Is ‘The Dictator Pope’ Sex-Obsessed?

Extracts below, from report on Lifesitenews, which we recommend you read in full here

June 6, 2018 (One Peter Five) – It is a story that reads like a passage from The Dictator Pope: Pope Francis recently accepted the age-related resignation of Héctor Aguer, the Archbishop of La Plata, Argentina – the capital city of the Buenos Aires province – and will replace him with his close confidant and ghostwriter, Archbishop Víctor Manuel “Tucho” Fernández. Not only did the pope accept the resignation of Archbishop Aguer within just a few days of its mandatory submission, he also ordered him, through the nunciature, to immediately leave the diocese and not to remain there for his retirement…

This stern method of operation reveals, in the eyes of the writer of the Wanderer post, an “unveiled revenge and manifestation of the lack not only of Christian but also human virtues, and even of the most elemental chivalry” as it is shown by Pope Francis. The article continues, saying that Mons. Aguer “had a good reputation and he was appreciated by most of the Argentine faithful, as well, because of the clarity with which he said things and because of his courage in defending the Gospel.” Moreover, he was especially clear with regard to the problem of abortion. (See here a CNA report which shows his impressive language and resistance in 2007.) In fact, even his final homily on June 2nd was dedicated in large part to admonishing those considering voting in support of legalization of elective abortion in Argentina later this month. Only at the very end of his sermon did he reveal that the Holy See had informed him this Corpus Christi homily was to be his “farewell” to the people he had served for so long.

“Heal Me With Your Mouth – The Art of Kissing” is a book that was authored by the new Archbishop of La Plata, Argentina: Víctor Manuel Fernández in 1995.  

The report from the Wanderer continues: “In the midst of the debate over abortion, Aguer’s voice had been particularly clear, and Catholics who are fighting a good battle found true leadership in him.” In a piercing conclusion, the author wonders if this “silver bullet” – removing Archbishop Aguer only to replace him with a direct agent of the Bergoglian “reform” who will undo much of his predecessor’s work – will backfire on Francis himself: “To remove him in such a humiliating way will cause many of those faithful to wind up understanding who Bergoglio really is.”

Subsequently, the Wanderer blog presents much about the background of Archbishop Fernández and his personal history in Argentina, based on eyewitness accounts. The author alleges that Fernández is known for being a careerist willing to advance his own position at the expense of his peers. Most importantly, the blog says that Fernández has a large influence over Pope Francis’ teaching, to include his Apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia. Sandro Magister’s work exposing that several passages of AL are essentially plagiarisms of Fernández’ own earlier writings are referenced on this point.

Not mentioned – but very significant to this story – is the fact that these writings of Fernández that were later transformed, in part, into Amoris Laetitia, were the same ones that got him in trouble with the conservative Argentinian bishops in the first place. As Sandro Magister reported in May of 2016, “they actually gave cause to the Congregation for Catholic Education to block his candidacy for the position of rector of the Universidad Católica Argentina.”

It is with this understanding that one can begin to see why suspicions of revenge are on the lips of some Argentinian Catholics. The cleric who was opposed for his unorthodox positions has not only seen them included in the seminal work of a pope – but has now been promoted and placed by that same pope in the position of one of his most noteworthy opponents.

Also highlighted by the Wanderer is Fernández’ 1995 book, Heal Me With Your Mouth – The Art of Kissing, a text well-known to critics of Fernández. Perhaps even more shockingly, the blog quotes from an article written by Fernández shortly after the papal election of Bergoglio, in which, while seeking to defend the new pope, Fernández uses vulgar phrases such as “let’s not f*** [around]” (“No jodamos”) and “sh**,” saying, for example, that “Bergoglio did not sh** anyone” (“Bergoglio no cagó a nadie”). [We are sorry to have to use such words here, but they are very revealing of the mind and recklessness of this prelate who was made an archbishop only two months after Bergoglio became a pope.] This was Fernández’ attempt at painting a sympathetic portrait of Bergoglio, saying that with him there is now a chance “to bring Christ back into the center of the Church.”  End of Extracts – Read entire report here

Comment:

Hardly surprising that Pope Francis didn’t bother to issue a statement exhorting Catholics to vote NO in the recent abortion referendum in Ireland, when he makes short work of an archbishop who “was especially clear with regard to the problem of abortion.”  We’ve never been convinced by Francis ramblings about “mercy” –  he’s anything but merciful in his treatment of those he clearly considers to be enemies. And that’s where mercy counts.  To rub salt in the wound, he appoints as Aguer’s successor, the author of a book on “Kissing” – what kind of Pope would DO that? A pope more in the mould of sex addict Bill Clinton than Saint Pius X?   

Cardinal Keith Patrick O’Brien RIP

Cardinal Keith Patrick O’Brien

From Scottish Catholic Media Office – press release…

His Eminence Archbishop Vincent Cardinal Nichols of Westminster used his homily during the Requiem Mass for the Cardinal Keith Patrick O’Brien RIP (1938-2018) to urge those present to pray for the repose of his soul and also for those he offended during his life…

The Requiem Mass was held at 1pm at St Michael’s Church in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, just yards from the home for the elderly where Cardinal O’Brien resided until recently. The 80-year-old cleric died on 19 March at the Royal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle. The subsequent funeral arrangements were drawn up between the executor of his will, the O’Brien family and the Holy See as represented by Cardinal Nichols. Cardinal O’Brien will be buried at Mount Vernon Cemetery, Edinburgh, on Friday 6 April where he will be laid to rest with his mother and father. Cardinal Nichol’s homily is reproduced in full below:

Homily of Cardinal Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster
(Catholic Truth Editorial comment in bold)

There is a truth, deep in our Catholic tradition, often forgotten in our days, yet very relevant to this moment. It is this: that every funeral Mass is above all else a prayer for God’s mercy for the one who has died.  So often services after a death are seen to be a time for celebrating a life, for recognising the great achievements of a life now ended and for treasuring happy memories. Yet the emphasis of our tradition is somewhat different. Always, we gather to ask God’s mercy for the one who has died, today for Cardinal Keith O’Brien. We do so with trust and love, knowing that God’s promise of mercy is enduring and that our prayers, entering into the presence of the Father through, with and in Jesus, the beloved Son, will be heard.
[Ed: well, that’s a first. First in the long time that that, elementary Catholicism, has been said at any funeral, to best of my knowledge, since the onset of the modernist take-over of the Church. Alleluia! Difficult to explain, really, though, because we’ve “celebrated the life” of those who have committed suicide, who have cohabited, lived in same-sex partnerships – interesting that the life of Cardinal O’Brien has been singled out as one requiring the ancient tradition of praying for the salvation of the soul. Very interesting. A cynic might wonder about this.]

In recent days, the life of Cardinal Keith has been laid bare. We all know its lights and its darkness; we need not spend time talking about them even more for he has given us the key words. In his last will and testament he wrote: ‘I ask forgiveness of all I have offended in this life. I thank God for the many graces and blessings he has given me especially the Sacrament of Holy Orders.’ Today, as we prayer for the repose of his soul, we also pray for all those he offended and ask God to strengthen them at this time.

Cardinal Vincent Nichols

In seeking the mercy of God, Cardinal Keith follows in the footsteps laid out for us in our faith. St Patrick, whose name Keith Patrick O’Brien was proud to bear, wrote in his Confessions these words:

‘It is with fear and trembling that I should be awaiting the verdict that’s coming to me on that (judgement) day, when none of us can go absent or run for cover; and when every last one of us will have to answer for even our smallest sins at the court of Christ the Lord.’ (8) This is, indeed, the pathway we all have to trace.
Pondering on the mercy of God is what we should do today. You will recall the Year of Mercy. During it, Pope Francis encouraged us to ‘rediscover the infinite mercy of the Father who welcomes everyone and goes out personally to encounter each of them.’ The Pope also explained to us that ‘Jesus Christ is the face of the Father’s mercy’, adding, ‘Jesus of Nazareth, by his words, his actions, and his entire person reveals the mercy of God.’

