General Discussion (14)

animated-computermanbeing-punched-by-machineIf there’s something of interest in the news that’s not covered in one of the topic threads, or you have a question to ask, a comment you’d like to  make about anything under the sun, more or less, this is the thread for you.

However, please check first, to ensure that you haven’t missed a topic thread or another thread where it would be appropriate to post your comment, as the GD discussion threads fills up very quickly.

Readers, all too often, go straight to the General Discussion thread to post news that is already the topic of a thread or to ask a question that is already being discussed elsewhere. So, do your Sherlock Holmes – at the very least check the side-bar – before posting here, please and thank you!   Your “news” may simply be a different angle to a subject already under discussion, so do, please check before posting your comment here.         

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

To read previous 10 General Discussion Threads, click on the links listed below.

(1) click here  (2) click here  (3) click here  (4) click here  (5) click here
(6) click here  (7) click here (8) click here  (9) click here (10) click here
(11) click here (12) click here   (13) click here

237 responses

  1. Madame Editor

    There have been suggestions that the SSPX is about to sign a Personal Prelature agreement with Rome, and that the Society has purchased the church and associated buildings of Santa Maria Immacolata all’Esquilino in Rome in readiness, with the assistance of funds from Cardinal Pozzi and the Vatican.

    The Society has denied the veracity of these rumours and the report can be read here:


    • Leprechaun,

      Vianney posted that news on the SSPX thread this morning. It’s amazing how it could have done the rounds when there’s no truth in it. I’d best put this on the SSPX thread, though, to keep to the rules.

      • Josephine,

        Sorry about misplacing my post – I did not look far enough when checking whether there was already a relevant thread. Not keeping up attentively. Mea culpa.

  2. A request please of Prayers for dear Lorna Martin of Luton a wonderful Pro Life lady who died yesterday around 10 pm may she R I P she had a highly aggressive brain tumour and died 3 months to the day of her diagnosis .Lorna absolutely loved Walsingham
    Thank you

    • Wendy, that IS disgraceful – shockingly so. Were they to dress up in drag as Khadija, wife of Muhammed, all hell would break loose. They’re a bunch of cowards, always choosing the soft target – their Saviour and His holy Mother.

    • Exactly what I have said so many times Stephen and been shot down on this blog, along the lines that it would be UNHELPFUL and possibly PREJUDICIAL to the ongoing talks regarding the Regularisation of the SSPX.!!!…Further, why has no SSPX clergy thrown their weight as regards supporting the 4 Cardinals. Is it THAT important to get a personal imprimatur from the man who now has trivialised abortion, has Paul Ehrlich (population control guru, who advocates FORCED abortion) spouting from a podium at the Vatican. We have a Pope who mocks traditionalists and endorses the use of abortifacients drugs on women, who is in lock step with the UN Sustainable Development Goals and we get pulled up for not calling him by his proper title. It does not add up..

      • St Miguel,

        If you have nothing but criticism of “this blog” – go somewhere else.

        The “not calling” Pope Francis by the title of HIS OFFICE is strongly discouraged here due to the growing number of armchair theologians, “experts” who have appointed themselves authorised to decide that the Pope is the anti-Christ and that – in fact – he’s not pope at all. Idiots.

        So, we want to make clear that we are not that stupid. We intend – as God will – to hold Pope Francis accountable for his grave dereliction of duty, not let him off the hook by saying he’s not the pope after all.

        Gimme strength!

      • St. Miguel

        Using the proper title for any clergyman, especially the Sovereign Pontiff, is a duty of respect for the sacred office instituted by Our Lord. We are not excused from that duty because the incumbent of a particular sacred office doesn’t meet with our approval. That just makes us as bad as the person we disdain.

        Besides that, more people will take you seriously if you maintain respect for the Pope while challenging his errors. Such an approach will demonstrate that you are a concerned Catholic of good will. The “Bergoglio” approach will only succeed in having you written off as an angry extremist, and rightly so.

        Concerning your remarks about the SSPX and a personal prelature. You may think yourself superior in learning and insight to Bishop Fellay, we on this blog do not. We are perfectly comfortable with His Excellency’s ability to deal prudently and wisely with the Roman suthorities.

        I’m sorry if this upsets you but it’s the position we take here and we are pretty insistent that all bloggers adhere to the rule of respecting the offices of the Church. However, if you can provide one example of Archbishop Lefebvre or any other respected prelate ever referring to the Successor of St. Peter by just his surname then we may have to re-think the rule. Good luck with that one!

    • Steven,

      “Joining the SSPX” is not the be all and end all – in fact, it could well be counterproductive. We need good bishops/cardinals in the field – and we must not make the heretical mistake of thinking that “outside the SSPX there is no salvation.”

      • Bishop Fulton Sheen said it best, there will be three surprises in Heaven. People will be there you didn’t expect to see. People you expected to see will be absent. And he biggest surprise of all is, that you will be there! I will see you in Heaven.

    • Steven Calovich

      Our Lady of Fatima described the chastisement of the Third Secret as “a diabolical disorientation from the top down”. Maybe there’s a clue in those words.

      Besides that, the SSPX-friendly prelates in the Church can do more to facilitate a return to Tradition from where they are. It they all left to join the SSPX then the radicals in the Church would be left unchecked in their positions of power to cause further mayhem.

      Our Lord knows what’s best for the long-term health of His Church. We need to show a little more trust in His divine providence and a little less in our own ideas about how we think the crisis is best resolved.

      You don’t think Our Lord would have put it firmly into the hearts and minds of His more faithful prelates if He wanted such battle lines to be drawn?

      No, our ways are not God’s ways. We demand instant justice while He asks for patience and long suffering. The best resolution to this crisis, as things appear to be developing, is for the SSPX to be granted a bullet-proof personal prelature that will give it much more influence in the Church and greatly strengthen the growing desire on the part of many wearied and wiser clergy to see the Church return to her ancient liturgy and traditions.

      It was always the intention of Archbishop Lefebvre to help Rome, not become a separate entity apart from Rome. It has been forced by circumastances to stand alone temporarily but there’s a real danger, especially under Pope Francis, that some may fall into the trap of wanting to turn that temporary situation into a permanent isolationist camp. That’s not what the SSPX is about, never was!

      • Athanasius,

        Thank you for that crystal clear post.


        I should have pointed out, when I responded to Steven, that we have a current SSPX thread, and that is where all comments about the Society should go. I keep telling everyone that these GD threads fill up quickly, so again, would anyone wishing to make an initial comment on a subject, please take a few minutes to check the sidebar and/or scroll down a bit to see if there is already a topic thread.Click here to reach the current SSPX thread. Some people come straight to the GD threads, and the fact is, it’s a big mistake to do so because these threads fill up quickly and go into archive, so anyone researching a topic will not look there first – but last, if at all.

        There’s really nothing to say now in response to Athanasius – he has nailed the whole situation perfectly, so if anyone does wish to make any comments on the Society, please do so on the relevant thread, here. Bloggers will, as Athanasius and I did, respond to comments posted here without always realising they should be on the topic thread. I’m really not going to keep on about this, as the losers are, in fact, those who by-pass topic threads to post on a GD thread when, as I’ve just said, that is not the first port of call for someone looking for commentary on the topics.

        • Editor

          A very good point that you have now made several times. It is absolutely essential that we all post comments on the correct thread, if only for the benefit of people who follow long-term discussions.

  3. Am I the only one to be shocked at the pro-lifers attitude to this proposal to decriminalise abortion? This is a direct quote:

    “Our abortion law is far from perfect, but insofar as it helps protect women and unborn children and yet has the flexibility to show lenience when this is appropriate, it has the balance just right.”

    I’m shocked.

    • Dear Margaret Mary
      Iam shocked and still reeling from reading this article from a Catholic paper we should complain in droves ..when I first saw it I thought I had misread it but yes it was correct ……you expect this sort of dreadful reporting from the secular press but this !!!!!!!!!??????…….disgusting

      • We have a Pope that actually condones abortion folks, albeit by use of abortifacients, so what do we expect. This is the benchmark. This Pope does NOT fulfill his job description commensurate with his title as Vicar of Christ…catholics all over the world are in a pre Humanae Vitae state of mind expecting Rome to eventually capitulate on this issue, as we have already seen with Amoris Laetitia. If I am to be expected to recognise this man by virtue of the office he holds, then he needs to simply accede to his job description.

        • St Miguel,

          Do you have a direct quote from the pope saying he condones abortion?I can only remember him saying we shouldn’t obsess about it (which was a shocking thing to say) but I can’t remember him actually condoning it. Can u provide some evidence, as I would want to know that for sure, and not just regurgitate it.

          • Just google it and type in Federico Lombardi as well, (another on the plane interviews) you could decimate a rainforest with the amount of copy out there on this (Remnant etc). I ran plenty of words on this blog a year go on this very subject.The Belgian Nuns is the case they keep quoting..special case etc. The important thing is that we KNOW NOW all about modern pills and HOW they work to prevent the implantation of an embryo, that is a miscarriage, which is deliberate. The German bishops have approved all this stuff in the past and no one calls them out, The Knights of Malta very scandal was over this. The Pope reinstated the sacked official involved…the “stop obsessing about abortion speech”…the “any priest can forgive as it is not as serious as it used to be” baloney. Paul Ehrlich centre stage at Pontifical Academy of Science in Rome and so forth. Again the master of ambiguity and double standards.

            • St. Miguel

              You wrote: “If I am to be expected to recognise this man by virtue of the office he holds, then he needs to simply accede to his job description.”

