between the SSPX, traditional Diocesan priests and the FSSP – although admittedly my experience is limited). I think it is good for Catholics who are ignorant about tradition to be able to experience it, as that starts them thinking about things. (After all, I first learned about tradition from hearing Gregorian chant in – of all places – a Jesuit parish!).

        And I know that we in Glasgow are very lucky to have an SSPX presence here – a presence which we must cherish and support. I now attend St Andrews most Sundays, save when I am unable (e.g. during my recent time away in England).

        You can be assured of my ongoing support for St Andrews! (but surely this does not forbid me from attending the occasional Diocesan or Una Voce event?)

        See you on Sunday!

        • In the days of Fr. Black (SSPX) the Society, in the UK, fostered good relations and exchanges with like minded Diocesan clergy and even Anglo-Catholics of the true variety.

          In Australia, again with Fr. Black, cordial relations existed between SSPX and FSSP clergy.

          Every effort should be made to develop such relationships, although, I admit the Local Bishops might be a stumbling block, who may well act against their priests who participate. But they do in any event.

          • Sixupman,

            I won’t repeat my reply to Gabriel Syme (see below) on the subject of support for groups such as the FSSP, except to add two things: firstly, that as things worsen in the Church, I believe it is imperative to throw our support unequivocally behind the SSPX – the only place where the purity of the Faith is to be found in this time of unprecedented crisis, which brings me to my second point, illustrative of the first,

            The FFPX is certainly popular with Pope Francis and he with them. Click here to read Dowry article in the current edition of the FSSP magazine.

            I rest my case.

            • I think you misunderstand, Madam Editor.

              On the present projectory, we are approaching a crunch situation [FFI as one example and the German situation as yet another] therefore, it seems sensible for SSPX to identify potential friends as a precursor to joint action in the light of the worsening circumstance. Because there are Diocesan clergy as yet without the power of will to confront both the current and escalating mess, leaving them isolated plays into the hands of their Bishops. They need to know there are friends to assist them – come the day!

              • Sixupman,

                From what I can see, none of the priests in Scotland who offer the TLM under SP are in any danger whatsoever. They all get on famously with the hierarchy.

                And, in any case, I’m here to assist whoever needs my assistance. I just can’t attend their Masses – at least not on Sundays and Holydays – because I act as chauffeur to a thirty-something young mother of four who will not risk any contamination of her children at all. End of. She’s accompanied me to a weekday Mass on one occasion in a diocesan parish, but is very conscious of her duty to protect her children from all and every bad influence, and anything that may endanger their Faith.

                Try arguing with a mother protecting her offspring. I’ve no intention of trying!

        • Gabriel Syme,

          I was not meaning to “get at you” personally, and in normal circumstances I would agree – I have often attended (and still would if I could make it) some of the Masses in Balornock.

          Also, Bishop Fellay said we were to support those priests who wanted to learn the old rite after the publication of Summorum Pontificum. I quoted that immediately on our blog and encouraged all and sundry to do so. I was delighted to read that exhortation at the time.

          However, I believe things are different now- much worse – and anyway it’s not attending the old rite Mass that makes someone a “traditional” Catholic. There really is only one kind of Catholic – “traditional” – and that’s those who adhere to the entirety of Catholic Tradition, not only the Mass. Those who think nothing of exposing themselves and their children to the poison of Modernism which is now endemic in parishes throughout Scotland, through the newspapers on sale, the ecumenical activities advertised in bulletins and so on, are no more “traditionalist” than Hans Kung.

          You refer to your own coming to the Mass via Gregorian chant in a Jesuit Church – but that’s different: that’s at the early, beginning stage. I’m not “damning” every NO Catholic – my comments are directed at those who are informed but who, for whatever reason, choose to take the easy route of staying “within the walls” – unlike St Athanasius who said “they have the buildings, we have the Faith.” I’m with St Athanasius!

          I’m sure the midnight Mass/carols will be beautiful in Balornock, but I guess you’ll still see the chatterboxes in the pews beforehand (Father has done his best to end that, with SILENCE notices all round the Church, but I’m told that they get ignored) and you’ll still be facing a modern altar in front of the main altar. You’ll still be part and parcel of the revolution.

          Having said all that, it’s not a mortal sin to support these Masses, whether FSSP or diocesan. Having just read Fr de Mallery’s article in Dowry, however, I wouldn’t label him “traditional” at all (I meant to post the link to that and will do later) but there you have it: I’m an extremist – as if you didn’t already know!

          Wherever you attend Christmas Mass, Gabriel Syme, I hope you have a wonderful Christmas – God bless!

          • I didn’t take it as a personal criticism Editor, no worries, I just wanted to explain my thinking on the matter.

            I do understand what you mean in the points you make and I would agree that there are likely many people who do take the easy-option while letting the SSPX bear the brunt of the slings and arrows in the fight for the faith.

            It is a very good point you make about the subtle, poisonous things which people – perhaps especially the young – can be influenced by in a Diocesan parish: the newspapers which are not fit for use even as toilet roll, the nonsense of ecumenism as well as protestant opinions and practices.

            This is something I shall certainly bear in mind, especially in the coming times when my wife and I will be trying to start a family. But then as said I would naturally see St Andrews as my family parish and cant think of a better place for a family to attend Sunday mass. (except maybe somewhere with free, on-site parking – haha!).

            St Andrews has been a revelation for me – and I owe you a large debt for first encouraging me to visit and for being so welcoming (and patient!).

            Have a great Christmas too, and a happy new year* when it comes!

            (*did you know that Hogmany became popular in Scotland only after the Church of Scotland banned Christmas, on the grounds that celebrating the birth of Christ is unbiblical – haha, you couldn’t make it up eh?).

  36. A Federal Judge has just struck down Utah’s ban on same sex sodomite marriage. I bet the Latter Day Saints have gone mad. How is it that a decision voted in democratically by the good people of Utah is suppressed by an unelected judge, who has no democratic legitimacy? Same sex marriage and it’s supporters are evil, and I look forward to the day when God punishes them in the harshest way imaginable.

    • Gabriel,

      I think I’ll post a separate thread on this – had an email yesterday from a man in England who still insists that the SSPX is “outside the Church” – so hold fire, folks, as it’s easier to follow ideas if we keep the comments together on one thread (not entirely possible, I know, but worth a try.)

      • See “Rorate” report: ++Mueller states SSPX “de facto in schism”, but who cares? Germany, Aistria, et al, are all in “de facto” schism, but for contradicting The Faith, unlike SSPX who preach and administer |The Faith. The lunatics have taken over the Curia, if not the asylum.

        • I’ve now posted a thread on Archbishop Muller’s nonsense here, although, as you say, “who cares”. Still, it’s good to keep a record of the sheer hypocrisy and ignorance.

    • Gabriel Syme,

      I like the way they throw Pope Francis’s words back at him – that’s great. But the next stage for this Order has to be on another level, such as seeking refuge under the auspices of the SSPX – the only place in the Church at the present time, where they will find peace.

      • Perhaps we could all say a few prayers over Christmas for this order that they will put themselves under the umbrella of the SSPX.

  37. As the Editor will tell you, I’m not one to judge people……………where’s that hysterical laughter coming from? But I did get a lesson yesterday in not jumping to conclusions. Our chapel in Edinburgh is on a busy street and we get a lot of “passing trade” in all kinds of people. Not only visiting Traditionalists, Novus Ordo Catholics, and non Catholics of different persuasions. We have even had the odd, some might say very odd, Editor, but yesterday we had four Muslim girls. They arrived about an hour before Mass and, although three of them had woolen hats on one did have a head square tied the “Muslim way.” but I thought that they might be Eastern Europeans. One of them asked if it would be alright if they attended Mass and I said yes.Later on someone came up to and said that there were four girls praying in the porch ( we have a very large porch) and she added that she thought they they were Muslims because they we bowing down and turning looking right and then left. When they came back in they did confirm they were Muslims. They were very respectful at Mass and followed in a Mass book. But then I started to have bad thoughts. “Perhaps they were suicide bombers.” I thought that perhaps they were seeking revenge for the conviction of the killers of the soldier in England. They all had back packs with them and I have to confess I started watching them like a hawk, and on one occasion they whispered something and one of them bent down to her bag and started fiddling with it. “This is it” I thought to myself, but then she stopped and continued reading her Mass book. After Mass they all disappeared and I felt very ashamed at judging people like that. Of course the majority of Muslims are not terrorists and I know that many are good people, like the one who runs the local stationary shop and takes ridiculously low prices from me when I go for photocopies because “it’s for the church.” Why those girls were at Mass I don’t know. Perhaps the Holy Ghost is working on them, perhaps He was working on me to teach me not to judge but it has taught me not to tar everyone with the same brush. A happy and Holy Christmas to everyone.

    • Vianney,

      Maybe they were about to do the awful deed when one of them whispered “maybe the editor of CT is here, and we don’t want to appear as a cartoon in the next edition” 🙂

    • If those four wee Muslim lassies come the Church again and inform you or the Reverend Fathers that they desire to convert, then you will have to protect them because if they ‘apostasise’ they will be on the list for an honour killing. Or alternatively they are sizing your Church up to convert it to a Mosque? Is your Church booming or is it declining? If it’s the latter watch out, or else. Keep your beadies on them.

      • Our church is booming and I don’t think they were “casing the joint.” Perhaps they were looking for a mosque and couldn’t find one, the mystery remains.

  38. Here is some interesting news:

    “Many of those who were enthusiastic about Francis, will have their jubilation stuck in their throats”.

    – Monsignor Georg Gänswein

    And also:

    Gänswein’s opinion, together with statements by Cardinal Kurt Koch, at any rate, is a signal that a resistance is being organized in the German speaking countries against the rebel faction.

    Finally, the Pope has summoned none other than the chairman of the German Bishops’ Conference, Archbishop Robert Zollitsch

    About female deacons:

    Gänswein – “I hardly think the Pope the Pope will be compelled in his pontificate by certain German initiatives”

    And on possible changes to admission to the sacraments:

    “In what has now become a customary opposition between teaching and pastoral today” can not be the way of the Church, as such a contrast contradicts the very essence of being Church. “New Pastoral was are only to be found in the light of the truth of the doctrine,”

    – Cardinal Kurt Koch

  39. I think this is a very interesting assessment of Pope Francis’s effect on the Church.

    The only comment is from someone who says “just don’t visit the traddy blogs”. Since there’s a mention in the article of how few “faithful Catholics” there are (it says they are “an endangered species”) this seems to be admitting that the only “faithful” Catholics are “traddies”.

  40. Editor,
    If someone asks about your religion, do you tell them that you’re a Catholic or a Traditional Catholic? I think the Traditional label seems kind of useful but I was taught while I was growing up not to use it. We were just “Catholic”.

    • 3LittleShepherds,

      Absolutely correct. I say that I’m a Catholic but add that since there is a crisis in the Church these days where people pick and choose what to believe, I’m “one of those old fuddy duddies who believes it all!” I then say that the label pinned to folk like me is “traditional” but since it’s not possible to be a Catholic and NOT be “traditional” I’m OK with that.

      It’s quite a mouthful but it’s my way round “normalising” the creation of various “wings” of the Church and different “types” of Catholic.

      Who’s a clever girl then 🙂

  41. Exactly Ed, I just tell people that I’m a Catholic, but one who believes ‘the whole hog’, not one of these weak minded ‘cafeteria catholics’ who might go to Mass, but supports gay marriage, women Priests or abortions. These are non-Catholics.

    ‘When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand.

    [16] Then they that are in Judea, let them flee to the mountains.’

    Do you believe this prophesy by Christ in Matthew 24:15-16 is a prophesy directed at the grave departure from the sacrifice of the Mass, lack of belief in the Real Presence and widespread heresy in the Church? Also I would interpret the those with the full faith (SSPX) fleeing to the mountains in Switzerland? Would you look at it that way?

    • Crofterlady,

      That’s a very interesting article. I found a few things to question in it, but I’m selecting just this one bit where it says:

      “Not every challenge to accepted theology is heretical. There are many partial non-identifications that endanger faith and unity but do not rise to the level of schism. Nor does every act of disobedience to human laws in the Church imply schism.”

      Talking about lapsed Catholics, which is what the article is really doing, this seems to me to be making a sort of excuse, that if people lapse because they question things somehow that’s not very serious or has to be taken into account when trying to get them back. Maybe I’ve got it wrong, but I think we’re supposed to accept things, even injustices, without complaining too much so to lapse because of something you don’t agree with should not be excused by a priest like this author. As I say, maybe I’ve not understood it properly but I got the feeling that the priest who wrote the article was looking to excuse lapsation instead of trying to get at the consciences of the lapsed. They’re in the wrong no matter what way you look at it. They have a duty to attend Mass and receive the Sacraments. There’s o excuse not to do so just because they might disagree with something.

  42. Editor
    I looked up the article that you wrote about on the rosary crusade post. I’ve read that many times. I do believe definitely that Our Lady explained the vision and that Sr. Lucia wrote down her words. I believe Pope John read it.
    After this all the evidence is circumstantial and I don’t think the writer proved anything.
    The single most imprudent act regarding the actual protection of the Third Secret was in 1958 when a journalist was allowed to take a photograph of the safe in the Papal apartments and a Mother Pasqualina told him the Third Secret was inside the safe! I know the photo was published in Paris-Match at the time but did he also write that it contained the Third Secret? If he did this really compromised it’s safety! This would have been after Pius XII died but before a new Pope was elected.

    • 3LittleShepherds,

      If they had not read the Third Secret, then all Cardinals Ratzinger, Sodano and Bertone had to say at the press conference in 2000 was that they hadn’t seen it, it wasn’t really that important, had been over-hyped and had not been kept because it was really not that important. Instead, they issued a copy of part of the Secret pretending that was the whole thing.

      Until you questioned it, I had never heard or read anything raising the issue. It seems to be very well established that all the popes have read it, and that it was kept in a safe in the papal office, or perhaps the papal bedroom – can’t remember which. I really don’t have the time to search it out right now but I think the journalist who wrote “The Fourth Secret” describes a conversation in which the location of the Third Secret is said to be that safe.

      I think it’s one of those things that is “obvious” – if you see what I mean. We don’t always specify the obvious. So, until Pope Francis chose to live elsewhere, nobody would have thought of saying “how do we know the pope is living in the papal apartment in the Vatican?”

      If the main players had not seen the Third Secret, for whatever reason, there’s their ready-made, concrete, excuse for not publishing it.

      In my humbug opinion 🙂

      • I think they probably read it and have it. I’m just saying that there’s a possibility that they don’t have the paper itself. Cardinal Bertone came in rather late. (Cardinal Villot was even Camerlengo twice.) Who had the key to the safe anyway? As a matter of fact why would Pope Paul VI want to keep it in the papal apartments? He liked to be reminded everyday?
        Unless God prevented anyone from taking it or whatever I would think that would be their first move. If it went missing the players still had the vision to read and would have said that they read the third secret. Various persons read Our Lady’s words during Pope John XXIII’s pontificate, that’s a given. But did Pope John Paul have that paper to read? I don’t know. All that’s for sure is that he had the vision. Now all the old Cardinals who spoke about having read the secret really could only be talking about Our Lady’s spoken words which were about apostasy, so they said. Fr. Malachi Martin complicates things although he’s very intriguing. According to his friends he said the apostasy forms the background for the Secret. That sounds kind of odd.

  43. On the subject of not being given the whole truth, could the Church have had a point in the Galileo controversy?

    Essential to the modern world view is the Sun-centered (Heliocentric) solar system in which the Earth and other planets revolve around a stationary Sun. To explain why planets have night and day, modern astronomers say that the planets also rotate, as in the case of the Earth, once every 24 hours on its axis.

    According to the video below it is possible to demonstrate, using inter-continental flight times, that the the Earth cannot possibly be rotating on its axis. Not once every 24 hours. Not at all. If the Earth does not rotate, a substantial hole is knocked out of the Sun-centered solar system theory, in favour of the Traditional, Earth-centered (Geocentric) solar system once held by the Church.

    The video is a bit fast-paced, for me, but here’s my take on it.

    If the Earth rotates once on its axis every 24 hours, because it’s circumference at the equator is 25,000 miles, it must be rotating at a speed of 1070 miles per hour. And because the east gets the sun first, the Earth must be rotating from west to east.

    Flight times between London and New York average 7.5 hours each way, depending on headwinds. The same in both directions. But this is impossible if the Earth is rotating.

    According to modern theory, a plane travelling at 550 miles per hour westwards towards New York is flying over a rotating Earth that is bringing New York closer to the plane at a speed of 1070 miles per hour. Therefore the planes actual speed is 550+1070 mph = 1620 mph. Which means that the plane should cover the 3,460 miles between London and New York in around 2 hours, not 7.5.

    What’s even more startling is that a plane trying to fly across the Atlantic from New York to London would never get there. The plane would only be travelling eastwards at 550 mph. How would it catch up with London that is being rotated eastwards by the Earth at a speed of 1070 mph? To get to London from New York, the plane would have to fly east, not west.

    Might the Church have been right, and Galileo wrong?

      • Don,

        Gravity, as I understand it, does not depend on the Earth’s rotation. Instead it is explained as the ‘pull’ that large bodies in space exert over smaller bodies.

    • Awkward Customer

      I’m with St Augustine when he said: “We do not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: I send you the Paraclete to teach you how the sun and the moon go. He wished to make Christians, not mathematicians.”

      In support of heliocentrism, I’d guess that observing planetary movements with a telescope shows that moons orbit their planets and that the other planets orbit the sun, rather than all planetary bodies orbiting the earth, as the geocentrists claim. The space programme is predicated on heliocentrism and it works….which it wouldn’t do if the planets and the sun orbited Earth.

      There was an amusing letter sent to The Remnant by Griff Ruby on the subject:-


      Editor, The Remnant:

      I am astonished, horrified, and utterly shocked that valuable column space on the pages of the Remnant has been squandered on debating questions which have so long been utterly settled that asking them again (let alone pronouncing nonsense in sheer perverse defiance of the verifiable facts) is gravely irrational, to say the best, and positively scandalous (as in the sin of scandal) at the worst.

      It is certainly a good and reparational thing that some couple of more sensible voices have also been allowed to weigh in on this (Mario Derksen, Adam Kolasinski), But the initial publishing of Hertz’s original article which started this (and that, without at least some editorial distance!) was uncalled for and unnecessary, to say nothing of being gravely embarrasing to the whole traditionalist cause.

      (I can’t believe I am even having to debate this, but…) I have worked for over 16 years on the computer systems (radar, telemetry) which are used in tracking the missiles we fire out of Vandenberg Air Force Base here in California. Allow me to introduce you to a number which has significant relevance on many of the calculations that run on the missiles, and on those tracking computers, and therefore is used in the software running on them: 7.292115147X10-5

      What is this number? It is the rotation rate of the earth in radians per second. (For the ease of those who don’t know, multiply that by 180 and divide by 3.1416… to get it in degrees per second, which is about 4.178074X10-3, and which in turn amounts to 360.9856 degrees per day (multiply the 4.178074X10-3 by 86400 seconds in a day).

      For one thing, notice that the rate is non-zero If we use zero instead of that number and attempt to compute the course of the rocket, the range might be obligated to destroy a missile which is perfectly on course, or even worse, might fail to detect that a missile which is off course and on its way to landing on someone, so as to destroy it when necessary. Even a very small error could threaten people’s lives.

      For another thing, notice the remaining “.9856” degrees. It is just slightly less than one degree in excess of a complete circle. That excess represents the motion of the earth around the sun in a single day, such that the earth must turn that amount more than a circle in order to reach the same exact time of day.

      Divide the 360 degrees of a circle by the 365.2425 days in a true solar year (calendar years handle the “.2425” by inserting a “February 29” every fourth year, except three out of four century years), and that gets our “.9856” degrees. Voila!

      Continued at

      • Don K White,

        “The space programme is predicated on heliocentrism and it works….which it wouldn’t do if the planets and the sun orbited Earth.”

        False. See the diagram in this video at 28:58 (the whole video is worth watching, and Dr Robert Sungenis is a Traditional Catholic).

        We have been profoundly conditioned to take the the Copernican system for granted. Even after I had come to accept the so called “young earth creationist” position, I was aware there were Catholic geocentrists, like Sungenis and Salza, and I thought it was ludicrous. Insane even.

        When I actually looked into the matter I was shocked. I thought for a moment, in fact a long moment, that I was going insane, but actually science proves it. Think about the implications if it were proven that the Earth were the centre of the universe. It would be turn our society on its head. Here is a good video:

      • Don again,

        You seem to want to close down this discussion altogether. Your quote from Augustine, (reference?) flies in the face of all the claims by the Church for her contribution to the sciences over the centuries.

        You ‘guess’ that observations from telescopes can verify that the planets, including the Earth orbit the Sun. Can these movements actually be verified using telescopes? You do not answer this question.

        And there’s nothing like ‘blinding with science’ in order to silence opponents. Your figures are very interesting, but don’t address the point I am making, which is this in a nutshell.

        The Earth revolves from west to east at a speed of 1070 miles per hour.

        Passenger aircraft fly at speeds of around 550 miles per hour.

