Are We All Lutherans Now?

‘The Fatima Rapid Response Team distributed our leaflet, “Should a Catholic Celebrate Martin Luther?” to parishioners exiting Saturday Mass at the only Catholic church in Lund. The parish priest was displeased to the point of calling the police to try to stop us, but the police allowed us to continue as we behaved very peacefully. A few parishioners were thankful but many more were wary. Nevertheless, the team persuaded many to accept the leaflet with a promise to read it. We planted the mustard seed and remained after the priest turned out the lights and locked the door – to pray the Holy Rosary, asking God to enlighten them to the truths of the Catholic Faith and the diabolical character of Luther.’

Visit the Fatima Center website for more on the Lund event, including several video presentations…

221 responses

  1. “How can the Pope participate in such a scandalous event?”

    That is the question that we’d all like an answer to.

    Personally, I think he is going to participate because he is an out and out modernist and has convinced himself that this is the way to Christian unity.

    The video’s a bit long so I’ve only watched the start so far.

  2. As a believer in divine providence, my restless mind wonders if today’s devastation of Saint Benedict’s basicila in Norcia has any connection with the Popes planned visit to Sweden to “celebrate” Martin Luther’s devastation of the one true faith perpetrated on Europe.
    St Benedict is one of the Patrons of that modern devastation known as the E.U.
    I suppose it is only a matter of time until someone blames Global Warming for this 6.6 quake, and as our Pontiff is member of the global warming cult, it is bound to be the goddess Gaia being angry with us.
    After all, the worst recorded quake in Italian history, around 1780, which killed over 20000 people and reshaped modern southern Italy, was mainly blamed on witches and the wrath of (the then) God.
    Meantime let us all remember the poor victims in our prayers, and whilst we are on our knees pray for the conversion of our besotted Pontiff.
    An interesting footnote is that is St Benedict is the Patron of Italian architects – amongst many other beneficiaries.

    • There is salvation outside the – visible – Roman Catholic Church.

      Not outside the invisible Church, of course.

    • The devastation of the Catholic Church was the work of its own clerics – especially the popes of late medieval and renaissance times, who so disillusioned and scandalised the Christian people of Europe, that many of those people were prepared to follow ghastly crackpots like Luther and Calvin.

      As Pope Emeritus Benedict remarked, the Catholic Church’s worst enemies have always come from within its own ranks. And no – I don’t mean Pope Francis.

  3. I’ll watch the video later when I get a bit more time, but suffice it to say that participation by any Catholic in non-Catholic worship is an offence against Faith that carries the penalty of excommunication for apostasy. Popes are not immune from this censure of the Church. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus is infallible teaching that Pope Francis cannot talk his way around.

  4. This is a dreadful state of affairs. There are times when Pope Francis shows deep understanding of the Church and Church teaching. Unfortunately those times a very few and this move is as bad as when his predecessor kissed the Koran as a holy book!

    • I am trying to think of a time when Pope Francis showed deep understanding of the Church and Church teaching. I can’t think of any. Please give us one example at least, to cheer us up, LOL!

  5. No Vatican or Church source has described the event in Lund is as a “celebration” of the Reformation.

    Unless someone can cite such a source the whole premise of the text above is to set up a straw man.

    • Chris McLaughlin

      Pope Honorius I was posthumously condemned and excommunicated by two of his successors, one of them being the great Pope St. Agatho, for permitting the holy faith to be tarnished merely by silencing both sides in the Monothelite heresy, For by silencing the orthodox defenders of truth, he lent a certain respectability to the heretics and their error.

      On this occasion Pope Francis is not only silencing the Church’s centuries-old opposition to the Lutheran heresy for convenience’ sake, he is actually lending it public respectability. In fact by his own words he has gone further to speak of saints and martyrs on both sides of a dispute he reckons to have been just a difference of opinion between brothers of the same religion. Now he plans to present himself at this “celebration” as though the Catholic Church has been misguided all these centuries and that Lutherans are not really heretics after all. You and I both know, as does everyone else, that his example in this matter is a great scandal harmful to both the true Church and to souls. So please, do not attempt here to justify what Pope Francis is about to do. There simply is no justification for this outrage.

      The Pope’s primary duty is to uphold true doctrine and oppose error. In this he has manifestly failed.

        • Chris McLaughlin

          Not at all. That you should require citations for so historically well documented a case as Honorius just serves to demonstrate your ignorance of the faith.

          And as for Pope Francis and this Lutheran abomination he prepares to participate in, you will find ample citations in my post of October 31, 2016 at 1:32 am.

          So it seems your “straw man” argument is a red herring. Good diversionary tactic away from the main issue, though, I’ll give you that. Saves you having to explain your heterodox leanings in the face of all those awkward magisterial quotaitions from Catholic Tradition.

            • Wrong. I spoke with a Glasgow priest today and he immediately remembered that the original notice had the word “celebration” and he further recalled that it was changed to “commemoration” after a lot of complaints at the Vatican.

              Unless you really are a few sandwiches short of a picnic, you can’t possibly expect me to produce the original notice when it was deleted from the Vatican website.

              Now, stop being childish and comment on the scandal of Pope Francis attending the Lutheran celebration of the Reformation and praising the heretic Martin Luther. I’m told he was standing alongside at least one female Lutheran “Bishop” – what a scandal! What a terrible pope!

              Surely, you agree?

    • Chris,

      Won’t work. Playing the semantics game won’t work – unless you can convince us that there is a justifiable reason for a pope – any pope – to go out of his way to participate in (and, in fact, LEAD) a service of commemoration of the Reformation, which was an outright assault on Christ and His Church, with the devastating effects of division and suffering which we see to this day.

      And, for the record, when this event was first publicised, it WAS billed as a “celebration”. Only after the hue and cry which resulted from shocked Catholics, was it downgraded to a “commemoration” – which is, in any case, effectively the same thing. Unless Pope Francis condemns Martin Luther’s schism in words of one syllable, he is celebrating. Trust me. And, although it was expunged from the official notification in due course, the “C” word is still traceable…

      Yesterday, 30th October, Fox News reported that

      “Not all [Pope Francis’s] advisers approve, however.

      The Vatican’s doctrine czar, German Cardinal Gerhard Mueller, said in a book interview that Catholics have “no reason to celebrate” the anniversary “which brought about the fracture of Western Christianity.” Source here

      Just to be clear, however, Chris. Do you approve of the Pope’s participation in this event?

      • This Radio Vatican report uses the world “celebrate”

        The one-day event will include a common worship service in Lund cathedral based on a Catholic-Lutheran “Common Prayer” liturgical guide, published earlier this month by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU) and the Lutheran World Federation (LWF).

        The commemoration in Lund follows on directly from the publication in 2013 of a joint document entitled ‘From Conflict to Communion’, which focuses on the themes of thanksgiving, repentance and commitment to common witness. While asking for forgiveness for the divisions of past centuries, it also seeks to showcase the gifts of the Reformation and celebrate the way Catholics and Lutherans around the world work together on issues of common concern.
        http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/01/25/pope_to_travel_to_sweden_for_joint_reformation_commemoration/1203462

        • The word celebrate is used in a particular context. It is dishonest to take it out of context.

          We are invited to celebrate the way in which Catholics and Lutherans work together to tackle problems facing the world.

          Nowhere is the word “celebrate” used in connection with the anniversary or the event taking place today, and nor was it when the event was announced.

          • Valour,

            Another member of the New Catholic brigade seeking to defend this scandal by playing the semantics game.

            If Pope Francis is not “celebrating” the Lutheran anniversary/split from Christ’s Church, what is he doing? Is he lamenting it? Is he going to try to correct it? What then?

            You see, there is always a REASON for a “commemoration” – over to thee.

            O and, for good measure, would you tell us whether YOU approve of this “commemoration” or not, giving reason(s) for your answer…

            PS – the word “celebration” WAS used in the original announcement. It was later abandoned, following the fuss from those of us who are still intelligent enough to know that we cannot possibly praise Luther and his revolution against Christ, and still claim to be Catholics.

            • From memory, I believe everyone who used the term “celebration” in their headlines at the time this event was first announced were corrected. I am almost 100% certain it was never in any official text or announcement. (I would welcome an actual quote, and source, for your claim if it was. I am pretty sure you cannot provide one.)

              I only listened to the Vatican Radio broadcast precisely because I was confident that Laura was peddling an untruth.

              The Pope is attending an ecumenical event in an Ecumenical Church. It isn’t news or the slightest bit provocative.

              I, too, looked for the killer quote in the post by Hillary White about Cardinal Zen. It wasn’t there. I assume your recent correction of your misleading headline on this topic – and the cost of the erratum slip – is a genuine pointer to doing exactly what I am doing. Or were you being a tad insincere?

              Always looking at the text, rather than an headline, is not semantics.it is about a commitment to truth.

              The anniversary is a significant anniversary and it would be illogical, and unjust, to deny anyone the right to commemorate it. If ecumenism is worthwhile, and I believe it is, then attendance at such at event is worthwhile too.

              • Valour,

                Don’t know what you mean by “I assume your recent correction of your misleading headline on this topic – “

                We haven’t HAD the topic of the Chinese situation on this blog – we’ve NEVER discussed that, so I don’t get what you mean. I made the mistake of quoting the alleged Cardinal Zen words and was careless about checking the alleged quote, for two inter-connected reasons: (i) the quote came in as I was, literally, writing the conclusion of my editorial and (2) because, since her (very belated) conversion into the traditional Faith, and realisation that we are living through a crisis in the Church which reaches to the very top, Hilary White has been writing for respected publications, notably The Remnant, so I thought it a safe bet that she was quoting accurately. Wrong.

                I am not wrong, though, about the original description, from Vatican sources, of the use of the word “celebration” – I remember commenting at the time that it was fairly quickly erased, after complaints. Actually, I couldn’t care less at this stage about which word is used to advertise the scandal, whether “celebration” or “commemoration” – the key point is that there is no way any pope should be participating in what is definitely a celebration – for the Lutherans: the break with Christ’s Church. So, stop trying to win the argument about “celebration” by mixing the issues.

                I see from your concluding paragraph that you are in favour of the event, despite the fact that the “significant anniversary” which you are happy to see the Pope attend is that of a Catholic priest, dissenter and unfaithful to his promise of celibacy, setting up his own “church” in opposition to Christ’s divinely established Church.

                Just for the record – are YOU a baptised Catholic?

                • The challenge remains for you to uphold your claim that ANY official source has ever, any where, called it a celebration. They did not!

                  • Er… a bit difficult to do when they removed the original announcement and then switched to “commemoration”

                    Let that telling detail go and face the most important issue here. You have not responded to anything that Athanasius has posted regarding the authoritative teaching of previous popes on the subject of such ecumenical activity as favoured by this pope and his immediate predecessors.

                    Well? We’re waiting…

                    • I have not been discussing the role and mission of The Church, or ecumenism, as such, but the false attribution of the word “celebrate” to any of the events.

                      As Chris McLaughlin has said “he whole premise of the text above is to set up a straw man”.

                    • Valour

                      I fear that it is rather you and Chris McLaughlin who are trying to set up a straw man argument, as you put it.

                      To play semantics with a word when the faith itself is at stake is irresponsible to say the least, if not downright malicious. You both need to sort out your priorities in the spiritual life.

                    • There is a very obvious difference between the false ecumenism condemned by past pontiffs, and the papally-sponsored ecumenism sponsored by all last six popes (including two canonised saints) which is bringing back the Separated Brethren into the fold.

                    • Tonybuck

                      “There is a very obvious difference between the false ecumenism condemned by past pontiffs, and the papally-sponsored ecumenism sponsored by all last six popes (including two canonised saints) which is bringing back the Separated Brethren into the fold.”

                      Since there is no evidence that “papally-sponsored ecumenism” is bringing any of our separated brethren back into the fold – quite the contrary in fact, as millions of apostate Catholics now swelling the ranks of non-Catholic and non-Christian religious sects amply demonstrates – I would like to know what makes you think the Church got it wrong before these past five (not six. JPI died after just 33 days) Popes appeared on the scene with their new theology.