Now this is what we have heard in this morning’s Gospel passage taken from St Luke. The two disciples are making their sad journey away from Jerusalem, a name that [is] used to represent the Church, the presence of God among His people. The two disciples, then, are walking away from the Church, disappointed in all their hopes, disillusioned by what they have seen and heard. But, see what the Risen Jesus does: he goes to walk with them, continuing their journey in the direction that they are going, away from Jerusalem. He does [not] simply tell them to turn back. No, he walks with them. He accompanies them. He listens fully to their dismay and their sense of being let down. Only gradually does he invite them to see beyond that dismay and begin to speak to their hearts. Even when he sits at table, he does not tell them to return to Jerusalem. He simply shows himself to them. The decision to return is one that they make, moved by the compassion they have found in him.
[Ed: this is a misinterpretation of the Gospel, whether mischevious or not one can only guess, to fit the new “theology of accompaniment”, but even a cursory examination of the passage shows that it doesn’t work, Cardinal Nichols, take note. For one thing, the two disciples were NOT “walking away from the Church” because they were guilty of no public sin – they were merely pondering the events surrounding the Passion and Death of Christ, downcast, at his death. It is preposterous to suggest that Christ would walk in the same direction – i.e.  actively tolerate sin – without “telling them to turn back from sin”. Indeed, as they recounted the story of the events in Jerusalem, Christ rebuked the pair:  “Oh, how foolish you are! How slow of heart to believe all that the prophets spoke!”   You left that bit out, Cardinal Nichols!
The tortuous attempt by Cardinal Nichols to link this Gospel account with the heresy in Amoris Laetitia  is underlined by the claim that “Even when he sits at table, he does not tell them to return to Jerusalem. He simply shows himself to them.” The implication is clear: Holy Communion for public sinners, adulterers et al, no problem. That’s what Our Lord did/would do.  Outrageous. And this is supposed to help the deceased Cardinal O’Brien … how?  Leaving his family and friends thinking that, well, he’s met with the God of Mercy, so let’s not worry about satisfying God’s justice?] 

In this account, we see the mercy of God at work, in the person of Jesus, coming to us in our dismay, in the prison of sin which we construct around ourselves, and opening for us to door through which we can retrace our steps back to him.
[Ed: well, as already said, there is no “sin” in this passage, just human disappointment.]

In the life of Cardinal O’Brien, as well as his failings, there was goodness, courage and many acts of simple kindness. Not least was his determination to serve the poor of the world. But when we come to stand before God we do so best when we come empty-handed. No matter how great or slight our achievements might be, we cannot depend on them. No, we come before God empty-handed so that we can receive the one thing necessary: a full measure of Gods’ mercy.

Only in this way can we hope to enter into the promise that was proclaimed in the first Reading of the Mass. ‘On this mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all people a feast of rich food! A feast of well-aged wines, strained clear.’ This is an image we can all understand and one for which we long, notwithstanding our unworthiness.

But then we are consoled with the next words: ‘Then the Lord God will wipe away the tears from all faces and the disgrace of his people.’ This too is the promise of the Lord. The healing of the wounds we have inflicted and the wounds we ourselves bear, is his work. It is a work that cannot be accomplished without Him. Yet as His work, it is a task in which we are to be his active servants and never simply sit on our hands. The promise of the heavenly banquet is for all; the task of healing and finding forgiveness is also for all.
[Ed: The heavenly banquet for most of us will, more likely than not, follow a period in Purgatory.  Why not mention that?  There’s no better time to drive home the four last things, Death, Judgment, Heaven & Hell, those key truths of the Faith, than at a funeral, any funeral. A reminder that Purgatory is evidence of God’s great mercy, gives hope to the faithful and to family members of the deceased, not least in a case such as that of the much publicised disgrace of Cardinal O’Brien. ]

I started with words from the Confession of St Patrick. So let me end with some more. Here is St Patrick’s faith, loud and clear. Let us make it ours today. He wrote:

‘I haven’t a doubt in the world that, on the day appointed, we shall rise up again in the brightness of the sun; that is to say in the glory of Jesus Christ Our Redeemer…since it is from him and through him and in him that we are going to reign. But the sun he bids to rise, morning by morning, for our benefit, will never reign, nor will its glory last. Christ is the true sun whose glory shall not fade. We who believe in him, and worship him – in fact anyone who does his will – shall live forever, because Christ lives forever, reigning with God the Father Almighty and with the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be. Amen.’ (59-60)

This is our prayer today, especially for Cardinal Keith Patrick O’Brien. May his soul and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen
+Vincent Nichols

Comments invited…

Marriage & Modernist Double-Speak…

Extracts below from Catholic Herald article entitled: Cardinal lays out plan for parishes to implement Amoris Laetitia

Cardinal Donald Wuerl has issued a broad and detailed pastoral plan for parishes to implement Pope Francis’s post-synodal apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia (“The Joy of Love”).

“Amoris Laetitia is a call to compassionate accompaniment in helping all to experience Christ’s love and mercy,” the Archbishop of Washington said in the 58-page pastoral plan.

The plan, “Sharing in the Joy of Love in Marriage and Family,” was posted on the archdiocesan website late on March 3. Cardinal Wuerl planned to officially introduce the document to the archdiocese with a Mass on March 4 at the Cathedral of St Matthew the Apostle…

“Some may ask, ‘Is the teaching [on marriage] always binding?’ The answer of course is yes,” he continued. “Yet Amoris Laetitia invites us to adopt a complementary perspective and to look with a parental attitude at those families who find themselves in a position where they struggle to even understand, let alone embrace fully, the teaching because of the concrete circumstances in which they live.”

Cardinal Wuerl said his pastoral plan is “directed to parishes, priests, religious and laity” and is meant “to encourage reflection” on:

• “The richness of the Church’s perennial teaching on love, marriage, family, faith and mercy.”
• “The essential aspect of pastoral ministry, called accompaniment.”
• “Several significant themes such as the new evangelisation, the role of conscience, and the privileged place of the parish where we find and experience Christ’s way of living and loving.”  Read entire article here

Comment: 

So, “yes” Christ’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage is always binding, but here’s how to get round it… is essentially what the Cardinal is saying in typical modernist double speak. After all, a competent teacher,  confronted by a student who “struggles to even understand, let alone embrace fully” a subject  puts his/her mind and skill to working out ways to explain the subject more fully, more clearly, but doesn’t change the truth to make it more palatable.  2 + 2 will never make 5, no matter how much the student (and exasperated teacher) wishes it were so. 

Check out the bullet points – closely. Notice one of the “significant themes” is the role of conscience… Code for the heresy of “your choice,  your decision”, objective truth, objective morality does not exist but even if they do, well, rules are there to be broken, as the old saying goes. However it’s dressed up, and whatever the motivation, Amoris Laetitia (AL) is all about breaking the rules.

Still,  Cardinal Wuerl is a bit behind the AL times.  Here in the Archdiocese of Glasgow, we had retreats for priests and teachers almost as AL was rolling off the press, so chop-chop over there in the USA – we’re well ahead of you on this…

Disastrous Pontificate Persists – Yet No Sense of Urgency From “Opponents”…

Me? Damaging the Church? No way!

A friend rang me last night to say he’d attended a Summorum Pontificum Traditional Mass and found himself chatting afterwards with a couple who were not husband and wife, but “partners” …   My friend was downhearted, dispirited that even the better priests seem to be willing to tolerate such scandals. 

Then this from The American Conservative “The president of the German Bishops’ Conference has declared that, in his view, Catholic priests can conduct blessing ceremonies for homosexual couples.”

The list of scandalous words and actions from this current shocking pope, or tolerated by him, grows day and daily. Too much to list here – and anyway, would, more likely than not, be out of date before I press the “publish” button on this page. 

There is no lack of evidence that Pope Francis is a danger to Catholic Faith and Morals.  Quite the reverse – there’s an abundance of evidence. Even as I type this, a report has come in questioning the pope’s integrity – would he blatantly impart falsehoods, we have to ask? Click here to answer that for yourself. 

The question is, why are the supposedly concerned bishops who allegedly oppose him remaining silent – such as Cardinal Burke and the Captain and Crew of the Lifeboat SSPX?  Why no sense of urgency? Why have they all gone to ground? 

It’s one thing to pick one’s fights, but not to fight at all?  Take a few minutes to view the short video in the News section of the Dici website here.  Who, on this earth, would ever imagine that the Church is suffering the worst crisis ever in its entire history, watching that broadcast?  Lovely reports, sure, but there’s been nothing about any attempt to fight as members of the Church Militant, under our banner as Soldiers of Christ,  in any of the recent videos posted on Dici  in January, which I’ve viewed with surprise and disappointment.  This latest one, linked above, dated 2nd February, is no different. Plenty of devotional content, suggesting the danger of becoming so heavenly minded that we’re no earthly use.  

What should the supposed opponents of this dreadful pontificate be doing, in addition to prayer. Concrete action, surely – but what, precisely? 

Comments invited… 

2018: The Year of Formal Schism?

THE REMNANT UNDERGROUND: Headed up by Bishop Athanasius Schneider and two other Archbishops from Kazakhstan, a total of 6 bishops and 1 cardinal have now signed a statement of opposition to the pope-approved interpretations of Amoris Laetitia that non-repentant public adulterers can return to the sacramental life of the Church. This is revolution and counterrevolution in a Catholic Church in total crisis. Plus, looking ahead to October’s Synod of Young People in Rome—will the Church deep six Humanae Vitae? Will the Vatican give the green light to so-called ‘gay unions’? Finally, an old Jimmy Stewart movie, “Call Northside 777”, includes a sobering reminder of what it used to mean to be Catholic–something Pope Francis would do well to consider.

Comments invited… 

Pater Noster: Lord’s Prayer, Not Pope’s…

Somebody forgot to say this prayer!

 

From the Editor, Catholic Truth…

When the news broke of Pope Francis’ criticism of the “Our Father”, I dismissed it as a blog topic, certain that nobody in their right mind would give it a second thought, let alone take it seriously enough to change this ancient prayer. I forgot about the Scottish Bishops.  Alerted to the incredible news that the Bishop of Paisley, (John-wasn’t-Martin-Luther-a great-guy-Keenan), and  former Bishop of Galloway, (the notorious Maurice-I’m-proud-of-my-part-in-creating-the-awful-liturgical-texts-for-new-Mass-Taylor), are sympathetic to the possibility of changing the Lord’s Prayer to suit Pope Francis’ latest shocking whim,  and might thus seek to influence the rest of the Bishops, I decided to launch this thread.  Me? I’ll say this latest “new” prayer, like, never. What about you?  Click here to check out the “cautious welcome” given to the Pope’s proposal to change the Pater Noster by these two outright modernists,  and then read the excellent commentary from the Fatima Center (Canada) website below. 

From the Fatima Center Staff: And Lead Us Not Into Stupidity…

How obtuse and inattentive have been the custodians of the Faith these past two thousand years! We and our ancestors have apparently been permitted, even enjoined, to recite the Our Father in an inaccurate and misleading way. Resonating through the corridors of time, from the first century until our own, are the words, “lead us not into temptation.” (ne nos inducas in tentationem — in the Latin Vulgate)
At last, however, in this year of Our Lord 2017, we have a Pope who is prepared to lead us out of the traditional Lord’s Prayer and into a new and improved version that will save us from the misunderstanding we have presumably labored under through the millenia.

Just what is this misunderstanding that requires correction? It is, according to Pope Francis, the idea that God tempts us to sin. “A father doesn’t do that,” the Pope said in a recent television interview. “He helps you get up right away. What induces into temptation is Satan.”

Did we not know this already? Does it require the Pope’s critique of an ancient translation to enlighten us in the matter? All authorities agree that the traditional translation from the New Testament Greek is accurate, and it has never posed a problem — until now.

But does it really pose a problem at all?

We have all prayed the Our Father countless times and repeated the words “lead us not into temptation” with the clear knowledge that we are asking Our Lord to save us from falling into sin. We have prayed these words with the understanding that we are asking for the grace to help us resist the lies of satan, and the attractions of the world and the flesh that are laid before us and that tempt us to forget we have an immortal soul and an eternal destiny.

Have any of us actually thought that God wants us to sin? That Our Lord is trying to induce us to transgress His laws and harm our souls so that He may damn us? How absurd! Yet, Francis is admittedly worried that such may be the case. How ought we to respond to the Pope’s desire to change the words of the Our Father?

We are forced, by common sense, to doubt the genuine nature of Francis’ expressed concerns. It cannot be that a Vicar of Christ, a highly educated Jesuit, really believes that the words of the Our Father have been misinterpreted for two thousand years and that a corrective is needed at this particular time. To take the Pope’s words at face value we must impugn either his intelligence or our own. Francis is not a stupid man, and Catholics are not so doctrinally benighted as he seemingly fears.

So what is this new commotion regarding possible changes to the Our Father really about?

Many things were changed following Vatican II: liturgy, discipline, customs, catechesis, prayers. Many of these changes appeared to be gratuitous, others gravely troubling. But the overall import of the changes was to unsettle the Catholic mind and heart. Once we accepted that anything and everything was subject to change, we were more likely to accept with acquiescence whatever novelties authority proposed. We simply got used to having the ground shift beneath our feet with such frequency that we no longer minded the large and little earthquakes that shook the Church.

All of these changes were merely cosmetic, we were told: an updating of language and discipline to keep pace with the times. Nothing of substance was being lost, we were re-assured time and again. But imagine someone cut off from the Church, say from 1960 until the present. Would he recognize as Catholic anything that he might see going on today in his parish? Would he not be dumbfounded by the words of the post-conciliar popes? Would he not regard Pope Francis as incomprehensible and outrageous? Would he not, like Mary Magdalene at the tomb, say in pain and confusion, “What have they done with my Church?”

What would he make of the vernacular Mass, the changed words of the Consecration, lay men and women distributing the Blessed Sacrament, people receiving Holy Communion in their hands or drinking the Precious Blood from the Chalice? What would he make of the typical Novus Ordo funeral Mass, which is now a falsely jolly ceremony of canonization? What would he make of Amoris Laetitia? Of the pedophile scandals among the clergy? What would he think of a notorious homosexual prelate being placed in charge of the papal residence and serving as the papal representative to the corrupt Vatican bank? What would he make of Pope Benedict’s resignation? We could go on. But we all know how vast and deep have been the so-called reforms that followed the Second Vatican Council. The Church is hardly recognizable from what it was a half-century ago and from what it has been throughout the ages.

And there is no end in sight for the “updating” that is deemed so necessary to keep the Church relevant to the modern world. Now, we are told that the Our Father may need to be updated, too. France has taken the lead and its bishops have already changed the phrase the Pope finds theologically troubling. “Ne nous laisse pas entrer en tentation” (do not let us give in to temptation) has already been adopted. So, the Pope can rest easy that at least the Catholics of France, or the diminishing remains of them, will not be misled.

As for the rest of us, we are apparently still in need of further instruction and the habits of a lifetime may have to be broken, for our own good, presumably. But does any of this nonsense about the words of the Our Father have to do with genuine pastoral concern? Is the Holy Father really worried that spiritual harm will befall us unless he intervenes to change the custom that has persisted for two millennia? It may be doubted, to put it politely.

Even the most mild and conciliatory of Catholic commentators are clearing their collective throats about this latest of the Pope’s initiatives. “Pope Francis has made a habit of throwing things into confusion, and this is one of them. It just makes you wonder, where does it stop, what’s up for grabs. It’s cumulative unease.” So says Philip Lawler, editor of Catholic World News and a compliant apologist for any number of post-conciliar novelties. Perhaps, if Mr. Lawler and others had not allowed their unease to accumulate but had addressed it immediately, we would not be faced with the present absurdity, which even they feel compelled to address, albeit in their restrained and ineffectual way.

The Protestant world, however, is not so restrained. According to a report in the New York Times, R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said he was “shocked and appalled” by the Pope’s remarks. “This is the Lord’s Prayer. It is not, and has never been, the Pope’s prayer…”

But Southern Baptists probably fall within the spectrum of those fundamentalists for whom the Pope has repeatedly expressed his disdain, so he is unlikely to be deterred by his otherwise keen ecumenical sensitivities. Still, Mohler’s remarks are refreshing in their frankness when set beside the timid reservations of Lawler’s “cumulative unease.”
During her final years, Sister Lucy said that we must take the initiative in prayer and penance and not look to those in authority to lead us in these things. Those who have seen the full Third Secret, such as Cardinal Ciappi, have told us that apostasy in the Church will begin “at the top.” Has it not begun? All we can do is follow Sister Lucy’s advice. And when we pray, let us pray the words of Our Lord, “lead us not into temptation.”  Source – Fatima Center Staff

Comment:

Well – will YOU ever say the new Our Father?  Even if you are attending the new Mass, praying the new rosary, reading the new catechism, accepting the new morality, supporting the new canonisations, new everything.  Will you draw the line at this outrageous change?  Or do you agree that Christians have been idiots for two thousand years and didn’t understand the meaning of this simple prayer  – thus, now we need to grow up and get with the papal programme, which appears to be to leave nothing, absolutely nothing unchanged. Let’s hear it…