The Great Reset: The Plan For Global Totalitarianism – We Must Fight Back… 

Comment: 

Since nobody voted Klaus Schwab or any other members of the globalist elite into positions of authority over us, they have some nerve setting out, deliberately, and unashamedly, to change the way we live, to remove our freedoms which come from God, not from any politician or self-appointed wannabe world ruler. 

But what about Mark Moss’s take on how to deal with this very real threat – the plan to remove our right to privacy and to ownership whether of our homes or the clothes on our back… Is Mark suggesting anything we haven’t already identified on this blog? Can anyone add anything to his ideas about how to prepare for what the “great and the good” are planning for us in the next decade?  If so, shoot – I’m all agog! 

Archbishop-Elect Dermot Farrell of Dublin – The New Judas On The Block… 

From The Catholic Thing – Some Troubles in Dublin by Fr Gerald E. Murray

               Archbishop-Elect of Dublin,               Dermot Farrell

The Archbishop-Elect of Dublin, Dermot Farrell, gave an interview to the Irish Times soon after his appointment had been announced by the Holy See. (Click here for a transcript of the interview.)

The new archbishop declares himself in favour of women deacons and married priests. He does not find in the Scriptures an argument against the ordination of women to the priesthood. He calls the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on homosexuality merely technical. He also says he has no problem with the private blessing of rings for divorced and remarrying couples and for homosexual couples (though he finds public blessings problematic because people often misconstrue them as actual marriages).

Amid so many other troubles, the Irish Church appears to be headed for more rocky days.

Farrell’s treatment of Church teaching and practice regarding homosexuality, for example, is dismissive: “It’s a technical description. People misconstrue that then because it is technical theological language.” He considers amending this technical language, because “I think Pope Francis has discussed that (removal). It came up at the last Synod.”

Really?  Farrell is referring to this teaching of the Catechism: “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” (CCC 2357)

In common parlance, calling language in a document “technical” can mean that it is unintelligible or is commonly misunderstood by the uninitiated, and is there to serve some arcane or legalistic purpose. Its removal is desirable but may be difficult to do if sticklers, purists, or legalists object. Better just to ignore it and treat it as a dead letter, as in “Technically speaking that is true, but. . .”

To describe the clear, unchanging, and unchangeable teaching of the Church on the inherent immorality of homosexual acts as technical language that could, and even should, be dispensed with is plainly a rejection of that teaching.

The rejection of homosexual activity, and the homosexual lifestyle, by faithful Catholics, however,  is not a misconstruing of “technical” language found in the Catechism. Those who want the Church to embrace and bless the homosexual lifestyle object to the language of the Catechism not because it is misconstrued by clueless people who think it means that no one should engage in homosexual acts because, being intrinsically disordered, they are immoral. Rather, they object because the language is easily and correctly understood to mean just that. The problem for them is not the allegedly confusing words used, but rather the clear meaning of those words.

Archbishop Farrell, in response to a question about blessing rings for divorced and remarried couples and for same-sex couples, says:

The difficulty with blessings is that they are very often misconstrued as marriage. Priests have given these blessings in the past. I remember one colleague of mine. I had said to him – he used to have this ceremony of the blessing of rings – I said to him I don’t have a difficulty with blessing rings if you’re doing that here in the house but if you go out into the public domain, in a church, and bless rings as you see it. . .they turned up with 200 people and they saw it as a marriage. Sometimes people use that phraseology. . .you’re into confusion there. It can be misconstrued as “yes, the priest married us.” Blessings are always going to be misconstrued and that’s where the difficulty arises because once you start blessing things like that people are going to construe that as a marriage. We can’t have that sort of situation in the Church because it creates all sorts of problems in terms of our own teaching and these teachings of the church have been constant.

Leaving aside the question of blessing the rings of divorced and remarried couples, what exactly are we to understand is the meaning of blessing the wedding rings of same-sex couples, whether in private or in public? Is it a misconstrual to consider that the priest who does such a blessing approves of the relationship that the homosexual couple has entered into (which is a counterfeit, pseudo-marriage), and asks God’s favor and approval upon that relationship as symbolized by the rings?

The Modern Catholic Dictionary defines a blessing thus: “In liturgical language a blessing is a ritual ceremony by which an authorized cleric in major orders sanctifies persons or things to divine service, or invokes divine favor on what he blesses.” The dictionary’s entry on rings states: “Conferring the ring is an integral part of the marriage ceremony to signify the mutual love of husband and wife, and wearing the ring symbolizes their pledge of marital fidelity.”

The main problem with blessing wedding rings of a same-sex couple is not that people will become confused and think that the priest was actually  marrying them. No, the main problem is that a priest who does such an unholy act is giving the impression that God will favour what He has condemned. Same-sex “marriages” are not marriages in any way, shape, or form. It’s a gravely sinful relationship in which two men or two women pledge to sodomize each other. No blessing should ever be invoked by a priest upon this unnatural relationship nor upon the pirated symbols of the holy estate of marriage.

Archbishop Farrell says: “I don’t have a difficulty with blessing rings.” If that’s true, what he does have is a more fundamental difficulty: God has warned shepherds who mislead their flocks into paths of sin and error that they will be held accountable. Let us pray that the new Archbishop of Dublin will forswear his comments and reaffirm the Church’s actual teaching and practice.  Click here to read at source

Comment:

There’s really nothing left for me to say – except pray for poor Ireland.  As if it’s not due a break.  From my trip to Dublin at the time of the abortion referendum I have one memory which will be forever fixed in my mind and it is this:  handing out our leaflets and engaging with the few members of the public who didn’t tell us to blankety blank off, I met one woman who expressed herself heart-broken about the state of the Church in Ireland, that it had come to this – a referendum on murdering the unborn. She told me that she had daughters who were going to vote in favour of legalising abortion, and her tears fell. My heart went out to her. Catholics have been very badly served by the clergy in Ireland.  And after the abortion and then the same-sex “marriage” votes, the Pope is still not satisfied; the people of Ireland need yet another bad bishop – and one who is not afraid to publicly display his fake Catholicism.

As I intimated at the beginning of this short comment – there’s really nothing left for me to say.  Over to you… 

Church Closures: Are Catholics Obliged to Obey Govt Ban On Worship Of God? 

Comment: 

Martin Luther King, as pointed out in the above video, quotes Catholic teaching on unjust laws to legitimise the civil uprisings in the USA against the segregation of black people from the rest of the population. King points out that those who invoke this right to disobey unjust civil laws must be prepared to take the consequences – such as imprisonment. Thus, it is made clear that the motive for such civil disobedience is conscience, not malice. 

At this time, when we are prohibited from the worship of God in our churches because of “the virus”, what should Catholics do – pressure priests for “secret” Masses or openly attend churches, bearing in mind that the priest is the person most likely to have to pay the consequences. We’re hearing of a Scots priest who has been handed a hefty fine for allowing parishioners to attend his Mass recently.  Such is the confusion around us that I’m not clear in my own mind whether or not members of the congregation are also liable to fines – informed contributors please enlighten me on that score. It’s not the virus of which people are afraid when it comes to assessing the restrictions, it’s the fines and the fear of losing hearth and home which is forcing compliance. My entirely unsolicited and unqualified legal advice to anyone found breaking a “Covid law” is, in any case, to refuse to pay fines and let the matter go to court in due course. I’ll pray for you 😀   

It should go without saying (but I’d better say it anyway) that if you happen to know of any underground Sacraments which you suspect may be on offer, you must not say so on this thread, or anywhere else on this blog for that matter.  This thread is to discuss the principles of law and our obligation (or not) to obey all laws – even perceived unjust laws. Do the current Covid laws,  especially the prohibition on attending churches, fit the definition of an unjust law, according to the thinking of Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine…

IS is true that “an unjust law is no law at all” ?   

Catholics Must Withdraw From Facebook, Twitter etc – Immediately! 

Comment: 

It is self-evident that these Big Tech giants as they’re known, (“monsters” is more accurate), are hand in glove with those intent on embedding totalitarian governance across the world.  The censorship is utterly brazen.   Thus, knowing how these evil-doers have used their power and influence to get rid of President Trump and put the puppet Biden into the White House by manifestly foul means, it’s interesting to read the following from blogger, Athanasius… an email sent to the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) Prior in Scotland & District Superior in London. It is worth each of us giving serious thought to removing ourselves from these platforms.  Ditto every parish – they’re all into Facebook and Twitter.  No Catholic should be supporting these evil-doers. We should withdraw our business immediately, if not sooner. Read on and see if you agree…  

[Dear Fathers…]  

I received a phone call today from a fellow Glasgow parishioner asking if I knew anything about the SSPX Mass schedule for Scotland given the new lockdown rules. 

Like me, this person had searched through the SSPX websites for England and Scotland looking for current information but was unable to find any clarification on the Masses for the foreseeable future. I had also emailed St. Andrew’s House many days ago seeking clarification but received no response.

Fortunately, I was able to tell the person in question that I had discovered from other sources that Sunday Mass is, as we suspected, cancelled, probably for the next four weeks at least.

As the conversation developed he told me that his information is that the SSPX only makes formal announcements and updates now via its Facebook account. I have heard this said before but didn’t actually believe it given that Facebook is presently engaged in suppressing truth and justice with regard to both the U.S. election and Covid-19 frauds. Indeed, Facebook owner Mark Zuckerberg played a particularly nefarious role in the election fraud through fund distribution to subversive groups in the key swing States.

As a result of his actions and those of other “Big Tech” organisations many Catholics, myself included, have been forced in conscience to terminate our Facebook, Twitter and Google accounts, lest by our continued patronage we approve the diabolic actions of these Marxist social media outlets.

I think the SSPX should lead the way in this matter by publicly disavowing the aforementioned outlets, encouraging the faithful to switch instead to alternative platforms such as Parler for chat and DuckDuckGo for web searching. To continue to use Facebook in light of what we now know about Zuckerberg would be unconscionable and reprehensible before God. For general SSPX news and updates, I hope to see a return to posting these on the SSPX website.

I hope you see the moral imperative for the SSPX to be seen to act in this matter, not just in the UK but all around the world. Strong in faith and resolute in the moral teaching of the Church, I think all Traditional Catholics must be urgently advised to reject any perceived benefits from continued use of these evil platforms, for we are simply not at liberty to profit from evil. Ends. 

 

 

 

 

 

Covid Is Excuse To Take Our Freedom… Will We Fight For The Faith in 2021?

Comment: 

There is really nothing I can add to (but merely endorse) Michael Matt’s powerful words in the above video. Really powerful. Just pay close attention to the situation in Italy and prepare for similar here – including the threat of living like this until at least 2024. I’m already on record as saying that I believe we’ll be living like this until the Consecration of Russia is done, and that remains my firm belief.  That doesn’t mean we roll over and accept what is happening. We return again and again to the same question, then, the same dilemma – what can we do?  

Scotland’s First Minister: Mask Rule For Thee, But Not For Me! Police Agree… 

From Police Scotland…

A Police Scotland spokesperson said: “We’re aware of a photograph of the First Minister which appeared in The Sun, on 23 December, in which she was not wearing a face mask at a wake. The First Minister has acknowledged this inadvertent breach, for which she has apologised.

“We remind everyone of the requirement to wear face coverings in indoor public places for public health reasons. Police Scotland will not be taking any further action in relation to this matter.”  Daily Record

Comment: 

A friend was telling me about conversations she’s had with more than one member of the public recently, casual conversations in shops, mostly, where she’s been amazed to learn that the person(s) hated wearing the mask, didn’t actually need to because they were exempt, but were afraid that people would tell them off if they didn’t wear one – afraid, too of someone reporting them to the police.  Now they can rest assured that there will be no police action as long as they apologise.  Yeah right. 

On The Telegraph YouTube channel, there were sympathisers, with the point being made that plenty of other people do this (not wear a mask) so what’s the difference if Nicola Sturgeon does it?  Here’s one printable reply… “The difference is, she makes the rules and fines normal people for not following them. People like you are the reason they’re getting away with the [bleep!] they’re feeding us.

Well, do you agree?  Or were the police correct not to impose a fine for this “inadvertent breach for which she has apologised”... ?

Christmas Prayers Urgently Required For Conversion of Pope Francis – Please! 

Comment: 

Although billed as “Breaking News” , the above video was made almost a month ago (dated 28 November) and it was discussed briefly on one of the threads, but, as Christmas draws near, it’s worth reminding ourselves of the need to pray very hard for Papa Francis. 

Since words always fail me when confronted by the details of this Pope’s scandalous words and behaviour, I’ll simply reproduce three of the comments from the Lifesitenews YouTube platform – these good people say it all…

(1) Why does he not lash out [at] pro abortion promoters? Biden? Pelosi? Harris? Etc; (2) 
Maybe If we are not locked down we can get water to the children; (3)  A pope [who] embraces communism but sits on a throne of gold protected by guns, not wearing a mask. Lol

Add your own thoughts, but, above all, respond to John Henry Weston’s plea to pray for the conversion of this anti-Catholic pontiff. For some of us, this is an intention in our daily rosary, so if you are not in the habit of praying for the conversion of Pope Francis, please start now – it really is urgent, not least because of his age:  he could be called to his judgment at any time.  Our Lady & St Joseph, pray for him! 

Warning: SSPX Shock Approval For Covid-19 Vaccine – Catholics Beware…


A few weeks ago the SSPX USA District published an article on its website headed: “Is it morally permissible to use the Covid-19 vaccine?”  It was a rather short piece advising on the moral implications for Catholics weighing new and existing vaccines produced from the stem cell lines of aborted babies.

Short as it was, however, the article was read by many Traditional Catholics, myself included, as a scandalous capitulation to Modernist moral theological thought. I wrote immediately to the District Superior of the U.S., as did others, raising objection to the piece which was subsequently removed and replaced with a message that said something to the effect that the Society’s moral theologians and medical experts were now reviewing the content under the supervision of SSPX superiors and would re-publish in due course.

Well, the SSPX reposted their review on December 4 and it said exactly the same as the first time around, except this time with lots of added superfluous passages to make it appear more deeply researched and authoritative.

Here are the three principal erroneous teachings expounded in both the original and revised articles:

1: “The doctor who vaccinates a patient, or the patient who is vaccinated, has only distant cooperation, for these acts only encourage and promote the sin of abortion in a very remote and very slight way. For sufficient health reasons, such acts could therefore be morally permitted.”

2: “A young woman who is to get married can thus receive the rubella vaccine, although such a vaccine is almost always prepared on fetal cells obtained by abortion. The reason is the danger for the child: if a woman contracts rubella during pregnancy, especially during the first trimester, the risk of birth defects – eye, hearing or heart – are significant. These malformations are permanent.”

3:As cooperation is only distant, and the reason given is serious enough, it is possible in these cases to use such a vaccine. Moreover, it remains for each individual to judge, with the help of appropriate advice, this real need. ..It must be clearly stated that we are here in the domain of a prudent judgment, which cannot be uniform for all and in all cases. Moral theology says what is lawful or unlawful. It gives the principles. But it is for personal prudence to judge their application on a case-by-case basis.”

Concerning this third erroneous proposition, it seems to me that there’s a bit of sophistry being employed here similar to that used by the Francis revolutionaries who also use the ‘principle Vs. prudence’ argument in order to justify the admittance of divorced and remarried Catholics, cohabiting couples, etc., to Holy Communion. At any rate, I ran these past a trustworthy Traditional Catholic priest of more than 35 years and he in turn responded with the following three reasons showing why this SSPX advice is both ethically and morally wrong:

Vaccines Derived from Aborted Fetal Cells (Fetal DNA) are Immoral and Must be Rejected

(1) Reason 1: It is sinful to do evil to accomplish good (Rom. 3:8). Thus, it is sinful to make use of a good effect/benefit that has been derived or procured from an evil means. Using a covid-19 vaccine derived from, or tainted with, or tested with, aborted fetal tissue (fetal DNA) would constitute using an evil means, i.e., tissue (DNA) from an aborted fetus, in order to accomplish a good end, i.e., a medical cure. Therefore, the use of vaccines derived from, or tainted with, aborted fetal tissue is immoral and forbidden.

The “double effect” cannot be invoked: According to the moral principle of “double effect,” it is morally permitted, in cases of necessity, to employ an action which simultaneously produces two effects, one good and one evil, provided that: (1) only the good effect is willed, and (2) the good effect is not derived from the evil effect (for it is sinful to obtain a good end by the use of evil means). The principle of the “double effect” cannot be invoked in the use of vaccines derived from, or tainted with, or tested with, aborted fetal tissue (fetal DNA). The reason is because the good effect, i.e., medical cure, is obtained by means of the evil effect, i.e., the sin of abortion, from which the fetal tissue (DNA) was procured and used in the development and/or testing of the vaccine. Thus, the use of such vaccines is morally illicit.

[An example of a permissible action with a “double effect” would be a doctor’s prescription of a strong pain medication to relieve severe pain in a cancer patient, even though the use of such medication may also have the side effect to slowly shorten the patient’s life. In this case, the good effect, i.e., the present relief from severe pain, is the direct result of the pain medication, and is not derived from the evil effect, i.e., the shortening of life. Rather both good effect and bad effect are a simultaneous result of the use of the strong pain medication.] 

(2) Reason 2:  Just as it is forbidden to knowingly receive and use stolen money, especially if the victim was murdered in order to steal his money (for it is unlawful to benefit from a crime), so also it is forbidden to use a vaccine which is developed with the use of fetal tissue (fetal DNA) that has been stolen from an aborted (murdered) fetus—which is already a human person. Just as the stolen money always remains the property of the victim of theft or robbery, so also the vital organ (e.g., kidney, liver, etc.) and the tissue/DNA taken from it, always remain the property of the fetus—and connected to the physical integrity of his/her body. Therefore, it is immoral and illicit to use vaccines that have been developed or tested with the use of aborted fetal DNA.

(3) Reason 3: “Organ donation”: The use of covid-19 vaccines derived from aborted fetal tissue cannot be likened to the use of a donated vital organ, e.g., kidney or liver, for in the case of organ donation, the organ donor gives consent to donating his organ, i.e., he freely donates his organ. However, if an organ “donor” is murdered in order to obtain his vital organ, the use of such an organ, or tissue (DNA) from this organ, is immoral and forbidden. Consequently, since this is the method used in obtaining fetal tissue from an aborted fetus, it follows that using a vaccine derived from aborted fetal DNA is immoral and not permitted.”

Now some may argue that this response is merely the opinion of one priest setting himself against eminent moral theologians of the SSPX. My answer to that is to quote the following statements of far more eminent Church prelates whose words ring true in every properly formed Catholic conscience.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider

From a Lifesitenews article, for example, which includes an interview with Bishop Athanasius Schneider, we have this:   

Maybe I’m wrong, but I have the suspicion that partly this COVID situation was created not only to implement a new dictatorship and control of the population, but in some way to legalize abortion globally – the killing of unborn babies – so that the entire planet will be collaborating in the process of killing babies through the vaccine which will use parts of aborted babies. The vaccine will be imposed and obligatory – so that you cannot work, travel, go to school without it, obliging the entire population to receive the vaccine, but the only vaccine will be that made with cells from aborted babies. Perhaps they will not accept other vaccines, and they will lie, saying that these are not effective, that the only effective vaccine will be from aborted babies. I am not affirming now that this will happen, but it is my suspicion: it appears to me realistic that this could come. This is for me the last step of Satanism: that Satan and the world government – ultimately the Masonic world government – will oblige all, even the Church, to accept abortion in this way. And therefore we must resist very strongly against this, if it comes. We must even accept to be martyrs…Unfortunately, some Bishops, even good Bishops and priests, are already presenting what for me is a sophism in justifying that you can accept this vaccine from aborted babies according to moral principles.”

From the same article Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas concurs thus:

Bishop Joseph Strickland

  “…if a vaccine for this virus is only attainable if we use body parts of aborted children then I will refuse the vaccine…I will not kill children to live.” The bishop publicly re-issued this rejection of such vaccines: “I renew my call that we reject any vaccine that is developed using aborted children. Even if it originated decades ago it still means a child’s life was ended before it was born & then their body was used as spare parts.”  Source

Also, in an open letter published in May, several Catholic Cardinals and bishops led by former papal nuncio Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and Cardinals Gerhard Ludwig Mueller, Joseph Zen, and Janis Pujats said that “for Catholics it is morally unacceptable to develop or use vaccines derived from material from aborted fetuses.”

Additionally, at the May 2020 Rome Life Forum Cardinal Raymond Burke said: “It must be clear that it is never morally justified to develop a vaccine through the use of the cell lines of aborted fetuses.” He added that forced vaccines violate the
“integrity of citizens.”

Cardinal Raymond Burke

These authoritative declarations conclusively show the moral theologians of the SSPX to have deviated from Traditional Catholic teaching in so grave a matter, a fact confirmed by the references they cite from more recent Vatican advice that just happens to be shared by most of the destructive Modernist hierarchy right up to Francis himself.   

And this is not an isolated incident. Recall, for example, the invitation extended to Fr. Sean Kilcawley to share the lecture podium with Bishop Fellay during the October, 2019 Angelus Conference. this Novus Ordo priest, said to be an expert on John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body”, is touted as a pornography addiction counsellor. Here is one example of Fr. Kilcawley’s counselling, a highly controversial video statement that went viral:

“… simply invite Our Lord into our temptation and into our thoughts in the present moment. To say, “Jesus, I want to look at pornography right now.” Or, “Jesus, I’m having an impure thought right now. You’re welcome into my imagination. You’re welcome to watch these thoughts with me.”   [Ed: click here to read our discussion in response to that scandal].

Nor is it just in the sphere of morals that we have reason to question the direction of the SSPX right now, for there is also a definite lean towards embracing modern pseudo-scientific thought.

Most informed Traditional Catholics, for example, are fully aware that the Covid-19 plague narrative is a geopolitical ruse concocted by a world Socialist elite as a means of supplanting global democracy with Communist totalitarianism. Proper official science has long proven this Coronavirus to be harmless for 99.97% of the global population, a fact easily discerned from a mere cursory glance at national and global death figures, yet the SSPX raises the controversial question of vaccines for the virus as though the plague narrative were credible and the vaccine question of some urgency.

Covid-19 patient, 120 years, mother of 12, wheeled out of hospital after two weeks “with clean bill of health” to applause from NHS staff .

A similar example of drift towards pseudo-science was Fr. Paul Robinson’s book “The Realist Guide to Religion and Science“, a work that has nothing whatever to do with the supernatural mission of the SSPX but which nevertheless negatively impacts on the Traditional Catholic understanding of Genesis by attempting to reconcile the Scriptural account of Creation with the utterly ridiculous “Big Bang” theory.

This is all very concerning, indicative of a serious problem within the higher clerical structure of the Society of St. Pius X. Whether the issue is one of infiltration or weakening of faith, I cannot say. What I can say to all those who, like me, are decades attached to the SSPX, to the saintly memory of Archbishop Lefebvre and to the many good priests who still make up the majority in the Society, is that we must watch like hawks going forward!

Not only must we reject deviations such as the advice on vaccines, the Fr. Kilcawley experiment and the Fr. Robinson science fiction, we must also henceforth check everything the SSPX superiors propose touching on faith and morals against the Traditional teaching of the Church and we must be vigilant in particular with regard to what is being taught to children in SSPX schools.

While it grieves me very greatly to have to say this publicly, I’m afraid there is no other option given the gravity of the situation and a demonstrable track record of SSPX superiors treating the concerns of subordinates with a contemptuous silence and a “business as usual” attitude which is utterly destructive of trust.

We all know the subtlety of Modernism, how it creeps in by degrees and ends in the destruction of everything we hold dear. If Vatican II and its aftermath have taught us anything it is that silence in the face of error is fatal to faith and must therefore be stopped immediately at source. That’s our task now, to react instantly like an immune system whenever the least sign of Modernist poison is detected within the SSPX. So let us be vigilant and let us not fail to raise our voices dutifully in respectful correction whenever error is taught, regardless of the dignity of the one who teaches it. Let us also pray fervently for all our priests.   (Published with kind permission of the author, Martin Blackshaw aka Catholic Truth blogger Athanasius).

Comments invited…  

8/12: Feast of Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception – Pray For Priests Today… 

Ave Maria, Gratia plena
Hail Mary, Full of Grace

Dominus tecum
The Lord is with thee

Benedicta tu 

Blessed art thou

in mulieribus
among women

Et benedictus fructus ventris
 tuae, Jesus
And blessed is the fruit of thy womb – Jesus

Sancta Maria
Holy Mary

Mater Dei
Mother of God,

Ora pro nobis, peccatoribus
Pray for us, sinners,


Nunc et in hora mortis
now and at the hour of our death

Amen.

Comment: 

Firstly, on this beautiful Feast, Catholic Truth wishes all readers, bloggers and visitors to this site every happiness and grace. For the sake of those visitors who may not be Catholics and unsure of the meaning of this Feast, you can read an explanation here

I suggest that we pray especially for priests today.  Our Lady has a particular love for priests – they are, after all, “other Christs” in the world.  Much as it pains me to say so, however, we are hearing of all sorts of terrible scandals involving the ordained, almost on a daily basis. The Devil has clearly targeted the priesthood at this time of terrible trial in the Church.  Given the exalted place of the priest in God’s plan of salvation, this should not surprise us:  “The priesthood is the love of the heart of Jesus. When you see a priest, think of our Lord Jesus Christ.” – St. John Vianney, patron saint of parish priests. 

As always with devotional threads, share your thoughts about any relevant issues, as well as your favourite prayers, hymns, etc.   

A very happy Feast of Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception to one and all…