SNP Government Out of Control?

Under the Named Person scheme, every child is to be appointed a state guardian at birth to monitor their wellbeing up until the age of 18. All families will receive 11 compulsory visits to inspect their parenting skills before a child starts classes.  Read entire article here and note the news of sinister tests – already being carried out in Scottish schools.  I heard of one parent’s experience this morning.

Nicola Sturgeon First Minister of Scotland

Nicola Sturgeon
First Minister of Scotland

If you are concerned about the Named Person Scheme, and/or about the storing of personal information about your family and home on a database,  you can contact your MSP by checking the list here

I’m hearing of people in education who think there’s a place for the scheme, and some parents who have resolved to “keep my head down”; that is because  they are accepting the principle that it is acceptable for the State to interfere in family life, and in the case of the parent, she is terrified of bringing herself to the attention of the authorities as a “rebel”.  Yet, once the principle (that the State may interfere in family life) is admitted, there is just nowhere to go. Either parents have a right to raise their own children as they see fit, or the State has the right to raise the nation’s children as the State, through its various agencies,  sees fit.

One commentator opines that the Scottish Government is now out of control. I agree. Do you? 
But one thing puzzles me above all else – why are parents not taking to the streets over this issue? 

Pope Francis To Recognise SSPX – Soon?

Bishop de Galarreta gave a conference in Bailly, near Versailles, on January 17, 2016. He exposed the present situation in the Church and informed his audience of the present state of the relations between Rome and the Society of St. Pius X. He directed the Society of St. Pius X’s commission of theologians during the doctrinal discussions with Rome from 2009 to 2011. Here are the most important extracts from his conference, transcribed by DICI.

The crisis of the Faith worsens and arouses public reactions

Bishop Galarreta

Bishop Galarreta

In the first part of his conference, Bishop de Galarreta explained that “a will to draw all of the consequences contained in the principles of Vatican Council II” is developing in Rome. Now that the conciliar ideas of ecumenism, religious liberty and collegiality are established, according to the Roman authorities, it is morality’s turn to be infected with a form of evolutionism: “It is already the case with dogma and with the truth (according to the progressivists); it is already the case with ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, the whole liberal revolutionary spirit… so why not morality, too? In the end, it was incoherent not to apply evolution to morality, too;” it, too, is called to adapt to “man’s life, habits, laws, and the evolution of things…”

Nonetheless, the Argentinian prelate recognized that in the face of this disaster, there is a reaction: “Now we are starting to see reactions in the actual, official Church. And deep reactions, for some do realize that there is a doctrinal problem, a problem of faith. They realize that there is also a problem in the conciliar and post-conciliar magisterium. They are starting to ask questions and, this is very important, they understand that to oppose this complete rupture with Tradition, they have to react and necessarily oppose the authorities who diffuse these errors. So we see cardinals, bishops, priests and laymen beginning to react, and in the right way, even in an excellent way, sometimes very firmly.”

A double proposal from Rome: Doctrinal and canonical

Bishop de Galarreta then related that in the summer of 2015 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith proposed a personal prelature along with a doctrinal declaration. And he explained that the “Superior General sent both Roman texts to all the major superiors and to some theologians of the Society, as well as to the bishops, so they could analyze them and give him our opinion.”

About the doctrinal declaration, the Argentinian bishop admitted: “What we see in the doctrinal declaration is that there is no longer Cardinal Ratzinger’s profession of faith. The Roman authorities ask us to make Pius IV’s profession of faith, that is, the profession of faith of the Council of Trent. Also, in the previous profession, there was a paragraph on religious liberty. They have suppressed this requirement. Ecumenism has been removed. On the Mass they had asked us to recognize the validity and the legitimacy. Now they ask us to recognize the validity of the new sacraments and the new Mass according to the typical edition, the original Latin edition. The Society has always recognized this. You see, they are taking away their conditions in an effort to succeed.” …

Then Bishop de Galarreta explained that the Superior General thought it important to answer the Roman offer to recognize the Society “as it is” with a preliminary answer that was anything but vague: “Bishop Fellay told us, ‘before answering this proposal from the Congregation of the Faith, I am going to write them an exhaustive explanation to make it very clear how we are and how we act, what we preach, what we do, what we do not do, and what we are not ready to do’,” – in order to find out if the Society really is accepted “as it is”… 

 A unilateral recognition of the Society?

In the second part of his conference, and beyond the proposals of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Bishop de Galarreta publicly confided that he thinks the pope may soon confer a status on the Society of St. Pius X:

“I think, and this is the other aspect of things, that this pope who tells anyone who will listen that we are Catholic, who says and repeats that the Society is Catholic, that we are Catholic, will never condemn us, and that he wants our ‘case’ taken care of. I think– and he has already started down this path – that when he sees that we cannot agree with the Congregation of the Faith, I think that he will overreach any doctrinal, theoretical, practical condition, or any condition whatsoever… He is going to take his own steps towards recognizing the Society. He has already begun; he is simply going to continue. And I am not saying what I desire but what I foresee. I foresee, I think that the pope will lean towards a one-sided recognition of the Society, and that by acts rather than by a legal or canonical approach.”

Bishop de Galarreta admitted that “this de facto recognition would have a good, a beneficial effect: it is a rather extraordinary apostolic opening, and it would have an extraordinary effect.” But he adds that there would then be two risks: that of creating an internal division and that of conditioning our preaching in certain circumstances. And he wondered: “It would take an extraordinary wisdom and prudence, a very great firmness and clarity. Are we capable of this?”  Read entire Dici report here

Comment:

Is this unilateral recognition of the SSPX either likely or desirable?

The Conversion of Michael Voris…

After insulting all and every traditionalist newspaper, website and blog for daring to criticise Pope Francis, the Voris outfit has ‘U-turned’ on the issue.  View the video and try to keep a straight face as he explains the obvious limits of papal authority. Seems the Holy Spirit doesn’t pick the pope after all.  I believe a number of well known Catholic journalists in the USA tried to tell him that, but, hey, who’s complaining?  We always welcome converts to the truth and Mr Voris is no exception…

House of Prayer – Den of Dancing…

 Click here to read The Remnant’s exhortation to the Society of St Pius X, to regularize now!

Comment:

Would YOU attend a Mass celebrated by any of the priests in this video?  It’s true that the dancing took place after Mass, but, still.  Makes one think, does it not. If this is how they treat the House of God at any time, never mind straight after Mass, what is their “take” on the Holy Sacrifice?  “It is written: My house shall be called the house of prayer, but you have made it a  den of thieves” (Matthew 21:13)

Switzerland: knives out for papal nuncio – a “menace” with traditionalist leanings…

Archbishop Thomas Gullickson

BERN, Switzerland, February 15, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Swiss Catholics – or at least, the progressive fringe of Swiss German-speaking Catholics – are angry at the recent nomination of a new papal nuncio to Bern, and they are making themselves heard. In an open letter to the new ambassador of the Holy See, the canon and co-dean of Bern, Fr. Christian Schaller, hoped that Archbishop Thomas Gullickson would show enough “sensitivity in order to perceive the realities of the Church in Switzerland” and accused him of “pastoral imprudence” in proposing to shut down parishes without priests. Behind a pleasant appeal to a “meeting” and an end to mutual “prejudice” lurks a condemnation of Archbishop Gullickson’s purported preference for the traditional teachings of the Church, especially in the moral sphere.

The letter was the last in a series of critical moves against the American nuncio whose previous post, in Ukraine, had put him in touch with starker realities.

A group of lay Catholic “reformers” formed an alliance called “Enough!” in the wake of articles in the Swiss media in January portraying Gullickson’s latest actions proving that he is an “anti-liberal.” Things got even worse from their point of view last week, when he retweeted an article in which Cardinal Juan Luis Cipriani Thorne, archbishop of Lima, Peru, called UN bureaucrats promoting the legalization of abortion because of the Zika virus scare “Herods in suits and ties.” Gullickson has never hidden his preference for reverent liturgy, the Latin Mass, and other signs of traditionalism that have led his Swiss detractors to accuse him of being a follower of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X.

The twelve Catholic groups forming the alliance claim to be working for a “liberating and inclusive Church.” Late last month, “Enough!” wrote an open letter to the president of the Swiss Federal Council, Johann Schneider-Ammann, asking him to intervene in order to obtain Archbichop Gullickson’s revocation, accusing him of “hate speech” and of constituting a menace for the unity of the Swiss Church.

Markus Arnold, head of the Religious Education Department of Lucerne University, signed the letter asking the Swiss president “not to allow Gullickson to have a long-term, poisonous effect on the climate in Switzerland”: “We have enough problems with religious fanaticism as it is. We do not need a nuncio who wants to revive this fanaticism in the Catholic church,” he wrote. He accused Gullickson of “radical 19th century preaching.”

All accuse the archbishop of opposing the Second Vatican Council which “condemned,” they say, the anti-liberalism of the Pius popes.

What authority would the Swiss president have to intervene in affairs that are so very clearly internal to the Catholic Church?  Archbishop Gullickson calls himself an “ultramontanist” – that is, a Catholic faithful to Rome. But why should the president of a lay country be angry about that? The unity of Catholics in Switzerland is all the less a concern of Schneider-Ammann that Switzerland is decidedly multi-denominational. The presence of more traditionally-minded Catholics would merely be one more variety of Christian beliefs.

But Archbishop Gullickson has been critical of the pope, according to “Enough!” Erwin Koller, president of the Herbert-Haag-Foundation for Freedom in the Church, called the nuncio’s supposed attitude toward Pope Francis “offensive”: “If a Swiss diplomat had said such things about the Swiss government, he would long since have been dismissed.” But Gullickson’s attitude to Rome – which is sometimes critical, but certainly not offensive towards the pope – is obviously no business of the Swiss government.

What a number of Swiss Catholics don’t like is in fact the way in which Gullickson portrays several problems in the Catholic Church in Switzerland: he “disseminates blogs which accuse the German bishops’ conference of being heretical and has a predilection for linking ultra-conservative texts in his blogspot,” complained the former Abbot of Einsiedeln,  Benedictine monk Martin Werlen, shortly after the new nuncio took up his new functions in October.

The Swiss Catholic Women’s League also asked for the support of Parliament member Doris Leuthard, who is a member of their association, in asking for Gullickson’s removal.

One of the main reasons for all this agitation is that the conservative-minded Bishop Vitus Huonder of Coire will be 75 in 2017 and will have to present his resignation. The papal nuncio has a first-hand role in the nomination of his successor. Swiss progressives are afraid he will be replaced by a prelate who will reiterate Huonder’s statements on the sinfulness of homosexuality. Archbishop Huonder went on record as saying that homosexuals – as well as couples living together outside marriage – may not receive Holy Communion.

Coupled with fears that Gullickson will destroy “ecumenical” relations with Swiss Protestants, these concerns are putting German Swiss Catholics very much in line with the mainstream media. They are apparently very happy with their own situation, as depicted by the new nuncio – dwindling vocations, progressive morality, empty churches and priestless parishes.

A Dominican priest, Viktor Hofstetter, wrote a comment in the press asking Gullickson to read Pope Francis’ catalogue of sins as exposed to the Curia last year.  Source

Comment:

It’s a mystery – it really is. The hierarchy is thickly populated with outright modernists running the show, just about everywhere you care to look. So, why do they react so furiously when there is the odd “traditional leaning” prelate appointed here and there?  What’s their problem? 

Akita Confirms Fatima Message…

 

Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) on the Third Secret 

Only months after Bishop Ito approved the Akita apparitions, Cardinal Ratzinger was interviewed on November 11, 1984 by Jesus magazine, a publication of the Pauline Sisters. Within this 1984 interview  – entitled “Here is Why the Faith is in Crisis” – published to millions in Italy, Cardinal Ratzinger acknowledged that he had read the Third Secret and that it speaks of “The dangers threatening the faith and the life of the Christian, and therefore the world, and also the importance of the last times.” Cardinal Ratzinger said that the Third Secret had been suppressed since 1960 “to avoid confusing religious prophecy with sensationalism.” He also said, “But the things contained in this Third Secret correspond to what is announced in Scripture and are confirmed by many other Marian apparitions….” Howard Dee, former Philippine ambassador to the Vatican, stated that “Cardinal Ratzinger personally confirmed to me that these two messages, of Fatima and Akita, are essentially the same.” (Inside the Vatican magazine, 1998) Therefore, when Cardinal Ratzinger mentioned in his interview that the Third Secret corresponds to “other Marian apparitions,” this reference includes the Akita apparitions. But in a subsequent publication of the same Ratzinger interview in the book The Ratzinger Report, this reference:  “But the things contained in this Third Secret correspond to what is announced in Scripture and are confirmed by many other Marian apparitions….” was mysteriously deleted.  Had the Cardinal said too much?

"These two messages, of Fatima and Akita, are essentially the same.”

“These two messages, of Fatima and Akita, are essentially the same.”

How are the Fatima and the Akita apparitions similar?  Note that Cardinal Ratzinger had received a dossier of information on the Akita apparitions prior to his interview with Jesus magazine, so this information was fresh in his mind. Perhaps the following line from the Akita apparitions is the key: “The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops.”

Comments invited… 

Pope’s UnChristian Attack On Trump

Pope Francis continues to hit the headlines – this time declaring that Donald Trump, US politician and presidential candidate, is “not Christian”.  Click here to read one of the many reports available across the internet, and to see the Pope on video, speaking his mind to the journalists.

Then watch the short video below, where Donald Trump hits back, calling the Pope’s judgment on him “disgraceful”.

Comment…

The Pope will tolerate abortion (let’s not “obsess” about the murder of innocent babies) and he answers: “Who am I to judge?” when asked about homosexuality. Those who are living in sin, whether divorced and “remarried” or in civil homosexual partnerships, are to be welcomed and perhaps even permitted to approach for Holy Communion.  Donald Trump is the exception to all this “mercy “and tolerance.  Why?  Is a political party policy, or a personal opinion on  immigration – or any other social issue – more important than God’s natural moral law designed to safeguard human life, from the moment of conception, and traditional family life?

Is the Pope right to tell the world that a US presidential candidate is “not Christian”  just because he disagrees with his politics or is it Papa Francis who lacks the Christian spirit?