2018: The Year of Formal Schism?

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

Comments invited… 

Cabinet Reshuffle & Jacob Rees-Mogg…

Today’s news includes clips from the new army advertisement designed to encourage people to join the UK army irrespective of faith, sexual orientation, or “genders”.

Got me thinking.  When the Catholic MP, Jacob Rees-Mogg, known to attend the Traditional Latin Mass, was quizzed about his views on “gay marriage” and abortion, he was at pains to assure the interviewer (and thus the wider public) that he would certainly accept an invitation to a “gay wedding” (“and probably enjoy it”) and that, while opposed to abortion at all stages and in all circumstances himself, he would not seek to change the law.  Abortion would remain legal.  Yet, neither these flexible moral principles, nor his unwavering support for Brexit, where in every interview he has shown himself to be thoroughly well informed,  were enough to see him brought into the Cabinet in this week’s reshuffle.  

No vision. There’s simply no vision. No suggestion that, if elected to lead the nations of the UK, he would order a health campaign to educate the public on the health implications of both homosexual activity and abortion,  in the spirit of the public health campaigns on smoking (which led to a successful ban on smoking in public places)  and no suggestion that, thus, perhaps with more information, the public would be perfectly happy to see a pro-life Prime Minister in office.  No such suggestions because there is simply no such vision.  

 And – in the case of a weak Catholic – there’s no real faith: “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God, and His justice, and all these other things [power, political office, for example] will be given to you.” (Matt 6:33)  Put simply, if Jacob Rees-Mogg puts God and His Moral Law first, ahead of peer and public opinion, God will take care of his career. 

Surely, too,  a politician confident of the truth of his position on such important moral matters who genuinely seeks the well-being of the countries of the UK, would win over public opinion, based on the facts,  the objective health data.  

That Jacob Rees -Mogg was, yet again, passed over for promotion in this week’s Cabinet reshuffle should bring home to him that fact that his flexible principles have not paid off.  If he has any ambition for higher office – and surely, as a pro-life Catholic in politics, he ought to have ambitions for the highest office, his protestations to the contrary notwithstanding – he ought to openly oppose the evils of abortion and homosexuality and openly resolve to educate the public on the health issues involved with a view to restoring national good health – physically and morally – under his premiership. 

I believe that such openness and honesty would see him brought into the Cabinet and ultimately at home in No. 10 Downing Street – what do you think?  

Comments invited…  

The Morality of Match-Making…

From time to time, I find myself in the role of Agony Aunt, asked my opinion about matters romantic (believe it or not)  by young people who are single, would like to be married, but every time they think they’ve found Mr or Miss Right, turns out their first name is Always.  Or, in some other way, they are just not suited.  There is a particular difficulty, too, in finding a sound Catholic spouse.   More than once, I’ve found myself suggesting that while it’s all well and good leaving everything to Divine Providence, and it’s especially beneficial to pray to St Joseph,  it doesn’t do any harm to help things  along by – say, for argument’s sake – signing up to a Catholic dating site online.  Like, for example, this one

Nothing is to be lost, and possibly, a husband/wife gained.  I’ve known happily married couples who met in precisely this way.  Thing is, I’m wondering if it’s wrong to suggest that route to young people – IS it morally acceptable for young Catholics to use such sites? Should I stick to my day job (which is washing the dishes, vacuuming and keeping this blog afloat) or should I make a permanent move to Marriage Counselling?  😀  

Whenever I’ve suggested this possibility to young people, I’ve nearly always met with the shock-horror question: but, if I meet someone, how will I say we met?  I know how I answer that – but what about you? 

In summary, a serious subject, yes, but it also gives us the opportunity for some light relief before we close down for the last week of Advent, on Sunday next.  So, your advice and thoughts welcome, but also some jokes and fun on the topic and related subjects, if you wish. 

Comments invited…

 

 

 

 

Is The Christian Institute Anti-Catholic?

From the website of The Christian Institute…

In 1523 London could number its citizens by the thousands, its crimes by the hundreds and its places of worship by the scores.

Men and women wandered past the religious institutions which held them in superstition and fear. They had no knowledge of the word of God which was withheld from them in Latin by the Church.

Just 15 years later, the Bible was being distributed in English to churches across the land. God’s word would be freely accessible to every man, woman and child who could read or be read to.

This revolutionary change was the focus of our third Autumn Lecture last night, brought to us by Brian Edwards, author and former president of the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches (FIEC).

Edwards explained that the English Bible we read today can largely be credited to the work of one man, used by God – William Tyndale.

Reformation minded

Tyndale was probably born in Gloucestershire in 1491. By 1506, he was studying at Magdalen College, Oxford, before being ordained into the priesthood of the Church of England.

Concerned with the theology of his Oxford colleagues, he is thought to have transferred to Cambridge around 1519. Here he was among a score of upcoming reformers who were discussing the ideas of the Reformation and the work of a certain German monk by the name of Martin Luther.

In 1521, he crossed swords with a local friar who, following a heated debate, exclaimed: ‘we’d be better off without God’s law than the law of the Pope’.

Tyndale replied: “I defy the Pope and all his laws. If God spare my life ere many years, I will cause the boy that drives the plow to know more of the Scriptures than you!”
Thus began Tyndale’s life’s work – translating the Bible into the language of the common people.

Exile

This at a time when it was forbidden for a person to read the Bible in English without a priest’s permission and people were burned at the stake for teaching others the Lord’s Prayer in English.

Tyndale fled England. In 1524 he travelled to Hamburg and then to Cologne, and by 1525 he was starting to print the New Testament in English, before copies were smuggled back to England on German merchant ships.

Amidst barrels of grain were thousands of English New Testaments, available for the price of a load of hay.

Lasting influence

Skilled in Hebrew, Greek, Latin and several other languages, the accuracy of Tyndale’s rendering has been commended by experts.

But he aimed to communicate the Gospel, not just translate, and in the foreword to his New Testament, he urged readers to repent and trust in Christ for themselves.

Medieval historian Ian Mortimer describes Tyndale as, “the only writer in the English language more influential than Shakespeare”. Many of his phrases remain in language today and he introduced new terms including “scapegoat” and “Exodus”.

By 1530, his translation of the Pentateuch had arrived in England. But King Henry declared that Tyndale’s books should be burned and punishment doled out to owners. Tyndale was a hunted man, constantly on the lookout for King Henry’s agents.

Martyred

Early in the summer of 1535, Tyndale was betrayed by his friend Henry Phillips who invited him to lunch and then ambushed him. He was imprisoned outside Brussels for a year, accused of heresy.

In September 1536, William Tyndale, England’s greatest Bible translator was chained to a stake, partially strangled and then burned.

His final words are said to have been: ‘Lord, open the King of England’s eyes’.

God’s word for all

Tyndale’s prayer was answered in that a short time later the Great Bible – based on the work of Tyndale – was presented to Henry VIII and approved for distribution to churches across England.

Brian Edwards concluded: “Tyndale’s legacy is in the pages of every English Bible you ever pick up”.   Source – Christian Institute

Comment:

The above article from the Christian Institute website is classic Protestant Propaganda.  Click here to read an academic rebuttal of the Protestant view of the Bible, which was butchered, literally, by the Protestant revolutionaries in the Middle Ages. Far from upholding the Scriptures as the Word of God, the “reformers” removed those books which, a cynic might say, were too Catholic for them – notably, books which contain the roots of Catholic doctrines (e.g. Purgatory – Maccabees).   See short (2 minutes) video clip below..

Share your thoughts on the blatant propaganda published by the Christian Institute, which is an organisation respected for its work in addressing political correctness in the moral sphere. It has led the fight against the Named Person Scheme in Scotland. Thus,  Catholics, myself included, have supported its work – but this might prove to be  a game-changer.  Or perhaps you disagree?  Speak your mind! 

Cardinal Brandmüller: Pope Ignoring Dubia Puzzling – We Need Answers!

 28 October…  Cardinal Brandmüller demands Pope answer Dubia – Cardinal Brandmüller defends “Dubia”

Four Dubia Cardinals
(two now deceased)

Last year, four cardinals had made public their criticism of the Pope with their “Dubia”. For this they learned a great deal of counter-criticism. One of them now defends the requests to Francis.

The Four Dubia Cardinals- two now dead.

The German Cardinal Walter Brandmüller defended the “Dubia”, which he co-wrote, to Pope Francis. He understood the criticism that had triggered the publication of the questions. But the step was “only taken after a waiting for an answer”, he said in the interview of the “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung” (Saturday). “And especially with regard to the fact that many believers have had the same questions and are waiting for an answer,” the Cardinal explained.

“What do you mean, what phone calls, letters, inquiries we get?”, Brandmüller continued. “They also say,” Why do you not do anything, you Cardinals ? “We finally made an oath of office and are by office advisers to the Pope.” They had asked for an audience, but they also did not receive an answer on this, the 88-year-old said.

In the context of his view of liberal interpretations of the Papal letter, the Cardinal emphasised: “It is a dogma that marriage is a sacrament and therefore indissoluble.” This means, “He who asserts that one can enter into a new marriage during his lifetime of his lawfully married wife is excommunicated, because this is an erroneous teaching, a heresy.” Whosoever is aware of a serious sin such as adultery, can only go to the Eucharist if he has previously repented, confessed, and been forgiven.       

He had “great concern that something would explode,” said the former President of the Vatican Historical Commission. The fact that the requests of thousands of people remained unanswered, raised questions. “This is really hard to understand,” the prelate said.

After all, the central question is: “Can something [be] good if something was a sin yesterday?” In addition, the question is asked whether there really are acts that are “morally reprehensible” under all circumstances – such as the killing of an innocent or adultery. “If in fact the first question should be answered with yes and the second with no – then this would be heresy, and, as a result, schism, division of the church,” said Brandmüller.

The Papal letter “Amoris laetitia” of 2016 is the reason for the “Dubia” (doubts). The Pope said that Catholics who had married again after a divorce could be admitted to the communion. The Cardinals Walter Brandmüller, Raymond Leo Burke and the now deceased Carlo Caffarra and Joachim Meisner first asked Francis personally, then in November last year publicly to clarify the interpretation and categorisation of “Amoris laetitia”.  Source

Comments invited… 

Scotland To Ban Smacking… Childless Politicians Rebuked by Majority of Scots

Click here to read about the Scottish Government’s plans to ban smacking. Parents who choose to discipline their children with a timely smack, are to be criminalised – although we’ve yet to find out exactly how this crackpot law will be enforced. Below, a letter written by our blogger, Athanasius, which was published in The Scotsman Newspaper: 

LETTER from blogger, Athanasius (Martin Blackshaw) published in The Scotsman…

The arrogant interference in family life by Scotland’s political leaders is again on display as a recent ComRes poll, reported in the Scotsman, shows them at odds once more with parents, this time in the matter of smacking children.

Having already ignored the will of parents and the Supreme Court by forging ahead with their State-usurping Named Person scheme, it seems the next step in eradicating parental authority is to criminalise so much as a slap on the hand or the leg of a child.

They say it’s all in the interests of child safety and wellbeing, a red herring argument backed with endless liberal psychobabble about how smacking can scar the mind of a chastised child for life.

These are the same politicians who dismiss traditional Christian moral teaching in State schools, choosing instead to rob Scottish youth of its innocence at a vulnerable and tender age through sex education. That too is backed up with psychobabble despite a shocking decline in youth morality since the almighty switch from God to government began in the 1960s.

Well I have some news for our politicians, it is that I was smacked countless times by my parents when I was growing up and I love them for those corrections. Children, like adults under the law, have rules to obey if they are to enjoy true liberty. Parents understand this and that’s why they enforce the rules with the threat of physical punishment if breached. It’s a tried and tested method both privately and publicly over many millennia by authorities who actually had children of their own and truly cared for their welfare. Holyrood hippies take note! END.

Comment:

Given that the majority of the politicians are childless who are leading this drive to criminalise loving parents for their choice of discipline, albeit that it may be a rare, even one-off, occurrence, it seems like a monumental cheek for them to set themselves up as experts in any aspect of childcare. How unreasonable is that?

Parents, on the other hand, tend to be even handed, reasonable to a fault when it comes to disciplining their offspring.  Some of them have even launched a group emphasising this parental reasonableness.  Click here to reach their website.  It’s great to see parents leading the fightback by refusing to accept this latest bullying attempt by the Scottish Government to take control of the nation’s families.

It’s time that the Scottish Bishops did the same, time that they exercised their duty to support parents in the raising of their children, by objecting, publicly, to this latest State intrusion into private family life.  But, will they? 

Fatima: Our Lady Got It SO Wrong…

The following extract is taken from a website providing links to the much publicised  Filial Correction

A 25-page letter signed by 40 Catholic clergy and lay scholars was delivered to Pope Francis on August 11th. Since no answer was received from the Holy Father, it is being made public today, 24th September, Feast of Our Lady of Ransom and of Our Lady of Walsingham. The letter, which is open to new signatories, now has the names of 62 clergy and lay scholars from 20 countries, who also represent others lacking the necessary freedom of speech. It has a Latin title: ‘Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagatis’ (literally, ‘A filial correction concerning the propagation of heresies’). It states that the pope has, by his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, and by other, related, words, deeds and omissions, effectively upheld 7 heretical positions about marriage, the moral life, and the reception of the sacraments, and has caused these heretical opinions to spread in the Catholic Church. These 7 heresies are expressed by the signatories in Latin, the official language of the Church.

We’ve discussed this ‘Correction’ on our blog elsewhere; I went on record as being in opposition to the idea of restricting the signatories to “lay scholars” and resolved not to sign it, despite being in possession of academic qualifications – two Degrees (Education and Theology) to be precise. Another blogger argued that I should sign for a number of reasons, so I allowed myself to be persuaded and submitted my signature, academic qualifications and humble status as Editor of Catholic Truth (Scotland).  I thought, heck if nothing else, they’ll want at least ONE signature from Bonnie Scotland.  I was wrong.  My signature did not make it and neither, interestingly, did the signature of the academic who coaxed me to sign in the first place.*   We’re regarded as being too outspoken, short on the diplomatic front, because we tend to call out those responsible for the dire state of the Church where we live and move and suffer the consequences of the modernist mayhem around us.  The general opinion of our friends seems to be that it is this outspokenness that has caused our signatures to fail the censorship process.  There are, you see, traditionalists and there are “traditionalists” –  the Pontius Pilate  School of Silent Complicity tends not to approve of the outspoken among us. Remember, some of those behind this Filial Correction kept mighty quiet during the reigns of both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, when the rest of us were raising grave concerns about the errors and scandals which abounded during those pontificates.  In fact, at least one of the signatories on the ‘Correction’ waited for an entire year into the pontificate of Papa Francis before raising a voice of mild concern.
* [Ed: quite some time later, our signatures were, in fact, added to the Filial Correction. So, I’m not sure if this is a case of I owe the organiser(s) an apology or “wonders will never cease”…]

Anyway, today, in discussion, one humble gentleman without a single Degree to his name, pointed out that when God sent His mother to earth with messages for mankind of one sort or another, including the Fatima prophecies which are coming true before our very eyes, He chose unlettered children, not “scholars”.   Indeed, Our Lady told Lucy of Fatima to learn to read… she didn’t wait until Lucy was able to read before appearing to her.  The same is true of other important revelations when Our Lady appeared to children. Bernadette of Lourdes is another very good example of how God seems to by-pass the clever-clogs among us, to communicate with the humble, simple and unlettered.  There has to be a reason.  OR…

Comment:

Did Our Lady get it so wrong?  SHOULD she have appeared to some highly qualified scholars at Fatima, rather than 3 un-schooled, shepherd children who were never going to get anywhere in life, who wouldn’t make it to university?