                      Are you saying that the Church was in error before when it taught with authority for much longer than the reign of five Popes that ecumenism is a sin against faith? Did Our Lord mislead His Church until the advent of John XXIII? Is that what you’re saying? You have a good deal of explaining to do on that strange analysis you offered.

                      Two different types of ecumenism, eh, one good, one bad? Never heard that one before.

                  • Valour

                    Why do I get the impression that you are attempting to evade the main issue, which is the scandal to the faith this forthcoming event represents, whatever tag they attach to it?

                    Never mind the pedantic argument over a word. What is your take on this event in the light of the Traditional Magisterial teaching of the Church that it is set to contradict.

            • St Catherine of Sienna prophesied that only “the theologians turning against the Church” (i.e. the Reformation) could (and would) bring about the desperately-needed reform of the Catholic Church.

              Therefore the Reformation is to be celebrated in despite of itself; it saved the True Church from collapsing into rottenness and dust (as would otherwise have happened).

              • Tonybuck

                “St Catherine of Sienna prophesied that only “the theologians turning against the Church” (i.e. the Reformation) could (and would) bring about the desperately-needed reform of the Catholic Church.”

                Are you having a laugh?

                Ok, authoritative citations please.

                • It was from an address of hers when she pointed out the truth – that the Church of her day was incapable of reform; Bad Guys + Vested Interests in its ranks nullified any possibility of widespread reform.

                  After her death in 1380, the situation of the Church became worse and more entrenched of course.

                  • Tonybuck

                    Luther was an apostate priest who married a nun and who positively advised Phillip of Hesse to commit bigamy. John Knox, also an apostate priest, was twice married, his second wife being only 17 when he was 50.

                    I don’t think St. Catherine would have seen such men as God’s way of reforming the Church.

                    Anyway, we have to know the context in which St. Catherine spoke and not take her words too literally to suggest a Protestant Reformation some 200 years after her death.

                    St. Catherine knew well enough that Our Lord was in charge of His Church, and always will be. She also knew that He can change hearts and reform morals from within the Church. If she had been suggesting the Protestant Reformation, then, and I’m sure she wasn’t, then her words would have demonstrated a lack of faith and trust in God.

                    Also keep in mind that God brings good from evil but is never the author of evil. The Protestant Reformation was evil.

                  • St Catherine of Siena did NOT mean the sort of reform which you like and which Luther instigated. If you read her letters you will see that she was exhorting, very strongly, the pope to rid the Church of “priests who poison and rot” the Church (from memory, but more or less a verbatim quote from a letter where she used a garden as an analogy for the Church)

                    St Catherine was doing exactly what we are trying to do today – correcting error, even in the highest places, but without denying the Faith one jot.

                    Far from endorsing ecumenism, St Catherine would be writing forceful letters to Pope Francis telling him, in no uncertain terms, that he was being unfaithful to his papal duty. Of all the saints in Heaven that you might have picked to distort their lives to suit the ecumenical purpose, St Catherine of Siena is the LAST one to choose!

                    • Editor

                      Exactly,

                      Is your middle name Catherine, by any chance? Should be! (Notice I missed out the St bit – no swelled heads please..)

          • Valour

            The word “celebrate” should not be used in any context regarding joint Catholic/Lutheran work to tackle the world’s problems. If you know your Catholic Faith and the reason for the Church’s existence, it has nothing whatever to do with the world and its problems.

            The Church and the Faith are supernatural means of saving our souls. Lutherans are separated from that life-giving source and are therefore in need of conversion. Giving respectability to their heresies under any pretext is to deny the divine institution of the Catholic Church and its unique mission on earth, as also the infallible dogma ‘outside the Church no salvation’. It is, in other words, an act of apostasy from the true religion revealed by God under the pretext of a false charity and mercy.

            You need to study the teaching of the Church and disabuse yourself of the notion that it exists primarily for social work in this world. Nothing could be further from the truth. True charity is a love of souls and a desire to see them convert to the true religion that they may be saved in eternity. It is the greatest act against charity to leave our neighbour in the darkness of religious error under the pretext of working together to solve purely earthly problems. Lucifer is the inspiration behind that modern ruse, I assure you.

            • At no point have I discussed the role, and mission, of The Church here. However, I have pointed out no one has said the events in Sweden are a celebration of The Reformation, as Laura claimed.

              • The Lutherans are definitely celebrating – that is to say, the events in Sweden are certainly a Lutheran celebration of the Reformation.

                That is one key reason why the Pope should have declined the invitation. Instead of so doing, he’s chosen to LEAD part of the event. What kind of Catholic thinks that is a good idea? Can’t be an “ecumenical Catholic” because there’s no such thing. You are either a fully believing Catholic or you are Protestant.

                • They are commemorating an event just as we have commemorated The Great War these past few years. I assume you would challenge any one who wrongly called the commemorations of The War a celebration.

                  Once again I challenge you to cite one official source that has ever called it a celebration.

                  • Valour

                    Commemoration or celebration, the choice of word makes no impact on the seriousness of the sin against faith this event represents. Modernists are very clever with words, read Pope St. Pius X’s Encyclical Pascendi on that.

                    Your comparison between war commemorations and this forthcoming religious abomination is a red herring. The former has no impact on the eternal salvation of souls, being purely natural. The latter clearly does, being supernatural, and that’s all that matters in God’s eyes.

                  • Valour

                    For your information I have lifted the following paragraph from Radio Vaticana’s website treating of the event in question.

                    “Earlier this year, the LWF and PCPCU sent to LWF member churches and Catholic Bishops’ Conferences a jointly prepared “Common Prayer”, which is a liturgical guide to help churches commemorate the Reformation anniversary together. It is based on the study document From Conflict to Communion: Lutheran-Catholic Common Commemoration of the Reformation in 2017, and features the themes of thanksgiving, repentance and commitment to common witness with the aim of expressing the gifts of the Reformation and asking forgiveness for the division which followed theological disputes.

                    Read the entire document here: http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/01/25/pope_to_travel_to_sweden_for_joint_reformation_commemoration/1203462

                    Now here’s the first question: Is “thanksgiving” traditionally commemorated or celebrated?

                    Second question: Which is the proper context for “thanksgiving” for “the gifts of the Reformation”. Commemorate them, celebrate them, or both?

                    Modernists are very clever with words so you have to look deeper at the application and meaning in context with what they are suggesting.

                    • The thanksgiving is for the ecumenical progress made since The Reformation as noted in the 2013 Document From Conflict to Communion. As Winston Church once said jaw- jaw is better than war- war. (I doubt you have read either document in full.)

                      The thanksgiving is for the mutual up building and enrichment that has taken place since The Reformation.

                      No doubt you prefer war-war.

                    • Other readers might note that the words thanksgiving and the Reformation do not appear in the same sentence, and what appears to be a quote, in bold, given by Athanasius is not a quote.

                      It does read”The commemoration in Lund follows on directly from the publication in 2013 of a joint document entitled ‘From Conflict to Communion’, which focuses on the themes of thanksgiving, repentance and commitment to common witness. While asking for forgiveness for the divisions of past centuries, it also seeks to showcase the gifts of the Reformation and celebrate the way Catholics and Lutherans around the world work together on issues of common concern.”

                    • Valour

                      Now you really are playing with words. The 2013 document has a direct link with the 2017 event, as well you know. They are not distinct from each other.

                    • I actually stated “The thanksgiving is for the ecumenical progress made since The Reformation as noted in the 2013 Document From Conflict to Communion.” I have purposefully linked the 2013 Document and the 2017 event, as does the site you provided a link to, and which I quoted in full, You however paraphrased the site so as to suggest thanksgiving and reformation were mentioned in one sentence. They are not!

                    • Valour

                      In the spiritual life there is only constant “war, war”. That’s why the Church on earth is called “Militant” and Confirmation is described as making us “soldiers of Christ”. Our war is a supernatuiral one against the devil, the world and the flesh. As any exorcist will tell you, one does not “dialogue with the devil” if one values his eternal salvation.

                      Divinely revealed truths (the doctrinal and moral teaching of the Catholic Church) is not up for debate and compromise with heretics, the so-called “jaw -jaw” you refer to out of context.

                      The Popes have always known how to treat Lutherans and other schismatics, and that is by exhorting them to return to their Father’s House, from which their forefathers departed in rebellion, and to submit themselves to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, Christ’s Vicar on earth, and the divien Faith he preaches for salvation. This is the only “unity of Christians” that Our Lord recognises as true, unity in one faith, Lord, one baptism and one true Church.

                      Anything other than this, no matter how cleverly presented, is a perverted Gospel that is repugnant to the divine author of truth and unity Himself, Almighty God.

                      A new Tower of Babel is not true Christian unity, it is simply a new Tower of Babel by any other name.

                    • Valour

                      You deliberately try to mislead. There are numerous references in the linked report to the 2013 document and the 2017 event. They are not treated as separate entities but as synonymous one with the other.

                      Now, this distraction from the main issue is begining to wear thin! The fact remains that no Pope should ever be participating in a religious service with non-Catholics. This is utterly forbidden by the authoritative Magisterium of the Church as an act worthy of the severest censure, regardless of pretext.

                      So Pope Francis is about to do something that his predecessors have formally and infallibly proscribed and condemned (see my referenced quotes elsewhere on this page). He is also about to act contrary to the infallible dogma “extra ecclesiam nulla salus”, which behoves him to uphold and declare the divinely revealed truth that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church.

                      You simply cannot talk your way around the forthcoming scandal, or distract us with word play. The Church is very clear in her teaching, which does not alter to suit Pope Francis’ Modernist take on Catholicism.

              • Valour

                Certain so-called Catholic publications have referred to this joint attrocity as a “celebration”, and then quickly dumbed down the rhetoric when failthful Catholics rightly objected. Anyway, whether the word is used or not this is definitely a “celebration” Pope Francis is about to participate in, hence the joint liturgical abomination planned for the big event. No amount of semantics can disguise what the grave sin against faith this Pope is about to commit.

        • It says “celebrate the way Catholics and Lutherans around the world work together on issues of common concern.” So it doesn’t say celebrate the Reformation.

          119 words and no citation = straw man.

          • Chris McLaughlin

            Again, you dance around the issue as though we all came down with the last shower. You must think very little of our intellect to come away with childish arguments like that one.

            Where have you been these past 50 years or so? Don’t you know that there has been a revolution taking place in the Church since Vatican II? Can’t you see the devastation all around you? Haven’t you even read about the Lutheran infiltration into the Church since the New Mass was constructed in the 1960s with Lutheran assistance. This Lutheran thing has been going on for a long time now. Pope Francis is only the latest Modernist to take the next step in Lutheranising the Catholic religion. Go educate yourself, man, it’s your duty as a Catholic.

            • ANOTHER 132 words and yet still absolutely no attempt whatsoever to address the elementary point I made, i.e. the idea the Reformation has been “celebrated” by the Pope.

              Straw man.

          • Wrong. I spoke with a Glasgow priest today and he immediately remembered that the original notice had the word “celebration” and he further recalled that it was changed to “commemoration” after a lot of complaints at the Vatican.

            Unless you really are a few sandwiches short of a picnic, you can’t possibly expect me to produce the original notice when it was deleted from the Vatican website.

            Now, stop being childish and comment on the scandal of Pope Francis attending the Lutheran celebration of the Reformation and praising the heretic Martin Luther. I’m told he was standing alongside at least one female Lutheran “Bishop” – what a scandal! What a terrible pope!

            Surely, you agree?

            • You cannot base your argument on the recollection of friends. It just doesn’t work. The Vatican, for example, does not retrospectively withdraw notices. Its officials clarify any misinterpretation.

              Please cite an example of a document with the word “celebrate” in. I am sure you cannot.

              • Valour

                As has been pointed out several times already, this is not about a particular word it is about a Catholic Pope contradicting Traditional Catholic teaching by praising the heretic Luther and by preparing to sin against the true faith by participation in a joint Lutheran religious service. That is the elephant in the room that you seem very keen to avoid discussing. I wonder why?