        Therefore, an aircraft flying west to east from New York to London would have a hard time arriving.

        Because the Earth, as it revolves, would always be taking London further away from the aircraft at a speed that is greater than that at which the aircraft is flying.

        If you can address this question in its own terms, I would be very grateful. Please refute it if you can.

        • Awkward Customer

          As St Augustine made the comment at the time of the Gallileo controversy, I’m not sure what objections you have to it.

          The heliocentric/geocentric debate was settled a long time ago, and the Church has accepted heliocentrism for several centuries now, as has 99.99% of the world’s population.

          The present tendency for trads to loudly proclaim various conspiracy/revisionist theories as de fide has nothing to do with our practise of the Catholic faith and serves only to make traditional Catholics look like nutters.

          Still more when said trads have neither the education nor the ability to debate/discuss without personalising the subjects at hand, in my humble opinion.

          • Don K White,

            It’s a pity all of this stuff about science is not on the Global Warming thread: just like the thing – I think Awkward Customer’s question on here was posted before the sunbathing polar bear thread 🙂 but, what the heck.

            As I said on the Global Warming thread, there’s not a postage stamp in the world small enough to contain the totality of my knowledge about science, and since I’m not free to catch up on background reading right now, I can’t really comment on this subject either except to say that I did have a good old laugh at the Awkward Customer’s assertion that, “…Therefore, an aircraft flying west to east from New York to London would have a hard time arriving.”

            I do agree with your final sentence about the importance of cultivating an ability to discuss without making personal remarks, although I’d prefer us not to be described as “trads” if you don’t mind. Most of the people – in my experience – who describe themselves as “traditionalists” are nothing more than traditional Mass-attending Catholics. Since all Catholics MUST accept the entirety of traditional Catholicism, it stands to reason that those who do not are dissenting Catholics at some level, so it is that which needs to be highlighted (and the consequences of such dissent – something we had hoped to explore on Leprechaun’s aborted thread) not the “traditional” Catholics. It cuts out the danger of developing a superiority complex, once known as spiritual pride, if we avoid giving ourselves titles, in my humble opinion.

            Love your avatar. One of my all time favourite bloggers (now ex-blogger) had the same avatar. I think of her from time to time, always with affection and regret at our parting of the ways – she thought I was too tolerant of a pesky atheist at one point – so thanks for choosing that avatar. Brings back lots of fond memories. 🙂

              • Crofterlady,

                Yes, that’s right. Unfortunately, there was some bad feeling at the end due to my (admitted) laxity with an atheist who was determined to remain an atheist.

                Anyway, water under the bridge. Let sleeping dogs lie. Whatever. Don is very welcome and is giving Awkward Customer a run for her money who is giving Don a run for his/her money as well !

                On that topic – do you have a clue about how the earth works? In other words, how on EARTH does the earth work? 🙂

            • Editor,

              I have never posted this question before since, as I stated in my first post, I have only just heard it asked. Perhaps you were joking. Sometimes I can’t tell.

              This question matters. It is of crucial importance in fact, because the modern world view depends upon it. The traditional, Earth-centered (Geocentric) solar system describes the Sun, the Moon and the planets revolving around a stationary Earth. Not only is a stationary Earth the version recorded in scripture, but it suggests that the Earth, being the significant central point of a spherical solar system was put there by design, ie, God.

              But according to the modern, Sun-centered (Heliocentric) model, the Earth is just another planet revolving around just another Sun in a universe which is the result of materialistic, evolutionary forces, a universe without God.

              In order to explain the seasons, the moderns claim that the Earth revolves around the Sun and takes a full year to make journey. In order to explain day and night. they claim that the Earth rotates on its axis once every 24 hours.

              If the Earth’s rotation is undermined, and the international flight times question does this, then the whole modern model falls apart.

              • Awkward Customer,

                I said you probably posted your question “before I posted the Global Warming thread” – NOT “before” as in previously.

                I only meant that it would have been good to have had all the science stuff in one thread, as the General Discussion thread gets filled up so quickly.

                And yes, you are right – it is an important question. I know that others raise the same question. I’m not knowledgeable enough about the subject to challenge the received wisdom but what you are saying makes a lot of sense.

                • Editor,

                  Oh…okay. Sorry. I misunderstood. I actually did see the Global Warming thread and wondered about posting the question there. I also thought about emailing you to ask if you would create a thread on this topic.

                  If I could find the quote by Edward(?) Hubble in which he claimed that the mathematics of the geocentric solar system are as valid as the mathematics for the heliocentric solar system, but that the philosophical implications of the geocentric are unacceptable, would you consider this. That’s not a bribe, more an incentive.

                  • True. The Maths and the findings of contemporary Physics and Cosmology are not opposed to geocentrism per se. It is rejected because nearly everybody presupposes heliocentrism. However, if Sacred Scripture presupposes geocentrism which St Robert Bellarmine believed (indeed there are about 24 passages which support this) then this is the position we should be at least open to accepting.

                  • Awkward Customer,

                    Yes, of course – anyone who wants me to post a particular topic, is welcome to email it to me on

                    I prefer if those doing so would write a paragraph or something (not too long – I’m told by those in the know that blog articles are supposed to be short (to avoid leaving nothing to discuss!) and send me perhaps one link but no more, unless really necessary. Remember, additional links can be added in the comments section later. Ideally, I’d like to just copy, paste and publish it. Well I never denied being a lazy so & so…

                    Always, bloggers should make clear their angle and really spell out the purpose of the thread, so that we don’t have critics coming on to say this or that isn’t suitable for a Catholic blog. Education in the Faith is about seeing and understanding the world as a Catholic so a numpty like me who knows zilch about science, would love to know the key (hopefully none too scientifically technical) arguments for and against any controversial theory, and, most especially, it’s relationship to Scripture. The Church doesn’t “teach” about science, of course, but it is useful to know if there are any serious theological/scriptural reasons why a particular scientific theory might appear to contradict Catholic doctrine etc.

                    All of that said – feel free to email your material.

                    Catholic Convert is also submitting an article but there’s no reason why both can’t be posted. I’ve often posted more than one thread at a time.

                    • Awkward Customer,

                      Michael Voris has an interview on this very subject, just out, based on a documentary soon to be released, so I think I’ll post it as the lead in a new thread (has to be a bit later) and you can take it from there. You’re still welcome to email me anything but if I don’t hear from you by the time I’m ready to get to work, I’ll just post Voris’s interview.

                    • Editor,

                      There’s no room to reply to your post below re Michael Voris and his interview on the forthcoming documentary. Assuming that this is the Dr Robert Sungenis film ‘The Principle’ – see link above by Miles Immaculate – then I would suggest opening a thread on this important event and letting the discussion take off from there.

              • There are a large number of excellent arguments for geocentricism, but the aeroplane flight isn’t one of them. If the earth rotates on an axis then clouds, the atmosphere aeroplanes etc. move with the earth because of gravity!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                • Miles Immaculate,

                  I’m sure I read that argument posted somewhere. Are you saying that the Earth’s gravity pulls airplanes, clouds, flocks of birds eastwards with it as it turns. Does that mean that a flock of birds flying west has to work against this gravitational pull, but can work with it flying east? And are they being pulled east as they fly north and south?

                  What am I missing?

                  • The earth rotating eastwards does not give anything on earth relative propulsion. The earth and every other mass on earth move eastwards at the same velocity. Therefore, relatively speaking, it is as if the earth wasn’t moving eastwards at all. Everything is cancelled out. So if a helicopter hovered in a fixed position in the sky, after 12 hours it would not find itself on the other side of the earth. Assuming the wind had not blown it of course, the helicopter would be above the same exact spot on the ground, i.e. the earth does not move beneath it. Similarly, considering that in the heliocentric model the equator is moving at 1700 km/h, if the atmosphere din’t rotate eastwards as well, then there would be 1700 km/h winds!

                    I am sure you did read it somewhere, but it’s mistaken.

                    • Miles Immaculate

                      Fair enough. I understand what you’re saying, in principle at least, but can’t quite grasp it.

                      The Earth’s atmosphere, and airplanes flying through it, are not physically attached to the Earth, but are being pulled by the Earth as it rotates. That’s according to the heliocentric model. This must mean that there is a gravitational force acting on them which they would have to resist in order to move against the Earth’s rotation.

                      Maybe I need to think about this some more. Meanwhile, Editor is planning to open a thread on the Michael Voris interview about – I assume – the Dr Robert Sungenis documentary ‘The Principle’.

                      Should be fun. And thank you for taking the trouble to explain this, even if I am being a bit thick about it.

                  • AwkwardCustomer,

                    “The Earth’s atmosphere, and airplanes flying through it, are not physically attached to the Earth, but are being pulled by the Earth as it rotates. That’s according to the heliocentric model. This must mean that there is a gravitational force acting on them which they would have to resist in order to move against the Earth’s rotation.”

                    No, Not quite.

                    The gravitational pull is towards the centre of the earth, not eastwards.

          • Don K White

            “St Augustine made the comment at the time of the Galileo controversy.” you say.

            Goodness me. Which St Augustine are you referring to? Must be someone I haven’t heard of, since both St Augustine of Hippo and St Augustine of Canterbury died long before Galileo was born.

            But back to the question I originally asked regarding the puzzle over international flight times and how an aircraft travelling east at 550 miles per hour could ever catch up with a city being carried east at 1070 miles per hour by a rotating Earth.

            This is a question you still haven’t answered.

            Instead you have made digs at ‘Trads’.

            Is this because you can’t answer the question?

            • Don K. White probably meant, ” As St. Robert Bellarmine said at the time, quoting St. Augustine…..” hehe 🙂

              • 3LittleShepherds,

                You’re probably right.

                One day I’ll find out how to use those smiley-things.

                • Awkward Customer,

                  Took me ages to learn to make the smiley faces and it’s so easy: With your finger on the shift key, you type a colon : then take finger off the shift key and type the dash – Then press shift key again and type the right hand parenthesis ) (which is above the 0 – not the other one)

                  Voila 🙂

                • WordPress does it automatically when you type a colon and parentheses for a smile or frown. Don’t tell anyone though or everyone will be doing it!

                    • If you would like to use the light bulb when you have a brilliant thought you just type a colon then the word idea then another colon. Like : idea : but no spaces. I like it.

                    • Try these other wordpress smileys, but no spaces between colons and words.
                      : roll : is 🙄
                      : shock : is 😯
                      : wink : is 😉
                      : cry : is 😥
                      : arrow : is ➡
                      : oops : is 😳
                      : lol : is 😆
                      : grin : is 😀

                      😀 (editor testing!)

                      Brilliant – it works! Thanks, 3LittleShepherds!

  44. I realise I’ve missed the boat completely on the “’Mainstream’ Catholics” thread, but I feel obliged to offer my thanks here, late as it is, to both Leprechaun and Editor. I agree with both of you absolutely, 100% on the need for such a discussion. I also understand completely, Editor, why you decided to close the thread early.

    I’ve only been able to skim the blog over the last few evenings, and am amongst those guilty of not making any contributions. In fact, when I first saw the thread, I was fully expecting to see a lot of worthwhile contributions. Surely the subject is right at the heart of the issues that come up repeatedly on this blog.

    I have to say, Leprechaun, that your comments at the top of the thread were absolutely on the mark, a really excellent, concise summation of the devastating crisis that has endangered countless millions of souls over three generations. The examples of Modernist Mind Rot leading souls astray are almost limitless. I can very safely say that there is barely a Catholic family in Ireland that has not been ravaged by the apostasy brought about by the open Revolution and inebriated madness of the last five decades. It’s surely the same elsewhere.

    Anyway, I hope, Leprechaun I that the point you were making stimulates peoples’ brains a bit, and is taken up again many times in future discussions. It certainly deserves to be. Thank you, again.

    I noticed, Editor, that you were credited with at least two supporters on the thread. Well, better increase that number by another one. I wouldn’t blame you if the thought “I wonder why I bother” occasionally crossed your mind. All I’ll say is that, if it does, forget it immediately. Many of us here and elsewhere have reason to be very grateful indeed for all your steadfast, good humoured and highly informative work on this blog, as well as the Newsletter. It’s a pity that gratitude isn’t expressed a bit more often. God bless your fortitude.

    As for the subject of ignorance and the very real danger it poses to souls, I think, Leprechaun and Editor, that the following words vindicate the point you were trying to get across far, far better than anything I can say. I think, in fact, that they completely close down any grounds for disagreement on the matter.

    I’ll leave everyone with the words of Pope Saint Pius X. Yet one more example of that magnificent pastor’s prescient, prophetic, and ever relevant magisterium. They are taken from the first few paragraphs his short 1905 encyclical,Acerbo nimis. It was a bit of problem, in fact, trying to decide what not to quote from these paragraphs here. And let’s remember, the issue that was under discussion on the thread: ignorance. Does anybody care to argue that these words should not be given very grave consideration in every episcopal office throughout the world, starting with Saint Peter’s itself? Does anybody care to contend that they offer very clear teaching on the subject offered for discussion on this blog? Does anybody consider these words “dangerous”?

    “But it seems to Vs, Venerable Brethren, that while we should not overlook other considerations, We are forced to agree with those who hold that the chief cause of the present indifference and, as it were, infirmity of soul, and the serious evils that result from it, is to be found above all in ignorance of things divine..”

    “It is a common complaint, unfortunately too well founded, that there are large numbers of Christians in our own time who are entirely ignorant of those truths necessary for salvation. … We refer to those especially who do not lack culture or talents and, indeed, are possessed of abundant knowledge regarding things of the world but live rashly and imprudently with regard to religion. It is hard to find words to describe how profound is the darkness in which they are engulfed and, what is most deplorable of all, how tranquilly they repose there… Grace, the greatest of the helps for attaining eternal things, the Holy Sacrifice and the Sacraments by which we obtain grace, are entirely unknown to them. .. And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: “We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.”

    “. … We do maintain that the will cannot be upright nor the conduct good when the mind is shrouded in the darkness of crass ignorance. A man who walks with open eyes may, indeed, turn aside from the right path, but a blind man is in much more imminent danger of wandering away. Furthermore, there is always some hope for a reform of perverse conduct so long as the light of faith is not entirely extinguished; but if lack of faith is added to depraved morality because of ignorance, the evil hardly admits of remedy, and the road to ruin lies open.”

    “How many and how grave are the consequences of ignorance in matters of religion! And on the other hand, how necessary and how beneficial is religious instruction! It is indeed vain to expect a fulfillment of the duties of a Christian by one who does not even know them.”

    “We must now consider upon whom rests the obligation to dissipate this most pernicious ignorance and to impart in its stead the knowledge that is wholly indispensable. There can be no doubt, Venerable Brethren, that this most important duty rests upon all who are pastors of souls. … the first duty of all those who are entrusted in any way with the government of the Church is to instruct the faithful in the things of God.”

    Here’s the link to the encyclical:

    • Leo,

      I thought I saw a knight in shining armour riding in on a lovely big horse, as I opened up my computer this morning ! Thank you for rescuing this damsel in distress 🙂

      I will post a note on the closed thread to redirect readers to your comment, as it is a fitting end to the (attempted) discussion of Leprechaun’s article.

      Thank you very much indeed for your thoughtful comment – I’m really pleased that you “got it” right away – as the highly pertinent quote from Pope Pius X confirms.

      God bless.

        • 3LittleShepherds,

          Me, too. I wish people wouldn’t spoil things like that. Why they can’t make points about the topic or just say nothing, I can’t understand.

          • I repeat once again:
            November 2, 2013 at 3:42 pm
            Let us be clear!
            For more than half a century, the Church Authorities have acted without regard for the sensibility of the faithful who were rightly scandalized and mostly deserted churches, whilst the others most assiduous were precipitated into schism… Now, such authorities are undoubtedly responsible for this situation and will have to be accountable.
            It is sad to see, but after such conduct, the credibility of the Magisterium has been durably undermined and this could lead us to doubt the reliability and even the existence of papal infallibility… It would be very serious, possibly even worse than the antics and tribulations of the past!…
            How can we trust personages who have deceived us for so long?

      • Editor

        You might have heard the one when in days of old, and knights were bold, the Queen turned to her knight and said: ‘What have you been doing today?’ The knight said: ‘I have been robbing and pillaging on your behalf, burning the villages of your enemies in the north.’

        The Queen said: ‘But I don’t have any enemies in the north.’ The knight said: ‘I’m afraid you do now.’

    • Leo,

      You never disappoint ! I agree with every single word and what a quote from Saint Pius X. Thank you from you biggest fan !

      • Margaret Mary,

        You’re way, way too kind. Can’t go wrong with a bit of cutting and pasting, given magnificent material.

        Anyway, Catholic Truth is a great little army to be part of, and always will be.

    • This is a very old French Royal hymn

      In front of the National Assembly (l’Assemblée Nationale) on the 3rd February 2013
      If they obtain satisfaction they would build a chapel

      Mère de l’Espérance,
      Dont le nom est si doux,
      Protégez notre France,
      Priez, priez pour nous,
      Protégez notre France,
      Priez, priez pour nous.

      1 – Souvenez-vous Marie
      Qu’un de nos souverains
      Remit notre patrie
      En vos augustes mains.

      2 – La France toute entière
      A redit ses serments,
      Vous êtes notre Mère,
      Nous sommes vos enfants.

      3 – Au chemin de la gloire
      Conduisez nos soldats ;
      Donnez-leur la victoire
      Au jour des saints combats.

      4 – Gardez la foi chrétienne
      Dans l’âme de l’enfant,
      Pour que Jésus devienne
      Le Roi du peuple franc.


      Mother of Hope,
      Whose name is so sweet,
      Protect our France,
      Pray, pray for us
      Protect our France,
      Pray, pray for us.

      1 – Remember Mary
      One of our sovereign (Clovis)
      Gave our country
      In your august hands.

      2 – The whole of France
      Repeated his oaths,
      You are our Mother,
      We are your children.

      3 – In the path of glory
      Drive our soldiers;
      Give them victory
      At the day of saint struggles.

      4 – Keep the Christians in faith
      In the soul of the child,
      So that Jesus becomes
      The King of the Frankish people.

    • Therese,

      Those facts were published at the time of his election (that the papal apartment is actually quite austere and not as comfortable as the place the Pope has chosen instead) although not emphasised, so I agree it’s about “humility” in inverted commas.

    • I’m delighted! Welcome back Miles’s Avatar!

      I wondered why your avatar has not appeared on all your comments, so I checked one of them and it’s because you used a different email address. All you need to do now is go into your dashboard using the previous email address and click on “change my avatar” under the mystery man avatar which is still there. Then go through the same process, downloading your picture and all your comments will have your avatar restored. 🙄

      PS I’ve just tested one of the faces provided by 3LittleShepherds, who gave instructions above, to get the rolling eyes face; just type the colon: then the word roll and then the colon : again (with no spaces in between) … voila! it worked. 🙄 Thanks 3LittleShepherds!

  45. Concerning what the Authorities call “schism and heresy”:
    Mary, Mother of the Church in faith and culture
    Mariology of the last three popes, by P. Perrella ( )
    Antonio Gaspari

    Paris, 12th September 2012 18:28
    Before She is Mother of the Church, the Blessed Virgin Mary is Queen of Heaven and of earth as the Mother of God.
    This is a topic about which Vatican II should be muted!…
    Many Saints of the past would not have been canonized after Vatican II…
    But in fact, if the Church would have been misguided for nearly two thousand years, I wonder on what basis she would be more in the right today than yesterday or tomorrow?… If that were so, she would lose all credibility…

  46. Dear Editor,
    I must provide an explanation:
    I did not unsubscribed because of dissatisfaction, but only because I do not have time to read all.
    I apologize
    Union de prière LD

    • Lionel,

      I don’t understand – not sure I ever suggested you’d “unsubscribed” from anything!


      Here’s the latest example of the double-speak we’ve come to expect from the Scottish Catholic Education Service. Michael McGrath objecting to “sex guidelines” on the one hand, while allowing NHS Lanarkshire to give “information sessions” in Catholic schools in the area following an outbreak of syphilis – information sessions which explicitly include information on “safer sex”. Still, he’s mysteriously managed to get them to agree sessions that will be “in harmony” with Catholic teaching. Er… how does one make the “safer sex” message harmonise with “no sex outside marriage”?

      If you recall, we ran a thread on the scandal of the information sessions in Catholic schools way back in November. There will also be a brief report on the subject in our February edition.

      • Dear Editor,
        Indeed, I did not “unsubscribed” as a reader of your very pertinent observations and those of other readers (except Chasdom); I meant that I just interrupt the reading of mails as I receive too many of them from a lot of correspondents and I have to spend the night on my computer… In fact, I am saturated with messages.
        However, I consult your site with an increasing interest. Otherwise, you can still send me messages as many as you would like and I thank you deeply for this kind intention.
        I am ashamed to confess that as I am being treated for an advanced cancer, my strength declines gradually; “je m’étiole”…
        Yours Sincerely
        Union de prière LD

        • Lionel (Paris),

          What a lovely comment – very complimentary to our blog. Thank you for that. We get more criticism than compliments as a rule, so your charity is greatly appreciated.

          I am, however, very sad indeed to read about your advanced cancer. Be assured of my prayers, for what they are worth. I wonder if you’ve made a pilgrimage to Lourdes, since your diagnosis? I’ve been three times (and still not cured!) but only once – the last time – gone into the baths and what a profound experience. If you haven’t experienced the Lourdes baths, I strongly recommend that you do, if at all possible.

          I’m going to make an extended “novena” for you – from now until the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes on 11th February.

          You are a wonderful example to us all – to think you are inundated with emails and no doubt busy with plenty of other things, yet you make time to read and contribute to this humble blog, and to encourage us.

          I hope you will be able to keep us informed of your (hopefully) progress back to good health – but, in the meantime, we’ll pray to both Our Lady of Lourdes and St Joseph for your spiritual (as well as temporal) well being.

          God bless you, Lionel.

          • Dear Editor,
            Thank you very much indeed for your kind reply and intentions!
            In fact, I am not keen on providing information on my health. I did it out of necessity only to justify my explanation. I deal the best I can and keep the moral…
            On the other hand, I am not able to make such a long journey to Lourdes. However, I am convinced that the Blessed Virgin Mary and Saint Joseph can get my recovery. Many people are in the same situation.
            Yours sincerely LD

            • Lionel, a candle was lit for you today at the shrine of the Venerable Margaret Sinclair in Edinburgh. God bless.

              • Dear Vianney,
                Your delicate intention touched me deeply and I sincerely thank you.
                I also pray for you all that the Virgin Mary Immaculate and Saint Joseph protect you from your enemies and keep you in good condition and accompany you and support you on the hard road to Heaven…
                laudetur Jesus Christus! LD

        • Dear Lionel,

          I’m truly sorry to hear that you are ill. I will remember you in my prayers, so that God will bless you on your journey to recovery. Offer up your sufferings to the Cross.

          Our Lady of Lourdes, health of the sick and St Charles of Mount Argus pray for us.

  47. There’s also some others:

    : evil : is 👿
    : mad : is 😡
    : cool : is 😎
    : ! : is ❗
    : ? is 😕
    : ? : is ❓

  48. Have you all seen the BBC news reports on the fact that Pope Benedict XVI defrocked 400 Priests for child abuse in 2 years? Isn’t it interesting? When a Priest touches a kid up, it’s on the 6 o’clock news, but when a Pope punishes them, it’s only in deepest darkest teletext, where nobody will see it. The secular scum should be eating humble pie and choking on it.

  49. Yet again this sorry affair exposes the inherent anti-Catholic bias in the media. As Peter Viereck said, ‘anti-Catholicism is the anti-Semitism of the Liberal classes’.

  50. Some hopeful news concerning the Medjugorje phenomena, from a source that is contra-Medjugorje. Essentially, the International Commission has completed its investigation and is ready to submit its findings to the CDF.

    I wonder how long the CDF will take to examine it, and for the Pope to rule on it? The papal post-commission judgement (the highest possible and most definitive yet) is overdue by 13 months.

    I’ll see it when I believe it, but I’m impatient. I am thirsting for vindication. In my short time as a Catholic, I have come to learn a lot about the phenomena, and its creepy vaudevillian cast of crooks and crackpots.

    • Miles Immaculatae,

      Thank you for that information on MuddyGorge, as Leprechaun calls it. Let’s hope and pray the end is nigh for that particular diabolical enterprise.

  51. Louie Verrecchio wrote this on his blog today. I think it’s a real gem.
    “A priest vilifying the SSPX today is like a comedian cursing before a teenaged audience; it’s not exactly thought provoking stuff, but hey, it does guarantee a standing ovation from the under-nourished choir.”

  52. Fr John Hunwicke has posted an interesting two-part article about the SSPX:

    Part 1:

    Part 2:

    I was interested to read Fr Hunwickes thoughts on this. As he is a former Anglican, now a Catholic priest incardinated into the Anglican Ordinariate created by Benedict XVI, he offers a point of view from an untypical source. He seems to be favourable towards the SSPX, referring to ++Lefebvres decision to consecrate Bishops as “wise”.

    He speculates that Francis would have an easier time of regularising the Society, than Benedict would have experienced. He regards the SSPX as an urgent situation for the Church to resolve. He makes several good points, highlighting inconsistency and hypocrisy in how the Vatican deals with the SSPX.

    In Part 2, he compares Vatican-Orthodox dialogue, with Vatican-SSPX dialogue:

    “The modern Catholic Ecumenical Industry does not shout at Orthodoxy “You must accept every word in the Decrees of Florence, and the entire post-Florentine papal Magisterium”.

    • Gabriel Syme,

      Many thanks for posting those links which I shall make a point of reading just as soon as I’m clear of the pesky February newsletter due at the printers tomorrow (actually due days ago, but what the heck!)

      Your concluding sentence is absolutely on the button. Nobody else has the hoops to jump through that the Vatican present to the SSPX. And that against the backdrop of perpetual talk about “justice and peace”. Gimme strength!

      • Thanks Editor!

        I look forward to receiving the February Edition of the newsletter!

        I’d be very interested to hear what you – being much more informed than I am – thought of Fr Hunwicke’s views. He does seem favourable towards the SSPX.

        Further to those articles, he also posted a 2 part article on “(Crypto)Lefebvrianism”.

        He says:

        If it is possible to accuse people of ‘Cryptolefebvrianism’ … and one does come across such accusations … then clearly there must be a ‘Lefebvrianism’ of which the deceitful ‘Cryptolefebvrians’ are the secret and underhand Fifth Column. I am having some trouble understanding what the ‘Lefebvrianism’, the existence of which is implied by some rhetoric, actually might be.

        H.E. Archbishop Lefebvre would, of course, have rebutted vigorously any suggestion that he was or could be the exponent of any other -ism than Catholicism or Traditionalism


        If there is such a thing as Lefebvrianism, it cannot rationally be categorised as a call to schism

        From part 2:

        Summorum pontificum confirmed juridically that the Latin Church had lived for some four decades under the dominion of a lie. The Vetus Ordo had not been lawfully prohibited. Much persecution of devout priests and layfolk that took place during those decades is therefore now seen to have been vis sine lege.

        Part 1:

        Part 2:

  53. Did anyone hear the talk show “Morning call” on BBC Radio Scotland this morning?

    I (as usual) only heard the start, as it begins just as I arrive at work. I will listen to it later – you can re-play it via the BBC Radio Scotland website.

    Amazingly, one of the stories/discussions today was that the Church of Scotland was joining forces with the Scottish Humanist Society to put forward a proposal to Holyrood that “religious observance” in non-denom schools be replaced with “time of reflection”.

    They had a (strangely, American) woman on to talk for the Church of Scotland. She insisted that this pro-secular change had been a chief objective for the Church of Scotland since 2005, (when the previous changes to religion in non-denom schools were made). She was adamant that this was a “positive move”.

    So there you have it – the Church of Scotland are lemmings, ever eager to speed up their soon-enough demise. Of course, in another 10 years or so, this discussion will come around again, but this time their Humanist “allies” (ha!) will opine that “religion” has no place at all in their “time for reflection”. A fool could see it.

    I wonder what “time for reflection” will amount to? Certainly it will have no moral foundation, likely it will just be a vehicle for propaganda, pushing the secular fads of the day.

    The protestants never fail to baffle me. Time and again, they acquiesce to secular morality or demands, under the delusion that this will somehow propel them into the bounds of relevance, or boost their popularity. Instead, each surrender is simply another nail in the coffin. Female clergy, divorce, contraception, sex outside marriage, abortion, homosexuality…….they fail to speak against anything. Comparing their actual lifestyles and values with the claim they prioritise scripture is laughable. Zero credibility.

    But this was a new low for them – to join forces with people who are the enemies of religion. The majority (if not all) secular groups are largely just a front for homosexual campaigners (look into the private lives of the leaders of the BHA, NSS etc).

    Michael McGrath of the Catholic Education Service, a BBC Radio Scotland veteran, was wheeled out too – as this doesn’t affect Catholic schools, I don’t know why he was invited on, other than to provide a target for abuse.

    I did however appreciate his early dig that the Catholic Church would not follow the Church of Scotland’s example and “take God out of the equation”.

    One wonders if these idiotic Church of Scotland antics might provoke any reconsideration of ecumenism among the Bishops. Or will they continue with the pantomime of joint services with the Church of Scotland, while the Church of Scotland – at the same time – works with secularists for the removal of religious influence from area of Scottish society.

    • Gabriel Syme,

      I presume you refer to “Call Kaye” the Radio Scotland morning talk show where people ring in to Kaye Adams for discussion on the various topics. Didn’t hear it, but I’m not surprised at anything in your post, except this:

      “Michael McGrath of the Catholic Education Service, a BBC Radio Scotland veteran, was wheeled out too – as this doesn’t affect Catholic schools, I don’t know why he was invited on, other than to provide a target for abuse.

      I did however appreciate his early dig that the Catholic Church would not follow the Church of Scotland’s example and “take God out of the equation”.”

      Michael McGrath is only too ready to “take God out of the equation” when it suits him, as you’ll see when you receive the February newsletter. the Scottish Catholic (?) Education Service went right along with the NHS Lanarkshire “safer sex” information sessions in Catholic schools recently – we ran a thread on it – arguing that they had reached an agreement with the NHS to provide sessions “in harmony” with Catholic teaching. The sheer nerve of it – what an insult to anyone of average intelligence. Doesn’t he think we won’t think to ourselves: “Just how do you make ‘use a condom’ harmonise with Catholic teaching?”

      And in his very first article for the Scottish Catholic Observer, published right after he was appointed some years ago, McGrath was at pains to insist that Catholic schools were not about “imposing any particular faith tradition on pupils” – apparently blissfully unaware that some parents, at least, send their children to Catholic schools for the very purpose of having that particular “tradition” “imposed” on them. He went on to describe his “vision” of Catholic education (to provide some spiritual awareness for pupils) which is exactly the philosophy of religious education in non-denominational schools. He used the same language, the same jargon. And at that time he was the newly appointed Director of the Scottish Catholic Education Service. Truly, you couldn’t make it up.

      For, who in this world speaks about “imposing” or “foisting” birthday or Christmas presents on their loved ones? Nobody. And nobody who believes in the divine establishment, authority and teachings of the Catholic Church would even think that they were “imposing” or “foisting” our beautiful Catholic faith on children in Catholic schools – or anyone else for that matter.

      So, please be aware that Michael McGrath is in that top job precisely because he’s “on message” with the bishops. That he disagreed with the Church of Scotland on this, on a radio show, is welcome news but, nobody’s complained to the BBC yet, have they? In such an event, we’d be more than likely treated to profuse apologies along the very best of ecumenical lines.

      In case nobody’s noticed, I’m not a Michael McGrath fan.

      • Hi Ed,

        Yes that’s the show alright – but its now been renamed “Morning Call” and (I may be wrong) I thought that Kaye Adams was heading back to TV work (to re-appear on the hideous / crude / banal “loose women” show).

        I look forward to reading about Michael McGrath and the CES in the February edition.

        It is certainly concerning that he appears willing to quietly compromise with the NHS and such like. I will be interested to find out: was this a one off (?), what was discussed exactly (?) and were families given the option to withdraw their children (?).

        Certainly, McGrath should be aware that the NHS is no friend of Catholicism – look at the recent outcry from the NHS and secular groups when a Catholic school hosted a pro-abstinence speaker.

        • Gabriel Syme,

          The homosexual community were delighted with what the Catholic Times described at the time as the “gay lessons” in Scottish Catholic schools. As our American cousins say: “go figure”! And as I point out in the February edition, any “sex and relationships” programme which omits the word “Marriage” from its title is immediately suspect.

          Interesting about the name change from Call Kaye to Morning Call. Suggests – as you say – that Kaye is heading back to TV. Perhaps they’re going to replace her with a selection of other hosts. I should let them know that I’m available for the same six figure sum I’m already getting as editor of Catholic Truth – £000,000 🙂

  54. You know, I wish Petrus, Athanasius, and Spiritustempore would come back to write for this blog. I miss Spiritustempore’s intrigue, Athanasius’ bittersweet reflections on Our Lord’s love, and Petrus’ straightforward Catechism. Maybe you guys could just come back and act like you never left. And put the schism thing in your pocket for awhile. I mean don’t you think there’s a big possibility that you were helping souls and have been a victim of divide and conquer? Not cool to go along with it.

  55. You will probably have noticed that post-apocalyptic film and literature is very popular at the moment. It is strange isn’t it, how most non-Christians in the West are on to something, a kind of post-apocalyptic anxiety has permeated the popular psyche (whereas most modernist Catholic prelates and career theologians are oblivious to the fact modern society is in great peril, New Springtime and all that). I am in to the Hunger Games trilogy, very much so, but one issue I have is that this fictional universe is that it is lacking any tangible expression of God or faith.

    My question is this: are there any Catholic books which would fit into a distinctly Catholic post-apocyliptic genre? I am aware Fr Malachi Martin wrote fiction. Are you aware of any of his books which are overtly based on Fatima, prophecy and the Crisis in the Church and World? Which Fr Malachi Martin book do you recommend I read first? Do you know of any other writers?

    • Miles Immaculatae,

      I suggest you read Windswept House by Fr Malachi Martin – I’ve still not finished it myself, (it’s not famed for its brevity!) but it’s alleged to be something like 90% true, with fiction thrown in to keep him out of court !

      We also recommended, some years ago, a little book which was really comical – trouble is I can’t remember the name of it! It was a kind of satire on the crisis as it affected a particular (typical) parish. I will try to remember its title and get back to you.

  56. With regard to the Morning Call program, one thing I found depressing but not at all surprising was the call from a gentleman from West Lothian, who had been raised Catholic but is now an atheist. Sixteen years ago when deciding where his daughter should go to primary school, he visited the non denominational school, was not impressed, and went then to the Catholic Primary. Afraid there would be a particularly Catholic identity, he was assured that 25% of the pupils were not Catholic, that there would be no “prayers at assemblies” ….. surely that couldn’t be!
    Anyway the outcome was that the man was assured that the Catholic school was not ostensibly Catholic so he chose that school for his child and all was well….. for him anyway. And all over Scotland people heard of his experience yesterday morning.
    Everywhere people are apologising for being Catholic. What on earth has gone wrong?

    • Spero,

      Some years ago, in a Catholic school in England, one member of the RE staff, who was an out and out “liberal”, wore, on at least one occasion that I know of, a huge badge emblazoned “Ordain women or stop baptising them”: this, on the World Day of Prayer for Women (or whatever the daft name is for that particular annual dissent-fest). On Ash Wednesday she organised female pupils to distribute the ashes. And this happened in the presence of the Bishop. He’d already nailed his “liberal” colours to the mast at an academic Mass in which he tried to convince us all that St Therese of Lisieux believed in the ordination of women – which she absolutely did not. So, he wasn’t exactly going to go about the place objecting to a bunch of teenage girls in mini-skirts distributing ashes on Ash Wednesday. If they’d wanted to distribute Ashes on Christmas Day he’d have raised no objection. Clueless? Faithless? Your call.

      When I took up post as Head of RE, and Open Evening rolled around, the chaplain – who, in conversations with me gave the impression that he’d been a fully blown consultant-theologian at the Council of Trent – told me the next day that when parents had asked him for reassurance that the school was totally orthodox etc. he said “of course – go and speak to our new Head of RE” but when other parents asked if Catholicism was going to be rammed down pupils’ throats or were we more enlightened, he told THEM: “of course, much more enlightened. Go and speak to Miss X” (the proponent of women’s ordination.)

      So this sort of duplicity, deception, call it what you will, has, sadly and unconscionably, been going on in the Catholic sector for quite some time.

      It’s all part of the diabolical disorientation. There is a spiritual blindness in priests like him (widely regarded as “orthodox” even by those who should have known better) which prevents them from seeing the damage they are doing, and which prevents them from realising that they are wrong-thinking, big time, and which keeps them from appreciating that they are very far from being Catholic. It’s called, in short, culpable ignorance.

      • Perhaps one might extrapolate from this that the diabolical disorientation has spread so rapidly by its extensive use of, and dependence on, lowness of character and absence of virtue, which invariably causes one to grovel before “human respect,” a trait which appears to be so predominant in the modern Church. And the neutering of liturgy, theology, doctrine, devotion, discipline, Sacraments, etc. in turn feeds this lack of virtue. It’s a vicious circle.

        • GreatPretender51,

          I think “vicious” is the operative word in your post of. 6.26pm.

          So confused was that young priest that he told me about his shenanigans on Open Evening, obviously thinking it would either amuse me or that I would praise him for doing his best to bring pupils into the school from all “wings” of the Church – OR both. He wasn’t smiling when we parted company 🙄

  57. Please help me. I have an enquiry regarding the foretold ‘Great Chastisement’…

    Principally, I have Fatima in mind. I have been putting off asking this question, for fear of ridicule, or of being perceived as a mad, prophecy-chasing, doom-mongering type. But a couple of others among you have briefly intimated it. To be honest, there isn’t really anyone else I can ask apart from the crazy bunch who come on here. I’m frightened. I know traditional Catholics are the only people who would know about this kind of thing. I have watched many videos by the Fatima Centre/ Path to Peace conference, but they never suggest a precise date. But they very strongly suggest something.

    During which approximate time period in the future should I expect to be prepared to evacuate my loved ones to a secure refuge? (We don’t have one yet, but my brother is in to ‘prepping’ as well, so we could sort something out) Sometime during 2017? If so, during 2017, which is the more likely anniversary on which a disaster event might occur, that of the Miracle of the Sun (13th October, 2017)?

    To put it another way, when ought I have my emergency plan and provision on stand-by alert?

    What should we prepare for? An exchange of thermonuclear weapons, i.e. nuclear explosions or EMP attacks? Invasion by a foreign power? Widespread civil unrest, energy or economic collapse? Chemical, biological or radiological attacks? (Sorry to unsettle any of you, I’m an alarmist, imaginative type.)

    What signs should I look out for? Will the third secret be released shortly prior to the aforementioned event? Will there be luminous phenomena in the atmosphere, as happened before the outbreak of World War II, as prophesied by Our Lady of Fatima?

    • We aren’t preppers, except that we keep some family emergency stuff because it’s recommended in our area due to some natural disaster risks. I also think you just can’t pinpoint a date when there will be a chastisement.
      I would get some blessed candles made of beeswax. There’s a lot of prophecies about that and I think they’re for real. If it’s part of your nature to worry about it, I’d just store some basics maybe for shortages and first aid, etc. but pray against having a survivalist mentality. If there’s a disaster a Catholic can take care of his family first of all but he should be ready to go out and take care of all those who need help. In various disasters throughout history the priests would round up the best men in the parish to go out and bury the dead after earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes and other disasters.

    • Miles Immaculatae,

      Those are very interesting questions you ask. I think you might be referring to the view that there might be a chastisement in 2017 which is the 100th anniversary of the Fatima apparitions because Our Lord told Sr Lucia that if the popes continued to ignore his request for the consecration of Russia, they would suffer misfortune like the King of France who also ignored his request to have France consecrated to the Sacred Heart and he was executed 100 years to the day.

      I, personally, think something will happen in 2017 but I don’t worry about it because we have to trust God.

      If we keep going to Confession regularly and living the best Catholic life we can, we have nothing to worry about. I suppose it would do no harm to have some kind of material preparation too but as we don’t really know what kind of chastisement is to come, there’s not a lot we can do to prepare in that way.

  58. Miles,
    I was thinking that the most powerful thing to do would be to have Masses offered for your family. If you have a Mass offered in reparation for their sins then it will be so much easier for them to accept the grace God gives to them. I would choose the Traditional Mass for the Glory that it gives to God and because of It’s power. You write on a paper the name of the person or family that you wish the Mass to be offered for and whether they are living or deceased and Catholic or non-Catholic.

    • I think that’s okay so long as you write non-Catholic on the paper, but Editor can correct this if I’m wrong. You can also write “For the intentions of ‘Miles'” and then living and Catholic. Put it in an envelope with a stipend and write Mass intention on the outside. You can hand it to the priest. I would only choose the Traditional Mass for it’s power and I’d always have it offered in reparation for sins and then for all graces, everything good spiritual and temporal, and for all the protection of the Immaculate Heart. And since the application of Our Lord’s merits are finite but powerful I would have Masses offered repeatedly.

      • 3LittleShepherds,

        I’ve never had a Mass offered for non-Catholics, so have not had to think about that. However, I think I would, naturally, so to speak, note on the envelope that this person is not a Catholic. I know we’re supposed to identify any non-Catholics as such on the November lists so I suppose it’s the same for having Masses offered.

        • I know we’re supposed to identify any non-Catholics as such on the November lists so I suppose it’s the same for having Masses offered.

          I never knew that. Why so?

          • Eileenanne,

            Someone said that during November when a few of us were talking about the lists and a third person asked if she could include non-Catholic relatives. I didn’t question it at the time, and presumed it must be so (since I don’t know everything, contrary to popular belief!)

            Anyway, when I saw your question, I rang a priest friend to check it and he said “that’s something someone’s invented” so I have to say, as I’ve had to say in the February Newsletter: “mea maxima culpa” which – loosely translated – means “editor’s an idiot!”

            Sorry for any confusion caused.

            • Thank for that. I can’ think if I have ever had Mass said for a non-catholic, probably I have, but I do remember my father saying that when a Celtic player was killed in 1931 or 1932, some fans tried to have Masses said for him and were told they couldn’t because he was not Catholic. I always thought it a bit odd but never investigated it further. It may be something of an urban myth, or maybe the falsehood has been around a long time.

              • Eileenanne,

                It’s one of the spiritual works of mercy to pray for the dead, so I began to think about this following your original posting, and went Googling. I found this answer from a priest on EWTN, which I think is helpful.

                I am surprised at your story of the deceased Celtic player, though: I’d have thought a Celtic player, deceased or not, would need all the prayers and Masses he could get – even in the 1930’s… 😀

                • I was taught to write Catholic or non-Catholic on the paper when I was having a Mass offered. I asked about it and was told that only a Catholic can have a public Mass and that a non-Catholic would not have their name read aloud. So that’s how I’ve always turned in a Mass intention.
                  I was wondering if that is accurate because it was a lay person who instructed me. Or maybe it is no longer a rule? It wouldn’t make sense in the Novus Ordo, I think.

                  • When King George VI died there were public Requiem Masses for him (and for his predecessor) so I think it’s just a myth that has gown up about not saying Mass for non Catholics.

                    • That interests me Vianney. Given Her Majesty’s meeting with Pope Franciscus, I delved further and discovered that Edward VII met Leo XIII in 1903 and George V and Queen Mary met Pius XI in 1931. I’d love to see photographs (if possible) of these and the Queen’s meeting with Pius XII.

                  • This discussion has been really interesting to me 3LS, as I was never taught how to ask to have a mass offered for someone.

                    But now I do – thanks to you!

                    What is a typical stipend, or does each Church advise its own typical amount?

                    Also, what are “mass cards”?

                    Sorry if they questions seem ridiculous, (as I am sure they do!), but this uncertainty is what happens when you are raised with the new mass and Catholicism is treated as a kind of vague, occasional hobby for people, as opposed to the truth.

                    Interesting, the only time I have ever heard a clergyman refer to mass stipends and offering the mass for an intention, was when Fr Clifton at St Andrews said he had got too many and asked for a short respite from receiving them!

                    It was mentioned that people can have their names included in the mass – I have seen that part in the missal, I presume this is the bit referred to?

                    • Gabriel Syme,

                      The stipends are probably different. In the US the stipend is 20 dollars for SSPX priests but I don’t know what it is in Scotland. It might be noted on the Society’s website for each country.
                      Our priest announced that he was not taking Mass intentions for awhile, too. I think they get a lot in November for the Souls in Purgatory. But sometimes they have to come out and ask for them at other times of the year because no one is requesting them! If your priests are not taking them you can always send it to one of the District houses (SSPX), even in other countries, and they will give it to a priest who can offer the Mass in a timely way.
                      You can have Masses offered for your family, for your marriage, for a special intention, for your deceased relatives. It’s definitely the most powerful way to help a soul or to bring down God’s blessings on us.

                    • There’s a book “The Hidden Treasure of the Mass” by St. Leonard that can be read for free online. I can’t link to it right now but it should be easy to find.

                    • Gabriel Syme,

                      There is no amount requested for Masses. That would be very wrong. We don’t pay for Masses or buy them. The stipend is merely an offering for the priest. No priest would (or should!) refuse to offer a Mass requested by a poor person who had no money to give.

                      Having said that, I’m guessing that the 20 dollars mentioned by 3LittleShepherds is given as a kind of suggestion to help those who are in a position to give a stipend but don’t know what sort of amount to offer.

                      There is no rule and I’ve know people to offer anything from £5 to £10 to £15 to £20 depending on their own financial situation.

                      Me, I keep promising to give them a cut of my lottery win when it comes through ❗ 😀 ❗

                    • Since Mass stipends have not increased for over 15 years, we are adjusting the stipends within the SSPX in the United States effective immediately as follows: For one Mass:

                      For a novena of Masses (9 consecutive Masses):

                      For a series of Gregorian Masses (30 consecutive Masses):

                      Clarifications: 1. The stipend in no way corresponds with the value of a Mass, which is of infinite value. Expressions such as: “How much does a Mass cost?” or “How much is it for a Mass?” are inaccurate and should not be used. The correct form is: “What is the stipend for a Mass?” 2. Given the small number of priests and the great number of Masses which we are asked to offer, it is almost impossible for us to give specific dates when the Masses will be celebrated. 3. Unlike other donations which are given directly to the Society or its chapels, Mass stipends are given directly to the priest who celebrates the Mass and therefore these are not classified as tax-deductible contributions; consequently, it is not possible for us to give an income tax receipt. 4. We ask those who wish to have Masses said to please indicate clearly on a piece of paper their name, the intention of the Mass to be said (including, if applicable, the name of any person(s) for whom the intention is associated) and to put this information and the stipend in an envelope for the priest (celebrant). Also, please indicate whether the person for whom a Mass is intended is deceased or living. 5. NB: Those unable to pay this new stipend rate should speak with their local pastor in order to request a Mass for a lower stipend. Where to send Mass requests Regina Coeli House District Secretary 11485 N. Farley Road Platte City, MO 64079 Please include a check for the proper amount made out to: Society Since Mass stipends have not increased for over 15 years, we are adjusting the stipends within the SSPX in the United States effective immediately as follows: For one Mass:

                      For a novena of Masses (9 consecutive Masses):

                      For a series of Gregorian Masses (30 consecutive Masses):

                      Clarifications: 1. The stipend in no way corresponds with the value of a Mass, which is of infinite value. Expressions such as: “How much does a Mass cost?” or “How much is it for a Mass?” are inaccurate and should not be used. The correct form is: “What is the stipend for a Mass?” 2. Given the small number of priests and the great number of Masses which we are asked to offer, it is almost impossible for us to give specific dates when the Masses will be celebrated. 3. Unlike other donations which are given directly to the Society or its chapels, Mass stipends are given directly to the priest who celebrates the Mass and therefore these are not classified as tax-deductible contributions; consequently, it is not possible for us to give an income tax receipt. 4. We ask those who wish to have Masses said to please indicate clearly on a piece of paper their name, the intention of the Mass to be said (including, if applicable, the name of any person(s) for whom the intention is associated) and to put this information and the stipend in an envelope for the priest (celebrant). Also, please indicate whether the person for whom a Mass is intended is deceased or living. 5. NB: Those unable to pay this new stipend rate should speak with their local pastor in order to request a Mass for a lower stipend. Where to send Mass requests Regina Coeli House District Secretary 11485 N. Farley Road Platte City, MO 64079 Please include a check for the proper amount made out to: Society of St. Pius X and note detailing how many Masses and their respective intentions.

                      SOURCE SSPX US.ORG St. Pius X and note detailing how many Masses and their respective intentions.

                      SOURCE SSPX US.ORG

                    • That is supposed to read 20 dollar stipend, 200 dollar stipend, and 800 dollar stipend for the one, nine, and 30 Masses.

                    • This is a reply to the 3LittleShepherds post at 6.28.a.m. on February 5th.

                      While I know that priests have expressed concern that too many people offer very small stipends and these have not increased over time, despite everything else rising in price, I do not like that statement from the US District site. Perhaps a short sentence or two would be in order to point out the fact that, in the majority of cases, stipends remain at very low levels, and the priests would ask the faithful to give some thought to that, I don’t like the idea of placing a price on the Mass and, no matter how much they say that is not the case, that’s how it comes across.

                      I could be wrong, of course, and maybe others will see that statement as perfectly reasonable. Feel free to disagree with me – no problem. But it grates with me, I’m afraid. Personally, I would not offer a stipend at the lower end of the scale (because I can afford a bit more) but I think I’d take a different view if what I usually offer were the suggested minimum stipend. To a lot of people these days £20/£25 is an awful lot of money, especially parents of small children with low income, so while it is affordable for some, maybe even a lot of people, it would be wrong to embarrass those on low incomes who would be deterred, I believe, from asking for a Mass to be offered for a family member or friend in need.

                    • I understand what you’re saying Editor but I see it a little differently. In the US 20 dollars is the price of a medium sized pizza. And I think giving a stipend is a virtuous act and that one would receive grace. I also think it was virtuous for the district to ask for an increase because there are priests who are converts and have no family members to help them or are themselves from poor families, or the priests are now older and their family members are deceased. They have to buy cassocks and socks and razors and sometimes people forget about this.

                    • Again, this is a reply to 3LittleShepherds, Feb 5, 2014 @ 18:02

                      I see what you’re saying as well and not knowing the exact exchange rate, 20 dollars seems a heck of a lot of money to pay for a medium sized pizza. I’m not a pizza fan at all, but see them in the supermarket for around £3 (even cheaper) and on menus in restaurants from around £7. Mind you, nobody could accuse me of frequenting all the best restaurants 😀 But, if 20 dollars equates to anything approaching £20, that is one dish on the menu I’d be avoiding like the plague!

                      I completely agree that we should be generous with the clergy remembering that they really depend on us for their material necessities (as we depend on them for the spiritual!) – and for myself I have appreciated, in occasional conversations with priests on the subject (in a general context), knowing the sort of amount of stipend they might minimally expect these days – but I fear that poor families (I know of several on very low incomes with children to feed) would be, perhaps, scandalised and/or fail to have Masses offered due to their impoverishment, if they thought that the widow’s mite of £5 which might be all they could afford, would not be “enough”.

                      Having said that, none of the families to which I refer has ever raised the subject with me, and I suspect that they simply pray for their special intentions in rosaries and during Masses, without seeking to have a Mass offered for a special intention themselves. I’m just looking for a fight ❗

                    • You don’t like pizza? 😯

                      I think that if a young family without much money wanted to have a Mass offered for their intentions they should not hesitate to ask. If they are somewhat embarrassed to tell the priest that all they have to offer for a stipend is half the usual amount then this is excellent. They can offer that pain that the embarrassment costs them in union with the Mass that will be offered. If they can understand this and understand that they can make these sacrifices in union with Our Lord’s sacrifice, then they will help him to save souls. It’s what He’s looking for.

                    • 3LittleShepherds,

                      I’m sure you are correct and that the families to whom I refer (without their permission, I have to add!) would do exactly as you suggest.

                      Me? I’d sooner ask the Bank Manager for an overdraft – pride, pride, thy name is “Editor of Catholic Truth” 😉

    • I cant say for sure Miles, but last Sunday Fr McLaughlin did say the usual schedule was disrupted due to Fr Wingerden’s holiday.

      If no-one can give definite advice, perhaps try phoning the Priory to check in the morning? See below for contact details, sorry not to be of more help.

      St Andrew’s House

      31 Lanark Road, Carluke, Scotland ML8 4HE

      Tel: 01555 771523

      Priests in residence:

      Fr John McLaughlin(Prior)
      Fr Anthony Wingerden

  59. The Catholic Herald is reporting that St Margarets Adoption Agency in Scotland has won its appeal against losing its charitable status (which would have meant closure).

    The Scottish (Catholic) Agency was taken to task after a complaint from Keith Porteous Wood, who is one half of the homosexual male couple who run the National Secular Society (NSS). The basis for the complaint was that the Agency did not place children with homosexuals.

    This is great news. I had wondered if there had maybe been some concession behind the scenes, but it seems not – because there is no mention of the result / gloating on the NSS webpage. The story is completely absent, which suggests its indeed a defeat for them.

    The BBC is reporting it too:

    “A Glasgow-based adoption Agency run by the Catholic Church in Scotland has won an appeal against a decision to strip it of its charitable status.

    St Margaret’s Children and Family Care Society had been told by the Scottish Charity regulator it was to lose its status over its refusal to place children with same-sex couples.

    This decision had now been overturned by the Scottish Charity Appeals Panel.

    The Catholic Church said the agency would continue its work as normal.”

    • Gabriel Syme,

      Thanks for posting this – I meant to post it when it came through on the (Glasgow)Herald headlines the other day but didn’t get around to it (and half a dozen other things!)

      Yes, it looks like a victory for the Church – hence the silence from the (not so) “gay” community on the issue.

      • Here is some additional information, from a Barrister of the Thomas More Law Center, as to why St Margarets won the battle to stay open, but similar in agencies did not:

        Essentially, the English agencies legal arguments were ineffective and St Margarets took the Barristers advice to state that all their activities were carried out under the auspices of the Catholic Church. (Is it not amazing that some “Catholic” agencies did not state this off the bat?)

        Following this, it is legal for St Margarets to “prioritise” couples wishing to adopt within the framework of the Catholic faith.

        The second link is the official document issued by the charity appeal panel, explaining the judgement. In it, a spokesman for the charity admits that, in principle, it would consider a same sex couple for adoption. However, its legal ability to prioritise adopters wishing to adopt in line with the Catholic faith means that this will not happen in practice. They cant turn anyone away legally, but they can judge each case on its own merits (with Catholic eyes) and prioritise them accordingly.

        The judgement document is quite interesting in that those officials responsible for originally trying to close St Margarets come in for a deal of criticism. They are told they have no place to opine on whether Catholic values are compatible with “modern Scotland”, and indeed the Charity commission is criticised for being a biased, non-transparent organisation.

        Click to access Saint%20Margarets%20Children%20and%20Family%20Care%20Society.pdf

  60. Thank God St Margaret’s is staying open, and thank God the natural rights of children are being upheld against the ‘rights’ of sexual deviants.

  61. Lionel,

    I would like to ask you a question about Marshal Petain, the Chief of State of Vichy France. Was he a practising Catholic? Here you can see him attending a Mass in Paris, at Notre Dame de Paris, presided over by Cardinal Emmanuel Suhard- but did he only support the Church in an official capacity as the embodiment of the French nation, or was he privately devout, like Charles De Gaulle or Rene Coty? I know he went to Lourdes and attended official Masses, the SSPX has gone on pilgrimages to his tomb, but Petain was a womaniser.

    Also, are any French politicians today practising Catholics/ sympathetic to the Church, either on the modernist or traditional level, apart from Christiane Boutin?

    If you would prefer to answer me privately, say so, and Editor will pass on my email to you, I hope.

    • The post-WWII attitude among academe and the media follows a secular, philo-Semitic, and anti-Catholic narrative. The neo-Catholics have been duped into this through their subconscious appetite to appeal to the ‘world’, which is why they so often brand Traditional Catholics as ‘right-wing’, ‘fascistic’, ‘reactionary’ etc.. I don’t know much about Petain, but at my University we’re taught that Vichy France was practically an abomination, since they to adhere to the same narrative.

      In regard to Salazar of Portugal and Franco of Spain, we have all been brainwashed into believing the same sort of thing. The truth is, neither of them were fascists, nor Nazis, not like Hitler or Mussolini. Regardless of the sins of these two leader, and I don’t doubt there were injustices, these Catholic states did their best to uphold the common-good, the faith, and the Church’s social teaching. Which is why, by the way, the philo-semitic, anti-catholic secularists hate them. And we’re all told that these countries were hell on earth because they weren’t democratic, but what these people fail to realise is that Catholicism has never made an idol of democracy like they have.

      Indeed, France historically does harbour far-right elements, but it is very wrong to equate neo-Nazism with political Catholicism, whether it be French monarchism or whatever form it takes in a particular region. People seem to forget that most opposition to the National Socialists in Germany came from the Catholic centrists, almost everyone else went along with Hitler. Then we are told Pius XII was a Nazi-loving Holocaust collaborator, although fortunately this myth has progressively lost credibility. It turns out Franco, yes Franco, even gave refuge to many Sephardic Jews and gave them Spanish citizenship. And secular Ireland would do well to remember that it was their modern hero Éamon de Valera who so eagerly signed the book of condolence, for Adolf Hitler. History unveils many hypocrisies.

      Communism, Nazism, socialism and fascism are all evil, indeed at the core level they are fundamentally the same: the socio-economic ideology of ‘collectivism’, whereby the dignity and value of the individual created in the image of God is superseded by the ‘group’. The Catholic Church, to my knowledge, are the only ones who have condemned all of them, consistently, throughout all history.

      • Miles,

        Whilst I genuinely did enjoy reading your post, as I, like your learned self, am a history student, it did not answer my original question of was Marshal Petain a practising Catholic, in terms of genuine faith, not just public duty. I know the drill when it comes to the secular media, and I knew about De Valera’s actions at the end of the War, with his signing the book of condolence for Hitler and expression of sorrow to Ambassador Dr Eduard Hempel. As you know, despite the negative aspects, I’m an admirer of Dr Salazar and General Franco.

    • Josephine,

      Fr Lawson has, indeed, been mentioned before on this blog in order to dispel the myth that he is some kind of hero/victim figure. Unfortunately, we are unable to say much more.

      I have now had a quick look at the Herald link you posted plus the comments below and it seems he continues to be presented as an innocent abroad.

      Here’s one quote from him which is hardly the kind of suggestive talk we expect from a priest with any comprehension of Catholic purity:

      From Herald Scotland:

      He has been up sick the night before and the stress is showing. “Father doesn’t look well,” one says. “I saw him pulling up his trousers,” says another, referring to the weight he has lost. Father Lawson smiles wryly. “I hope nobody misinterprets that.”

      So, thanks for alerting us to this latest report, but, I repeat, Fr Lawson is no innocent abroad. Don’t make the mistake made by the majority of numpties on the Herald blog by jumping to his defence.

  62. I read a report today that said the SSPX Chapels in London, Manchester, Preston and Liverpool etc, are sparsely attended, and in the London Chapels, they have stopped saying Mass twice on Sundays. In contrast the Edinburgh, Glasgow and Irish Chapels are flourishing, I hear.

    • Catholic Convert,

      Where did you read that report? I’m very surprised – I was under the impression that across the UK the Society chapels were fairly well attended. Would like to have a source for that, if you can provide a link.

    • I know that Liverpool doesn’t have a large congregation but then neither does any church in Liverpool. I read that the entire Sunday Mass attendance of the 12 parishes that make up the central deanery could fit into one Mass at the cathedral and there would still be empty seats. London did have two Masses but it was changed to one when the church at Woking was opened and also because many of the London congregation moved to be near the school.
      Like the Editor I would be interested in seeing the report.

    • That doesn’t sound good, though Vianney explains why there was a change to the schedule in London. I understand there are two SSPX venues in London – St Joseph and St Padarns Church and also the house chapel at the SSPX residence (St Georges house, is it?).

      I’d be very interested to read the report if you have a link, CC – thanks.

      I know the SSPX in London previously had some negative publicity, based on the activities of (now-expelled) Bishop Williamson. I hope that has not put people off.

      • Gabriel Syme,

        That was my own first thought – that the work of the rebels against Bishop Fellay had managed to drive people away or deter newcomers. I know the atmosphere in our chapel (tearoom, to be precise!) changed for the better when the rebels stopped attending, but thankfully nobody seems to have been driven away. Let’s hope those who may have been driven away in London have not been lost to the Society altogether.

        • Ed,

          I had previously noticed some people had stopped attending St Andrews. How many do you estimate them to be? (I thought only a handful – can think of only one family).

          Are these people now without mass provision? In any case, it is sad that division can affect even a small congregation. Right enough, there is more unity among that small SSPX congregation than in the typical parish church, which is usually no more than a gathering of individuals, all of whom define their own morality.

          I don’t know much about it, but it seems these “resistance” people are a tiny minority in thrall to a handful of rebellious clergy.

            • Preston and Bristol aren’t on there, that’s just anecdotal evidence with I’ve seen on the web, with no links.

            • I like the fish-eaters forum and occasionally post there – but I dislike the fact it allows sedevacantists to propagate their views.

              The link goes to a post which itself references “Traditio” as the source. The Traditio article quotes an unnamed British source for the SSPX mass info. I would not put any stock into it.

              I am not sure what kind of site Traditio is, but I wonder if it is a sede or “resistance” website, (anyone?), given the vitriol it attacks Bishop Fellay wish.

              The website claims (article dated May 30, 2012) that “Bernie Fellay” was only made a Bishop because a wealthy Swiss bribed ++Lefebvre to make a Swiss Bishop. It claims Fellay was the only Swiss ++Lefebvre could get his hands on!

              I do not think that is correct: +Fellay is now the senior SSPX Bishop. I have never met him personally, but he strikes me as a good leader and an exceptionally Holy, thoughtful and competent man – he doesn’t strike me as a nobody who somehow fell into a prominent position due to skullduggery behind the scenes.

              • Gabriel Syme, I wouldn’t pay attention to anything that is reported on Traditio. It’s a sedevacantist site and the man who runs it claims to be a priest but whenever he has been asked to provide proof of this he refuses to do so. He prints what he claims are letters from readers (mostly from SSPX people complaining about the Society) but it’s said he writes most of them himself. One such letter was supposed to be from someone who said they had turned up at their local SSPX chapel and the priest came out of the sacristy and proceeded to celebrated the Novus Ordo. Another was said to be from a London parishioner who claimed that they had turned up at the church very early one Sunday morning to find two of Bishop Fellay’s henchmen dragging a crying Bishop Williamson up the aisle of the church after having pulled him from his bed. What he didn’t know was that the church in in North London and the chapel house (and therefore the Bishop’s bed) is in South London.
                I heard from an American gentleman that he knew of someone who wrote regarding liturgical abuses taking place in his local Novus Ordo parish. The letter was printed but the NO parish was changed to an SSPX chapel. Apparently Traditio is known in Traditionalist circles as the Daily Lie
                .I was told that the man who runs the site was a seminarian but was thrown out for some reason and has hated the SSPX and Bishop Fellay ever since and has made it his life’s work to try to discredit both.

          • Gabriel Syme,

            You are right – they are only a handful comprising several members of one family, an elderly couple, and another small family. I believe they attend a hall in Cambuslang somewhere for a Holy Hour on a Sunday with occasional Masses with a priest (I presume from England, not sure) who is, I’m told, a “novus ordo ‘convert’ ordained by Bishop Williamson.)

            Yeah, really “traditional” – NOT!

      • “I understand there are two SSPX venues in London – St Joseph and St Padarns Church and also the house chapel at the SSPX residence (St Georges house, is it?).”

        Yes that’s correct and there is the church in Woking which is south of London and is regarded as the church for those who stay in South London.

            • Vianney,
              Thanks, nice site. Pretty church, lots of statues! (I have that St. Therese statue.) I saw books for children in the shop, something we don’t have in our shop 😦 . I also liked the separated tables and right there with all the books! And soup, that’s such a good idea it deserves to be borrowed!

              • You are welcome and I’m glad you like the site. We are very blessed ith our church and the facilities we have. I’ll let you into a little secret regarding the statues. St Theresa and St Margaret are twins. A statue maker in Liverpool turned a statue of St Theresa in St Margaret which is why they have similar features. They face each other across the church and I can just imagine St Theresa saying “I know that face.” The cafe in the hall is run on a rota system and whoever is on duty makes the soup for that day. Filled rolls and biscuits and cake are also available and also pizza one week and toasties the next. The library is also in the hall. The shop is very popular and people come from local parishes to buy things. You should ask whoever runs your shop to stock children’s books. Where is you church?

    • The Liverpool chapel is doing well from what I’ve heard, several good young families etc. They got a nice new church last year and are growing slowly but steadily. I don’t know much about the other chapels but the Scandinavian missions attended by the SSPX in London are doing better than ever in many ways, just two years ago one may have been forgiven for thinking that their days were numbered but now Oslo and Stockholm have their own humble yet permanent venues from which to expand and twice monthly Sunday masses. Gothenburg has a small yet stable crowd as well. Who knows, within a few years we might see a Scandinavian priory. Considering the SSPX is also making serious inroads in the Baltic states, they may soon be in control of the entire Baltic sea 😉

      I do hope the London SSPX can be blessed with some stability and growth though I don’t have much of an idea what their current situation is. As far as I know there is a core of faithful which will carry them through any current hardships. The three priests they have are all excellent.

  63. Scotland’s (real) shame – today saw the final phase of the legalisation of same-sex “marriage” in Scotland. Plenty on the TV news about that scandal but no mention of this – wonder why?

    • I read somewhere concerning the protests in Paris, there were 800,000, but the government downplayed the figures. Also many Priests, including those from St Nicolas Du Chardonnet were beaten up by the gendarmerie. Even the Archbishop of Paris, Monsignor Vingt-Trois was mocked by politicians at a parliamentary select committee. That’s democracy for you.


    God went to the Arabs and said, ‘I have Commandments for you that will make your lives better.’

    The Arabs asked, ‘What are Commandments?’
    And the Lord said, ‘They are rules for living.’

    ‘Can you give us an example?’

    ‘Thou shall not kill.’

    ‘Not kill? We’re not interested..’

    So He went to the Blacks and said, ‘I have Commandments.’

    The Blacks wanted an example, and the Lord said,
    ‘Honor thy Father and Mother.’

    ‘Father? We don’t know who our fathers are.
    We’re not interested.’

    Then He went to the Mexicans and said,
    ‘I have Commandments.’

    The Mexicans also wanted an example, and the Lord said ‘Thou shall not steal.’

    ‘Not steal? We’re not interested.’

    Then He went to the French and said,
    ‘I have Commandments.’

    The French too wanted an example and the Lord said, ‘Thou shall not commit adultery.’

    ‘Sacre bleu! Not commit adultery? We’re not interested.’

    Finally, He went to the Jews and said,
    ‘I have Commandments.’

    ‘Commandments?’ They said, ‘How much are they?’

    ‘They’re free.’

    ‘We’ll take 10.’

    There – that should scunner just about everybody……

  65. Dear you all,
    As far as I am concerned, I follow my treatment and the oncologist said that my pancreas tumour disappeared. Thanks God! he does not know how it could happen.
    Hence, I have to return to the Military Hospital of the Val-de-Grâce for further scrutiny… Merci à tous et à toutes pour vos prières!
    Bien cordialement LD

    • Thanks be to God. Miracles do happen! Would you attribute this to the intercession of a particular saint? If you suspect your recovery is a gift from God, you could obtain a referral to the Lourdes medical bureau.

      • Dear Miles Immaculatae,
        Thank you for your kind message!
        I must wait for the outcome of furthur scrutiny as it might be a misinterpretation of the oncologist…
        Neverseless I go to the Basilique du Sacré Coeur almost every day.
        In case I have really recovered, I shall ask the oncologist a written testimony.
        Union de prière LD

  66. PS: I do not like much to talk about me and especially about my health.
    However I wanted to thank you for you kindness LD

  67. Fr John Keenan has just been appointed to Paisley. I know you don’t like him all that much, but he’s a step in the right direction. And friendly to the TLM

    • A step in the right direction? Fr Keenan plans to bring Pope Francis’s vision of the Church to Paisley. God help us all.

      We wish him well as he takes up this appointment, but I am not expecting any heather to go on fire. In any event, I am about to post a thread on this appointment, so best to keep comments for that. Please and thank you.

      • Oh come now, everyone knows that’s diplomat speak. He’s thoroughly Ratzingerian like Bishops Davies and Egan whom you like. I mean he’s not going to reinstall his altar rails (and we do need bishops who will) but he’s not going to harass a priest who will, or harass a priest who celebrates the Old Mass. And the younger generation of priests, who are tomorrow’s bishops, will be the ones who will do that. The fact is, it’s easy to destroy something, it takes a lot longer to build it back up. And that’s a project, because of most people’s spirituality being built up around a badly celebrated Novus Ordo, takes going to take decades, not a few months or even years.

  68. Miles Immaculatae,

    That is very interesting indeed. It’s summed up in this couple of paragraphs which sent a shiver down my spine:

    “The big concern of the Ukrainian people is that it could be possible, in this moment, [to have] some sort of restoration of the former Soviet Union,” warned Shevchuk, who speaks nine languages including English.

    The crisis is not only a matter for Ukraine, he said. If Russia succeeds in developing stronger ties, drawing Ukraine further from the Western world, “not only Europe but the whole world could be on the edge of [a] new Cold War.”

    The quicker Russia is consecrated the better.

  69. Madame Editor,

    One of our bloggers, Westminster Fly, is unwell at the present time, with a painful throat.

    He had his throat blessed by a priest on February 3rd – the Feast of St. Blaise – but I feel he would benefit from the prayers of all here who have read his brave posts.

    Please announce this post so that it comes to the notice of as many as possible.

    Westminster Fly is a great servant of Our Lady too, and he deserves all we can do for him.

    More posts will follow when more news is known.

    Here is a blessing used by St. Blaise, which I hope bloggers will add to their prayers.

    “Through the intercession of St. Blaise, bishop and martyr, may God deliver you from ailments of the throat and from every other evil.

    In the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”

    (Blessing of St. Blaise).

  70. ++Mueller has referred to the SSPX again, in an interview. We have heard similar things before – although now he mentions the dogmatic preamble; is that not the document which was refuted by +Fellay at the end of the most recent talks?

    “[T]he prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith maintains that a reconciliation with the Society of Saint Pius X is possible. The Congregation had presented [the SSPX] with a clear dogmatic preamble; ‘this door is open, we do not close it,’ says Müller. There are ‘no hidden entrances.’ The Congregation follows the unification efforts ‘with perseverance and firmness,’ as it was called to do by Pope Francis.”

    I wonder if the encouragement mentioned, from Pope Francis, related specifically to the SSPX or was he referring to ecumenism?

    ++Mueller also denied being a “conservative opponent” of Francis in the same interview.

    • Gabriel Syme,

      I saw that report yesterday – something of a change in emphasise from Mueller whom I thought had, emphatically, closed the door on the SSPX. Maybe he’s one of those who is beginning to come to his senses as a result of the scandalous utterances of Pope Francis. One lives in hope.

      I paid a flying visit to the Catholic Herald yesterday, and was extremely impressed with comments you’d posted (forget the topic, but you were impressive!)

      Keep up the great work 😀

      • Thanks Ed – praise indeed!

        The Catholic Herald used to be my main Catholic read, (paper and online), but I look at it scarcely these days. The paper has a good reputation, but I increasingly think that is undeserved, given former senior Herald staff like Stamford and Odone often do and say things to undermine Catholicism.

        In the past week or so I have visited the Herald unusually often, thanks to being drawn into some conversations. What is encouraging to me is that comments in support of tradition and the SSPX are often well received by readers (judging by the displayed ratio of positive to negative “hits”).

        Having said that, I recently noticed Miles saying he had been banned from the Herald website. And I read that another traditionalist guy “Benedict Carter” who pops up there, the Telegraph and Catholic blogs etc was also banned recently.

        Anyway thanks a lot for the kind comment!

        • … And Damian Thompson is on the governing body.

          A few years ago I used to read his blog on the Telegraph. I thought he was very orthodox. Recently however he seems to have shown his true colours. He no longer criticises the English bishops and the modernist establishment like he once used to. He has written some suspiciously gay friendly pieces as well recently. He was also scathing of the Tablet and its readers. But to be honest, I can’t tell the difference between anything they’d write and him any more.

          For someone previously so used to criticising the Eccleston Square establishment of ‘magic circle’ English bishops – while heaping praise on Pope Benedict’s conservative liturgical orientation – he has been surprisingly silent on Pope Francis’ irregular practices. I know he attends the Traditional Mass at the London Oratory, but so does William Oddie, and he is definitely someone with an anti-Traditionalist bias. In fact, in his Catholic Herald blog he claimed we were all a bit stupid, pretty much.

          Oh well, I’m banned now. Institutions like the Catholic Herald are chameleonic. Under Pope Benedict, like all the neo-Catholic franchises, they were obsessed with promoting his vision of the hermeneutic of reform in continuity. They portrayed themselves as rather ‘High Church’ and pro-life and vigorously supported the Ordinariate. Whereas under Francis’ Pontificate, they have just floated along with the current. Their whole editorial perspective has changed in the blink of an eyelid with the change of regime. They appear to uphold the status quo. At least the Tablet are honest about their identity!

          The funny thing is, mine and Benedict Carter’s comments, among a few other Traditionalist commentors, were always the most popular. Ours generated the most discussion and got the most up-ratings.

          They have banned my IP address, so I can’t even comment under a different account.

  71. Time to abrogate the Novus Ordo!

    Some excerpts:

    “The Missal of Paul VI must be abrogated entirely, and the sooner the better.

    Yes, I can almost hear the chorus of protests swelling in the background already…

    That’s crazy! The new Mass can’t be repealed as if it never existed!

    Like Hell it can’t. We survived the Pauline offensive (albeit bloodied and battered); why not its undoing?

    Should it be done virtually overnight as was the case when Pope Paul VI unleashed this single greatest liturgical assault the Church has ever had to endure?

    No, for one thing, doing so would be almost as merciless. For another, it is far easier to go from enlightened to pedestrian than it is to travel in the opposite direction.The Missal of Paul VI must be abrogated entirely, and the sooner the better.

    Yes, I can almost hear the chorus of protests swelling in the background already…

    That’s crazy! The new Mass can’t be repealed as if it never existed!

    Like Hell it can’t. We survived the Pauline offensive (albeit bloodied and battered); why not its undoing?

    Should it be done virtually overnight as was the case when Pope Paul VI unleashed this single greatest liturgical assault the Church has ever had to endure?

    No, for one thing, doing so would be almost as merciless. For another, it is far easier to go from enlightened to pedestrian than it is to travel in the opposite direction.”

  72. As requested, I’ll post here.

    Actually my comment wasn’t about science, but rather to the post “As usual, Michael Voris hits the nail on the head” since this risks being associated with some of his other views.

    However, from the tone of the reply I do seem to have hit rather a tender point and having looked at the linked thread I can see why. I had thought that apart from a small fringe, mostly in the US, the world had caught up with scientific progress of the last few centuries.

    To the Editor’s post, I’m not really clear why the seemingly random list of inventions of the last century. Was it to demonstrate that “human beings [didn’t sit] around for billions and trillions and aeons – plus a multitude of years – doing little to nothing creative?” If so, no disagreement about that, given that modern humans have only been around for the last 200,000 years or so.

    And to clarify “Why would anyone think that the earth isn’t billions and trillions and aeons – plus a multitude – of years old?” I’m not sure they do since as far as can be known at the moment the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. I haven’t read anyone claiming it to be trillions of years old so again not entirely sure of the point being made.

    Of course, new discoveries and methodologies help give more precision to such calculations. These are refinements to established science and I really do struggle to see how anyone today can give any credence to geocentricism or to claims that the earth is 8,000 years or so old.

    • The figure you give for the age of man is the evolutionist estimate for the age of homo sapiens, or similar species. They believe hominids go a long way back than 200,000 years. Millions of years even. My issue is this. And please answer it honestly. And please don’t resort to intellectual cop-outs such as ‘well, it’s mysterious and we can’t know how God works’ etc..: If Adam and Eve were truly historical persons (infallible dogmatic teaching, see Humani Generis) and if all humans trace their origin to them (also infallible dogmatic teaching), at what point in the hominid evolutionary schema did human-like creatures receive a rational, immortal soul. Was Adam suckled, reared and socialised by non-human creatures? Did ‘Neanderthals’ have rational souls? These are the kinds of incoherences that perpetuate the cognitive dissonance of ‘theistic evolutionists’. Thankfully, the evidence for evolution is shoddy. And the radiocarbon dating systems are known to be bogus. They’re proven to be accurate up to several thousand years, but after that they cannot determine the long ages required by evolutionists.

      4.5 billion years is a huge amount of time. Incomprehensible. And that is the modern hypothesis. Not until recently, for example during the enlightenment, various atheists believed the universe existed eternally, without cause, without end.

      Some theorists still believe this. Except they believe the universe is in a perpetual cycle of ‘expand and crunch’, i.e. infinite Big Bangs, creating and destroying the universe eternally. Others believe in an eternal ‘multiverse’. This is ridiculous. If the multiverse hypothesis were true, then purely by chance and probabilities there would be an infinite number of universes exactly identical to this one, accept I didn’t just type a ‘Q’ here …


      In other universes it would have been an ‘H’. Or a semicolon even.

      Don’t believe everything scientists say.

      • Miles

        I was indeed referring to homo sapiens, or more precisely homo sapiens sapiens.

        Please don’t take this as some kind of “intellectual cop-out”, not least because I wouldn’t regard myself as an intellectual, but I simply don’t know the answer to the question you pose. Equally, however, I don’t consider the fact that I don’t understand it to be especially important or relevant.

        I do think it is an interesting question, although I don’t think it needs lead from the premises of your argument (which in any case is a non sequitor).

        The concept of infinity is indeed mind-boggling and I don’t pretend to be able to comprehend it, or what it implies.

        And I certainly don’t believe everything scientists say, especially those speaking outside of their area of expertise.

    • Andrew, allow me to simplify my post on the “losing the faith” thread for you – since what I think is a very clear post, seems to be causing you no end of confusion.

      I posted the (incomplete) list of discoveries/inventions of the 20th century to make the point that in one century alone, the human race has been curious enough, industrious enough, and creative enough to invent/discover all those amazing things.

      Scientists, however, or rather those who consider the world to have suddenly put itself together in a totally random way some 4.5 billion years ago (quoting your figure) seem completely unconcerned with the fact that – again quoting your figure – although humans appeared equally unexpectedly from ape-like parents on the randomly created planet Earth, not one of them took a blind bit of notice of anything remotely technical, didn’t even think about antibiotics (for example) until the 20th century. No hints of what they did with their time, or what they thought about it all. Nothing.

      My common sense tells me that there’s something wrong with that hypothesis. And it’s a case EITHER of “something wrong with those human beings” OR “something wrong with the scientists who want us to believe it – and I stress the word “believe”, since the usual rules of science – observation and testing – are out of the window when it comes to this topic. Name a reliable scientist who was around 200,000 years ago, or even 100,000 years ago (to allow them time to build a laboratory) who can verify any of it?

      It’s the stuff of cartoons.

      • “not one of them took a blind bit of notice of anything remotely technical, didn’t even think about antibiotics (for example) until the 20th century. No hints of what they did with their time, or what they thought about it all. Nothing.”

        A short and random list of inventions that pre-date the 20th century, a number of them by some margin:

        The wheel
        Building techniques
        Internal combustion engine
        The concept of zero
        Light bulb
        Steam engine

        I don’t think it is just your common sense telling you that there is something wrong with this hypothesis. It does, in fact, fly in the face of the facts and I doubt there are many who would dispute it.

        I’m not, however, clear about the leap to your challenge to name a reliable scientist (or indeed anyone) who was around 200,000, or even 100,000 years, ago. I can’t follow your logic there, I’m afraid.

        • Andrew,

          I really must be much more clear in my comments to you – apologies for causing confusion.,

          My central point (referring to inventions/discoveries) was that if the world began 4 million years ago, it took a heck of a long time before the human race arrived, and even longer before they got curious and inventive. I’m sorry I gave the impression that I thought inventions/discoveries were exclusive to the 20th century – that’s not what I meant, obviously (you omitted the telephone from your pre-20th century list by the way, but who’s counting?)

          As for your final paragraph – again, all I was trying to say was, in the nature of things, there is no way any scientist could observe and test their various theories about the origin of the universe. That is, there WERE no scientists around either 4 million or 200,000 years ago.

          That’s all I meant 🙄

          • I don’t think we’re in disagreement.

            It was indeed a heck of a time from when the world began to modern humans.

            I would also think it unlikely that there were any scientists around 4 million years ago (given that there weren’t any humans at all then). 200,000 years ago I doubt there were either, at least in the sense that we refer to today.

            However, these are obvious points so I assume you’re driving at something else, just not sure what.

            • Andrew,

              The very obvious point I am making is that no scientist can possibly claim that he knows how the universe began. That’s the very obvious point that I am making

              In order to reach this conclusion, I have reflected on the fact that the usual rules of science are observation and testing. Since nobody observed how the world began, there can be no testing. Therefore, the usual rules whereby scientists reach conclusions, cannot possibly be applied to the question of human origins and how the universe began. We are full circle back to the FACT that evolution is merely a theory and not a very sensible one at that.

              Anybody reading the first book of Genesis can see that we can ALL observe what is claimed – that God made various plants and species and that they each reproduce themselves. Ironically, there is no “faith” required in accepting the Biblical account of creation. We can ALL observe that this happens.

              Now, I have deliberately written this comment without any humour or any other linguistic device, in order to make my meaning as clear as possible. I hope that you now understand my argument.

              Finally I’m interested that you think we are not in disagreement, but if my memory serves me correctly, your initial comment on this subject was to say that you thought only “fundamentalists” gave any credence to geocentrism. In fact, with all due respect, it seems to me that the real “fundamentalists” are those who go along with whatever the accepted “science” is at any given time without challenging it.

              • I’m interested in your comment on Genesis. You seem to be suggesting that all plants and species were created at the same time, taking the same form that they do today.

                This may fit with a literal reading of Genesis, but is at complete variance with eminently observable and testable geological and biological evidence.

                But Genesis was never intended to be taken literally. It is obvious that the earth and all things on it were not created in a period of six days of 24 hours. And the account is all the more powerful for not being a literal account.

                But my concern about Michael Voris is actually more about geocentrism than evolution. Or, more specifically, that ideas like that are given any credence. I noted on the link to a previous thread on this board that there is some sympathy here with the idea that the sun and everything else revolve around the world.

                That’s fine if people want to believe that kind of thing, but of a lot more concern that someone who professes to home-school science should appear to have some doubt on the subject. A very good argument for having teachers who have even a minimal grasp of their subject. And, potentially, a child with a huge gap in their basic education.

                To be clear, my own views are Christian. As a Catholic I do not see any conflict whatsoever between a belief in God and an interest in finding out about the world through science. Neither, of course, does the Catholic Church, which has a long and honourable history of scientific exploration, Gregor Mendel being just one among many pioneers.

                Even Pope Pious XII, hardly on the liberal, modernising wing, didn’t have a problem with evolutionary theory, provided of course that it did not deny the existence of the soul.

                • Andrew,

                  I don’t see that Editor said she was taking Genesis literally at all. She just said that we can see for ourselves that plants reproduce their own kind and animals do the same. We can observe that for ourselves. Nobody has ever seen a human being emerge from another species, yet that’s what scientists want us to believe.

