Protestant Attends Mass While Catholics Watch Online – Legacy of Lockdown …

Comment: 

There’s no mistaking the sincerity of the young Protestant Evangelical in the above video.  He very accurately summarises the differences between the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) and the novus ordo (NO). 

One mistake which he makes – a very common mistake – is to think that “the Church” is not “one”.   He misunderstands the difference between the break-up of Christendom thanks to Martin Luther et al, who left the Church, with the Church itself upon which Christ bequeathed unity from the beginning: “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” (John 17:21)  Here Christ was bestowing unity on His Church – it was not some future goal. 

However, this is, as I say, a very common misconception.  Catholics make the same mistake, so we have to cut the young man some slack on this. 

Where there is absolutely NO slack to be cut, is for those Catholics who have not returned to attending Mass since the disgraceful Government ban was lifted, but are choosing instead to stay at home and watch Mass online.  I’d heard concerns expressed that this would happen and I could see the temptation but it didn’t occur to me for a second that any Catholic accustomed to attending the TLM would fall prey to such temptation.   I’ve now heard of at least three such cases – and I remain incredulous. 

Watching Mass online does not fulfil the Sunday Mass obligation.  The notices and announcements in churches at the time of the lockdown stated clearly that “there is a temporary dispensation from the Sunday obligation” – that is, the obligation was temporarily lifted [due to the Government ban].  That ban is no longer in place.  Neither is the dispensation from attending Mass in person.  We are once again obliged to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation. 

So, what does this readiness to skip Mass for the comfort of watching it online tell us?  Well, with this willingness to miss Mass,  remember, is a willingness to live without the benefit of the Sacraments – no confession, no absolution, no Holy Communion.  What kind of Catholic life is that?  Answer:  it’s not.  

If you have any thoughts on this phenomenon please share them in the comments below, but do not name names.  Suffice that we try to work out what is  going on here – are these “Lockdown Legacy Catholics” staying away from church out of a [human but faithless] fear of “the virus”, or is the virus merely an excuse to re-structure life in such a way that God’s law does not interfere too much with their secular lives? Were they always Catholics of weak Faith, or what…  What’s the mentality – I’m genuinely puzzled.  Over to thee…   

And don’t forget to pray for the young Protestant man in the video – he appears to be very open to the grace of God, so it would be wonderful if he were to embrace the gift of the Faith.  Our Lady,  Help of Christians, pray for him!   

Anti-Catholic US Democrats Oppose Trump’s (Catholic) Supreme Court Pick…

Comment: 

Just imagine, for a moment, the outcry if those anti-Catholic Democratic politicians had quizzed a Muslim, or the member of any other religion, in the way they put down Amy Coney Barrett due to her religious beliefs.  Just imagine the outcry in the media. What is it about Catholics, that we take such hatred “on the chin”?   

And why do Catholics in public office seek to allay the fears of our enemies by saying things to the effect that their religion won’t interfere with their professional obligations?  No point in being a Catholic at all, if that is the case. 

What else could Amy Coney Barrett have said in response to the question about her Faith and her work as a Judge? Perhaps point out that it could never be the case that true justice would be opposed to anything taught by Christ and His Catholic Church?  Words to that effect?  What, then?   

Vatican Prohibits Confession For Those Intending Euthanasia/Assisted Suicide…

The Vatican asks to clarify the cultural error at the root of euthanasia and assisted suicide, in other words, the concept of “dignified death” and so-called “compassion”.

It does so in this new document titled “The Good Samaritan.” It was published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The text is very positive. It states that every medical act must be aimed toward healing, never toward killing the patient. It says that a deterioration in a person’s health does not equal a loss of human dignity. It also promotes palliative cures.

The document also responds to practical problems hospital chaplains face.

For example, it says confession is valid when one repents of one’s sins. That’s why, it says, it is wrong to give the sacrament to people intending to use euthanasia or assisted suicide.

The document asks priests to offer spiritual help to patients who have asked for euthanasia, but not to be present in the final moment, as this could be interpreted as support for the decision.

It says that if a Catholic hospital practices euthanasia, it stops being Catholic.

++SEE COMPLETE DOCUMENT HERE. 

Rome Reports – For Entire Presentation Click Here

Comment:

Is the prohibition on Confession and absolution likely to cause those Catholics intent on ending their own life, to change his/her mind? 

Archbishop Viganò: Don’t Leave the Church – Stay and Fight the Modernists! 

This new statement is important, inasmuch as in recent days, both Father Thomas Weinandy, as well as Father Raymond de Souza, spread the suspicion that the Italian prelate might be “schismatic,” thus intending to leave the Catholic Church. This suspicion had arisen because of Viganò’s critique of the Second Vatican Council and its detrimental effects on the life of the faith in the Church. For example, de Souza’s article is entitled: “Is Archbishop Viganò’s Rejection of the Second Vatican Council Promoting Schism?” And Weinandy stated: “My concern is that, in his radical reading of the Council, the archbishop is spawning his own schism.”

In an August 22 article published by the traditional Catholic newspaper Catholic Family News, Kokx had asked Viganò a set of questions with regard to what faithful laity can do in the midst of this Church crisis that is going back to the Council. 

Kokx suggested Viganò needs to give more advice to laity and priests on what to do next: “He’s certainly diagnosed the problem, but what are his solutions, if any? What, in other words, is it that he believes Catholics in the 21st century should do in response to the crisis?”

Archbishop Viganò’s response as published on September 1 by Catholic Family News (see full text below) is clear: it is not the faithful Catholics who oppose the changing of the faith, but those who perpetrate these changes that ought to be questioned. He writes that we need to discuss “the position of those who, declaring themselves Catholic, embrace the heterodox doctrines that have spread over these decades, with the awareness that these represent a rupture with the preceding Magisterium. In this case it is licit to doubt their real adherence to the Catholic Church, in which however they hold official roles that confer authority on them.”

If people who hold heterodox views are in positions of authority in the Church, he continues, “It is an illicitly exercised authority, if its purpose is to force the faithful to accept the revolution imposed since the Council.”

In addition and on a practical level, the Italian prelate gives us advice on how to live and grow in the faith, working on our sanctification and remaining in the state of “sanctifying grace.” But at the same time, we are to assist and “comfort” good priests and bishops, seeking out reverent Masses. 

“Faithful laity have the right and the duty to find priests, communities, and institutes that are faithful to the perennial Magisterium,” Viganò explains. “And may they know how to accompany the laudable celebration of the liturgy in the Ancient Rite with adherence to sound doctrine and morals, without any subsidence on the front of the Council.”

Finally, Archbishop Viganò also praises the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), which has defended the traditional faith for decades now. They “deserve recognition” for their work of preserving the Catholic faith, he says, and adds that he considers Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of this Society, to be a “confessor of the Faith.”

Here we might remember that just recently, a cardinal stated that Lefebvre will one day be declared a “Doctor of the Church” and that he was “prophetic.”

Let us close with Viganò’s last words of his response to Kokx’s questions:

“The cure for rebellion is obedience. The cure for heresy is faithfulness to the teaching of Tradition. The cure for schism is filial devotion for the Sacred Pastors. The cure for apostasy is love for God and His Most Holy Mother. The cure for vice is the humble practice of virtue. The cure for the corruption of morals is to live constantly in the presence of God. But obedience cannot be perverted into stolid servility; respect for authority cannot be perverted into the obeisance of the court. And let’s not forget that if it is the duty of the laity to obey their Pastors, it is even a more grave duty of the Pastors to obey God, usque ad effusionem sanguinis.”

Below is the full statement by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, reprinted with permission:

Disclaimer: The following positions adopted and advice offered by Archbishop Viganò do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews and are presented only for your information.

Dear Mr. Kokx,

I read with lively interest your article “Questions for Viganò: His Excellency is Right about Vatican II, But What Does He Think Catholic Should Do Now?” which was published by Catholic Family News on August 22 (here). I am happy to respond to your questions, which address matters that are very important for the faithful.

You ask: “What would ‘separating’ from the Conciliar Church look like in Archbishop Viganò’s opinion?” I respond to you with another question: “What does it mean to separate from the Catholic Church according to the supporters of the Council?” While it is clear that no admixture is possible with those who propose adulterated doctrines of the conciliar ideological manifesto, it should be noted that the simple fact of being baptized and of being living members of the Church of Christ does not imply adherence to the conciliar team; this is true above all for the simple faithful and also for secular and regular clerics who, for various reasons, sincerely consider themselves Catholics and recognize the Hierarchy.

Instead, what needs to be clarified is the position of those who, declaring themselves Catholic, embrace the heterodox doctrines that have spread over these decades, with the awareness that these represent a rupture with the preceding Magisterium. In this case it is licit to doubt their real adherence to the Catholic Church, in which however they hold official roles that confer authority on them. It is an illicitly exercised authority, if its purpose is to force the faithful to accept the revolution imposed since the Council.

Once this point has been clarified, it is evident that it is not the traditional faithful – that is, true Catholics, in the words of Saint Pius X – that must abandon the Church in which they have the full right to remain and from which it would be unfortunate to separate; but rather the Modernists who usurp the Catholic name, precisely because it is only the bureaucratic element that permits them not to be considered on a par with any heretical sect. This claim of theirs serves in fact to prevent them from ending up among the hundreds of heretical movements that over the course of the centuries have believed to be able to reform the Church at their own pleasure, placing their pride ahead of humbly guarding the teaching of Our Lord. But just as it is not possible to claim citizenship in a homeland in which one does not know its language, law, faith and tradition; so it is impossible that those who do not share the faith, morals, liturgy, and discipline of the Catholic Church can arrogate to themselves the right to remain within her and even to ascend the levels of the hierarchy.

The situation is certainly more complex for clerics, who depend hierarchically on their bishop or religious superior, but who at the same time have the right to remain Catholic and be able to celebrate according to the Catholic Rite. On the one hand laity have more freedom of movement in choosing the community to which they turn for Mass, the Sacraments, and religious instruction, but less autonomy because of the fact that they still have to depend on a priest; on the other hand, clerics have less freedom of movement, since they are incardinated in a diocese or order and are subject to ecclesiastical authority, but they have more autonomy because of the fact that they can legitimately decide to celebrate the Mass and administer the Sacraments in the Tridentine Rite and to preach in conformity with sound doctrine. The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum reaffirmed that faithful and priests have the inalienable right – which cannot be denied – to avail themselves of the liturgy that more perfectly expresses their Catholic Faith. But this right must be used today not only and not so much to preserve the extraordinary form of the rite, but to testify to adherence to the depositum fidei that finds perfect correspondence only in the Ancient Rite.

I daily receive heartfelt letters from priests and religious who are marginalized or transferred or ostracized because of their fidelity to the Church: the temptation to find an ubi consistam [a place to stand] far from the clamor of the Innovators is strong, but we ought to take an example from the persecutions that many saints have undergone, including Saint Athanasius, who offers us a model of how to behave in the face of widespread heresy and persecuting fury. As my venerable brother Bishop Athanasius Schneider has many times recalled, the Arianism that afflicted the Church at the time of the Holy Doctor of Alexandria in Egypt was so widespread among the bishops that it leaves one almost to believe that Catholic orthodoxy had completely disappeared. But it was thanks to the fidelity and heroic testimony of the few bishops who remained faithful that the Church knew how to get back up again. Without this testimony, Arianism would not have been defeated; without our testimony today, Modernism and the globalist apostasy of this pontificate will not be defeated.

It is therefore not a question of working from within the Church or outside it: the winemakers are called to work in the Lord’s Vineyard, and it is there that they must remain even at the cost of their lives; the pastors are called to pastor the Lord’s Flock, to keep the ravenous wolves at bay and to drive away the mercenaries who are not concerned with the salvation of the sheep and lambs.

This hidden and often silent work has been carried out by the Society of Saint Pius X, which deserves recognition for not having allowed the flame of Tradition to be extinguished at a moment in which celebrating the ancient Mass was considered subversive and a reason for excommunication. Its priests have been a healthy thorn in the side for a hierarchy that has seen in them an unacceptable point of comparison for the faithful, a constant reproach for the betrayal committed against the people of God, an inadmissible alternative to the new conciliar path. And if their fidelity made disobedience to the pope inevitable with the episcopal consecrations, thanks to them the Society was able to protect herself from the furious attack of the Innovators and by its very existence it allowed the possibility of the liberalization of the Ancient Rite, which until then was prohibited. Its presence also allowed the contradictions and errors of the conciliar sect to emerge, always winking at heretics and idolaters but implacably rigid and intolerant towards Catholic Truth.

I consider Archbishop Lefebvre an exemplary confessor of the Faith, and I think that by now it is obvious that his denunciation of the Council and the modernist apostasy is more relevant than ever. It should not be forgotten that the persecution to which Archbishop Lefebvre was subjected by the Holy See and the world episcopate served above all as a deterrent for Catholics who were refractory toward the conciliar revolution.

I also agree with the observation of His Excellency Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais about the co-presence of two entities in Rome: the Church of Christ has been occupied and eclipsed by the modernist conciliar structure, which has established itself in the same hierarchy and uses the authority of its ministers to prevail over the Spouse of Christ and our Mother.

The Church of Christ – which not only subsists in the Catholic Church, but is exclusively the Catholic Church – is only obscured and eclipsed by a strange extravagant Church established in Rome, according to the vision of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich. It coexists, like wheat with the tare, in the Roman Curia, in dioceses, in parishes. We cannot judge our pastors for their intentions, nor suppose that all of them are corrupt in faith and morals; on the contrary, we can hope that many of them, hitherto intimidated and silent, will understand, as confusion and apostasy continue to spread, the deception to which they have been subjected and will finally shake off their slumber. There are many laity who are raising their voice; others will necessarily follow, together with good priests, certainly present in every diocese. This awakening of the Church militant – I would dare to call it almost a resurrection – is necessary, urgent and inevitable: no son tolerates his mother being outraged by the servants, or his father being tyrannized by the administrators of his goods. The Lord offers us, in these painful situations, the possibility of being His allies in fighting this holy battle under His banner: the King Who is victorious over error and death permits us to share the honor of triumphal victory and the eternal reward that derives from it, after having endured and suffered with Him.

But in order to deserve the immortal glory of Heaven we are called to rediscover – in an emasculated age devoid of values such as honor, faithfulness to one’s word, and heroism – a fundamental aspect of the faith of every baptized person: the Christian life is a militia, and with the Sacrament of Confirmation we are called to be soldiers of Christ, under whose insignia we must fight. Of course, in most cases it is essentially a spiritual battle, but over the course of history we have seen how often, faced with the violation of the sovereign rights of God and the liberty of the Church, it was also necessary to take up arms: we are taught this by the strenuous resistance to repel the Islamic invasions in Lepanto and on the outskirts of Vienna, the persecution of the Cristeros in Mexico, of the Catholics in Spain, and even today by the cruel war against Christians throughout the world. Never as today can we understand the theological hatred coming from the enemies of God, inspired by Satan. The attack on everything that recalls the Cross of Christ – on Virtue, on the Good and the Beautiful, on purity – must spur us to get up, in a leap of pride, in order to claim our right not only not to be persecuted by our external enemies but also and above all to have strong and courageous pastors, holy and God-fearing, who will do exactly what their predecessors have done for centuries: preach the Gospel of Christ, convert individuals and nations, and expand the Kingdom of the living and true God throughout the world.

We are all called to make an act of Fortitude – a forgotten cardinal virtue, which not by chance in Greek recalls virile strength, ἀνδρεία – in knowing how to resist the Modernists: a resistance that is rooted in Charity and Truth, which are attributes of God.

If you only celebrate the Tridentine Mass and preach sound doctrine without ever mentioning the Council, what can they ever do to you? Throw you out of your churches, perhaps, and then what? No one can ever prevent you from renewing the Holy Sacrifice, even if it is on a makeshift altar in a cellar or an attic, as the refractory priests did during the French Revolution, or as happens still today in China. And if they try to distance you, resist: canon law serves to guarantee the government of the Church in the pursuit of its primary purposes, not to demolish it. Let’s stop fearing that the fault of the schism lies with those who denounce it, and not, instead, with those who carry it out: the ones who are schismatics and heretics are those who wound and crucify the Mystical Body of Christ, not those who defend it by denouncing the executioners!

The laity can expect their ministers to behave as such, preferring those who prove that they are not contaminated by present errors. If a Mass becomes an occasion of torture for the faithful, if they are forced to assist at sacrileges or to support heresies and ramblings unworthy of the House of the Lord, it is a thousand times preferable to go to a church where the priest celebrates the Holy Sacrifice worthily, in the rite given to us by Tradition, with preaching in conformity with sound doctrine. When parish priests and bishops realize that the Christian people demand the Bread of Faith, and not the stones and scorpions of the neo-church, they will lay aside their fears and comply with the legitimate requests of the faithful. The others, true mercenaries, will show themselves for what they are and will be able to gather around them only those who share their errors and perversions. They will be extinguished by themselves: the Lord dries up the swamp and makes the land on which brambles grow arid; he extinguishes vocations in corrupt seminaries and in convents rebellious to the Rule.

The lay faithful today have a sacred task: to comfort good priests and good bishops, gathering like sheep around their shepherds. Give them hospitality, help them, console them in their trials. Create community in which murmuring and division do not predominate, but rather fraternal charity in the bond of Faith. And since in the order established by God – κόσμος – subjects owe obedience to authority and cannot do otherwise than resist it when it abuses its power, no fault will be attributed to them for the infidelity of their leaders, on whom rests the very serious responsibility for the way in which they exercise the vicarious power which has been given to them. We must not rebel, but oppose; we must not be pleased with the errors of our pastors, but pray for them and admonish them respectfully; we must not question their authority but the way in which they use it.

I am certain, with a certainty that comes to me from Faith, that the Lord will not fail to reward our fidelity, after having punished us for the faults of the men of the Church, granting us holy priests, holy bishops, holy cardinals, and above all a holy Pope. But these saints will arise from our families, from our communities, from our churches: families, communities, and churches in which the grace of God must be cultivated with constant prayer, with the frequenting of Holy Mass and the Sacraments, with the offering of sacrifices and penances that the Communion of Saints permits us to offer to the Divine Majesty in order to expiate our sins and those of our brethren, including those who exercise authority. The laity have a fundamental role in this, guarding the Faith within their families, in such a way that our young people who are educated in love and in the fear of God may one day be responsible fathers and mothers, but also worthy ministers of the Lord, His heralds in the male and female religious orders, and His apostles in civil society.

The cure for rebellion is obedience. The cure for heresy is faithfulness to the teaching of Tradition. The cure for schism is filial devotion for the Sacred Pastors. The cure for apostasy is love for God and His Most Holy Mother.

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!

The cure for vice is the humble practice of virtue. The cure for the corruption of morals is to live constantly in the presence of God. But obedience cannot be perverted into stolid servility; respect for authority cannot be perverted into the obeisance of the court. And let’s not forget that if it is the duty of the laity to obey their Pastors, it is even a more grave duty of the Pastors to obey God, usque ad effusionem sanguinis.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
September 1, 2020               

Source               

Comments invited…                                    

American Catholics Vote for Presidential Candidate Joe Biden? Absolutely NOT! 

Letter From a Pastor…

My dear _______,

I received your letter expressing your disappointment that I mentioned in my column in the bulletin that former Vice President Joseph Biden has clearly taken positions in favor of legalized abortion. You claim that the candidate is pro-life because he stated in a debate with Congressman Paul Ryan that he was “personally opposed” to abortion.

You further state that you believe Mr. Biden is a “sincere politician” who is a devout Catholic. Repeating what seems to have been a package released to the press to shore up Catholic support for him, you remark that he carries a rosary with him, that one of his staff says his presidential bid is a “subtle invocation of Catholic beliefs,” that Pete Buttigieg says Mr. Biden receives “comfort and meaning” from his faith, and that a political colleague of his praises his “pastoral care” of the bereaved.

Of course you know that carrying a rosary is not proof of being pro-life. The “subtlety” of Biden’s “invocation of his Catholic beliefs” is what is a clanger for me. He is far too subtle for me. A man who changed his stance on the Hyde Amendment and is now in favor of taxpayer money going for abortion hardly seems to respect even his own “personal” opposition to abortion. The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) fiercely attacked Biden last year in June about his support for the Hyde Amendment. Shortly after that, Biden “amended” his position from opposition in the name of conscience to approval of public moneys for abortion because of President Trump’s active opposition to abortion on demand at any point in the pregnancy.

A Latin American writer, Sergio Ramirez of Nicaragua, a former Sandinista official, wrote a short story that is illustrative about a so-called public servant who forgets his own principles called “Adam and Eve.” It begins, “That February afternoon he left his house determined to have a conversation with his Conscience and for that reason invited her to drink a beer with him.” “He” is a judge and he takes his Conscience out to a dive in Managua because he wants to explain why he is about to take a bribe in a corruption case. He is surprised when she eagerly drinks a beer and orders another. The accused is a sick man who will suffer in prison, he tells her. She asks how much money is offered, and he tells her 2,000 dollars, not cordobas. “Of course, you wouldn’t sell me in the national currency,” she says.     

“You know that this is the first time I have done this,” he says to her pleadingly. Of course, he will never do it again, he tells her, and she laughs. Right now it is an emergency. “Until the next one comes along.” There are worse things he could do. “I’m glad you see it that way,” she says. The result is that his Conscience accedes to his corruption. Then the judge looks at her as she continues to drink and thinks, “She is not what she used to be.”

That is what I think of Mr. Biden’s conscience, too—not that he was ever consistently pro-life. NARAL might have been opposed to him, but they gave him a high rating of approval while he was a senator. Now they have endorsed him enthusiastically. This is evidence of a very subtle invocation of Catholic principles if you ask me. It is so subtle that the enemies of life in the womb embrace Mr. Buttigieg’s devoted Catholic with love.

But there is another current example of Mr. Biden’s opposition to Catholic institutions’ freedom of religion. When he was vice president, he argued that church institutions should be exempt from the federal mandate to cover birth control, sterilizations, and abortifacients. The government has since not only recognized the right of the individual to such devices and methods but now makes it a political right imposed on the person’s employers to pay for them. President Obama, consistently pro-abortion even when it comes to live births during abortion procedures, did not agree with Mr. Biden. Now Mr. Biden agrees with him and criticizes the Supreme Court for recognizing the rights of the Little Sisters of the Poor in refusing to pay in conscience for what is opposed to Church teaching and is hardly a constitutional right. When he is president, he will make the good Sisters pay for birth control, abortifacients included. This takes subtlety to a new level.

Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty famously asserts, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” When Alice objects that words cannot be used that way he says, “The question is who is master—that’s all.”

I see the media blitz about the Catholic sensibility of Mr. Biden as an attempt to make Catholics ignore the reality of his very secular and indifferent attitude about things Catholics should deem important. Facti non verbi is a Latin saying that means “deeds not words.” Political positions are deeds, and Mr. Biden is signaling an anti-life bias that will no doubt influence his nominations to the judiciary. Because he claims to be a “good” Catholic, he gives us the right to make public our disagreement with him and clarify his divergence from the teachings of the Church. This is also the case with his proactive endorsement of same-sex marriages.

If Mr. Biden were my parishioner, I would have to follow the example of those brave priests who have denied him Communion. This would get me in trouble with bishops and others who want to keep peace by not talking about contradictions. But there is such a thing as truth, even in the midst of a media full court press to unseat the incumbent president by cobbling together a coalition that includes Catholics to support a member of the Church whose conscience has been overcome by confusion, if not simple ambition. Why does a Catholic politician feel the need to placate those who oppose the Church by taking up concrete positions while he does not feel the need to say anything more than sweet nothings to calm his fellow believers?

I hope that you will accept this explanation of why I pointed out to the people in my pastoral care the disappointment I felt with Mr. Biden’s “change of heart,” if you can call it that. My prayers are with you, and I encourage you to pray for our country in the cultural maelstrom we find ourselves in. We must turn to Jesus in all our troubles and ask for the Holy Spirit to give us discernment in times that indeed try men’s souls, sometimes trying them and finding them wanting.

God bless you, and thank you for your honesty in writing me directly. Others prefer to communicate with the chancery, and therefore I appreciate your forthrightness.    In Christ,  Your Pastor      Source

Comment… 

Aside from everything laid out in the above letter from a priest, Joe Biden has problems which manifest themselves wherever he goes – strange comments, challenging attitude to members of the public in meetings, you name it.  I can’t believe that he is standing against Donald Trump (or anyone else, for that matter) in the November USA election.  Nothing of Joe’s strange behaviour is mentioned in the broadcasting media in the UK (not that I’ve seen – he is mentioned only as a likely successor to Trump!)  Which is why I’m posting the short video below – it will be an eye-opener to many readers and bloggers here.  The key question, of course, for discussion is whether or not any Catholic may, in good conscience, vote for Biden in November.  I mean, President Trump has his faults.  He’s no saint – he’s not even a Catholic!   However, he should, without a shadow of a doubt, receive the vote of every Catholic in  America.  Remember, conscience is not a teacher; it has to be formed. And any well formed Catholic conscience will know that there is no way in this world that Catholics could possibly vote for Joe Biden – a man who is Catholic in name only. Just check out Father’s letter above again.  If you disagree – please explain. 

 

Excommunication: Archbishop Lefebvre & Bishop Pat Buckley… Spot the Difference!

As promised in our July Newsletter – which you can download from our website here –  we are launching a brief discussion on the matter of two prominent 20th century excommunications: that of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Founder of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) and Bishop Pat Buckley…  A brief overview of each situation follows: 

Archbishop Lefebvre…

From the SSPX website…

Following the repeated requests of several young men seeking a traditional priestly formation, Archbishop Lefebvre opened a new seminary in Econe, Switzerland. The local ordinary, Bishop Francois Charriere, gave his blessing for this work, and on November 1, 1970 the Priestly Society of St. Pius X was born with the approval of the Church.

A brief account of the history of the SSPX can be read here. One detail, however, should be added to that general account, as it pertains primarily to Archbishop Lefebvre’s involvement in the Coetus Internationalis Patrum. During the Second Vatican Council, an important friendship developed between Marcel Lefebvre and Antonio de Castro Mayer, bishop of Campos (Brazil). These two shared ideas at the various Coetus functions and kept in contact long after the close of the council. They both refused to implement the modernist teachings of Vatican II and in 1983 jointly authored an open letter to the pope lamenting the numerous errors which seemed to infect Rome. When Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four new bishops in 1988, Bishop de Castro Mayer assisted as co-consecrator.  To read more, click here

From The Remnant website…

Sadly, in the current catastrophe that is the Post-Conciliar Church, some blinded men, instead of joining the fight against the heresy, apostasy, and de facto schism around us, insist on melodramatically condemning, with the most condescending and arrogant invective, the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Although any excommunication that was previously levied against the living bishops of the SSPX has long since been remitted, some hardened Neo-Catholics insist that Abp. Lefebvre himself remains perpetually excommunicated, one Neo-Catholic priest even going so far as to presume his damnation. Thus the same Neo-Catholics who tell us that the Church’s perennial teachings on religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality are confined to past times and changeable, treat a 1988 letter from a pope as if its infallibility ranked somewhere between Dogma and Holy Writ.

The 1988 letter I am referring to, of course, is John Paul II’s Ecclesia Dei adflictaTwenty-six years later, Neo-Catholics cling to this letter as it represents, in their minds anyway, the one infallible document that ensures Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre can never be rehabilitated or declared a Saint in the future. As usual, the irony of the Neo-Catholics, on the one hand preaching the Mass of Pius V is changeable at the whim of future popes, while on the other hand preaching John Paul II’s excommunication is certainly valid and binding for all time, escapes them entirely.  To read the entire article on The Remnant website, click here

Bishop Pat Buckley…

Google Father or Bishop Pat Buckley and the description “rebel priest” comes up… Here, in his own words, is why he was dismissed from his parish

 

Later, Fr Buckley was consecrated a bishop, as reported in the Irish Times: 

“The rebel cleric, Bishop Pat Buckley, has excommunicated himself from the Catholic Church by being consecrated as a bishop, a Hierarchy spokesman has said.

The church spokesman said the ordination of Bishop Buckley by the Tridentine bishop, Dr Michael Cox, was “valid but unlawful” (under Canon law).”  To read rest of this report click  here

Comment: 

The adjective often used to describe both bishops is “rebel”.  Archbishop Lefebvre is well known for his work to preserve Catholic Tradition against the innovations following Vatican II, while Bishop Buckley is well known for his dissent from Catholic teachings, such as the prohibition on divorce and remarriage.  Archbishop Lefebvre fought to keep the Church within Catholic Tradition, while Bishop Buckley seeks to achieve changes in the Church which will meet the perceived needs of contemporary Catholics living in a “liberal” society.  

So, check out the headline – IS there any difference between the two excommunications?   

Letter to the Chief Constable, Police Scotland…This is not Communist China! 

The following letter, dated 6 July, 2020, was sent to the  Chief Constable, Police Scotland, authored by blogger, Athanasius, who has kindly given permission for it to be published here, for discussion…

Dear Chief Constable,

I understand that as of July 10 the wearing of face masks in shops is to become mandatory by government order, and that Police Scotland is set to back this imposition on civil liberties by means of fines.

Before getting to the point, allow me to appraise you of the truth concerning Covid-19. The best place to begin is with a declaration made by England’s Chief Medical Officer, Sir Chris Whitty, to the media gathered at Downing Street on May 11: “I wish to reiterate that for most people Covid-19 is harmless”.

This declaration coincides perfectly with official Scottish statistics showing that around 2500 Scots from a population of 5.5 million have died subsequent to having tested positive for Covid-19. That relatively small number, of which 50% were deaths in locked down care homes, equates to a mere 0.04% of the population.

Furthermore, since this virus has never been correctly isolated and identified using established scientific method (Koch’s Postulates), British test procedures and results based on flawed Chinese research are clearly untrustworthy. There is a case presently before the English courts in regard to this false science and the subsequent totalitarian legislation resulting from it.

Having spent many hundreds of hours studying the Covid-19 phenomenon, I am now fully convinced  that this Chinese virus has been politicised for the purpose of imposing a new (Communist) totalitarian rule on the free world, the “new normal” as they like to call it.

That the present crisis is manufactured is without question given the aforementioned official statistics and declarations, not to mention that for the first time in decades 40% of acute NHS beds in the UK are empty. It is also evident in such sleight of hand as Post Mortem examinations being largely suspended for the duration along with second-doctor confirmation of cause of death in the interests of conflating numbers.

Further proof of the fraud is in the fact that the World Health Organisation (WHO) is being cited in support of the new rules when that organisation is clearly in China’s pocket, which is why the U.S. has withdrawn funding from it.

You will doubtless be aware that the WHO initially silenced the Covid-19 outbreak at China’s behest and then lied to the world when declaring that it was not a transmittable virus. Months later it announced that face masks were useless, now it says they should be made mandatory. On the basis of such flip-flopping misinformation it is evident that the WHO is not a reliable source upon which governments should legislate.

Now to the point. A few weeks ago you and Nicola Sturgeon gave the nod to a gathering of thousands of anarchists on Glasgow Green. Only a small minority of those present wore face masks and none observed the social distancing rules. By permitting this you set a precedent that can be cited in court as evidence that the new mandate set to come into force on July 10 is contradictory and discriminatory.

Pictured: protest at George Square, Glasgow
(click for protest at Glasgow Green)

It tells us a lot about the ideology of our leaders when citizens are locked in their homes, churches are shut down, dog walkers are spied upon and reported by neighbours etc., while Marxist anarchists in their thousands are accorded free reign!

This is what happens when law enforcement loses its direction and sense of justice becoming instead a politicised “strong arm” of government, in this case the culturally Marxist Scottish Nationalist government which is using Police Scotland to enforce its Constitutionally unprecedented and unlawful suppression of civil liberties.

Enough is enough! This is free democratic Scotland, not Communist China, North Korea or the former Soviet Union. You will not be permitted to impose a Police State in this country under any pretext!  

From what I hear in the general population people are sick and tired of this government and its manipulation of the police to bring about its Marxist ends. It has gone on for years in the form of thought policing and now it has been expanded to full blown totalitarianism dictatorship.

When seven police constables respond to a bus driver’s report that a passenger is refusing to wear a face mask, as recently happened to an acquaintance of mine in Paisley, then it is perfectly legitimate for the public to question this new direction of the police, a direction that disgraces the uniform and the noble history of the force in fighting real crime.

For four months now I have been unable to go to work, attend church, go on holiday, have my hair cut or do any of those other things I am entitled to do as a free man of this land. Indeed I don’t even know if I’ll have a job at the end of this, if it ever does end, such is the evil visited upon our nation by this culturally Marxist government with your assistance, destroying our economy and civil liberties with impunity.

I was six years old when the Asian Flu visited the UK in 1968, killing 85,000 people. My entire family was bed ridden and I was the only one untouched by the virus. There was no Nanny State in those days so I was forced to do the shopping, make light meals and feed the baby. Not a single business closed during that pandemic and not a single resident was placed under house arrest. Why? because historically society isolates the sick, not the healthy. You see the present insanity, the counter-cultural subversion?

Since barely half the numbers of the 1968 event have died on this occasion, despite the fiddling of figures, you may rest assured that I will not be wearing a face mask for Nicola Sturgeon, for you or for any other self-appointed dictator. Our troops did not surrender their lives in two world wars to protect freedom and democracy in our nation only for subversives in high places to take it away by stealth.

Covid-19 is hardly the plague upon us, but let me tell you that I would rather face a plague with freedom than live subjugated as an automaton under people like you and Nicola Sturgeon.

I should inform you that I intend to send this letter to the media for publication in the hope of exposing what is really occurring in our society right now. In the meantime, Please find enclosed a proper scientific document exposing the falsehood of face masks.

Sincerely

Signed…

Comment: 

On this day, when the Scottish Government, supported by Police Scotland, seeks to enforce the wearing of face masks / face coverings on the population, we have to wonder if Athanasius is correct.  ARE we heading into a full blown police state?   I spoke to a gentleman yesterday who is a total believer in the lockdown;  when I tried to offer some facts, his hand flew up and he announced that he didn’t want to hear “my theories”.   Then earlier today, a reader spoke to a lady during her shopping trip explaining that this is a very worrying time, with Communist China on the rise… To her astonishment, the woman replied that she had often thought we needed a “wee bit of Communism” in order to make us  appreciate our democratic way of life.  Our fellow-reader did not have the heart to tell  her that there’s no such thing as “a wee bit of Communism”.  You can have a wee bit of chocolate, or a wee bit of a break from blogging, but Communism comes as a package – with totalitarian government and … well…  you know…

I’ve already congratulated Athanasius on his excellent  letter.  I’m sure you will want to say a few words of thanks, too, for his untiring efforts to do everything possible to alert the authorities to the terrible road down which Scotland (and the wider UK) is heading – unlike the clergy, from the Pope down, whether modernist diocesan clergy or traditional (so-called) priests, all of whom have remained silently complicit throughout this removal of our civil and religious liberties.  Where are their voices now,  in all of this, as the imposition of face-coverings takes this authoritarian governance to a new level?  Where, more to the point, are their consciences? 

Share your own thoughts, too, on where this is all going:  are face-masks/coverings here to stay?   I know two people who’ve been shopping today and refused to comply.  I’ll be refusing to comply when I next head for the shops.  Is that the right thing to do?  Is it “spoiling for a fight” (asking for a fine? 😀 )  I don’t think so – I’m not going to pay any fine, and I suspect others who are non-compliant will be non-compliant all the way, as well.   Over to you – share your thoughts…   

Are We Morally Bound To Obey Coronavirus Restrictions / Laws? 

Comment:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church on the duty of citizens towards the authorities in civil society:

The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” “We must obey God rather than men”:
When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel.
  (# 2242)

The question here, therefore, is this:  are the Governments of the UK overstepping their authority by requiring us to accept some very serious restrictions on our personal liberty, in the name of “saving lives” – when by all accounts, the majority of those who become infected with Covid-19 recover from it? A relative of mine believes he had the virus back in January;  he was sure it was simply flu, but because it was the worst-ever flu attack he’d ever experienced, he decided to visit his doctor.  He said the doctor asked him “a strange question” – had he been in China recently!  The answer was “no” and that is where that conversation ended.  This relative – who is very elderly, in his 80s – made a full recovery.  

There is concern, therefore, that perhaps the lockdown restrictions are not only unnecessary (who quarantines the healthy?) but also too stringently enforced. The full force of the law…Really?  People stopped in the street, or pulled over in their car by the police, and asked to explain why they are outside of their home, destination etc.  Do we have to answer? Should we pay any fines imposed?  Is this a conscience issue, or would we be doing wrong to flout the State?  

Voting in the 2019 General Election

As we prepare to go to the polls in the General Election on 12 December, it is worth reflecting on Church teaching and the principles which should guide us in deciding how to use our vote without violating God’s law.  

Click here to read a guide prepared for American Catholics, which seems to be fairly comprehensive.  I’ve not studied everything on that [EWTN] site, but I have checked out some key topics and I think we will all find it useful, and a source for fruitful discussion.

Below, a video clip from the trial of St Thomas More,  saint and martyr, patron of lawyers and politicians, who has been an inspiration to many, including many who are not Catholics, because of his strong, conscientious insistence that God’s law must always be above any law created by man. 

Comment: 

If the voting guide given in the introduction above still leave you with unanswered questions or doubts,  feel free to ask for clarification on this thread. 

Here, at Catholic Truth, we are apolitical and we discuss politics only in the context of our Catholic duty to be decent members of society, contributing, where possible, to the common good.  Please, therefore engage in discussion in a spirit of respect, bearing in mind that the Church exhorts us to adhere to certain principles but does not dictate that we should support (or not) any particular political party. Our overall aim must be to take care not to offend God in the way we vote; not to support the transgression of His Moral Law.  To this end we pray…

St Thomas More, intercede for us, and for all the politicians participating in the forthcoming election; guide and inspire us in the weeks ahead… Our Lady, Help of Christians, pray for us.  

Fr Despard: Silent Protest Planned… 

The short (around 15 minutes) protest will be held on 16 November, 12 noon, outside St Gerard’s Church, Fleming road. Bellshill, ML4 1NF

Comment: 

Manifestly, Fr Despard is being treated extremely unfairly, and for what reason?  For whistleblowing.  For seeking to expose the extent of homosexuality within the ranks of the priesthood in Scotland.  He was suspended from the active ministry and threatened with various law suits from individuals who did not follow through on their threats.  The then Bishop, Joseph Devine, promised a thorough investigation into Fr Despard’s claims about homosexual clergy but that has not materialised either.  

It is a disgrace that Fr Despard has been left for six years without a parish; at a time of acute priest shortages, he is not being allowed to live his vocation in service to the people of the Diocese of Motherwell.  Yet, at least one known “gay” activist priest in the same Diocese has been permitted to work with the LGBT+ lobby to ensure that children in Scottish schools are indoctrinated with the “diversity” agenda. 

Bloggers and readers are encouraged to join in the silent protest in support of Fr Despard, which is effectively challenging the Bishop to explain how, on earth, he can justify discriminating against this priest any longer.