Ireland: Papal Nuncio Makes Ecumenical History (God help him) …editor
Archbishop Charles Brown will become the first Papal Nuncio to address a non-Catholic congregation in the country when he preaches at Saint Anne’s Church of Ireland Cathedral in Belfast on Tuesday evening.
In a statement, the Church of Ireland Press office said the occasion will be the first of two special services to mark the international Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.
It will be attended by the Presbyterian Moderator, Dr Rob Craig, along with local Church of Ireland and Roman Catholic bishops and a Methodist representative.
The following evening, Archbishop Brown is scheduled to preach at Saint Patrick’s Church of Ireland Cathedral in Armagh. The statement says the Church of Ireland and Roman Catholic Primates, Archbishop Richard Clarke and Cardinal Seán Brady will also attend along with other clergy.
Choirs from the Church of Ireland and Roman Catholic Cathedrals in Belfast and Armagh will sing together at the respective services.
Announcing the unprecedented development, St Anne’s Dean John Mann expressed the wish that both services might be springboards for future endeavours, weaving together the threads of the past whilst stepping forward in unity and faith.
Click on shamrock to read source
Archbishop Charles brown was appointed as papal nuncio to Ireland in the wake of the
scandals by benedict xvi .He was thought to be quite a holy man,loyal to the teachings of the
church. given his senior position in the church,this is a disaster. This just looks like another
gamekeeper turned poacher story!
May God help him and us.
Thanks Tommy for alerting me to this latest scandal. I, too, was led to believe that Archbishop Brown was one of the “good guys” (by people who’d met him when he was based in Rome.)
Seems the “good guys” just don’t get these sort of promotions. In due course, they show their true, “liberal”, colours.
What happened to Truth? Shouldn’t Truth be the senior factor in this “stepping forward together” business? Unity and Faith are meaningless if Truth is absent.
I have just read on Rorate Caeli of Cardinal O’Malley proactively asking a female Methodist minister to “re-affirm” his baptism with an “anointing” at a Protestant church this month in Sudbury, Massachusetts. How many more instances of diabolical disorientation does God need before He decides it is time for Divine intervention?
Shocking about Cardinal O’Malley – truly diabolical, as is the latest ecumenical scandal in Ireland.
However, in response to your concluding question – we may ponder the mystery of iniquity, of course, but we cannot question the wisdom of God Who has already told us that His ways are not our ways.
Right now, it’s as if we’re looking at the wrong side of a tapestry – which is an ugly bundle of threads. Turn it over and we see a beautiful picture. The craftsman knew what he was doing, after all. In the same way we must accept that God knows what He is doing. The Divine intervention, if and when it comes, will be painful for us all – so be careful what you wish for !
Our task is to be faithful Catholics, educating ourselves in a way that we are able to fight the heresies on all sides, and defend the Faith during this time of terrible crisis, and to do what we can to hasten the Consecration of Russia – which will bring an end to the diabolical disorientation we are now witnessing. We should concern ourselves with our tasks, therefore, and trust God in His Divine Providence to do the rest.
Here endeth the lesson 🙂
“Truth is the first casualty of war” as they say so it’s not surprising that the ecumenical movement has done away with it.
I’ve been thinking about the way ecumenism has spread like wildfire and I’m wondering if anyone else agrees with me that the crisis in the Church comes down to Ecumenism Vs Catholicism? Aren’t they opposites?
What about the scandals, the dissident clergy and the empty churches in Ireland? I would have thought that dealing with these would have left him short of the time needed to be taking part in a charade. He might as well go down to B&Q and give a demonstration on the latest power tools.
Surely there must be at least one George Galloway among the hierarchy who isn’t afraid to stand up and be counted. On second thoughts; I’ll retract that statement.
If only George Galloway were a truly informed and practising Catholic, instead of a lapsed “liberal” type – he’d be a prime candidate for a vacancy to be advertised in the February edition of Catholic Truth.
I’ve just had a call from an Irish lady in the north of Ireland who tells me that the cathedral in which the papal nuncio is to preach, was originally a Catholic cathedral. Judas Iscariot, eat your heart out!
As far as I am aware, George is a practising Catholic who admits readily to his faults. I think he will be as informed about his religion as much as someone like the “Vatican spokesman” professor Haldane although that hardly means much I don’t know about him being liberal in his beliefs but he certainly is liberal in some of his actions. Mind you, it would be worth offering him the job for a trial period as long as he didn’t don his cat suit.
Can I just say that it is good to see that at least some people know that the correct title for a certain part of Ulster is The North of Ireland rather than the anglicised version.
George Galloway is on his fourth “marriage”. Two (including the current one) were to Muslims in Muslim ceremonies, I believe (although would need to double check the second ceremony – definitely his first “marriage” to a Muslim was in a Muslim ceremony – not sure about the current one). There is now a baby on the way, so it will be interesting to see if there is a baptism to follow. I doubt it.
However you choose to describe George Galloway, he’s no practising Catholic. In any TV panel discussions where his alleged Catholicism has been raised, he has predictably (given his loose relationship with Christ’s words about divorce/remarriage/adultery) revealed himself to be a real, live “liberal”. Guessing his views on women’s ordination and “gay” rights, takes all of two seconds. 🙄
Editor, I’m afraid your Irish lady has got her facts wrong. The building of St. Anne’s cathedral in Belfast was started in 1899 and finished in 1903 and it was never Catholic.
That’s a surprise. The lady who rang me sounded very knowledgeable and gave me a fairly detailed potted history so I’m guessing that she may have misheard and thinks it’s a different cathedral. She rang to say “I’ve just heard that…” and wanted, kindly, to let me know, so the chances are, she’s not a candidate for a cheeky Irish joke (I know you, Vianney!) but has somehow gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick, or, to be more accurate, the wrong cathedral. It’s the way I tell ’em…
If not – all I can say, thanks to the latest post from 3LittleShepherds on the General Discussion thread, is…. ❗
I’ve had another call, this morning, from the Irish lady who wishes to correct our mistake – she wasn’t referring to St Anne’s Cathedral in Belfast, but to St Patrick’s Cathedral in Armagh – that was originally a Catholic Cathedral.
This reinforces the correctness of our policy (published again not long ago) of never taking information for publication over the phone. There is always a danger of mishearing what is said, not least due to misunderstandings as a result of different accents or for any other reason.
Thus, we always ask readers to write in with information they think would be worthy of publication. That’s the best way to ensure accuracy.
Anyway, all’s well that ends well in this case. Apologies for my mistake in not identifying St Patrick’s cathedral in the first place. The truth is, it hadn’t registered with me that the Archbishop would be speaking in two cathedrals. What am I LIKE? Rhetorical – strictly rhetorical – question.. 🙄
Empty Churches= I thought Ireland was still one of the most religious in Europe. As for dissident Clergy, doesn’t the Association of any but Catholic Priests represent only a small fraction of the total?
I don’t think Cardinal Connell would have let this happen. He once described the anglican communion as a ‘sham’ and supported Dominus Iesus.
I just can’t believe the shameful and scandalous behaviour propagated by Archbishop Brown. What sort of message is this sending out to the faithful, many of them already so ignorant and bemused. No, no, this is encouraging the grievous sins of indifferentism and relativism, to say Protestantism, a man-made religion, is equal to Catholicism (even NO Catholicism). The nebulous and feculent notion of Ecumenism is replacing true Catholicism. Brown and his ecumenical cohorts are demon possessed and he will, I am sure, be answerable only to God.
Perhaps the new motto of the Church should be Rodney King’s “Can’t we all just get along?” I’m sure the occupying Freemasons would find that an acceptable variant of “liberte, egalite, fraternite.”
“Weaving together the threads of the past,” eh, +Charlie Brown? Please explain to us how you can weave together truth, lies and heresy, not to mention obedience and rebellion, pride and humility, revelation and delusion….but really, no one should be surprised by this. It is the behavior which has been encouraged and demonstrated by all the Conciliar Popes since the establishment of the Secretariat for Christian Unity in 1960 – the cover under which so much of the VII revolution was hatched. Since the modern Church has become an institution characterized by spineless “monkey see, monkey do” and “cover-your-butt” careerism (loyalty to humans and servitude to false human respect rather than fidelity to the Faith) (along with plenty of corruption), it will be the recurring disgrace-du-jour until something radically different happens on the Chair of St. Peter. Meanwhile, we have a Rosary Crusade with which to devote ourselves.
Perhaps the new motto of the Church should be Rodney King’s “Can’t we all just get along?”
When I first read your post last night, I smiled. I had had a very nice afternoon cup of tea with a priest who, while not one of our biggest fans, is kindly towards us and I think would probably class us among those “who mean well… idiots!”
Anyway, early on in the conversation he made the very point with which you open your (first, I believe, on this blog – welcome!) comment. He said something to the effect “why can’t we all stop fighting?” That is, why not just get along… whatever…
Such has been the success of the Vatican II revolution – if we all just accept the new Mass, new catechism, new rosary, new evangelisation, new (Modernist) Pope, we’d all get along just fine.
Priests and people who have never known anything BUT the revolution just cannot understand us at all. And it’s even more difficult for them to grasp the seriousness of what we are about when they witness the numpties who sometimes come on here causing havoc over daft, secondary matters.
Your closing comment about the Rosary Crusade duly noted and endorsed.
I remember attending the canonisation of the Forty Martyrs of England and Wales. It is being made out now by ones like the reverend archbishop as if they were forty fools.
The faith is all but finished in Ireland. Once the older generations have died out the faith will be all but gone. It’s incredible that such a Catholic country went down the swallow in 50 years or so. Then we get the clergy fiddling while Rome burns!
Comment removed due to possible breach of copyright.
Thanks, though, Westminster Fly. All very interesting.
Archbishop Brown’s reply to Mary McAleese in this extract is really unbelievable, as he doesn’t question the stats, making it look as if the Church’s teaching on homosexuality is to blame for the suicides:
“McAleese has presented Archbishop Charles Brown, the papal nuncio to Ireland, with data on suicide among young Irish males, many of them gay Catholics who grew up being told their sexuality was “intrinsically disordered” and “evil”.
She said Brown had asked her: “What do you want me to do? Do you want us to turn our back on tradition?”
McAleese replied: “Yes, if it’s wrong.”
Why didn’t he say that it’s nothing to do with the teaching of the Church because the Church doesn’t say what’s natural and what’s disordered. Maybe these suicides are because of the turmoil it causes in the men themselves. It would be interesting to know the stats on suicides of non-Catholic homosexuals. I doubt these would be any lower and they couldn’t care at all about Catholic teaching.
Sorry, meant to say that the Church doesn’t say what’s natural or disordered, that is just is the way things are naturally – the Church didn’t make the rules, just reminds the world of the need to abide by the way God made things.
The speech by McAleese was a piece of duplicitous grandstanding for a secular audience. What she said was not worth a scrap in an intellectual sense.
She is demonstrably wrong that teaching the reality about homosexuality is somehow harmful.
Studies have shown that even in those countries where homosexuality is accepted, accommodated and claimed to be normal – such as Holland, Denmark and other places where they think they can define human biology – homosexuals experience the exact same high rates of mental illness than they do other countries.
(The same holds with sexual disease and early deaths among homosexuals. In these instances, they attempt to blame the opinions of others for the results of their own promiscuous and disordered sexual conduct).
“Recent studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals. We see higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse.”
However, Dr. Whitehead questions, “Does pressure from society lead to mental health problems?”
“Less, I believe, than one might imagine,” he states. “The authors of the study done in The Netherlands were surprised to find so much mental illness in homosexual people in a country where tolerance of homosexuality is greater than in almost all other countries.”
“In his cross-cultural comparison of mental health in the Netherlands, Denmark and the U.S., Ross (1988) could find no significant differences between countries – i.e. the greater social hostility in the United States did not result in a higher level of psychiatric problems,” Dr. Whitehead points out.
“Another good comparison country is New Zealand,” Dr. Whitehead observes, “which is much more tolerant of homosexuality than is the United States. Legislation giving the movement special legal rights is powerful, consistently enforced throughout the country, and virtually never challenged. Despite this broad level of social tolerance, suicide attempts were common in a New Zealand study and occurred at about the same rate as in the U.S.”
“A strong case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself, in its most extreme form, is mentally disturbed,” Dr. Whitehead asserts”
Its quite clear to me that the root of mental illness among homosexuals is their difficulty in relating to others and the world in a normal fashion. Where most men see a male friend or colleague, homosexuals see a ‘sex’ partner. Where most men see a woman, homosexuals see an erroneous biological creature. Their outlook on and understanding of others is the complete inverse to >99% of people and to normality.
This difficulty in relating to others must naturally be very hard for people to cope with, as being able to relate to others is very important and is the bedrock of familial relationships and friendships. People who experience same sex attraction must experience a real sense of being isolated or feeling like “the other”, even in these days of pro-homosexual saturation propaganda.
Ultimately, any place homosexuality is tolerated or accepted naturally becomes an epicenter for the negative pathologies associated with homosexuality, such as poor mental and physical health. San Francisco – the beacon of homosexual America – is a great example, where >50% of homosexual men are now HIV+. (American homosexual men in general are not expected to achieve this rate till a further 2 or 3 decades pass, according to the US Govt CDC.)
It is similar to how, if a countries had lax alcohol laws and cheap, strong liquor was available 24/7 – then that country would quite naturally have high rates of alcoholism and much alcohol related crime.
That’s a great post from you and it reminded me that homosexuality used to be listed as a mental disorder. I found this article which explains this and how it was the gays who lobbied to have that changed
I’ve never believed that pressure from society led to gays committing suicide. There isn’t any pressure from society now, most people think it’s perfectly ok to be gay.
Correct me if I’m wrong but in the Netherlands, where over 80% of the population view homosexuality as moral, homosexuals are 30% more likely to commit suicide than heterosexuals. The worst enemies, people with same sex attraction have are homosexualist activists. They basically demand that these people should get ‘married, have intercourse and put their lives at risk from contracting all sorts of vile diseases. Whereas Catholic doctrine wants these people to be chaste, celibate in order t have true freedom. What’s wrong with that?
Wouldn’t it be wise to wait until we hear what the Archbishop actually says before criticising him? My former PP once used his address at a local ecumenical event to explain why Catholics have devotion to Our Lady. Maybe Archbishop Brown plans to do something similar.
Both your PP and the Irish nuncio should have invited all the Protestants who wish to hear them preach to come to hear him preach at Mass or Benediction with a view to learning more about the Catholic Church and, hopefully, convert to the true faith. So, no, I don’t agree that it would be wise to wait until we hear what the Archbishop actually says – it is a cause of scandal that at one time we were all forbidden to attend Protestant churches and now we have papal nuncios preaching in them, and in a former Catholic cathedral as well.
I also wonder what your PP said about devotion to Mary – it may not have been as full bodied Catholic as we’d like. There is a watering down of the Catholic faith when preaching at these events, going by the reports I’ve read in the past.
Mrs Leprechaun says that when she was a child in Galway the nuns who taught her told her that if she as much as looked at the door of the Protestant church as she passed by on the way to school, she would go blind. She didn’t look, and she hasn’t gone blind. Good advice.
Now if you look at the door of a Catholic church it is closed.
I often hear that said, but my friend and I have visited quite a few towns and cities in the UK and Ireland over the last few years. we always seek out the local catholic church and have found only a couple closed.
That’s great. I thought they were all closed. I’ve never seen any except in city centres that were open. I’m glad to hear that.
There really was some nonsense taught in the past.
What do you mean? What “nonsense” was taught in the past? (I’m not being funny – I genuinely don’t know what you mean).
I wonder if this PP read St Louis-Marie De Montfort’s wonderful book- ‘True Devotion to Mary’, not to mention, Pian Encyclicals such as Munificentissimus Deus and the various Leonine Encyclicals.
Mary McAleese and the ACP would like us to love the sinner,and the sin.
Seems like a lot of closet Modernists are becoming emboldened.Do they sense a revolution??
A lot of “closet” Modernists are now emboldened because the Pope is a Modernist. They know they are perfectly safe now. Our very own Archbishop Tartaglia in Glasgow is a classic case. Previously anxious to promote himself as an orthodox Bishop, he’s now openly speaking at dissenter-inspired meetings and wishing the readers of The Tablet a Merry Christmas. Gimme strength…
At least McAleese and the ACP have been openly Modernist from the start. Give them some credit 🙄
A bit out of date but relevant to the present discussion was Ruth Gledhill’s report of 4th January in The Times on ‘the growing ‘ecumenical warmth’ between Anglicans and the Vatican’. Depressing enough though it was to see Justin Welby and Pope Francis cosying up to liberal applause, what took the biscuit for me was the following bit:
Among those pushing for more change is the leading Catholic theologian and Benedictine academic Dom Henry Wansbrough. A member of ARCIC III, a former Master of St. Benet’s Hall, Oxford, and a former member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, he is among those who wish to see Pope Leo’s apostolic letter revisited. (Reference is, of course to Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae which pronounced that Anglican orders are absolutely null and utterly void).
I am sure that, as Editor said above, Modernists will increasingly have their way during this dreadful pontificate. Dom Henry Wansbrough’s disorientated view of the priesthood is shown in the Gledhill article where she blithely goes on to quote him as saying Are we saying that formerly they (Anglican ministers ordained to the Catholic priesthood upon conversion) were not ministers at all or that their ministry is now to be invalid in the Roman Catholic Church? I know so many good and holy Anglicans and Methodists who surely minister and bring Christ to their communities.
This academic man of considerable influence reveals his absolute ignorance of the nature of the Catholic priesthood. His clear lack of faith in the sacrificing priesthood logically follows from the loss of faith in the Real Presence so widely and increasingly current in the Church.
The worth of the Apostolic Succession, like the requirements for valid consecrations, seems to be yet another example of those parts of Tradition that the Modernists are prepared to bypass rather than observe.
Take heart from what the Jesuits used to proclaim: “No matter how you present your case, at the end of the day, a sheep has only four legs” – in other words, there is no getting round the Truth. Neither ignorance nor willful dismissal of the Truth will advance their case one iota.
Good to hear from you.
“continuity”? Or was it “living tradition”?
“…The Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their (Protestant) assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise?” Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, 1928,#8
“It is a source of joy to see that the many ecumenical meetings almost always include and indeed culminate in prayer…My visits have almost always included an ecumenical meeting and common prayer with our brothers and sisters who seek unity in Christ and in His Church.” – Pope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint, 1995, #24
I would think that 99.9% of those Irish Catholics who still are still going to Mass on Sundays, are either supportive, or are completely indifferent towards the subject of this thread. Modernist Mind Rot appears to have completely disarmed all critical faculties. And on all the evidence of endless Conciliar interreligious dialogue that has been going on for five decades, it’s hard to work up any expectations that ecumenical encounters such as the upcoming ones in Belfast and Armagh will lead to souls discovering and returning to the full, undiluted doctrine of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ. I don’t expect Mortalium Animos will be getting much of airing. The “ecumenism of return” has been well and truly buried under the weight of dialogue.
“The way to achieve Christian unity, in fact, is not proselytism but fraternal dialogue…”- Pope John Paul II, Homily, January 25, 1993.
“This (Christian) unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely not!”- Pope Benedict XVI, Address to Protestants, World Youth Day, August 19, 2005.
“Where we had at first sight a contradiction, we can now see a complementary position.” Cardinal Walter Kasper,The Common Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification: A Reason for Hope, 20 Feb 2000
It hardly needs to be stated that in these days of cataclysmic catechesis and indifferentism, criticising ecumenism, or rather false ecumenism, is almost guaranteed to attract charges of “intolerance” and “bigotry”. Surely genuine concern for the salvation of all souls, and sharing the full divinely revealed truth spoken in charity, free of personal rancour, is nothing more than the mark of a true follower of Christ. The idea that defending or proclaiming the truth taught by the Church instituted by Christ is somehow a manifestation of bigotry strikes me as nothing so much as an indirect blasphemy towards Our Lord Himself, the Head of the Church.
I’ll leave the issue of truth and charity to two great pastors of souls:
“We must not pass over in silence, or veil in ambiguous terms the truth of Catholic Teaching…that the only true union is by the return of separated Christians to the one true Church of Christ.” – Pope Pius XII, Instruction of the Holy Office on the Ecumenical Movement, December 20, 1949
“But how can hearts be united in perfect charity where minds do not agree in faith?” – Pope Leo XIII, Praeclara Gratulationis Pulbicae, 1894
I would imagine that Archbishop Brown, if asked to defend his participation, would point to the actions and words of Popes, and high ranking Vatican prelates over the last five decades, as well as the Conciliar documents themselves. Certainly there would be no shortage of such material.
Surely, nowhere has the rupture with the Church’s constant pre-Conciliar Magisterium been demonstrated to Catholics and non-Catholics alike than in the area of interreligious dialogue. Here, 1962 can truly be said to represent some sort of “year zero”.
It’s hardly outrageous to suggest that the ongoing ecumenical engagement is part of a greater “scheme” represented by the “Spirit of Assisi”,aiming to gather all mankind together in building some sort of secular peace in the City of Man, or in the words of Pope John Paul II, “to contribute to bringing about a fuller and closer unity of the whole human family” (First Urbi et Orbi Message, October 17, 1978).
“The unity of Christians is open to a unity even more vast, that of all humanity.”- Pope John Paul II, Angelus Message, January 17,1982.
Is this not all part of the vague New Evangelisation that we hear so much about? No evangelisation, more like. Certainly proselytism (a “solemn nonsense” in the words of Pope Francis) and conversion appear to play no part whatsoever in this programme.
“We can describe the ‘ethos’ proper to ecumenism in the following fashion: the renouncement of every form of proselytism whether open or camouflaged”. – W Kasper, The Ecumenical Engagement of the Catholic Church, conference given March 23, 2002, during the General Assembly of the Protestant Federation of France.
Is fraternity, without fraternal correction, now more important that the salvation of souls? Just asking.
“The ‘universal brotherhood’ of Christians has become a firm ecumenical conviction.” – Pope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint, 1995, #42
Did Pope Leo XIII not issue a very clear, unambiguous, “fraternal” warning, 96 years previously?
“For they contend that it is opportune, in order to work in a more attractive way upon the wills of those who are not in accord with us, to pass over certain heads of doctrine, as if of lesser moment, or to so soften them that they may not have the same meaning which the Church has invariably held…Few words are needed to show how reprehensible is the plan that is thus conceived.” – Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Testem Benevolentiae, 1899
If anyone is in any doubt about the use of the word “rupture” when discussing the Conciliar approach to ecumenism, they need to read Pope Pius XI’S 1928 encyclical, Mortalium Animos. Large excerpts could be quoted here, but the following might serve as the briefest possible condemnation of false ecumenism.
“Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity?… But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.” – Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, 1928, #3-4
Archbishop Brown, before his appointment as papal nuncio in Ireland, served in the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, including under the then Cardinal Ratzinger. Would it be too much to expect that in preparing his upcoming sermon, His Grace will consult the 1949 Instruction issued by the same Office, then headed by the Supreme Pontiff, and quoted from above?
“They (the bishops) ought to guard against the false premise that it is better to consider what unites us rather than what divides, but this would nourish a dangerous indifferentism…” – Pope Pius XII, Instruction of the Holy Office on the Ecumenical Movement, December 20, 1949
By following the words of Saint Paul, and “doing the truth in charity” (Ephesians 4:15), the Shepherds, by the grace of God, might, even at this stage, abandon all concerns over human respect, and carry out their divine mission for the salvation of souls. Are the following words not the epitome of truth and charity?
“Let those who wish to be saved come to this pillar, to this foundation of the truth which is the Church, let them come to the true Church of Christ which in her Bishops and in the Roman Pontiff, the supreme head of all, possesses the uninterrupted succession of apostolic authority…We will never spare either Our efforts or Our labours, to bring back, by the grace of the same Jesus Christ, to this unique way of truth and salvation, those in ignorance and error.” – Pope Pius IX, Allocution Ubi Primum, 1847.
No Bishop should have to think twice about serving either his master or the world.
“The Church alone is the depository of the truth.” – Pope Saint Pius X, Address on the Beatification of Joan of Arc, 1909.
I’m sure that Saint Patrick would issue the same reminder to Archbishop Brown.
I read somewhere recently someone saying that Mortalium Animos is to be or should be “re-visited”. I think that’s already happened on an unofficial level and Archbishop Brown has just proved it by accepting these invitations to preach in Protestant cathedrals, including one that was originally Catholic. I wonder how these modernists can sleep at night.
“Mortalium Animos is to be ‘re-visited’”.
“Re-visited” sounds a bit like Sir Humphrey speak to me. One for the connoisseurs of euphemism, that. They’ll be sending “traditionalists” for “re-education” next.
Like so much of the clear, constant pre-Conciliar Magisterium that taught the faith that was held “everywhere, always, and by everyone”, Mortalium Animos has been “disappeared”, dropped down the back of a radiator, or as Cardinal Ottaviani suggested about the Secret of Fatima, “dropped down a deep well”.
As for sleeping at night, I’d imagine the modernists just re-read Guadium et Spes. They’ll definitely be asleep before they find any proclamation of the dogma that outside the Church there is no salvation, or a condemnation of the greatest secular evil the world has seen, Communism. I’m pretty sure also, that, as with so much of the pre-Conciliar magisterium, they won’t find any citation of Mortalium Animos anywhere in the Council documents, except in a footnote.
I agree with Crofter Lady that the faith is all but finished in Ireland, short of Saint Patrick coming back and starting again, almost from scratch. Where Cromwell, the Penal Laws, and starvation failed, Modernism, Masonry, and material comfort have succeeded.
If anyone wants to see what the modernist kenosis, or revolutionary novus ordo autodemolition has wrought, just come to Ireland. Of course, the evidence of original sin was as evident here as anywhere else, but the dead generations did keep, and did pass on the true Faith, “the pearl of great price”. A middle aged lifetime ago, Ireland was a ninety five per cent Catholic country, sending priests and missionaries to the four corners of the world. Now the remaining faithful are given stones instead of bread. It’s far, far easier to find an Alpha course, or yoga sessions on Church premises than to attend the Mass brought by Saint Patrick, the Mass that sustained and sanctified all the faithful generations up until our own time of diabolical disorientation.
It doesn’t look like the scandalous 2012 Eucharistic Congress in Dublin has brought about any visible recovery. I don’t think many of us here will be surprised. Remember, the novelty of one the services there being led by a Church of Ireland cleric. Our Lady was all but shut out, judging by the official events programme that I read. I wonder why? No prizes for guessing. Only last week, someone reminded me of the fact that the Rosary was not said during the Eucharistic Procession, except by those who took it upon themselves to do so.
The thread about social services and children reminded me that since the Congress Ireland has passed a Constitutional Referendum (which God willing will be overturned in the courts) that in effect allows the State to usurp the rights and role parents on very nebulous grounds, and further progresses the UN antichrist agenda. Need I say that the Bishops issued an embarrassingly weak statement?
And of course, shame of shames, in the last past we saw the abandonment of the unborn. Again, scandalous silence and pre-emptive surrender was the general order of the day. At the time I was glad to report the hopeful words of coadjutor Archbishop of Armagh, Eamon Martin on the issue of refusing Holy Communion to those politicians who supported abortion. Well, since then His Grace appears to have been dragged into the collegial morass of accommodation with the enemies of Christ.
Statements about the protection of innocent children now ring pretty hollow, for me.
Indeed, Ireland is now a cursed land.
The ACP appears to operating with impunity, with all the danger to souls that that entails. If they offered the Mass of the Martyrs exclusively they would surely find themselves banished to some real life Craggy Island soon enough.
I wonder will any of this feature in Archbishop Brown’s sermon.
“Statements about the protection of innocent children now ring pretty hollow, for me.”
That thought came to me when I watched the film about child protection on the other thread.
I wonder if Archbishop Brown is aware of some of the toxic material carried on the website of the Archdiocese of Armagh. The following link is maybe four clicks from the home page and quite difficult to find, without directions, so hopefully the Catholics of the diocese are protected to some extent.
If anyone is in any doubt about the dangers and effects of modernist carbon monoxide poisoning, please read the bibliography issued to parish pastoral council by the Office of Pastoral Renewal and Pastoral Ministry of the Archdiocese of Armagh. I can think of plenty of words, but renewal is not one that springs to mind here.
The following appears to be unchanged from that posted here over fifteen months ago.
In my innocence, I only recognised a few names. Here they are, along with the material deemed fit to “renew” the See of Saint Patrick. Quite a collection. God in Heaven, help us.
Byrne, Lavinia. Women at the Altar. The Ordination of Women in the Roman Catholic Church. Liturgical Press, 1994. Explores the problem caused when God calls women to priesthood, while the Catholic Church formally teaches that only men can be ordained.
Chittister, Joan. Women, Ministry and Church. Paulist Press 1983. A series of reflective essays on the roles and problems of modern women in the ministries of the Church.
*Groome, Thomas H. Sharing Faith: A Comprehensive Approach to Religious Education and Pastoral Ministry: the Way of Shared Praxis. Harper SanFrancisco, 1991
*McBrien, Richard P. Ministry: A Theological, Pastoral Handbook. Harper and Row, 1987. For those in ministry, those contemplating it and for those who recruit people for ministry. Practical guidelines.
Schillebeeckx, Edward. The Church with a Human Face: A New and Expanded Theology of Ministry. Crossroad, 1985.
Kung, Hans.The Church. Sheed & Ward, 1967
McBrien, Richard P. Catholicism – study edition. Winston Press, 1981
Rahner, Karl. Theological Dictionary. Seabury, 1965 Sheed & Ward, 1967
Boff, Leonardo. Ecclesiogenesis. Orbis Books, 1997
Truly, it’s a wonder there is any faith in Ireland. It really is time for Saint Patrick to dust off his crozier.
I’ve just emailed a link to this thread to the numpties responsible for the website of the Archdiocese of Armagh. The majority of them, if not all, are probably too young to know true Catholicism even if it were handed to them by Santa himself, gift-wrapped and tied with pretty pink ribbons. And since the hierarchy are, at best negligent and at worst apostate, there, as here, there’s no doubt that any visitors from the Armagh website will write us off as “extremists” and go back to advertising the crackpot writings of Lavinia Byrne, ex-nun & promoter of all things heretical – along with all the other heretics listed on their site – without giving it a second thought.
Well done, Editor.
I wouldn’t worry about any “extremist” charge. Rather, consider the words of Pope Pius IX to La Croix, a Belgian journal, as being applicable to you and the Newsletter:
“We cannot do less than to praise the design expressed in this letter, which we know your journal will satisfactorily fulfil, the design to publish, to spread, to comment on and inculcate in all minds all that the Holy See teaches against the perverse or at least false doctrines professed in so many quarters, and particularly against Liberal Catholicism, bitterly striving to conciliate light with darkness and truth with error.”
If anyone from the Armagh is reading this, they might consider the following link as a true Catholic bibliography and an aid to the restoration of the faith, and the salvation of souls.
Reading the short book, Liberalism is a Sin, by Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany might make Catholics wake up to reality and show them where they have been led: into the desert. I don’t expect they’ll find it on any parish pastoral council bibliography. The book is published by the ever reliable TAN books, and I’m sure is available from Carmel books. The online version is at the bottom of the page linked to here:
If any critics of Catholic Truth feel inclined to warm up for a charge of intolerance and extremism, let them read the following words on true charity:
“The good of all good is the divine Good, just as God is for all men the Neighbour of all neighbours. As a consequence, the love due to a man, insomuch as he is our neighbour, ought always to be subordinated to that which is due to our common Lord. For His love and in His service we must not hesitate of offend men. The degree of our offense toward men can only be measured by the degree of our obligation to Him.
“Charity is primarily the love of God, secondarily the love of our neighbour for God’s sake. To sacrifice the first is to abandon the latter. Therefore, to offend our neighbour for the love of God is a true act of charity. Not to offend our neighbour for the love of God is a sin.
“Modern Liberalism reverse this order. It imposes a false notion of charity: our neighbour first, and, if at all, God afterwards. By its repeated and trite accusations toward us of intolerance, it has succeeded in disconcerting even some staunch Catholics.
“But our rule is too plain and too concrete to admit of misconception. It is this: Sovereign Catholic inflexibility is sovereign Catholic charity.
“This charity is practiced toward our neighbour when, in his own interest, he is crossed, humiliated and chastised. It is practiced toward a third party when he is defended from the unjust aggression of another, as when he is protected from the contagion of error by unmasking its authors and abettors and showing them in their true light as iniquitous and perverse, by holding them up to the contempt, horror and execration of all. It is practiced in relation to God when, for His glory and in His service, it becomes necessary to silence all human considerations, to trample underfoot all human respect, to sacrifice all human interests – even life itself – to attain this highest of all ends.
“All this is Catholic inflexibility and inflexible Catholicity in the practice of that pure love which constitutes sovereign charity.”
(Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany, Liberalism Is a Sin, pp. 94-95)
Once again, thank you for your unfailing and encouraging support.
The two key criticisms made of this newsletter and my unworthy self as Editor, by priests, is “tone and style”. If – one (very well meaning) – priest has emailed, I adopted a more reflective tone, rather than my “arrogant, antagonistic and confrontational” style, then maybe the clergy would be more supportive.
But this key criticism ignores the key purpose of our work – which is not to “win friends and influence people” but to highlight what is going on, in the spirit of our prophetic Confirmation duty to warn against spiritual danger wherever we find it. Lamentably, we find it most of all in the hierarchy and clergy, at this time of crisis, so it’s unlikely that a more “reflective tone” would make a jot of difference.
Would it really make any difference whether we say “You bishops have lost the Faith and are risking Hell by your negligence” OR “Your Grace/My Lord/Eminence, may I mention a matter of some concern in that – if possible – would you re-examine your attitude to the Faith; may I be so bold as to suggest that perhaps you are ignoring all the dissenters who are causing people to fall away from the Church because your Faith is a tad weaker than it ought to be? Not through any fault of yours, I hasten to add: these things happen. I say this out of love for you and not to cause you any pain – you are in my prayers…”
The fact is, they don’t like the message, no matter how it’s wrapped up.
Life is short and I really don’t have enough hours in the day as it is. To have to sweat over a hot computer trying to phrase everything so it doesn’t annoy anybody is not for me. However, the post of Editor is being advertised in the February edition, so anyone with the time and energy to do so, is invited to apply.
The second key criticism comes from lay people who think lay people should not criticise the ordained. At least not in public. And certainly not bishops, let alone popes. I remember once, after a rather heated exchange on the subject with a lay friend (“friend” in inverted commas!) dying to laugh when the subject switched to “favourite saints” – hers was (wait for this) Catherine of Siena. When I pointed out that she was a lay woman who had given popes several pieces of her mind, I got the usual mistaken view that the saint was a nun. I explained that, no, she was a lay woman and a member of the Third Order of St Dominic and that she wore the Habit because, at that time, members of the Third Order were permitted to do so. Somehow, just the fact that she chose to wear the Habit (even though she never, at any time, entered a convent to live the religious life) makes all the difference.
Anyone know where I can buy three second hand religious Habits – one each for members of the executive Catholic Truth team? And is there a sign anywhere that reads “Mother (Very) Superior”? If so, that’s mine!
Thanks again, Leo – great quotes of which I’ll make very good use in due course 🙂
Comments are closed.