                  • But if evolution is rejected as “merely a theory and not a very sensible one at that” and Genesis is not taken literally, how did life in all its varied forms come about and over what timescale?

                    • Nobody here is rejecting ‘evolution’ per se. I do not believe in ‘neo-Darwinian’ theories of evolution, no Catholic possibly could. I personally do not believe God created us through a process of ‘macro-Evolution’ either; there are just too many inconvenient conceptual problems. It would be unwise to accept this hypothesis because the evidence does not compel you to believe it, contrary to what evolutionists say. In fact, even some secularist scientists admit that Darwinian evolution is a theory in scientific trouble.

                      I do however believe, as do most ‘creationists’, that there is variation within the created ‘kinds’, in Hebrew baramin. This sufficiently accounts for the diversification we see among flora and fauna. Evolutionists believe that there have been huge morphological transitions through various processes like ‘beneficial mutations’. The probability of combinations of beneficial mutations occurring together at the same time, as would be necessary for amphibian-to-reptilian evolution, or bird-to-mammal evolution etc. are virtually impossible.

                      On the other hand, the creationist observes that although there are variations between the different sorts of whales, or the different sorts of canines, or frogs, or fish, they are still whales, canines, frogs and fish. They cannot go beyond being whales, canines, frogs and fish, i.e. a frog can’t ever become a reptile.

                      However, within the different ‘kinds’, their is massive creative potential for variation designed into each original ‘kind’. In spite of this, a ‘kind’ does not have the potential to go beyond it’s kind. A fox and a wolf remain canines. An orca and a blue-whale are still whales.

                    • A time-scale for variation within ‘kinds’ would not require the billion, millions and hundreds of thousands of years required for macro-evolution.

                      Unfortunately, we’ve all been brainwashed by society to believe that anyone who doesn’t believe in Darwinism is a cretin. The ‘mad, bad or sad’ rule. I used to loath creationists. My strong emotional feelings were the result of conditioned prejudices.

    • Evidently.

      The Masons’ own claim that

      “Four Grand Masters of English Freemasonry have been Roman Catholics. Today there are many Roman Catholic Freemasons”

      pretty much refutes the neo-Catholic assertion that Traditionalist’s are just paranoid conspiracy nuts. I mean, honestly, the Freemasons have confirmed what Traditionalists have been saying for years. Is it too far-fetched for the neo-Catholic imagination to accept that some of these “many Roman Catholic Freemasons” may just be bishops or seminary rectors, or cardinals even.

      Thank you for giving us that link. It’s a real eye-opener.

      Of course, from the Catholic perspective, we can’t. But the Masons aren’t bound by our rules so they can admit whoever they want. I’m sure a Catholic or two would be very useful to them, especially if he holds a degree of influence over the hierarchy, or indeed, is a member of the hierarchy himself.

      Check out John Salza on YouTube. A Traditional Catholic apologist, probably my favourite. He works with the Fatima Centre. He was a high-ranking Freemason.

    • but can Catholics be Freemasons?

      Catholics are forbidden by the Church from joining the masons.

      As I understand it, the masons deny Christ and instead favour a wishy-washy, vague view of God, where no one religion is considered prominent or correct – they are all equated. The masons use books such as the Bible., Koran etc interchangeably in their ceremonies, the individual being able to select which one they prefer.

      Bugnini, the architect of the Conciliar Church, is considered by many to have been a freemason and these claims were given creedence by Fr Malachi Martin and others who worked in the Vatican at the same time as Bugnini.

      • Gabriel Syme,

        I think it was Cardinal Murphy O’Connor who set the cat among the pigeons by saying something about Catholics being able to join the Masons. I can’t be absolutely sure if was him but there was a document in recent years which said that and caused a lot of people to think it was OK. It’s not, and Catholics cannot join any secret societies.

  73. Margaret Mary

    I’m sure you’ll agree that Pope Leo XIII’s instruction, along with that of all the other pre-Conciliar Popes is the one to rely on:

    “Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God.”
    Pope Leo XIII, Custodi Di Quella Fede (# 15), Dec. 8, 1892

    If anyone is still in doubt, let them read the same Pope’s magnificent 1884 encyclical, Humanum Genus for the definitive teaching on the “dark workshops”.

  74. Miles’ comment doesn’t have a reply button so posting here instead.

    I don’t understand how what you set out works in practice.

    Did various forms of homo suddenly appear and then just disappear over a couple of million years, with homo sapiens sapiens (presumably Adam and Eve, wholly unrelated to other species of homo that lived before them) popping onto the scene about 200,000 years ago? How did this happen suddenly in a world that had already been supporting various life forms for hundreds of millions of years?

    Did they just suddenly appear in the middle of a forest or wherever? If so, as babies or fully formed adults? Makes no sense at all.

    • Did various forms of homo suddenly appear and then just disappear over a couple of million years

      No. I don’t accept the proposed model of hominid evolution. This article gives some reasons:

      … with homo sapiens sapiens […] popping onto the scene about 200,000 years ago?

      No. I believe the human race is probably somewhere between six and seven thousand years old. I believe Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day of creation. Other life forms were created earlier on the third, fifth and sixth day. Adam was created from the slime of the earth, and Eve from his side when he lay in deep sleep.*

      That explains the objections you make further on. Theistic evolution makes absolutely no sense to me at all, as I mentioned in an earlier post. Unless of course Christianity is false.

      *We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep. (Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae #5.. Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII)

      If neo-Catholics insist we must accept every utterance of the Roman Pontiff with unreserved docility, why do they have such a problem with this? Or do they only mean post-conciliar Pontiffs? Pope Leo was exercising the ‘ordinary magisterium’, reason, i.e. natural science does not present any evidence to contradict it. Faith, i.e. Scripture and Tradition confirms it. Therefore we must accept it.

      I’m not interested a jot that Pope John Paul II said new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. One of a multitude of his reckless and irresponsible comments and teachings. Accept one, accept all of them please: His teachings and practices of false ecumenism and the new ecclesiology: Assisi, comments on Judaism and Protestantism etc.. Not to mention his wilful and informed actions which protected Fr Marcial Maciel and therefore perpetuated his sexual and religious crimes; JPII’s active toleration of Medjugorje as the anti-Communist resistnace movement akin to the Polish ‘Solidarity’ of southern Europe, which has led to millions of people being led astray by Medjugorje, including my former best friend. John Paul II is directly responsible. And his multitudinous appointments of apostates to the Episcopacy and College of Cardinals: +Mahony, +Bernadin (personally selected by John Paul II). This man is not a saint. His canonisation, is, well actually sinful, blasphemous, a sacrilege. Fr Malachi Martin believed Bernadin was a Satanist. We all know he was a practising homosexual apostate, so I can well believe it.

      • Miles

        Not entirely clear why the sudden diatribe against Pope John Paul II. Without wishing to be side-tracked, because I lived in Poland for 12 years, my wife is Polish and she and many of my friends grew up in the period leading up to and during the Solidarnosc movement, probably inevitably I have a different view of him.

        Be that as it may, there are a few problems with your beliefs about early man. Perhaps the most obvious is that when you claim the human race started, about 6,000 to 7,000 years ago, there were already quite a lot of humans around. Indeed, by then (in fact in some cases long before), tools had been made, paintings had been painted, animals (such as pigs, dogs and probably cattle) had been domesticated, buildings built, crops cultivated, etc, etc. At the risk of being flippant, that must have come as a bit of a shock to Adam and Eve as they ventured into their surroundings and came across established settlements of farmers living in huts.

        Another obvious problem with your timeline is how to explain species that by then had already been extinct for some time. Perhaps most obviously dinosaurs, which you would claim had died out some 65 million years before creation, which doesn’t really make sense.

        And if God created the world in 6 days between 6,000 to 7,000 years ago almost all we know about geology is rubbish.

        However, to be fair, as you say it is your belief.

        What worries me is that your belief in the opening of Genesis, a text that is so obviously not meant to be taken literally, leads to you simply dismissing much of what we have found out about God’s world.

        It is analogous to believing that the sun, the planets and everything else revolve around the earth, despite the very clear evidence to the contrary.

        I have a strong belief in God that I reiterate every Sunday at Mass (and lunchtimes if I can make it) when I say the Creed. To the best of my abilities I try to convey this belief as a catechist.

        And for the record, I work in finance, restructuring companies, and am most definitely not a scientist.

        However, I do have a great inquisitiveness about the world, about how our planet was created, about how life developed, and why, as well as many other things.

        My view is that it is not only mistaken, but also a fundamental mis-use of the intellectual faculties that God gave us, to simply ignore what we have discovered about the world or to refuse to continue to test scientific hypotheses about what we don’t know yet.

        • Of course, none of what I believe makes sense if you presuppose the accuracy of the historical estimates given by evolutionist anthropologists and archaeologists, or evolutionist theories of geology and palaeontology.

          You will be very surprised to learn that there are coherent and satisfying explanations allowing for a ‘young-earth’ model for all the things you mention. They once troubled me.

          The divergence in early human cultures can be explained by the Babel incident recorded in Sacred Scripture. Evolutionist geological theories like the so called ‘ice age’, and continental drift are validly explained by the deluge recorded in Genesis.

          I really recommend the book ‘Creation Rediscovered’ by Gerard J. Keane

          You need to differentiate theory from fact. It is not a misuse of our divinely created intellectual faculties to disbelieve theory, especially if it is contrary to the Fathers of the Church (who all interpreted Genesis literally). Young earth creationism does not disregard the facts, in fact they are themselves applied, with success, to validate a literal interpretation of Scripture!

        • Andrew,

          It is an article of the Catholic faith that Original Sin took place at the very beginning of time.

          “390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265” (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

          So, you are wrong to say that our first parents, Adam and Eve, would have found other humans there when they arrived. That cannot be right.

          You say what worries you is people taking Genesis literally and so on but that is not true. As the quote above shows, Genesis creation accounts do use figurative language but there are certain things we must accept as history and the creation of the first two human beings is one of those things. Nobody can be a Catholic and deny the Original Sin committed by the first two human beings created by God.

          It is interesting to me that you take pains to accept the science, even though it cannot be proven, and yet you would question the faith. That is very serious.

          • Josephine

            You misunderstood. The comment about Adam and Eve meeting other humans was to illustrate the absurdity of claiming they (and the rest of the world) has existed for only 6,000 to 7,000 years.

            From this you seem to infer that I deny original sin and that I question the faith. If that were the case, which from my post it clearly wasn’t, then it would indeed be very serious.

            However, your citing of the Catechism is highly relevant since it is exactly what I have been saying, ie that the Genesis creation account uses figurative language.

            This is a completely different standpoint from Miles, who states “No. I believe the human race is probably somewhere between six and seven thousand years old. I believe Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day of creation. Other life forms were created earlier on the third, fifth and sixth day. Adam was created from the slime of the earth, and Eve from his side when he lay in deep sleep”.

            I am then accused of just blindly accepting what scientists say.

            I would put it rather differently. To agree with Miles’ view involves disregarding all almost every bit of science relevant to that question: biology, physics, geology, the lot.

            It also requires saying that the Catechism is wrong.

            There are denominations, predominantly in the US, that have a belief in “young-earth creation” and this is an important element of their faith. That view, however, does not form part of the teaching of the Catholic Church.

            • On the contrary, the Catechism of the Catholic Church appears to support ‘creationism’.

              As I have said, to accept the young-earth model indeed flies in the face of evolutionist biology, physics, geology, anthropology etc.. However, theirs is an interpretation of the evidence. It is a hypothetical way of understanding the evidence. They are presupposed to look at the cosmos from an evolutionist perspective. They have to, since they don’t believe in God, and evolution is the only explanation of why we exist. The evidence however does not presuppose anything, i.e. it does not disprove a creationist model. Based on the evidence, evolutionists will admit creationism is possible, they simply do not believe this hypothesis because they think Christianity is ridiculous. So, the onus is on us to interpret the evidence according to Scripture and Tradition, i.e. the original sin of Adam had to occur before the coming of death into Creation. This offends the evolutionist world view, but so what? Why are you so bothered to appease them? They still were idiots.

              Young earth creationism does not necessarily go hand in hand with geocentrism. The book I linked holds the heliocentric model.

              Actually, young-earth creationism was pretty much the position of the Catholic Church until the 20th Century. Apart from Augustine, all the Fathers of the Church accepted this interpretation. You have been mislead, it is not an exclusively an American fundamentalist Protestant belief. This is the impression one gets from the media. Or was Pope Leo XIII an American fundamentalist Protestant? Did you read the quote? Interestingly, it is theistic evolution rather which has its origin in liberal, demythologist Protestant theology. Did you know that? It was the condemned heretic Teilhard de Chardin (a Jesuit, surprise surprise) who imported it into the Catholic Church – from Protestantism.

              According to evolutionists, Death is the essential mechanism by which organisms evolve. The process requires the death of organisms. Without death there can be no natural selection. So if Adam was created through a process of death, how could death have only come into the world after the Fall? No Catholic evolutionist has ever honestly explained this to me. Even my atheist friends agree with me on this point. One of them admitted creationism is far less ridiculous than the proposed theistic evolutionary model. Theistic evolution is incoherent. How do you live with the cognitive dissonance. TE bends over backwards to appease secular science, but shows disdain for obvious Christian doctrine.

              Materialist evolutionists say that life and the universe have the appearance of design but that there is no designer. Whereas theistic evolutionists say that life and the universe do not have the appearance of design but there is as designer. Absurd!

              I believe creation has the appearance of design, because there is a designer.

              Why would God create millions of species during the millions of years before man came on the scene, only for them to appear and become extinct eons of time before we ever even saw them? Were they just arbitrary increments in the process of our creation? Not even likely, because most of those organisms don’t have any role in the human evolutionary scheme. What a cruel and wasteful God! Not my God. If God created us through evolution He must be evil or incompetent.

              • “Actually, young-earth creationism was pretty much the position of the Catholic Church until the 20th Century.”

                Broadly, in fact, until we found out more ….

                “Why would God create millions of species during the millions of years before man came on the scene, only for them to appear and become extinct eons of time before we ever even saw them?”

                Dinosaurs, for example.

                • How can I make you understand that what we have discovered in science does not per se equal Darwinism. Darwinism is a hypothesis which is applied to scientific discoveries (‘the hows’) to explain them (‘the whys’). As a Catholic I accept all ‘the hows’. But scientists have not really discovered ‘the whys’. Rather, they are philosophical explanations (theories) which are formulated and applied to the evidence. If I disregarded ‘the hows’ you would have a point. But I don’t, I merely base my ‘whys’ on Catholicism… ‘the hows’ perfectly allow for this!

                  Yes, exactly, dinosaurs and a multitude of others.

                  • If a “how” is a scientific discovery that is properly evidenced and accepted by all those with any knowledge of the field, then you must accept that dinosaurs existed and died out millions of years before humans. Unless all we know about paleontology and geology.

                    No need at this stage to refer to evolution, or Darwinism as you call it. Not relevant since we are not considering what you call the “whys”.

                    However, this doesn’t appear to fit easily with the end of your previous comment.

                    • What about all those German scientists? You know, all the ones who all reached a consensus on Nazi racial theories. They were all experts in their field. That is flimsy reasoning, you need to account for institutional ideologisation. It’s a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority.

                      The evidence does not show that dinosaurs lived and died out millions of years ago. Evolutionists believe they lived and died out millions of years ago because they require huge time-scales to account for their evolution. The radiocarbon dating methods are bogus, they can only accurately date up to several thousand years. The fossil record is inconsistent. Contemporary species have been found in rock strata which had been previously dated to be millions of years old. Likewise, organisms thought to have existed millions of years ago have been found in rock strata that were previously considered to be millions of years younger. Fossilised human footprints have been found next to dinosaur tracks. Explain that one.

                      Soft tissue (including blood vessels and cells) has been found on a T-Rex allegedly 68 million years old. However, it is not possible for the proteins that make up soft tissue to remain intact for that long without decaying. The tissue/blood vessels are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most. (i.e., by the global Flood of Noah’s time, about 4,300 years ago.)

                      The dating and classification of fossils within an evolutionary model is a ‘why’ in my book. Science does not prevent us from validly interpreting the fossil record within an creationist model.

                      There are perhaps only 55 different ‘kinds’ (baramin) of ‘dinosaurs’. Adolescent specimens of each could have could have fitted on the Ark. God might have kept them in a docile state, or a kind of hibernation. After the Flood, there would have been sufficient time for genetic diversification within these ‘kinds’ to account for the approximate 668 specimens identified by palaeontologists. Unfortunately, many of these large reptiles became extinct after the flood, possibly because of humans. Or perhaps the earth’s environment changes so much after the flood it could not support the environment needed by these creatures. Some survived, like the Saltwater crocodile, which one can see today.

                      If you have any questions about the possibility of young-earth creationism I’m sure I’ll be able to find answers for them.

                    • I read an article many years ago that said tribesmen in the Congo had encountered creatures in their rainforest habitat whose description matched that of Sauropods, or ‘long-necked dinosaurs’.

        • No doubt Bernadin was a modernist liberal apostate, who hated the faith. A high-ranking member of the ‘Homomafia’. He personally requested that the ‘Chicago Gay Men’s Chorus’ sing at his requiem Mass, which they did. He was also involved in some seedy homoscandals, like that at the Winona Seminary.

          This is from chapter 15 from Randy Engel’s Rite of Sodomy</em (the seminal tome on American Catholic Ecclesiastical Homosexuality):

          Bernardin’s name had come up in connection with homosexual activities and sex abuse scandals, some of which involved occult practices.

          I’ll spare you the details.

          Him and +Mahony (still at large) between them have influenced the appointment of most of the United States bishops, with disastrous consequences. Take Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee for example. He was blackmailed by his homosexual lover and stole USD 450,000 to pay him off.

  75. I hope this posts ok. It’s a video of Muslims throwing stones at Catholics coming out of a church……… France!!

  76. I take it that report is from an alternative media source, not the mainstream media.

    Also – although I’ve only had a quick look just now – it seems to be a couple of photographs, not a video recording. Will check again later but the thought came to me that it might be claimed that these photographs are doctored to make it look like they’re attacking Catholics outside a Church. A photo of a church building and then a photo of some Muslims throwing stones – how can we be sure they’re what they are purported to be?

    This is editor, asking, not Awkward Customer 😀

    • Tirrey,

      I think we saw that debacle last year. I’m afraid I’ve just arrived at my computer (briefly – more later) and won’t be able to see it live tonight. I presume we can import it from YouTube later?

    • It was commissioned by Fr MICHAEL Mary, Fr Nicholas has more taste. Frankly it looks like one of those tatty postcards you see in tourist shops.

    • I recently got my copy in the post from the Frs. It’s so beautifully done, and I can’t wait to reverence the painting itself one day.

      There’s a lot of symbolism (like the stone, the broach, tartan, etc) and is a true example of what inculturation looks like…. Not drums during Mass

    • Miles Immaculatae,

      We are about to have our first disagreement. Unless, of course, you’re winding us up.

      I have to agree with Vianney (much as it nearly kills me) that it’s less than tasteful.

      In all honesty, were that to have appeared in any diocesan church, I’d have been featuring it on the front page of the next edition of Catholic Truth, with some very biting commentary.

      So, tell me you’re practising for the 1st April. Please ❗

    • Oh come on people! You’re being a bit harsh.

      After all, Scotland is, to quote Vianney, the Capital of tatty postcards you see in tourist shops. (Ouch!)

      *Fr Michael Mary, mea culpa. I should like to tell father, I think it would have been much better if there had been a highland cow in the background, just a small one though, otherwise it would be tacky.

      • “After all, Scotland is, to quote Vianney, the Capital of tatty postcards you see in tourist shops. (Ouch!)”

        Now I didn’t say that, have you ever thought of becoming a politician? lol.

        I meant to say that the hymn, the unaltered version, is in the Edinburgh chapel’s hymnal but it is not sung to the tune of Auld lang syne.

      • Oh no. I have nothing against the House of Windsor. I’m a bit of a royalist actually. However…

        There are many venerable prophesies most worthy of belief, which speak of the rise of a ‘Great Catholic Prince’ of the Bourbon line, during the period of Chastisement. Together with the ‘Holy Pope’ they will defeat the enemies of the Church and be instrumental in establishing on earth the reign of the Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, as promised by Our Lady at Fatima. The prophesies concur that this great King will establish Catholic monarchies over the other nations. If the Protestant House of Windsor should be deposed or become extinct some time soon, who knows, perhaps the Stuart line will be restored? It might be this woman:,_Hereditary_Princess_of_Liechtenstein#Titles_and_styles

  77. The reply button disappeared again (probably allows so many replies)

    Editor: None that I am aware of. However, the explanation for that is straightforward: all the evidence points to the same place. There are new discoveries, new tools and methodologies, yielding new knowledge, but all the research from disparate fields is broadly consistent. Where there are inconsistencies these are explored and sometimes the Kuhnian paradigm is strengthened and there is a step forward in understanding.

    Sometimes, as in the case of geocentrism the paradigm is so severely challenged it has to change. Scientists on the whole are happy to accept this and those that aren’t catch up in the end.

    There are, it is true, some who seriously question evolution and geocentrism. Michael Voris is in that select group. But it is noticeable that on the one hand you find everyone working in the field, people who actually know what they are talking about, and on the other unqualified commentators who for some reason have closed their minds to understanding about the wonderful, rich and supremely complex world that God created for us.

    For those Catholics who take this route all evidence is discarded that contradicts a literal translation of the opening of Genesis, even when the Church in its most important teaching, the Catechism, guides us in the opposite direction, ie that the creation passage in Genesis is to be regarded figuratively.

    What the Pope says is also discarded when it doesn’t fit. Miles adduced a comment from Pope John Paul II (for some reason), only to emabark on an attack that was, in my view, not only highly disrespectful, but also, and more importantly for the point Miles was trying to make, a classic example of an ad hominem argument, and therefore wholly fallacious.

    God created us with the capacity to think and an inbuilt inquisitiveness. That’s how we know about mathematics, about gravity, about medicine, etc, etc, etc. To use that gift is to use a gift from God. Not all scientists (or those interested in what scientists find out) will take that view. Some will regard the findings as further proof that there is no God. I don’t agree with that, and neither would the many, many Christian (including Catholic) scientists – indeed, a number of the key advances in science were made by Catholics, not least the study of genetics.

    • Andrew,

      There are quite a few scientists who don’t believe in evolution and that is not always for religious reasons. This article is very interesting, it gets more interesting as you read on so I hope you learn as much as I did from it.

      The Church has always said that the six days of creation could be expanses of time, not literal days, but God can do anything and if he wanted to create the world in six days he could have done. The Church does not accept that there could have been humans before our first two married humans, Adam & Eve.

      Do you accept that the human race descended from our first two parents, Adam & Eve?

      • Josephine

        I had a look at the article you link.

        It refers to a number of scientists who, it claims, do not “believe” in evolution. This makes interesting reading. Bear in mind Darwin’s Origin of Species was published in 1859 and it was not until the 1930s that modern evolutionary synthesis brought together the various thought and research that followed.

        So the inclusion of da Vinci (died 1519), Steno (died 1686) and Pascal (died 1662) will not come as a total surprise. The remaining scientists they refer to all died in the late 19th century or the first years of the 20th.

        The article also seems to lump together all scientists, without appearing to understand their fields of work.

        It seems to be a case of find a scientist, any scientist, who didn’t support evolution. No matter if they died a few hundred years before the theory started to be developed. No matter if they work in a wholly unrelated area. If they can be called a scientist and didn’t “believe” in evolution, then include them.

        The article also refers to the Creation Research Society, and some of the scientists involved. So I had a look at one of these, Don DeYoung. He works as a “Creation Physicist” at Grace College, Indiana. Basically, a theology college based around the Evangelical, Pietist and Anabaptist movements (from its website).

        I looked a couple of videos in which DeYoung features and, even for a non-scientist such as myself. My 14 year old son, nuts about science, couldn’t keep a straight face, was stunned by the ignorance of what everyone interested in the subject matter knows. Which led me to the following summary, which more or less points out the same things as my 14 year old:

        Don in his own words:

        “My scientific belief in creation is largely based on two thermodynamic laws of nature. The first law states that energy is conserved or constant at all times. This rule ensures a dependable and predictable universe, whether for stars or for human life. The second basic law…describes unavoidable losses in any process which involves the transfer of energy. This law is directly related to the Curse which was placed upon nature at the fall of mankind in Eden. Secular science has no satisfactory explanation for such laws of nature, and these laws are entirely consistent with the biblical, six-day creation.”

        GCSE Single Science fail.

        Sorry, but to convince me that the entire modern scientific community is wrong will take more than the article you refer to.

        • I sympathise with your position. Like your son, when I was 14 I was mad about science. I used to be top of the class in science, and I would occasionally get 100% in exams. If I hadn’t have chosen arts A-levels I probably would have studied medicine. I used to be vociferously anti-creationist and I would scorn Christians who wouldn’t conform to theistic theories of ‘evolution proper’. Then I had an ‘awakening’. I hope you will too. Because presently I think you’ve been short changed, which is a shame.

          It is my personal opinion that the period of peace promised by Our Lady, which will come about by the Triumph of Her Immaculate Heart which will occur after the consecration of Russia, the heresy of naturalism will be obliterated from the entire intellectual sphere. This will lead to a new epoch of scientific understanding, there will be a colossal paradigm shift. In the future there will be no controversy over evolution, because everybody will be creationist, including all scientists.

        • Please do give ten minutes of your time to watch some of this video, best to start from the beginning.

          He is a secular Jewish philosopher of mathematics and science. He does not subscribe to ‘creationism(s)’ per se.

          You will be surprised.

          David Berlinski.

          He once said the probability of ‘molecules-to-man’ evolution has one chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion.

          • Miles

            I couldn’t see a link so I googled him and I was indeed surprised. Particularly at his example to refute evolution by looking at the complexity of the process of a cow evolving into a whale, which of course suffers from the obvious and fatal flaw that whales did not evolve from cows.

            Perhaps not surprising given he is a writer, commentator and mathematician and talking wholly outside his field of competance.

            He is, however, without doubt stunningly pompous, arrogant and abusive of people with whom he disagrees.

            And also at best disingenuous, for example claiming that von Neumann laughed at Darwinian theory, which I couldn’t find supported by anything available on the internet.

            About as daft as Josephine’s linked article that triumphantly claimed da Vinci, Pascal and Steno did not “believe” in evolution, most probably because they had already been dead for a few couple of hundred years before it was proposed.

            Perhaps we should add the revelation that da Vinci did not “believe” in radiation, the doppler effect or nuclear fission either.

            I also had a closer look at the Creation Research Society Josephine referred me to. According to their website members have to state that they believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. Which of course rules them out as scientists since they have already determined the answer and confirmed that they will discard any evidence that does not conform to this (or will ensure it fits only with the answer that cannot change).

            As someone who professes to have had a passion for science I find your acceptance of this truly baffling.

            • I’ve now read both of your latest posts and wonder why you keep putting “believe” in inverted commas?

              Right across the internet, on all the pro-evolution websites, they speak about “believing” or “not believing” in evolution.

              I’ve already pointed out that in this matter, the usual rules of science are not applied – observation and testing. Therefore, one has to exercise faith if one wishes to … er… believe in evolution.

              So, why are you using inverted commas to speak about belief in the disputed theory of evolution? And before you say it’s not disputed, well that makes it even more suspect, because scientists are supposed to dispute and test and re-test evidence, and so on. That is not happening with evolution. What’s happened here is we have an hypothesis which Johnny Scientist and his fourteen year old fans seek to prove is “true” by hook or by crook – by any means except the usual scientific means of observation and testing.

              And how do you know that whales did not evolve from cows? Seems every bit as likely as humans evolving from apes.

              As for your parting shot addressed to Miles, I find your acceptance of this crackpot theory (and ditto the rest of the evolution enthusiasts) totally baffling.

              With a capital T.

              • I’ve already pointed out that in this matter, the usual rules of science are not applied – observation and testing. Therefore, one has to exercise faith if one wishes to … er… believe in evolution.

                I’ve tried helping Andrew understand the difference between ‘why’ and ‘how’, but he doesn’t understand the difference between ‘theory’ and ‘evidence’. He’s been brainwashed. He is careful not to discredit his religious view, which is understandable. He is terrified that if he accepts a ridiculed theory, people will believe his faith is worthy of ridicule as well. But the sad fact is, it already is ridiculed. I actually believe, along with Kolbe Centre director Hugh Owen, that theistic evolution does nothing to win over souls. In fact, if the Catholic Church officially embraced ‘creationism’, we would be more ridiculed by the secular order, however numerous souls would convert. Conservative protestants for example, and irreligious folk who are desperate to find life’s meaning but are perplexed by the Darwinian society.

                If theory and evidence were the same, Amanda Knox would still be in prison. Theories don’t stand up in court. ‘X’ presupposed that ‘Y’ stabbed ‘Z’ because ‘Y’s DNA was found on the murder weapon. The idea that the DNA on the knife meant ‘Y’ used the knife to stab ‘Z’ is theory. The knife has no opinion. The story she stabbed ‘Z’ is a theory which very well may be true, it can’t be proved or disproved, it needs to be corroborated by other facts. Here’s another theory, she was chopping courgettes the night before, which may or may not be true.

                He also doesn’t understand the difference between ‘scientific consensus’ and ‘scientific fact’. One is determined by nature, the other by votes at symposiums or academies. Scientific consensus is not an infallible magisterium, in fact it is very easily influenced by politics and ideology. It wasn’t long ago when many scientists believed in the existence of empirical human classifications of races and sub-races, and that was even before Hitler came on the scene, whose regime of course would issue Aryan certificates! Anybody believing in Mongloids, Negroids, Nordics, Alpines etc. now would be considered racist. Nazism and its master race theory of course has it’s origin in Social Darwinism, as does eugenics. Eugenics was not invented by the Nazis. It was mainstream in the USA before 1940.

              • And how do you know that whales did not evolve from cows? Seems every bit as likely as humans evolving from apes.

                You are correct. According to ‘evolution proper’ it is very reasonable to assume cows might potentially evolve into an aquatic species, given the right conditions and period of time. To the evolutionist mammals present amazing adaptability, they fly (bats), they are exclusively aquatic (whales), and they live on land (cows).

                There was nothing inherent in the pakicetus that predestined it to (allegedly) become whale. Only chance, time, environment. After all, cows and pakicetus have the same common ancestor.

              • This really highlights the difference between a scientific approach and the approach of creationists.

                A young-earth creationist states at the outset that they already know the answer, ie a literal reading of the opening of Genesis. Indeed membership of the Creation Research Society requires this.

                Evidence obtained from research can, by the terms of reference, only be accepted if it agrees with the pre-determined results. If it doesn’t agree, either some kind of alternative explanation is sought, however fanciful and lacking in corroborating evidence, or it is just dismissed as incorrect.

                There are plenty of examples of the latter and I couldn’t find reference to any solid, scientific research, properly peer-reviewed, etc, to support young-earth creationism.

                A scientific approach on the other hand works within an existing paradigm (theory if you prefer), provided that this continues to prove robust. Findings that contradict this either refine or move forward the prevailing paradigm or result in a new one.

                That’s the essential point that creationists don’t understand. They appear to imagine some kind of orthodoxy that people are afraid to question, feel compelled to work within. Almost as if there is some kind of global conspiracy.

                But scientists, or a subset of scientists working in a particular field, do not form an homogenous group. Far from it. They are highly competitive, highly intelligent individuals. A new finding, especially one which challenges the prevailing view is a career forming opportunity.

                Of course, as a paradigm is worked on for a while, and new research continues to support it, after a certain while it becomes accepted science. As is the case with heliocentricism. And is the case with evolution (albeit that references to “Darwinism” disguise the fact that current evolutionary theory is quite different to what was set out in The Origin of Species). This is a result of the numerous challenges, disputes, testing, re-testing, of which you seem unaware, although even a cursory search of the scientific sites makes the very extensive nature of such work obvious.

                The paradigm will, however, continue to be challenged, as it should. I doubt you would find a single scientist who would disagree with that.

                If it turns out it is wrong, that’s fine. It’s not a belief, a matter of faith, as you suggest, or is the case with creationism.

                I haven’t seen any indication of a challenge to creationism in the arguments on this blog, nor in the various articles and references (which I have taken the trouble to look at).

                For me, claiming that not all scientists believe in evolution as evidence of some kind of controversy within the scientific community is invalid if the scientists in question died several centuries before the theory was even initially proposed.

                I also do not find a serious challenge coming from those whose research is necessarily confined to confirming the answer they started with, and who resolutely refuse to submit to normal, rigorous peer review.

            • Berlinski never says whales evolved from cows! You have misunderstood/misrepresented him. He is using the cow-to-whale story as an example, an analogy. He goes on to do the same with automobiles. Will you now claim Berlinsky believes “whales evolved from automobiles”? He’s not ignorant of proposed whale evolution hypotheses. Perhaps he should have said ‘pakicetus’. But does the average person know what one of them is? Do you know what a pakicetus is? Pakicetus no longer exist, so the analogy wouldn’t have worked anyway, because the example was based on a hypothetical present/future event. Cow pakicetus, pakicetus cow. They’re both mammals, and for the purpose of the argument, cow works perfectly well, because he was commenting on the evolutionary mechanism, not the evolution of whales. So stop being a pedant.

              stunningly pompous, arrogant and abusive of people with whom he disagrees .

              So what? How does that invalidate what he says? That’s rich, coming from someone who accused me of using ad hominems. He says the “fine prose stylist” Richard Dawkins writes prose that resembles “a string of sponges strung together on a wash line”. As someone who is acquainted with the predictable, unoriginal and sophomoric prose of Dawkins, I completely agree with him. And Daniel Dennet does have a stupid beard.

              not surprising given he is a writer, commentator and mathematician and talking wholly outside his field of competance.

              What, like Daniel Dennet? The writer, commentator, cognitive scientist and philosopher? Evolutionist-in-chief? It cuts both ways. As it happens, Evolution is Berlinski’s field of competence. He’s a polymath, and he has studied it alongside his other fields of interest. He doesn’t need to be a geneticist or palaeontologist to do that. Academics always cross over disciplines, otherwise academic progress would be very bland and slow. My German lecturer is a comparatist, but she studies German medical literature and translates German medical notes, even though she has not studied medicine. Likewise, the professor of German at my university is a comparatist, yet he studies Freud and psychoanalytic theory, even though he has not studied psychology or philosophy. But if you insist on being pedantic, the Catholic critic of evolution Michael Behe is a biochemist.

              Which of course rules them out as scientists since they have already determined the answer and confirmed that they will discard any evidence that does not conform to this

              That’s exactly what evolutionists do. They all presuppose evolution. You’d be a fool if you thought they believe in evolution merely because the evidence alone compels them to. They believe in evolution because they consider intelligent design to be ludicrous. Cos they ain’t Christian. That is their presupposition. Therefore, they are not open to accepting intelligent design even if the evidence compels them to, which it very often does.

              You’ve clearly bought into the narrative that we’re all retarded. Thus it will be difficult debating with you.

              Berlinski has nothing to do with the Creation Research Society. And myself and Josephine are independent of each other. And unlike da Vinci, Berlinski is very much alive.

              • I’m quite aware Berlinski doesn’t claim whales evolved from cows. Given the point of his argument that would indeed be a strange claim for him to make.

                And, yes, he should have used the example of pakicetus (and yes, I do know what this is as do I expect many people who studied basic science at school, visited the NHS, etc). It doesn’t actually take that long to explain that it was a smallish, four-legged land-dwelling mammal that lived around 50 million years ago (or, as you would claim, died out sometime in the last 6,000 to 7,000 years).

                I’m not entirely convinced it is being pedantic to distinguish a pakicetus from a cow since both are mammals. Actually, he could have used the example of a cow turning into a cow or a whale into a whale – they’re all mammals after all.

                As regards your somewhat condescending comments about me being brainwashed and terrified of agreeing with creationism, I think best just to ignore them.

                • Andrew,

                  I’m no scientist, but I do know the truth from a falsehood.

                  You have just said the following to Mile:

                  “I’m quite aware Berlinkski doesn’t claim whales evolved from cows…that would be a strange claim for him to make”.

                  Yet earlier, in the post to which Miles was responding, you wrote this:

                  “I couldn’t see a link so I googled him and I was indeed surprised. Particularly at his example to refute evolution by looking at the complexity of the process of a cow evolving into a whale, which of course suffers from the obvious and fatal flaw that whales did not evolve from cows.”

                  Two completely contradictory statements.

                  It seems obvious to me, the non-scientist among us, that you are determined to defend evolution no matter what. That – as any non-scientist knows – is entirely unscientific. Miles has refuted absolutely every claim you/evolutionists have made, and yet you continue undeterred to promote that ludicrous theory.

                  I cannot recall your response to the question of the Genesis account of the creation of the first humans, Adam & Eve, i.e. one male, one female, and whether or not you believe, fully and without doubting, what God has revealed through His Church on this matter, namely that the human race descended from those first two human beings, and that these were the first humans. There were no human beings before our first parents.

                  Do you believe that, Andrew? Yes or no?

                  • Miles,

                    If he’d done THAT, he would have been accused of being a biblical fundamentalist, because, after all, that’s what we read in genesis: each kind reproduced its own. We can’t have an evolutionist believing THAT fundamentalist nonsense, can we?

                  • “Two completely contradictory statements.”

                    No they aren’t. He used an example of a cow evolving into a whale as an argument against evolution. Obviously, he didn’t claim that this happened since it would contradict the argument he was making. However, since nobody (as far as I know) has ever argued this evolutionary link to exist it seems a strange example for him to use.

                    You write:

                    “It seems obvious to me, the non-scientist among us, that you are determined to defend evolution no matter what. That – as any non-scientist knows – is entirely unscientific. Miles has refuted absolutely every claim you/evolutionists have made, and yet you continue undeterred to promote that ludicrous theory.”

                    Compare and contrast with what I actually said:

                    “Of course, as a paradigm is worked on for a while, and new research continues to support it, after a certain while it becomes accepted science. As is the case with heliocentricism. And is the case with evolution (albeit that references to “Darwinism” disguise the fact that current evolutionary theory is quite different to what was set out in The Origin of Species). This is a result of the numerous challenges, disputes, testing, re-testing, of which you seem unaware, although even a cursory search of the scientific sites makes the very extensive nature of such work obvious.

                    The paradigm will, however, continue to be challenged, as it should. I doubt you would find a single scientist who would disagree with that.

                    If it turns out it is wrong, that’s fine. It’s not a belief, a matter of faith, as you suggest, or is the case with creationism.”

                    • Andrew,

                      Anyone who can read knows that you contradicted yourself so I won’t belabour that point.

                      As for “belief” – you need to do the rounds on the science/evolution blogs and tell THEM it’s not a belief. They use the word all the time. I’ve been asked by fervent evolutionists why I don’t “believe” it.

                      And you still haven’t answered my question about our first parents.

                      No Catholic may refuse to believe that we descend from two parents who were there at the very beginning of history. The first two human beings.

                      So, yes or no? Do you accept this tenet of the Faith?

                      Failure to answer this time, after all the requests to you to do so, will be taken as a “no”.

              • Miles,

                Absolutely every word a jewel. But I fear Andrew is not going to be convinced. It’s the fashion to place science on such a pedestal that it’s sacrilege to question it.

                There has been a complete reversal of the right order of things in this regard as in so much else in the world and Church today. It’s now fashionable to doubt what God has revealed (whereas, in reality, it is a grave sin to do so) while it’s completely off the Richter scale to question any scientific theory – especially evolution.

                Crazy 😯

                • “So, yes or no? Do you accept this tenet of the Faith?

                  Failure to answer this time, after all the requests to you to do so, will be taken as a “no”.”

                  I thought the discussion was about evolution and young-earth creationism, but to answer your question, I’m happy to accept there were two original humans.

                  So, let me ask you direct question. Do you think Pope Pious XII was wrong in Humani Generis in accepting that there is no inherent conflict between a scientific theory of evolution and the account in Genesis?

                  • Andrew,

                    I’m very glad that you referred again to Humani Generis, because I meant to correct you before on this subject.

                    Pope Pius XII – writing in 1950 – was very careful to emphasise that evolution is nothing more than a theory. And the issue isn’t anyway, whether there’s any “conflict between evolution and Genesis” (except that, as I’ve said over and over again, what is claimed for the beginning of the world anyone, scientists included, can observe and test even today! Not so evolution) – the question is whether the whole concept of the planet earth being billions of years old, and human beings evolving from other species, is compatible with Christian theology. But rather than give you my “interpretation” of what Pope Pius XII said, I thought I’d copy the key passages from his encyclical below – caution, not enthusiasm, is a hallmark of his remarks on the subject of evolution:

                    5.If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.

                    6. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivalling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.

                    35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.

                    36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter – for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

                    37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12] SOURCE

                    Clearly, the Pope is saying nothing more than that those who are experienced in the (relevant scientific) fields are at liberty (within the constraints outlined above) to “enquire into” certain matters connected with the theory of evolution – not that Catholics should take it as proven and teach and spread it as fact.

                    And thank you for affirming your belief in two parents – that’s a break with evolutionary theory as I’m sure you know. A very important break. There’s hope for you yet, our Andrew 😀

                    • I never claimed Pope Pious XII was an enthusiastic supporter of evolution. But as I understand your answer you agree he did not see a necessary conflict beween the Church and evolution.

                      In fact, the Church does not appear to be a supporter of young earth creationism at all. The Catechism is clear in explaining that Genesis uses figurative language, and to quote from the Vatican website:

                      “The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that “then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”

                      I do therefore wonder why, in the light of the Church’s clear position and all of the evidence, Miles and organisations such as the Creation Research Society continue to claim that the Catholic view is that the world was created in the space of six days between 6,000 and 7,000 years ago and that Adam was literally formed from the dust of the earth.

                    • Andrew,

                      Pius XII said that as long as scientists do not conflict with Dogma their findings may be acceptable. Words to that effect. See the passages from Humani Generis above. It’s really very clear. What the Pope did NOT do was give the green light to Catholics to embrace any scientific theory, including evolution, which in any way contradicts revealed dogma. Scientists frequently make mistakes. God never does.

                      But you are very wrong about Genesis. Here’s what the Pope said on that in Humani Generis:

                      38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament… the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents. END.

                      Three key facts emerge in this one passage:

                      1) it is false to claim that Genesis 1-11 contains no history. That is not the case.

                      2) in the creation accounts, there is certainly allegory. There is no requirement to believe everything literally (although God can do whatever He pleases and if wishes to use a talking snake, He can do so, no problem.) However, the Church has never required that we believe, in a literal sense, what is recorded in the first books of Genesis.

                      3) the six days of creation may well be a lengthy period of time – the Church has always permitted that belief. However, I suggest that billions of years is something of a stretch of the imagination for lots of reasons and whatever you or I may think – the evidence does NOT support that hypothesis.

                      As for your quotes from the modern Catechism etc. We are in the throes of the worst ever crisis to hit the Church – you just cannot quote anything from the recent popes as if it is infallible. It’s not. The youth version of the new Catechism had to be withdrawn due to heresy therein, and we’ve had recent statements and actions from popes and prelates that would have the Doctors of the Church turning in their graves. Anything which cannot be tested against Catholic Tradition, is suspect. That would include, by the very nature of their novelty, such things as ecumenism, inter-faith dialogue and evolutionary theory.

                      So it is a mistake to speak of “the Church’s position” or the “Church’s clear teaching” on creation or evolution – the Church doesn’t “teach” that evolution is true or that the earth is billions of years old – how could she? Scientists can’t prove any of it to be true!

                      We must believe that God created the world and our first two parents/Original Sin. You think the world is billions of years old, I don’t agree. Let’s leave it there – not least because I have a hectic week ahead, and am unlikely to be able to respond to any more posts on this subject for some time.

                      Pity you didn’t come onto our various “science” posts when we launched them, but, whatever, been nice talking to you here!

                      God bless.

                  • The Church has not made that her official “clear position”. And as I have shown above, before Vatican II, it would seem the Church’s “clear position” was in fact creationism (Arcanum, Leo XIII)

                    The Church has never said, not even in recent times, that a Catholic may not believe in YEC. A Catholic, even according to the present orientation is permitted to believe in YEC if they so wish. It might not be the opinion of the Pontifical Biblical Commission or whatever, but they themselves never said we personally couldn’t believe it if we wanted to.

                    I have never denied that the creation accounts in Genesis use figurative language. The figurative sense is just one layer of the text. It has a literal meaning in parts.

                    And why do you believe in monogenism? That’s rather unscientific of you isn’t it? Why do you presuppose a belief in first two human parents based on your religious conviction? Surely, according to your own reasoning, you should determine the origin of homo sapiens and our common first ancestors based on the evidence? What contemporary secular evolutionist believes this? Isn’t the prevailing view polygenism? Haven’t you just done what you accused me of doing?

      • I don’t think we should be too naive about the Church before VII. As if the Church achieved a state of perfection in 1955 or whatever. I believe there were liturgical abuses and irregularities before the Council as well. Although, not endemic.

        Watch the film Doubt with Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman RIP. Beautiful glimpse of pre-VII parish life. The film is set on the eve of the council and it is full of symbolism, for example, it is autumn in the film and the tree branches in the garden keep on falling down, which is symbolic of the winds of change blowing through the Church. The film gives some insight into the conflicts between the different forces in the Church which were frothing up at the time, Meryl Streep is traditional and she is very suspicious of Hoffman’s progressive tendencies, and it is very strange indeed that Hollywood would make the association between dissent and sexual abuse, as we have known all along. I really recommend it.

        The acting is excellent and Meryl Streep is the most convincing nun. My only problem is, the choir toward the end of the film sing Taize’s Ubi Caritas, which they get away with because it sounds nice, but it’s not very historically accurate!

    • Thurifer,

      Many thanks for posting that link – it looks like John Vennari has indeed written a thoroughly researched article on the subject. I have skimmed it just now and look forward to reading it carefully later.

  78. This image is from pg. 224 of the official Youth Catechism of the Catholic Chruch: YouCat. Published by the Catholic Truth Society with direct Ecclesiastical endorsement.

    It is printed directly above the paragraph concerning pornography.

    Is this someone’s idea of a sick joke, or have I completely misinterpreted the picture? Would the gentlemen who read this blog help me with this one? Bear in mind this illustration is printed next to the paragraph concerning pornography.

    This is genuine. I saw the image myself in a copy of YouCat I used to own.

    • If this image represents what I suspect it intends to represent, then it is scandalous and licentious. (And it does represent that, I’m not stupid).

      I am certain that most people who have seen it think the same. They are just too scared to say anything in case someone accuses them of being a pervert. I’m not scared because I know I’m not a pervert. I’m frank. I’m no nonsense. I say it how it is, whether it offends someone’s Victorian sensibilities or not. This is a case of the Emperor’s New Clothes.

      I wrote a complaint to CTS about this ages ago. The CTS man denied my claims. He said it represented “no such thing”. If he really believes that (which he doesn’t), jokes on him.

      Shame on the reprobates who drew this and formatted the typeset. More shame still on the morons who published it.

  79. R E M I N D E R . . .

    The top threads (this one, and Pope Francis Latest) will be closed when we reach the 500 comments mark. That’s quite long enough (in fact, I meant to close them at 400, but too late, no. 401 spoilt my plan)

    So, please be aware of this – it would be a pity to be cut off in mid sentence 😀

  80. Liturgy: for a sound and balanced initiation and liturgical formation (ZENIT 21 février 2014)
    Paris, 22nd February 2014
    Peut-être vaudrait-il mieux que l’on commence par enseigner le catéchisme de l’Église catholique aux générations postconciliaires? Benoît XVI a rédigé et publié un “COMPENDIUM ABRÉGÉ PRATIQUE OFFICIEL DU CATHÉCHISME DE L’ÉGLISE CATHOLIQUE”, lequel a vite été enterré et l’on n’en a plus entendu parler… Les Autorités de l’Église préfèrent-elles les élucubrations des dirigeants et adeptes de la secte “néocatéchuménale”? lesquels se prennent en toute modestie pour “le Chemin, la Vérité et la Vie”, autrement dit, pour Jésus-Christ Lui-même… Beaucoup de jeunes vont communier sans même savoir ce qu’est l’Eucharistie; ils croient probablement qu’il s’agit seulement d’un pain bénit que l’on partage, un peu comme quand on prend l’apéritif…
    Je descends de la Basilique du Sacré Cœur et j’ai constaté que toutes les religieuses réunies à Montmartre communient debout et dans la main.
    Si l’on veut vraiment ré-évangéliser les populations, il faudrait absolument réintroduire le “sens du sacré”.
    La “désacralisation”, imposée par les évêques réunis en Concile, a ruiné la liturgie et la Messe célébrée dans le rite dit “ordinaire” ne l’est pas avec le respect dû au Seigneur Tout Puissant, chacun n’en faisant qu’à sa tête!…
    Ce sont les mêmes personnes traitant les traditionalistes de schismatiques, qui méprisent l’Autorité Souveraine du Saint Père en ne tenant aucun compte de ses directives ni de celles des Dicastères. Jamais, la parabole de la paille et de la poutre n’a été aussi bien illustrée: “pourquoi vois-tu la paille qui est dans l’œil de ton frère et n’aperçois-tu pas la poutre qui est dans ton œil à toi?” (Évangile de Luc, 6, 41)!…
    Avant de procéder à “l’unité des chrétiens de toute obédience”, ne vaudrait-il pas mieux restaurer “l’unité parmi nous, les catholiques”, en cessant de scandaliser notre entourage? comme cela se passe sans interruption depuis un demi-siècle.


    Perhaps would it be better that one begins by teaching the catechism of the Catholic Church to the post-conciliar generations? Benedict XVI wrote and published a “PRACTICAL COMPENDIUM OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH” which was quickly buried and no one has heard anything anymore… Would the Authorities of the Church rather prefer the rantings of the sectarian leaders and followers of the “Neocatechumenal” sect? who, in all modesty, think they are “the Way and the Truth and the Life”(John 14:1-12), in other words, Jesus Christ Himself… Many young people will receive communion without even knowing what the Eucharist is, they probably believe that it is just a blessed bread that we share, like when you take a drink…
    I come down from the Basilica of the Sacred Heart and I found that all the nuns gathered in Montmartre receive communion standing and in the hand.
    If one really wants to re-evangelize the people, it would be essential to reintroduce the “sense of the sacred”.
    The “desecration” imposed by the bishops assembled in council, has ruined the liturgy and the Mass celebrated in the rite called “ordinary” is not with due respect to the Almighty Lord, each one making what his head commands!…
    These are the same people treating the traditionalists schismatic, who despise the Sovereign Authority of the Holy Father in ignoring His instructions and those of the Congregations. Never, the parable of the mote and the beam was so well illustrated: “why beholdest thou the amote that is in thy brother’s eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” (Gospel of Luke , 6, 41)!…
    Before proceeding to “the unity of Christians of all denominations”, would it not be better to restore “unity among us, Catholics” by ceasing to scandalize our environment? as it has happened continuously for half a century.

    • Lionel – absolutely correct. The crisis in the Church needs to be overcome before there can be a united Christendom. The Church is already “united” (unity was bequeathed by Our Lord at the beginning) but all those who have dissented and stepped outside, must return, and they must return to the one, true Church of Christ; not the ecumenical counterfeit Church being presented to the public at large today.

  81. Cardinal Vincent Nichols:

    Vatican Radio) Cardinal Vincent Nichols of Westminster says attention to the poor is one of his top priorities for ministry and he announced he’ll be chairing a second international conference in the Vatican on combatting human trafficking.
    (Ed: is this not something for the politicians to deal with? Or is he seeking converts from among the traffickers?)

    Speaking at a press conference on Monday following the consistory in which he received his red hat from Pope Francis, Archbishop Nichols said creative engagement with the business world and a focus on parish life were his other two top concerns.
    (Ed: “creative engagement with the business world? What the heck does that mean? Again, unless he’s seeking converts, what’s the business world to do with him? Is this an excuse to hobnob with the “great and the not-so-good” in order to sympathise over the plight of the poor? Can’t see him persuading business men to part with their millions, can you?)

    Philippa Hitchen reports: 00:04:47:35 Addressing a packed press conference at the Venerable English College, the oldest English institution in the Eternal City, Cardinal Nichols spoke about the strong sense of universal Church he’d experienced over the past weekend and preceding days of discussions with his brother cardinals. He talked at length about their deliberations on family life which will be at the heart of the next Synod of Bishops in October, stressing the need for greater pastoral care for those in difficult family situations. ‘That debate was characterized by a keen awareness of the distress of many people….’
    (Ed: is this another reference to those who are “distressed” because canon law prohibits those who live in a situation of manifest public sin from receiving Holy Communion? )

    Announcing his three priorities as parish life, creative engagement with business and attention to the poor, the new cardinal said he’d be chairing a conference in the Vatican in April focused on the work the Church in the UK has been doing to combat human trafficking ‘This conference brings together Church leaders and law enforcement officers from around the world….
    (Ed: this is sounding more and more like a wing of the nearest political party.)

    Cardinal Nichols also answered questions about ecumenical relations, (Ed: no show without punch) about a recent UN report on clerical sex abuse (Ed: I wonder if he condemns it or skirted around the issue in diplomat speak?) and about ministry to England’s gay and lesbian Catholic community.(Ed: defending the indefensible again)

    Asked what kind of reforms he expects Pope Francis to introduce, the cardinal said he sees this pontificate in terms of a radical renewal which challenges each and every member of the Church…. ‘I think he’s a Pope of startling radical renewal of the Church……’
    (Ed: that’s the problem. )

  82. Avoid Michael Voris and Church Militant TV.

    He has publicly warned people not to read literature by Mr Christopher Ferrarar, Mr Michael Matt and Mr John Vennari. He compares theirs and similar outlets and literature to “pornography” and “sedevacantism”!

    It is our judgment (on what authority?) that most Catholics (‘idiot’ Catholics like us no doubt, who don’t own tailored suits or have a Bachelor of Sacred Theology degree, of which having one he is very eager to make known) should not read articles and essays such as those above by Christopher A. Ferrara and John Vennari, nor similarly themed articles and essays available elsewhere. We also believe that such articles and essays should not be published anywhere for public consumption but, rather, reserved for those capable of reading such without risk of damaging their faith in the Church and the Vicar of Christ. We make these recommendations for the same reasons that we discourage people from visiting sedevacantist and pornography web sites: they are potential occasions of sin (emphasis added) — Michael Voris

    Original source:

    He has pretty much disowned the Fatima Center, Catholic Family News and the Remnant. Three of the most influential traditional lobbies in the English speaking world. In doing so he has shot himself in the foot, I can’t see him lasting much longer. I don’t use this term very often, but he is a neo-Traditionalist. The ‘high-church’ variant of neo-Catholicism, an unpleasant hybrid I’m sure you’ll agree.

    I am not surprised. For a while now I have gotten fed up with Voris’ hypocrisy. He prides himself and his enterprise for being ‘manly’ and ‘courageous’ for criticising the hierarchy and the modernist establishment. And imploring people to do the same, or else risk losing their manhood or being cowards. But since by his silence he has castrated himself his bravado accounts for nothing. He has not once mentioned anything about the disorientation coming from the See of Peter. Not once. I have a theory why this is. He is too closely associated with Fr Edward Perrone, parish priest of the Assumption Grotto Catholic Church in Detroit. A traditional Mass centre. Here’s what Fr Perrone says:

    Here I believe is a key to understanding the atypical papal acts of Pope Francis. He’s trying to teach the Church that charity has to be a truly human and Christian response to neighbor and not mere good talk or the writing of a check. God who is Love became man in Christ doing the works of love; so must a Christian act, in love. When people criticize the Pope for this or that odd thing he may do, failing to comprehend the example and lessons of charity he’s offering, one wonders about such a person’s spiritual life. Attacking another’s real or perceived faults can be but one other effective way to divert attention away from one’s own personal defects.


    Original source:

    I have been displeased with CMTV for some time. The content is repetitive and bland. We all know the American bishops are bent. Can he go a little deeper? His analysis of the crisis is superficial.

    • Avoid Michael Voris and Church Militant TV.

      He has publicly warned people not to read literature by Mr Christopher Ferrarar, Mr Michael Matt and Mr John Vennari.

      I apologise if I am wrong, but I do wonder if that angel-queen link is an attack on Voris.

      Christopher Ferrara was a guest on one of Voris’ shows (mic’d-up) in August 2013. The show was about the difference between conservative and traditional. The blurb said Voris “welcomes” Mr Ferrara. (I didn’t see/hear the show myself).

      Could Voris really have changed his opinion about Ferrara, so strongly and so quickly?

      The angel-queen link does not give a link to the Voris web page it claims to quote. That’s a bit dodgy in my opinion and severely undermines the credibility of the claims.

      It also claims in the headline that Voris attacked Michael Matt, but Mr Matt is not even mentioned in the main article, only Ferrara and another man, Vennari, (who I have never heard of).

      I would not accept the claims against Voris, unless we can see it on one of his own websites. I would advise taking the angel-queen claims with a heavy dollop of salt.

      • Also, in September 2013, Voris shared a stage with Ferrara at the “Catholic Identity” Conference in America.

        I cant see how – in just 6 months or so -Voris could go from giving Ferrara airtime and publicly sharing a platform with him, to comparing his output to pornography and – having done so much to help promote Ferrara – suddenly warn people against him.

      • It is not an attack on Voris.

        Angelqueen is a respectable blogger, not inclined to vitriol. She certainly wouldn’t fabricate direct speech and attribute it to someone else.

        She has done nothing but quote exactly what CMTV themselves have said. Although she does say

        Hat tip to ECS and others, years back, who called this Opie Dopie-funded “newsman” out…

        But then I agree with her. I remember what Voris used to be like. He said the documents of Vatican II were beautiful. He was very much in the neo-Catholic camp. I thought he was evolving, but unless he retracts, this is as far he will go. And that is not enough.

        That fact Voris has previously endorsed people from whom he now disassociates suggests a betrayal. Such an action demonstrates the conviction underlying what he has said. Betrayal is not an unfair word, bearing in mind these persons gave Voris credibility to a wider audience, including many of us, and this benefited him and his business, and he should be grateful for that.

        One ought to include John Salza and Robert Sungenis in this list, as they have freely contributed to the advancement of Voris’ enterprise as well.

        CMTV mention similarly themed articles and essays available elsewhere, so we can reasonably and fairly include Michael Matt. I don’t think that is dishonest.

        Based on what CMTV has said, it can be deduced that they are now opposed to specific views of Louis Verrecchio even. He is losing all his friends. If he carries on like this, as I said, it will be the end of him.

        This is a sudden turnaround, as you say, but no less of a turnaround.

        One thing Voris’ new adversaries all have in common is that they promote the true message of Fatima. All of them. Voris has never done this, at least not beyond a superficial level, i.e. he has never once mentioned ‘consecration of Russia’, ‘chastisement’, ‘third secret’ and this makes me very suspicious.

        How can someone who sets themselves up as an apostle against the crisis not make Fatima the primary centre of their activity?

        I regret having given Voris the benefit of the doubt.

  83. Miles Immaculate,
    Can you expand more on why you are not a fan of Opus Dei?
    Have you only come to this conclusion about Michael Voris since his statement on not criticising the Pope?

    • I have been dissatisfied with CMTV for a while, so no, it wasn’t just his recent silence RE: the Pope. The point I make is that I have given up with patience, i.e. the idea Michael Voris should be given time to evolve since he is a Traditionalist at heart really and he is just finding his way on the journey, like we all have. This was not a foolish position to take. I have seen Voris evolve since 2009 and I had hopes it would continue. He has also, as I mention above, received support from some prominent Traditional laymen. I firmly believe we should be supportive to those who are disorientated, because I was once one of them, and people can evolve, like I did. But I hold no such hope for Voris any more. He has chosen his side. I consider him part of the problem.

      I would prefer not to discuss my views on Opus Dei, as I say, I don’t like them.

      • Miles Immaculatae,

        Until I read the actual statement on the Church Militant TV website myself, I just couldn’t believe what I was reading here. Thank you for alerting us to this sad turn of events, Miles. A reader did send me the Angelqueen link by email earlier, but the full implications of it didn’t really hit home at the time.

        I am totally stunned by this. I don’t see every Voris video, but the ones which caught my eye – in recent times – have been impressive. I saw him going from a firm declaration that RealCatholicTV (as they were at that time) would never enter the “Mass debate” to being outspoken about liturgical abuses and what appeared to me to be a preference for the TLM.

        Perhaps the same thing will happen in this case. Maybe he’ll go from “no public criticism of the Pope” (which is to sin by omission, in that we have a prophetic duty to warn others of spiritual danger) to being outspoken about the errors of Pope Francis as they arise (which they do by the nano-second.)

        I can’t express my disappointment sufficiently. I’ve been trying to use his videos more often recently – but no more. And to call the SSPX “soft sedevacantists”?! Unbelievable.

        I can’t help thinking that this may be a fear of losing financial support. Perhaps his drift towards Catholic Tradition rang alarm bells in the heads of his financial backers.

        How very sad, if that is the case. Throughout history, it seems, the problem of the thirty pieces of silver is never far from the surface.

        REMINDER …

        This comment is number 493, and I’ll be closing this thread when it reaches 500, so be aware of this and try not to be cut off in mid-sentence!

  84. So Michael Voris is linked to Opus Dei. Thanks, Miles, for this information. I was beginning to like Voris, but no longer. My personal experience of Opus Dei leads me to distrust anything they sponsor. Ah well, back to the drawing-board …

    Hope I make it before the shutters come down, Editor! 🙂

  85. Cardinal Burke, long hailed as one of the Traditional Cardinals, and the most Traditional bishop in the United States, has recently released this article in defence of Pope Francis:

    Cardinal Burke supports CMTV. In fact, he is one of the very, very few American bishops who does. He might even be the only bishop.

    As the Americans say, go figure!

  86. I do think it’s odd that the Fatima Center is running a Lyndon Larouche video and the Socci opinions.

  87. Update on Church Militant TV:

    Another SSPX supporter has emailed CMTV and has received a response from Simon Rafe of CMTV. Rafe’s responses are in bold:

    Dear REMOVED,

    > Pope Benedict XVI
    > does not agree with your assessment of the SSPX.

    Our assessment of the status of the SSPX is that they are invited to discover the path to full communion and that their ministers have no canonical standing and cannot legitimately exercise any ministry. These are the exact words of Pope Benedict XVI.

    > Thirdly, I am troubled by the close relationship Churchmilitant has with
    > Father Paul Nicholson.

    ChurchMilitant.TV has no formal, public association with Fr Nicholson – he is a personal friend of many of our staff, and previously appeared in a show on our site. Fr Nicholson is an excellent and holy priest, and his statements on the SSPX are superb and entirely accurate. Having personally participated in some of the discussions on his Facebook page about this, I find nothing in error with his statements and – speaking personally – much evidence for a general lack of charity from SSPX supporters.

    All of your other points are ones addressed in the statement you have read and disagreed with. There is nothing more to be said.

    God bless,


<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: