Glasgow Jesuits Invite Anglican Female “Priest” To Deliver Romero Lecture…

 Editor writes, 

Blogger Athanasius, aka Martin Blackshaw, emailed the following letter to the Jesuit priests in St Aloysius College, Garnethill, to rightfully challenge them on this latest scandal…

January 27, 2019

Dear Jesuit Fathers of St. Aloysius,

Joanna Jepson “ordained” priest in Church of England in 2004

I note from your online newsletter that you have invited Joanna Jepson to be the “keynote speaker” at your forthcoming Romero Lecture (January 29).

I keep thinking that I can no longer be shocked by the unCatholic actions of modern Jesuits, then something like this crops up and I cringe at yet another wound inflicted on the Mystical Body of Christ by those who should know better, especially by priests of an order named after the Saviour Himself.

How far removed you are from St. John Ogilvie who returned to Scotland after ordination “to unteach heresy”. He came to counter the Protestant teachers you now promote because he knew and believed that salvation is not possible outside the Catholic Church.

In this regard, you will doubtless be aware that Anglican orders are invalid by declaration of Pope Leo XIII. You will also know that priestesses are historically a pagan phenomenon. At any rate, you cannot claim ignorance of the infallible dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Hence it would appear that by inviting this Anglican lady to address Catholics you are knowingly opposing the immemorial teaching of the Church as well as the unique Judeo/Christian tradition of a male only clergy. This is called rebellion and you may be assured that it is not the Holy Spirit who inspires it!

Speaking of which, I assume you are familiar with Miss Jepson’s previous public approval of sex before marriage. This is clearly an anti-Gospel approval of adultery that contradicts infallible Catholic moral teaching, yet you still invite this confused soul to address Catholics instead of exercising true divine charity in her regard by trying to correct her and lead her to the truth.

This begs the question: What has become of supernatural faith in your souls, that divine virtue that inspired and fortified Catholic clerics like St. John Ogilvie to preach the truth “in season and out of season”, as admonished by St. Paul?

I hope you will seriously consider the question in these times of moral relativism and religious indifference, times in which increasing numbers of “dead fish flow with the current”, to quote G K Chesterton.

If you would understand why all seminaries in Scotland, as well as in so many other towns and cities throughout the world, have closed in recent years, it is precisely because too many priests of God have abandoned their supernatural duty to teach and to sanctify souls, choosing instead a less hostile engagement with the secular world that distinguishes neither truth from error. Is it any wonder that young men dismiss the modern priesthood as little more than a politically correct form of social work?

Given the sheer scale of the liturgical abuses and doctrinal deviances since Vatican II, rebellious outrages that can by no means find justification in the texts of the conciliar documents, the following prophecy of St. Paul comes to mind:

“There will come a time when they will not endure sound doctrine but according to their own desires will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears, and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables”.

Ecumenism is one such fable, condemned many times by the pre-Vatican II Popes as “an insanity” that is “fatal to the Catholic religion”.

Sad to say, the Jesuit order, once the bulwark of Catholic orthodoxy against the so-called “reformers” of the XVI century, has been at the vanguard in promoting ecumenism and other Modernist errors since the turn of the 20th century, playing a particularly significant role during and after Vatican II.

Of course we know that Pope St. Pius X condemned Modernism as “the synthesis of all heresies”, a definition that fits perfectly with the post-Conciliar “auto demolition of the Church”, lamented by Pope Paul VI.

Yes, the Church is undergoing the most serious crisis in her history, a universal Modernist revolution led by Churchmen who seek more the approval of men than of God. Hence the obscuring these past decades of so many divine truths once preached with holy zeal and without fear.

Speculating on the possibility of such a future tragedy in the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine admonished that in the event of so great a crisis Catholics should ensure the safety of their immortal souls by cleaving to Tradition.

By the grace of God my family and I made that choice some 30 years ago, as have many others who have witnessed the destructive superficiality of the so-called conciliar reform. I hope you Jesuit Fathers will reflect on this and resolve henceforth to emulate Sts. Aloysius, John Ogilvie and so many other great Jesuits who sought to convert Protestants rather than confirm them in their errors.

And in respect to priestesses, altar girls and other manifestations of female invasions of the Sanctuary, you would do well to remember that the sexes were created by God to be complementary, not competitive. The modern Feminist movement is not Catholic, it is Cultural Marxism and it should be resisted as destructive of both Faith and family.

Sincerely in Jesus & Mary

Martin Blackshaw

Comment: 

If any readers or bloggers would care to go along to hear this lecture, [Tuesday, 29 January, 7pm, entry free, 45 Hill Street, Glasgow, G3 6RJ], we would be grateful for your feedback.  In particular, we would be interested to learn the identities of any priests or religious who turn up to support this event., or at least, an approximate number.  All the better if you find an opportunity to ask them how they can possibly justify their attendance, and let us know because we’re just puzzled to death as to what possible rationale there can be for extending an invitation like this to an Anglican “priest” – and not just any old Anglican “priest” but a female Anglican “priest”…   

Note:  I have emailed the link to this thread to both Joanna Jepson and the Jesuits in Garnethill, with an invitation to participate if they feel that they can justify this scandal.  This is not any kind of personal insult to Joanna Jepson.  It is purely a matter of the exercise of our Confirmation duty to defend and promote the traditional Christian Faith, against the contemporary heresy of female ordination.   This from 5th century Doctor of the Church – St Vincent Lerins:  

“…in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly ‘Catholic,’ as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself, we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, Bishops and Doctors alike.

“What then will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith? The answer is sure. He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb.

“But what if some novel contagions try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty.

“What if in antiquity itself two or three men, or it may be a city, or even a whole province be detected in error? Then he will take the greatest care to prefer the decrees of the ancient General Councils, if there are such, to the irresponsible ignorance of a few men.

“But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort is to be found? Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire their meaning, provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places, they yet continued in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church; and let them be teachers approved and outstanding. And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation.”  (The Vincentian Canon, in Commonitorium, chap IV, 434,  ed. Moxon, Cambridge Patristic Texts)

Jesuit Superior: Pope “not the chief of Church” – he’s the Bishop of Rome…

Fr. Arturo Sosa Abascal, superior general of the Jesuits, said in an interview Monday that Pope Francis consciously calls himself the Bishop of Rome, instead of using grander titles.    

“Very frequently we forget that the pope is not the chief of the Church, he’s the Bishop of Rome,” Fr. Sosa told EWTN in an interview Oct. 15.

“As the bishop of Rome, he has another service to do to the Church, that is, to try to [bring about] the communion of the whole Church.”

By convoking the youth synod, taking place in Rome Oct. 3-28, Francis is exercising his role as pope by bringing together a group “of his own peers” to make a “contribution to the communion of the whole Church,” Sosa said.

“Fr. Sosa is certainly correct to say that the pope is the Bishop of Rome, but it would be a mistake to infer from that title that the Holy Father is merely ‘first among equals,’” Chad Pecknold, Associate Professor of Theology at the Catholic University of America, told CNA.

Pecknold told CNA that popes often and correctly speak of their “brother bishops,” but that the Petrine office is unique.

The pope “holds an office of supreme authority over every bishop in communion with him, and of course over the faithful too. It isn’t a charism of dominance but of paternal care – the popes traditionally use the title ‘servant of the servants of God.’”

Sosa said that because Pope Francis feels each bishop is responsible for his local church, this synod, in which Church leaders come together to discuss and decide church affairs, is an expression of dialogue and communion between all of the bishops.

Pecknold agreed that the world’s bishops are each truly invested with the authority to govern, teach, and minister to their own dioceses. But a bishop’s ministry must always be done in union with the pope, who, he said, “is the visible center of communion for the universal Church.”

“The worldwide college of bishops exists in what the Church calls ‘hierarchical communion’ with each other and with the head, the pope. When the we talk about authority of the college of bishops to teach or lead, the Church is always careful to emphasize that this is only possible in union with the pope, who is the head of the college,” Pecknold explained.

In his interview, Sosa also explained that the collaborative work of the synod is a work of discernment, something he said was very important to Pope Francis. The Jesuit superior said that although the concept of discernment is a key feature of Jesuit spirituality, the act of listening to the Spirit has been a part of the Church’s for a long time.
“Discernment is the way that this communion [of the universal Church] can be made and how the Church will find the structure to reflect a Church that is open to that synodality,” Sosa continued.

“Because the Church is supposed to be governed not by men but by the Spirit. So [the Synod of Bishops] is not a kind of parliament, where you have to have a majority or minority, but we all together try to listen to the Spirit. And that’s what discernment teaches us to do.”

In comments to journalists Oct. 16, Cardinal Louis Sako I, Chaldean Catholic Patriarch of Babylon, echoed this point: “The synod is not a political parliament, is a synod of fathers, teachers,” he said. “What can we give, what can we offer the young, the faithful?”

The Synod of Bishops, which was established by Pope St. Paul VI following Vatican Council II, was created to continue the collaborative effects of the council fathers.

The Code of Canon Law defines it as a work of “collaborative assistance” to the pope’s ministry, and stresses that it exists to “foster unity” among the bishops, including with the pope. It also states that the synod is itself a creation of papal authority, deriving its legitimacy not from the bishops attending but from the pope who called them to the session. Whether a synod session’s conclusions are deliberative or consultative is explicitly up to the pope, who decides how much of his own authority to delegate to it.

In this sense, Pecknold told CNA, it functions nothing like a parliament.

“Parliaments are political, legislative bodies,” he said.

“The Synod of Bishops exists to foster unity and to give the pope the benefit of their counsel. In that sense, their job isn’t to pass this resolution or block that one – it is to work together to advise the pope as best they can, and that is a work of communion and service, not confrontation.”  Source

Comment:

Pope Francis DID emphasise, right from the beginning, from his words on election delivered from the Vatican balcony, that he was Bishop of Rome… He has, it seems, sought to play down his papal role.  So,  the question has to be… does it matter?  Shouldn’t we applaud his humility in shying away from all things Petrine?  

A Tale of Two Priests & Two Masses

From America Magazine…

An ordinary Sunday morning. No parish assignment, no preaching. So I decide to go to a church that celebrates the Latin Mass every Sunday at 11 AM. I knew it would be in Latin, but I wasn’t sure if it would be the old Tridentine or new post-Vatican II Latin Mass. Clearly it was Tridentine! One reason to attend was to see if I could feel comfortable being the main celebration of the Latin Mass.  

A female altar server assists at a Mass celebrated by Cardinal O’Malley in 2013.Pilot file photo/ Gregory L. Tracy

A female altar server assists at a novus ordo Mass celebrated by Cardinal O’Malley in 2013.

The church was half-filled, older men and women, some families with children, and a number of people in their 30’s who followed with their missals. The music, all in Latin, was in abundance with 90 percent sung by the choir and little by the congregation. The opening procession included 8 servers in surplices (all male), an assistant to the priest and the main celebrant…

REACTIONS. During the celebration I felt very uncomfortable. It was strange and foreign. Even though I was very familiar with the Tridentine Mass from my childhood, it seemed remote and distant. The Mass seemed to focus on the priest whose words for the most part could not be heard (they were in Latin anyway!) and who rarely faced the people. The choir performed well and their singing overrode the priest, who had to wait several times until they finished singing.

In my mind I could not but think back to the Second Vatican Council, and all that the Council and subsequent documents tried to bring about – active participation, emphasis on the important things, vernacular, elimination of accretions and repetitions, etc. It was sad and disheartening. What happened? Why would the Catholic faithful seek out and attend this older form of the Mass? Is the Tridentine Mass an aberration? What does it say about the reforms of Vatican II?

After the Mass, I was tempted to talk with some of those present. But I decided not to as I feared I would have been negative and perhaps controversial. My feelings were still very raw. One thing I know: I myself will never freely choose to celebrate the Tridentine Mass.  Click here to read article in full

From Traditional Catholic Priest (Blog)…

Constantly I hear from people that they do not go to the Latin Mass because they do not understand Latin.  (Some even think that the homily is in Latin.)  So please, just for now, let us put aside the argument of the language; Latin or English and go to the prayers and actions that are part of the rubrics of the two masses.  Let us also look at who is the center of focus and the way the people participate, dress and receive God in Holy Communion at the two masses. 

Traditional (Latin) Mass

Traditional (Latin) Mass

As a priest, I want to re-clarify what are the differences on how Jesus is treated in the two masses.   This will be from my own stand point as a priest who has for years celebrated the New Mass in English and Spanish, and now, for the last 7 years offered the Ancient Holy Sacrifice of the Mass…

From my view up on the altar, the difference between the Ancient Mass and the New Mass is like day and night.  Archbishop Sample, from Portland Oregon, put it well when he said at the Sacra Liturgia Conference in Rome, that he wants all of his priests to learn and offer the Latin Mass because of the effect it has on them understanding their role as priests.  He said that offering the Holy Latin Mass has changed him completely and now he finally understands the sacrificial aspect of his priesthood..

As a priest who says the New Mass and the Latin Mass, the Latin Mass has by far more rubrics built right into the Latin Mass to protect the Body and Blood of Jesus from being desecrated in any manner.  It clearly has the strong sacrificial component of the Holy Mass and priesthood.  It does not have the protestant emphasis on the Last Supper and “doing this in remembrance of Me” like the Luther advocated.  It also has prayers and gestures that facilitate more easily the adoration that Jesus deserves from us His creatures.  And because of this, the Latin Mass pleases God way more than the New Mass. Click here to read article in full

 

Comments invited – how did YOU vote in the poll: and why?

Confession: Is Validity Enough?

ConfessionConcerned Catholics have been asking us to reassure them about the validity of absolution in Confession, because Fr Tim Curtis SJ, PP of St Aloysius, Garnethill, changes the words of absolution to say “I absolve you from these sins and all the sins of your life…” The rest, we presume, is correct, but these words have stood out as being noticeably different from what we are used to hearing in Confession.   More than one reader expressed concerns at the time to Fr Curtis, who has always been polite, they say and even agrees, when asked, to repeat the words of absolution, omitting his own addition to the form. In fact, although what Fr Curtis is doing is not permitted, the absolution received by our concerned readers is valid, as we were assured by a traditional priest who answered our query as follows:

“The theologian Fr Diekamp writes that the “form would be invalid if it did not at least refer to the minister and recipient of absolution, for this is necessary to a judicial pronouncement. Thus to what is minimally necessary to the validity of this sacrament belong the words ‘I absolve thee/you’ or their equivalent.” [F. Diekamp Katholische Dogmatik nach den Grundsätzen des heiligen Thomas Münster 1954 (Aschendorff) 12th ed., Vol. III, p. 247.]

One might thus validly use a form of absolution which omitted the invocation of the Blessed Trinity, for example, but one would not do so lawfully. In answer to your query, then – “Is that allowed or does it, objectively, invalidate the Sacrament?” the answer is no, it is not allowed, but no, it does not invalidate the Sacrament either.  End.

The most recent penitent to contact us on this matter is our very own Petrus, who – as recently as yesterday – asked Fr Curtis to repeat the words of absolution, omitting his own addition, and Father did so. Petrus later emailed him and also contacted the Archdiocese of Glasgow.  Father Curtis replied to Petrus, apologising for causing him “worry” and assuring him that he would consult others on the form he used – to which Petrus responded as follows:

Dear Father,

Thank you for your reply.   Please be assured that I was not worried in the Confessional.  I’m a well informed Catholic, as all Catholics should be, therefore I know what the essential form is to ensure validity of the Sacrament eg.  “Ego te absolvo”, or “I absolve you”, in the vernacular.   

However, you know as well as I do that Sacraments must be valid and licit ie. lawful.  The formula you use doesn’t invalidate the Sacrament but it is unlawful.  

Furthermore, when I go to Confession, or any other Sacrament, I have the right to receive what the Church deems lawful and you have a duty to provide this.   I do not wish your individual stamp on the Sacraments and you have no right to do so. 

There really is no need for you to “consult” on this as the Church is clear – Sacraments must be valid and licit.  I have spoken to the Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Glasgow and he writes”

“Archbishop Tartaglia expects that priests, in the administration of all the Sacraments, follow verbatim the approved formularies.”

A penitent should never, ever leave the Confessional wondering if their absolution is valid or not.  I know that other penitents have expressed these concerns to you.  Such is the seriousness of the situation and to ensure that other Catholics are aware and informed, this matter will be discussed over the next few days on the Catholic Truth Blog which can be accessed at www.catholictruthblog.com

Therefore I must ask once again, can you confirm that from now on you will use the correct form of absolution in the Sacrament of Confession?  End.

Comments are invited, but please do not quote questionable advice given or dubious remarks made in Confession as, due to the seal, priests cannot respond to allegations of unorthodoxy etc.  It would be, therefore, unjust to enter into what this or that priest is alleged to have said in Confession. A default “we don’t believe you” position will hold if any such comments are posted and they will be deleted the minute I see them.  Stick to the subject in hand, which is the importance of priests using the correct form and matter for the Sacraments, and not “doing their own thing”.  One penitent mentioned that, as she was leaving the confessional box, having explained her concerns about the change in the form as quoted above, Fr Curtis wished her “a happy new year” – not “have a great new year” or “hope 2015 is good for you” or any other form of the traditional new year greeting.  He stuck to the recognised “happy new year”. So, it’s not as if he doesn’t know that there’s a recognised form to be used on occasion – he just needs reminding that Confession is one such occasion…

The purpose of this thread then it to educate ourselves on the importance of the use of the correct form and matter for the validity of the Sacraments, but also to ask ourselves if technical validity is all that matters.  Hopefully, this thread will either encourage Catholics to not hesitate to ask a confessor to use the correct form if they encounter a Fr Curtis think-a-like, or, if necessary, avoid going to Confession in parishes where the priest(s) deviate from the Church’s form. We’ve named Fr Curtis since St Aloysius is a city centre (Glasgow) parish where lots of people go to Confession throughout the week and weekends, but we do not, of course, attribute any malice to him. When Petrus asked him why he added his own words: “… from these [not ‘your’] sins and all the sins of your life”, he replied to the effect that he wanted to send people away feeling reassured that all their sins had been absolved. So, good motivation. He means well.  However, it cannot be the case that we leave the confessional absolved from sins we haven’t confessed – we have to identify our sins.  What if I’d pinched my granny’s pension book a couple of years ago but had never confessed it?  Would that be absolved by Fr Curtis’s assurance that “all the sins of the past life” had been absolved – even if never confessed, never repented?

Anyway, your call – let’s hear it… 

Pope Francis in conversation with Jesuit priest: I have never been a right-winger…

Pope Francis in conversation with Jesuit priest: I have never been a right-winger...

Click on the photo of Pope Francis to read an “exclusive interview” conducted by a Jesuit priest. The link came to me in an email from a reader down south, with the short and to the point message “Guess you’ve seen this – shocking in parts”

Well, I hadn’t seen it, so thanks for the alert. Another reader emailed a link to The Telegraph, which he described as being “full of Pope Francis” – seems he is very popular with the media, our new pontiff, if not with Catholics of any level of “traditional” leaning. We are increasingly concerned for the health and well-being of the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.

Are we right to be concerned?