Coronavirus: Bishop Schneider on the Ban on All Forms of Public Worship…

Comment: 

The above video address is taken from The Remnant Video platform, where we read: Bishop Athanasius Schneider grew up under Soviet tyranny and so quite obviously knows of what he speaks. He also knows how to survive and keep the Faith, and it is for this reason that we’re happy to offer this hopeful video message at this particular moment of uncertainty.

God has not abandoned us. God has not abandoned His Church. There is a worldwide brotherhood of faithful Catholics—subjects of Christ the King, children of the Queen of Heaven—and we are all in this together, united in the old Faith.  Remnant Comment Ends.

In the comments, underneath the video address, one blogger writes: He is right! This has been a globally planned event. This is NOT the plague. This wholly disproportionate reaction has garnered an unprecedented global cooperation the likes of which has never been seen before in the entire history of mankind — discouraging daily human interaction and contact, shutting down schools and businesses, bringing the world economy almost to a standstill . When have the nations of the world ever cooperated to enact the same rules and measures that results in exerting control over most of the global population! It is all spun in such a positive manner. It is because all of our govts care about us and about saving lives.
Even in the sparsely populated area of Patagonia at the bottom of the world the border agents were in hazmat suits, stopping the few cars on the little dirt road that served as a border crossing between Chile and Argentina!  I want to see it as a good thing but an ominous sense of foreboding keeps getting in the way of that. I have always been a bit too gullible, but even I cannot swallow all these govts doing all of this for our own good because they care so much about us…please...

Yet, Bishop Schneider insists…

schneider quote 1

Well – is Bishop Schneider correct?  Do you agree that this trial will bring us greater spiritual benefit than if we had not experienced it?
Source – The Remnant  

58 responses

  1. I had exactly that same feeling! When I saw the Pope walking through deserted rome.

    It reminded me of the passage in the third secret particularly this passage.

    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, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling WITH HALTING STEP, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way;

    Most Sacred Heart of Jesus. Have mercy on us. 😦

    • CBucket,

      If you read the rest of that part of the Third Secret text, Pope Francis cannot be that bishop dressed in white – this very good article explains it very well.
      https://romalocutaest.com/2017/05/13/the-bishop-dressed-in-white-actually-kneels-francis/

      I do agree with Bishop Schneider that we have to accept the situation and if we do so we will come through it to our spiritual benefit, more than if we hadn’t gone through it.

      I am suspicious, just the same. I don’t think the numbers warrant the shutdown of every country in the world, so I think there is an economic motive behind it all, and a depopulation motive.

  2. I also agree with Bishop Schneider – his words are worth listening to, always. I also agree with Laura that there is definitely an economic motive behind this lockdown, as the numbers just don’t require it.

    Something I’ve wondered about since the Prime Minister specifically mentioned Baptisms as part of the prohibition on church services. Could someone give an emergency baptism – e.g. a parent – since you only need ordinary tap water, not holy water, necessarily, and you just pour that on the head of the baby while saying “I baptise you (Name) in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.”

    Personally, I think this situation of crisis would warrant it, since the baby could get the virus and a newborn would definitely be vulnerable.

    I’d like to know what others think, though.

    • Nicky

      I think the Church would only permit an emergency baptism if a newborn infant actually contracted the disease and the parents couldn’t get a priest. I think baptisms can still be arranged with priests if the family is virus free and the numbers are kept to a bare minimum, a bit like with funerals.

      As an aside, I found out that Boris Johnson was born and baptised a Catholic but later apostatised and became Anglican. More in keeping with his lifestyle, I suppose. The Anglicans don’t really insist on observance of the Commandments and the moral law!

      • Athanasius,

        I haven’t heard that baptisms will be permitted – only funerals, with around 5 in attendance. So, that’s interesting. I don’t know everything after all. Pity.