              What exaclty do you mean by “recognise this man”? The point was about respect for the sacred office of the Roman Pontiff regardless of the worthiness of the man who holds it.

              Perhaps the time has come for you to be a little less ambiguous in your own comments and tell us all precisely what your position on the Pope is.

              Do you, for example, recognise Francis as Pope? if you do recognise him as Pope, is it the case that you cannot bring yourself to accord him the respect his sacred office demands? Do you pray for the Pope, as per the plea of little Jacinta of Fatima that we must pray much for the Holy Father?

              I think you really need to make these matters clear to all of us. And perhaps while you’re at it you might answer my previous question of whether you think yourself more knowledgeable and insightful than Bishop Fellay in the matter of how best to deal with the Roman authorities.

              We here on this blog stand firmly behind Bishop Fellay in the matter of Rome/SSPX discussions. We also take the position always held by Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX in the matter of resisting the Pope’s errors while respecting his office and praying for him. It appears, though, that you have a different approach and I think you need to spell it out with absolute clarity.

              We’re all scandalised by some of things Pope Francis is saying and doing, but it looks increasingly like you are allowing anger to get a grip on you. Beware of that, it obscures objectivity and kills charity.

              • Is it a prerequisite on this blog to be behind Bishop Fellay on the regularisation front?? Since when? Is it somewhere on the blog rules that I may have missed Athanasius? Are you a Gauleiter for the SSPX? Is this the Spanish Inquisition?

                • St. Miguel

                  “Is it a prerequisite on this blog to be behind Bishop Fellay on the regularisation front??”

                  Not a prerequisite but the normal position of all objective Traditional Catholics. The only exceptions to that normal rule that I know of are the so-called “Resistance” schismatics and the sedevacantists. So it’s always a cause for alarm bells.

                  Anyway, I see that you are not prepared to make your position clear. That’s your prerogative, but I would advise against accusing Pope Francis of being deliberately ambiguous in future as it might smell a little like hypocrisy.

                  • How can it be the normal position of all objective Traditional Catholics?Also “ambiguity” is the modus operandus of this Pope and his entourage, ergo ‘Amoris Laetitia’ and the non answered Dubia. I posted below the position of the bishops of England and Wales on the Morning After Pill….which if anyone cares to check on the ‘net it’s purpose and efficiency will know that it will prevent the implantation (and ongoing nourishment) of an embryo which is already created life. Life begins at conception, or do some people disagree.? We rail against embryo research!….these bishops, are from what I see ,Latae Sententiae excommunicants, ditto the German bishops etc. for this one action alone. So are you now going to suggest/tell me that I should be using a Capital B for bishops?

                    • St. Miguel

                      We know the position of these Modernist bishops, which is scandalous and should be resisted. But I’m afraid you have still not made us any the wiser about your position concerning them and the Pope.

                      It seems you’re reluctant to make yourself transparent in that regard, which is strange.


                    Couple of worked examples as above..this kind of stuff puts AL in to the shade in comparison..and in the US..the expression used is ‘Evolved Thinking’..for this kind of thing to STILL be accepted and STILL getting accepted tells me that these bishops are unfit for office (albeit they generally become archbishops and eventually cardinals). If ANY of these men sanction this it can only be under two premises.

                    1) They care not a jot if it is a chemical abortion.
                    2) They are too lazy to check the facts which are freely available.

                    Either way they are unfit to hold the office they occupy.

                    I do NOT have a hangup up the office of a Prelate or a Pope but I expect them to be fit for the onerous office that they have taken on.

          • Laura,

            Abortion is horrific: for the child, often for the mother, and often for the father. Apart from being an extremely grave sin, it is also one of the greatest injustices in the world today.

            That said, it is possible to obsess about abortion. This happens when pro-life advocates forget that the defence of life means the defence of life from the conception to the grave. Abortion is horrific, but so is depriving a terminally ill patient of water.

            • Prognosticum,

              I’m just amazed at your post saying it is possible to “obsess” over abortion.

              Nothing in this world compares with the brutal murder of unborn babies, absolutely nothing.

              With respect, it’s a measure of how much people have become used to this butchery that even a pope would play it down.

              Imagine if anyone, including the Pope, were to say “stop obsessing about the Jewish Holocaust” There would be apologies handed out by the Vatican in no time, after all the mayhem that would follow.

              Yet, innocent unborn babies are to be left to their fate and we’re not to “obsess” about it.

              It’s a mistake to compare one horrific action with another. Yes, it is horrific to deprive a terminally ill patient of water, but that doesn’t make it right to accept the murder of unborn babies.

              I’m stunned that any Catholic would agree with the pope on this. In my circle, including this blog, you are the first one I’ve come across to do that.

              If you don’t mind, I’ll include a link to Abort 67 where they publish photos of aborted babies. If you can look at those and still say “don’t obsess” we’ll have to agree to disagree.

              The actual problem is that we don’t obsess enough and now we even have Catholic MPs arguing in favour of legalised abortion, against a bill to stop it being legal. It’s just incredible.

              • Better to leave the “optics” out of it since they do not change the objective reality that the taking of any innocent life is morally wrong and gravely sinful, be it a child in the womb, a child, an adult or an old age pensioner. An innocent life is an innocent life.

                • But that’s just it – old age pensioners are not “innocent life”. Only the baby in the womb is truly innocent and defenceless. The rest of us are guilty at one level or another.

                  Isn’t that why the death penalty is accepted by the Church, because those who are guilty of a capital crime, are NOT “innocent” so the ‘Church allows that but condemns the murder of innocent unborn life?

                  I may be wrong on this, because I’ve no degrees in moral theology but I would be surprised, and anyway I know I am not wrong in say that the pope should be ashamed of himself for belittling the importance of the crime of abortion by saying “don’t obsess” over it.

                  I know we try to keep a respect on this blog, and not name-call the pope but it’s not easy, especially when he’s pandering to the anti-life lobbies while telling Catholics not to obsess about the killing of unborn babies. I couldn’t believe it when he said that and I’m still stunned every time I think about it.

                  One last thing, I think we can take it for granted that the same people who “obsess” about abortion would also obsess about the mistreatment of the elderly etc. if that was widespread and had the approval of the Government.

                  Nothing, though, IMHO, comes close to the scandal of murdering babies in the womb. I think once you’ve see the baby moving in the womb on the computer scan, it makes a difference. You know it’s a human being and that if it’s killed in the womb, we will never know what that child would have been like, not to mention the scandal of allowing that suffering to be inflicted, with the sanction of the Government.

                  • I thought that it would be enlightening to throw this into the mix, taken from the Holy Father’s recent Apostolic Letter ‘Misericors et misera’:

                    “I wish to restate as firmly as I can that abortion is a grave sin, since it puts an end to an innocent life. In the same way, however, I can and must state that there is no sin that God’s mercy cannot reach and wipe away when it finds a repentant heart seeking to be reconciled with the Father. May every priest, therefore, be a guide, support and comfort to penitents on this journey of special reconciliation.”

                    • Prognisticum

                      The Pope just reminds us that God’s mercy is infinite and that there is no sin that cannot be forgiven, provided the penitent is sincere in sorrow. His teaching in this matter is perfectly in line with the Magisterial teaching of the Church of 2000 years.

                      The only cautionary note I would add is that Pope Francis at times sounds like he confuses trust in God’s mercy with presumption on God’s mercy. There has to be genuine sorrow on the part of the repentant sinner together with a firm purpose of amendment of life, otherwise the sinner adds to his sins the crime of sacrilege.

                      I have yet to hear Pope Francis make this crucial distinction. In fact, I read a commentary of his recently that sounded to me like he was encouraging people to break the Commandments of God in order to experience the mercy of God. I won’t say that’s what he meant but it’s how it sounded.

                • Prognosticum

                  I see what you’re saying and I understand why you’re saying it. There is a general disregard for human life across the board in our age and it does seem sometimes that other victims get pushed to the back by the pro-life campaign for the unborn child.

                  However, I would make the distinction that while the unjust taking of any human life is a terrible sin in the eyes of God, the illicit murder of the unborn child is particularly heinous, for this was the sin of Herod, the first person to State sponsor the killing of the innocents.

                  Older people who are killed unjustly with State approval, such as the terminally ill, while helpless victims of the same heartless State legislation, cannot be considered innocent in the way that the unborn child is.

                  I don’t mean this in any calous way but just to point out that aborted babies have not committed any actual sins against God the way we and all adults have. This is why we refer to them alone as innocents.

                  The trouble is that these poor little ones are also deprived of the baptism that washes away the Original Sin. They are denied life in this world and we don’t know for sure what becomes of their souls in the next. The only absolute certainty is that they do not suffer the pains of Hell. Can we say the same about all adults who are unlawfully killed by the State?

                  I’m sure you will understand what I am trying so awkwardly to say.

                    • Prognosticum

                      Absloutely not! Of course her life is as precious as any other, the more so if she has made a perfect confession. In fact, confession or not, I’m sure every person here would be up in arms if the State legislated the formal killing on demand of terminally ill or disabled adults. But that’s not the case right now in this country, although it does go on under the term “do not resuscitate”, often at the patient’s request.

                      Abortion is different since it is actually happening right now across the land with State authority. I’m sure you must see the imperative with regard to the present mass killing of unborn children.

