England: Every Priest a Pope…


Fr Michael J. Butler, the chairman of Brentwood’s diocesan commission for liturgy, has sent his letter in The Tablet to every priest in the diocese telling them it’s legitimate for priests to ditch the new translation, and use the previous missal. Fr Butler has sent his brother priest the full version of his letter which the Tablet significantly edited for reasons that will be obvious as you read it.                                                 

 Dear Sirs,

                    Re: Revised Translation of the Roman Missal

‘It doesn’t get better’ is a very apt heading for Martin Redfern’s letter  (9 November 2013) on the Revised Translation of the Roman Missal.

I am Chairman of our Diocesan Commission for Liturgy and have had much discussion with clergy, both within the diocese and without. Most priests have got on with it but grumbled about it. Not only grumbled but also changed or avoided some words and phrases that they found somewhat difficult to say with meaning. Some avoid words like ‘dewfall’, ‘oblation’, ‘consubstantial’, ‘many’ (and prefer ‘all’), some refuse point blank to use the Roman Canon ever again. Others reject the Sunday Collects and have returned to the previous translation’s Book of the Chair. Another has said that he has returned fully to the previous translation ‘in order to preserve his sanity’ – clearly ‘all is not well in the state of Denmark’!

What has gone wrong?

At the end of Vatican II in 1965, there was a final statement from the Pope’s Apostolic Letter, In Spiritu Sancto, read out to the assembled Bishops by Archbishop Felici,  declaring the Council closed and enjoining that “everything the council decreed be religiously and devoutly observed by all the faithful.”

This prompted me to turn to Sacrosanctum Concilium to see what it was that referred particularly to matters of translation (Articles 34 and 36):

*34: The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity, they should be short, clear and unencumbered by any useless repetitions; they should be within the people’s powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.

*36, #2: The use of the mother tongue is frequently of great advantage to the people in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments and other parts of the liturgy, the limits of its employment may be extended.

#3: … it is for competent ecclesiastical authority mentioned in art. 22,2 to decide whether and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used.

#4: Translations from the Latin text intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent local authority…

The above quotations from the same document contain the words ‘mother tongue’ and ‘vernacular’, both of which are rendered as ‘vernacula’ in the Latin document.

If we consult Oxford’s Lewis and Short (Latin Dictionary) we find that the word ‘vernaculus,a,um’ is translated as ‘of or belonging to home-born slaves’; in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary we find ‘vernacular’ defined  as ‘the native language or dialect of a particular country or district; the informal, colloquial, or distinctive speech of a people or community. Now also, homely speech.’

‘Vernacular’, therefore, does not mean choosing the variety of English that is of scholarship and academe. I think that it would be closer to the reality if we were to think of the English that we learned from our mothers’ knees rather than the high flown, scholarly, Latinate vocabulary with which the Revised Translation of the Roman Missal is now unhappily afflicted.

Of course, it is not the fault of the translators that brought about this sorry mess. It is ‘Liturgiam Authenticam’ that is at fault: a document that is now a laughing stock among academics and scholarly linguists.

The document had the intention of creating a specific and recognizable language for the Liturgy – somehow a language set apart – but, of course, we already have a language that is suitable for Liturgical discourse, it is known as the Queen’s English with its enormous vocabulary, capable of describing all things to all men.

‘Liturgiam Authenticam’, therefore, is a Latin document that should be quietly removed from the Vatican bibliography and never spoken of again.

The notion of ‘competent local authority’ is a subject that is being given much attention these days by the Bishop of Rome, so there is no need to discuss it further. Doubtless, when we next have the excitement of translating Latin documents into English that is ‘understanded of the people’, it will be Anglophones who undertake the task.

I do hope that we can make use of the 1998 Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales translation (at least for a trial period and perhaps in paper-back form). In the meantime, I feel that it is legitimate to use our previous Missal, since what we currently have was conceived in error (neglecting to follow the rules from Vatican II’s Sacramentum   Concilium and the type of English to be used), and it was not born of  the competent local authority (and therefore lacks any authority).

I add a footnote, by way of a quotation from Father John O’Malley’s “What happened at Vatican II”: ‘On November 14 (1962) Cardinal Tisserant, the presiding president of the day, put Sacrosanctum Concilium to a vote on whether to accept the schema as the base text. … The outcome of the voting astounded everybody – a landside in favor, 2,162 votes, with only 46 opposed. .. The next year, on December 4, 1963, the council overwhelmingly gave its approval to the revised text of Sacrosanctum Concilium, and Paul VI then promulgated it. The final vote was even more of a landslide: 2,147 in favor, 4 against.’

The current Revised Translation of the Roman Missal has already been labelled a failure; it is also illegitimate.

I remain, Sirs, yours very sincerely,

(Rev. Michael J Butler)


Liturgy Commission, Diocese of Brentwood

Protect the Pope (Ed: endorsed by Catholic Truth) comment: Fr Butler has written his letter advocating that the revised Roman Missal is discarded in his capacity as the chairman of the Diocese of Brentwood’s Liturgy Commission.  To make matters even worse Fr Butler has recommended to all his brother priests in Brentwood that they reject the revised Roman Missal in his capacity as the chairman of Brentwood’s Liturgy Commission.  What will Bishop McMahon do to correct Fr Butler’s flagrant misuse of his position in the diocese?  Source 

Is Cardinal O’Malley’s Baptismal “Reaffirmation” Blasphemous?


Cardinal O’Malley has baptism “reaffirmed” by Methodist minister

This past Sunday, Cardinal O’Malley preached at a Methodist church in Sudbury.  This Boston Globe article gives many of the details, making it seem like a glamorous event.  What the Globe neglected to mention was that Cardinal O’Malley proactively asked the female Methodist minister to “reaffirm” his baptism with an “anointing” at the Protestant church.  Click on photo to read the entire report.


Lest anyone think that Cardinal O’Malley is just any old cardinal – think again. He’s one of the select group of eight cardinals, hand-picked by Pope Francis to help him reform the Curia. He’s described as a Vatican insider who has the ear of Pope Francis

Has he done anything out of the ordinary in ecumenical terms? Certainly, the female minister seems to think so, judging by her statement when questioned later: “I’m still blown away by it.”   She was “blown away” by the thought that she had been asked to anoint a man who may one day be Pope. So are many Catholics. It seems a very strange thing for any Catholic to do, never mind a cardinal. But is it blasphemous?  

Is This Priest Really In Good Standing?


A women’s ordination group will hold their annual meeting in a Catholic church for the first time in their history.

Catholic Women’s Ordination (CWO), which was founded in 1993, announced in their latest newsletter that their next annual gathering is due to take place at St Nicholas of Tolentino Church in Bristol.

They described the news that the gathering was taking place in a Catholic church for the first time as “historic” adding that their meeting, on 4 October, will focus on the theme of women in the diaconate.

“This appears to be a subject in the air at present and poses the question: could it be opened to women in the future and if so would members of CWO support the idea?” the newsletter stated.

The question of whether women could be ordained deacons has long been discussed and was recently advocated by then Archbishop of Freiburg and Chairman of the German Bishops’ Conference, Robert Zollitsch, who suggested a specific office of deacon for women.

Fr Richard McKay, the parish priest of St Nicholas Tolentino, said he was happy for the parish to host the meeting and personally supported the ordination of women.

“I understand not everyone would agree – that’s not a problem. But I do think it is a problem that you are not allowed to debate and discuss the matter.”

In 1994 Pope John Paul II said that the Church had no authority to ordain women and that this view “is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

On women’s ordination Pope Francis has said: “the Church has spoken and says no … that door is closed.”  Source


Fr McKay opines that “it’s not a problem” if people disagree with him on the ordination of women. Wrong. It’s a huge problem. Or rather, he’s the problem. I will send him the link to this thread, in the hope that he comes on to explain why we should regard HIM as a “priest in good standing” when he’s disowned definitive Catholic teaching on male-only priesthood, while SSPX priests – who’ve never denied a single doctrine of the Faith – are in an “irregular situation”, falsely labelled “schismatics”.   Just curious…

Are Pro-Lifers Really Pro-Life?

It’s long been a puzzle to many of us that there are dedicated anti-abortionists who fight the pro-life corner while, at the same time, they see nothing wrong with birth control.    At best, they have a flawed understanding of natural family planning and use it as a “Catholic contraceptive” in the mould of “responsible parenthood” and at worst – as you will have noted in the Voris video – young pro-lifers, enthusiastic enough to attend a conference on the subject, see nothing wrong at all with using contraception.

Surprised, anyone?

Scotland: Bigotry Official… Anti-Catholic Petition Heard in Holyrood


[Catholic] Politics news Alert

16 January 2014

 Have your say on the role of Church representatives on
Education Committees

 Responding to proposals to remove the obligation on local authorities
to appoint  religious representatives to Education Committees


In recent times in Scotland, various groups have been making attempts to bring about changes to legislation in order to limit the presence of religion in public life, particularly in schools.  John Finnie MSP is currently consulting on his proposal for a Bill in the Scottish Parliament to change the current arrangements whereby Councils are obliged to make 3 places available for Church representatives on their Education Committees.  This follows on a recent petition to the Scottish Parliament which has resulted in a wider review of this issue.  There is a danger that, if the main voices raised in this debate are secular, the contribution of Church representatives to Council discussions of Education issues could be lost.

Why are there Church representatives on Council Education Committees?

Long before education authorities ever existed, schools had been established and were run by the Churches.  So, when they were transferred over to be managed, initially by local Public School Boards and later by local education authorities, the ongoing involvement and expertise of Church representatives was seen to be invaluable.

Today, the majority of schools are non-denominational, and Churches are not directly involved, although religious education and religious observance are still part of standard school provision.

Denominational schools, which educate approximately 20% of Scotland’s school pupils, offer an ethos and values which emerge from their particular religious traditions and they work closely with local parish communities.  Their approach is supported by a legislative framework which governs both the appointment of teaching staff and the content of religious and moral education programmes.

[What] is the argument for having Church representatives today?

Those people who are nominated by the Churches to contribute to the work of education committees live in the local community.  Most are laypeople people and many have significant experience of working in senior education posts.   Their contributions are focussed on the needs of the local community and are influenced by their own particular expertise.  Their input to the local democratic process is often greatly appreciated by education officials and by elected representatives.  Like other non-elected members on Councils, they freely give up their own time to serve their local communities and operate on a non-political basis.  In short, they make an invaluable contribution.

Catholic schools were “transferred” into state ownership in 1918 in the same Education Act which established local education authorities.  That arrangement came about as a result of assurances given that the specific characteristic of the Catholic school would be protected in legislation.  One of the mechanisms for monitoring the State’s ongoing commitment to those assurances is the presence of a Catholic Church representative on every Council where there are Catholic schools.  While Catholic Church representatives play a wider role than merely safeguarding Catholic schools, their role in doing so is seen by the Church as vital to the welfare of Catholic schools.  Thus the Church is opposed to any attempt to dispense with the role of Church representatives on Education Committees.

How you can help

1       Respond to the consultation on the Proposed Local Government Acccountability and Transparency (Scotland) Bill which can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/Bills/69470.aspx

Responses are due by 27th January 2014 and comments can be sent by  email to  john.finnie.msp@scottish.parliament.uk

or by post to

John Finnie MSP

Room M3.19

Scottish Parliament

Edinburgh EH99 1SP

2       Contact your MSP with your views on this proposed bill.

3       Contact your local Council to let them know your views on the proposed Bill.

Is the Vatican Persecuting The Franciscans of the Immaculate?

Image(Rome) “It takes a permit.” A letter from a Franciscan of the Immaculate describes the life  subject to approval, that the brothers have to lead,  since they were placed under provisional administration.

In 1990,  the Order was  recognized  at the diocesan level and 1998  by Rome, the Order internally moved from the Old Rite  under Pope Benedict XVI. f  to the Old Rite and  for pastoral care it was specified by the Pope as bi-ritual, since 11 July 2013 it has been under provisional administration by the Congregation of Religious. Acting Administrator is the Capuchin Father, Fidenzio Volpi, “a skilled and proven man of power (who  is known to move  between the internal equilibria of the Superior Conference of Male Religious Communities of  Italy – CISM ), with mephistophelian smile and biting repartee, ”  said Messa in Latino .

“We Are no Longer  Able to Print and Disseminate Our Own Books”

The Franciscan of the Immaculate Conception described in his letter that he passed by  the office of Order internal publishing,  Casa Mariana, in Frigento recently. “My heart beat. I felt in me an unusual emptiness and dismay at the thought that we can no longer write for our own publishing house, and are not even allowed to distribute the books of our own publishing company in our convents.