        Obviously, for a baptism, the attendance of family and friends is not important, but I am interested that a church baptism can be arranged, as you describe. That’s good. However, if the circumstances were such that the family were not virus free or the priest unable to administer the Sacrament, I think an emergency baptism would be in order.

        I was once asked to be a Godmother to a twin baby boy, simply because his twin brother was too ill to leave hospital and the parents did not want to wait for the double baptism they had planned. Add to that, the fact that the mother was a Dublin-born Irishwoman who would not take the baby out until he had been baptised, and I think an emergency baptism would be in order, whether or not the baby were in danger of contracting the virus. He/she might contract something else! It has always been traditional to have babies baptised as soon as possible after birth.

        Now, I know I may be totally wrong about this, but, having seen the way Baptism was always treated as urgent, until recent years, when nothing is urgent except contributing to SCIAF (!) I tend to think that there would be no harm in taking the “better safe than sorry” route and administering Baptism, realising that in due course, hopefully, the baby will receive a conditional Baptism from a priest – who knows, perhaps even in a church building! Remember those?!

        Still, don’t get mad at me if I’m wrong… But if you do…

        • Editor

          Having looked further into this it seems I may have been wrong, baptisms do not get a mention anywhere which makes me suspect they would probably be delayed until things return to normal.

          You’re right about the urgency of baptism, which highlights once again how utterly devoid of the supernatural many bishops and priests have become since Vatican II. However, I don’t think lay people are permitted to baptise a child (or an adult), even in times of short-term church closures, unless there is real danger of death.

          I suppose it all comes down, then, to baptism by desire, should the worst happen suddenly and unexpectedly during the shutdown, God forbid. God is merciful and so if parents wanted a child baptised immediately but couldn’t gain access to the Sacrament through no fault of their own, then the merits of Our Lord would surely supply. That, however, will not excuse neglectful clergy in the sight of God!

          • Athanasius,

            I used to believe what you have said about baptism of desire, but it doesn’t apply that way. Only a catechumen, someone under instruction, if that person does, then baptism of desire applies. Not an unbaptised babies. The Church has always taught that they would enjoy natural happiness, and we called it Limbo until the modernists got to work attacking that belief. I have spoken with a sound traditional priest on this subject, when I was unsure about it, and he told me what I have quoted here.

            If I had a new baby and it was going to be at least three months before I could get the baby baptised, I would do an emergency baptism. Anything could happen, such as a sudden illness or a fall or anything. I wouldn’t risk it. Then I’d arrange a conditional baptism at the church when they were re-opened.

            • Josephine

              Limbo, as you rightly point out, is the place of natural happiness where unbaptised babies go whose parents never intended to have them baptised.

              The situation I was referring to, however, is closer to the catechumens situation of baptism by desire. It is not permitted by the Church for any lay person to administer baptism unless there is imminent danger of death and no priest to be had. Those who have to wait for the Sacrament through no fault of their own can otherwise rely on baptism of desire, in cases of sudden unexpected infant death. God is merciful, He reads the hearts and intentions of His children. If the intention exists to have a baby baptised by a priest at the earliest opportunity then God will hold neither baby nor parents responsible for circumstances delays in the administration of the Sacrament beyond their control.

              One thing I do know for certain is that only where there is danger of imminent death are the laity permitted to administer the Sacrament of baptism, not for any other reason real or contrived. It’s similar with the Sacrament of Confession. If a person commits a mortal sin, for example, and then truly repents and intends to confess to a priest at the earliest opportunity the sin is already forgiven, though the obligation to confess sacramentally remains immediate. Hence, if a person were to die on the way to the chapel they would not go to Hell because they are already absolved of their sin by true sorrow and determined intention to confess. I should add here that Holy Communion cannot be received by anyone who has committed mortal sin until sacramental absolution is recieved from a priest.

              It’s all to do with God’s mercy, the intention of those involved to abide by Church law and the circunstances they find themselves in without fault on their part.

              • Athanasius,

                Only adults are capable of receiving the baptism of desire. according to the Catholic Encyclopaedia Online
                http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#xi

                However, in the same Catholic Encyclopaedia I found that Iam wrong (can you believe it) in thinking that an emergency Baptism would be in order, given the lockdown situation, whether or not the child were in danger of death, “just in case”, so to speak.

                I’m not sure which of us is worse; you for being wrong ALL the time, or me for being wrong this once… 😀

                • Editor

                  Since the Sacrament of Baptism is generally administered to infants via the desire of the parents, I feel sure it falls within the category of baptism of desire. I will say, though, that this is not a subject that appears to have been discussed much by Churchmen and so it’s a very grey area. I’ll see if I can research it further.

                  New Advent is generally a good source but it does also incorporate post-Vatican II teaching in places that could be called into question. If they say that Baptism can be administered conditionally by lay people during this short-term lockdown then that’s a very drastic change from the Church’s previous teaching. As far as I’ve always understood it imminent danger of death was the only dispensation that allowed lay baptism, so big change there and I’m suspicious.

                  Carried to extremes, as these innovations often are, we could find lay baptisms becoming quite widespread, a bit like Protestantism, though that might be me being overly suspicious.

                  Anyway, I’m quite sure that even with lockdown a priest can be found to carry out a private baptism, that is if parents are concerned enough to do the right thing in accordance with traditional Church teaching.

                  I’m holding my judgment on whether or not you were wrong, I still suspect your infallibility remains in tact for the present!!

                  • Athanasius,

                    I was definitely taught that only an adult can be saved through desire of Baptism, because that adult can exercise free will. An unbaptized baby, we were taught prior to Vatican II, could not be admitted to the Beatific Vision but would be happy in a state of natural happiness. We called that Limbo, which is now non-existent. That is, ironically, because the liberals/modernists share your opinion, and cannot believe that God would not accept an unbaptized baby into heaven. So, the idea of the parents’ desire is what is new, not the earlier teaching. It’s not logical. If the desire of the parents is all that is required for Baptism, why would anyone need Baptism by water?

                    I’ve known of parents who have lost unbaptized infants and no priest ever told them not to worry, the child was in heaven. Priests in those days just emphasised that the child was happy.

                    Actually, nobody knows how God could perhaps effect Baptism for unbaptized babies, but it is definitely an error to say that the Church’s teaching on Baptism of desire applies to them. If it does, then I was taught the wrong thing before the Council.

                    I must add though that I’m thinking, not for the first time, that you would think a priest would come onto this blog when they see such a disagreement about a major issue. None of them can use the excuse that they’re too busy these days.

                  • The church has ALWAYS taught that in an emergency or danger of death any Catholic/Christian may administer the Sacrament if a priest is unavailable.
                    All Midwives used to be taught that they could Baptise in case of an emergency under the Trinitarian form

                  • Athanasius,

                    I once said unthinkingly – in the presence of Father Nicholas Gruner, RIP – that I presumed that Baptism of desire applied to infants. He promptly corrected me. He told me clearly, at our table of around 10 diners (this was at one of his Conferences in Rome) that Baptism of desire was restricted to those adults who were either actively under instruction and died before Baptism (i.e. it was obvious that they desired Baptism) or who, in invincible ignorance, i.e. not through their own fault, implicitly desired Baptism.

                    Just to be clear, the Catholic Encyclopaedia made no mention of this lockdown – the Advent site with that page on Baptism, has been online for years.

                    However, it’s a good idea for you to research this further. I look forward to reading your findings, especially if they prove Father Gruner wrong. I just assumed he was right, totally forgetting about my own infallibility – I’m humbled that you remembered 😀

                    • Editor

                      I have researched Spirago’s “The Catechism Explained”, a rather large volume from 1921 that goes into very great detail on Catechetics. It’s Imprimatured so perfectly sound.

                      According to that book I was wrong to assume that baptism of desire can be applied to infants who die suddenly and unexpectedly before their parents are able to arrange the desired baptism. It seems baptism of desire is only applicable to adults. Baptism by blood is a different matter, however, as per the example of the Holy Innocents.

                      While the Church commands that infant baptism take place in ordinary circumstances at the local chapel with full ceremonial, she does allow for baptism by lay people in emergency situations, which may include people in lockdown who genuinely can’t get a priest to administer the Sacrament.

                      I read this interesting passage which kind of shook me given that so many today think nothing of delaying baptism for their children:

                      “Infant baptism has been customary since apostolic times. St. Alphonsus says that if parents, without an urgent reason, neglect to have their children baptised within ten days after their birth, they incur the guilt of mortal sin”

                      In summation, I was completely wrong in my assumption and the late Fr. Gruner, God reward him, was absolutely right.

                    • Athanasius,

                      It’s not a doctrine, as you pointed out previously, that the clergy preach about and so it’s little wonder that we get confused. We are left, these days, to research Church teaching ourselves, on just about everything.

                      I forgot to mention that Fr Gruner underlined this teaching by saying that nobody can desire Baptism for anyone else, which is what made it stick in my mind. That and the fact that the large group at our table were listening closely to the conversation which resulted in a chorus of “O, Pat, I am surprised you didn’t know that…” If they only knew how much else I don’t know, they really would be surprised 😀

                    • Editor

                      I loved the cartoon at the end of your post, gave me a good laugh.

                      As you rightly observe, though, there are times when deeper questions arise about the faith that are not so easily answered with just a glance at a Catechism. The answers are there if we spend endless hours in research looking for them, but they’re not readily available and that can lead to wrong conclusions, like mine.

                      If the Church was healthy right now all we would have to do is ask a priest, but we can’t even trust a lot of the priests, especially the ecumenical/interfaith lot who clearly don’t even acknowledge basic Church teaching on the necessity of baptism for salvation.

                      I’m still intrigued by the question of baptism of desire for infants in emergency situations. I think there are good grounds for investigation and discussion by theologians once the Church is restored to health. I mean, infants don’t choose baptism for obvious reasons, it’s administered to them by parental choice and duty. Hence, if parents desire it for their infant children but don’t have time to see the Sacrament administered because death suddenly intervenes, say, for example, cot death, then the question has to arise: What does God make of the desire of the parents for their infant?

                      It’s a very interesting question, though way beyond our remit. We’ll let the holy and the great deal with it in healthier times. Right now we must simply adhere faithfully to what the Church teaches in the matter.

  3. For interest,

    I had a call this morning from a reader who tells me that Archbishop Tartaglia, within 48 hours of the lockdown announcement, had put a plea on Twitter for donations … for the Archdiocese! Honestly, you couldn’t make it up.

    Apparently, he is getting quite a bit of stick from the other Twits on the forum 😀

    • Editor

      I must go find that on Twitter and comment appropriately! Yes, I’m a twit as well, though I don’t use mugbook!

      • Pablo Mendoza

        The SSPX is worthy because it didn’t close its chapels willingly, it was constrained to close them. The Archdiocese of Glasgow took the Mass from the faithful even before a national lockdown was discussed. Besides that, no Archdiocese in the world should be stopping the Mass for any reason whatsover and should tell government exactly that. This cessation of the Mass is unprecedented in Church history, even through times of real plague. The SSPX has no choice in the matter because it would otherwise be highlighted as an enemy of the State rebelling even against the orders of the Catholic hierarchy, God have mercy on it!

        • How can you say SSPX is more worthy to ask for handout because it done exactly what the Bishops did but just a few days later? Crazy talk!

          It was obvious to everyone that all Church must shut, even here in Portugal the Bishops only did what they knew was coming just two days later.

          SSPX then followed, some traditionalists boasted with words about never closing only to quickly u-turn, now with much talk of rendering unto Caesar that which is not his. Very messy and embarrassing I think.

          But Sir, what is so wrong with being an enemy of the state and being locked up for the truth, if it is God’s will? If it is a question of faith? What has changed? Is it now a question of obeying God or obeying Government? Your posturing seems to change every week…God’s will to stay open when Pope say you must close. Not God’s will when Boris say you must close.

          Are you willing to be infected, would you go today if the Church was open and risk killing your family and testing God…of course you would not do so. So you cannot blame the V2 Church for making a good call early to save lives, which was proved 100% correct.

          We cannot say the modernist Bishops are wrong to close Churches and then we do it too, we cannot say the Liberal Church are wrong to ask for financial help and then we do it.

          It is very silly and just look like real bitterness towards anything the modernist Church does ever. You are also very wrong about the worship of God not happening for long periods.

          Churches being forced to close and worship being forbidden or stopped during plague or persecution. Many times, from the destruction of the temple, to Nero’s persecution, Henry VIII, Jacobins, Bismarck, Stalin, Edo Period…this did not mean God abandoned us.

          We see every kind of crackpot conspiracy posted on here from Black Mass in the Whitehouse to QAnon pizzagate insanity but never will anyone ever say the Novus Ordo Church make right decision…just once.

          Our Lady of Fatima pray for us

          • Pablo,

            You appear to be a mischevious person. I’ve already answered your criticism about “Caesar” so you are clearly taking the wholly uncharitable route of not accepting me at my word.

            When we criticised the (at that time) unnecessary closure of churches, because there was no instruction from the Government here to do so, we said that if such a law came about for genuine public health reasons, we would be obliged to obey, based on Our Lord’s command to “give unto Caesar”. Thus, we are not taking our lead from the Scottish hierarchy, we are accepting the temporary restrictions placed on our churches by the Government. So, why should we tell a lie by saying we are taking our lead from the local diocese? Do you want us to lie?

            I’ve never seen any mention of a Black Mass at the White House on this blog, or anywhere else, for that matter, but if you can direct me to it, I’ll check it out. Usually, when we have trolls like you visiting us and making such claims, there’s either no truth whatsoever (in which case they just ignore the request for evidence) or it’s something taken out of context.

            Your posts will remain in moderation – you won’t be released as a new blogger because it seems clear to me that you are here looking for a fight and while I just love a fight, I’m taking full advantage of the lockdown to do some catch-up with house work and organising the Catholic Truth office, thus not a lot of energy and time left for fighting with trolls. So, how can I put it – if you don’t like us, which you clearly do not, blog elsewhere or don’t blog at all. The 11th Commandment is not “Thou shalt blog” – it’s “Thou shalt always be reasonable and polite when you blog over at Catholic Truth.” They say that has always been the longest Commandment.

            And, by the way, before you take offence, I’m not arguing – I’m just explaining why I’m right 😀

          • Pablo Mendoza

            Please do not confuse just anger with “real bitterness”, as you put it. The SSPX was forced to shut its chapels down by law, the Modernist bishops shut the mainstream chapels down by choice. If you can’t see the difference between the two, the worthiness of one for stipends and the other for upbraiding, then I’m afraid you’re not looking at this from a supernatural point of view at all.

            • [Editor removed nasty personal remark]… thousands of people are dying, it matters not when the Bishops called for the closure. [Editor: I believe 33 people have died in Scotland, at this point in time, not thousands]

              Supernatural? If you feel that to have Mass right now is to do with being faithful and ‘supernatural’ things, then please go right ahead but of course you will not because you know it would be irresponsible.

              The Bishops simply did the right thing a few days early, proved to be totally the correct call, may have saved lives while you were still having Mass. [Ed: in your opinion.]

              [Editor removed personal remark]… this is a serious situation. It’s time to put aside bickering and point scoring.

              Editor: I’ve highlighted your closing sentence because it is just priceless; talk about the pot calling the kettle black! I’m awaiting your response to my reply to your “Black Mass” complaint [see below] and if it is in the usual vein, you’ll be blacklisted, so take care. I’m not going to put myself through the penance of reading your daft posts in moderation forever, Lent or no Lent. And note: it’s a strict House Rule that bloggers do not name-call. But I’m the Administrator, so I get to say “your daft posts”… And more…

              • Pablo

                The Miraculous Medal, when first issued in France and worn by the people, cured thousands of the Cholera epidemic then sweeping the nation and saved many more thousands from catching it.

                If that’s what a sacramental can do, imagine what the Mass can do for those who have faith and trust in God. Of course worldlings don’t believe in God’s Almighty power, they prefer to think they can beat off epidemics and pandemics by their own methods, including shutting chapels. How blind these people really are!

          • Pablo,

            Although you have ignored my request to direct me to the comment about the “Black Mass in the White House”, one of our readers did so. He emailed to tell me that “Faith of our Fathers” had made the claim on the “Praying in the White House” thread. I have, therefore, now gone to that comment and edited parts of it, including the reference to the “Black Mass”.

            It would, however, be helpful if those making such criticisms would document them by giving the location of any offensive remarks. I do try to keep an eye on posts to check that the House Rules are being kept but some do, as in this case, slip through the net.

            If I may add, you are absolutely wrong to say that we never give credit where due to (what you wrongly describe as) the Novus Ordo Church. There is only one Church. It happens that the churchmen at the top of the Church have gone astray but that doesn’t mean they are in a different Church. And we have, indeed, given credit where due, more than once to the diocesan clergy. For example, we ran an entire supportive thread not all that long ago, when a priest of the Archdiocese of Glasgow was sacked from his post as chaplain in a Scottish university because he advertised a prayer event in reparation for the “Gay Pride” March. There are other examples, but that will serve the purpose.

            Try not to hate us so much and you might find that you actually enjoy debating here. Troll-like behaviour is very wearing for us all. We like genuine debates but not the feeling that someone is out to “get” us…

            • Editor,

              I myself have been guilty of using the false label “Novus Ordo Church,” so I will be careful to avoid that from now on.

              Meanwhile, is that chocolate-flavored tobacco in your calabash pipe?

              • RCA Victor,

                It’s so easy to fall into that sort of language (and much worse 😀 ) since these top churchmen are actually doing their level best to create a new Church. I prefer to highlight the fact that they will never succeed, as Our Lord has promised.

                Chocolate-flavoured tobacco? Somehow I don’t think Sherlock would have thought of that…

  4. “Spiritual benefit” often comes in the form of suffering, which is a correction for our past offenses against His Majesty, and a means to detach us from worldly pursuits. I’ve heard it said that we are under a Divine Interdict in this situation; I’ve also heard that this cannot be a Divine chastisement, since it’s a sinister scheme of the New World Order to accelerate our enslavement.

    Well, Divine chastisement comes through human agents as well as through more obvious means like natural disasters. Vatican II comes to mind: Our Lord allowed the Church to be brought to her current shambles, using that evil Council as a blueprint, by Freemasons and Communists. Father Gruner was fond of quoting St. John Eudes’ warning that God’s worst chastisement was to send us corrupt shepherds, i.e. wolves in ecumenical clothing.

    Russia also comes to mind: the very first “error of Russia” was to reject the authority of the See of Peter. Could it not be speculated that the Iron Curtain of Communism fell upon that nation as a chastisement for their rejection?

    As I already said on another thread, there are a lot of theories about this “crisis” flying around the internet, and God only knows which ones have hit upon the truth. There are also theories, though fewer, about God’s involvement in all of this. I do think Bishop Schneider is correct – in fact, I think it holds true that our acceptance of any trial brings spiritual benefit – i.e. grace. That is a basic theme and teaching of the Catholic Faith.

    Meanwhile, stories are emerging about priests and even a Bishop (Strickland, in Texas) standing on busy corners or walking or driving through neighborhoods with monstrance held aloft, praying aloud and blessing passers-by. Many parishes have set up televised Masses. The SSPX has increased its Masses to enable greater space between those assisting at Mass. And there was the Consecration of Portugal and Spain yesterday to the Immaculate Heart – though I haven’t checked yet to see if any immediate results were reported on that.

    So it seems the supernatural spirit of the Church Militant still lives in some quarters…and in a very interesting way, this Interdict also eliminates certain sacrileges, like Communion in the hand/distributed by EMHCs….

    • RCA Victor,

      More and more, I am of the opinion that the warning that Russia would spread her errors, means precisely the errors of Communism; Russia was the first Communist state and just reflect for a moment on how quickly it has spread…
      https://www.theclassroom.com/areas-did-communism-spread-to-11729.html

      And now, we are reaping the whirlwind – thanks to the succession of popes who have failed to carry out God’s wish to have Russia – the first nation to publicly deny the very existence of God – consecrated to Him.

      Professional teachers would categorize these popes as “slow learners”.

      I would add and then some !

      • Editor,

        I agree that the errors of Russia referred to by Our Lady were the errors of Communism, but would you agree that Communism itself might be a chastisement for the error of schism?

        Here are some options:

        (a) I totally agree
        (b) I agree somewhat
        (c) I have no opinion
        (d) I strongly disagree
        (e) That RCAVictor is off his rocker…again…

        • RCA Victor,

          That’s an easy one… (e) ! Kidding!

          Seriously, you could be right, although if you think about it (again 😀 ) Our Lady asked for the consecration of Russia and promised the period of peace in the world as a consequence, which, had the consecration been carried out right away, would have resulted in the shortest ever chastisement in the history of the world, whereas schism would surely demand something more in the way of fire and brimstone. 😀

          I think, to be even more serious, 😀 that the chastisement is directed at the apostasy already with us, which Pope John Paul II called “silent” but which, as I am wont to say, is now screaming from the rooftops. It’s primarily a chastisement to purify the Church and restore orthodoxy and tradition. That’s the way the world will be restored to good order. Having said that, people think I’m a crackpot… Hard to believe I know but there you have it…

  5. I stand corrected about the SSPX, at least locally. Here is the Pastor’s letter to his flock, published yesterday:

    https://www.assumptionchurch.net/

    His letter includes this paragraph:

    “I would like to remind you in these trying times that although, prudence demands that we follow these dictates nonetheless, God is calling us to prayer and penance in a very special way. Even though, you are unable to attend Mass and receive Holy Communion sacramentally nonetheless, you are capable of uniting yourself to the Holy Masses being offered privately by the priests and in making a spiritual communion and finally even of visiting the Blessed Sacrament. Let us then renew our devotion to the Mass and the Sacraments all the more if we are unable to receive them as normal and offer this sacrifice to God in a supernatural spirit.”

    (He then links to the Pope’s letter on plenary indulgences.)

  6. Here is an update on the Consecration to the Immaculate Heart yesterday in Portugal and Spain. Amazingly, there were 22 other countries who joined in!

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/24-countries-consecrated-to-sacred-heart-of-jesus-as-world-battles-coronavirus

    (The Consecration was also to both the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart – I mistakenly posted before that it was only to the Immaculate Heart.)

    The list is very revealing: none of the “G7” or “G8,” or whatever they are called now, participated. Of the European nations, only Portugal, Spain, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Albania.

    Italy? France? Germany? Belgium? Netherlands? UK? United States? Canada? Australia? Ireland? Austria, etc.?

    Out to lunch.

    • RCA Victor,

      UK bishops “Out to lunch” – is anyone surprised?

      Of course, there was a consecration of Scotland a while back, so perhaps that would be the excuse not to participate in Portugal’s event, but this being a particular time of global suffering, I can’t see Our Lady objecting to a second consecration.

      Having said that, there’s only one consecration for which she asked and is still waiting. Do I really need to name it?

      Didn’t think so…

      • Editor,

        I didn’t know that Scotland had been consecrated – I looked it up and I see it was in July 2017. Did anyone notice any spiritual graces as a result?

        • RCA Victor,

          Only good news about a bishop who is widely regarded as being traditional-leaning apparently becoming even more traditional-leaning. One more consecration and he may appear on a Catholic Truth platform 😀

  7. This made me laugh – and I couldn’t help thinking she’d be a great Catholic Truth activist… Even at 6 !
    Imagine her insisting that the government lift the restrictions on Mass attendance ! Substitute “church” for “pub” and you’ll get the idea !

      • I laughed as well – that is so funny! I assume the red marks on her cheek means she’s been playing with her mother’s make-up! She’s definitely a character. We all need some cheering up at this time, and the videos on here have made me laugh – apart from the edifying ones, of course!

        One thing that hasn’t made me laugh is that so few of my relatives and so-called friends have contacted me to see if I’m even alive during this crisis. There are a couple that I keep feeling guilty about because I’ve not contacted them, but they have made it plain to me in the past that they really want to draw a line under our so-called friendship, so I’m afraid it’ll only annoy them if I phone. I was told once that I have a very active conscience, so maybe that’s why. It’s not that I particularly want their friendship, but I hate to think of them worried about all this stuff and I don’t show an interest. That’s how I think they would interpret it. I am praying for them, but curious to know if other bloggers think I’m being selfish or petty by not just picking up the phone.

        • Lily,

          This might be a good time to reach out to estranged relatives and friends. If your conscience is bothering you then I would take that as a sign to do something. You can’t lose, you’d be doing an act of kindness and if it’s rejected then that is their problem, not yours.

        • Lily,

          I agree with Josephine, but there is a less personal way of contacting them, if you are able – what about email?

        • Lily

          When someone tells you that they don’t want your friendship then the best thing to do is keep a distance and simply pray for them, it would do no good at all to phone or write.

          You clearly are a kind person to continue to think about people who have rejected your friendship, that’s to your merit. On the other side of the coin, though, and I say this for all of us, we sometimes worry too much about what people think of us rather than what God thinks of us. Vanity and human respect often creep into our reasoning and it disturbs our peace of soul and mind.

          For my part, I have learned over the years to say and do what I believe to be right before God, regardless of what people think. That’s not to say I don’t care about people’s feelings, I do. What I mean is that I try to focus on the supernatural elelment of what I say and do rather than the human element, if you know what I mean. It’s God’s perception of me that counts ultimately, not people’s perception.

          That having been said, I have many times been over zealous in my perceived duty and consequently overstepped the mark in my words and/or actions. If only we could rid ourselves of pride! That darn vice is always there to taint so many otherwise good thoughts and deeds.

          Anyway, my advice in your conscience query would be to simply pray for these people and leave all to God. There are times when our human interventions only end up being counter productive. I suspect in the case of the people you speak of this might be one of them.

        • Lily,

          I’m afraid I agree with Athanasius on this. Without knowing the details of your estrangement, I would say that if, by this stage in the lockdown, you’ve not heard from those relatives and friends, I’d pray for them but not waste my time casting pearls…

          And in any case, here’s a thought… 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀

    • Wendy Walker,

      I don’t know about that claimed vision but I am impressed with the priest in the helicopter holding a statue of Our Lady and blessing the city. That’s wonderful. It’s ironic that it’s in Argentina too, very sad that the worst pope ever hails from there.

  8. RCA Victor,

    No prizes for guessing the identity of the member of the hierarchy to whom you refer. His very public association with Mr McCarrick is a matter of record. Sadly. .

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: