Earth to Archbishop of Glasgow…Hello!

Our blogger, Gabriel Syme writes:

Look at this jaw dropping story from the Church in Scotland.

Scottish Catholics are “too wishy-washy” about standing up for their beliefs, the Archbishop of Glasgow has warned.
Click here to read entire Herald Scotland article 

While advocating robust, confident Catholicism is admirable, this is hilarious coming from the Scottish Bishops. Their only priority for decades has been to play down Catholicism in order to pander to ecumenism and the secular world.    

The statement also ignores the fact that modern Catholics (including in Scotland) are the most ignorant and poorly instructed in all history. This because they have not been taught the faith properly and deliberately so – because properly instructed Catholics reject ecumenism and the like.

In 13 years at Catholic schools and many years in novus ordo parishes I learned literally nothing about the Catholic faith, beyond the Our Father, Hail Mary and the rudiments of the nativity story. I always knew I had not been properly taught, but even so was shocked at the extent of my ignorance, when (in my 30s) I first held a Baltimore Catechsim No 1 (which is aimed at small children).

I struggled to answer even the obvious and basic questions listed therein. Of course, I knew what a Bar Mitzvah was, and knew some Hebrew Phrases (but not a word of Latin). And I could describe the good work a Protestant minister had done with gangs in New York City. But I could not have given a coherent answer as to why God made me.
(Fortunately, thanks to Catholic Truth and the SSPX I have been able to back-fill much of this missing knowledge).

And so Archbishop Tartaglia can hardly call Catholics wishy-washy, because modern Catholics do not know the Catholic faith, nor are they equipped to defend it.

Another reason Catholics struggle to speak out to defend the faith (even if able) is because should you do so, in a modern parish or Catholic organisation, you can bet on being immediately savaged by other “Catholics” whose lives conflict with Church teaching and do not like being reminded of it. This is one reason I withdrew from participation in modern parishes / organisations – its all a facade, there’s no substance to it.

For example, we discussed St Brides LGBT welcome recently. Who in that parish now would be confident to speak out on (e.g.) sexual morality when it is clear that the Parish Priest does not support that morality and when the local homosexual MP and his ‘husband’ are in the next pew?

I can only conclude that Archbishop Tartaglia is completely out of touch with the results of the non-teaching in the Scottish Church.

Comment:

Gabriel Syme’s insightful assessment of the state of the Scottish Church was underlined by the announcement, on – of all days – the Feast of the Assumption, yesterday, that yet another priest of the archdiocese was leaving active ministry. Only in this case, the priest in question – Father Gerald Walsh – has only been ordained for 6 years. Reflect: a young man like Fr Walsh can go through the entire Catholic education system following the syllabus issued by the Scottish Catholic Education Service, thus approved by the Scottish Bishops, and learn sweet nothing about the Catholic religion. Then, feeling called to the priesthood (although goodness knows how this comes about given the widespread ignorance of true Catholicism is anybody’s guess), a candidate goes on to seminary to be further mal-formed in the Faith.  Little wonder so many abandon the ministry, sometimes after only a handful of years, as in the case of Fr Gerald Walsh, ordained in 2011, his resignation announced on the Feast of Our Lady’s Assumption, 2017.  More sad than words can express. 

The Mass-goer who contacted us to report Fr Walsh’s resignation after the morning Mass in St James’s Crookston, where the Archbishop himself made the announcement, opined that the Archbishop seemed more concerned with the fact that this latest “ex-priest” now created a situation that meant more work for him and for the priest in a neighbouring parish who would now administer both parishes. 

“Wishy-washy”?  I think the Archbishop needs to look at his own Catholicity, or lack thereof, before labelling the rest of us  “wishy-washy”; from what I hear, he is not exactly setting the heather on fire with his zealous leadership of either clergy or laity.  

The key question for this thread is this:  how on earth is the Church in Scotland EVER going to attract genuine and lasting vocations, if the Hierarchy don’t restore what has been lost of the glorious Catholic religion?  

But, where to begin?  Reform the schools?  Begin teaching the Faith?  Nobody can make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, as the saying goes, so young men who haven’t been taught a thing about true Catholicism, are hardly going to make terrific priests.  What on EARTH is going to keep them living a single, celibate life in today’s permissive society if they’ve essentially been taught a false religion?

And is it any surprise that the new Mass isn’t keeping young priests? Countless saints not only stayed faithful throughout their lives, but actually GAVE their lives in order to preserve the Mass.  Who’s ever going to sacrifice their lives for this complete break with Catholic Tradition known as the Novus Ordo Missae, which no saint or martyr returning to earth today would recognise as the Mass?  That’s what’s known as a “rhetorical question”…  

Imagine you’re on the telephone line from Earth to Archbishop Tartaglia.  He is keen to have your advice (well, it’s only a pretend game)… What will you say to him – where would you advise him to start, in order to begin to restore the Faith in Scotland? 

Growing Catholic Identity Crisis…

Editor writes….

Since Pope Benedict XVI’s motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum, permitting all priests to offer the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) without seeking permission from bishops, there has been a kind of “traditionalist identity crisis” within the Church, where “conservative” priests and people have taken to the ancient Mass and, coupled with their orthodox adherence to the natural moral law on “life” matters (contraception, abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality etc), thereby consider themselves to be “traditionalists” – straight down the line Catholics, the real McCoy.  It is not, however, that simple.

Often, these same Catholics hold positions that are absolutely at odds with the truths of the Faith.  Many, if not most, are outright papolatrists – they will not accept that there are limits to papal authority and they are in denial about much of the scandal caused by Pope Francis.  Then again, others take the opposite view:  he is so bad that he  can’t be  a true pope, so the papal seat is vacant – sedevacantism.  Or, they jump on the latest bandwagon, support the latest fad, “Benevacantism”  where the claim is that Benedict is still pope because not only is Francis so bad that he can’t be a true pope, but Benedict was forced to resign, so Francis’ election must be invalid.   None of these positions fits the “traditional Catholic” profile.  Some  – believe it or not, including folks in the above categories – still attend the novus ordo Mass, even on weekdays when there is no obligation, and argue that they have to attend on Sundays, under pain of mortal sin, if unable to get to the TLM.  

Most of the Summorum Pontificum priests still provide the novus ordo, although I am aware that, certainly in a number of UK-wide cases that have come across my desk,  there are priests would much prefer not to do so and who keep those Masses to a minimum. The majority, however, remain “on diocesan message”, their “traditionalism” filed in the box marked “Making the TLM  available for those who want to attend” – and  they’re not exactly setting the heather on fire with forceful sermons on the topic, exhorting their parishioners to switch to “the old Mass”.

Finally, there are self-styled “traditional” Catholics, priests and laity, who go along with various novelties introduced in the post-Vatican II era, and even support various controversial (to say the least) initiatives within the Church, new movements such as the Charismatics, the Faith movement and the  Neocatechumenate.  Some who dislike the new Mass, like the new Rosary, and they may read books which a truly Catholic mind would bin. 

Time, then, perhaps, to reflect on the precise nature of Catholic Tradition.  In his Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Archbishop Lefebvre (SSPX Founder) spells out what it means to be a Catholic – and there’s no getting away from the fact that truly traditional Catholic priests follow the exhortation of Pope Saint Pius X: “Far, far from our priests, be the love of novelty.”   And truly traditional Catholic laity keep the clergy’s feet to the fire on this, to minimise the risk of being led astray, albeit by well-meaning priests who are not sufficiently “traditional” in their souls to recognise the dangers inherent in the modern Church.  Below, a superb definition of Catholic Tradition – comments welcome, but note: do not name any priests or lay people whom you may consider to be in the “identity crisis” category. This thread is to remind us all, each one of us, what it means to be a faithful Catholic – that we must all adhere to Tradition, as defined below. So, unless you’re identifying your own infidelity, no names, no pack drill! 

Archbishop Lefebvre writes…

Modernism is indeed what undermines the Church from within, today as yesterday. Let us again quote from the encyclical Pascendi some typical features which correspond with what we are experiencing now.  “The Modernists say that authority in the Church, since its end is purely spiritual, should strip itself of all that external pomp, all those pretentious adornments with which it parades itself in public. In this they forget that religion, while it belongs to the soul, is not exclusively for the soul and that the honor paid to authority is reflected back on Christ who institutes it.”

It is under pressure from these “speakers of novelties” that Paul VI abandoned the tiara, bishops gave up the violet cassock and even the black, as well as their rings, and priests appear in lay clothes, usually in a deliberately casual style. There is nothing among the general reforms already put into effect or insistently demanded that St. Pius X has not mentioned as the “maniac” desires of the modernist reformers. You will recognize them in this passage: “As regards worship (they want) to diminish the number of external devotions or at least stop their increasing… Let ecclesiastical government become democratic; let a share in the government be given to the junior clergy and even the laity; let authority be decentralized. Reform of the Roman Congregations, above all the Holy Office and the Index… Finally there are those among them who, echoing their Protestant masters, seek the suppression of priestly celibacy.” Notice that the same demands are now being put forward and that there is absolutely nothing original. As regards Christian thought and the formation of future priests, the intention of the reformers of St. Pius X’s time was the abandonment of scholastic philosophy among the obsolete systems.” They advocate “that young people should be taught modern philosophy, the only true philosophy, the only one suitable for our times… that so-called rational theology should be based on modern philosophy and positive theology on the history of dogmas.” In this respect, the Modernists have got what they wanted and more. In what passes for seminaries, they teach anthropology, psychoanalysis and Marx in place of St. Thomas Aquinas. The principles of Thomist philosophy are rejected in favor of vague systems which themselves recognize their inability to explain the economy of the Universe, putting forward as they do the philosophy of the absurd. One latter-day revolutionary, a muddle-headed priest much heeded by intellectuals, who put sex at the heart of everything, was bold enough to declare at public meetings: “The scientific hypotheses of the ancients were pure nonsense and it is on such nonsense that St. Thomas and Origen based their systems.” Immediately afterwards, he fell into the absurdity of defining life as “an evolutionary chain of biologically inexplicable facts.” How can he know that, if it is inexplicable? How, I would add, can a priest discard the only explanation, which is God?

The Modernists would be set at naught if they had to defend their elaborate theories against the principles of the Angelic Doctor, the notions of potency and act, essence, substance and accidents, body and soul, etc. By eliminating these notions they would render the theology of the Church incomprehensible and, as one reads in the Motu Proprio Doctoris Angelici, “the result is that students of the sacred disciplines no longer even perceive the meaning of the words by which the dogmas which God has revealed are propounded by the Magisterium.” The offensive against scholastic philosophy is a necessary preliminary when one wants to change dogma and attack Tradition.
But what is Tradition? It seems to me that the word is often imperfectly understood. It is equated to the “traditions” that exist in trades, in families and in civic life: the “bouquet” fixed to the roof of a house when the last tile is laid, the ribbon that is cut to open a monument, etc.  That is not what I am referring to:  Tradition does not consist of the customs inherited from the past and preserved out of loyalty to the past even where there are no clear reasons for them. Tradition is defined as the Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Magisterium down through the centuries.  This deposit is what has been given to us by Revelation;  that is to say,  the Word of God entrusted to the Apostles and transmitted unfailingly by their successors.

But now they want to get everyone inquiring, searching, as if we had not been given the Creed, or as if Our Lord had not come to bring us the Truth once and for all.  What do they claim to discover with all this inquiry? Catholics upon whom they would impose these “questionings,” after having made them “abandon their certainties,” should remember this: the deposit of Revelation concluded at the death of the last Apostle. It is finished and it cannot be touched until the end of time.  Revelation is irreformable.  The First Vatican Council re-stated this explicitly: “for the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention, to be perfected by human ingenuity; but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ (the Church) to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared.”

But, one will object, the dogma that makes Mary the Mother of God only dates back to the year 431, transubstantiation to 1215, papal infallibility to 1870 and so on. Has there not been an evolution? No, not at all.  The dogmas which have been defined in the course of the ages were contained in Revelation; the Church has just made them explicit. When Pope Pius XII defined in 1950 the dogma of the Assumption, he said specifically that this truth of the assumption into Heaven of the Virgin Mary, body and soul, was included in the deposit of Revelation and already existed in the texts revealed to us before the death of the last Apostle. We cannot bring anything new into this field, we cannot add a single dogma, but only express those that exist ever more clearly, more beautifully and more loftily.
That is so certain that it forms the rule to follow in judging the errors that are put before us every day, and rejecting them with no concession. As Bossuet forcefully wrote: “When it is a matter of explaining the principles of Christian morality and the essential dogmas of the Church everything that does not appear in the Tradition of all time, and especially the early times, is from then on not only suspect but wrong and to be condemned; and this is the principal basis on which all the holy Fathers of the Church, and Popes more than anyone, condemned false doctrines, there being nothing more odious to the Roman Church than novelties.”

The argument that is pressed upon the terrorized faithful is this: “You are clinging to the past, you are being nostalgic; live in your own time!” Some are abashed and do not know what to reply.  Nevertheless, the answer is easy: In this there is no past or present or future.  Truth belongs to all times, it is eternal.

In order to break down Tradition they confront it with Holy Scripture, after the manner of the Protestants, with the assertion that the Gospel is the only book that counts. But Tradition came before the Gospel! Although the Synoptic Gospels were not written nearly as late as some would have us believe, a number of years had passed before the Four Evangelists had completed their writing; but the Church already existed, Pentecost had taken place and brought numerous conversions, 3000 on the very day the Apostles came out of the Upper Room. What did they believe just at that moment? How was Revelation transmitted if not by oral tradition? One cannot subordinate Tradition to Holy Scripture, still less reject it.

But do not imagine that, adopting this attitude, they have an unlimited respect for the inspired text. They even dispute that it is inspired in its entirety: “What is there in the Gospel which is inspired? Only the truths that are necessary for our salvation.” In consequence, the miracles, the accounts of the Holy Childhood, the actions and conduct of Our Lord are relegated to the category of more or less legendary biography.  We fought in the Council over that phrase: “Only the truths necessary for salvation.” There were some bishops in favor of reducing the historical authenticity of the Gospels, which shows the extent to which the clergy is corrupted by neo-Modernism. Catholics should not allow themselves to be imposed upon: the whole of the Gospel is inspired and those who wrote it had the Holy Ghost guiding their intelligence, so that the whole of it is the Word of God, Verbum Dei. It is not permissible to pick and choose and to say today: “We will take this part but we don’t want that part.” To choose is to be a heretic, according to the Greek derivation of that word.

It remains no less a fact that it is Tradition that transmits the Gospel to us, and it appertains to Tradition, to the Magisterium, to explain to us the contents of the Gospel. If we have nobody to interpret it for us, we can reach several completely different understandings of the same words of Christ. We then end up with the free interpretation of the Protestants and the free inspiration of the present day charismatics which leads us into pure fantasy.

All the dogmatic councils have given us the exact expression of Tradition, the exact expression of what the Apostles taught. Tradition is irreformable. One can never change the decrees of the Council of Trent, because they are infallible, written and published by an official act of the Church, unlike those of Vatican II, which pronouncements are not infallible because the popes did not wish to commit their infallibility. Therefore nobody can say to you, “You are clinging to the past, you have stayed with the Council of Trent.” For the Council of Trent is not the past. Tradition is clothed with a timeless character, adapted to all times and all places.  Source

 

Bishop John Keenan – Enemy of the Faith

Sunday, April 23, 2017, 4:00 PM
Pause For Hope Ecumenical Prayer Service 
 
For all those affected by Cancer.
 
Bishop John Keenan, Rev Maureen Leitch
 
Guest Speaker Mr Tony Fitzpatrick,  Player, Manager and now CEO of St Mirren Football Club
 
St Mirin’s Cathedral, Paisley.

Comment:
Blogger, Petrus, who resides in the Diocese of Paisley, submitted the following for our discussion in the context of the above ecumenical service.  It strikes me that Bishop Keenan will have his work cut out explaining to Catholic girls why they can’t be priests, since (they will assume) Protestant women may be “priests” –  and even sit up there beside the Bishop! That’s one issue that springs to mind looking at the above advert.  Petrus covers the rest below, concluding: Pope Pius IX, is very clear that ecumenical gatherings, such as the one hosted by Bishop Keenan, are contrary to the Catholic faith.”  Does this mean, then, that Bishop Keenan is an enemy of the Faith? 

Pope Pius IX

“You well know, Beloved Sons and Venerable Brethren, that among the many deplorable evils which disturb and afflict principally the ecclesiastical and civil society, two stand out in our day and are justly considered to be the origin of the others. 

In effect, you are aware of the innumerable and fatal damages which the terrible error of Indifferentism causes to Christian and civil society. It causes us to forget our duties to God in Whom we live and act and have our being. It causes us to lose our concern about our Holy Religion and destroys almost to the very foundation all law, justice, and virtue. 

There is little difference between this most vile form of indifference and the demonic system of indifference between the different religions. According to this system, those who have strayed from the truth, who are enemies of the true Faith and forget their own salvation, and who teach contradictory beliefs which never had stable doctrine, admit no distinction among the different creeds. Rather, they make a pact with everyone, and defend that the haven of eternal salvation is open to the followers of all religions, whatever they might be. They do not care about the diversity of their doctrines as long as they agree to combat the one that is the unique truth.

You see, Beloved Sons and Venerable Brethen, how much vigilance is needed to keep the disease of this terrible evil from infecting and miserably killing your flocks. Do not cease to diligently defend your people against these pernicious errors. ”  (Encyclical Singulari quidem   §§ 3-4)                                                 

As you can see from the advert above, Bishop John Keenan of Paisley will host an ecumenical prayer service in St Mirin’s Cathedral, for those suffering from cancer .  He will be joined by Church of Scotland minister, Rev Maureen Leitch. The Bishop of Paisley will share the sanctuary of a Catholic cathedral with a female “minister” of a Protestant denomination who has no valid orders or right to preach/teach.   

Bishop Keenan is often claimed to be “conservative”.  However, the ad above shows that he is an outright Modernist. The bishop is more concerned with promoting Indifferentism than praying for the conversion of Scotland. Clearly he has never read the encyclical above by Pope Pius IX, who is very clear that ecumenical gatherings, such as the one hosted by Bishop Keenan, are contrary to the Catholic faith.  

Comments invited… 

Yes/No…Should Glasgow Build Statue of Scotland’s Only Martyr – St John Ogilvie?

A statue for Scotland’s only Catholic Martyr?

A CAMPAIGN is growing for a memorial to St John Ogilvie, Scotland’s only Catholic martyr, to be built on the spot of his execution at Glasgow Cross.

An online campaign launched on his feast day last week has found huge support, with the Knights of St Columba saying they’d be delighted to take the project forward by raising funds for a marker for the saint.

Archbishop Philip Tartaglia of Glasgow used his homily at the St John Ogilvie feast day Mass in St Andrew’s Cathedral, a few hundreds yards away from Glasgow Cross, to call on Scotland to make more of its saints, and a campaign by a Scottish Catholic media group for a memorial has received huge support online.

“John Ogilvie was a Scot from Banffshire,” Archbishop Tartaglia said. “He was a Jesuit priest. He died here in our city. He is an honorary Glaswegian. He belongs to Glasgow. And above all, his blood was shed for Christ here in Glasgow. I just wish we knew where he was buried, but we don’t.

“We know he was executed at Glasgow Cross (right). We have the national shrine at St Aloysius’, where we celebrated ecumenical vespers in honour of St John Ogilvie yesterday evening, and we have the renowned painting of our martyr which is displayed in this Cathedral. These tangible things help us to claim St John Ogilvie as our saint, to love him and to keep his memory alive.”

 Religious freedom

The Archbishop also said that the saint’s memory was particularly important at a time when Catholics faced ‘more subtle forms of restricting religious freedom.’

“It gets into the realm of limiting your freedom to say in public places what you believe and what you hold most dear in your heart and in your conscience, and that trend, let’s call it, is recognisable even in developed liberal democracies like ours,” he said.

“Christians and Catholics all over the western world are wakening up to this now and it is a difficult prospect for us because the goalposts of civic respectability appear suddenly to have been moved. I think this may be our next big challenge. That’s one reason why we continue to need the example, inspiration and intercession of St John Ogilvie.”

John Patrick Mallon leads Sancta Familia Media, a group out of Holy Family parish in Motherwell Diocese which make Faith-based online videos. He was inspired to call for a memorial when filming a short film about the saint at Glasgow Cross.

“I was just really surprised there was nothing there to mark it, not even a plaque,” he said. “And I thought, ‘this is terrible.’ So we put up a campaign on social media and it had an amazing response, hundreds of people liking and sharing it.”

 Support

Charlie McCluskey, supreme knight of the Knights of St Columba, said the order had first started to consider a permanent memorial to St John Ogilvie at Glasgow Cross on the saint’s 400th anniversary in 2015, but the time was now right.

“There should be a something,” he said. “He’s the only Scottish martyr and there’s not even a plaque. Whether you are Catholic, Protestant, whatever, this was an historic event in the history of the city that should be marked.”

Mr McCluskey suggested an alcove on the Mercat Building, which is owned by Glasgow City Council and overlooks the Cross, would be an ideal place for a statue of the saint. “We have made tentative enquires to the council,” Mr McCluskey said. “There didn’t seem to be major objections. We need to move onto the next stage now, but if there’s public support we’d be happy to take a lead on this.”  Source

Comments invited…

Catholic Schools Vs Catholic Education

First Minister praises Catholic schools
First Minster Nicola Sturgeon praised Catholic schools during a meeting with Archbishop Philip Tartaglia and other faith leaders on Friday January 13.      muslim-schoolgirl

The SNP leader was chairing an annual meeting of Action of Churches Together in Scotland (ACTS) which brings leaders from a range of denominations together, including the Glasgow archbishop, who is president of the Scottish Bishops’ Conference, and the director of the Catholic Parliamentary Office Anthony Horan.

Speaking about a new community cohesion initiative, the First Minister commended the work of Catholic schools and singled-out St Albert’s Primary in Glasgow’s Southside for praise. Acknowledging the fact that the majority of pupils at the school are Muslim children—drawing most of its pupils from areas of traditionally high immigration—Mrs Sturgeon praised headteacher, Clare Harker. “It is fantastic that a school with a Christian Catholic ethos finds a way to respect the values of the children there,” she said.

The First Minister also said churches had a key role to play in community cohesion. “The trust you have in these communities can promote understanding,” she told the faith leaders. “We are at a pivotal moment and we need to try in our small way to give international leadership to diversity as strength and not just weakness. There is scope for us to work collectively.”

Among those at the meeting with the archbishop (above) were Rev Matthew Ross (Secretary of ACTS), Rev Alexander Ritchie (United Free Church of Scotland), Major Steven Turner (Salvation Army), Norman Graham (Baptist Union of Scotland), Rt Rev Russell Barr (Moderator of the Church of Scotland), and Most Revd Bishop David Chillingworth (Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church).

Mrs Sturgeon also spoke about the challenge, for both government and wider society, of providing social care for an ageing population, particularly in relation to dementia. “We need to learn from you, to understand what the churches can bring [in relation to care for those with dementia],” she told the church leaders, adding that ‘you [the churches] are trusted, particularly regarding older people’s care.’

The SCO has been running a campaign since October to make Catholic churches ‘dementia friendly,’ with two churches signing up to the scheme in recent weeks.

At the end of the meeting, Mrs Sturgeon praised the work of volunteers and the third sector, and highlighted the value of the meetings with church leaders. “It is a good opportunity for me to hear from you and how we can work together,” she said. “I value this tradition.”

Anthony Horan, director of the Catholic Parliamentary Office, said: “The meeting is an opportunity for leaders of a number of Christian denominations to speak with the First Minister and to give her visibility as to the work they are doing in their local communities and wider Scottish society. It was extremely pleasing to hear the First Minister commend the value of Catholic schools.”

Speaking after the meeting, Nicola Sturgeon said: “Scotland is a place where we celebrate our differences, while recognising the many things that unite us and where people of all races, faiths and background feel safe and respected.

“It is important that everyone is open to each other’s values and it is essential that we safeguard our shared vision of a multicultural, open and tolerant Scotland. Our faith communities play a significant role here, and abroad, and we welcome their contribution and input into our nation’s civic life to enrich us all.”

Comment: 

Catholic schools were established to teach the Catholic Faith with conviction, as part of the process of educating Catholic children at home, school, and in the parish – e.g. via preaching.

Manifestly, that is no longer the aim of Catholic “educators”.

If the Muslim community can so successfully target and take over Catholic Schools and if a Protestant First Minister of a Protestant Scotland can “commend the value of Catholic schools” then, self-evidently, they are not doing what they are supposed to do.

Maybe it’s now time to hand them all over to parents who actually care about what their children believe and who want them  to be properly taught how to live in the world in accordance with their religious beliefs. Yes? Muslims seem to fit the bill nicely. 

After all, if the Catholic hierarchy don’t give a toss, and if Catholic parents don’t have a clue, what’s the point of keeping up the pretence?  

Having a bunch of buildings labelled “Catholic schools” is not remotely the same thing  as providing a Catholic education.  Home-schoolers provide a Catholic education without the buildings.  Well?  Is it right to seek to justify Catholic schools when they self-evidently do not provide a Catholic education?  

A New Mercy: Mercy As “Way of Life”…

What Religion Is This?

by Christopher A. Ferrara
November 8, 2016

 

Mercy, said Francis, is not God's forgiveness of sin through Baptism or the absolution of a repentant sinner in the confessional, in the manner Christ ordained when He commissioned His Church (cf. John 20:23). Rather, he opined, "the mystery of mercy is not to be celebrated in words alone, but above all by deeds, by a truly merciful way of life marked by disinterested love, fraternal service and sincere sharing."

“The mystery of mercy is not to be celebrated in words alone, but above all by deeds, by a truly merciful way of life marked by disinterested love, fraternal service and sincere sharing.”

In a brief address to an “inter-religious audience” at the Vatican on November 3, Francis spoke on “the theme of mercy,” but without a single reference to the King of Mercy, Jesus Christ, the sole merciful savior of mankind, nor any reference to the sacraments of the Church that Christ established precisely to show His mercy toward men of good will. 

Alluding vaguely to “the Christian message” while saying absolutely nothing about the grace of repentance that must precede the grace of justification and the regeneration of the soul of fallen man, Francis sketched instead a concept of mercy seemingly designed to accommodate any and all religions, so-called.

Mercy, said Francis, is not God’s forgiveness of sin through Baptism or the absolution of a repentant sinner in the confessional, in the manner Christ ordained when He commissioned His Church (cf. John 20:23). Rather, he opined, “the mystery of mercy is not to be celebrated in words alone, but above all by deeds, by a truly merciful way of life marked by disinterested love, fraternal service and sincere sharing.”

What does this have to do with Divine Mercy for the sinner who repents and turns to God, which was supposedly the theme of the Year of Mercy now concluding? The address seems instead to conflate Divine Mercy with human acts of kindness devoid of any motive of supernatural grace.

Indeed, Francis goes on to say that “The Church increasingly desires to adopt this way of life, also as part of her ‘duty to foster unity and charity’ among all men and women…” The Church is depicted as an organization that has only recently begun to discover fully what mercy means! It means, according to Francis, a “way of life” — again, without reference to Divine Mercy toward repentant sinners.

Mercy as a “way of life” — rather than a divine action toward the sinner — is something that anyone, no matter what he believes, can possess. Thus, says Francis, “[t]he religions are likewise called to this way of life, in order to be, particularly in our own day, messengers of peace and builders of communion, and to proclaim, in opposition to all those who sow conflict, division and intolerance, that ours is a time of fraternity.”

Note well: “the religions” are referenced indifferently, as if they were all on equal footing with respect to the quality of mercy, which is reduced, in essence, to social work and brotherhood.

Continuing this indifferentist, pan-religious refrain, Francis declares that “mercy” as he conceives it — quoting himself — is that quality which is “more open to dialogue, the better to know and understand one another; eliminates every form of closed-mindedness and disrespect; and drives out every form of violence and discrimination (Misericordiae Vultus, 23). This is pleasing to God and constitutes an urgent task, responding not only to today’s needs but above all to the summons to love which is the soul of all authentic religion.”

Not a word here about the supernatural grace of charity obtained and maintained through the sacraments instituted by Christ, nor the divine action involved in God’s mercy thus obtained. Rather, again, we see only an appeal to do-goodism depicted as the “soul of all authentic religion.”

As Francis further declares (once again quoting himself), “mercy” also means the practice of environmental conservation:

Mercy extends also to the world around us, to our common home, which we are called to protect and preserve from unbridled and rapacious consumption. Our commitment is needed for an education to sobriety and to respect, to a more simple and orderly way of life, in which the resources of creation are used with wisdom and moderation, with concern for humanity as a whole and coming generations, not simply the interests of our particular group and the benefits of the present moment. Today in particular, ‘the gravity of the ecological crisis demands that we all look to the common good, embarking on a path of dialogue which requires patience, self-discipline and generosity'” (Laudato Si’, 201).

So, “authentic religion” now expands to include not merely the one and only religion that God established, but also any and all religions whose adherents do good, including caring for the environment. “Mercy” thus defined would therefore be an element, according to Francis, of virtually all religions that advocate doing good:

“The theme of mercy is familiar to many religious and cultural traditions, where compassion and nonviolence are essential elements pointing to the way of life; in the words of an ancient proverb: ‘death is hard and stiff; life is soft and supple’ (Tao-Te-Ching, 76). To bow down with compassionate love before the weak and needy is part of the authentic spirit of religion, which rejects the temptation to resort to force, refuses to barter human lives and sees others as brothers and sisters, and never mere statistics. To draw near to all those living in situations that call for our concern, such as sickness, disability, poverty, injustice and the aftermath of conflicts and migrations: this is a summons rising from the heart of every genuine religious tradition. It is the echo of the divine voice heard in the conscience of every person, calling him or her to reject selfishness and to be open….”

When Francis finally gets around to mentioning Divine Mercy, he appears to make God’s forgiveness of sin available to anyone who practices mercy on a human level whether or not it involves an act of supernatural charity motivated by divine grace:

“How important this is, when we consider today’s widespread fear that it is impossible to be forgiven, rehabilitated and redeemed from our weaknesses. For us Catholics, among the most meaningful rites of the Holy Year is that of walking with humility and trust through the door – the Holy Door – to find ourselves fully reconciled by the mercy of God, who forgives our trespasses. But this demands that we too forgive those who trespass against us (cf. Mt 6:12), the brothers and sisters who have offended us. We receive God’s forgiveness in order to share it with others. Forgiveness is surely the greatest gift we can give to others, because it is the most costly. Yet at the same time, it is what makes us most like God.”

But, as the Church has always taught, in fallen man the imago Dei — the likeness to God — can be restored only by the grace of justification following the grace of repentance for sin. And the ordinary means of justification are Baptism and, after Baptism, absolution of mortal sin by way of Confession, about which Francis has nothing whatever to say to an audience desperately in need of the helps only the Church that Christ established can provide.

Thus does the Catholic faith — the one, true, divinely revealed religion — fade into insignificance in the grand scheme of “authentic religion” reduced to doing good and forgiving others without any obligation to assent to revealed truth, avail oneself of the divinely instituted sacraments, or indeed profess any particular religious belief at all. Catholics may be reconciled in their Catholic way (certainly not by merely walking through a Holy Door with humility and trust), but anyone who simply forgives, on a human level, attains the divine likeness.

Driving home the point, lest anyone miss it, Francis concludes by declaring: “May the religions be wombs of life, bearing the merciful love of God to a wounded and needy humanity; may they be doors of hope helping to penetrate the walls erected by pride and fear.” All religions “bear the merciful love of God,” no matter what errors or superstitions they involve. All that matters, according to Francis, is that their adherents show forgiveness and brotherhood toward others and care for the environment.

Referring to the recent debacle of the Pope’s visit to Sweden to “commemorate” the Protestant Rebellion launched by Luther, the respected traditional Catholic scholar Roberto de Mattei observed: “What surfaced during the ecumenical meeting between Pope Francis and the World Lutheran Federation on October 31st in Lund, seems to be a new religion.”

A new religion indeed. And certainly not the religion established by God Incarnate in the one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. But then, as Pius XI warned about those who would embrace the then-nascent “ecumenical movement” with its pan-Christian gatherings:

“Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.

As the human element of the Church has come to accept and participate not only in pan-Christian but also pan-religious spectacles, such as this address by Francis, we can consider Pius XI’s warning a prophecy fulfilled, along with the prophecy undoubtedly contained in the integral Third Secret of Fatima.   Source – fatima.org

Comment:

Well, we’ve had a new Mass, new catechism, new rosary, new canon law, new morality,  blah blah, so why not a new “mercy”? 

Are We All Lutherans Now?

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

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