                      You must also relaise that innocence has degrees, like all else. Our Lord was the innocent Lamb of God; there is no other innocent in His class. Likewise, the innocent child in the womb is more innocent than the old lady you reference by the fact of never having committed an actual sin in life. Hence the reason for the Fest of the Holy Innocents. There is no similar Feast for adult innocents in the Church’s Liturgical calendar.

                      It is not a trivialisation of adults killed unjustly by the State to devote one’s efforts to stopping the killing of babies in the womb. Rather, it is a correct reaction to an immediate and great evil against which the potential unlawful killing of adults at this time does not compare.

    • MM,

      That is truly shocking indeed. No wonder the so-called Catholic Herald chose to close their articles to comments. I think (hope) they’d have taken a roasting on that one.

    • That is a disgraceful article from the Catholic Herald. They have some nerve keeping describing their paper as “Catholic”.

      It’s interesting, but I don’t buy it but I’ve had a look at the back of the church and I’ve seen their page where they quote from blogs – never this one, though, LOL! They obviously don’t recognise “Catholic” when they see it, and no wonder, they’re not Catholic themselves.

    • St Miguel,

      I’m not sure what you mean. I’ve read your other posts and – forgive me, please, if I’ve misunderstood – but I get the feeling you want all the good bishops to just join the SSPX sort of like to start a new Church. I don’t think that’s what Archbishop Lefebvre wanted.

      • No, my point is that we cannot even get the rank and file so called Traditionalist leaning, pro SSPX prelates in Rome to SPEAK OUT against Abortion, as they are too gutless to call out the Pope. What chance will they stand to a man FOR the SSPX after a regularisation.This Pope has without a doubt trivialised Abortion, that on it’s own eclipses Amoris Laetitia. Have a look at the video from Michael Matt and see what is coming down the line in the next synod.

        • St Miguel,

          I’ve now checked each of the thread still live on the sidebar. You appear only once, with an off topic comment that I removed.

          I’m sorry to say that you are showing all the signs of being a troublemaking troll.

          You want to talk only about abortion, the SSPX regularisation (always making clear that you do not want to see it happen) and, of course, Pope Francis.

          Picking fights is not good blogging. Since you have not contributed to any other thread for some time (if ever – I don’t have time to check every thread since you appeared here, only those which are live on the sidebar right now) and since these GD threads fill up very quickly, and since you insist on posting comments here when there are topic threads available, despite my repeated requests not to do so, I am now gong to monitor your posts in moderation. It’s a pain for me and it means your comment hanging around there until I see it and believe me, I’m not losing any sleep over it. I’ll release them when I see them, but only if they accord with our House Rules.

          And to save you time with the threats – if you want to take your business elsewhere, feel free. You’ll be no loss here, since, quite frankly, your every comment brings an unpleasant tone to the conversation and believe me, I’m an expert in the tone and style department.

          So, either blog seriously and with a view to participating in a positive and helpful discussion, or sign up elsewhere. Please and thank you.

          Recommended action: a humble acknowledgement that you have not complied with our simple house rules, and a stated determination to do so from now on would go a long way to changing the tone of your comments with immediate effect.

          • Well, as even this reply will go in to moderation and may or may not appear subsequently on the blog and as you have previously edited and changed words on some of my posts in the past, I will bid you all a final farewell and concentrate on my Pro Life work…Toodle Pip and jolly hockey sticks all round.

            Editor: thank you St Miguel. Our House Rules were designed to be as simple as possible, just common sense really, so, since you have struggled with them and thus forced me to edit some of your comments, I think it is wise of you to concentrate on your important (hugely important) pro-life work. Thank you for your contributions to date – God bless.

  4. Did anyone else see this story from yesterday?

    A (2016) Parliamentary candidate for the scottish labour party, Scott Nicholson, who was recently a member of the party’s national executive, made some unfortunate comments regarding Catholics.

    Referring to a picture of SNP (westminster) MP Carol Monaghan wearing ashes on her forehead, he said:

    “The SNP’s actions aim to foster grievance with UK but I believe there are members who plan to promote sectarianism.”

    He later apologised (while no doubt satisfied he had made his point).

    Its quite unbelievable that this is the calibre of person we have in Scottish politics. I am not sure if its their general ignorance or their lack of tact which is the worst aspect.

    I note that, in recent years, all of the main political parties at Holyrood have had some kind of unfortunate anti-Catholic incident.

    Close associates of Conservative Leader Ruth Davidson have twice been caught expressing anti-Catholic sentiment, and previously SNP MSP Rosanna Cunningham suggested it was possible for Catholics to bless themselves in a manner which was “aggressive” / “provocative”. And now this from the Labour party.

    Had, for example, muslims or homosexuals been on the end of such repeated incidents we would never hear the end of it and their representatives would milk it for all it was worth. Clearly the Scottish Bishops response to this kind of thing is not robust enough, given it keeps happening.

    Amazingly, despite this, the Scottish Government claims LGBT-XYZ bullying is the main expression of prejudice existing in Scotland today.

    • Gabriel Syme,

      Well said – very well said.

      It’s patently obvious that there is anti-Catholic bias at work in the Scottish parliament and the comparison between the treatment of Catholics showing the slightest sign of their Faith and Muslims who scream it from the rooftops day in and say out, is stark. They can wear their distinctive dress without being accused of “promoting division” but not a Catholic making the sign of the cross (takes all of a couple of seconds) or showing up for work with ashes on their forehead once a year. Diversity? Equality? Where? When?

      It really is a case of being oppressed by the tiny LGBT etc minority – see that thread – while being openly abused for being Catholic. And the cowardly, faithless bishops stand by and do sweet nothing about it.

    • Gabriel Syme

      That very real hatred of Catholicism demonstrates the true nature of Scottish politics. Any semblance of fidelity to Our Lord terrifies these secularist politicians. What price their souls, eh?

      • Prognosticum

        I agree. I noticed this particularly with the news that the DUP (read Ulster Unionists) have had their 10 seat majority in Stormont reduced to just 1 after the recent elections. The media were ecstatic about this, emphasising that Sinn Fein’s increase in seats could mean that “gay marriage” will no longer be blocked in Northern Ireland. They also enthused that a Referendum for leaving the UK might now be a real possibility in Ireland. And all thanks to the so-called Catholics of Sinn Fein. I think the entire business was orchestrated.

        • I’m no expert on things Irish, but I remember, more or less at the time of John Paul II’s visit to Scotland, an old priest of Irish origin telling me that Sinn Fein had more to do with green Marxism than with Catholicism.

              • It’s not half amazing. More than once I’ve watched the BBC’s Thursday night Question Time programme and emailed the Protestant/Unionist politician on the panel to congratulate him on defending traditional moral teaching on homosexuality/”gay”marriage in the face of opposition from the Sinn Fein representative. It is incredible that their support constituency is the Catholic population of northern Ireland and yet they are about as Catholic as the local Imam.

                • And I cannot disagree with you.

                  If you think about what has happened over the years, you really couldn’t make it up.

                  The utter failure to put robust catechetical instruction in place after Vatican II … No, let me phrase that differently … The almost total destruction of catechetical formation after Vatican II has led to the apostasy of two generations.

                  But you reap what you sow, or in this case, what you decided not to sow.

                • At the practical level, the local Imam will certainly be better disposed to natural law.

                  Mainstrean Catholicism has become like mainstream Anglicanism: make it up as you go along, keeping one eye firmly on self, the other on the media. God does not come into it.

          • Prognosticum,

            What you say about marxism is certainly correct.

            In previous years I did some reading about the modern (1969 onwards) conflict in Ireland and learned that the Provisional IRA (and thus Sinn Fein etc) were very much marxist organisations, no question about it.

            Its quite ironic that they are widely perceived as Catholic movements. Irish republicanism may have been at one stage, but not for some time. Today, the connection with Catholicism is purely incidental, of no greater significance than the fact that the republicans drink water.

            I remember reading that, of those men caught up in republicanism for either political motives or simple expediency, the minority who were devoutly Catholic were deeply troubled / repelled by the growing marxist nature of the modern PIRA and its political representation.

            One man, Billy McKee, who attended mass daily, become disillusioned by what he saw were socialist ideals taking over the movement and so irish republicanism had become a communist vehicle clad in patriotic clothes.

            I’m open to correction, but think these ideas started to seep into the republican movement during the 20th century due to influence from trade unions, socialist-republicans and no doubt the adoptions of ideologies in exchange for arms from socialist Governments.

            In the south of Ireland, Sinn Fein is heavily involved with efforts to introduce abortion. Catholic thought or values are nowhere.

            The Catholic Church in Ireland reminds me of the Church of Scotland – that is, an utterly irrelevant organisation which people ignore until such a time as they are looking to hire a venue to mark some family event.

    • Wendy,

      Hang on to your seat, because things are going to get a lot worse.

      I am approaching my mid-fifties. For the first time this week I actually said to myself, ‘Thank God. You may escape some of the horrors which are coming.’

  5. Upcoming Events

    March for Life UK
    Sat 11:45 · Victoria Square, Birmingham · Birmingham

    Please share far and wide to like minded people make it the BIGGEST PRO LIFE EVENT yet

  6. Concerning the current CT straw poll (Do we hear enough about the need to love God and gain heaven in homilies/sermons?), the short and decidedly bitter answer is ‘No.’

    One of the major problems with the post-Vatican II liturgical reform is that priests have failed to master the lectionary. Not only, but very few priests have a systematic approach to preaching the faith, especially the Holy Father.

    • Prognosticum,

      It would have been helpful to read this comment on the Lenten Reflection thread where we are discussing the matter of homilies on the love of God etc.

      At the risk of repeating myself yet again, the GD thread is the LAST resort. First port of call – the topic threads.

  7. Concerning the May CT Conference, I was very struck by the quotation from Ferrara: “Pope John Paul II hinted that the [full disclosure of the] Third Secret would be embarrassing to Church authorities because it concerns a crisis of faith and discipline for which they themselves are responsible.”

    I do not have Ferrara’s book, but can anyone give me the source?


    Watch Swinney Named Person statement today at 2:20pm

    The Deputy First Minister John Swinney will make a statement in Parliament on the future of the Named Person scheme at about 2:20pm today.

    Follow our social media updates on the statement here: and

    Watch the statement live at:


    (From the No2NP Scheme)


    Unfortunately, I won’t be able to view this live, but, if, as I suspect, Swinney announces that this scheme is going forward, I would ask bloggers to hold off commenting, as I think that would require a dedicated thread. Please and thank you. If I’m wrong, feel free to offer three cheers all round!

    • Wendy, hankies indeed. I’ve copied the two videos on that article for the benefit of anyone who may not read the article – this is truly shocking, and heartbreaking stuff…

      The first video at the end of the report…

      and this, second one…

  9. I saw this picture in a tweet displayed on Rorate Caelis webpage. As we in Glasgow can testify, our Archbishops have become much less effective, forthright and imaginative in more recent times!

    • Gabriel Syme,

      Hilarious! We ought to inform the folks over at Rorate that such curses are more likely to be directed AT the current archbishop and his immediate predecessors, than by them!


    So sad Britain should hang its head in great shame …I sat on the bus yesterday opposite a most delightful little Boy with Downs lovely Archie hes 3 and never stops smiling hes delightful his Sister said when she takes him out it takes ages because everyone loves him and him them … tragic if abortion had taken Archie away all the real joy he gives

  11. URGENT!!!

    From the Remnant:

    Dear Friends of John Vennari:

    John is still with us, despite a great deal of suffering. That he is still here is in itself somewhat miraculous.

    It seems just recently that St. Philomena has put herself in front of us again to get our attention and focus our prayers to her.

    Please, then, join us in this novena to this great saint, beginning immediately, to end on March 20 (which is the date on which we celebrate the feast of St. Joseph this year).

    We are asking her to obtain a complete cure for Joseph John Vennari.

    Thank you, thank you.
    Susan Vennari

    Novena to St. Philomena

    O great St. Philomena, glorious Virgin and Martyr, wonder-worker of our age, I return most fervent thanks to God for the miraculous gifts bestowed on thee, and beseech thee to impart to me a share in the graces and blessings of which thou hast been the channel to so many souls.

    Through the heroic fortitude with which thou didst confront the fury of tyrants and brave the frowns of the mighty rather than swerve from thy allegiance to the King of Heaven, obtain for me purity of body and soul, purity of heart and desire, purity of thought and affection.

    Through thy patience under multiplied sufferings, obtain for me a submissive acceptance of all the afflictions it may please God to send me and as thou didst miraculously escape unhurt from the waters of the Tiber, into which thou wert cast by order of thy persecutor, so may I pass through the waters of tribulation without detriment to my soul. In addition to these favors, obtain for me, O faithful spouse of Jesus, the particular intention I earnestly recommend to thee at this moment.

    (Mention specific intention here)

    O pure Virgin and holy Martyr, deign to cast a look of pity from Heaven on thy devoted servant, comfort me in affliction, assist me in danger, above all come to my aid in the hour of death.

    Watch over the interests of the Church of God, pray for its exaltation and prosperity, the extension of the faith, for the Sovereign Pontiff, for the clergy, for the perseverance of the just, the conversion of sinners, and the relief of the souls in Purgatory, especially those dear to me.

    O great Saint, whose triumph we celebrate on earth, intercede for me, that I may one day behold the crown of glory bestowed on thee in Heaven, and eternally bless Him who so liberally rewards for all eternity the sufferings endured for His love during this short life. Amen.

    Imprimatur: Canon Emmanuel Anaquim, V.G. Lisbon, November 21, 1945

    • Therese

      Thank you for posting the Novena for John Vennari. I will print off the prayer and join in with that Novena.

  12. Regarding the abdication of Pope Benedict XVI, an Archbishop Negri – supposedly a friend of Joseph Ratzinger – has suggested that the Obama regime helped engineer regime change in the Vatican:

    ++Negri recently resigned as Archbishop of Ferrara-Comacchio, upon reaching the retirement age of 75. It was Benedict who assigned him to this post.

    Archbishop Negri did not lay all the blame for Benedict’s resignation on the Obama administration, but said he was “certain that the truth will emerge one day showing grave liability both inside and outside the Vatican.”

    Interestingly, the blogger Mundabor (an Italian) has now highlighted an Italian blog “Anonymous of the Cross”, which claims:

    “In a month, AnonymousoftheCross will be able to publish the content of the fateful letter Benedict received before deciding to resign”

    (If they really have info, I don’t know why they would not publish it immediately?)

    Here is the Italian language Blog article (featuring the same Archbishop Negri):

    (putting the link through google translate produces pidgin-english)

    And Mundabor’s own thoughts on it (he is wise enough to note that nothing may come of these claims to be preparing to publish information).

  13. I started the 13-day Consecration to the Immaculata today, thanks to Leprechaun, and during the meditation this (somewhat obscure) question came up: what is the difference between John the Baptist being cleansed of original sin in his mother’s womb by Our Lord, vs. us being cleansed of original sin in the sacrament of Baptism?

    Non-obscure responses welcome…

    • RCA Victor

      To me, the obvious difference is that we are cleansed of original sin by a sign, while John the Baptist was cleansed by the Author of grace, in person. I have a question for you which I hope is related. When I receive Our Lord’s blessing from the Monstrance at Benediction, should I respond by making a sign of the Cross?

      • Steven,

        Thanks for your answer, but I was looking for any difference in quality, efficacy or substance, if there is any…

        To your question, when the Monstrance is elevated at our Benedictions, and the sign of the Cross slowly made with it, we all do likewise.

        • RCA Victor,

          The only difference I can see is the obvious one, that St John did not have to be sacramentally baptised with water.

  14. RCA Victor

    It seems to me that the most practical answer is that Our Lord baptised John the Baptist in order that the Baptist could then go and baptise in His name. St. John could baptise everyone else but not himself, if you see what I mean.

  15. RCA Victor

    I forgot to add that the sanctifying of St. John in the womb kills the argument of the Feeneyites who argue that there is no such thing as baptism by blood or desire. This demonstrates that although baptism with water is the usual necessary means, God is not restricted in His grace and mercy.

    • Athanasius et al,

      I’ve been thinking some more about this question, and I’d like to express it more accurately: if I understand things correctly, the Sacrament of Baptism removes Original Sin from our souls, yet there remains a shadow of it (which disposes us to the weakness and rebellion of the flesh).

      So here’s my question: did the sanctifying of St. John the Baptist by Our Lord remove also this shadow?

      • RCA Victor

        The definite answer to your question is no. St. John the Baptist was left with the same fallen nature as the rest of us, although it’s fair to state also that he was given more graces than the rest of us.

        The only human creature ever to have been preserved from the stain of Original Sin and its consequences was Our Lady. St. John’s sanctification in the womb removed the Original Sin but not the weakness of the flesh left by it.

        • Athanasius

          That’s interesting, because it’s what I’ve always understood, but I was listening to a talk by a priest on Sensus Fidelium recently and he stated that St John the Baptist never committed any sin. I was somewhat surprised.

          • Therese

            I think the priest you speak of simply meant that St. John the Baptist did not commit any actual sins in his life. That’s a different propostiion from saying that he was preserved from the inclination to sin, which is common to all the fallen children of Adam. Our Lady alone was granted that singular privilege; she alone is the Immaculate Conception.

      • RCA Victor

        Let us not forget that although John the Baptist was born without original sin, he was not conceived without original sin which is to say that he was not entirely free of it. There is thus common ground between us, even though we were baptised under a sacrament whereas he was baptised by Our Lord before the sacrament as such was even available.

        I hope that qualifies as non-obscure.

        • Leprechaun and Athanasius,

          Thank you very much, that’s exactly what I was trying to figure out! Now on to the next obscure question….

        • I hope St John the Baptist isn’t too insulted by having common ground with the likes of me…we were both baptised, but he never sinned. No wonder he is described as the greatest saint.

          • Therese

            I think St. Joseph is actually considered to be the greatest saint after Our Lady, Queen of all saints. But I don’t suppose there’s any rivalry between Sts. Joseph and John.

            • Athanasius

              You’re quite right. I hope I haven’t caused any friction between St Joseph and St John the Baptist. Me and my big mouth…

              • Therese

                I don’t think the saints are particularly prone to climbing the ladder, so to speak, so you’re quite all right. It may have caused a smile or two in heaven, mind you!

                The Feast day of the great St. Joseph is on Monay, March 20 this year. I would urge all to have a special devotion to him, he never refuses our petitions.

  16. I received this hilarious notice from a friend the other night and thought it worth sharing as a bit of light relief:


    Dress Code:

    1) You are advised to come to work dressed according to your salary.

    2) If we see you wearing Prada shoes and carrying a Gucci bag, we will assume you are doing well financially and therefore do not need a raise.

    3) If you dress poorly, you need to learn to manage your money better, so that you may buy nicer clothes, and therefore you do not need a raise.

    4) If you dress just right, you are right where you need to be and therefore you do not need a raise.

    Sick Days:
    We will no longer accept a doctor’s statement as proof of sickness. If you are able to go to the doctor, you are able to come to work.

    Personal Days:
    Each employee will receive 104 personal days a year. They are called Saturdays & Sundays.

    Bereavement Leave:
    This is no excuse for missing work. There is nothing you can do for dead friends, relatives or co-workers. Every effort should be made to have non-employees attend the funeral arrangements in your place. In rare cases where employee involvement is necessary, the funeral should be scheduled in the late afternoon. We will be glad to allow you to work through your lunch hour and subsequently leave one hour early.

    Bathroom Breaks:
    Entirely too much time is being spent in the toilet. There is now a strict three-minute time limit in the stalls. At the end of three minutes, an alarm will sound, the toilet paper roll will retract, the stall door will open, and a picture will be taken. After your second offense, your picture will be posted on the company bulletin board under the ‘Chronic Offenders’ category. Anyone caught smiling in the picture will be sectioned under the company’s mental health policy.

    Lunch Break:

    * Skinny people get 30 minutes for lunch, as they need to eat more, so that they can look healthy.

    * Normal size people get 15 minutes for lunch to get a balanced meal to maintain their average figure.

    * Chubby people get 5 minutes for lunch, because that’s all the time needed to drink a Slim-Fast.

    Thank you for your loyalty to our company. We are here to provide a positive employment experience. Therefore, all questions, comments, concerns, complaints, frustrations, irritations, aggravations, insinuations, allegations, accusations, contemplations, consternation and input should be directed elsewhere.

  17. I had a telephone call and text earlier from a gentleman (not a Catholic) in Glasgow who told me that the 56 MPs in the UK Parliament, yesterday abstained from voting on the bill to decriminalise abortion. Abortion is now decriminalised. How shocking. Here’s Jeff’s text:

    “… Patrick Grady MP for Glasgow North worked for SCIAF [Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund.] How can a priest give this guy Communion? Abortion is a most evil sin that we must stand against. There were 4 Church of Scotland MPs but they are weak. The 16 [,,,] Catholic SNP MPs should put their faith first.”

    My immediate reaction to that was “what faith?” They are about as Catholic as a broken light bulb.


    Since Wendy in particular, but sometimes other bloggers, fairly regularly post pro-life links on this General Discussion thread, and since the GD threads fill up pretty quickly, often with no real “discussion” to speak of (so to speak!) I wonder if I should create a Pro-Life thread as a fixture, in the same way that the GD thread is a fixture at the top of the page.

    Let me know your thoughts…

    • I have now put Jeff on the naughty step following receipt of a message from a reader who writes:

      “I think you will find that the reason the MPs abstained in the abortion vote is because the law does not apply to Scotland and therefore they don’t vote in matters that only apply to England.”

      I need to keep up – I didn’t think of that when posting my comment/Jeff’s text above. Presuming then that the SNP MPs didn’t have the option of voting – that they are not permitted – then I have to take a mouthful of humble pie and withdraw the above criticism.

    • Thanks Therese, although having read your exchanges with Athanasius over the state of John the Baptist’s soul, I don’t know what I was thinking of suggesting that there is no real “discussion” on this thread.

      What am I LIKE?!

  18. Editor

    You raise an interesting point. Perhaps a thread dedicated to What You are Like, eh?

    No need to comment – I’m getting my coat…

  19. I think the pro life blog is a brilliant idea problems there at all…….
    All the Blogs are really very useful and interesting thank you dear Patricia for making it all possible

  20. Wendy,

    That’s great – I’ve now posted the Pro-Life thread, so all comments, news, links, prayers, videos etc on pro-life issues should be posted on the new thread – click here to reach it.

    • Prognosticum,

      Yes, someone did post that and there was some discussion – possibly on this thread, although I can’t find the comments at a quick scroll.

      I remember Athanasius remarking that it was one of those “he, said”… “they said” sort of situations, but what do YOU think about the claims? I’m not sure what to think.

      • I am no expert, though I am deeply interested in Fatima.

        I have always thought that there was something missing from the Secret as it was published in 2000. I remember thinking at the time that if that was all there was to it, it should never have been kept a secret at all. Also, I have always been uncomfortable with JPII’s application of the Secret to himself. He did not die in 1981, but was–thank God and the blessed Mother–only wounded; and no myriads of bishops and cardinals fell at his side. It has always seemed to me that the Secret looks to the future, of which the 1981 attempt on the Pope’s life was only a presage.

        The text itself, as it was published, has continued to puzzle me. The part about the dogma of the faith always being kept in Portugal would seem to require an explanation.

        Father Dollinger would appear to be in good faith; at any rate, he does not appear to have a history of indulging in fantastic lies.

        Bottom line: if an unpublished part of the Secret were to contain a warning about a “bad council” and a “bad Mass”, do I think that the powers that the powers that be would move to suppress it? You bet they would!

  21. Many writers–among them the Italian Antonio Socci–have posited the existence of a ‘memorial’ by Sr. Lucia explaing the Secret. They say that John XXIII did not consider this to be of divine origin. And it is this ‘memorial’ which contains warnings about developments in the Church and which has not been published because not considered part of the Secret.

  22. One of those who had doubts over whether we had been told everything was Mother Angelica (of EWTN fame):

    ‘As for the Secret, well I happen to be one of those individuals who thinks we didn’t get the whole thing. I told ya! I mean, you have the right to your own opinion, don’t you, Father? There, you know, that’s my opinion. Because I think it’s scary. And I don’t think the Holy See is going to say something that does not happen, that might happen. And then what does it do if it doesn’t happen? I mean the Holy See cannot afford to make prophecies, because. I know, — I don’t know — my funeral . . . It’s not me, so don’t look at me . . . Something’s gonna happen soon. It could be twenty years before it happens. So to God “soon” could be a thousand years. We don’t know that.’

  23. Prognosticum,

    Your three recent comments above are all spot on. I agree with you entirely.

    I remember watching the 2000 press conference on the BBC news – it was startling to see a picture of St Michael the Archangel behind the newsreader (Fiona Bruce, I’m think I’m right in saying) with her describing the explanation that St Michael stabbing his sword downwards, said: “penance, penance, penance”. However, like you, I thought “Is that it?” All these years wondering what it could be and that’s IT?

    Now, looking back on the event, I realise that if the TV journalists were remotely “investigative”, they’d have been asking why the two people most knowledgeable about the whole Fatima Message were not present: namely, Sister Lucia and Pope John Paul II. For something so immensely important, they should have been there to confirm or deny that this was the whole text of the third part of Our Lady’s message, popularly known as The Third Secret.

    Which reminds me – did you manage to read any of Chris Ferrara’s book The Secret Still Hidden?

  24. No. Unfortunately, I haven’t had the time. But I am going to. Recent events in the Church are somehow pulling me in the direction of Fatima. It is something which I cannot explain, even to myself.

    • Prognosticum,

      That’s a great grace. A tremendous grace, in fact.

      I’ve felt for years now that Fatima is the most important event of the 20th century. So much of it is manifestly true, and couldn’t possibly have been foreseen by those illiterate children way back in 1917.

      I remember, as a young girl, being fascinated by the fact that both Jacinta and Francisco revealed that they would soon be taken to Heaven, and they both died within 3 years. Incredible. Yet Lucy was to stay “a bit longer” and died in her nineties (shows that what we think of as a long life is a mere blip in Heaven).

      That Antonio Socci set out to prove that the Fatima Center/Fr Gruner were wrong and Cardinal Bertone was right, that the whole Message had been revealed, yet completely changed his mind on honest investigation, is fascinating.

      I’ll be interested to know what you think of the book – I have a hard copy here and it is a really worthwhile read. Tell the boss you’re not available for any more overtime until you’ve read it! I think you will find it illuminating – to say the very least!

    • Prognosticum

      There is absolutely no doubt that we did not get the entire Third Secret in 2000. The words dictated by Our Lady to Sister Lucy, beginning “In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will be preserved, etc..” were clearly missing from the documents released by the Vatican. In place of the original text, which Sister Lucy confirmed was around 24 lines in length, we got a Vatican interpretation of what the Third Secret vision meant. And that interpretation was pages and pages long, not at all in keeping with the much shorter interpretation Our Lady gave to Sister Lucy.

      The other thing that was wrong with the 2000 release was the description of the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II as a fulfilment of the Vision’s depiction of a Pope being killed. This is clearly inaccurate since John Paul II survived the attempt on his life, an attempt that involved only a single individual and not the “band of soldiers” described in the Third Secret vision.

      So yes, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the Third Secret vision released by the Vatican in 2000 was not complete in that the accompanying text, the words spoken by Our Lady describing what the vision means, was suppressed and replaced with a Vatican take on events that is not even remotely convincing.

      I would also add that I believe the Third Secret punishment to be entirely supernatural in its consequences. Material wars and suffering were described in the Second part of the Secret. The Third part is much, much worse. It describes, I believe, the great apostasy of our time, unprecedented in history, resulting in the loss of millions of souls. And it begins in the Church from the top down. Hence the insistence of Sister Lucy that the Secret was to be revealed no later than 1960. That particular year saw preparation for the Second Vatican Council begin in earnest. And we know what happened during and after that Council.

      • Athanasius,

        Your emphasis on the words “In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will be preserved, etc..” reminds me of something I meant to include in my response to Prognosticum earlier.

        Those words are puzzling, since there is no evidence – to the best of my knowledge, having asked friends who have been to Portugal, attended Mass there etc – that the crisis has somehow by-passed that part of the world.

        I have a theory about this. I may have told you about it before but if so, don’t stop me, ‘cos I want to hear it again…

        Here goeth: my own personal theory about that introduction to the missing third part of the Fatima Message is that the complete sentence is likely to be prescribing how to preserve the traditional Faith.

        Hence, I would wager that the complete sentence reads something along these lines: “In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will be preserved, as in the rest of the world, where the traditional Mass and Faith is preserved and taught..”

        Fatima scholars have already opined that Portugal was singled out for special mention simply because that’s where the apparitions took place, and I would add to that, that Our Lady may well have been giving a reassurance that, where the liturgy and catechism are authentically Catholic – i.e. traditional – the dogma of the Faith will not be a victim of the Modernist crisis, whether in Portugal or elsewhere, and that in the context of prophesying the destruction to come in Catholic liturgy, dogma and morals.

        What do you think of my theory? Politely, please and thank you! 😀

        • Editor

          Your theory is perfectly plausible given that Portugal is as Modernist as all the other countries today. The problem is we don’t know what words follow on from the “etc…” There could be any number of possibilities that fit with the context of the words documented by Sister Lucy. Could it mean that Portugal would remain constitutionally a Catholic country, for example? It’s really difficult to say without knowing the entire content of the Third Secret text.

        • Editor,

          When the Third Secret Vision was released, I looked for a reference to the dogma of the Faith. It mentions the Cross of rough hewn trunks as of a cork tree with the bark. I think dogma is the bark. The seers would have often seen cork trees with and without the bark.

          I think your theory is right on the money. Our Lady used an economy of words when speaking. The key sentence might read, “In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved, by a faithful remnant”.

        • I think it also possible that the sentence ‘In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will be preserved etc’ is conditional, in that it would only be preserved IF some specific act was performed, possibly by the hierarchy. The fact that Portugal is as modernist as other European countries might suggest that such an act hasn’t been done. As Athanasius says, it’s difficult to know without knowing the full context of the Third Secret. But the TLM movement is virtually non-existent in Portugal. And I have been far from edified by the behaviour of the Portuguese on more than one occasion. The last time was when I went to Santarem to visit the Eucharistic Miracle there A Portuguese ‘charismatic’ Mass was in full swing in the church:- guitars, waving arms in the air, awful hollering (singing?) and jigging around, laughing, chatting and so on. And all in front of the Eucharistic Miracle in the monstrance. Clueless.

          • WF,

            “…IF some specific act was performed”….

            Well, that’s where we differ. It seems to me that – given that the Church was strong at the time of Sr Lucia’s writing – it is more likely that the words following the “etc” were more generic, along the lines of my own humble theory and Steven’s improvement on it.

            However, as ever, we all agree that the only way that we can ever be sure of the words following that famous “etc” is for those words to be published, as Our Lady requested they be, no later than 1960.

            Very sad about the Portuguese church as you say – shocking, but your report confirms my long-held belief that there had to be some qualifier to follow that “etc” because it is highly unlikely that Portugal was not as badly affected by Modernism as the rest of the Catholic world. From what you write, it seems that it’s not just “as bad” as the rest of the Church but, if anything, much worse!

            • I have noticed, however, a much lower level of immigration in Portugal, particularly muslim immigration. I saw this comment on the internet:- “I notice among western European countries, most have 2.5-8% of Muslim population. The only exception is Portugal, with only 0.6%.” A low muslim population would at least assist with the preservation of the Faith . . .

              Just for readers convenience, I list below a set of links to the Fatima Network books on Fatima, some of which Editor mentioned earlier in the thread. With the exception of the John Salza/Robert Sungenis book, all can be read in full, free, online:-

              The Devils Final Battle (full book is free to read at this link)
              The Secret Still Hidden (full book is free to read at this link)
              False Friends of Fatima (full book is free to read at this link)
              Evil Forces are Driving the World to War – Only She can help Us
              (full book is free to read at this link)

              The Consecration of Russia – How Seven Popes Failed to Heed Heaven’s Command and brought Turmoil to the Church and the World (the book can be ordered at this link)

  25. Editor, Athanasius,

    Very interesting. The feeling of most people I know is that if this was all there was too it, the Secret could have been released decades before. Most people I know find, too, that the prophecy does not fit very well around what happened to JPII. There simply has to be more too it.

    As to our Editor’s theory about Portugal, this is entirely possible. And she has been right about so much in the past.

    At the present time, I feel like that frog so often referred to by traditionalists, i.e. The one which, if thrown into a pan of boiling water, will immediately leap out, but which, if thrown into cold water, will happily sit and allow itself to be boiled to death so long as the temperature of the water is increased gradually.

    Pope Francis, in Amoris laetitia, has more or less condoned adultery. The repercussions of this are enormous, given too that the sacrament of marriage is about the expression of the fidelity with which Christ loves his Church. And all of this while most, but certainly not all, of the Church is singing his praises using the same hymn sheet as the World. For the bottom line is that Bergoglio, Kasper, and all the rest of them have allowed themselves to be converted, not to Christ, but to the World.

    God help them and us.

    • Prognosticum,

      After our exchanges on the subject yesterday, I found myself dipping into my copy of the Secret Still Hidden last night and found myself enthralled with it again. It is so thoroughly documented, with little nuggets of information that I’d forgotten – such as the evidence (in Chapter 2) of the then Poet Laureate of Portugal, for the miracle of the sun…

      As the Bishop of Leiria-Fatima, D. Jose Alves Correia da Silva, wrote shortly afterwards: “This phenomenon, which was not registered in any astronomical observatory, and could not,therefore, have been of natural origin, was witnessed by people of every category and class, by believers as well as unbelievers, journalists of the principal daily papers, and even by people kilometers away, a fact which destroys any theory of collective hallucination.” One of those remote witnesses was none other than the poet laureate of Portugal, Afonso Lopes Vieira, who, having forgotten about the apparitions at Fatima, was dramatically reminded of them by the solar phenomenon he observed from his veranda, 25 kilometers distant from the Cova.

      Ferrara’s account of Socci’s part in exposing the cover-up at the Vatican, plus his detailed definitions of “broad mental reservation” and “strict mental reservation” to argue that it is perhaps not accurate to accuse the Vatican of “lying”, is all fascinating. Of course this is all in Chapter 2. We’ve a bit to go yet to discover whether Ferrara considers the Vatican guilty of applying “broad” mental reservation (not lying) or “strict” which is always to lie.

      As I read through those first couple of chapters last night, I was struck by the factual content – indisputable stuff – and kept wondering just how many of the Vatican cardinals (or even the priests working there) know the truth about Fatima? Socci being such a high profile journalist and broadcaster, I would imagine that it would all be very well known but then that begs the question, how could these priests and cardinals working so close to the Pope, keep silent on such a matter of importance to the Church and the world?

      It’s just incredible.

    • Prognosticum,

      The Third Secret Vision speaks about the bishop dressed in white as one who appears in a mirror when they pass in front of it. That indicates to me that it has to be a very brief reign. Pope John Paul I fits this description for two reasons. John Paul I’s pontificate only lasted 33 days. John Paul I died after attempting a major restructuring of the Vatican Bank.

      Our Lady of the Rosary made the formal request for the Consecration of Russia six days after the Lateran Treaty was ratified. The money Pope Pius XI was given as compensation for the loss of the Papal States was used to start the Vatican Bank. The financial corruption that ensued could have been instrumental in paving the way for the Modernist take over. You cannot serve God and mammon!

      • I don’t think John Paul I was murdered because of anything to do with the Vatican Bank. I think it was because he was about to name and shame the Freemasons within the Vatican.

        I like your interpretation of the “mirror” though – I didn’t think of that, it’s always puzzled me.

        • I think John Paul I died of natural causes. His doctor testified that he was already ill before he assumed the papacy. His demise could have been brought on by his sudden realization that we was not the man to shepherd the Church.

          Do not forget that his election was as much as a liberal attempt to stop the election of Cardinal Siri than it was anything else.

      • Steven Calovich

        The description of the bishop in white doesn’t fit with John Paul I either. His death was not as described in relation to the Pope cited in the Third Secret vision.

        The death of Pope John Paul I is significant in other ways in as much as it ended just 33 days after his election. Our Lord died on the Cross aged 33, so we might see in it the action of divine providence. On the other hand there are 33 degrees in Freemasonry, which could point to an altogether more sinister meaning.

        I don’t know too much about Pope John Paul I but it is clear by the twin names he chose to mark his Papacy that he was a theological and liturgical progressive. This would not mark him out as one for assassination by the Freemasons. It’s one of those mysteries that I suppose we will never really get answers to.

        As regards the image of a “Bishop in White” referenced in the Third Secret by Sister Lucy. If you read the entire paragraph she goes on to describe also bishops, priests and others that she saw in this vision that was like a reflection in a mirror. Here is the relevant part of the text:

        “And we saw in an immense light that is God: ‘something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it’ a Bishop dressed in White ‘we had the impression that it was the Holy Father’. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain…”

        I think Sister Lucy is here explaining how the entire vision was perceived by her senses. I don’t think she meant to indicate that only the Pope was seen in this mirror reflection manner.

        • Athanasius,

          The following is a theoretical reconstruction of the Third Secret. I reproduce it here only as an example to show how Our Lady’s explanation of the “Vision”, would fill in details that we can only guess at. Had the real Third Secret been published in 1960 and if it mentions a Council, I can see how it could have changed the course of history:

          “You saw the ruin of the world.” In order to prevent this, God wished to establish the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays. If the Holy Father had done so, many souls would have been saved. Because he did not, the devil will infiltrate the Church. And mount the throne of St Peter.

          There will be a Council in which Cardinal will oppose Cardinal. Bishop against Bishop. The priests who revere me will be scorned and opposed.

          They will alter the Mass and the teaching of the Church. The devil will sweep a third of the clergy into his service. The beast will overcome pastors and the flock will be abandoned and scattered. Wolves will ravage the flock and drag many to hell. A diabolic wave will sweep the world. Altars will be stripped and churches will be sacked. In Portugal, the Dogmas of the Faith will always be preserved, but elsewhere they will be lost.

          If the Holy Father had Consecrated Russia to My Immaculate Heart, the world would have been converted and there would have been peace. Because He did not, a war will begin in the reign of Peter II. When the world is illuminated by an unknown light, know that this is the Great Sign that God gives you that He is about to punish the world with earthquakes, floods and famine. Russia will overrun Europe. The Holy Father will be killed and the Faithful will be martyred. Fire will fall from the sky. Oceans will flood. The earth will shake as never before. Millions of men will lose their lives from one hour to the next. The suffering will be worse than the deluge. The survivors will envy the dead. When all seems lost, I will raise up a Holy Father who is dear to me and the world will be made new.

          • Steven,

            I could pick out a number of problems with your version of the Third Secret, but – since we’ve already discussed the following and you appeared to agree with my observation that Portugal has NOT kept the Faith – I singled out this from your text:

            “In Portugal, the Dogmas of the Faith will always be preserved, but elsewhere they will be lost.”

            If you recall, we noted that the Church in Portugal has not by-passed the crisis, and we deduced that the “etc” may contain a reference to the fact that, however, a remnant will keep the Faith. To revise, then, the wording may (more accurately) be: “In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved, where the ancient Mass and catechesis are found.”

            I believe I’m right in saying that the rest of your comment is really a mish-mash of various unapproved apparition claims; personally, I avoid them. I stick firmly with what we know from Quito and Fatima, the two major apparitions of concern to us in the 21st century, without the distraction of the others.

          • Steven Calovich

            The only difficulty with your theory is that it confuses predictions relating to the end of the world with the punishment recorded in the Third Secret. They are not related.

            Before the reign of antichrist and the ensuing end of the world Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart will triumph and there will be a certain time of global peace. Only at the end of that undefined period will antichrist rise up.

            As for your reference to Peter II. There is no evidence to suggest that the Church will ever have a Peter II. It would take a very proud man indeed to think himself worthy of assuming the name of the Prince of the Apostles. No, I think humility would prevent any newly elected Pope from taking Peter as his Papal name.

            I’m not sure either that Satan will ever be permitted to mount the Throne of Peter. I assume you mean by this that antichrist will be a Pope. The problem with that is the Sacred Scriptures tell us that antichrist will reach higher than the Papal dignity when he appears. He will claim to be God and will demand worship from all peoples on earth.

            The cryptic nature of the Apocalypse and the Third Secret of Fatima are such that we cannot be too insistent on what they may or may not reveal, particularly since the text of the Third Secret, the explanation of Our Lady, has been suppressed. I think it is sufficient, then, just to stick to what we know for sure, and it is that a great apostasy is presently taking place during an unprecedented crisis of faith in the Church and moral upheaval in the world. We also know that no matter how bad things are, and how impossible a restoration of peace and holiness may seem, something momentous will occur that will force the Pope and the bishops to consecrate Russia and grace will then do the rest. Quite a comforting thought, don’t you think?

            • Athanasius,

              Just for fun, I will edit it and try to make it more like I think it should read:

              You saw the ruin of the world. In order to prevent this, God wished to establish the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays. If the Holy Father had done so, many souls would have been saved. Because he did not, the smoke of Satan will enter into the Church. There will be a Council in which Cardinal will oppose Cardinal and Bishop will oppose Bishop. The priests who revere me will be scorned and opposed. The Holy Mass and the teaching of the Church will be changed. The beast will overcome pastors, the flock will be abandoned and scattered. Wolves will ravage the flock and drag many souls to hell. A diabolic wave will sweep over the world. Altars will be stripped and churches will be sacked. In Portugal, the Dogma of the Faith will always be preserved, by a faithful remnant. The Holy Father will be killed and the faithful will be martyred. Fire will fall from the sky. Millions of men will lose their lives from one hour to the next. The suffering will be worse than the deluge. The survivors will envy the dead. When all seems lost, I will raise up a Holy Father who is dear to me and the world will be made new.

  26. Talking about Northampton, here’s some news about the proposed new ‘Cathedral Centre’ from the Diocesan website…

    14th March – Cathedral Centre Campaign tops £2 million !

    We are delighted to share with you that thanks to recent gifts and pledges received, the campaign total has reached over £2.18m – over half way to the required total. This includes donations from the Cathedral community, local supporters, grant-making trusts and parishes.

    The plans to extend the campaign across the diocese are underway and we have been very encouraged that a number of parishes have indicated their interest in lending their support by hosting a presentation. Several presentations have already taken place and many more are scheduled for the months ahead.

    For further information click here, or contact Angela on .

  27. Below are a series of short videos from Gloria TV on the Divine Mercy devotion, as the time for this Devotion is rapidly approaching again (the novena preceding the feast starts on Good Friday):-

    Part One:
    Part Two:
    Part Three:
    Part Four:
    Part Five:
    Part Six:
    Sacred Heart vs Divine Mercy devotion:

    I haven’t watched them yet – only part of the first one, but I will be watching them soon. I’m putting them here for info and would be grateful for any comments/reviews.

    God bless

    • Westminsterfly

      I have watched five of the six videos you posted and they confirm what, I believe, most of us on the blog think, which is that the Divine Mercy devotion promoted by Sister Faustina is highly suspect to say the least. The Traditional devotion (and image) of the Sacred Heart is what we should stick to and encourage others to stick to, or return to.

      Thank you for posting a timely reminder about this suspect devotion. I would encourage everyone to watch those videos, which are quite short in length.

  28. May I suggest that bloggers who are so inclined, surf over to The Remnant website to comment on what is allegedly an opinion written by “Father de la Rogue,” SSPX, in Paris, in which he completely mis-characterizes the issue of regularization. My comment is #2, if it makes it past moderation. If not, here’s what I said:

    No, Father, the SSPX is not “placing their eternal salvation” in Francis’ hands. That is a red herring. So is labeling a Prelature “unity,” when in fact it is canonical regularity. Despite posing what you apparently think are the real questions, you failed to ask the actual real one: has Rome met the conditions of Bishop Fellay, or not? Clearly, the answer thus far, despite all these ridiculous internet rumors flying around, is “no.”

    • RCA Victor,

      I paid a visit yesterday on seeing your comment here, and again just now but your comment is not there.

      I have a rule whereby I try not to submit comments to moderated sites. It’s true that the few comments I have submitted to the Remnant in the past did make it through the moderation process, but it’s always a gamble. I hate the thought of wasting time penning a considered response to an article or to another blogger, only to find it left unpublished.

      Having said that, if I can find a few minutes later, I will try to post something. It’s very bad indeed that your perfectly legitimate – indeed “spot on” – view has been suppressed.

      • Editor,

        The more I think about that column, the more I think those comments are entirely unworthy of an SSPX priest – if, indeed, this “Father de la Rogue” (!! Sacre Bleu!) is actually an SSPX priest! The column reveals an inability to think clearly and an illogical exaggeration, which has not been my experience with Society priests. In fact, I’d say it is more characteristic of those unfortunate priests who signed on with the “resistance.”

    • Crofterlady/St Martin,

      Eye of the Tiber is a “satirical” site. Full of baloney. We’ve discussed it here before and concluded that, while we all enjoy a bit of satire from time to time, that site is not our preferred location. Reading a page of fictional stories is not – in my humble view – the best form of satire. But, then, each to his (or her) own!

  29. Sorry, I misspelled Father’s name: it is, as the article says, “La Rocque,” and he is the Prior Abbot at St. Nicholas Church du Chardonnet, as the heading says. He is near the bottom of this page: However, I am not mistaken in my criticism of his article, which is very strange indeed. I am also beginning to wonder about Michael Matt, who keeps pleading with his audience that the SSPX should not regularize under Francis – and now his staff is deleting comments critical of his articles.

    Bogus reasoning flocks together, apparently.

    • RCA Victor,

      I see that your comment on the Remnant blog has still not been published, so I didn’t bother submitting one. I don’t like moderated sites. The only people moderated here are those with a proven track record of disruption – troll-like behaviour – but in the main, if the majority of adults cannot be trusted to participate in conversation without being monitored, it’s time to close the blog.

  30. I can understand people being wary about news of the SSPX canonical situation, after the recent “fake news” reported on Catholics news sites.

    Well, here is the latest news (we can but hope it is more accurate this time) from Rorate Caeli:

    This Monday evening in Rome, religious correspondent Marco Tosatti (with Sandro Magister, the best reader of the current Pontificate) confirms that just one set of signatures separates the Society from full integration within the Church.

    Not only that, he confirms news that RORATE had: unlike the fake news spread out last month about the Church of Saint Mary on the Esquiline Hill (that belongs to the Vicariate of the City of Time and is not for sale), the building being negotiated for the Roman headquarters of the Society is this:

    It’s the Church and former school and convent of the Sisters of the Immaculate Conception — a complex that includes the Church of Saint Mary Immaculate and Saint Benedict Joseph Labre, in the Tuscolano neighborhood of Rome (corner of Via Monza and Via Taranto), very near the Basilica of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem and near the Cathedral of Rome, St. John in the Lateran.

    We know that because we have learned that the Sisters have​ already contacted the appropriate Roman Curia congregation and is waiting for authorization to continue negotiations.

    This at least seems to tie-up with what the SSPX said, when +Fellay commented on the recent “fake news”.

    Bishop Fellay confirmed that the SSPX intends to buy a church in Rome, but the sale of the building the SSPX is interested in, belonging to a Community of Sisters, depends on the Congregation for the Religious.

    However, time will tell and now I always take news from non-SSPX sources with a pinch of salt.

    • Gabriel Syme,

      Very interesting – but the missing signatures, I think, tell more than meets the eye.

      I can understand wariness about regularizing under the present Pope – that is a normal human reaction, given Francis’ anti-Catholic agenda and tyrannical abuse of Papal power. However, I don’t think wariness should stoop to false reasoning and red herrings, which is what Father LaRocque did in his article. I also think that, for people who take their Faith seriously (present company included), human wariness should surrender obediently to divine grace, since it is only by divine grace that this little project will succeed…

      Imagine, for example, the human reaction of pagans when informed by the Apostles that they should worship a God who was born in a stable, and ultimately arrested, tortured and executed like a criminal! Should that human reaction prevent them from embracing the Faith?

      Or how about the human reaction of pagans when informed that God is truly present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in a little wafer! A deal-killer?

      And regarding Michael Matt’s “resistance”- like opinions about regularization, perhaps he can answer this question: how can a Knight engage in battle when he is sitting on the sidelines awaiting more favorable conditions?

      I know what Editor would say about that: “crackers!”

    • They can’t Benedict, but what I find a tad irritating is that we’ve been talking about this new religion being foisted upon us since at least 1999 when we launched our first newsletter, and now we read articles and reports and blog comments all over the place suggesting that WOW! NOW! we’re having a new religion foisted upon us. DUH! As you say, how can anyone deny the fact even now? Answer: unprintable 😀

  31. It goes without saying that we ought all to remember, in our prayers, the victims and families of all those involved in the London terrorist attack today.

    Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

  32. Dear Editor, apologies for asking a question that might have been asked and answered many times before, but is there any fix for the problem I have reading comments on my Samsung Galaxy phone? The comments become narrower and narrower until I see just a single, vertical line of letters. It’s nearly impossible to navigate to the next full-size comment. Do you know if it’s my phone or WordPress doing this? Would be grateful to you or to any reader who knows how to fix this.

    • Benedict,

      Its not your phone, I experience the exact same thing with my Huawei phone.

      My understanding is that the wordpress platform was previously not well suited to viewing on mobile devices but this has changed as mobile internet has grown in popularity.

      However, older wordpress blogs may still have issues with mobile devices, in terms of how the blogs are constructed.

      I have not looked into this in any great detail, but I do know there is a wordpress app available for phones, and this contains a wordpress reader (as well as tools for blog editors).

      I would recommend installing the app on your phone and then using the reader to view the site. Hopefully that should resolve the problem. You can get it here:

      (For what its worth, google has a service where websites can be tested for how mobile-friendly they are. And it claims this site is indeed “mobile friendly” but obviously it is not detecting the problem we are discussing).

      I discovered this site too, which may be of interest to Editor:

    • RCA Victor,

      I’ve had a quick look at those two links and they promise to be a very interesting read – “later the next day…” if you follow my drift!

  33. Steven Calovich

    If you go to the Papa Stronsay website and blog you’ll find no objection to any aspect of the present crisis in the Church at the highest levels. It seems the Redemptorists on Papa Stronsay gave up the fight some time ago. I think that’s what editor means by her comment, although I will let her answer your question personally.

  34. Yes, Athanasius, I agree with you. It’s a pity these young men didn’t join the SSPX monks on Stronsay and help them to bring about the Kingdom. Because one thing is for sure, and that is, that the Papastronsay monks have given up the fight since they “reconciled” with Rome. And, the ironic thing is that the diocese, i.e. the Bishop, “has no work for them in the diocese”. And, that’s a direct quote. Therefore, they are shepherds without a flock (except for a couple of people and many flocks of sheep!)

    • RCA Victor,

      Since Wendy is unlikely to see that link here, I emailed her the link but best to always post anything pro-life on the Pro-life thread to avoid having a conversation ignited here, as well as over there. For your homework write out, 100 times: “I must always post anything about pro-life, abortion, euthanasia, on the Pro-Life thread and I’m a very bad lad for forgetting this time…” 😀

        • Well, I wouldn’t bother this time but from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, let’s put everything pro-life on the Pro-Life thread… You know it makes sense (and will avoid a divorce!)

          Now, don’t be taking that as a proposal! I’m already investigating the annulment process. 😀

    • I am glad Cardinal Burke says he and the other Cardinals will still go ahead with a correction.

      However, given so much time has passed (6 months?) since it was first mooted, and there has been nothing but an obviously contemptuous silence from Francis, I think they should stop talking and just get on with it.

      This constant “the correction is still on the table” talk reminds me of Nicola Sturgeon banging on incessantly about the possibility of a 2nd Independence referendum.

      In both cases, the relevant parties should “put up or shut up” in my opinion.

      And if the correction does eventually come, then it had better be hard hitting and headline grabbing, such that it cannot be ignored.

      Its quite clear Francis favours a chaotic Church where there are no common beliefs or bonds and everyone just does their own thing – or “protestantism” as its known. So, the Cardinals should stop “hoping” and just get on with correcting!

      • Gabriel Syme,

        Well said. Well SAID! I’m fed up hearing about this formal correction – every time I read a report assuring us that the correction is a-coming, I speak calmly enough to my screen, but always, impatiently, saying the same thing: just DO it!

  35. May I please ask bloggers to pray for a friend of mine, a lapsed Catholic of many years, who is very seriously ill; her husband has been told that if there is no improvement in her condition by tomorrow they will switch off life support. I hope I have managed to arrange for a priest to visit her to administer Extreme Unction, but she lives in the other end of the country to me so I cannot check this out myself. Please, in your charity, pray that the priest reaches Margaret in time.

  36. Well I think they are a bunch o’ feardys! Remember the way Cardinal Burke pulled out of giving a talk for Pro Ecclesia Pontifice because some ecumaniac scared him off? Poor Daphne, I was affronted for her. These prelates, even the good ones, don’t have the mettle of the last generation of men such as Cardinals Heenan, McQuaid, Spellman etc.

    I wish they’d just get on with the job and pull the rug from under the Pope!

    • Crofterlady,

      I wouldn’t count Cardinal Heenan as one of the greats – I remember, as a young girl, being appalled at his weasel response to questions about the Church’s teaching on birth control in a TV interview, just after Humanae Vitae hit and horrified the modernists between the eyes.

      Even his letter to his priests was a mixed bag, with repeated references to the “teaching of the Vicar of Christ” and calls to “obedience to the Pope”, instead of emphasising that it is the natural moral law which prohibits artificial methods of birth control, not any pontiff. .

      I do, however, agree with your conclusion regarding the four cardinals and I echo your final sentence.

      • Of course I’m too young to remember Cardinal Heenan in the flesh and also the publication of Humanae Vitae, but I had heard that he was the last great occupant of the Westminster diocese. Obviously not then. When did the rot set in?

        • Crofterlady,

          Too young to remember Cardinal Heenan, my FOOT!

          Anyway, the rot set in (or, more accurately, manifested itself) with the publication of Humanae Vitae. The betrayal interview which I remember seeing, is mentioned in an article published by the Newman Association. Here’s the relevant extract, having failed to find the interview, with David Frost, on YouTube:

          When the encyclical [Humanae Vitae] was published it came like a bombshell, as change had been widely expected. We had already however a core of activists experienced from the McCabe affair at running press conferences and PR work, and able to undertake the rapid gathering of horrified supporters. Having three small children, I did not take as active a part as Oliver did, but we were involved in meetings up and down the country, compiling lists of sympathetic confessors, going on demonstrations etc. It culminated in David Frost’s interview with the then cardinal. Frost had been briefed by Oliver and one or two others and he was able to force Heenan into a corner, whereupon the cardinal advised people to follow their own consciences. Read entire article here Emphasis added.

          One rests one’s case…

  37. Ladies you are all stars – I heard from a lovely priest who was going to arrange a visit last night. Margaret is still hanging on by a thread, but thank God she has received the very best medicine for her immortal soul, and that with the help of your prayers.

  38. I happened upon s series of posts on the silent apparition of Knock over at Tradition In Action:

    “Thirty-three years after the Apparition of La Salette, a solemn papal canonical coronation of Our Lady took place and the Basilica of La Salette was consecrated. On that same day, a day that must be acknowledged as the public and official recognition by the Church of the apparition of La Salette, the Mother of God was also appearing in the little village of Knock, Ireland. In other words, on August 21, 1879, we have Our Lady of Knock gazing in the direction of La Salette and Rome on the exact day, perhaps even the same hour, as the ceremonies recognizing the Apparition of La Salette were occurring.”

    At one point, the author speculates about the possibility that St Joseph and St John the Evangelist are in Heaven, body and soul. He also notes the weather conditions during the Apparitions of La Salette, Knock, Lourdes and Fatima. I thought it was very interesting.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: