Why are Catholics losing the Faith?

Image

Over and over again on this blog we find contributors arguing that this or that sacrilege (e.g. Communion in the hand)  is acceptable because permitted by the bishops.
Below, therefore, find the chapter on True and False Obedience, which is taken from Archbishop Lefebvre’s Open Letter to Confused Catholics.
But does the distinction really matter?  If someone is going along with what is permitted out of a spirit of obedience to their bishop, isn’t that a good thing?
Or  more likely perhaps, as Archbishop Lefebvre argues, is it a case of “That way there is nothing left for you but to lose your faith.” ? 

True and False Obedience

Indiscipline is everywhere in the Church. Committees of priests send demands to their bishops, bishops disregard pontifical exhortations, even the recommendations and decisions of the Council are not respected and yet one never hears uttered the word “disobedience,” except as applied to Catholics who wish to remain faithful to Tradition and just simply keep the Faith.

Obedience is a serious matter; to remain united to the Church’s Magisterium and particularly to the Supreme Pontiff is one of the conditions of salvation. We are deeply aware of this and nobody is more attached to the present reigning successor of Peter, or has been more attached to his predecessors, than we are. I am speaking here of myself and of the many faithful driven out of the churches, and also of the priests who are obliged to celebrate Mass in barns as in the French Revolution, and to organize alternative catechism classes in town and country.

We are attached to the Pope for as long as he echoes the apostolic traditions and the teachings of all his predecessors. It is the very definition of the successor of Peter that he is the keeper of this deposit. Pius IX teaches us in Pastor Aeternus: “The Holy Ghost has not in fact been promised to the successors of Peter to permit them to proclaim new doctrine according to His revelations, but to keep strictly and to expound faithfully, with His help, the revelations transmitted by the Apostles, in other words the Deposit of Faith.”

The authority delegated by Our Lord to the Pope, the Bishops and the priesthood in general is for the service of faith. To make use of law,  institutions and authority to annihilate the Catholic Faith and no longer to transmit life, is to practise spiritual abortion or contraception.

This is why we are submissive and ready to accept everything that is in conformity with our Catholic Faith, as it has been taught for two thousand years, but we reject everything that is opposed to it.

For the fact is that a grave problem confronted the conscience and the faith of all Catholics during the pontificate of Paul VI. How could a Pope, true successor of Peter, assured of the assistance of the Holy Ghost, preside over the most vast and extensive destruction of the Church in her history within so short a space of time, something that no heresiarch has ever succeeded in doing? One day this question will have to be answered.

In the first half of the Fifth Century, St. Vincent of Lérins, who was a soldier before consecrating himself to God and acknowledged having been “tossed for a long time on the sea of the world before finding shelter in the harbor of faith,” spoke thus about the development of dogma: “Will there be no religious advances in Christ’s Church? Yes, certainly, there will be some very important ones, of such a sort as to constitute progress in the faith and not change. What matters is that in the course of ages knowledge, understanding and wisdom grow in abundance and in depth, in each and every individual as in the churches; provided always that there is identity of dogma and continuity of thought.” Vincent, who had experienced the shock of heresies, gives a rule of conduct which still holds good after fifteen hundred years: “What should the Catholic Christian therefore do if some part of the Church arrives at the point of detaching itself from the universal communion and the universal faith? What else can he do but prefer the general body which is healthy to the gangrenous and corrupted limb? And if some new contagion strives to poison, not just a small part of the Church but the whole Church at once, then again his great concern will be to attach himself to Antiquity which obviously cannot any more be seduced by any deceptive novelty.”

In the Rogation-tide litanies the Church teaches us to say: “We beseech thee O Lord, maintain in Thy holy religion the Sovereign Pontiff and all the orders of ecclesiastical hierarchy.”  This means that such a disaster could very well happen.

In the Church there is no law or jurisdiction which can impose on a Christian a diminution of his faith. All the faithful can and should resist whatever interferes with their faith, supported by the catechism of their childhood. If they are faced with an order putting their faith in danger of corruption, there is an overriding duty to disobey.

It is because we judge that our faith is endangered by the post-conciliar reforms and tendencies, that we have the duty to disobey and keep the Tradition. Let us add this, that the greatest service we can render to the Church and to the successor of Peter is to reject the reformed and liberal Church. Jesus Christ, Son of God made man, is neither liberal nor reformable. On two occasions I have heard emissaries of the Holy See say to me: “The social Kingdom of Our Lord is no longer possible in our times and we must ultimately accept the plurality of religions.” This is exactly what they have said to me.

Well,  I am not of that religion. I do not accept that new religion. It is a liberal, modernist religion which has its worship, its priests, its faith, its catechism, its ecumenical Bible translated jointly by Catholics, Jews, Protestants and Anglicans, all things to all men, pleasing everybody by frequently sacrificing the interpretation of the Magisterium. We do not accept this ecumenical Bible.  There is the Bible of God; it is His Word which we have not the right to mix with the words of men.

When I was a child, the Church had the same faith everywhere, the same sacraments and the same Sacrifice of the Mass. If anyone had told me then that it would be changed, I would not have believed him.  Throughout the breadth of Christendom we prayed to God in the same way.  The new liberal and modernist religion has sown division.

Christians are divided within the same family because of this confusion which has established itself; they no longer go to the same Mass and they no longer read the same books. Priests no longer know what to do; either they obey blindly what their superiors impose on them, and lose to some degree the faith of their childhood and youth, renouncing the promises they made when they took the Anti-Modernist Oath at the moment of their ordination; or on the other hand they resist, but with the feeling of separating themselves from the Pope, who is our father and the Vicar of Christ.  In both cases, what a heartbreak! Many priests have died of sorrow before their time.

How many more have been forced to abandon the parishes where for years they had practised their ministry, victims of open persecution by their hierarchy in spite of the support of the faithful whose pastor was being torn away! I have before me the moving farewell of one of them to the people of the two parishes of which he was priest: “In our interview on the… the Bishop addressed an ultimatum to me, to accept or reject the new religion; I could not evade the issue. Therefore, to remain faithful to the obligation of my priesthood, to remain faithful to the Eternal Church… I was forced and coerced against my will to retire… Simple honesty and above all my honor as a priest impose on me an obligation to be loyal, precisely in this matter of divine gravity (the Mass)… This is the proof of faithfulness and love that I must give to God and men and to you in particular, and it is on this that I shall be judged on the last day along with all those to whom was entrusted the same deposit (of faith).”

In the Diocese of Campos in Brazil, practically all the clergy have been driven out of the churches after the departure of Bishop Castro-Mayer, because they were not willing to abandon the Mass of all time which they celebrated there until recently.

Divisions affects the smallest manifestations of piety. In Val-de-Marne, the diocese got the police to eject twenty-five Catholics who used to recite the Rosary in a church which had been deprived of a priest for a long period of years. In the diocese of Metz, the bishops brought in the Communist mayor to cancel the loan of a building to a group of traditionalists. In Canada six of the faithful were sentenced by a Court, which is permitted by the law of that country to deal with this kind of matter, for insisting on receiving Holy Communion on their knees.  The Bishop of Antigonish had accused them of “deliberately disturbing the order and the dignity of religious service.”  The judge gave the “disturbers” a conditional discharge for six months! According to the Bishop, Christians are forbidden to bend the knee before God! Last year, the pilgrimage of young people to Chartres ended with a Mass in the Cathedral gardens because the Mass of St. Pius V was banned from the Cathedral itself. A fortnight later, the doors were thrown open for a spiritual concert in the course of which dances were performed by a former Carmelite nun.

Two religions confront each other; we are in a dramatic situation and it is impossible to avoid a choice, but the choice is not between obedience and disobedience.  What is suggested to us, what we are expressly invited to do, what we are persecuted for not doing, is to choose an appearance of obedience. But even the Holy Father cannot ask us to abandon our faith.

We therefore choose to keep it and we cannot be mistaken in clinging to what the Church has taught for two thousand years.  The crisis is profound, cleverly organized and directed, and by this token one can truly believe that the master mind is not a man but Satan himself.  For it is a master-stroke of Satan to get Catholics to disobey the whole of Tradition in the name of obedience.  A typical example is furnished by the “aggiornamento” of the religious societies. By obedience, monks and nuns are made to disobey the laws and constitutions of their founders, which they swore to observe when they made their profession. Obedience in this case should have been a categorical  refusal. Even legitimate authority cannot command a reprehensible and evil act. Nobody can oblige anyone to change his monastic vows into simple promises, just as nobody can make us become Protestants or modernists. St. Thomas Aquinas, to whom we must always refer, goes so far in the Summa Theologica as to ask whether the “fraternal correction” prescribed by Our Lord can be exercised towards our superiors. After having made all the appropriate distinctions he replies: “One can exercise fraternal correction towards superiors when it is a matter of faith.”

If we were more resolute on this subject, we would avoid coming to the point of gradually absorbing heresies.  At the beginning of the sixteenth century the English underwent an experience of the kind we are living through, but with the difference that it began with a schism. In all other respects the similarities are astonishing and should give us cause to ponder.  The new religion which was to take the name “Anglicanism” started with an attack on the Mass, personal confession and priestly celibacy. Henry VIII, although he had taken the enormous responsibility of separating his people from Rome, rejected the suggestions that were put to him, but a year after his death a statute authorized the use of English for the celebration of the Mass.  Processions were forbidden and a new order of service was imposed, the “Communion Service” in which there was no longer an Offertory.  To reassure Christians another statute forbade all sorts of changes, whereas a third allowed priests to get rid of the statues of the saints and of the Blessed Virgin in the churches. Venerable works of art were sold to traders,  just as today they go to antique dealers and flea markets.

Only a few bishops pointed out that the Communion Service infringed the dogma of the Real Presence by saying that Our Lord gives us His Body and Blood spiritually. The Confiteor, translated into the vernacular,  was recited at the same time by the celebrant and the faithful and served as an absolution.  The Mass was transformed into a meal or Communion. But even clear-headed bishops eventually ac-cepted the new Prayer Book in order to maintain peace and unity.  It is for exactly the same reasons that the post-Conciliar Church wants to impose on us the Novus Ordo. The English bishops in the Sixteenth Century affirmed that the Mass was a “memorial!” A sustained propaganda introduced Lutheran views into the minds of the faithful. Preachers had to be approved by the Government.

During the same period the Pope was only referred to as the “Bishop of Rome.” He was no longer the father but the brother of the other bishops and in this instance, the brother of the King of England who had made himself head of the national church.  Cranmer’s Prayer Book was composed by mixing parts of the Greek liturgy with parts of Luther’s liturgy.  How can we not be reminded of Mgr. Bugnini drawing up the so-called Mass of Paul VI, with the collaboration of six Protestant “observers” attached as experts to the Consilium for the reform of the liturgy? The Prayer Book begins with these words, “The Supper and Holy Communion, commonly called Mass…,” which foreshadows the notorious Article 7 of the Institutio Generalis of the New Missal, revived by the Lourdes Eucharistic Congress in 1981: “The Supper of the Lord, otherwise called the Mass.” The destruction of the sacred, to which I have already referred, also formed part of the Anglican reform. The words of the Canon were required to be spoken in a loud voice, as happens in the “Eucharists” of the present day.

The Prayer Book was also approved by the bishops “to preserve the internal unity of the Kingdom.” Priests who continued to say the “Old Mass” incurred penalties ranging from loss of income to removal pure and simple, with life imprisonment for further offences. We have to be grateful that these days they do not put traditionalist priests in prison.

Tudor England, led by its pastors, slid into heresy without realizing it, by accepting change under the pretext of adapting to the historical circumstances of the time.   Today the whole of Christendom is in danger of taking the same road. Have you thought that even if we who are of a certain age run a smaller risk, children and younger seminarians brought up in new catechisms, experimental psychology and sociology, without a trace of dogmatic or moral theology, canon law or Church history, are educated in a faith which is not the true one and take for granted the new Protestant notions with which they are indoctrinated?  What will tomorrow’s religion be if we do not resist?

You will be tempted to say: “But what can we do about it? It is a bishop who says this or that. Look, this document comes from the Catechetical Commission or some other official commission.”

That way there is nothing left for you but to lose your faith. But you do not have the right to react in that way.  St. Paul has warned us: “Even if an angel from Heaven came to tell you anything other than what I have taught you, do not listen to him.”

Such is the secret of true obedience. 

Note: emphasis added – Click on picture to reach source 

67 responses

  1. Here are three maybes.

    Maybe we should all pray to archbishop Lefebvre to intercede for the Church.

    An answer to our prayers would maybe lead to his canonisation.

    Then, on the other hand, maybe not.

    • Frankier,

      After reading the article above, I definitely agree we should pray to Archbishop Lefebvre to intercede for the Church. It says everything that needs to be said.

      I’m going to quote an extract now, which is truly the clearest evidence I’ve ever seen that those in the highest places of authority in the Church have lost the faith:

      “In the Church there is no law or jurisdiction which can impose on a Christian a diminution of his faith. All the faithful can and should resist whatever interferes with their faith, supported by the catechism of their childhood. If they are faced with an order putting their faith in danger of corruption, there is an overriding duty to disobey.

      It is because we judge that our faith is endangered by the post-conciliar reforms and tendencies, that we have the duty to disobey and keep the Tradition. Let us add this, that the greatest service we can render to the Church and to the successor of Peter is to reject the reformed and liberal Church. Jesus Christ, Son of God made man, is neither liberal nor reformable. On two occasions I have heard emissaries of the Holy See say to me: “The social Kingdom of Our Lord is no longer possible in our times and we must ultimately accept the plurality of religions.” This is exactly what they have said to me.”

      It looks like the Archbishop had no option but to disobey.

      We do live in terrible times.

    • Frankier,

      I agree entirely – one of these days Archbishop Lefebvre will be canonised and declared a Doctor of the Church.

      And here’s evidence of the fact (yes, fact) that God gave us the SSPX to help us through this time of great trial – it’s Michael Voris’s latest video, and he doesn’t even mention the Archbishop or the Society…

        • Although probably worth being slightly more circumspect about Michael Voris, who has some worryingly young-earth creationist and geocentric tendencies.

          And he does gives the impression he has time for the likes of Jones and Williamson. To be fair, that could be just freedom of speech, etc, but perhaps he could be more careful when dealing with these kinds of people.

          • Andrew,

            You are SO00000 right!

            We cannot have people going about the place having “worryingly young-earth creationist and geocentric tendencies” Heavens above, there’s absolutely NO evidence for the latter as you will see if you click here to check out one of our previous threads… and as for “young-earth”… WOW! Why would anyone think that the earth isn’t billions and trillions and aeons – plus a multitude – of years old?

            Could it possibly be that it seems odd, on a common sense level, to think that human beings sat around for billions and trillions and aeons – plus a multitude of years – doing little to nothing creative? After all, in the twentieth century alone, the following has happened, off the top of my head (I’m sure I’ll forget something(s):

            For the first time, people invented or discovered…

            airplanes
            helicopters
            Television
            Radio
            frozen food
            plastic
            sub-machine guns
            the zip
            rockets
            penicillin
            heart pacemaker
            world-wide-web/word processors/computers

            All of the above (and more) in one century. So forgive me if my common sense dictates that people did not sit around for trillions of years gazing out at the horizon and wondering if they should take out a membership in the local library.

            Just because a scientist has decided that x is true and y is not true, and just because other scientists have decided to agree with him (else they won’t get any funding for their research work) doesn’t mean that x is proven to be true. It just doesn’t.

            If the world is as old as these scientists would have us believe (key word – takes faith) then all I can say is that we must be descended from the slowest learners in all of …. creation 🙄

            Gimme a break…

            Now, Andrew, this thread is not about science. If you wish to discuss the age of the earth etc. this is not the place to do so. I’ve responded to you as a courtesy since this is your first time on this blog, but please do not pursue this here. If you wish to pursue the matter on this blog, please go to the General Discussion thread instead. Please and thank you 😀

  2. The article (chapter), on Obedience from Archbishop Lefebvre’s book provided me with lots of food for thought.

    For example, I have been puzzled by the reports in Catholic newspapers about the various crowds of young people who join the new associations and travel to the World Youth Days, get involved in Medjugorje and places like Craig Lodge as reported in the current newsletter of Catholic Truth. Things that bothered me in the new Mass and ecumenism etc. don’t seem to bother them at all. I’ve often pondered that. However, the following paragraph from Archbishop Lefebvre’s chapter on True & False Obedience, gives the answer, and it is a very worrying answer indeed: The Archbishop said:

    “Tudor England, led by its pastors, slid into heresy without realizing it, by accepting change under the pretext of adapting to the historical circumstances of the time. Today the whole of Christendom is in danger of taking the same road. Have you thought that even if we who are of a certain age run a smaller risk, children and younger seminarians brought up in new catechisms, experimental psychology and sociology, without a trace of dogmatic or moral theology, canon law or Church history, are educated in a faith which is not the true one and take for granted the new Protestant notions with which they are indoctrinated? What will tomorrow’s religion be if we do not resist?”

    The idea that younger generations of my own family might be following a different religion is frightening. The usual answer given by Catholics who do see something is wrong is that God will not abandon the Church so nothing can change that isn’t God’s will, and this has satisfied most of us, but reading that chapter above, it is easy to see that things did change before (at Reformation) and also that he hasn’t abandoned the Church, he’s sent a priest to give us the example of resisting the changing of the faith, just as St John Fisher and St Thomas More did at the time of the Reformation.

    I’m keen to read the rest of that book as soon as possible. There is no shortage of answers in this chapter alone to give to priests and fellow parishioners who keep saying to accept everything that has changed in a spirit of obedience, so I am curious to see what else the Archbishop has to say on other matters.

  3. We have much to be thankful for because of Archbishop Lefebvre whe he wrote his Open Letter to confused Catholics and much more. He definitely gave much food for thought about true and false obedience.

    NicholasJ,

    If you ever manage to hold of a copy of Cranmer’s Godly Order by Michael Davies, it is well worth reading.
    It shows during the Reformation in England, Henry VIII and Thomas Cranmer understood if you change the way people pray, then you will change what they believe.

    http://angeluspress.org/Cranmers-Godly-Order

    I found another link about the differences between the Ordinary of the Tridentine Mass and the Novus Ordo Missae.

    http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/ordo.htm

    Archbishop Bugnini was the architect of the Novus Ordo Mass ably assisted by 6 Protestant Ministers. He said that he would “Strip the Mass of anything that was a stumbling block to Protestants”. This in the late 1960s. How often have Catholics been accused of disobedience in attending the Tridentine Mass?

  4. I found a very good analogy to the position of the SSPX on the Remnant website:

    “While responding to a Tuesday night rollover accident in Chula Vista, Calif., a police officer and firefighter got into a dispute over where the fire engine should park. It ended with the uniformed firefighter in handcuffs.

    The California Highway Patrol officer reportedly ordered the firefighter, identified as Jacob Gregoir, to move the fire engine off the center divide or he would be arrested. As he worked the scene and checked the overturned car for more victims, he reportedly told the unidentified officer that he would have to check with his captain.

    That’s when the officer decided to detain the firefighter instead.

    According to UT San Diego, Gregoir — a fire service veteran of more than 12 years — parked the truck behind an ambulance to provide protection to the emergency responders from oncoming traffic. This is apparently a standard safety procedure fire crews are taught.”

    (Take from Theblaze.com)

    “Sometimes news stories in the secular press bear a strange resemblance to what has happened in the Church. In this story, an accident left passengers trapped in an overturned car. They were injured and in desperate need of help. Similarly the train wreck of Vatican II has left countless souls seriously wounded and in desperate need of Catholic Truth and the sacraments. Enter a fireman who starts to help the people in the vehicle, but had to park his fire engine illegally to do so. This is reminiscent of a certain Archbishop who ordained Traditional Catholic priests to assist desperate souls during the crisis in the Church. This Archbishop also acted against the letter of the law by ordaining these priests without permission. In the story above, the police officer, apparently more concerned with parking laws than passengers in the vehicle, arrested the fireman, thereby preventing him from assisting the passengers. Similarly, the Vatican suspended the Archbishop and his priests for attempting to save souls drowning in the post-Conciliar chaos without their permission.

    There is one difference in these two stories, however. In the news story only the fire engine parked “illegally” on the center divide. In the Church, we have had clerics in states of constant disobedience to Rome and the Holy Father for decades. This would be analogous to 1,000 cars being parked illegally on the center divide, and the police officer preferring to single out this specific fireman for targeting at the scene of an accident. The Neo-Catholics are analogous to media pundits who would constantly bemoan the illegality of parking on the center divide, reprimanding the rebellious fireman for disobeying duly promulgated parking laws, while ignoring the accident which necessitated the action . Such is the state of our Church in the post-Conciliar epoch.”

    I should have copied the link (sorry) but that’s the whole article. I think it is a very good comparison between what is going on in the Church at large and the SSPX.

    I’ve read bits of the Open Letter before but had forgotten how really clear it is. The chapter on obedience is excellent.

  5. I believe Fr. Malachi Martin points out (can’t remember where at the moment) that the loss of Faith actually began around 1960, when John XXIII refused to publish the Third Secret of Fatima and perform the Consecration, as requested. “This is not for my pontificate,” said he.

    This politically-motivated action – or, refusal to act – resulted in an immediate loss of grace for the Church, according to Fr. Martin. And I’m sure that the satanic enthronement ceremony, performed by various prelates and clergy on June 29, 1963, described by the same Fr. MM in “Windswept House” and confirmed by him as really having taken place, only accelerated the collapse of the Church that followed VII.

    So you might say, echoing several Marian apparitions, that the loss of Faith began at the top. If so, it would be logical to propose that the restoration of the Faith should also begin at the top, with the Consecration of Russia and the release of the Third Secret.

    Hard to envision such a wonderful event at this point, nearly buried as we are in chaos, heresy, clerical corruption, spineless stupidity and apostasy.

    • Great Pretender51,

      I never quite finished Windswept House – so not sure if things got better towards the end 😀 but the account of the satanic enthronement was chilling. I’ve never forgotten it, and you are right, Fr Malachi Martin confirmed that it was one of the events in his book which actually took place – not mere fiction. No wonder all Hell (literally) broke loose in the Church thereafter.

    • ‘satanic enthronement ceremony’:

      Could you please elaborate? I can’t remember where I read it, but I believe there was a Masonic element to the ceremony.

      • CC: Yes, it (enthronement ceremony) was Masonic, since Freemasonry is the worship of Lucifer. If I remember correctly, the ceremony itself was conducted in Charleston South Carolina, allegedly an Illuminati center, and someplace in the Vatican by phone with Charleston. I’ve discovered that the book is online here:

        https://archive.org/details/WindsweptHouseAVaticanNovel

        and this ceremony is described quite early in the book, so you should have no trouble finding it.

  6. ‘Well, I am not of that religion. I do not accept that new religion. It is a liberal, modernist religion which has its worship, its priests, its faith, its catechism, its ecumenical Bible translated jointly by Catholics, Jews, Protestants and Anglicans, all things to all men, pleasing everybody by frequently sacrificing the interpretation of the Magisterium. We do not accept this ecumenical Bible. There is the Bible of God; it is His Word which we have not the right to mix with the words of men’.

    I am currently going through the latter stages of the RCIA, and I must comment on how struck I am on how what I am taught there, is not in ‘synch’ with the historical teachings of the Church. I believe the problem in abandonment of the Faith is poor catechesis. It was a tragedy that the Catechism of the Council of Trent was replaced with the relativist and disastrous Catechism of the Catholic Church, which says, apparently, that we worship the same God as Jews and Muslims and that we are in communion with all other religions and churches, just in an improper way. It also sickens me when it mentions the ‘Lord’s Supper’, as the Archbishop mentioned. I believe that this Catechism is out of print, as Baronius Press has informed me.

    I also refuse to use modern Bible translations such as the Jerusalem Bible and N.I.R.S.V. I have told my PP this, with justification being that the Douay-Rheims Version is without error, as translated from the Clementine Vulgate, it is the first and the traditional vernacular translation and finally, it is the only truly Catholic Bible, as opposed to the two protestantised versions with I have mentioned above. I refuse to use a Bible that threatens my faith.

    My PP is the first paragraph put together. I told Ed, that several weeks ago, a woman vicar preached the homily (it was Christian unity week) which prompted an old dear to enquire as to whether Catholics would ordain women. The response was a sharp no.

    I dare not read the whole part of Evangelii Gaudium. I’m not a Priest or a Catholic yet, but this book is evil and full of sloppy theology. Apparently, the Old Covenant was not revoked or fulfilled, and nor are Jews a ‘foreign religion’. Why was Christ crucified then?

    We are in dark times and must continue to pray.

    • hard situation for you as try to convert to Catholic, continue your path but never ever accept modern teaching, thewarningsecondcoming will guide you.

      Editor: I’ve had a look at this website and cannot see any named person(s) taking responsibility for it. There is this statement in the About section:

      This site has been set up to publish a series of divine messages which a Roman Catholic married mother of a young family living in Europe says she has been receiving from the Holy Trinity as well as by the Virgin Mary who she says wishes to be known by a new title “Mother of Salvation”.

      Given that the folk promoting these latest apparitions don’t even know that the name of the Church is NOT “Roman Catholic” but “Catholic” – read this – I’m afraid I can’t take it seriously at all. So, readers be warned: if you visit the site of “second warnings” it is not recommended by Catholic Truth – quite the reverse. The approved apparitions of Fatima and Akita should be all we need to know to enable us to keep our Faith in the current crisis.

  7. I read windswept house and it was all about a cabal in the Vatican pressurizing the Pope to resign and establish the papacy as first among equals to reduce the authority of the Pope. Very interesting in the light of what has since happened. All through the book I was speculating about connecting the traitors in the book with real life clerics and in some cases I got it right. At the end of the book the connections are given. The book does not predict what will happens but the connections between this fictional work and what has happened is perhaps more than coincidental.

  8. It took me a long time to realise that modern Catholics, even orthodox ones, are not what Catholics were like prior to Vatican 11. My children went to WYD in Spain some years ago and have adamantly refused to go again. They said that yes, there were millions of young enthusiastic Catholics cheering and waving but, they were not “real” Catholics. This might sound judgemental on their part but they saw the evidence before their very eyes. There was drunkenness, sexual activity and desecration of Hosts due to ignorance and carelessness. Their general ignorance on matters of Catholic teachings was appalling. My children felt out on a limb completely.

    Furthermore, my children at university tell me about the enthusiasm at the Catholic Chaplaincy , the full attendance at Mass only to be followed by sleeping with their partners. None of my children have even met ONE Catholic young person who believes as they do.

    We are trying to encourage them to go on the traditional Chartres pilgrimage withe the SSPX but they feel that the society are over the top about dress etc. I must say that my mother says that before Vatican 11 the clergy weren’t obsessed by how women dressed. Modesty sufficed.

    Thank God for the Archbishop.

    • Crofterlady,

      Your children need not be put off going on pilgrimage with the Society. They do expect women to wear skirts but I wouldn’t worry about measuring for a particular length, as long as they look respectable. I think it’s one of those things they think is “traditional” and I would go along with it out of respect for them – I’m a great fan of the Society in general although I’m not a fan of the dress code. I think it’s causing unnecessary angst, but it’s not really over the top, because nobody bothers about it except a few people who make a deal out of it . It’s perfectly possible to be modest in trousers but while they have this rule I think it would be a pity to miss the pilgrimage just for that reason. I’m interested that you say the clergy before the Council weren’t bothered about women’s dress as I’ve heard that an awful lot. That makes me wonder where the Society got it from, because I don’t think the Archbishop ever said anything about it. Anyway, I hope your daughters go on pilgrimage as Chartres is wonderful and they’ll meet a lot of like-minded young Catholics there.

      • My Mother, who’s favorite outfit was Jodhpurs (old puffy kind) and riding boots, said the priests never commented on women’s clothes in the fifties and sixties. She said they didn’t have to for the most part because all the women wore dresses to Mass and wore hats. They switched to veils for awhile in the 60’s because hairspray was so popular and hair so high off of the head that a it was really impossible to get a hat on it. She said that suddenly in the early 70’s mostly very young women started wearing very very short skirts to Mass and see through mini things and most everyone dropped the cover your head rule. Then a priest in North Dakota, in the US, named Fr. Frederick Nelson, retired and in good standing with the Church started pilgrimages and had a boarding school and a paper called The Maryfaithful. He didn’t allow women on the grounds for Mass or pilgrimage unless they were wearing a modest dress.
        My mom also said NO priests in the 70’s tried to give sideways sermons to the immodest women during Mass. They talked about how important it was for men to dress modestly for Mass! Afraid of the backlash!

        • I should add that Fr. Nelson only offered the Traditional Mass. He retired at an early age do to I think a heart condition. He would often invited Archbishop Lefebvre to his pilgrimages and I think also Michael Davies. Historically I think Fr. Nelson was the first and biggest promoter of the way Catholics who attend Traditional masses dress. He called it Marylike standards and promoted it in his paper. (I have most of his papers)

        • 3LittleShepherds,

          You are right – modesty is crucial.

          Fashions do change, and as long as they are not immodest, Catholics may wear them. We don’t have to be dressed in long skirts to be modest. Some people don’t suit them and I don’t know anyone who likes to go out looking silly or frumpy. When I said as much in an email to a critic of my article on this subject in a recent edition, he replied (I paraphrase but only slightly) – problem solved. I thought I could detect vanity and now I see that is the case (with me, he meant). Er, wanting to “suit” something to wear outdoors is “vanity”?

          It’s as well he didn’t hear my prayers during Vatican II, when I was considering a religious vocation, and keen on the Bon Secours Sisters except for their head-dress/veil. I said as much to a friend who told me that this Council going on in Rome might change religious habits so from then on my night prayers included a plea to “make the Bon Secour nuns change the style of their veil” ! Unfortunately, whoever took my prayer to the Religious Sisters Department obviously got it mixed up and most of the nuns did away with their habits altogether! I only asked for a nicer veil!

          Anyway, I can see from your comments that you are fair minded and balanced enough on this issue, so I’ll sign off agreeing, yet again, with your observation about the importance of modesty.

          And for the record, I AM vain. Big time 😯

      • Lara,

        I’ve already answered 3LittleShepherds on this so I won’t belabour this issue as it really is best left to individuals to deal with it as best they can. I was interested, though, in this part of your post in particular:

        “(not an issue before Vatican II) That makes me wonder where the Society got it from…”

        I think I’m right in saying that the majority, if not all, of the clergy of the Society (even Bishop Fellay) are too young to have lived in the Church before Vatican II. That fact, plus the worrying fact that very immodest fashions have grown up in our times, has, in my view, led to them feeling the need for a dress code, at least in their chapels, seeking a return to modesty. That’s fine. Various religious shrines have dress codes, so that is their prerogative.

        As 3LittleShepherds emphasises, however, it’s modesty that counts and that’s all that the Church preaches. The Church has never been prescriptive about what anyone wears (with the exception of some religious shrines, as already stated, where the authorities running those shrines sometimes do impose a code.)

        Anyway, as long as they don’t want me to wear a full length dress and scarf with only a slit for my eyes, I’m happy. Trust me, even with that slit, and even if I got a dispensation to have it down to my nose, I’d still be prone to falling over – it’s something of a hobby of mine 😥

    • we are wondering why this is happening? read the thewarningsecondcoming.

      Editor: I’ve had a look at this website and cannot see any named person(s) taking responsibility for it. There is this statement in the About section:

      This site has been set up to publish a series of divine messages which a Roman Catholic married mother of a young family living in Europe says she has been receiving from the Holy Trinity as well as by the Virgin Mary who she says wishes to be known by a new title “Mother of Salvation”.

      Given that the folk promoting these latest apparitions don’t even know that the name of the Church is NOT “Roman Catholic” but “Catholic” – read this – I’m afraid I can’t take it seriously at all. So, readers be warned: if you visit the site of “second warnings” it is not recommended by Catholic Truth – quite the reverse. The approved apparitions of Fatima and Akita should be all we need to know to enable us to keep our Faith in the current crisis.

  9. Some of my nieces, who spent their everyday wearing pants, always wore skirts on pilgrimage or to Mass. The only thing the priests ever said to us was to wear a skirt that was standard length and something on your head if in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. One didn’t need to wear a veil, a hat of some kind was fine. Standard length was below the knees, kind of half way between the knee and ankle. This would be the same dress standard before the 1970’s. No Catholic wore pants to Mass before this time.
    Our priest said it was not a (subjective) sin to wear modest pants in our private lives because our culture had accepted them. But out of respect towards the Blessed Sacrament women should dress more modestly. All of my nieces understood that. If they didn’t like skirts much, which they didn’t, they still wore them when in the presence of Our Lord.

  10. http://www.dici.org/en/documents/the-dilemma-presented-by-john-paul-iis-canonization/

    The dilemma presented by John Paul II’s canonization 14-02-2014 Filed under Documents

    In the January 2014 issue (no. 372) of Courrier de Rome, Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, professor of ecclesiology at St. Pius X Seminary in Ecône, published a study entitled “John Paul II: a new saint for the Church?” After recalling that a canonization is infallible, he asked, “Are the new canonizations binding on all Catholic faithful?” and then “Can John Paul II be canonized?” quoting the Polish pope’s statements to Lutherans, Anglicans, the Orthodox, Jews and Moslems, as well as his remarks on religious liberty.

    The following is Father Gleize’s epilogue.

    If John Paul II is a saint, his theology must be irreproachable, down to the smallest detail. Indeed, the virtue of faith at heroic levels implies a perfect docility to the entire spirit of the Magisterium, and not only to the letter of the teachings of infallible Magisterium and to the lowest common denominator of mandatory dogmas.

    If John Paul II is truly a saint, the Catholic faithful must recognize that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox communities are sister churches, responsible together for safeguarding the one Church of God[1]. They must therefore reprove the example of Josaphat Kuncewicz, archbishop of Polotsk (1580 – 1623). Converted from Orthodoxy, he published a Defence of the unity of the Church in 1617, in which he reproached the Orthodox for breaking the unity of the Church of God, exciting the hatred of these schismatics who martyred him.

    If John Paul II is truly a saint, the Catholic faithful must recognize the Anglicans as brothers and sisters in Christ and express this recognition by praying together[2]. They must also condemn the example of Edmund Campion (1540 – 1581), who refused to pray with the Anglican minister, at the time of his martyrdom.

    If John Paul II is truly a saint, the Catholic faithful must hold that what divides Catholics and Protestants—that is, the reality of the holy and propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass, the reality of the universal mediation of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, the reality of the Catholic priesthood, the reality of the primacy of jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome—is minimal in comparison to that which unites them[3]. They must therefore condemn the example of the Capuchin Fidelis of Sigmaringen (1578 – 1622) who was martyred by the Protestant reformers, to whom he had been sent as a missionary and for whom he wrote a Disputatio against Protestant ministers, on the subject of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

    If John Paul II is truly a saint, the Catholic faithful must recognize the value of the religious witness of the Jewish people[4]. They must then condemn the example of Pedro de Arbues (1440 – 1485), Grand Inquisitor of Aragon, who was martyred by Jews in hatred of the Catholic faith.

    If John Paul II is truly a saint, the Catholic faithful must recognize that after the final resurrection, God will be satisfied with the Moslems and they will be satisfied with Him[5]. They must then condemn the example of the Capuchin Joseph of Leonessa (1556-1612) who worked without counting the cost in Constantinople among Christians reduced to slavery by the followers of Islam. His zeal caused him to be dragged before the sultan for insulting the Moslem religion and he spent three days hung from a set of gallows by a chain attached to hooks in one hand and one foot. Faithful Catholics should also deplore the example of St. Peter Mavimenus, who died in 715 after being tortured for three days for having insulted Mohammed and Islam.

    If John Paul II is truly a saint, faithful Catholics must recognize that heads of state may not arrogate to themselves the right to prevent the public profession of a false religion[6]. They must therefore condemn the example of the French king Louis IX, who limited the public practice of non-Christian religions as much as he could.

    However, Josaphat Kuncewicz was canonized in 1867 by Pius IX, and Pius XI dedicated an encyclical to him; the Church celebrates his feast on November 14th. Edmund Campion was canonized by Paul VI in 1970 and the Church honours him on December 1st. Fidelis of Sigmaringen was canonized in 1746 and Clement XIV designated him as the “protomartyr of the Propaganda” (of the Faith); his feast in the Church calendar is April 24th. Pedro de Arbues was canonized by Pius IX in 1867. Joseph of Leonessa was canonized in 1737 by Benedict XIV and his feast is celebrated in the Church on February 4th; Pius IX proclaimed him patron of the missions of Turkey. St. Peter Mavimenus, lastly, is honoured in the Church on February 21. As for King St. Louis, his fairly well-known example is an ideal illustration of the teachings of St. Pius X, canonized as well. If John Paul II is truly a saint, all these saints were seriously mistaken and have given the whole Church not the example of authentic sanctity but the scandal of intolerance and fanaticism. It is impossible to avoid this dilemma.

    The only way out is to draw the double conclusion that follows: Karol Wojtyla cannot be canonized and the act that would proclaim his sanctity in front of the Church could only be a false canonization.

    It would be beneficial to peruse Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize’s complete study in the Courrier de Rome no. 372 (3 €). Write to Courrier de Rome, B.P. 10156 F-78001 Versailles Cedex Fax: 01 49 62 85 91 – Email:courrierderome@wanadoo.fr

    Subscription France : 20 €, Foreign: 24 €, Switzerland: CHF 40

    (DICI no. 290, 14/02/14)

    • Gandalfolorin,

      Father Gleize’s analysis and commentary on the forthcoming canonisations is lucid.

      Yet, fairly recently I had an email from a concerned Catholic who referred to our previous discussion on this topic, arguing that, in my capacity as blog administrator/editor of Catholic Truth, I am leading readers down a “dangerous” path by even discussing the matter: he writes –

      “I do not believe lay Catholics are free to discuss such serious matters in the public domain. In fact, I wrote to Bishop Fellay asking him to please prevent further publication of Fr. Gleize’ thesis until after April 27. I am not aware of Our Lord permitting a known Modernist liberal to be canonised to date and I am quite certain that He will not permit this John Paul II canonisation to be decreed either, at least not in the usual formal way.” END OF EXTRACT FROM EMAIL.

      This correspondent firstly believes that God will intervene to prevent the canonisation taking place, but failing that, he believes that if the canonisations go ahead and the entire world believes that Pope John Paul II is a canonised saint, that somehow the decree may be worded in such a way as to allow us to argue that it was not a valid canonisation.

      Personally, it seems to me that it is vital to remind Catholics (and the world) of the facts of the life of the Pope in the context of “Catholic sanctity” (as Father Gleize has done) ahead of 27 April, and to educate them regarding the nature of infallibility as it relates to canonisations, and the changes that have taken place in the process which led theologians originally to determine that canonisations could safely be proclaimed “infallible”. Without such preparation, I believe, ignorance and confusion will combine to scandalise an awful lot of Catholics. In the context of the current crisis within the Church, any Catholic of average intelligence should be, therefore, able to comprehend that this is all part of the diabolical disorientation. Nothing more.

      I have not a shred of doubt that, were he alive today, Archbishop Lefebvre would be shouting from the rooftops about this latest scandal. Not a shred of doubt at all.

      So, thank you for posting Father Gleize’s lucid commentary on the subject.

  11. This is maybe slightly off topic but it is about ‘obedience’ and the result of the “Francis effect” – There was an interesting twist in one of Robert Mickens’ articles in the Tablet (15 February). The article, entitled “Crying out for a clear voice”, is calling on the Pope to be “an unambiguous Catholic champion of the rights of the child”. Robert Mickens then goes on to say “However, the Holy See’s report did not mention that by virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power over the universal Church, but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groups of them” (Can 333/1) He goes on “instead, the report consistently referred to the Holy See and the Pope as merely “promoting or “encouraging” local bishops to adhere to the CRC – denying any responsibility or power to force them to comply with its articles”.
    Well, as I said in a letter to the Tablet, ‘surely this refers to the (good) old days prior to Vatican II’ . In referring to Pope Francis as merely “encouraging” his bishops to comply with the articles of the report – is a sign of the times, and Robert Mickens had better get used to it. This is an example of the much vaunted “Francis effect”.

    • I’ve seen it all now. Thanks for posting this Catholic Convert. Some of those replying to the article were of a traditionalist nature – but not many unfortunately.

      • Bededog,

        And now we have Cardinal Murphy O’Connor on the side of Cornwall, who calls for an end to children going to confession. In fact, the Cardinal wants a complete overhaul of Confession because of the falling away from the Sacrament. No question about telling the clergy to preach about sin, repentance, Hell unless folk use the Sacrament – not remotely. That would be too “judgmental” and not “merciful” enough.

        Isn’t the devil working hard, using the abuse scandal (not to mention faithless bishops and cardinals) as his best friend and helpmate?

        • This is shameful. Using paedophilia to justify weakening this holy and divinely ordained sacrament. How can children receive their First Communion without going to confession first?

          Miserere Nobis.

        • Editor,
          Thanks for the link about children going to confession – it is getting frightening, watching our catholic beliefs being torn apart in front of our eyes – and on such puerile grounds.

          • Bededog, because Fatima prophesies are now materialized, check out the messages at thewarningsecondcoming.

            Editor: I’ve had a look at this website and cannot see any named person(s) taking responsibility for it. There is this statement in the About section:

            This site has been set up to publish a series of divine messages which a Roman Catholic married mother of a young family living in Europe says she has been receiving from the Holy Trinity as well as by the Virgin Mary who she says wishes to be known by a new title “Mother of Salvation”.

            Given that the folk promoting these latest apparitions don’t even know that the name of the Church is NOT “Roman Catholic” but “Catholic” – read this – I’m afraid I can’t take it seriously at all. So, readers be warned: if you visit the site of “second warnings” it is not recommended by Catholic Truth – quite the reverse. The approved apparitions of Fatima and Akita should be all we need to know to enable us to keep our Faith in the current crisis.

        • Editor, I do not know anything about ++Murphy O’Wolf, nor about Cornwall, but I have to wonder, given the timing of this, whether Mr. Cornwall is colluding with his fellow spiritual criminal in this attack on the Sacrament of Confession.

      • Thanks, Bededog. Words truly fail me (which is unusual, as Ed will vouch for me). Aren’t we all in need of God’s grace constantly, and what about the Commandment, ‘remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy’. We are all failures in God’s eyes, and should use confession and the grace it pours out, and then receive communion. That’s a state of grace.

        The Pope is a thundering disgrace.

  12. St Paul says not to receive Holy Communion unworthily because you are eating and drinking your own condemnation so it is probably to tell people to stay away if they think they are not sinners. We should also tell them that if that is what they think, it will make them more likely to go to hell because they see no need of repentance.

  13. I liked the Voris video where he spears various Cardinals by highlighting that they knowingly do not teach Catholic doctrine – in interviews they actively brag about never mentioning such topics, Cardinal Dolan even laughing the idea off.

    So, in effect the nincompoops gave us the reasons behind the survey results, before we even had the survey results themselves! What can they possible say now, in the face of the depressing results? How would they rate their own ministry in the face of the results?

    Cardinal Dolan’s other claim to fame is celebrating mass whilst wearing a large segment of imitation cheese as a hat.

    • Gabriel Syme,

      If any other professional were faced with such dismal results of their work, they would be, at the very least, sent for re-training. At worst, they’d be sacked. There’s be no “laughing off” such failure. It’s time these clerics joined the rest of us in the “real world”. See how they like it!

    • I liked the video except the bit about the hidden hand. I think that’s stretching it. It’s not unusual for a man to put his hand inside his coat like that, it doesn’t mean he’s a Freemason. Even the Freemasons said they wouldn’t expect to get a pope who was a member of the Masons just one who would unknowingly do what they want.

      The quote from St Catherine of Siena’s private revelations nail sedevacantism, so it was really good to read that, not that I pay any attention to sedevacantism but I’ve read the bloggers who have been on here trying to promote it.

      • Michaela,

        I agree with you. The video cleverly highlights the errors of Pope Francis, and Pope John Paul II – that’s the first time I’ve actually seen the Hindu priestess “blessing” Pope John Paul II. Previously, I have only read about it. Shocking to see it actually take place. So, thanks to Crofterlady for posting it. Serves to underline the need for all of us to remain on high alert !

        However, I do think it’s reading far too much into the “hand inside the coat” to insinuate that Pope Francis is a Freemason, and it’s that sort of extreme interpretation that brings “traditionalists” into disrepute.

        We don’t need to exaggerate – Pope Francis’s own words condemn his pontificate to date.

        I also agree about the St Catherine quote – that really is, as you say, “nailing” the Sedevacantist lie.

        Worth, too, making a note of the quote from Pope St Leo the Great: “The devil is always discovering something novel against the truth.” I’m sure, were he alive today, Pope Leo would add “not half” !

        So, with that one reservation about the (rather silly) interpretation of Pope Francis’ hand inside his coat (on a bus, for goodness sake!) the video is a useful reminder of the state we’re in.

        Reminds me of a joke. American President visiting soldiers in Iraq at the height of the war, meets several soldiers from various parts of America and asks them each time, “what State is that (place) in?” Eventually, he meets a Scots soldier and asks him from whence he comes: “Glasgow, Mr President” said the soldier. “Oh yes” replied the President “And what State’s that in, my boy?” Answer: “About the same state as this place, Mr President”! 😀

    • Crofterlady,

      I agree with the others about the video. On the whole, it’s very good but the hidden hand suggestion is OTT.

    • Thanks for the video, Crofterlady. It only serves to highlight the sinister goings on in the Church. I loved the quotes from St Robert Bellarmine and St Cajetan, and they are a perfect summary of the crisis. As for John Paul II receiving a ‘blessing’ from a Hindu witch doctor, that made me sick to the stomach. It’s not good for my health, (which is fragile as it is) but we need to watch it.

    • CROFTERLADY, the evil infiltrated the church summit, thewarningsecondcoming message is good help.

      Editor: I’ve had a look at this website and cannot see any named person(s) taking responsibility for it. There is this statement in the About section:

      This site has been set up to publish a series of divine messages which a Roman Catholic married mother of a young family living in Europe says she has been receiving from the Holy Trinity as well as by the Virgin Mary who she says wishes to be known by a new title “Mother of Salvation”.

      Given that the folk promoting these latest apparitions don’t even know that the name of the Church is NOT “Roman Catholic” but “Catholic” – read this – I’m afraid I can’t take it seriously at all. So, readers be warned: if you visit the site of “second warnings” it is not recommended by Catholic Truth – quite the reverse. The approved apparitions of Fatima and Akita should be all we need to know to enable us to keep our Faith in the current crisis.

  14. Here’s a very happy surprise.

    I have to say the Japanese have gone up in my estimation. Now, if they could all just start writing letters to Pope Francis.

  15. We know that respect towards the Blessed Sacrament is sadly missing in many places so I was pleasantly surprised will looking at a video of Mass in a Novus Ordo parish in Chicago to see that when the priest dropped a host after picking it up he stopped distributing Communion until a cloth was brought and placed over the spot where the Host had landed. This is the proper procedure. However, I was shocked to see a lady approach the priest and receive two Hosts, one in her hand and the other on the tongue. She then went to receive the Precious Blood and before taking the chalice she slipped the other Host casually into her pocket. Obviously this woman has no faith in the Real Presence.

    • For some reason, Catholic Convert posted the following video clip on the Pope Francis thread. I think it is a must-see for readers of this thread – especially our resident defender of Communion in the Hand who tends not to post on threads where she just cannot get away with her usual defence of the the indefensible.

      Any Catholic worthy of the name should know that even if there is only a small chance of danger to the Host, then Communion in the hand should not be permitted. A priest once told me that Hosts are routinely on sale in the streets of Rome – and get this, folks. Should the priest in the video below be permitting Communion in the hand? And what about the description of that woman as having behaved in an “inappropriate” and “disrespectful” way? Is that all? That description fits someone who turns up to a wedding dressed in jeans and T shirt. What is it going to take to restore true Catholic Faith (including the TLM where this just could never happen) … yes, I know. The Consecration of Russia – let’s hope, soon.

      • That is absolutely shocking. How incredible. Surely something will be done about that? Will the archbishop say something to her? . I don’t think it’s good enough to say she did something “inappropriate”. It’s a lot more serious than that but if that’s the archbishop’s attitude, no wonder folk think it’s no big deal to allow Communion in the hand.

        It says she is the girlfriend of a presidential candidate but then says she put the rest of the Host in the pocket of her “husband” so is that just a language thing or is she having an affair, which surely would compound her sacrilege?

        • It will shock you to learn that Costa Rica also has Catholicism for the State Religion. The Archbishop is shameless for doing this is the first place. Most of Latin America has given itself over to a hippie version of Catholicism influenced by Marxist liberation theology. The only Bishop I would give credence to is His Eminence the Most Rev. Lord Cardinal Juan Cipriani Thorne, the Archbishop Lima. He recently banned reception of Communion in the hand in Lima. Its also a well known fact that Opus Dei members (as the Cardinal is) receive Communion in the proper way, on the tongue, and kneeling where the opportunity arises.

        • Margaret Mary,

          I wondered about that myself – the first reference to her being a “girlfriend” and then “her husband”.

          And what, I wonder, was her purpose in placing that portion of the Blessed Sacrament in his pocket? What happened to it later? And what was the conversation between herself and the archbishop before he handed her the Host?

          Knowing that Hosts have been taken away from Mass for the purpose of being used in a black Mass highlights the gravity of this patent disregard for the Eucharist.

          Of course, she is young – and is undoubtedly a victim of all that has gone wrong this past 50 years, with a Catholic education that is undoubtedly the envy of every Communist country in the world – so the question of culpability will more likely than not land squarely on the shoulders of that unconscionable archbishop on Judgment Day.

        • Margaret Mary, I agree that this is shocking. One of the worst things I have ever seen. I remember once when I was young I was kneeling at the altar rails to receive Holy Communion when the priest dropped the host to the ground. He immediately bent to pick it up personally and he sent to water and cloth and he personally (not the attendant atlar boys ) and wiped the spot on the floor himself. This was a measure of the reverance in which the Blessed Sacrament was held in those days. Where has it all gone? It because the Host is now just a ‘symbol’ and not the precious body and blood of Our Lord.
          What a tragedy

  16. More moderno-babble from the Archbishop of San Jose, Costa Rica regarding the sacreligious and profane actions of Deborah Formal:

    ‘Archbishop Hugo Barrantes Urena of San Jose released a statement noting that while Formal’s action was “disrespectful,” it was not a sacrilege, which 2120 of the Catechism defines as “profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and other liturgical actions, as well as persons, things, or places consecrated to God.”

    The catechism continues, “Sacrilege is a grave sin especially when committed against the Eucharist, for in this sacrament the true Body of Christ is made substantially present for us.”

    Er…well..am I missing something here? If what she did wasn’t sacreligious then I am King Constantine II of Greece.

    • Catholic Convert,

      Happily you’re not King Constantine II of Greece. Your entourage would make sure you didn’t blog here!

      It’s amazing that the Archbishop would consider that woman’s action to be NOT “profaning or treating unworthily” the Blessed Sacrament.

      It makes one wonder what else is going on in his life that he could dismiss this shocking sacrilege as merely “inappropriate” behaviour.

      If he really believes that her action is no big deal, then that surely is a case of spiritual blindness with bells on and flags flying.

      • That is really terrible. How could anyone living in a Catholic country be so ignorant about the Real Presence? If ever there was an argument for kneeling to receive on the tongue, that video clip is it.

  17. Hope this link is accessible – it is a short video from the Latin Mass Society about Septuagesima Sunday, its history and when it was stopped. It is not part of the new Mass.

%d bloggers like this: