Judgement Day & The Fate of “Mainstream” Catholicseditor
Our blogger Leprechaun writes:
We have discussed at length on the blog the issue of Invincible Ignorance and it is often related to newly-discovered tribes who have never had a visit from a missionary.
What of the hordes of main-stream Catholics who blindly followed their priests and bishops into the Novus Ordo liturgy, or who were born into it, and who never questioned it? They never read any of the reports about the contents of the Vatican II papers, never read books like The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, or Open Letter to Confused Catholics, or The Plot Against The Church, never fell into the trap of attending non-Catholic services, never made any effort to question the way things were developing. They simply paid, prayed and obeyed and observed the obligation of attending Sunday Mass.
They were never informed by their shepherds that they were now in different pastures, and almost all of them (at least, those who haven’t lapsed from sheer apathy), are complacently innocuous to anything which might rock their comfortable boat ride.
Can these plead Invincible Ignorance at the hour of their death, on the basis that they were obediently following their shepherds and that nobody had suggested to them that they might just not be on the straight and narrow path to Heaven?
I have just listened to a seven-minute sermon from a Traditional priest suggesting that these people will indeed go to Heaven, but that if they were told the facts and chose to turn a deaf ear to what they were told, then they would not go to Heaven.
This gives a new dimension to the debate about Invincible Ignorance and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus – I wonder what you and fellow bloggers think?
My view is that the Traditional priest is right to say that those who are warned, but who stop up their ears against the warning, will indeed go to hell in the absence of any last minute change of heart.
However, I think he is being very optimistic in suggesting that main stream Catholics who have not heard any warnings or have not asked any questions will get to Heaven by default. As blogger Athanasius often reminded us, they might get to Heaven in spite of their practices, but not because of them.
I’ve heard that said of non-Christians (and I think that’s what Athanasius meant) but never of mainstream Catholics who attend the novus ordo Mass. Surely they don’t fall into the category of “non-Christians”?
If the novus ordo Mass is valid and they are receiving Holy Communion, if they are in good faith, surely they will be saved?
I agree with that priest about those who “stop up their ears.” If we refuse to accept the manifest truth, that’s a sin against the Holy Spirit and it’s in fact the unforgiveable sin.
I am glad that you began your middle paragraph with the conditional “If”.
To my shame, I attended the Novus Ordo liturgies for 40 years before the penny dropped. I know from experience that the Novus Ordo rite is built to resemble a celebratory banquet set out upon a picnic table. Certainly it contains a few words about a sacrifice, but only because Mgr. Bugnini could not get it past the Church Fathers had those words not been there. In no way is it, nor is it intended to be, a Sacrificial rite offered up in propitiation for our sins. As much reference as possible to it being Sacrificial was excluded in order to make it acceptable to Protestants. The rite confers very little sanctifying grace on those who attend.
There is widespread doubt about the validity of the transubstantiation process in all too many cases. It was suggested to me by my then parish priest that “you can believe that if you want”, and this is borne out by the distribution of communion in the hand by lay “ministers”, and the removal of the Tabernacle from the Altar.
There were few, if any, sermons that I recall wherein the faithful were exhorted to attend confession on a regular basis, or were reminded of the requirements of Ember days, or to say the Rosary, or to get themselves enrolled in the Brown Scapular, or to make the devotions of the nine first Fridays or the five first Saturdays – in short, Sanctifying Grace was very hard to come by, and it is little wonder that there have been so many lapsations, and that there is so little will to avoid Satan and his snares.
Is the Novus Ordo Mass pleasing to God? Is Our Lord truly present in the Blessed Sacrament, or did it remain just a wafer at the hands of a priest who did not have the intention?
Those who attend the Novus Ordo Masses will be fortunate indeed if they are saved.
You are right to express reservations about that priest’s “optimism” – if (some) “traditional” priests are to be faulted at all, it’s in their flawed attitude towards the laity. There is a tendency to preach the “pay, pray and obey” message and you present us, sadly, with yet another example of it.
One of the things that sticks in my mind from my schooldays, is the exhortation of one of our teachers that we have a lifelong duty to educate ourselves in the Faith. She emphasised that in school religion lessons we only had a short time and obviously could not cover everything and that the onus was on ourselves to keep reading and educating ourselves in matters of Faith. I never forgot that and at a time when the Catholic Truth Society (CTS) was reliably orthodox, I used to spend what was left over from my pubbing and clubbing in purchasing their pamphlets They don’t call me the sainted editor for nothing.
So, I would beg to differ with him and agree with you on this. Everyone has a duty to know the Faith and most especially in a time of crisis such as we are experiencing right now, no Catholic can be complacent and sail along, going with the flow. Don’t I have a way with words? And me, what’s terrified of water? I exaggerate, but only to make you all laugh. I’m told I succeed in that. One after another has said to me, over the years, “you make me laugh…”
Now, with the CTS suspect, we can use the internet to keep ourselves informed of the state of things in the Church today because nobody – with all the scandals being reported – can possibly think that things are normal. We have a duty, therefore, to investigate the truth of things and now that we have Pope Francis himself causing unbelievable scandal, there is – correspondingly – even less excuse to be made for those “mainstream” Catholics who, until now, have gone along with the revolution.
Here’s a perfect example of the problem that Traditionalists have. We are the disobedient ones in the eyes of the Conciliar Church. Mainstream Catholics follow the Pope and the hierarchy who promote Vatican II and the changes that came with it. Mainstream Catholics, those who haven’t lapsed, follow the Pope who is the Supreme pastor of the Church. What’s more, many of them do seem to love and admire him. Surely they are the obedient Catholics and Traditionalists are the rebels who never stop complaining about the Holy Father.
I’ve heard this question more than once: If Traditionalists recognize the Pope as Pope, why don’t they follow him?
Why should Novus Ordo Catholics plead invincible ignorance? They were indeed obediently following their priests, bishops and the Pope who is the Supreme Pastor of the Holy Catholic Church. Why should they listen to anyone who questions the changes when the Holy Father embraces and promotes them?
How could God condemn any Catholic who follows the Pope?
If God sent his mother to warn the Pope of the dangers of Vatican II, and they ignore the warnings (Fatima) then would God expect Catholics to follow the Pope without question in the major changes that came, e.g. the novus ordo Mass?
What evidence would you present to a mainstream Catholic for your assertion that Fatima contains warnings about Vatican II? And why should they listen to you? They much prefer to believe the Pope.
Hasn’t God always expected people to follow the Pope?
As for Fatima containing warnings about Vatican II, I would point out that Our Lady told Sr Lucia that she wanted the Third Secret of Fatima to be revealed no later than 1960. The Second Vatican Council began in 1962. It seems obvious to me that if the Secret was to be disclosed “no later than” 1960 it must have been because it would be better understood then. If the Pope had revealed the Secret and it had warned of changes to come in the Church then we would all have been better prepared for what happened. That’s about all the “evidence” I could give but I can’t really answer the next part of your question, why should anyone listen to me over the Pope, except to say what I’ve read many times on this blog, that we are not supposed to treat popes as if they are some kind of deity. In Galatians 2:11, we read that “Paul withstood Peter to his face because he was to be blamed” which shows that if a pope is wrong, we are entitled to correct him.
I agree that we are not supposed to treat the Pope as if he were some kind of deity. Instead we are to treat him as if he were the Pope. And a pope has more authority than a nun. So we should follow the Pope and not Sister Lucy.
As a Traditionalist, I am increasingly uncomfortable with the ‘I recognize the Pope as Pope but won’t follow him as Pope, respect him as Pope or adhere to his teachings’ position.
What a pity the New Year begins with yet another discussion about other people’s sins and shortcomings. I am reminded of Luke 18:11.
It is one of my pet annoyances when people mention bible verses without saying what they are. What is in Luke 18: 11 and why are you reminded of it on this thread?
In less time than it took you to type that response you could have Googled Luke 18:11 and found out that it is “…I thank you Lord that I am not like other men…”
Wrong. The New Year began here with (a) a Happy New Year thread, inviting bloggers to post New Years greetings, jokes etc. to which you did not contribute a single sentence and (b) a thread on the Holy Rosary, to which, again, you did not contribute a single sentence. We also ran a thread on the extent of a priest’s duty to obey his bishop. Again, you appear to have no opinion on the matter. You only wish to share you thoughts with us when they are hostile to Catholic Truth.
Thus, you come on to this thread, not to make any kind of meaningful contribution but merely to accuse us, yet again, of being hypocrites.
But do you know what psychologists say, Eileenanne? They say that often, the faults we see in others, are the very faults we have ourselves. So, reading your post I was reminded of the story of the couple who, after hearing a great sermon on practical charity, thought they had better do something to show their faith in action . So they invited their neighbours to dinner the following weekend.
When it came to the meal, the hostess was keen to show their visitors that they kept Christian standards in the home and so she asked her little 5 year old son, Johnny, to say grace.
Little Johnny was shy: “I don’t know what to say.” There was an awkward pause, followed by a reassuring smile from the boy’s mother.
“Well darling,” she said, ” just say what Daddy said at breakfast this morning.”
Obediently, the boy repeated, “Oh Gosh, we’ve got those awful people coming to dinner tonight” … 🙂
Eileenanne, if we were hypocrites on the Happy New Year thread you kept quiet about the fact. If we were hypocrites on the Rosary thread, you said nothing. So, if we are hypocrites on this thread, then the least you can do is to explain why and do your best to put us right. THAT would be true charity. Name-calling, even name-calling with biblical verses tagged on, doesn’t cut it.
I have never used the word “hypocrite” about anyone on the blog. I dislike labelling and name calling.
Maybe the psychologists are right when they say that often, the faults we see in others, are the very faults we have ourselves.
You are playing games. You wrote: “What a pity the New Year begins with yet another discussion about other people’s sins and shortcomings. I am reminded of Luke 18:11.”
What’s your meaning if it’s not to label us all “hypocrites” as per Luke 18:11?
In reply to your multiple postings: Traditionalists do not have a problem. They are adhering to what the Magisterium, Tradition and Sacred Scripture have been upholding since the very earliest of the days of the Church that Christ founded. These three are collectively known as The Truth, and there can only be one version of it, otherwise it would not be the truth.
Mainstream Catholics have been deliberately led away from the Truth by successive Popes since John XXIII and the hierarchy of bishops who answer to them, and the priests who answer to those bishops. This deception has been enabled by the very large scale spread of a fifth column whose avowed aim is the destruction of Christianity and which has successfully infiltrated Holy Church to such a wide extent that they have been able to influence decisions at the highest levels. So successful has this infiltration been that we now have popes apologizing for the efforts of the Court of Inquisition in the past. Imagine: Popes apologizing that their predecessors attempted to defend the Faith!
This has been made possible by trading on blind obedience. This particular story does not have much further to unfold prior to its conclusion. The perpetrators have boasted that in gaining control of what is taught in our schools, they will be able to indoctrinate the minds of our children. Already they have succeeded in requiring schools to teach that homosexuality is nothing worse than an alternative life style. If Catholics do not mount a counter-revolution, our puppeteer popes and governments will be agreeing next to the teaching in our schools of satanism in place of religious education.
Do not take my word alone for it. Read Maurice Pinay “The Plot Against The Church” or Hugh Akin “Synagogue Rising” where you will find quoted evidence by the shedload to back up what I am saying.
Yes, Traditionalists accept that these were validly ordained popes, but please note that none of the changes these popes have insisted upon being obeyed have actually been propagated until the strict conditions required for Infallibility of matters concerning Faith and Morals. As such, Traditionalists are duty-bound to defy the popes in these circumstances, and to stand up for the Truth.
Answer: Because he is in error.
That’s a great post. You’ve whetted my appetite to read “The Plot Against the Church”. That’s on my reading list now.
There is a free download in .pdf format of this very revealing book here:
It takes perseverance to read due to the weight of evidence provided, but it is very worth while.
My multiple postings were a mistake. I tried to post one comment to your very first post on this thread and it just disappeared. Then I tried to post another comment which also disappeared. Then for some reason they both appeared.
I am a Traditionalist who is beginning to wonder if the ‘Recognize and Resist’ position is a contradiction. Recognize the Pope as Pope and then not only refuse to follow him but criticize him repeatedly and refuse to accept his teachings. And then doubt the salvation of mainstream Catholics who not only follow the Pope but love and admire him.
Don’t worry, I’ve read and heard most, if not all, of the arguments for R&R. You said the following:
“Mainstream Catholics have been deliberately led away from the Truth by successive Popes since John XXIII ……”
Just think about what you have said here. You are saying that Popes are deliberately misleading not only mainstream Catholics but the rest of the human race. You also said that the Conciliar Popes “are in error”. What’s more, in your opening paragraph, you stated that Traditionalists are:
“…. adhering to what the Magisterium, Tradition and Sacred Scripture have been upholding since the very earliest of the days of the Church that Christ founded. These three are collectively known as The Truth, and there can only be one version of it, otherwise it would not be the truth.”
Presumably you mean that the Conciliar Popes are not doing this. They are not adhering to what the Magisterium, Tradition and Sacred Scripture have always upheld.
I have also read and heard a great many arguments over whether or not the strict conditions required for Infallibility have been met. Some say yes, some say no. But the fact remains that the Conciliar Popes celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass; approve of all the authorised liturgical changes; promote Religious Liberty and Ecumenism; and have little or no problem with Assisi gatherings, World Youth Days and the like.
I’ve also heard it argued that St Robert Bellarmine’s principle that a Pope can be resisted only applies to a Pope who issues commands that go against the moral law eg a command like – go and steal some money and but me illegal drugs with it. That kind of thing.
But a pope who deliberately leads Catholics away from the truth of the Catholic Faith, as you say the Conciliar Popes have done and continue to do, is in a different category altogether.
I’ve now removed your surplus posts – apologies for whatever blip occurred that made the original posts disappear.
I was about to close down when your latest comment appeared, so (since I need, badly, my beauty sleep) this will be a short response. If necessary, I’ll respond again tomorrow when I get the chance, if nobody beats me to it.
The one thing you omit in your comment, in which you point out that you’ve heard all the arguments for the “R & R position” is the key fact of the diabolical disorientation. It’s this key “dot” that must always be connected to the rest, when discussing the current crisis of the upper hierarchy.
When Cardinal Ciappi said that the Third Secret reveals that the crisis in the Church begins at the top, was he being an unfaithful, schismatic, disobedient Catholic? Highly regarded by the recent popes (he was personal chaplain to five of them, I think I’m right in saying) I think we can rule that out!
You state: “But the fact remains that the Conciliar Popes celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass; approve of all the authorised liturgical changes; promote Religious Liberty and Ecumenism; and have little or no problem with Assisi gatherings, World Youth Days and the like.”
Yes, but that’s BECAUSE they are diabolically disoriented. They have brought into being, the prophetic warning of Our Lady that the Church would take a diabolical turn, a disorientation that comes from the Devil.
We’ve discussed the nature of this disorientation before and concluded that it’s not (necessarily, or even likely) to be the case that the recent popes have made a conscious decision to do the Devil’s work. Satan is too clever for that, so I would avoid arguing that they have “deliberately” led the faithful astray. If they really thought they were doing the Devil’s work – well, we have to presume sufficient fear of the Lord in their souls to make them think twice.
The reality that I believe we have to accept is, like it or lump it, these modern popes actually came to believe that what the Second Vatican Council brought, was / is, a good thing for the Church. They actually believe(d) that the novus ordo Mass is an improvement on the Mass that the martyrs gave their life’s blood to defend, that when the “fruits” of this new Mass became undeniable, they began to see the Holy Spirit at work giving us a more lay-focused Church instead of restoring that which was lost; we have to accept that that they promote religious liberty and ecumenism because they really believe that somehow these are now good things, and ditto the rest on your list. They really believe that the Church needed to change and needs to change more, and THAT is the work of the Devil. That is the diabolical disorientation in action. THAT’S why Catholics must resist these errors while adhering to the legitimate commands of the Pope. I cannot see where the difficulty lies in this distinction between obeying the legitimate commands of a superior and resisting him when he’s wrong. It seems simple to me, but then, I’m a simple gal…
Only one thing I’ll add before heading for that beauty sleep; and it is this: it is my considered, if humble opinion, that each of these modern popes must be culpable for falling into this diabolical disorientation if for no other reason than BECAUSE they’ve read the Fatima Message in its entirety.
Your last paragraph gets to the heart of the matter, the key question in all this. To what extent is an individual culpable for falling into diabolical disorientation?
Were Adam and Eve diabolically disorientated when they ate the apple?
You also say, “I cannot see where the difficulty lies in this distinction between obeying the legitimate commands of a superior and resisting him when he’s wrong.”
Neither can I see the difficulty. But if a superior is a manifest, public heretic, then he is no longer a superior because he loses all authority.
Your questions are either above my pay scale or were covered on the Pope Francis canonically elected, thread.
and that is what I meant.
You and Madame Editor may disagree with this, but there is so much irrefutable evidence in support of this claim that you would both need to be willfully disobedient to refuse to accept it.
It is laid out in “The Plot Against The Church” written under the pseudonym of Maurice Pinay.
There is a free download in .pdf format of this very revealing book here:
It takes perseverance to read due to the weight of evidence provided, but it is very worth while. In fact, it is essential reading for all caring Catholics.
And, yes, I do mean that the popes are not adhering to the Sacred Magisterium. Since the inception of Vatican II they have adopted some philosophy called the “Living Magisterium” which they seem to make up as they go along regardless of the record built up in the Sacred Magisterium since the Church began. This is not due to ignorance or novelty or Modernism. It is due to the manipulation to which popes and State leaders have been subjected by a fifth column which has been built up in the Church since the time when Christ was crucified.
Surprised? Shocked? Incredulous? Read the book!
All the evidence is there – this issue is a great deal deeper and longer-running than you would imagine.
And, having read the book, resolve to take some good old Catholic action.
Join the counter revolution and fight for the restoration of Christ’s Kingdom.
I don’t dispute that mainstream Catholics have been deliberately led astray from the Truth by successive Popes since John XXIII…..
What I am wondering is how true Popes could have done this.
I am also familiar with ‘The Plot Against the Church’ by Maurice Pinay. And so I ask the question. If there has been, and still is, a plot against the Church on the scale described, doesn’t it seem likely that the Conciliar Popes are part of that plot?
Surely the Conciliar Popes are aware of this plot and are either supportive of it or willing to turn a blind eye to it.
I don’t think that “deliberately” means “maliciously” – as editor has explained already the diabolical disorientation has caused a change to come over the bishops and popes so that they actually think they are doing good. I don’t believe any of the conciliar popes are part of a “plot”.
Fr Paul Kramer has said that one of the effects of Orginal Sin is the obscuring of the intellect. Surely, then, in this diabolical disorientation, we can expect widespread confusion, even amongst learned men?
I must admit I am not comfortable speculating who will be saved and who won’t. I think it’s dangerous. There are many good Catholics who attend the New Mass. I think it is a mistake that has led to many traditionalists thinking that “Outside the SSPX there is no salvation”. However, we absolutely must do everything we can to educate our friends and family who attend modern parishes. I’m not sure that speculating on their eternal destination will help.
Editor is absolutely right in saying that we have a lifelong duty to educate ourselves in the Faith. She was very lucky to have a teacher tell her that. In my seven years at a Catholic primary school, five years at a Catholic high school and four years doing a course in Catholic Education at University I was never taught that. I’m sure I am not alone. What of those souls? Perhaps this is what the traditional priest was thinking.
However, I think anyone who takes their Faith seriously will want to learn more. I did and eventually I was led to the Traditional Mass, thanks to Catholic Truth. The problem is there are a great number of Catholics who are lapsed, or go to Mass on a Sunday and give their religion not another thought for the rest of the week. I don’t know if this was the same before the Council.
Since the Fathers of the Church spoke plenty about the need for us to reflect on the fact that not everyone will be saved, according to Christ Himself, who spoke about the narrow path and the fewness of those who find it, then it is a surely a very good thing for us to ponder this truth. The Fear of the Lord, we are taught, is the beginning of wisdom. Certainly we can’t decide that particular souls around us won’t be saved but it is a very profitable spiritual exercise to recall that none of us can take our salvation for granted. It’s a truth that is widely rejected by modern Catholics – certainly in my experience: mention it and I receive lengthy lectures on the “merciful God” who appears not to mind what any of us says or does. If only !
I’m very glad that your struck a warning note about the danger of thinking that “outside the SSPX there is no salvation” – I was a bit concerned in posts some time back that I may have given that impression myself when I took (and hold) the position that all informed Catholics should be throwing their weight behind the SSPX and not just settling for a traditional Mass in the diocese, as though the Mass alone were the issue.
I should have made clear (perhaps I did but don’t have time to check, so in a spirit of “better safe than sorry”, I am clarifying here) that I hold that position, not because I think that nobody outside the SSPX can be saved (ridiculous) but because they are “the enemy” and yet without Archbishop Lefebvre’s action in 1988, there would BE no Traditional Masses. All “exceptions” have been manifestly granted with a view to deterring people from attending Society chapels. I just think we ought to send a clear signal to our bishops that we’re not fooled, and, in fact, we wish to express our gratitude to Archbishop Lefebvre by supporting his chapels.
Another reason – as I’m sure I said at the time – is that possibly vulnerable young parents of young families who wish to protect themselves and their children from all Modernist influence, would be wise to attend traditional chapels rather than the diocesan Mass provision.
That’s not to be interpreted as “outside the SSPX there is no salvation” – that’s heresy – you are right about that. Well, had to happen one day Petrus. You were bound to be right about something eventually 🙂
Leprechaun put it well when he writes: “I don’t think anyone is suggesting that Novus Ordo Catholics cannot achieve Salvation, just that they are not taking the most supportive route towards it.”
I agree with what you quoted from Leprechaun. I also agree that the Fathers wrote often that not everyone will be saved. However, this is a general remark. I do not think we should be looking at one particular group within the Church and speculating about their eternal destination. I think this is quite different.
When Leprechaun submitted the article I didn’t see it like that at all. It all boils down to the same thing. We have a duty to do what pleases God. Leprechaun seeks to explore whether or not those who are informed enough to know that the new Mass and all that goes with it (Assisi etc) are in fact pleasing to God when they coast along – or are they endangering their salvation? That is the nub of the question. I think it’s a very good question and an eminently reasonable one to ask. It’s not the same thing at all as saying that everyone attending the NO Mass will not be saved. There is a very clear, if perhaps subtle, some might think (not I) distinction here, but – I repeat – it’s a question worth addressing.
Goodness, when even the Vatican refuses to affirm that the new Mass is pleasing to God, as we’ve quoted with source many times on this blog and in the newsletter, I think we have to think very seriously, those of us still attending the NO, about whether or not we are, in fact – priests and people alike – endangering our souls by going along with what has undoubtedly been a revolution in the Church. But I repeat – it’s not just about the Mass. It’s about the entire ethos of the post Vatican II Church. Everything. It self evidently cannot be pleasing to God that popes and prelates are pushing the idea (or even if they were merely permitting it) that one religion is as good as another. That’s outrageous! So, there comes a point at which those who are going along with this revolution must, if they have any Catholic sense at all left in their souls, concern themselves with whether they are – in fact – endangering their salvation by their complicity in this scandalous “new” Church.
In St Leonard’s sermon about the fewness of the numbers saved, part two of which will be published in our February edition, you’ll see that he doesn’t worry his head about generalising about whole groups of people. Here’s what he says about priests, for example: “I am horror-struck when I hear Saint Jerome declaring that although the world is full of priests, barely one in a hundred is living in a manner in conformity with (his) state; when I hear a servant of God attesting that he has learned by revelation that the number of priests who fall into hell each day is so great that it seemed impossible to him that there be any left on earth; when I hear Saint Chrysostom exclaiming with tears in his eyes, “I do not believe that many priests are saved; I believe the contrary, that the number of those who are damned is greater.”
Nothing personal, Reverend Fathers, nothing personal.
With respect, I think the wrong questions are being asked and a misleading thread title used. Perhaps “Are Modern Parishes Conducive to Our Salvaion” would have been clearer. I think the introduction to the thread, including the invocation of “extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” is potentially dangerous.
Your quote from St. Leonard is a bit of a false dichotomy. St Leonard was addressing stories of bad priests who were not living in conformity with their state. This is completely different to some poor lay souls who are being led astray by bad priests, bishops and popes.
We will have to disagree about the questions being asked. I think Leprechaun’s article is excellent because it asks an important question, which I’ve not seen addressed anywhere else, that is, whether or not the key doctrine (Outside the Church there is no salvation) might apply to those Catholics who are going along with changes in the Church: since St Thomas Aquinas teaches that “To reject any article of the faith is to reject the faith itself…” there can be little question that there are, indeed, Catholics who are, de facto, outside the Church. It is not, surely, “potentially dangerous” to reflect on whether or not this warning applies to the majority of the Catholic faithful today. Indeed, I would argue the opposite: that it is very dangerous NOT to do so. I think we can safely assume that God would not have sent Our Lady to Fatima to warn of the diabolical disorientation to come were not souls, many souls, at risk. After all, the matter of our salvation is at the very heart of everything we do in this life. If, in fact, it doesn’t really matter whether we go along with the “reforms” of Vatican II, well, why are we here, discussing so many inter-related issues? Who cares? So, Leprechaun’s initiative in raising this sensitive but crucial issue is to be welcomed and he is to be commended for keeping his article so short and to the point. If he’s offering lessons, I’ll be signing up without delay!
I’m kind of surprised, too, at your remark about St Leonard’s terrifying warning that few priests are saved being a false dichotomy. In fact, St Leonard goes in, in the same part of his sermon, to list “husbands, wives…” and many others in the lay state, issuing the same dire warning. Our Lord Himself said that few would be saved so it’s not exactly breaking news 🙂
There is one thing which you say at the end of your comment which I endorse wholeheartedly. You are right to point to the part played by “bad priests, bishops and popes” in leading souls astray and there can be no doubt whatsoever that these will face a terrible judgment for their neglect. You are completely right on that score.
Which brings us full circle to the point of the blog article, which is to discuss precisely how much – if at all – the laity bear responsibility for their participation in the “reforms” of Vatican II. The question is centred on whether their participation is, in fact, “complicity”. Or is it entirely the fault of the clergy and hierarchy?
Now, before anyone jumps in to say “oh you can’t disagree with editor….” allow me to clarify that I couldn’t care less whether you or anyone else agrees with me on this or anything else. However, I do have to say that it is a little distracting to see the discussion focus, not on the issues, but (again) on my choice of headline. Really, I keep an eye on a few blogs around cyberspace and two things I’ve never seen on any of them: (1) personal remarks about the editor /administrator (of which you are NOT guilty, of course – as if!) and (2) complaints about the headlines.
Well, headlines are what editors do. Any headline is the subjective choice of the editor/administrator and I’m sorry if anyone dislikes my choices, but there’s nothing I can do about that unless I consult everyone before posting each thread and I just do not have the time to do that. So, apologies to those who don’t like my choices of headlines – one of those things…
But, hang on – hope springs eternal. I have a letter going into the February edition from one of my staunchest critics, a man in England who thinks I ought to take a year’s sabbatical and let someone else take over the editorship to make the newsletter more “Catholic” and make a number of improvements. I’ll be placing an advert in the February newsletter, so anyone who wants to apply, get those CVs ready now. In the meantime, you’re stuck with me – sorry about that…
I can’t see a thing wrong with your headline – it’s neutral.
I’m finding this thread very informative and as with all the topics, I ‘m learning stuff I didn’t know before.
I said at the top of this thread that I took issue with Leprechaun applying Extra ecclesiam to Catholics but I now understand what I didn’t fully understand before – that by denying even a single doctrine, we put ourselves outside the Church and so extra ecclesiam can be applied to us.
I agree about the headlines – there’s nothing wrong with it. It’s not damning anyone and it’s neutral as you say.
Does anyone have any info on when “The Rhine flows into the Tiber” will be back in print? (My understanding is that there are no brand new stocks of the book presently).
Online bookstores, both UK and US based, advertise it but it is forever on back order. I may try to email the publisher (TAN books?)
I have wanted to read the book for some time – but the examples I find online are usually advertised now at hundreds of dollars/pounds, which is a bit OTT!
I have however managed to find a copy of the Gherardini book about Vatican II, (recommended by Cardinal Ranjith), which is one of the titles now suppressed by the restrictions placed on the FFI publishing house Casa Mariana Editrice.
Tanbooks reports “Out of Stock”.
Don’t be too disappointed as it does not really get to the root of the problem – only the mechanics of how the coup was executed.
Much more profitable to read the free “Plot Against the Church” here:
Well, I hope the good people of Catholic Truth aren’t now going to scrape the barrel by saying non-traditional Catholic’s eternal souls are in jeopardy. Novus Ordo Catholics aren’t in a state of Invincible Ignorance, because they are Catholic and receive the Sacraments, but they are Ignorant of the Latin Mass and it’s beauty. Today we had Latin in our Novus Ordo Mass (i.e Gloria, Sanctus, Agnus Dei), and I let slip that when I was confirmed I would start attending on the Saturday vigil, a TLM in a neighbouring parish. An old bird called Muriel (I kid you not) said ‘how do you mean Traditional Mass’. To which I responded by saying ‘Mass according to the 1962 Missal’. A look of horror descended upon her wrinkled countenance and her faced went waxen, ‘but you can’t do that’ she hissed, ‘well yes I can, thanks to Pope Benedict and Summorum Pontificum’. ‘Well, we have Francis now’. There’s no point debating with idiots like this. Next week I’ll give her copies of Quo Primum or Sacrosanctum Concilium. She’s not Invincibly Ignorant, just filled with a false sense of obedience.
If you are about to say that Novus Ordo Catholics can’t achieve Salvation, or are in jeopardy, then you too are no longer Catholics, as you are denying Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. They are fully incorporated within the Church, practising and obedient to the Magisterium. I think Traditionalists can be a bit snobby actually.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that Novus Ordo Catholics cannot achieve Salvation, just that they are not taking the most supportive route towards it.
If you frequented a supermarket that sold only Coca cola and crisps, would you be surprised if your bodily well-being suffered?
Why do you think supporters of Tradition do not frequent Novus Ordo Masses? It is because they care about their Spiritual well-being. This is the point that Madame Editor made earlier in this thread about all of us having a duty to learn about our Faith, and, as she has said in other threads, to accept that the Sacrament of Confirmation is meant to turn us all into Soldiers for Christ and the defence and propagation of the Faith.
When did you last hear a Novus Ordo Catholic urging a lapsed Catholic to return to the Sacraments?
Incidentally, Mgr. Loftus, believe it or not, is fully incorporated into the Church and is apparently in good standing . . . .
“I don’t think anyone is suggesting that Novus Ordo Catholics cannot achieve Salvation, just that they are not taking the most supportive route towards it.”
That’s it in a nutshell. Very well said. I couldn’t agree more.
Thank you, Petrus.
‘When did you last hear a Novus Ordo Catholic urging a lapsed Catholic to return to the Sacraments?’
Well, I can’t speak for all parishes, but in my Novus Ordo Parishes (that has inexplicably started incorporating Latin into Masses), but I do believe the Legion of Mary does a sterling job in bringing lost sheep back to the flock.
“I don’t think anyone is suggesting that Novus Ordo Catholics cannot achieve Salvation, just that they are not taking the most supportive route towards it.”
Please explain this. Are you referring to the relativism that the NO does cultivate, i.e it’s similarities to Protestantism, which leads to the notion that ‘we are all the same’. I agree that this leads to a loss of faith, by increasing the erroneous notion that we are all paths to God. We all know what St thomas Aquinas said about rejecting just one article of the Faith.
Is that what you are driving at?
I don’t think the New Mass and the ethos in modern parishes are conducive to holiness. External symbols are very powerful, so seeing the vast majority receiving Holy Communion in the hand and laypersons handling the Blessed Sacrament are bound to have an impact on our belief in the Real Presence. Seeing women on the sanctuary and girl altar servers is bound to have an impact on our understanding of the male only priesthood. These are only two examples. I could have chosen two hundred.
OK, Petrus, that’s what I thought you were generally driving at. I share your dislike for EMHC’s and altar girls. Although, I’d grateful if you could explain deeper theological arguments re altar girls. My instincts tell me that altar servers should be male in order to cultivate vocations to the male Priesthood. It’s amazing how my Faith is becoming based on natural instinct. My instincts are telling me to support the TLM. Mind you, I’m a conservative creature at heart anyway.
Beware of letting emotion/instincts influence your Faith.
You need to form yourself as well as you possibly can through spiritual reading, studying the Faith, and (if you are able) discussions with a sound SSPX priest.
This is not an exhaustive list.
You will then be in a position to base your decisions on The Truth, which should be your sure and only foundation.
And don’t have anything to do with that conservativism business – vote UKIP 😉
It’s true.. I will be voting for the English gentleman that is Mr N. Farage. UKIP is anti-Abortion and anti-homosexual marriage.
I do a lot of spiritual reading, and believe you me, I’d love to meet an SSPX Priest to be taught about the Faith, and I only meet an NO Priest out of convenience. The nearest SSPX Priest in 2 trains and a bus ride away, and I don’t have time because of my studies at university.
I agree with Petrus, Eileenanne and Catholic Convert on this. I think this discussion is very dangerous territory for Catholics to wander in to. We have no way of knowing the extent of grace granted by God to each soul, hence we cannot speculate on how many Catholics are resisting the known truth with malice. It is enough for each of us, I think, to thank God for the light we have been given and to use this unmerited grace to educate our Catholic neighbour, in patience and charity. Let’s not forget the old maxim: “There, but for the grace of God, go I.”
It is absolutely true that the new orientation in the Church since Vatican II is dangerous to souls, and it is absolutely true that the conciliar Popes, especially Pope Francis, have been extremely negligent in their duty to uphold the sacred deposit of faith. But it’s not easy trying to convince Catholics in parishes that they have both a right and a duty to resist the dangerous innovations of these Modernist superiors, especially since most of them grew up believing wrongly that obedience to superiors was always and everywhere essential to salvation.
These are very trying times for all Catholic souls, very confusing times, a “diabolical disorientation.” Our part is solely to point out the teaching of the Church throughout the ages and try to educate our neighbour as best we can. We should not be drifting off into these kinds of speculative side shows.
I know Traditional Catholics who might find it hard to get into heaven due to their lack of charity, and that includes one or two SSPX priests! In fact, Catholic Priest, who was on this blog the other day denying Pope Francis’ election, will surely be lost for all eternity unless he repents of his schismatic beliefs. The same goes for Fr. Kramer.
And let me say that I always have the first eye on my own soul, mindful of the words of St. Paul who said: “I chastise my own body lest having preached to others I myself become a castaway.” We all depend so much on Our Lord’s mercy and Our Lady’s intercession.
As our SSPX priest said in his sermon today, we need to pray and offer sacrifices for souls. That’s what Our Lady of Fatima asked of us. Whatever else we do in addition should be done in that spirit of mercy and charity.
Concerning the book ‘The Plot Against The Church.’ I have read it several times and have found it to be very informative. It was never intended for public consumption, however, only for the Fathers of Vatican II. It was apparently put together very hastily during the Council by several prelates in the Church to demonstrate the infiltration that had taken place and the danger that existed. The content of the book is quite astounding, I have to say, and it seems to have been put together by people who knew what they were talking about. The difficulty is that some Traditional Catholics who have read this book have become bitter extremists as a result, seeing conspiracy everywhere. I would caution all who read it, then, to do so with an objective mind. It is not, after all, a definitive work that can be quoted with absolute certainty of fact, given that the author(s) is anonymous.
I don’t think our discussion here is dangerous at all and there’s nobody I’ve seen speculating about how many Catholics are resisting the known truth with malice.
The whole discussion has been objective and charitable.
But didn’t you think that it was dangerous to discuss the canonisations?
Thank you for that.
Of course the discussion is not “dangerous” – but it gets wearing having to keep defending our choice of topics not to mention having to keep explaining the nature of headlines and, indeed, the nature of discussion including blogging itself, so I’ve no intention of doing so again.
Anyone who objects to any topic, is requested to simply refrain from participating. It’s not rocket science.
The introductory article to this thread only makes sense if it is understood on the basis of discussion about who may or may not be resisting the known truth with malice in the mainstream Church. It is otherwise a nonsense subject, surely, since invincible ignorance would certainly count for all those Catholic souls who, with good will, attend Mass and receive the Sacraments. At best, then, it can be called a nonsense subject of no value to the defence of the Faith.
As regards the canonisation thread. If I recall correctly, it was less a discussion than a re-definition by unqualified subordinates of what the Church’s most eminent theologians have held to be true for many centuries, which is that a Papal decree of canonisation is an infallible act that touches on the universal faith.
If accepted, this re-definition would mean that many hundreds of canonisations since Vatican II must be considered at best unsound. This obviously would have a knock-on effect on the Church’s indefectibility.
Clearly premature, such a dangerous debate should have waited until after the events of April 27. I said then, and I say now, that a little trust in God should have been observed in the matter. I am not yet aware of Our Lord permitting a known liberal who damaged the faith to be canonised. Are you? I remain convinced that Our Lord will intervene to protect the Church. The rest of you are free to doubt that if you wish and enter instead into very dangerous speculations. I personally refuse to go there at this point in time.
Your opening assertion is quite correct. I am not sure about how the phrase “with malice” came into the debate, but the point of the thread is that people who grew up in the Novus Ordo world have never been told by their pastors the differences between the Church that grew up during the past 1900 years and the Church that holds sway today. Consequently they just don’t know about the errors and it could possibly be argued that they are invincibly ignorant.
However, those who have been approached by Traditionalist friends in attempts to enlighten them, and who have willfully closed up their ears – these are the ones who cannot claim invincible ignorance and who are risking the future of their souls. The same is true of those more elderly who knew the pre-Vatican II Church but who have not made any effort to return to Tradition, favouring instead the easier life within the post-Vatican II Church.
That is what this thread is exploring – the danger to the spiritual well-being of those who are resisting the known truth, as you have said. Therefore it is not, in my humble submission, a nonsense subject.
Regarding the proposed Canonisations: It seems to me that those responsible have just ignored the requirements of the Canonisation process, just as the Germans in WW1 ignored the defences of the Maginot Line and went round them. What is taking place is little different from the Oscar Nominations of the TV and Film world, and, as such, the sacredness of the Canonisation process is not in question – these simply will not be Canonisations as Traditional belief knows them.
That is a different thread anyway and is likely to take us off topic.
It is good to see you back at the blog.
God bless you for your astute contributions and long may they continue.
I agree with every word of your post which are about the issues. You are right about the canonisations taking us off topic – I just commented on that as well, so apologise.
I don’t know if you are aware of how superior you come across? I think editor will soon recognise a “nonsense” subject” and as she’s said often nobody has to comment on a topic they disapprove of.
The canonisations thread was an excellent thread and taught us a lot about the process. You held the frankly ridiculous position that no matter what the process was like, no matter how abused it was, God would inspire the pope who to canonise and who not. I thought your position was ridiculous then and I think it is ridiculous now.
My last word on the canonisations, just to correct your error.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“the validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached.”
You were patently wrong on the canonisations thread constantly ignoring the fact of the role of the process in the matter and you continue to do so now. Nobody says that the process is guaranteed to be infallible. That’s never been claimed. It’s the process that helps guarantee that the candidate is a suitable candidate for canonisation. You just can’t or won’t see it, I’m not sure which.
Do you know where I could read some SSPX sermons? I find them so much better than NO sermons. They have much more substance.
If you want to hear sermons/talks by Archbishop Fulton Sheen, or the Rev. Hugh Thwaites SJ or others of undoubted provenance then you might visit the following link where you will find a large selection on a wide variety of issues, and all available for free download so that you can listen when convenient.
Not exactly what you requested, but worth sampling anyway, given how much there is to learn.
If you don’t mind listening to SSPX sermons instead of reading them then look for those by Fr. Daniel Cooper. His sermons are my favorite. There are videos of his sermons on YouTube and also audio only recordings on some websites. I can’t link to them right now.
This is a dangerous thread. The headline and opening article speculates on the “fate of Modern Catholics”. This could lead to a schismatic mentality. It even hints that the dogma “extra ecclesial nulls salus” could be applied to Catholics in modern parishes. This is outrageous.
Now, there’s been a lot of talk of arrogance – aimed at those who have expressed concern at this dangerous thread. However, Catholic Convert touched on something important. Traditionally minded Catholics must guard against arrogance – a Kind of spiritual superiority. I look at Catholics in modern parishes and think “there, but for the grace of God, go I.”
As our priest said yesterday, we should pray and make sacrifices for such Catholics. We certainly shouldn’t be speculating about their fate on judgement day. THAT is true spiritual pride.
That should be
“Extra ecclesiam nulla salus”
“It even hints that the dogma extra ecclesial nulls salus” could be applied to Catholics in modern parishes”
I think the editor showed that this dogma could be applied to anyone as St Thomas teaches if we reject a single article of faith we are outside the Church.
I’m sorry you think I ‘m full of spiritual pride but my comments were posted in good faith. I can’t see how this thread is any different from other times we’ve talked about this. Nobody is saying that all modern Catholics are going to Hell – that’s something that’s been read into this thread for some reason or other.
Also, I can’t see how it’s schismatic or arrogant to talk about this matter.
I’d prefer you not to answer these comments any more. Those who believe this topic is “dangerous” (which is an insult to our intelligence) are giving the lie to their claim by repeatedly commenting on it. I would ask Athanasius and Petrus to desist from further comment as they have, yet again, spoilt the pleasant atmosphere on this blog by their hostility. The lie is also given to their alleged concern for “charity” by accusing us/anyone of “spiritual pride”. If it’s spiritual pride to reflect on who is and who is not saved, then someone should have told St Leonard!
I am now having to consider the suggestion put to me that we move to full blown moderation, as they do in most other blogs. That would mean posts would not be released until I have time to read them all, and all off topic or troublemaking posts would be deleted. That sometimes takes days, as in the case of Protect the Pope blog but I am giving it serious consideration.
Until now, we haven’t censored here so that all views can be heard, but I’m afraid we are stopping short of being lectured from some place of moral superiority, real or imagined, about whether the topics are “nonsense” or not. Try insulting other blog administrators in that way and see where it gets you.
Now, I’m going to delete all comments from now on that are not taking the topic seriously. There are other threads so please comment on those if you really do consider this one to be “nonsense”.
I should add that my cold/flu has worsened and I now have a sore throat as well (so can’t shout at anyone today!) so it may be some time before I return to check the blog. It will say a lot if I return to read posts that require deletion. I would hope that no such disrespect will be shown for the administrator of this blog. Thank you.
This blog is beginning to resemble a certain Ignis Ardens with its increasingly quasi-schismatic topics and you are beginning to resemble a certain Gregorio Sarto with your threats to those who oppose that bitter spirit.
If you are really concerned about the tone of the blog, then I would advise that you do not give a platform to the likes of Fr. Kramer in future. Father Kramer is schismatic and has no place on this blog, as you well know. No, not even under the pretext of exposing his error. Neither should there be speculation about the invalidity of canonisations or whether or not apparently hard-headed Modern Catholics can be saved.
The purpose of any lay Catholic blog is to charitably oppose the crisis in the Church with sound Church teaching, hoping to convince our fellow Catholics with solid evidence presented in a calm and objective manner.
You have gone way beyond that remit with some of the topics you have posted and I think you should consider your position very carefully, regardless of what others tell you. I have been contributing here for years and I can see the change in tone so clearly. That’s why I only post now when I see danger because I fear others may be led astray.
You seem to want to have a go at the editor at all times. You seem to only come onto the threads you disapprove of which is odd in itself, if you’re so concerned about contributing “sound Catholic teaching.” . The tone of this blog is usually lovely – and it’s helped me and others a lot, but it gets very unpleasant when one or two individuals publicly attack it and that is far from charitable. I remember you were invited to speak at the Catholic Truth Conference in June, also Petrus. I guess editor must be asking “who needs enemies when you’ve got friends like this?”
The purpose of a Catholic blog like this, I thought, was to tackle all the areas of confusion for the purpose of educating us and in that it’s helped me, and others I know, loads.
By your own standard you haven’t done what you said you think a Catholic blog is for. You didn’t come onto the thread and show calmly and charitably where it was going wrong. You just went into the attack calling it “dangerous”. Frankly, the only bitter spirit I can see is in the posts attacking the blog which are really thinly disguised attacks on the editor & team.
Even the disrespect you show by ignoring the editor’s request to stop commenting on this thread speaks for itself and is very disappointing.
Thank you for your kind support but I really am not thinking “who needs enemies with friends like this”, because neither Athanasius or Petrus were invited to address our conference because they are friends of mine. They were invited because I believed they would (and they did) deliver excellent talks on the subjects they were asked to address.
I’d prefer all future comments to simply address the topic. Here’s how Leprechaun concluded his short article – he asks, as he argues, a perfectly legitimate question:
“I have just listened to a seven-minute sermon from a Traditional priest suggesting that these people will indeed go to Heaven, but that if they were told the facts and chose to turn a deaf ear to what they were told, then they would not go to Heaven.
This gives a new dimension to the debate about Invincible Ignorance and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus – I wonder what you and fellow bloggers think?”
Leprechaun did not draw any conclusions nor has anyone else on the blog. Nobody has been condemned to Hell for attending a novus ordo Mass. Something Leprechaun heard in a sermon made him think (that’s good) and want to explore a dogma more deeply. So, if anyone’s at fault it must be the traditional priest who preached that if “mainstream” Catholics are told the facts (about the state of the Church) and choose to turn a deaf ear, then they would not go to heaven.” Was he wrong? Is that a shocking thing to say?
Let me anticipate your response because while those with pious ears are likely to reel in shock horror at that statement, as some already have done, the fact is that the priest was not saying anything new. Anyone who refuses to do God’s will, runs the risk of eternal damnation. There’s no discussion about that.
So, really, there’s a lot of smoke and mirrors on this thread but no schism or schismatic spirit. I’m still not well, unfortunately, with additional symptoms today so shouldn’t really be here at all, but just quickly wanted to post a few words to say if anyone can find anything on this thread which is contrary to Catholic doctrine, please quote it without delay. I haven’t had time to re-read everything and if I’m wrong I will apologise, but so far as I know, there is nothing contrary to the Faith on this thread at all.
Perhaps Leprechaun could give some additional details from the aforementioned sermon? That might help to put the priest’s words in context. Certainly I have never heard a traditional priest discuss the salvation of Modern Catholics. In fact, I once asked a traditional priest if my elderly relative should attend the New Mass rather than no Mass (she cannot attend the TLM). This priest isn’t hesitate in saying that she should go to The New Mass if that was the only Mass available and it would be permissible for me to attend with her.
Maybe that gives an indication of what traditional priests think of “judgement day and the fate of modern Catholics”.
I think it’s pretty old Catholic doctrine that if anyone knowingly acts contrary to the will of God in any serious matter, then they risk their salvation. Nobody needs to draw us a picture. It’s not breaking news. And nobody who reads Leprechaun’s article could possibly mistake what he is saying (or the priest) with a situation such as you describe.
I actually came on briefly to answer a couple of posts already here so am not going to get tied with new posts, if you don’t mind, as I’m still not well, with ever new and imaginative symptoms to afflict me.
In all sincerity, I really do think you are better ignoring this topic, as I don’t – genuinely – want you to be upset and this thread clearly is upsetting for you. My apologies for that, not intended.
With respect, the only person showing any sign of “upset” is your good self. There’s a growing tendency to take offence and become overly offended at something as small as criticising a headline. Good grief it is hardly the crime of the century.
Maybe it’s your illness that is making you over sensitive. However, it is not a personal slight to criticise a threa title. The vast majority of threads and thread titles are superb. It is very disappointing that the minute someone raises a dissentin voice lots of feelings are hurt and talk of censorship and deleting comments come into play.
I have noticed that Leprechaun has taken Athanasius’ comments on boars graciously and hasn’t become overly emotional. Perhaps it’s the difference between men and women 😉
Friends are honest with each other. If you chose to be an administrator of a blog then you to expect honest criticism. I don’t see the point of having a blog, a place to exchange ideas, if everyone is supposed to agree and slap each other on the back in congratulatory manner. That’s ludicrous.
It’s also madness to take such offence. No personal comments were made. This display of disappointment and emotion is a bit petty.
There’s a difference between honest criticism and insults. You didn’t exchange ideas you just said this topic was dangerous.
Where did editor take offence or show upset? I don’t recall her doing anything except trying to calm this nonsense down.
I know she’s sick today or I wouldn’t take it upon myself to say so much on her behalf but your posts on her are just amazing to me.
I apologise for responding to these posts when you asked me not to. I don’t mean to make things worse but I’ve never seen such a mountain out of a molehill.
As i said, maybe women are of a more sensitive disposition, Josephine.
There has been no personal attacks. Calling a thread “dangerous” is not a personal attack for goodness sake.
It is extremely disappointing that you have misunderstood and/or misrepresented this topic. I’m not sure which.
It is also rather unkind to equate this blog with Ignis Ardens, a forum with a very different agenda. I haven’t visited IA for a very long time so I’ve no idea what kind of spirit is found there, but I know that the spirit on this blog is one of pleasant interaction spoilt only – I am sorry to say – by those who occasionally, like yourself, appear to attack a particular choice of topic and/or headline. On the one hand, I’m criticised for being too tolerant of atheists and Protestants and on the other I’m not tolerant enough of the modern Church.
I’m particularly sad that you would distort my perfectly legitimate administrative warnings as “threats” – that’s very unjust. Like any other blog we have our rules – see the About Us section – and if visitors refuse to accept them, then the normal thing for any administrator to do is to moderate or block that person from the forum. Indeed, other administrators don’t issue warnings – they merely either remove posts or block offenders, without any explanation or warning. So, it’s not “censoring” to expect people to keep to our very simple rules – summed up in “stick to the topic, no personal remarks.” Hardly unreasonable, surely?
In any event, since you’ve ignored my requests to desist from commenting on this topic, telling in itself, preferring to continue to create the bitter spirit of which you accuse others, myself included, and since I’ve not kept my “threat” to moderate your posts, allow me to try another way out of this unpleasantness.
May I invite you to either post here or email me a list of topics which would pass your scrutiny for discussion on the blog.
I tend to do what other blog administrators do, see what’s in the news and post it for our blogging community to discuss. Some blogs, in fact, are almost exclusively discussing Pope Francis, what he says and does. We have covered that with out “sticky” or “pinned” thread but prefer to offer other topics as well.
So, please, as I say, feel free to submit a list of topics that you would like us to discuss. Feel free to suggest matching headlines as well.
Of course, there’s no guarantee that we will find them suitable for our blog but – you can be assured – they will each be looked at very sympathetically, with a view to publication.
I don’t see any personal remarks or “off topic” comments. Could you please specify what you are referring too.
An essential quality in an administrator is consistency and fairness. I recall a blogger just a few days ago, Catholic Priest, who time and time again used unkind, personal remarks, calling bloggers “bigots” etc. I don’t remember any warnings or posts from this blogger, who identified himself on that thread as a very well known priest. This isn’t fair or consistent.
The editor doesn’t need me speaking for her but the way this thread was dominated by you and Athanasius saying it was “dangerous” and berating the editor for allowing it, seems close to off topic and personal to me. I would certainly take it personally if I’d posted an article that was then not discussed but called “dangerous”.
I am amazed at the way you are attacking the editor – you’d be toast if you tried that with Fr Z. She is consistent and fair but that doesn’t mean treating everyone the same. She maybe cut the priest a bit of slack because he was a priest (I don’t remember him being unkind and calling people names but I maybe didn’t read all the posts.)
Frankly, I think the attacks on here have been disgraceful and completely unnecessary.
The comments from the priest were utterly disgraceful and went unpunished. Whether he is a priest or not makes no difference.
As I said earlier, the priest in question hinted that he is a very well known priest. Perhaps he wasn’t chastised because he provides information?
You certainly have it in for editor. I mean, you know her personally, most of us probably don’t but is she so lacking in integrity that she would do that?
I have to say I think there’s a bunch of something and nothing going on here.
I detect a fighting mood – you seem to be spoiling for a fight but I don’t see editor giving you one. I hope she recovers soon!
I certainly don’t have it in for the editor. Quite the opposite. To criticise this thread is not to criticise her as a person. I don’t see what is hard to understand about this.
It seems I cannot win. Sometimes I am accused of being sychophantic and other times I am accused of having it in for her.
No, there’s no fighting mood from me. I said my piece and then actually praised Leprechaun for an excellent comment. Only for all hell to break loose simply because the thread was criticised.
Prefer sychophantic. Any day.
You’ve managed to water down somewhat accusing us of being a danger to souls to being nothing more than a bit of criticism of the thread, but what the heck.
I don’t think I’ve watered down anything. This thread is dangerous. The vast majority of your threads are excellent. Some perspective on the matter would help.
That is really unworthy of you.
“Catholic Priest” has never been a source for Catholic Truth – or, at least, if he has, I don’t know it. His email address (like most others) does not disclose his identity. I’m really taken aback at what you are suggesting here. How disappointing. But, hey, I’m not upset! After what I’ve read on here today, nothing could ever upset me again. Rabbie Burns was right to say that it’s very useful to see ourselves as others see us. I’ve learned a lot today about how I’m perceived. Thank you !
I could not keep up with the “canonically elected” thread and perhaps allowed comments to go unedited that I should have edited. I must go back in a day or so and check them. I would always edit a priest’s comment if it contained unsuitable language rather than issue a warning – out of respect (don’t laugh) for his priesthood. I guessed from some of what he wrote, that he is elderly, so would not want to be too harsh with him. I mean, can you imagine if I dared to “warn” a priest, any priest, to tone down his comments. A certain A.N. Other would make mincemeat out of me!
You just have to laugh.
You could keep up enough to read my comments and then quote them back to Father before you closed the thread down. I’m amazed that you managed to keep up with my comments but not Father’s. Aren’t I the lucky boy?
From the first line of his first post on that thread I recognised Fr. Kramer’s style. You must have too, given that we both exchanged emails with him not so long ago and were both shocked by his bitterness.
I do not go in for this “guessing who’s who”., deciphering “styles” so you are wrong to think that I identified that priest as Fr Kramer. I did not. Nor did I concern myself with it. I had a call from a priest tonight who said he’d rather not give his name. Haven’t given his possible identity a single thought. I always think, anyway, that bloggers are entitled to their anonymity. At one time you agreed with that, but then at one time you thought blogging was an important apostolate. Who knows what you’ll think this time next week 🙂
There is absolutely no need for anyone to guess. That blogger identified himself as Fr Kramer when he told he us took early retirement due to Diabetes. Now, there may be other priests out there who have Diabetes, but none with crackpot ideas and a bad temper to go with it.
Are you related to editor, by any chance?
Bloggers have every right to declare this topic to be dangerous if that’s what they truly believe to be the case. I’m sorry if that spoils things for you but that’s what blog comments generally boil down to in the end, a big page full of differing opinions.
Well, again, we’ve never met and just going by her email address, no, Josephine is not related to me. Lucky thing.
It’s interesting that it seems to bother you that (for once – doesn’t usually happen) some bloggers have actually spoken up for me this time round. I’m usually left with whoever my latest critic is to battle it out.
Your behaviour, disguised as virtuous concern for souls, has been a huge scandal on this thread. Anyone genuinely concerned for souls will enter into any discussion, whether verbal or written, with a view to casting light on the subject.
The Remnant Newspaper online is about to open a blog. Given that you were a some-time columnist with them, you might like to try them out. But one thing I can almost guarantee, is that the comments will be moderated from the outset. And try telling Michael Matt that he’s a danger to souls – I’d love to read his next editorial!
Let me assure you that I have neither misunderstood and/or misinterpreted this topic. It is a very dangerous business to start speculating on whether or not Catholics will be saved who apparently go along nonchalantly with the conciliar revolution. It smacks of a Bishop Williamson “Newchurch” kind of conversation, only expressed with a sugar rather than vinegar coating.
The twofold sense in which I equate this blog with Ignis ardens is first the thread questioning the infallibility of canonisations, the platform given to the schismatic Fr. Kramer and now this present discussion accompanied with warnings of moderation for those, like myself and Petrus, who point out what should be obvious to all. As Petrus rightly pointed out, there were no such warnings for Fr. Kramer, who truly should have been sent packing.
It is also becoming apparent that a pack mentality is developing here. For example, two bloggers have come on today just to support you and this topic yet neither is a regular blogger and neither has previously commented on the thread.
Anyway, regardless of that, I would sure like you to tell me how any of the subjects in question are supposed to convince modern Catholics that they should embrace Tradition. All I can see happening from such topics is modern Catholics writing us all off as a bunch of nut cases. It’s very counter-productive to the work of Tradition. It should be enough for us to address the crisis in the Church with Church teaching and leave all the speculation and conspiracy nonsense to the looneys.
By the way, “pleasant interaction” does not automatically equate to charitable interaction. In fact, I have found the architects of Modernism to be very pleasant at the outset, only to turn nasty when confronted with the truth. Furthermore, Gossips often interact pleasantly with each other but that doesn’t negate their sins against God and their neighbour. So, pleasant interaction does not in or of itself mean healthy interaction.
As regards your offer, I have no interest in blogging these days. My only reason for coming on here, and believe me when I say that I have better things to do, is that I cannot allow these errors to go unchallenged. Blogging itself is just a complete waste of time in my estimation. It causes more problems than it solves, quite often deteriorating into uncharitable exchanges. Both Ignis Ardens and Rorate Caeli have already closed to comments, probably for this very reason.
Be assured that I bear you no animosity whatsoever, as you well know. Nor do I come on to the blog to cause trouble. My sole motivation for acting is charity and truth, even if that means getting the butt end of some less than favourable comments.
The fact is I believe you to be very wrong in the matters I have highlighted and I’m telling you so because you’re the one who will have to answer to God as the administrator of this blog. If you think I’m wrong, which you appear to do, then fine. But just remember that I’m not the one bearing the responsibility for what is put into the public domain. You’ve done much good work over the years but, like the rest of us, you’re not infallible. You have made a few big blunders recently. I’ll leave it at that.
I’ve no recollection of ever claiming to be infallible.
You’ve made an awful lot of criticisms of me, personally and this blog.
I can’t see that I (or anyone else) has said anything contrary to Catholic teaching, but please feel free to quote me, if I’m wrong.
That’s really all that matters. Whether or not you approve of blogging is neither here nor there. I don’t approve of smoking. Do you care?
So, please quote me anything I – or anyone else – has said on this thread that is contrary to Catholic doctrine. I’d want to put that right, pronto.
I’d genuinely and honestly like to hear what good you think can come from this thread? It’s not a trick question, if you can simply explain this to me I’d be grateful.
Your question to Athanasius is an interesting one. So is what we aim for now just the absence of heresy, rather than the edification of ourselves and others?
I haven’t noticed either Athanasius or you contributing much if anything to the devotional threads I’ve posted, aimed at offering “edification” . I think there were 8 comments, for example, on the Christmas Gifts thread, aimed at helping us to think of taking a little edification to our friends and relatives in the form of Christmas presents. That’s one example. All the rest of the devotional threads suffer the same fate. Few bother to comment or contribute in any way. So, please don’t get all hung up because you don’t find this thread “edifying” – it could have been VERY edifying but for the nasty atmosphere which developed.
Not a lot of good can come of this thread now – Athanasius and you have ruined it. Completely. I am going to close it early, for that reason.
But if you had thought about it, read Leprechaun’s article carefully, you’d have seen that this thread was really no different to many other threads – it’s really, when it boils down – asking if it is imperative that we all work for the restoration of the traditional Faith or does it matter if the “hordes” of Catholics, referred to by Leprechaun, who are being misled post Vatican II, are spiritually safe anyway. I didn’t expect to have to spell it out – it seemed obvious to me when I read the article originally, If I’d thought anyone would interpret it as condemning all diocesan Catholics to Hell, I would have thought twice.
It was an opportunity – I hoped – for bloggers like you to post comments of your own experience as novus ordo Catholics, to post links to articles of interest, post videos, perhaps – it could have been a terrific and very edifying thread. I would have expected, even if the topic were “off colour” or “dangerous” for a skilled communicator/blogger to turn it around in some way in order to MAKE it “edifying”. Beats what happened on here. By a million miles.
I hope that answers your question. Truly apostolic souls could have made this thread a huge success. Instead, it’s a lost opportunity. Pity.
No truly apostolic soul would write the headline “Judgement Day: The Fate of Modern Catholics”. That, dear editor, spoiled Leprechaun’s ponderings.
I spent a long time posting on the recent thread on the Rosary Crusade. Wasn’t that a devotional thread? I think you are only seeing what you want to see.
I won’t make any further responses, as you request and apologise if I kept this going. It’s very easy to get caught up in an acrimonious spat, so I am sorry if I made things worse.
I hope you don’t switch to being a moderated site like Protect the Pope. I never comment on those blogs because they take so long to publish a comment and often don’t let comments they disagree with through. I know you sometimes moderate individuals and I think that is fair and is a better method than moderating everyone.
Sorry your cold is worse. I hope you get better soon.
I am a Catholic, a convert, who attends the Novus Ordo Mass. I seek out, as far as possible those Masses where I believe the priest to be holy . I am still, at times, often disappointed at certain things taking place.
I just wanted to say in no way do I find the thread or the subsequent discussion off putting, insulting or threatening. There is no compulsion to read anything so people can move on if there is discomfort —- or say their piece, whatever.
Thank you for this. Much appreciated. Just when I was thinking of hopping on a bus to the Erskine Bridge 🙂
God bless you!
The problem is some of us tried to “say our piece” and the ladies of the blog have risen up in anger!
Either we can all say our piece, even if that means criticising certain threads, or this blog becomes the online version of the Women’s Guild.
The problem is you haven’t said much at all about the topic, just keep spoiling for a fight about the fact that it was permitted cyberspace.
Not at all. This is unworthy of you. I gave my opinion and because it didn’t sing the Catholic Truth Blog’s praises it was shot down in flames.
This thread now has 81 responses. If the thread title hadn’t been criticised then it would have about 8! Sometimes discussions don’t go the way planned. However, if I had submitted this thread I would be delighted with 81 responses – it shows it has made an impact.
Yes, it’s had an impact all right. Meet me in a dark alley in Glasgow at 11pm and we’ll talk about “impact”.
Now who’s spoiling for a fight!!!!
Now, I’m going to close this thread down as it’s really too late to redirect the discussion to its intended purpose.
I’m disappointed in the way it turned out, but wish to thank all those who valiantly tried to make a few pertinent points.
A special thanks to Leprechaun for submitting his article, with the best of intentions.
Some time later…
Leo posted a comment on this topic on the General Discussion (3) thread – to read it, scroll to January 8, 2014 at 1:08 am since he was too late to post it here, due to early closure.
Comments are closed.