I look at the house. In there are our books. Many of them we have written, and much more contributions to our religious journals: Fides Catholica , Annales Franciscani , Immculata Mediatrix … Many books have been translated by us from  Latin, others we have from Italian, the language most used in the order, translated into other languages. 

That is our life inside, years of study, sweat and sacrifice. The Apostolic Commissioner has ruled that we are no longer authorized to use them. What sin do they represent?

“But it Needs a Permit”

I took courage and rang the bell at the door. A sister opens and I ask her about the new liturgical calendar of the Order, because we didn’t have one in the monastery. 

“I cannot give you one Father, you know that it requires a permit,” replied my sister, kind and understanding. 

What could be sinful about a liturgical calendar? 

“But it needs a permit.” 

Exactly the permit. 


“From the Apostolic Commissioner of course!”

 “Our Life is Made by Applications, Special Permits'”

Since we have been under provisional administration, our life is governed by applications for “special permits” to the Commissioner. You are to provide  a copy in writing  and are granted permission only by expressed personal validation .

A permit is needed to use the books of the Order from the Order’s  own publishing house and be able to impart them. Any “public dissemination” is prohibited. 

A  permit is required to celebrate the Holy Mass in the traditional Rite. 

A permit is required to use the Roman Ritual for the Old Rite. 

A permit is required for the Liturgy of the Hours to celebrate it in the Vetus Ordo. 

A  permit is required to celebrate the Holy Mass with the Sisters of the Order, for both the Old and the New Rite. 

A permit is required to conduct a meeting of the lay community of the Order or of the Third Order. 

A permit is required  to carry out a “Day for Maria” (a day of prayer, which is performed by the Order on pilgrimage or in parish churches and is open to all). 

A  permit is required to visit our Founder. It is strongly advised not to make such a request at all, which is actually not approved anyway. 

A permit is required for any initiative in the Order.

Even more permits are needed of the founders of religious orders: 

“Our Founder even needs explicit permission to be treated at the hospital. He needs an explicit authorization in order to move from one convent to another. He was blamed on the official website of the Order publicly for the fact that he had at first dared to visit the convent of Teramo. In reality, the Apostolic Commissioner had even given the permission to do so.” A grueling guerrilla warFor source, click photo  

Ireland: Papal Nuncio Makes Ecumenical History (God help him) …


Archbishop Charles Brown will become the first Papal Nuncio to address a non-Catholic congregation in the country when he preaches at Saint Anne’s Church of Ireland Cathedral in Belfast on Tuesday evening.

In a statement, the Church of Ireland Press office said the occasion will be the first of two special services to mark the international Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.

It will be attended by the Presbyterian Moderator, Dr Rob Craig, along with local Church of Ireland and Roman Catholic bishops and a Methodist representative.  

The following evening, Archbishop Brown is scheduled to preach at Saint Patrick’s Church of Ireland Cathedral in Armagh. The statement says the Church of Ireland and Roman Catholic Primates, Archbishop Richard Clarke and Cardinal Seán Brady will also attend along with other clergy. 

Choirs from the Church of Ireland and Roman Catholic Cathedrals in Belfast and Armagh will sing together at the respective services.

Announcing the unprecedented development, St Anne’s Dean John Mann expressed the wish that both services might be springboards for future endeavours, weaving together the threads of the past whilst stepping forward in unity and faith.

Click on shamrock to read source

Child Protection: State Vs Family …


In recent years, I’ve met several parents who are deeply concerned at the way parents are regarded with  suspicion by the authorities. One parent, whose (now grown up) son was particularly accident prone as a toddler, told me that if she were in the same position now, she would not dream of taking him to the doctor/accident & emergency, as she did, without giving it a second thought at the time.  It never occurred to her that anyone would think that she would harm her own, much loved, child.

Click on the picture of the baby to watch the Panorama Special “I Want My Baby Back”, broadcast on BBC 1 last night, to see why parents today are afraid to place themselves and their children in the path of medical professionals and social services.

But what if a child is in pain after a fall or other accident in the home or at play. What should parents do – what would you do?  Take your child to the doctor and hope for the best … or what? 

Key Question 1 : what can parents do about the erosion of their rights due to the excessive State interference in family life?

Key Question 2 : Is it time for the Catholic Bishops to speak out forcefully about this excessive State interference, perhaps suggesting that social services put their own house in order by focusing on the abuse on both children and the elderly in their own institutions?