              • Rubbish. The Vatican website has seen entire interviews removed when it was clear that the Pope talked rubbish – as in one of his interviews with an atheist. Pay attention.

                What DIFFERENCE does it make which word is used to describe this scandal anyway?

                It is pointless answering your comments because you are in favour of this insult to Christ, this “ecumenical event”. If you were not in favour, then you wouldn’t give a toss HOW the writer of any given article described this blasphemy – for that is what it is. To publicly support the Protestant schism and EFFECTIVELY celebrate it, is to insult Christ.

                I don’t even think you are a papolatrist – you appear to be an apostate Catholic because when we get a good pope who turns this all around, I suspect that you’ll run for the hills. Probably to the nearest Lutheran church, or maybe Methodist, or possibly Baptist – as long as you do not have to adhere to Catholic dogma and morals. That is no personal insult to you, as you will recognise; it is the logical conclusion of your “pro-Blasphemy” position.

        • Chris McLaughlin

          It seems you strain on a gnat while swallowing a camel! The issue is not really about the word “celebration”, as well you know, it is about Pope Francis proposing to participate in forbidden worship with a heretical sect, having already referred to Luther and Lutheranism in a way that will make his predecessors, not to mention the Reformation martyrs, spin in their graves. What the Pope is about to do represents a very grave sin against faith and a scandal to the Church. That’s the real issue that you keep avoiding with your hit and run one-liners. And that, my friend, is not Catholic behaviour, it is troll behaviour.

          • At last!

            A concession that I was right all along and the Pope has not “celebrated” the Refotrmation as the article above erroneously states. (Albeit understated and mean-spirited.)

            Now I can go to bed.

            • Wrong. I spoke with a Glasgow priest today and he immediately remembered that the original notice had the word “celebration” and he further recalled that it was changed to “commemoration” after a lot of complaints at the Vatican.

              Unless you really are a few sandwiches short of a picnic, you can’t possibly expect me to produce the original notice when it was deleted from the Vatican website.

              Now, stop being childish and comment on the scandal of Pope Francis attending the Lutheran celebration of the Reformation and praising the heretic Martin Luther. I’m told he was standing alongside at least one female Lutheran “Bishop” – what a scandal! What a terrible pope!

              Surely, you agree?

              • The Cardinal is stating the obvious we have no reason to celebrate The Reformation. That is exactly why no-one, including him, is calling it a celebration.

                It was, and is, a commemoration of a significant historical event.

                • Valour

                  No, the Cardinal is notoriously at odds with the Modernist Pope Francis on a number of issues. He made the statement because he more than anyone else knows exactly what this forthcoming event is – a “celebration” of the Protestant Reformation. Otherwise he would have no reason to mention it in interview.

                  The truth is that all informed Catholics can see what’s going on here, and what has been going on in the Church since 1965 when the architect of the New Mass, Fr. Annibale Bugnini, invited Lutheran ministers to assist him in his work of de-Catholicising the Mass.

                  What was it he said in interview to L’Osservatore Romano on March 19, 1965? Oh yes: “We must remove from our Catholic liturgy and prayers all that can be the slightest stumbling block to our separated brethren, that is, to the Protestatns”

                  And if you know your Vatican II revolution history well, you will know that the Lutherans praised the New Mass more than any other, saying that attendance at it no longer represented a conscience problem for them. In other words, the sacrificial and sacramental aspects of the Mass that the martyrs died rather than betray had been sufficiently obscured by the Lutheran contribution.

                  At any rate, the Catholic Church in her infallible teaching condemns any and all participation of Catholics in non-Catholic worship, including Popes. It is said to be a sin against faith and an offence against God, the source of divine truth who established one Church on earth for the salvation of souls and endowed it alone with the means to sanctify. This stint with the Lutherans is a slap in the face to Our Lord and we all know it, except you and a few other apologists for apostasy, apparently.

                  Here again is a little reminder of how the Popes Traditionally approached the question of “separated brethren”. This from Pius’ XI’s Mortalium Animos:

                  “…Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, “the Mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful”? Let them hear Lactantius crying out: “The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind.”

                  Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is “the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,” not with the intention and the hope that “the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government…”

                  • In an interview a person responds to a question posed. The Cardinal responded to a question. That is hardly the equivalent of nailing a theses to the door of a Church.

                    If it was a leading question “should we celebrate….?”. Then the only answer is no.

                    If, however, the same thing was said in a sermon, or speech, then you could possibly argue it was a critique of an event.

                    • Valour

                      And your repsonse to the historical evidence I provided, of Lutheran infiltration into the Catholic Church since at least 1965?

                      Are you even interested in the Catholic Faith aspect of this issue? In fact, are you a Catholic at all, even nominally? We don’t know anything about you. By your diversionary tactics on this blog you could be a Lutheran, for all we know. Whatever your religious inclinations they’re certainly not identifiable as in any way Catholic.

                    • Valour

                      Let’s make this simple, shall we? if a person has a party to “celebrate” an anniversary, and you attend, then you are “celebrating” with them. OK? That’s why the press are making the OBVIOUS inference that the Pope is CELEBRATING Luther. Why do you continue to deny the transparent, observable, clear-cut, prominent, bold, prominent and tangible fact? Do tell.

                    • Therese

                      Lets make it simple: every year we observe the 11th hour of the 11th day in the 11th month, and since 2014 we have been commemorating The Great War. Not one party has been had! I hope you can now begin to grasp a very simple concept of commemorating an anniversary.

                    • Valour

                      You do like to play with words, as well as the truth. I’ve never heard the press describe the annual commemoration of the end of war as “a celebration”. Have you? I don’t recall seeing crowds with smiling faces, holding out children to be kissed, at such a commemoration. Have you? No, of course you haven’t, because there’s a huge difference in the two events, although they are both the anniversaries of terrible tragedies. Can you grasp that?

                      Pray tell us why you think it appropriate for the Pope to commemorate Luther.

                    • Valour

                      And permit me to make it simple for you, too. A commemoration of the war every November is not remotely comparable with what the Pope is about to do with the Lutherans.

                      Never mind the celebration thing, just deal with the issue at the heart of it all. What is your take on Pope Francis’ proposed joint religious service with Lutherans in light of the Church’s Traditional teaching and condemnations of such dangerous novelties?

                  • Editor/Therese

                    It is a commemoration not of a person, but of an event.

                    Editor: Er… the event being “commemorated”, and which the Lutherans are “celebrating” is an event directly caused by Martin Luther, whom the Pope has praised to the skies. We have to learn from this heretic. Do your homework. Read the reports.

                    • Valour

                      “It is a commemoration not of a person, but of an event.”

                      But what an event! Not one that any Catholic would wish to commemorate as in any way productive of good. What the Pope should be doing is lamenting the event marked by this anniversary and exhorting those who still remain outside the true Church as a result to return to their Father’s House, lest they perish forever. That’s the only way for Catholics to commemorate this event.

                • Valour,

                  The Pope has piled praise on Martin Luther. All the reports agree about that. But anyway, why would anybody want to commemorate i.e. mark in any way, such an evil event? Nobody commemorates the Holocaust without denouncing it! You won’t get this pope denouncing Luther and his rebellion against the Church. No way!

            • Chris McLaughlin

              The only “concession” I can render honestly in your regard is that you appear utterly ignorant of the magisterial teaching of the Church. However, I am just about ready to make you a second concession, which is that you are a troll who has no interest whatever in debating the central issue being discussed here. Your remit is to disrupt and derail a topic of critical importance to all true Catholics.

              Take that assessment to bed with you!

              • Your definition of a troll seems to be someone who points out that you are 180 degrees incorrect on a point of fact.

                I am not happy in the slightest about the way the Reformation anniversary has been handled, but unlike some, I don’t think that gives me the right to pedal untruths and misrepresentations.

                That proposition of a critique of the Reformation anniversary episode (on which you and I would be broadly on the same side) is not assisted by exaggerating the case beyond that which can be substantiated by the facts. In fact, it is worse than useless, because it tarnishes your reputation as an earnest interlocutor. “Error has no rights”, to coin an adage.

                If you want to have a go at the Pope, your contentions would be more carefully regarded if they you founded them upon something the man has actually done, rather than something he didn’t do.

                Editor: the Pope has attended this event. THAT is what we are complaining about! You’re so focused on proving the Fatima Center wrong for using the word “celebration” that you have – as has been evident from ALL of your comments, this one included – missed the whole point. To simplify: Pope Francis should not have attended the EVENT which the Lutherans are celebrating – i.e. the Protestant Luther-led Reformation. Surely that is clear enough? Even if the Pope stopped heaping praise on Luther and only stood there in silence to “commemorate” the Protestant revolt, HE WOULD BE WRONG! Don’t you GET that?

                • Chris McLaughlin

                  No, my definition of a troll is someone who attempts, with no little discourtesy, to divert attention away from the central theme of a scandalous landmark event by highlighting and fixating on a matter of secondary importance.

                  You speak of the importance of facts when commenting, yet you have consistently side-stepped the facts of Traditional magisterial teaching which utterly condemns what Pope Francis is about to do.

                  Now you say that we are broadly on the same side in the matter of regret over the Reformation anniversary, yet not once have you shared this with us in your numerous short comments about that particular word “celebration”. That’s what I call disingenuous interlocution.

                  Now here you are reminding the rest of us of the importance of reputation as an earnest interlocutor, one who from the very beginning has fixated on a single word and ignored the most important issue upon which immortal souls depend.

                  Why could you not have introduced yourself with a comment like “I broadly share the shock and disappointment of other Catholics here, though I should point out that the word “celebration” has not actually been used in any official capacity to describe this event”.

                  An introduction like that would have announced you as at least a man of good will. But no, your first contribution was “No Vatican or Church source has described the event in Lund as a “celebration” of the Reformation. Unless someone can cite such a source the whole premise of the text above is to set up a straw man.” Not exactly the most diplomatic entrance into a conversation, eh Chris?

                  Even now, days down the line, your manner remains hostile and your interpretation of this discussion disingenuous. You write: “If you want to have a go at the Pope, your contentions would be more carefully regarded if founded upon something the man has actually done, rather than something he didn’t do.”

                  If you share our Catholic opposition to this Reformation anniversary, as you claim, then why accuse us of having a go at the Pope. It’s Traditional Catholic teaching that’s having a go at the Pope, not us, as you should readily acknowledge.

                  Furthermore, we are not on this occasion basing our opposition on something the Pope has “actually done” or hasn’t done. We are basing it on something he is about to do. That tells me you didn’t read the introductory article or follow the comments of others with any great interest. We have seen this many times before with trolls, hence my conclusion.

                  If this offends you then start exchanging with a little more respect and a little less aggression, and see that you address all aspects of the debate rather than just fixating on a matter that is by far of secondary importance. Maybe then we will begin to regard you as a man who values the truth in its entirety.

                • Still no reply from Chris McLaughlin explaining why he thinks it’s appropriate for the Pope to be involved in this event. Hundreds of words (which I can’t be bothered to count) but still no explanation.

        • Wrong. I spoke with a Glasgow priest today and he immediately remembered that the original notice had the word “celebration” and he further recalled that it was changed to “commemoration” after a lot of complaints at the Vatican.

          Unless you really are a few sandwiches short of a picnic, you can’t possibly expect me to produce the original notice when it was deleted from the Vatican website.

          Now, stop being childish and comment on the scandal of Pope Francis attending the Lutheran celebration of the Reformation and praising the heretic Martin Luther. I’m told he was standing alongside at least one female Lutheran “Bishop” – what a scandal! What a terrible pope!

          Surely, you agree?

  6. You are perfectly correct Our pope is [allowing] the infiltration of evil He encourages sacrileges like homosexuality transgenderism and fornication. He is not in any way Catholic As Our Lady said at La Salette, Rome will lose the faith and become the seat. Of the Antichrist. I do believe this is where we are now!! Bernadette Milliken Lover of the Catholic Church

    Sent from my iPad

    • Bernadette Milliken

      I would not go so far as to speak of Pope Francis as “the infiltration of evil” into the Church, which suggests deliberate malice on his part. The best we can say is that the Pope contradicts the faith, exposing both it and Catholic souls to perverted doctrine. Whether his heresy is material or formal is a matter for the Church’s authorities to settle. I wouldn’t pay too much attention either to La Salette, whose message and messengers are at best controversial. Best stick with Fatima, which is the message for our time. Leave LaSalette to the sedevacantists who love to quote the part about Rome losing the Faith and becomming the seat of antichrist.

        • Athanasius,

          I was just about to go into your comment and remove that offending “m” but then nobody would get the joke, so I’ll leave it!

          I can’t believe that you are fallible, but appreciate the humility 😀

          • Editor

            “I can’t believe that you are fallible, but appreciate the humility”

            How can I do otherwise than bow humbly to your superior discernment in the matter.

            Signed.
            Uriah Heep.

        • Athansius, haven’t you got a spell checker?

          The Spell Chequer
          Eye have a spelling chequer
          Witch came with my pea sea
          It plainly marques for my revue
          Miss steaks I kin knot sea.

          I strike a quay and type a word
          And weight for it two say
          Weather eye am wrong oar write-
          It shows me strait a weigh.

          As soon as a mist ache is maid
          It nose before to long
          And I kin put the error rite-
          It’s rare lea ever wrong.

          Eye have run this poem threw it
          I am shore your pleased to no
          It’s letter perfect awl the weigh-
          My chequer tolled me sew.

          • Vianney

            That’s a great spell checker you have. Please tell me where I can get a copy of it. Oxford, eat your heart out!!

  7. Ed words really fail me about what to say about this little get together ( except swear words ) If Pope Francis wants to go and cuddle the Protestants they’re welcome to him. I don’t suppose he could come over here and have a little chat with The Moderator in moderation of course. This Pope’s got me lost for ordinary words.

  8. Here is how Francis justifies his junket to Sweden to commemorate Luther’s “spirituality” (from his Oct. 13th address to the pilgrimage to Rome of 1.000 Lutherans) (the 99th anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun, no less):

    “The apostle Paul tells us that, by virtue of our baptism, we all form the single Body of Christ. The various members, in fact, form one body. Therefore, we belong to each other and when one suffers, all suffer; when one rejoices, we all rejoice. We can continue trustfully on our ecumenical path, because we know that despite the many issues that still separate us, we are already united. What unites us is far greater than what divides us,” the Holy Father emphasised, noting that at the end of the month he will travel to Lund in Sweden to commemorate, along with the World Lutheran Federation, the five hundredth anniversary of the Reformation, and to give thanks to God for the official dialogue between Lutherans and Catholics.

    “An essential part of this commemoration”, he observed, “will consist of turning our gaze towards the future, with a view to a common Christian witness to today’s world, that thirsts so greatly for God and His mercy. The witness that the world expects of us is above that of rendering visible the mercy God has towards us, through service to the poorest, to the sick, to those who have abandoned their homelands to seek a better future for themselves and for their loved ones. In placing ourselves at the service of those most in need we experience that we are already united: it is God’s mercy that unites us.”

    In other words, he relies on his self-serving distortions of Scripture to justify his sowing of confusion and schism, his undermining of the Faith, and his complete surrender to the agenda of international Marxism. All in the name of a deviously false conception of compassion and mercy – which, by the way, was introduced by John XXIII in his opening speech to the Council.

    Here is the whole speech: http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2016/10/13/161016b.html

    • RCA Victor

      You’re right to say that Pope Francis is distorting Scripture to sow confusion and schism. He bases his actions on baptism as the principle source of Christian unity. But it is actually Faith which is at the heart of Christian unity.

      Here’s Pope Francis’ words again juxtaposed to those of Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos.

      Francis:

      “The apostle Paul tells us that, by virtue of our baptism, we all form the single Body of Christ. The various members, in fact, form one body. Therefore, we belong to each other and when one suffers, all suffer; when one rejoices, we all rejoice. We can continue trustfully on our ecumenical path, because we know that despite the many issues that still separate us, we are already united. What unites us is far greater than what divides us,”

      Pius XI:

      “These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends to injure faith? Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment “Love one another,” altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ’s teaching: “If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you.” For which reason, since charity is based on a complete and sincere faith, the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the bond of one faith.

      Who then can conceive a Christian Federation, the members of which retain each his own opinions and private judgment, even in matters which concern the object of faith, even though they be repugnant to the opinions of the rest? And in what manner, We ask, can men who follow contrary opinions, belong to one and the same Federation of the faithful? For example, those who affirm, and those who deny that sacred Tradition is a true fount of divine Revelation; those who hold that an ecclesiastical hierarchy, made up of bishops, priests and ministers, has been divinely constituted, and those who assert that it has been brought in little by little in accordance with the conditions of the time; those who adore Christ really present in the Most Holy Eucharist through that marvelous conversion of the bread and wine, which is called transubstantiation, and those who affirm that Christ is present only by faith or by the signification and virtue of the Sacrament; those who in the Eucharist recognize the nature both of a sacrament and of a sacrifice, and those who say that it is nothing more than the memorial or commemoration of the Lord’s Supper; those who believe it to be good and useful to invoke by prayer the Saints reigning with Christ, especially Mary the Mother of God, and to venerate their images, and those who urge that such a veneration is not to be made use of, for it is contrary to the honor due to Jesus Christ, “the one mediator of God and men.” How so great a variety of opinions can make the way clear to effect the unity of the Church We know not; that unity can only arise from one teaching authority, one law of belief and one faith of Christians.

      But We do know that from this it is an easy step to the neglect of religion or indifferentism and to modernism, as they call it. Those, who are unhappily infected with these errors, hold that dogmatic truth is not absolute but relative, that is, it agrees with the varying necessities of time and place and with the varying tendencies of the mind, since it is not contained in immutable revelation, but is capable of being accommodated to human life. Besides this, in connection with things which must be believed, it is nowise licit to use that distinction which some have seen fit to introduce between those articles of faith which are fundamental and those which are not fundamental, as they say, as if the former are to be accepted by all, while the latter may be left to the free assent of the faithful: for the supernatural virtue of faith has a formal cause, namely the authority of God revealing, and this is patient of no such distinction. For this reason it is that all who are truly Christ’s believe, for example, the Conception of the Mother of God without stain of original sin with the same faith as they believe the mystery of the August Trinity, and the Incarnation of our Lord just as they do the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, according to the sense in which it was defined by the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican. Are these truths not equally certain, or not equally to be believed, because the Church has solemnly sanctioned and defined them, some in one age and some in another, even in those times immediately before our own? Has not God revealed them all? For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. But in the use of this extraordinary teaching authority no newly invented matter is brought in, nor is anything new added to the number of those truths which are at least implicitly contained in the deposit of Revelation, divinely handed down to the Church: only those which are made clear which perhaps may still seem obscure to some, or that which some have previously called into question is declared to be of faith.

      So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: “The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.” The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that “this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills.” For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.

      Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognise and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.

      Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, “the Mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful”? Let them hear Lactantius crying out: “The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind.”

      Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is “the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,” not with the intention and the hope that “the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government…”

      Here also are some other declarations of Popes, Councils and saints through the centuries highlighting Francis’ grave error.

      “One must neither pray nor sing psalms with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman: let him be excommunicated”. Council of Carthage

      “No one shall pray in common with heretics and schismatics” Council of Laodicea

      From the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX, the following propositions are condemned and proscribed:

      1. “Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.” (Encyclical Quanto Conficiamur, August 10, 1863.)

      2. “Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.” (Encyclical Noscitis, December 8, 1849.)

      From the Encyclical Mirari Vos of Pope Gregory XVI:

      “…With the admonition of the Apostle that there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself who said “He that is not with me, is against me” (Luke 11:23), and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and entire…”

      From the July, 1928 Encyclical Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI:

      “Certainly such movements as these (ecumenical) cannot gain the approval of Catholics. They are founded upon the false opinions of those who say that, since all religions equally unfold and signify- though not in the same way – the native, inborn feeling in us all through which we are borne toward God and humbly recognise His rule, therefore, all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy. The followers of this theory are not only deceived and mistaken, but since they repudiate the true religion by attacking it in its very essence, they move step by step toward naturalism and atheism. Hence it clearly follows that anyone who gives assent to such theories and undertakings utterly abandons divinely revealed religion.”

      “I will not pray with you, nor shall you pray with me; neither will I say ‘Amen’ to your prayers, nor shall you to mine” (St. Margaret Clitherow).

      “These men are Protestants; they are heretics. Have nothing to do with them! (St. Anthony Mary Claret – The Modern Apostles).

      “It is not lawful to go to the Protestant Church” (St. John Rigby)

      “We decree that those who give credence to the teachings of heretics, as well as those who receive, defend, or patronise them, are excommunicated… If anyone refuses to avoid such accomplices after they have been ostracized by the Church, let them also be excommunicated” (IV Lateran Council).

      “It is not permitted at all for the faithful to assist in any active manner at or to have any part in the worship of non-Catholics.” [1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1258]

      “How does a Catholic sin against faith? A Catholic sins against Faith by Apostasy, heresy, indifferentism and by taking part in non-Catholic worship.” (Catechism of the Council of Trent, Catechism of Pope St. Pius X and The Baltimore Catechism).

      “…St. Anthony the Abbot would not speak to a heretic, except to exhort him to the true faith; and he drove all heretics from his mountain, calling them venomous serpents.” (St. Athanasius on the life of St. Anthony the Hermit).

      I could provide numberless other quotes from Traditional Church teaching, but I think what is here published suffices to show the great error this present Pope has fallen into and the great danger he represents to the integrity of the true faith and to souls.

        • Tonybuck321

          What you really mean to say is that they are not formal heretics, assuming invincible ignorance on their part. They are, at the very least, material heretics in that they reject the teaching of the Catholic Church.

        • Tony I worked at the building of new Church of Scotland Hall many years ago . I became friendly with the minister and we would banter back and forth . Until one day it became quite heated and an argument started,during which I asked him if ( as a Protestant Minister) he had a degree in Christian Theology when he said yes . I asked him why if you know the TRUTH are you a Protestant Minister. That was over 40 years ago and I still haven’t had an answer from him . If and he knew his beliefs were lies is he not a Heretic. I would say certainly ,you my friend would probably disagree.

      • Dear Athanasius,

        I go for music lessons every week to a Protestant lady. In light of your quotes from St. Anthony Mary Claret and your namesake, should I still continue to see her? She is helping me to learn how to sing the Divine Liturgy (I’m Ukrainian Greek Catholic, so she is teaching me to sing my own Liturgy).

        I made my First Holy Communion on the Feast of St. Athanasius 1976, so he’s one of my favorite Saints.

        Please pray for me.

        Yours in Christ the King,

        Margaret

        • Margaret USA,

          If I could offer a view – although your question is addressed to Athanasius – we can’t change the saints’ words, nor the implications of what they have said. Of course, your music lessons from the Protestant lady are not sinful. If you were seeking religious education lessons, however, that would be different.

          The saints were not infallible when they lived on earth, and so I think we need to note two things: firstly, that the context in which Athanasius posted the quotes from St Anthony Mary Claret et al, is that of ecumenical activity, and, specifically, a gravely scandalous event involving Pope Francis (at his own suggestion – he wasn’t even responding to an invitation – he asked to be involved and, in fact, led part of the event.) That is entirely different from innocent social contact with non-Catholics and non-believers. What Pope Francis has done is to give the clear impression that Lutheranism and Catholicism are on an equal footing when they are not.

          In terms of contact with non-Catholics today – we have to make an informed judgment. There can be no doubt that easy interaction has led to a weakening of the Faith in some, if not most, Catholics. For example, very few apparently see the need to “date” only Catholics, let alone wait for a Catholic spouse to come along. That’s old hat now, and mixed marriages are almost the norm. Generally speaking, while acknowledging possible exceptions, that leads to weaker Faith and, often, the end of the Catholic Faith in that particular unit of the family.

          I have Protestants in my own family so I am obviously not bigoted against Protestants but neither do I believe that they are spiritually safe. I don’t. I believe I have a duty to pray for their conversion and to do what I can, in practical terms, to that end. In my case, my beliefs are common knowledge so I really do not have to do very much – but I am certainly not going to play the pretend game. The Protestant communities are in schism from Christ’s Church and that cannot be pleasing to God. We ought to be more concerned about pleasing God than pleasing Protestants – even those to whom we are related.

          In summary, we must interpret the words of saints carefully, remembering that they were not infallible. In the case of the statements made about shunning non-Catholics and non-believers, we have, today, to discern the nature of such contact, and – in a spirit of true charity – ensure that any interaction we cannot avoid is such that will not harm our Faith and may well help our non-Catholic and non-believer friends to reach the fullness of the truth which can only be found within the Catholic Church.

          Now, away and enjoy those music lessons!

    • That’s good that Cardinal Burke spoke out about this scandal. I was wondering if he had disappeared into thin air, it seems ages since he spoke out.

    • Ecumenism is the enemy of Protestantism.

      Now that Protestants don’t call the Catholic Church “the scarlet woman, whore of Babylon, Romish Anti-Christ (etc etc)” they have no reason to remain Separated.

      Which is why a late Protestant crackpot called Rev Stone, kept ordering plaster busts of St Pope John XXIII which he would frienziedly hurl down and break !

      • Tonybuck

        If you think that separation from the true Church is merely a question of a cessation of verbal abuse exchanges then you are very seriously mistaken. There are much deeper issues at stake than that.

    • Are We All Lutherans Now?

      ABSOLUTELY NOT!

      Not today, not tomorrow, not yesterday, not next week – In fact never, and not even then. I trust this clarifies the matter.

    • Very funny Elizabeth and poor John Knox will be turning in his grave (under the car park at the side of the Supreme Courts in Edinburgh) for not getting a mention.

      • I thought John Knox’ grave / monument was in a cemetery near the big hospital in Glasgow? Don’t tell me that I danced on the wrong grave!!!

        • There may be a monument to him in a Glasgow cemetery but he was buried at the side of the High Kirk of St. Giles and that area was later tarred over to become a car park for the Supreme Courts. Maybe it was done deliberately so he couldn’t rise on the Day of Judgement.

          • Ha ha, that’s very funny! Mind you, I’d like him to rise so we can take pot shots at him on Judgement Day in retaliation for the havoc he has caused to Christianity in Scotland!

            Do you think that might be allowed? A sort of righteous stoning before his descent into the nether world.

        • Don’t tell me that I danced on the wrong grave!!!

          Hilarious Helen!

          I think that prominent vantage point (in the Glasgow Necropolis) is very suitable for Knox, such that he can adequately survey the devastation his perverted doctrines have caused to Scotland.

          It is quite remarkably to think that the Presbyterian reformers took a majority Catholic nation – with a strong Christian patrimony of close to 1,500 years – and within just 500 have turned it into a majority Godless nation which is increasingly hostile to Christianity.

          I think that is a very clear demonstration that the reformation – and the many 1000s of heretical religions it spawned – are not of God.

          A friend of mine jokes that he daydreams of how to behead that statue of John Knox, high up on its pillar. One scheme involves a lasso, another explosives. The tongue-in-cheek plans remind me of Wily E Coyote and his various schemes to catch Roadrunner!

          • Gabriel Syme and Helen,

            Maybe we could give John Knox a posthumous Dean Martin Roast? Of course, he wouldn’t be able to reply…

    • Sorry but this video is completely and utterly out of order . Where are The Baptists ,The Methodists, The Evangelicals,The Presbyterians,The wee Frees The Big Freeze The Salvation Army,The Jehovas Witnesses. The Episcapallions ,The Plymouth Brethren–that’s a good one –The Holiness Movement–one for Jorge–The Pentecostals–The Ordinary Brethren-The Hallelujahs- The Estonia Evangelical Lutheran ( lets kick Our Lady ) Free Church. Man we’d be here till next Halloween naming even half of them and Jorge wants US to honour this lot .–Got to of course give The Dutch Reformed Church a mention . As like all the rest they reformed from the reformers. God spare us from any of this Lot lest I be turned into a pillar of SALT.

    • Editor, apparently St Benedict’s Basilica, which was destroyed in the earthquake yesterday, used both forms of Mass.

      • Tonybuck

        If you mean the Council of Trent then you’re right. That great event commenced the Counter-Reformation which exposed the Protestant rebellion for what it really was.

        • The Reformation was a sincere – though very wrong-headed – attempt to return to the Apostolic Church.

          Most of those involved were motivated by disillusionment with the late-medieval Church.

      • You’ve posted your warped reasoning about this before. So following this to its logical conclusion, Judas’ betrayal of Our Lord was a good thing because it precipitated His Passion and Death, which led to our redemption.

        Or, on a more mundane level, Pearl Harbor was a good thing because it caused the U.S. to enter WWII and defeat the Axis.

        • The Reformation was indeed “the best thing that has ever happened to the Catholic Church” – or near it.

          The sin of Adam led to our redemption – “O felix culpa.”

          The worse sins of Judas son of Simon or the Japanese militarists were indeed providential – though in themselves evil, of course.

          The souls of the Reformers are quite unknown to us. But of two things we can be sure:

          1) that before the Judgement Seat of God they were able to enter a defence of provocation (bearing in mind the state of the CC, especially at Rome, pre-Trent);

          2) that they were far less guilty than the “Catholic” people who crashed the medieval church, from Handsome Philip, King of France, who ended the Church’s Golden Age in 1303 (by kidnapping Boniface VIII) to the appalling clerics of Renaissance Rome (atheists, art collectors, jewellery-lovers, admirers of paganism, indulgers in every form of sexual excess).

            • I have said NO such thing.

              Nor am I attracted to Protestantism.

              You are peering through blinkers (and very irately, eager to issue anathemas) – take them off and you will begin to understand what people are saying

              • That IS what you are saying effectively.

                What if someone defended paedophilia by saying “oh well, at least it made us aware of the need to be good to children” – ???

                That would be a person who sees no great harm in child abuse. Only an outright condemnation suffices, and rightly so.

                You have come on here savagely attacking Catholics in the Middle Ages as if they were to blame for Luther’s evil behaviour. Again, that’s like blaming the victims of abuse for their abusers’ behaviour.

              • Tonybuck

                I’m afraid your statement reads like one of apostasy. Any kind of sympathy for the motives of heretics who attack and divide the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church, is an apostate act whether you like the tag or not.

                As Our Lord Himself said: “He who is not with me is against me”. The Protestant Reformers were against Him when they reviled His Mystical Body. You now say they had justification. What does that make you?

            • Ideally, the Reformation should not have happened.

              But then, ideally, the Catholic Church shouldn’t have been in a state of corruption and decay from 1303 to 1517 (and after).

              The Sack of Rome in 1527 – unspeakably hideous and blood-soaked – was seen by many Catholic contemporaries (the then-pope included) as God’s Just Judgement on the CC of that time and as an urgent call to repentance.

              And indeed, the Horror of that event led to the calling of the Council of Trent a few years later.

              • Trent was called to correct the Protestant heresies – the Pope even invited the Protestants to attend to hear why they were in the wrong.

                You are so anti-Catholic that you make Luther look positively saintly! Gerragrip.

                PS don’t tell Pope Francis that “ideally the Reformation should not have happened” – he thinks it was the best thing since (before) sliced bread! We learned all about the bible from the Reformers, remember? The fact that they tore out several books of the Bible presumably helped us to understand it better…

  9. Actually hadn’t read much about Martin Luther but this video of information is really an eye opener. Of course it’s Protestant through and through Christ died for our sins therefore I can lead any life I like . Of course this comes with a price as Luthers friend tried to tell him near the end of his life when his decadent lifestyle had spiralled out of control. Now am no Saint but it doesn’t take one to see that the disease and corruption caused in our society is caused because we all want to do our own thing. Ireland is a classic example of throwing the baby out with the bath water. When you get dyed in the wool Republicans saying they would vote S.D.P. rather than Sinn Fein because the latter wants Abortion and the Homosexual Thing it just shows how far it’s fallen.

    • Tonybuck

      You’re right, but only in cases of invincible ignorance. As the Church says: Non-Catholics and non-Christians can be saved IN their false religions but NOT BY their false religions. This puts a whole different light on ecumenism and shows it up for the falsehood it is.

      • Ecumenism only become a falsehood if it compromises the Church’s message / teachings.

        Individual ecumenists have done that. Correct ecumenism doesn’t.

        As most of the world’s human population are living in a state of invincible ignorance, it isn’t the sort of rare condition or exception that you seem to imply.

        • There’s no use answering your comments which are ALL off the wall. You are not a Catholic, so stop pretending to be. If you were a Catholic you would know that the infallible declarations of the previous popes could not possibly be overturned. One pope cannot prohibit the participation of Catholics in ecumenical events, while another pope goes along to lead one. Gerragrip.

          And the very fact that most people live in ignorance, as you admit, is all the more reason for the Pope not to keep them in that ignorance. He has a duty to teach the Catholic Faith – don’t you GET that?

          • Many statements by popes on questions of faith and morals are not, of course, infallible.

            Most are strong recommendations – to be respected and heeded, but not bearing the eternal authority of the Magisterium or forming part of it.

            It is NOT part of the Catholic Faith that a Catholic shouldn’t attend ecumenical events. Warnings by pontiffs against doing so are a pastoral (not a doctrinal) matter.

            The pastoral restrictions on Catholics doing so have now been lifted; and the overall effect of this change has been very good (despite some individual Western Catholics falling into Protestantism as a result).

            Spreading – teaching – the Catholic Faith is of course our duty. We don’t do it very well; heresy-hunters worst of all.

            • Patent nonsense. You give no examples of non-binding teachings from popes on either Faith OR Morals – there is certainly nothing binding from any of the modern popes who went out of their way to ensure that this was the case, but previously? I’ve copied part of one of Athanasius’ posts above – you telling us that this is NOT infallibly binding? Really?

              From the July, 1928 Encyclical Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI:

              “Certainly such movements as these (ecumenical) cannot gain the approval of Catholics. They are founded upon the false opinions of those who say that, since all religions equally unfold and signify- though not in the same way – the native, inborn feeling in us all through which we are borne toward God and humbly recognise His rule, therefore, all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy. The followers of this theory are not only deceived and mistaken, but since they repudiate the true religion by attacking it in its very essence, they move step by step toward naturalism and atheism. Hence it clearly follows that anyone who gives assent to such theories and undertakings utterly abandons divinely revealed religion.”

              “I will not pray with you, nor shall you pray with me; neither will I say ‘Amen’ to your prayers, nor shall you to mine” (St. Margaret Clitherow).

              “These men are Protestants; they are heretics. Have nothing to do with them! (St. Anthony Mary Claret – The Modern Apostles).

              “It is not lawful to go to the Protestant Church” (St. John Rigby)

              “We decree that those who give credence to the teachings of heretics, as well as those who receive, defend, or patronise them, are excommunicated… If anyone refuses to avoid such accomplices after they have been ostracized by the Church, let them also be excommunicated” (IV Lateran Council).

              “It is not permitted at all for the faithful to assist in any active manner at or to have any part in the worship of non-Catholics.” [1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1258]

              “How does a Catholic sin against faith? A Catholic sins against Faith by Apostasy, heresy, indifferentism and by taking part in non-Catholic worship.” (Catechism of the Council of Trent, Catechism of Pope St. Pius X and The Baltimore Catechism).

              “…St. Anthony the Abbot would not speak to a heretic, except to exhort him to the true faith; and he drove all heretics from his mountain, calling them venomous serpents.” (St. Athanasius on the life of St. Anthony the Hermit). END.

              Athanasius concludes:

              I could provide numberless other quotes from Traditional Church teaching, but I think what is here published suffices to show the great error this present Pope has fallen into and the great danger he represents to the integrity of the true faith and to souls.

              Well?

            • Tonybuck

              You clearly don’t know your faith or the teaching of the Church. It is infallible teaching that Catholics are forbidden to participate in heretical worship. The dogma ‘Outside the Church no salvation’ is as clear as it gets, as is the consistent teaching of the Popes for centuries.

              I have no idea where you got your daft idea from but it’s dead wrong and dangerous.

        • Tonybuck

          Ecumenism is the devil’s replacement for Apostolic zeal. It kills the Church militant on earth and by default it kills the missions. Ecumenism is actually the greatest act against charity ever perpetrated on humanity, disguised of course as charity. The devil is very clever.

  10. This article is nothing more than:

    1) An invitation to take potshots against the much-slandered Pope Francis, contrary to any truly Catholic respect for our supreme pontiff.

    2) An attempt to live in 1958.

    • Tonybuck

      Pope Francis does not need us to undermine respect for the office of the Supreme Pontiff for he himself has done nothing but denigrate it since he was elected.

      Now, the Catholic religion of 2016 should be the same as it was in 1958, just as 1958 was the same as 1858, 1758, 1658, etc., all the way back to the Apostles. And yet here we are with a Vatican II religion that does not remotely resemble the religion of our forefathers. Why is that, do you think?

    • TonyBuck321,

      Athanasius has you over a barrel there, Tony:

      Why do you refer to 1958 as if the Catholic faith should be somehow different between any two points in time?

            • Would you explain what you mean by “the authority of Vatican II” since there was no dogma defined at that Council and the Fathers of the Council have never claimed it to have infallible authority. Only those parts (such as Lumen Gentium 25) which repeat previously binding, traditional teaching (e.g. LG 25 on on papal authority and supremacy), are binding. Nothing else. We all accept what IS binding, but nothing new, such as ecumenism, can possibly be binding. So, take it from me, there are no “ultra-traditionalists” here.

              So, what do you mean by “not accepting the authority of Vatican II”? What is the extent and limitations of that Council’s authority – do you know?

    • Listening to this almost made me weep, especially for the Catholics of Sweden and their priests. How on earth can Pope Francis be so blind to the effect of his behaviour? In an increasingly unstable and dangerous world it feels like he is pulling the rug from under our feet! Our Lady of Fatima pray for us all.

      • Elizabeth

        I quite agree. While some people spend their time repeatedly counting how many words posters use, and being thankful for the Reformation, the faithful Catholics of Sweden are suffering this anti-Catholic “celebration” in their midst with the approval and participation of the Pope. I can only imagine what St Thomas More would have to say.

          • No, and he wasn’t living after July 1535 because he was judicially murdered by the “reformers”. Why don’t you learn some history, learn what it is to be a Catholic, and perhaps – but this is a faint hope – spend a few moments reflecting on the deaths of the many who were slaughtered because of your wonderful Reformation.

            • St Thomas More was, of course, butchered by a self-declared (indeed bigoted) Catholic, the Eighth Henry, who burnt various Protestants..

              Most of the other Catholic martyrs were butchered by his appalling younger daughter – the scheming, irreligious politician Elizabeth I.

                • Which of my remarks are historically incorrect ?

                  BTW, it is not for you to judge whether or not I am a true Catholic.

                  Especially as many of your remarks suggest that you are as apostate – as Protestant, in fact – as the SSPX.

                  • TonyBuck321,

                    To be honest, no offence, meant, I wondered if you were a Catholic myself, as you seem to be on the side of the Protestants at the Reformation. I didn`t see editor saying anything about you being a `good` catholic, just a Catholic and that`s what I wondered, to be honest.

                    I know some people claim the Church was in bad shape and “deserved” Luther, but that’s not what Eamon Duffy says in his classic history book, The Stripping of the Altars. He proves that the Church was very healthy, actually. Worth a read.

                    Why do you say that the editor and SSPX are apostates? Catholic Truth and the SSPX stick to the old faith, i.e. as it has always been taught and preached – that’s why I come here. I know I will read the traditional truths of the faith. How can the groups that do that, Catholic Truth and SSPX, be apostates? I really don`t understand why you say that.

                • Everything you say is historically suspect if not outright incorrect. Take this:

                  “[Thomas More butchered by] a self-declared (indeed bigoted) Catholic, the Eighth Henry..”

                  How on earth you can think of Henry VIII as “bigoted” let along a Catholic when there is a huge dispute about whether he repented on his deathbed and died, at least, within the Church, beats me.

                  If he was lucky, he’d have found himself in the furthest reaches of Purgatory. Just in case, we ought to pray for him every time we pray for the Holy Souls… Just in case…

          • Tony

            To insult the memory of St Thomas More as you have just done, is beyond belief.

            As Therese advises, go and learn something about Catholicism: not the diabolically disoriented version of it which we are suffering just now, as Our Lady warned at Fatima would happen – but the real Catholic Faith.

            St Thomas More was invited over and over and over again to go all ecumenical at the time, to go along with the new religion, and he steadfastly refused. Despite facing the ultimate sacrifice of giving his life’s blood for the Faith, and thus leaving his wife and children, he refused the ecumenical path. Pope Francis and the majority of Catholics, who are nothing more than useful idiots (including yourself, with all due respect, of course), are now merrily dancing along that broad and dangerous path that leads to Hell.

            That you can only insult St Thomas More for his strong and faithful witness, proves beyond any doubt that you are about as Catholic as my mobile phone number which ends in 666.

            Reflect.

            • I am not, of course, insulting St Thomas More – merely pointing out that he sees things now from a different perspective: Heavenly, and with the benefit of hindsight.

              That doesn’t mean that he, for a moment, regrets his decision to die a martyr rather than betray his beliefs – merely that he is no longer gripped by the fear and anguish (for the Church’s future) that he felt when alive.

              St Thomas was not invited to “go all ecumenical” (since there were almost no ecumenical people at the time), but to betray ONE article of the Faith – that the Bishop of Rome, not the English Sovereign, is Head of the Catholic Church in England.

              Henry VIII’s claim to be Head of the Church in England, was of course political, not ecumenical.

              Your tendency to insult and threaten opponents would be laughable – were it not damaging to yourself.

              Moreover, only points of doctrine are sacred and eternal – all else (e.g. how we regard Protestants) is a matter of debate.

              • You do write some daft stuff.

                St Thomas More had a wife and children. He was NOT “gripped by fear and anguish for the Church’s future” – what are you ON?

                More lived at a time of persecution. The King’s decision to take on the papal role as Head of the Church in England, was one to which no true Catholic could subscribe. More did his best not to say so, but to quietly do his family and professional duties. His silence, as any lawyer would tell you, SHOULD have suggested his consent to the scandalous appropriation of authority by the King. But everyone, King included, knew that Thomas More was a man of strong Catholic Faith and until he publicly accepted the King’s heresy, the King would not rest.

                What is laughable, Tony, is your lack of understanding of how language works. Of course I know that there was no such thing as “ecumenism” until the post-Vatican II rebels invented it but a writer will sometimes play with words to make a point. It would suit YOUR anti-Catholic cause were you able to point to the saint to show that he went along to get along, in the cause of “Christian unity” or “peaceful co-existence” with the new religion, “focusing on what he had in common” with the King’s new religion, not what divided them. Today we call that “ecumenism”. Get it now?

                Finally, your dichotomy between “how we regard Protestants” and “doctrine” is puzzling in the extreme. I have a number of Protestant relatives and friends. That we do not believe the same Christian doctrines is what makes them Protestants and moi, a Catholic. How do I regard them? I regard them as people for whom I need to pray and whose conversion to the Catholic religion I have in my mind all the time; both to pray to that end and to help them arrive at the fullness of truth in all possible ways. I do NOT regard them as equal to me in religion because… well… they are in a false religion. And I cannot and will not lie to them by pretending that they are spiritually safe when they are not, just to keep up the appearance of friendship and charity. Lying is never charitable, or so folks tell me when I ask if they think I’m still slim and glamorous now that I’m hitting my 29th birthday…

                Hope that answers your question but I guess that you are not looking for answers. Every time you come on to this blog, you appear to be looking for a fight, for the sake of it.

                Life’s too short. Don’t let’s keep you.

                • I am challenging your bigotry – which is an excessive reaction to Modernism.

                  That St Thomas More was intelligent enough to realise he was engaged in a desperate uphill battle to save English Catholicism is undoubted.

                  Why else would a kindly man be so determined (as undoubtedly he was) to burn people alive ?

                  So he WAS gripped by fear and anguish for the Church’s future.

                  His fear seems to have lessened when he heard Cardinal Reginald Pole’s remark: “Heretics be not in all things heretics.” There is considerable agreement between Catholics and Protestants – especially on central doctrines.

                  Some, like yourself, still need to be reminded of this.

                  Your remarks about ecumenism are mere playing with words. Not only did the word ecumenism not then exist, but ideas we would call ecumenical didn’t either; there was little or no middle ground.

                  One of the rare moderates in the debate over the Reformation, was St Thomas’s friend, Desiderius Erasmus – but he died hated and attacked by both sides.

                  Yet Erasmus’s cause has triumphed; and rightly so.

                  Though a few dark corners like “Catholic Truth” and SSPX still remain; people so Catholic that they have effectively become Protestants ! – by attacking and insulting the Papacy when it doesn’t bow to their will and superior wisdom (!).

                  • There cannot be an “excessive” reaction to Modernism, which Pope SAINT Pius X defined as the “synthesis of all heresies”. Unless you hate heresy, you cannot love God.

                    You bang on about burning heretics. One of the best history books I ever read was written by a Protestant and in commenting on the burning of heretics, he wrote that this was taken for granted at the time and not remarked upon because THE TRUTH was recognised as so important that it was worth one’s life. So, stop making a big thing out of it. Not the case – it’s always a mistake to judge such things by today’s liberal mentality.

                    Thus Thomas More was doing his duty – no more and far from “gripped by fear”.

                    You describe Catholic Truth as a “dark corner”. Not that “dark” that you won’t … er… darken our doorstep, but please take this in the spirit of charity it is meant. You are not going to convince us that you are right. You are wrong in gigantic proportions, and I, for one, really do not have the time to keep going round in circles with you.

                    You don’t like us. We’re not crazy about you.

                    Why not find a nice liberal blog where you can feel at home. Try The Tablet.

                  • Tony

                    There’s clearly no point in discussing the Faith with you as your bigotry blinds you to the facts. If you are even vaguely open to reason, please get a copy of the book written by that well known, and utterly honest Protestant, William Cobbett, and read A History of the Protestant Reformation. It was written not too long after the drama of the English “Reformation”, and makes very illuminating reading. It should be mandatory reading for all Catholics. That’s only if you’re interested, of course.

                    • I have read it – it’s interesting and true, but one-sided.

                      Fact is, Henry and Elizabeth were shrewd politicians and knew they could get away with the Reformation.

                      They did.

                      Such opposition as there was, was mainly conservatism (or fear of Enclosures), not fervent Catholicism; hence it largely died out after one or two generations.

                      Mary Tudor, sadly, put her interests and opinions as a landowner before her Catholicism – or was perhaps too naive to realise the conflict between them.

                    • Tony

                      I can’t believe you’ve read it, if that’s your conclusion. For goodness sake, TAKE OFF THE BLINKERS!

                  • tonybuck321 says:

                    I am challenging your bigotry – which is an excessive reaction to Modernism.

                    Utter rubbish! There can’t be an excessive reaction to the Synthesis Of All Heresies, THE GREATEST DANGER HOLY MOTHER CHURCH HAS EVER FACED

                    As for bigotry, your own posts are certainly an excellent example. Here’s just one – Though a few dark corners like “Catholic Truth” and SSPX still remain; people so Catholic that they have effectively become Protestants ! – by attacking and insulting the Papacy when it doesn’t bow to their will and superior wisdom (!).

                    It now becomes patently obvious that you either don’t agree with, or perhaps haven’t even read Praestantia Scripturae, where those who defend praise,or support Modernism are latae sententiea excommunicated heretics – by order of Pope St. Pius X.

  11. Here’s what Pope Francis said today – among other things: “Francis even praised Luther for having “given greater centrality” to Scripture in the church’s life.”

    Er? Tell me he didn’t just say that… I didn’t just type that…

    And, of course, there was the predictable nonsense of a signed joint statement. Gimme strength! Source here

  12. It is very interesting to note that 2017, as well as being the 500th anniversary year of the Protestant revolt, is also the 100th anniversary of Fatima. It is this latter anniversary that should be consuming the thoughts of Christ’s Vicar on earth, not how best to appease those who approve and still celebrate the apostasy of their forefathers from the true religion.

  13. I’m beginning to think that Pope Francis has that personality disorder (I forget the name) which craves to be in the limelight at all times.

    • Crofterlady,

      Needn’t be a “personality disorder” – it may be, quite simply, his weakness of character, or a misguided notion that if he belittles Christ’s Church sufficiently, the wandering sheep will return, thinking it’s not so bad after all, the Pope agrees with them about the Church, so maybe give it another shot!

  14. I’ve just watched the video above featuring the priest. What a wonderful priest? Are there many such like in Sweden? Is he a Society priest? I can’t imagine most of ours being that Catholic!

    • Josephine,

      As one would expect, Father Z’s conclusion was to defend the Pope by quoting him (““I wouldn’t ever dare to allow this [Communion for Lutherans], because it’s not my competence.”). That enables Fr. Z to overlook the fact that this Pope is a devious, cunning liar, like all Modernists, and so, given enough time, he will find a way to “allow” it – pastorally, of course, and probably in a footnote…

    • Theresa Rose,

      Many thanks for posting that final video from Lund. It made very poignant listening. Let’s hope Pope Francis saw the sign they held up: “Don’t hide Catholic Truth” – I’m now bracing myself for a barrage of new readers seeking admission to the mailing list!

    • I finally took the time to sit down and watch this. Mr. Semin actually hits directly upon the real purpose of “ecumenism” early in his speech, though he perhaps might not realize it. The real purpose, one might even say the first purpose, is not “unity” at all. That is just a ruse. The first purpose is to achieve the silence of the Church regarding her unique and solitary role and mission in the salvation of souls. There is a second purpose, though, even worse: it is to submerge the Church comfortably into the One World Religion planned by Freemasonry, the cult of Satan.

      So let’s make a deal, fellow bloggers: let’s not keep complaining, like several other traditionalist spokesmen, about how pointless this “ecumenism” madness is. It is quite purposeful and pointed, and it is obviously achieving its purpose quite well, as clearly demonstrated by this scandalous Pontificate, which, among many other things, has turned both Faith and Reason on their heads.

      • RCA Victor,

        I agree. There is a definite and diabolical purpose to ecumenism. It’s been on the cards from the beginning. Thank you for that thoughtful comment.

  15. Here’s a laugh-a-minute – can’t you just HEAR John Knox? Press Release from the Scottish Catholic Media Office today is answering criticisms from the Protestant Minister they appointed to investigate the Catholic Church in respect of child abuse allegations / “safeguarding” – he’s not backward at coming forward to attach the Church now… Laugh? I thought I’d never start… This ecumenical claptrap isn’t working at any level: the “pretend” game is all on the Catholic side – maybe now the Bishops will switch on their brains and think twice before setting up the Church to be knocked down by one of its sworn enemies…

    Church responds to critics of Safeguarding strategy

    In a response to a letter sent by the former Chair of the Commission examining Safeguarding Protocols in the Catholic Church, the Assistant General Secretary of the Bishops’ Conference has rejected claims that the recommendations produced by the McLellan Commission are not being implemented.

    In a letter sent to the Bishops’ Conference by Rev. Andrew McLellan, the former commission chair claims that action is not being taken, survivors are not being supported and independent scrutiny is not being introduced.

    Responding to the letter, the Assistant General Secretary of the Conference, Fr. Tom Boyle said;

    “Last August the Bishops’ Conference welcomed the McLellan Commission Report and accepted its recommendations in full, undertaking to implement them all. This commitment has not diminished in any way, every recommendation will be implemented.

    Three months later, the Bishops published a detailed Implementation plan, describing how all of the recommendations would be acted upon. The plan was posted online and open to consultation and comment.

    As Dr.McLellan had informed the Church that all the records of the Commission had been destroyed and he could not divulge which survivors had been consulted, approaching those individuals was not possible. That however does not mean that survivors need’s have not informed policy. One survivor who met Archbishop Tartaglia spoke of feeling “more at peace now, than for a. long time” While the Raphael: Opening the Doors to Healing Counselling Service for anyone abused within the Church was launched in October 2015, two months after the publication of the McLellan Report.

    An independent review group as recommended by the Commission is being established. A chair has accepted and the members are being confirmed. They will be announced after the December meeting of the Bishops’ Conference. The group’s first task will be to review the progress of the first 12 months of the implementation plan.

    Transparency and openness are at the heart of the Church’s Safeguarding mission. We do not believe any other church, charity or public body in Scotland publishes detailed annual audits nor have any undertaken a public consultation, as the Bishops’ Conference did on its Implementation Plan.

    In releasing his report last year, Dr. McLellan described the Bishops’ decision to ask a Minister of the Church of Scotland to carry out this review as demonstrating “ecumenical trust” and “generosity of spirit” since the Church allowed Dr. McLellan two years to write his recommendations without comment, it is to be hoped that the in the same spirit of trust and generosity of spirit, the Church will be given at least the same amount of time to implement them.”

    ENDS

    Peter Kearney
    Director
    Catholic Media Office
    5 St. Vincent Place
    Glasgow
    G1 2DH
    0141 221 1168
    07968 122291
    pk@scmo.org
    http://www.scmo.org

  16. From SSPX website…

    Fr. Bouchacourt – SSPX District Superior of France – released the following statement regarding Monday’s ecumenical meeting in Sweden.

    “On October 31, 2016, Pope Francis signed a joint declaration with the president of the Lutheran World Federation, Munib Younan, in Sweden. This was to mark the beginning of what is planned to be a year-long “celebration” of Martin Luther’s break with Eternal Rome. This declaration, in part, stated:

    “Through dialogue and shared witness we are no longer strangers. Rather, we have learned that what unites us is greater than what divides us. While we are profoundly thankful for the spiritual and theological gifts received through the Reformation, we also confess and lament before Christ that Lutherans and Catholics have wounded the visible unity of the church. Theological differences were accompanied by prejudice and conflicts, and religion was instrumentalised for political ends.”

    We have discussed the timeless teaching of Holy Mother Church regarding the Lutheran heresy recently, and will continue to provide more concrete and specific information on Martin Luther and his revolution in the coming weeks. Today, we present the following communication from Fr. Christian Bouchacourt, SSPX District Superior of France.”

    Communiqué from SSPX District Superior of France

    Nov. 2, 2016

    “On reading the joint declaration which the Pope made with the representatives of the Lutheran church in Sweden on 31st October, on the occasion of the fifth centenary of Luther’s revolt against the Catholic Church, our sadness has reached new depths.

    Faced with the genuine scandal represented by such a declaration in which historical errors, grave attacks on the preaching of the Catholic Faith and a false humanism, source of so many evils, follow one after the other, we cannot remain silent.

    Under the fallacious pretext of love of neighbor and the desire for an artificial and illusory unity, the Catholic Faith is sacrificed on the altar of that ecumenism which puts the salvation of souls in peril. The most enormous errors and the Truth of Our Lord Jesus Christ are put on an equal footing.

    How can we be “profoundly thankful for the spiritual and theological gifts received through the Reformation”, when Luther manifested a diabolical hatred towards the Sovereign Pontiff, a blasphemous scorn for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, as well as a refusal of the saving Grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ? He also destroyed the doctrine on the Eucharist by refusing Transubstantiation, turned souls away from the Most Blessed Virgin Mary and denied the existence of Purgatory.

    No, Protestantism brought nothing to Catholicism! It ruined the unity of Christendom, separated whole countries from the Catholic Church, plunged souls into error, putting their eternal salvation in peril. We Catholics want Protestants to return to the unique fold of Christ which is the Catholic Church and we pray for this intention.

    In these days when we celebrate all the Saints, we call out to Saint Pius V, Saint Charles Borromeo, Saint Ignatius and Saint Peter Canisius who heroically fought the Protestant heresy and saved the Catholic Church.

    We invite the faithful of the District of France to pray and do penance for the Sovereign Pontiff so that Our Lord, whose Vicar he is, may preserve him from error and keep him in the Truth of which he is the guardian.

    I invite the priests of the District to celebrate a Mass of reparation and to organise a Holy Hour before the Blessed Sacrament to ask pardon for these scandals and to beg Our Lord to calm the tempest which has been shaking the Church for more than half a century now.

    Our Lady Help of Christians, save the Catholic Church and pray for us!”

    Father Christian Bouchacourt
    District Superior of France for the Society of Saint Pius XSource here

    • Says it all when it takes an SSPX priest to speak out about this scandal. Where are all the “orthodox” bishops? Cardinal Burke? Bishop Schneider? Where are they?

        • I doubt that. They consider this papacy a scandal but they are like every other neo-Catholic – don’t want to rock boats. Just as happened at the Reformation when Bishop (now Saint) John Fisher was the only bishop to defend the Faith – can you name any other Bishop at that time? Get it now?

            • “Attack the Pope”? Never mind St John Fisher, who was defending the Pope as, hopefully, we would all do in similar circumstances.

              Our circumstances are different. It’s the POPE who’s the problem! Don’t you GET that?

              Read St Paul and then St Robert Bellarmine on how to deal with an unfaithful Pope. Then check back in with us…

        • Tonybuck

          Perhaps you’re right, but that would mean they are now completely blind and hardened against divine truth. It’s perfectly possible.

  17. This piece from Fr. Bouchacourt’s letter should be brought to the attention of Bishop Keenan!

    “No, Protestantism brought nothing to Catholicism! It ruined the unity of Christendom, separated whole countries from the Catholic Church, plunged souls into error, putting their eternal salvation in peril. We Catholics want Protestants to return to the unique fold of Christ which is the Catholic Church and we pray for this intention.”

    • Olaf,

      I’m shocked at you! Fr. Bouchacourt is not a “priest in good standing” (like Monsignor Loftus, and Bishop Keenan) The Bishop would point that out immediately if Fr. Bouchacourt’s commentary on the Lund event were brought to his attention, as you suggest.

      What are you LIKE?! 😉

  18. There is also a new column by Fr. Brian Harrison about this scandal called “Six Reasons Why Lutheran Intercommunion is Not Possible.” However, I’m not going to link it because it appears on the 1P5 website, which I don’t like.

    Meanwhile, here’s a stray thought: I’ve been wondering why Francis chose the furthest left (to the point of wackology) of the Lutheran sects with which to drag the Church into the filth of ecumania. As Chris Ferrara points out in the latest Remnant video, even the Lutheran Missouri Synod wants nothing to do with these degenerates posing as Christians.

    Besides the fact that Francis is so far left himself (thus the old saw applies: lefties of a feather flock together), I’m wondering if the “reasoning” behind this is that he’s looking for support outside the Church for his intentions of allowing Communion for public adulterers, homosexuals and gender-benders (on a “case-by-case” basis, you understand, wink-wink). Not to mention the ordination of women.

    After all, John XXIII brought in Protestant advisors to develop the Novus Odor….(no, Editor, that’s not a typo!)…

    • RCA Victor,

      I think that is a TFP group, the tradition in action site. However, that’s a very interesting report, if true, that the Pope asked to be invited to the Lund event, not the Lutherans who invited him. That’s even a worse scandal IMHO.

      • Margaret Mary,

        I used to think that as well, until a few days ago, when I read the introduction to In the Murky Waters of Vatican II, and discovered that the author was expelled from the TFP in 1998 – because of his 11-volume devastating critique of Vatican II! He claims the TFP sold out to the modernists, and apparently started his own website.

        However, I don’t know what his position is on Fatima, the Third Secret, etc.

  19. I as interested to learn of this below today:, a lady who was beatified in 2011 saw angels: one of which warned her against praying in protestant Churches and also showed her Martin Luther in Hell.

    Yet today we have Francis bowing and scraping to the unfortunates who have inherited Luther’s heretical legacy. What a schitzophrenic Church the modernist Church is. If Francis really cared one jot about the Lutherans, and all his ecumenical palaver was not just for show, then surely he would warn them of this?

    Anyway:

    In 1883, Sister Maria Serafina Micheli (1849-1911) – was beatified in Faicchio in the province of Benevento in the diocese of Cerreto Sannita 28 May 2011 – the foundress of the Sisters of the Angels, was going to Eisleben, Saxony, the birthplace of Luther.

    The fourth centenary of the birth of the great heretic (10 November 1483) was celebrated on that day. Luther divided Europe and the Church. [The] streets were crowded, balconies included. Among the many personalities were expected at any time, with the arrival of Emperor Wilhelm I, who presided over the solemn celebrations.

    The future Blessed, noting the great hoopla was not interested in knowing the reason for this unusual animation, his only desire was to find a church and pray to be able to make a visit to the Blessed Sacrament. After walking for a while, she finally found one, but the doors were closed.

    She knelt on the steps for Serenity Prayer. As it was in the evening, she had not noticed that it was not a Catholic church, but Protestant. While praying, the angel appeared, who said to him. “Arise, because it is a Protestant church”

    Then he added: “But I want you to see where Martin Luther was condemned and the pain he suffered as a punishment for his pride.”

    After these words, she saw a terrible abyss of fire, where they were cruelly tortured countless souls.

    In the bottom of this hole there was a man, Martin Luther, which differed from the other: it was surrounded by demons that forced him to kneel, and all armed with hammers, they tried in vain , to shove a big nail in the head.

    http://wdtprs.com/blog/2016/11/a-blessed-who-saw-angels-martin-luther-and-you/#comments

    • Gabriel Syme,

      I visited the link you give – Fr Z’s blog – and his reaction is interesting, as were the comments of his bloggers. I did smile at the blogger who suggested that “Hell” in this case might mean Purgatory. One certainly can live in hope – if one is a Lutheran or (that new breed evident in Tony’s posts) – “a Lutheran-Catholic”!

      I concur with the first words in the comments: “Scary stuff”!

      • Editor,

        I’m not going to bother with the bloggers on Fr. Z’s blog, but apparently that person thinks there are demons in Purgatory!

        Also, I see we must have some Protestant trolls visiting the website, since 9.8% of the respondents think Purgatory doesn’t exist.

        • Yes, RCA Victor, that’s why I always include a response which only a Protestant or other non-Catholic would choose. Helps to have an idea of the numbers visiting the site. Having said that, more people visit the site than participate in the polls. Always mystifies me, but it may be because they think I can tell who is voting (which, lamentably, I can’t!)

    • St Catherine of Sienna saw a vision of Jesus, in which Jesus assured her that Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception was not true.

      Visions – even those beheld by the saints – aren’t always correct; and certainly aren’t De Fide.

      • Tony,

        Would you please provide a sound Catholic source for your claim. NOT that we have to accept every private revelation, that is true, but I’d like to read the original source of that claim. Obviously, Christ said no such thing, so we need to uncover the source of that particular alleged statement from Our Lord, to see from whence the confusion/error comes.

        In any case, you are, again contradicting yourself. You began by citing St Catherine of Siena to support your claims about the Lund event, and when you were shown to be wrong, you are now on here trying to discredit St Catherine of Siena!

        Crackers. With cream cheese and raspberries!

        • Editor,

          Having read Bl. Raymond of Capua’s life of St. Catherine, as well as her Dialogues, I can assure you, as you already well know, that a sound Catholic source for Tony Buck’s outrageous statement does not exist.

          • RCA Victor,

            Spot on. I suspect that Tony is hooked on Protestant propaganda and unquestioningly accepts what he reads. As I say, crackers, with cream cheese and blueberries.. or was it strawberries, oops, nope, raspberries 😀

          • Therese,

            Just don’t hold your breath…

            Tony, you see, is utterly confused. He cites that claim about St Catherine’s alleged apparition (denying the Immaculate Conception) as being a non-binding private revelation and yet he believes she said that. Doesn’t occur to him that she didn’t. If he had a solid Catholic source for the claim, he’d have posted the details. He hasn’t. End of.

  20. This very interesting comment was posted on The Remnant website, regarding the Sweden scandal (emphases his):

    “I wish this was only a publicity stunt.

    As an ex-Lutheran, a proselyte who is reaping the eternal benefits and blessings of being proselytized by a good priest and a lay family of the Church and in spite of the condemnation of Pope Francis of proselytism, Francis’ words and actions in Lund have not gone unnoticed.

    Many Catholics do not realize just how depraved the group is that the POPE hand-selected to join shoulder-to-shoulder in Lund. It SHOULD be absolutely horrifying and shocking, but it appears not to be.

    Not sure how to put this but straight up. The POPE celebrated the Great Divorce of the Church with the most rank set of moral degenerates conceivable. Led by a lesbian, they are real perverts, Lutherans that many Lutherans despise and that even Luther would condemn, real sexual deviants that surely Pope Pius V would have had handed over to the civil authorities to have garroted, debased impostors and violators of the Christian faith. While we know that Luther destroyed marriage for Protestantism, most don’t realize that he was anti-contraception, and it is inconceivable that even he the Arch-heresiarch would have accepted abortion while these depraved anti-Christians promote or accept all of that. THAT is who this Pope personally selected to celebrate schism with. And worse, he does not just meet with them, but goes on to tell the world that the Catholic faith is like theirs and we want to be one with them in “full communion”!

    After 50 years of edge-dulling, the sword of shame in the Catholic Church is dull as a hoe, and it seems that almost nothing brings about a cutting sense of it anymore except among a small number of Catholics. But facts should. Folks, we are not dealing with just any “Lutherans” in Lund, we are dealing with a group that promotes raw, pure evil and a Pope who supports them. This is far beyond scandalous. I do not even know what word to attach to it but apocalyptic.

    At this point I am reminded of 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12.

    Literally, I would not want any man, Pope included, who supports these perverts to come anywhere near my children and I would protest if I knew such a person was to have access to the children of others.

    May we truly fast and pray for truth and conversion of the Pope and prelature of the Church.”

    • RCA Victor,

      That is very powerful – thank you for posting it here.

      It reminds me of a conversation I had earlier this week, with a young former Anglican – he used to describe himself as an “Anglo-Catholic”.

      Clearly a person of good will and seeking the truth, he studied and read up on the Church until he reached the point where he knew he had to become a Catholic. In discussing his righteous shock at the shenanigans of this pontiff, not least the Lund debacle, he pointed out that it was the papacy which brought me into the Church and then my first Pope is Francis. I think that’s more or less verbatim. That has to be what they call “[not so] sweet irony”.

      Pope Francis is heading for a terrible judgment unless he ignores his own advice and converts to the Catholic Faith. No funny face, no exclamation mark, so read that last sentence again, and add “Seriously”.

      Our Lady of Fatima, pray for him.

  21. “SERIOUSLY”.

    Editor:

    I am the proselyte that posted the above comment on the Remnant.

    I was sitting in RCIA class when the announcement was made by our wonderful young Mexican priest that “Jorge Bergoglio” was Pope. I didn’t know Bergoglio from Jacob’s Ladder or a plate full of haggis and had not one bit of bias against this name or person, but instantly I felt an overwhelming and heavy, dense “blanket” of what I can only call spiritual oppression come over me. Though I was at that point already zealous for the faith, I literally wondered “Should I get out of here? What is happening?”

    I spent the first year of Pope Francis’ pontificate defending him word and action. I confess, I was one of those who blamed the journalists and the translators. Until I read paragraph 161 of Evangelii Gaudium. Then, I could no longer. I KNEW something was grievously wrong. Only recently have I read a similar quote in Gaudium et Spes 24. This is the devil at work in the Catholic Church. Replacing God with man, misquoting the Sacred Scripture, misquoting even the words of Christ! In the GS quote it almost appears to be a typographical error. In Francis’ writing it is surely his personal doctrine, for the elevation of Man above the teachings of the Church of Our Blessed Lord is a recurring theme for him.

    May God make these days of chaos shorter.

    • RTHEVR

      Thank you for your very honest post – and congratulations on your original Remnant comment posted by RCA Victor above, which is, as I have already noted, very powerful.

      You appear to be in a minority of those who originally defended this Pope, undoubtedly for the best of reasons. For most people, it takes courage to change opinion and you are in that minority, so are to be commended for your honesty and courage.

      No true Catholic wants to criticise any priest let alone a pope. The idea (held firmly by the enemies of this site and newsletter) that we would actually enjoy “attacking” (as they put it) Pope Francis (and his immediate predecessors, all of whom were modernists) is way off the mark.

      However, as you will know from discussions and articles at the Remnant, the Church is not a sect, where the leaders are idolised as gods. We have a duty to obey the legitimate teachings of the Pope – those which have been believed everywhere, always and by all (to quote St Vincent Lerins) but if they depart from that Catholic Tradition, then, we have a duty to refuse to embrace their new “teachings”.

      Anyway, I know that I’m now preaching to the already converted – in more than one sense! – so won’t blether on.

      Thank you again for your honesty. Very much appreciated, and very edifying.

  22. RTHEVR, I was very impressed to read your Remnant post and it warms the heart to know there are still converts like yourself. I look forward to reading many more posts from you.

  23. Don’t know if this article By Michael Matt of the Remnant has been posted before – if so, I apologise, however it needs to be seen by as many as possible, IT’S THAT IMPORTANT.

    Thanks be to God for his SSPX Priests – All of them FAITHFUL AND TRUE.

    Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc et in hora mortis nostrae,. Amen.

    http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=2862:sspx-uk-priest-blasts-pope-lutheran-scandal

    • Gerontius,

      I couldn’t play the Google link, which presumably is a video of some sort. Any chance you could post it here? (i.e. not the video just below it)

      • RCA Victor,

        Try this link – hope it works, because It’s a truly superb defense of the Faith by both Father Hakan Lindstrom from the SSPX UK District, and Michael Matt.

        • Gerontius,

          Thanks, but that’s not the one in the original link. Michael Matt here reads the statement of the District Superior of France, which I’ve seen. The original link, which you posted and which I’ve tried and failed to open from the Remnant website, is a link to a Google video, and it is not the French statement, but from an SSPX-UK priest (look at the wording in the link). Maybe it was Fr. Brucciani, I’ll have to go to the UK District website to see.

  24. This article is a few days old: Francis gets it in the neck from Bishop Schneider, this time regarding his airborne waffle regarding the heretic Martin Luther.

    he (+Schneider) was asked about Pope Francis’ statement that Martin Luther “did not err” on justification.

    He responded, in part:

    We have already had an infallible response to the errors of Martin Luther: the Council of Trent. The teaching of the Council of Trent about the errors of Luther, I repeat, are infallible, ex cathedra. And the comments of the pope in the plane are not ex cathedra.

    http://www.onepeterfive.com/bishop-schneider-already-infallible-response-errors-martin-luther/

    With this and the Cardinals Dubia document, its not been a good few days in the news for old Jorge!

  25. This afternoon I came across a statement in Christianity for Modern Pagans, by Peter Kreeft, which absolutely demolishes the already-determined fraud of Protestant claims. It is this passage from Acts:

    “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?”

    Mr. Kreeft observes that Our Lord, by saying “me,” identifies the Church, which Saul was persecuting, with Himself, and proves that the Church is indeed His Mystical Body. Not any other “church,” only the Catholic Church.

    Brilliant.

    • RCA Victor,

      I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve said that myself. You are NOT paying attention…

      Still, repetition being the mother of education, it can’t be said often enough, so thank you for reminding us of that Scriptural truth. I knew if we kept you long enough, you’d come in handy…

%d bloggers like this: