General Discussion (4)

General Discussion (4)

Image
General Discussion (3)

If there’s something of interest in the news that’s not covered in one of the topic threads, or you have a question to ask, a comment you’d like to make about anything under the sun, more or less, this is the thread for you. However, please check first, to ensure that you haven’t missed a topic thread.  Readers have occasionally gone straight to the General Discussion thread to post news that is already the topic of a thread or to ask a question that is already being discussed elsewhere. So, do your Sherlock Holmes before posting here, please and thank you!

Feel free, also, to share your favourite spiritual reading books, prayers and devotions. Whatever.

Enjoy!

To read General Discussion Thread (1) click here (2) click here (3) click here

Comments (540)

  • editor

    The following comment from Miles Immaculatae which was posted just as I closed page 3 of the General Discussion, bears repeating here. It’s the nail in the Church Militant TV coffin as far as I’m concerned:

    Update on Church Militant TV:

    Another SSPX supporter has emailed CMTV and has received a response from Simon Rafe of CMTV. Rafe’s responses are in bold:

    Dear REMOVED,

    Pope Benedict XVI does not agree with your assessment of the SSPX.

    Our assessment of the status of the SSPX is that they are invited to discover the path to full communion and that their ministers have no canonical standing and cannot legitimately exercise any ministry. These are the exact words of Pope Benedict XVI.

    Thirdly, I am troubled by the close relationship Churchmilitant has with Father Paul Nicholson.

    ChurchMilitant.TV has no formal, public association with Fr Nicholson – he is a personal friend of many of our staff, and previously appeared in a show on our site. Fr Nicholson is an excellent and holy priest, and his statements on the SSPX are superb and entirely accurate. Having personally participated in some of the discussions on his Facebook page about this, I find nothing in error with his statements and – speaking personally – much evidence for a general lack of charity from SSPX supporters.

    All of your other points are ones addressed in the statement you have read and disagreed with. There is nothing more to be said.

    God bless,

    Simon END

    And I do mean “the end” of our promotion of Church Militant TV.

    One other thing. For those fence-sitters who try to appear “OK” with the SSPX (while not supporting them openly) this will be a major clue. If they continue to support Church Militant TV then the game is over. Truth will out. Church Militant TV (a misnomer, clearly, now) had to take a step, either in the direction of the complete traditional Faith or back to the Planet Neo-Catholic. Sadly, they chose the latter. I cannot say how disappointed I am at this turn of events. All of that technology, expertise etc which could have been used to wonderful effect is now peddling the popular lie that there’s no big deal really going on – a few problems in the Church but no big deal. That’s a lie, and there can be no grace in peddling any lie.

    February 26, 2014 at 9:46 am
    • Leo

      Editor

      I agree completely with every word.

      My reaction, on reading the original statement from CMTV was, “whatever”. Let them off.

      In my opinion, that statement was a rather bizarre exhibition of ignorance and defamation (“soft sedevacantism”, come on).

      Thank you, Miles Immaculatae for all the excellent posts. I have being thinking the same way for a while, and have to say I wasn’t exactly speechless with shock when I first read this story.

      February 26, 2014 at 10:34 am
      • Miles Immaculatae

        It doesn’t just stop with the accusation of sedevacantism. CMTV hurl a collection of religious insults at us, which seems to be all the rage at the moment (think ‘self-absorbed Promethean neo-Pelagian’):

        “Soft sedevacantist!”

        “Ecclesiastical pornographer!”

        “You who walk in the footsteps of Cham!”

        “Uncoverer of Thy father’s nakedness!”

        “Angry dissident!”

        “Relentless attacker!”

        February 26, 2014 at 1:15 pm
    • greatpretender51

      Thank you Editor, I have long smelled a self-serving, sycophantic rat amongst these people, and a promotion of personality as well. They are no better than those EWTN hosts with their rock music intros and their Tonight Show-style patter (e.g. “Have we got a great show for you!”). Not to mention their large salaries.

      Just further proof that Hollywood and the Church don’t mix.

      February 26, 2014 at 2:51 pm
    • Frankier

      I notice that CMTV was set up to address the erosion of the Catholic faith in the past 50 years.

      I wouldn’t fancy putting them in charge of the maintenance of the cables on the Forth Road Bridge.

      February 26, 2014 at 4:16 pm
  • Miles Immaculatae

    Some interesting information regarding Mr Simon Rafe, webmaster at CMTV and author of the above (defamatory) CMTV endorsed email communication:

    “staff apologist and program host Simon Rafe – who is the webmaster at St. Michael’s Media, and co-authored its ‘Saint Michael’s Basic Training’ apologetics course – had also written the ‘adult’ role-playing game ‘Castle Dracula’, and fan-fiction depicting homosexuality in the Star Wars universe […] the work contains a paragraph vividly describing a sexual encounter with ‘a beautiful Elven woman’ revealed to be ‘Asrel, the goddess of love, life, health, healing, beauty and sex’. Rafe gives the player a series of options in the scenario: ‘If you would like strength and vitality, turn to 70. If you would like health and life, turn to 383. If you would like true love, turn to 467. If you would like sex appeal, turn to 203. If you would like sexual potency, turn to 366. If you would like make love to the goddess (even if you are female – Asrel is an equal-opportunity lover!), turn to 11’.”

    Read the whole article here:

    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/realcatholictvs-voris-had-no-idea-about-internal-problems/

    Now, please understand that I am not interested one bit in what Rafe has written. I find it more embarrassingly pathetic than scandalous; it’s the kind of thing geeks are into. The reason I bring it up, is simply to highlight a contradiction at CMTV…

    They seem to think this kind of ‘pornography’ is acceptable?

    February 26, 2014 at 12:56 pm
  • Miles Immaculatae

    From CMTV:

    We make these recommendations for the same reasons that we discourage people from visiting sedevacantist and pornography web sites: they are potential occasions of sin.

    I am not sure if the folk at CMTV have visited any pornography websites recently, but as far as I’m concerned, they constitute more than a “potential occasions of sin”, and they require more than ‘discouragement’.

    This is bizarre. CMTV.

    For the record, Voris is senior executive producer at CMTV. He is very much running the joint. We should not defend him according to the suspicion he is a ‘powerless subordinate’.

    February 26, 2014 at 1:24 pm
  • leprechaun

    Madame Editor,

    In addition to the background on Simon Rafe supplied by Miles Immaculatae revealing him to be the webmaster of St. Michael’s Media, did you know that Michael Voris no less is the founder and President of St. Michael’s Media which in 2012 was renamed Churchmilitant.TV and is now the Senior Executive Producer of this renamed entity?

    Given the respect shown to Michael Voris for his numerous defences of Tradition, does it not seem a little incongruent that the Simon Rafe portrayed in Miles Immaculatae’s vignette remains in post?

    The biography of Michael Voris given on the following link should be read in conjunction with the link provided by Miles Immaculatae, as it provides clarification on the various bodies involved:

    http://www.churchmilitant.tv/about/bio.php

    Surely, there must be some mistake somewhere?

    February 26, 2014 at 1:43 pm
    • Miles Immaculatae

      Saint Michael’s media wasn’t renamed, It still exists. Voris owns it. Saint Michael’s media was contracted by Real Catholic TV (later CMTV) with Voris as senior executive producer. RCTV/CMTV is owned by an Opus Dei member, Marc Brammer.

      I was annoyed when I learned this, because I thought CMTV was a subsidiary of Saint Michael Media which he owned outright. It transpires he does not have financial independence.

      February 26, 2014 at 3:47 pm
      • gabriel syme

        I thought CMTV was a subsidiary of Saint Michael Media which he owned outright.
        ——————————

        I had thought that too – that is certainly the impression given by his bio, which says:

        “2012: Ended partnership with RealCatholicTV.com. Launched ChurchMilitant.TV”

        The wording of that suggests RCTV and CMTV are distinct bodies; is this just inventive presentation?

        I had also thought the change from RC to CM was down to Voris being told by a Bishop that he couldn’t associate the word “Catholic” with his work – is this correct?

        February 27, 2014 at 1:57 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        RE: Name change. Yes you’re correct, that’s the real reason. But they didn’t say that, their reason is it better suits their mission.

        If Voris does own it outright, then that is far worse, because he is more responsible.

        February 27, 2014 at 4:37 pm
  • editor

    Thanks everyone for your very interesting comments. I note that none of you appear to have been taken in, as I admit to having been taken in, by Michael Voris’s apparent move closer to Catholic Tradition. Ironically, I had drawn that conclusion after reading about his growing friendship with Michael Matt and Christopher Ferrara! I’m still feeling disappointed that it’s all ended in tears – mine 😯

    I’ve been thinking a good bit about it and recalling the dishonesty during his visit when the organiser had phoned to ask me if I would be willing to be interviewed by Michael during his visit here. I said I would but before I could make an appointment with the nearest beautician, I had a text saying Michael wouldn’t be able to meet with me after all, as they didn’t have their internet connection or whatever it was which allowed him to make videos. I knew right off that it was more likely to be my attendance at SSPX Masses (surely not my outspokenness, given that Michael Voris has that reputation as well) so it was something of a surprise later to see all the videos he made here during his visit. See if I care 😥

    Anyway, after a long day away from my computer, I’ve just this minute unsubscribed from Church Militant TV which means I will not receive their daily emails/videos any more. Out of sight, out of mind 😀

    February 26, 2014 at 6:02 pm
  • Frankier

    I am not trying to be wise after the event but I was never too enamoured by the introductory actions of this man in his videos. Too much like Billy Graham.

    February 26, 2014 at 10:01 pm
    • Margaret Mary

      Frankier,

      I always found the introduction a bit annoying as well. I also always thought that there was a lot of money involved in Church Militant TV and that’s always a danger. I’m not really surprised because of the money aspect. If Michael became too traditional, he’d find the money draining away.

      February 26, 2014 at 10:12 pm
      • Frankier

        MM

        Correct

        February 27, 2014 at 8:41 pm
  • gabriel syme

    @ Miles Immaculatae / Editor

    Thank you for the additional info you posted regarding Michael Voris, after my initial scepticism; I am quite dismayed, especially by the description of the SSPX as “soft sedevacantists” – outrageous and ridiculous. Ironically the article later goes on to accuse SSPX adherents of a “lack of charity”. The other thread reached its limit before I could reply to you there.

    @ Editor

    In happier news, I have managed to log-in from my home pc, after the log-in problem I told you about. I didn’t cure the issue, just avoided it (!) – I am using IE8 web browser, instead of my preferred Firefox. Clearly the issue is related to my version of the Firefox browser then, perhaps it needs updating?! But at least there is an answer meantime.

    February 27, 2014 at 1:16 am
    • Miles Immaculatae

      I find Google Chrome works best with WordPress and Disqus

      February 27, 2014 at 3:20 am
      • gabriel syme

        Thanks for the tip, I have not tried Chrome before but will give it a whirl!

        February 27, 2014 at 1:49 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        It’s amazing. I use the bookmarks feature all the time. Because I’m a language student, the dictionary extension gives me instant definitions at a click. Chrome is considered the best browser.

        February 27, 2014 at 4:39 pm
    • editor

      Gabriel Syme,

      Delighted you’ve sorted out your log in problem.

      Crofterlady had a comment disappear the other day, as I did myself a couple of weeks ago. Since then, I’ve made a point of copying each post in case the problem returns. That way, at least I have the comment to try again or keep to post when the problem is resolved. I did contact the support people at WordPress about it but, although they spent time trying to work out what was wrong, they couldn’t come up with anything, so better safe than sorry, I suggest everyone get into the habit of copying comments, just in case. I found that, although the comment would disappear first time, eventually it would go up, so it’s worth copying (and save in Word on your computer) to paste later.

      The wonders – and mystery – of modern technology…

      Catholic Truth at your service 😉

      February 27, 2014 at 10:07 am
      • gabriel syme

        Thanks Ed,

        It was a strange one, Firefox worked OK for a long time and then…..kaput!

        I will try to update to the latest version and let you know what effect (if any) this has.

        February 27, 2014 at 1:50 pm
    • Eileenanne

      I have watched quite a few Church Militant TV programmes and have yet to hear anything that was not in complete harmony with Catholic teaching. I’ll keep watching and listening.

      February 28, 2014 at 9:06 pm
      • Josephine

        Eileenanne,

        In making a statement that Church Militant TV will never criticise Pope Francis, they are going against Catholic teaching because Pope Francis has been saying things that are “not in complete harmony with Catholic teaching”. They want to turn a blind eye to that and that is dishonest.

        As is often pointed out on this blog, we sin by omission as much as by action. If Church Militant TV wants to be preaching about what is wrong in the Church but say that the Pope is above criticism, they are stopping way short of the full truth about the crisis in the Church.

        March 1, 2014 at 10:35 am
  • wendy walker

    Hello Everybody
    I would like to inform you of some appalling programmes recently
    On Sunday I was absolutely devastated to see while watching COUNTRYFILE ..a brilliant programme usually full of information…….Well it was about and praising MARIE STOPES and her evil work it took up a lot of the programme.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03x0qzh
    This is the link to the programme above now I see when you scroll down to her name underneath the article is another link to Stopes and her work lauded by the BBC 1… PLEASE TRY TO WATCH THE PROGRAMME on your computer and if you feel able do write to the BBC with your objections ..it was shown before the watershed ,she sunbathed naked ,she had a young lover at 70 odd years ,her “birth control book .and so called clinics .children would have been watching ..The BBC cannot be allowed to get away with this
    Tuesday night saw another programme first of a 3 part series of the lives of STRIPPERS IN SCOTLAND…STRIPPERS being its title this is on Channel 4…..
    It seems they can put any thing they like on T V now and get away with it all
    So COMPLAINTS please floods of them
    Thank you
    Wendy

    February 27, 2014 at 11:36 am
    • gabriel syme

      I saw that episode of Countryfile Wendy – I don’t watch the show a lot, but have seen some interesting episodes, when I have caught an episode by chance.

      I was also shocked to see the glowing (but conspicuously vague) praise heaped on Stopes.

      The show rather skirted over the fact she was a eugenicist and a racist who would have got on famously with Heinrich Himmler and the like.

      February 27, 2014 at 1:49 pm
  • greatpretender51

    A brief aside, I suppose: several weeks ago Catholic Family News had a sermon linked, from the Voice of Catholic Radio I believe, regarding the apparitions of Our Lady of Good Success in Quito. I noticed that Our Lady in these apparitions makes several references to Freemasonry. However, at the time these apparitions took place, Freemasonry was unknown, since it did not surface until about 1714 (if memory serves). So I emailed this question in to CFN: how did Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres know what this word meant? Did she inquire of Our Lady as to what this was? Never got a reply…

    February 27, 2014 at 4:35 pm
    • editor

      Great Pretender,

      That’s very worrying. Could it be a translation thing – that the reference was to “secret societies”? It would be worth finding out if there were any similar secret societies at that time. I’m not a historian of the Freemasons – if there’s an historian of the Freemasons in the house, please speak up. Otherwise, Great Pretender, it’s up to you to find out for us – like now 😉

      PS if you Google Our Lady of Good Success you’ll find a website which is the sort of “official” site. Maybe ask them?

      February 27, 2014 at 5:20 pm
      • greatpretender51

        Thanks Editor – is this the site you are referring to?
        http://www.ourladyofgoodsuccess.com/frames-3-4-2005/aaa.htm

        February 27, 2014 at 5:53 pm
      • greatpretender51

        Editor – after perusing the above website and the narratives about the apparitions, it appears that the actual words of Our Lady do not mention Freemasonry; only the interpretive comments of others do. However, there are only isolated quotes from Our Lady in these narratives, so it is hard to tell. Looks like I would have to read one of the books footnoted here: http://www.ourladyofgoodsuccess.com/frames-3-4-2005/aaa.htm

        February 27, 2014 at 6:05 pm
      • editor

        Great Pretender,

        Actually, after I posted my “worrying” comment I got to thinking that, since Quito – by its very nature – contained prophecies of the crisis in the Church and the world in the 20th century, e.g. the attacks on marriage and the family, perhaps any reference that might be interpreted as referring to Freemasonry, must in fact be understood in that prophetic context. No, that’s not a straw I’m grasping in my fair hand, it’s a reasonable (possible) interpretation don’t you think?

        On reflection, I’d avoid ordering books from that website (I’d forgotten about them advertising Fr Villa’s book or I may not have posted the link) but you may find this one of interest.

        Also, you may like to take a look at the Apropos site (linked on our Links page, website) because I’m sure Hamish Fraser (Senior RIP) wrote something about Quito. Check out the archives.

        Tell me what you think of my “prophetic” interpretation re. Freemasonry. Is it a reasonable explanation or should I now opt for the quiet life and join the ladies who lunch?

        February 27, 2014 at 7:29 pm
      • editor

        Great Pretender,

        Scrub my last post at 7.29. I don’t need to join the ladies who lunch! Yippeee!

        Earlier, I emailed a friend down south who is something of an expert in private apparitions and told him that we had a troublemaker called Great Pretender asking about Freemasonry in OLGS apparitions 🙂 and added that I wondered if this was a prophecy etc. Here is what he replied, all but one minute ago… just in time to prevent me resigning en masse (yes, I really must sign up with Scottish Slimmers…)

        EMAIL…

        Yes! the warning of Freemasonry was definitely was a prophecy. Like all the others from Quito that have come true – including the wonderful presidency and martyrdom of Gabriel Garcia Moreno – who also didn’t exist when Our Lady gave the messages!

        He then recommended this website

        Am I exonerated or what? Phew! I must now rank as a Prophet of Prophecies, surely?

        Great Pretender, tell me you agreed with my theory even before you read this – please. Make my day 😀

        February 27, 2014 at 7:43 pm
      • greatpretender51

        Dear Editor,

        I have scanned that PDF your friend down south sent (it wasn’t a website), and my original question remains, even though the plot has now thickened. It has thickened because, if you read through this PDF, you will notice that the actual apparition narratives make no mention at all of the words “Masonry” or “Freemasonry.” The only use of those words comes in the large orange font inserts (e.g, the first of these is on page 8, then p. 14 with a picture of Satan with a face that closely resembles Karl Marx, then p. 15, then 17, then 22 twice, and finally, 24.)

        So now I have two questions: 1. Where did these orange font inserts come from? Are they words of Our Lady? If so, from what source? 2. Same as my original question: if Our Lady spoke of “Masonry” at this time, how did Mother Mariana, or anyone else for that matter, know what she was talking about? And if they didn’t know, as they couldn’t possibly have, why didn’t they ask?

        PS: If I allowed my suspicious nature to cloud my normally precise and objective mind, I would venture that someone involved in these apparitions has been doing a little dramatic editing. But, not having read a book presumably containing a full account, I shall suppress my suspicious nature for the time being…unless of course your friend down south tells us that this PDF contains the full account of the apparitions. In which case, there is clearly some mischief at work, ex post facto.

        PPS: Just to be clear, I am not attempting to cast doubt on these apparitions…having recently finished a Novena to OLOGC myself…

        February 28, 2014 at 1:11 pm
      • editor

        Great Pretender,

        I will send a copy of your post to my friend in England and let you know his reply.

        However, I wouldn’t worry about Mother Mariana not understanding the meaning of “Freemasonry” (and I doubt if Our Lady appeared to any of us that we would be in any state to question her about anything!)

        After all, the children at Fatima didn’t know what “Russia” meant. I read somewhere that they thought it was a woman (“Russia will spread her errors”)

        And St Bernadette hadn’t a clue about the Immaculate Conception and what it meant but it was what convinced her PP that she was telling the truth since the dogma had just been proclaimed in Rome (or was about to be – can’t recall precise dates.)

        Will get back to you O ye of little faith but sufficient Scottish canny-ness to offer a novena “just in case” 😀

        February 28, 2014 at 1:46 pm
      • editor

        Great Pretender

        My friend sent this article by Dr Horvat in the hope that it answers your questions.

        Answer in the affirmative puleeeeese ❗

        February 28, 2014 at 3:56 pm
      • greatpretender51

        Ed: affirmative, and then some! Thank you very much, and you may also assure your English friend that he/she need not provide any more information on the subject.

        February 28, 2014 at 5:21 pm
      • greatpretender51

        And I found this paragraph in Dr. Horvat’s article especially interesting:

        “The idea of replacing the Christian Civilization with another civilization based on Naturalism was born, we have affirmed, in the mid 14th century…”

        Yes, that is when the Knights Templar were suppressed in France (1307) and their Grand Master burned at the stake (1314). The Freemasons themselves boast of their origins in the Knights. BTW, legend has it that a large number of them escaped the suppression/arrest, sailed off with their considerable loot, and landed in…Bonnie Scotland…

        February 28, 2014 at 5:26 pm
      • editor

        Deo gratias!

        Will pass on the message. See, it helps to have friends south of the border. I hope he doesn’t disown me if the YES campaign wins in September – I couldn’t live without him!

        February 28, 2014 at 6:13 pm
      • Frankier

        Ed

        Maybe you should join the Eastern Star ladies instead.

        February 27, 2014 at 8:55 pm
      • editor

        Frankier,

        Any organisation with “star” in its title – count me in 😉

        February 28, 2014 at 3:56 pm
      • editor

        Yes, that’s the website I meant, but I never link to it because they advertise Fr Villa’s book on Paul VI and I have serious reservations about that book.

        February 27, 2014 at 7:14 pm
      • Frankier

        Most masons themselves don’t even know their history.

        February 27, 2014 at 8:52 pm
  • Lionel (Paris)

    Dear Editor, I made this difficult translation for you:
    Archbishop Lefebvre’s conference at a retreat in Avrillé, on 18th September 1989

    ” We are in extraordinary circumstances. Both the Church authorities would have us submit ourselves to the truth they proclaim, as they despise themselves their own infallibility, that of the Pope and the Church.
    Because I could be wrong, but as far as we could follow the development of the conciliar Church since the Council so far, it seems that these Popes, as Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, did not want to use their infallibility, neither in the Council nor in the acts that followed the Council.
    And I say that, somehow, they have a fear of thinking in the infallibility because they do not believe: they do not believe in their own infallibility.
    And it is very simple as reasoning, there is no need to think a lot, especially for John Paul II: John Paul II was formed in an evolutionary truth: for him, there is not fixed truth, the truth changes with time, with science, with the development of human sciences etc… The truth is always alive (vivante), this is what we are told, they condemn us because we are not for the living tradition, the living tradition is a tradition that evolves.
    So imagine, this is impossible, inconceivable to his mind, to establish a truth; impossible, he cannot conceive this: for him the truth, he sees it only as a life, a life that is growing, evolving, which develops, which is perfected etc…
    While the dogma is the truth exactly fixed, the truth always: it is finished, the Credo is finished – finished in the terms in which it is located, you cannot change the terms, it is like that, it is over. And all dogmas which have been made with the seal of the infallibility of Popes and councils, have been made in this direction. This is final, you cannot touch it.
    This is contrary to their very conception of truth. They cannot conceive it. So, apparently, concerning the Pope, this would loath him if he were told: but then, this truth there, what you did today… you canonized such a saint or such another: the canonization, in principle, it is infallible, it is defined.
    No! but not. Canonize, oh!… If ever in the future history we see that this person does not have all the qualities, Popes can possibly say it was a certificate of perfection, not holiness ultimately etc…
    They cannot conceive a final truth!
    That is why we see him make canonization: he goes into a country, he looks for a sister who has some perfection, one puts her on the altar and then that is it, that is it! it is nice to the presidency of the Republic, to all Christians in the country, it is nice, it is an opportunity…
    That cannot be accepted, it is not serious, not serious! I am convinced of that, for him, all that is not irrevocable… Infallibility is inconceivable for men who have this spirit, who have been trained in these false theories of the living truth, of the evolution of the truth.
    It is better, so be it! because at least you can put a question mark to everything that is said by the Pope unfortunately, yes, unfortunately… ”

    REMINDER:
    July 9, 2013 at 6:50 pm
    (1) Lionel (Paris) says:
    Canonization of John XXIII and of John Paul II this year:
    my concern has nothing to do with a lack of Charity.
    I do not deny that John XXIII and John Paul II may be Holy – only God knows – and I sincerely hope that they are; however, I think that it is a useless, controversial, absurd and damaging project, the introduction in the Church of an additional cause of division…
    Ultimately, it is the reform of Vatican II which is celebrated throughout this festival of precipitate beatifications and canonizations…
    They canonize their fatal reform. It is a way to lock it so that no one can question anymore.
    If their intentions were really good and without mental reservations, they would have beatified in priority personages as deserving and distinguished as Cardinals Mindszenty and Slipyj; yet it did not happen…
    Please, let me know what are the good fruits of Vatican II and of the Popes who were pushing for this devastating Council and promulgated its decrees, while sanctioning the faithful Catholics?
    Certainly, no one, but God, knows who is holy or is not.
    November 17, 2013 at 9:01 am
    For more than half a century, the Church Authorities have acted without regard for the sensibility of the faithful who were rightly scandalized and mostly deserted churches, whilst the others most assiduous were precipitated into schism… Now, such Authorities are undoubtedly responsible for this situation and will have to be accountable.
    It is sad to see, but after such conduct, the credibility of the Magisterium has been durably undermined and this could lead us to doubt the reliability and even the existence of papal infallibility… It would be very serious, possibly even worse than the antics and tribulations of the past!…
    How can we trust personages who have deceived us for so long?

    February 28, 2014 at 12:15 am
    • editor

      Lionel,

      Many thanks for that quotation from Archbishop Lefebvre. A number of people have emailed it to me in recent days – people are obviously researching in the light of the forthcoming canonisation of Pope John Paul II!

      The following sentence sums up the situation perfectly: having detailed the fact that the modern popes have not invoked infallibility and questioning whether they actually believe in it (Pope Benedict actually said that he had no intention of invoking infallibility) the archbishop draws this obvious conclusion – no doubt ordained by Divine Providence (who says the Holy Spirit isn’t working within the Church!)

      “It is better, so be it! because at least you can put a question mark to everything that is said by the Pope unfortunately, yes, unfortunately… ”

      This fact, together with the breakdown in the ancient process for guaranteeing infallibility in canonisations, means that if it goes ahead, there can be no guarantee of infallibility in the canonisation of Pope John Paul II.

      More on that on or after April 27th!

      March 1, 2014 at 10:47 am
      • Lionel (Paris)

        Dear Editor,
        I guess that it must be Winfried Würmeling (RU) who provided you with Archbishop Lefebvre’s conference at a retreat at Avrillé/France, on 18th September 1989?
        This is nice!
        Best wishes LD

        http://www.radio-silence.tv

        March 1, 2014 at 11:59 pm
  • Lily

    I have not heard this suicide following abortion reported on the news here, so I wonder how many other women commit suicide due to abortion grief.
    http://www.lifenews.com/2014/02/27/british-student-hangs-herself-after-terrible-grief-following-abortion/

    February 28, 2014 at 11:24 am
  • Frankier

    Eternal rest grant unto the poor soul and her baby and let perpetual light shine upon them.

    May they rest in peace, Amen.

    We’ll never hear about this on the news: it doesn’t tie in with their agenda.

    February 28, 2014 at 2:01 pm
    • editor

      Exactly, Frankier.

      February 28, 2014 at 6:15 pm
  • 3littleshepherds

    It sure looks like Fr. Kramer’s idea is spreading somewhat. Pope Emeritus Benedict wrote a letter denying he was forced to abdicate but I don’t see that it has been put on the Fatima Center’s site, yet, although they still have the Socci articles up.
    The world is so filled with conspiracy theories and so many people follow them that I think it has become second nature for a lot of people to disbelieve any news worthy event. Some people believe horrible things about US Presidents, historical figures, Jews, Catholics, royalty in various countries, etc. A lot of people are primed to believe in a conspiracy behind “two Popes”. I think we’re in only the beginnings of a terribly confused time.

    February 28, 2014 at 6:10 pm
    • editor

      3LittleShepherds,

      I saw that letter from Pope Benedict, and hope it puts that particular conspiracy theory to rest.

      Yesterday’s post brought an envelope from the USA packed with material about “the Jews” being behind everything you can think of to destroy the social fabric and the Church. I’ve emailed to say not to waste another five dollars & ten cents in postage costs because this batch of nonsense and any future batches of nonsense will be going straight into the bin, where I do a lot of my filing 😉

      February 28, 2014 at 6:20 pm
  • 3littleshepherds

    Who’s the webmaster for the Fatima center? John Vennari is totally against this whole idea of Fr. Kramer and Mr. Socci.

    February 28, 2014 at 9:31 pm
  • editor

    3LittleShepherds,

    The article on the Fatima site was published on The Remnant website last week. It’s based on an article by the Italian journalist Antonio Socci. The webmaster’s name is Andrew (I can’t recall his surname) but John Vennari has no authority over what is posted on the Fatima website and I doubt if Fr Gruner knows the half of it. If you wish to email and mark your message for the attention of webmaster (Andrew) I’m sure it will reach him.

    February 28, 2014 at 10:13 pm
  • gabriel syme

    Recently we had a good discussion about Michael Voris comments about other Catholic journalists. Here is Michael Matt’s response:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLN2u0PLOa8&feature=youtu.be

    He does not name Voris and says neither will he attack or criticise him in return. Though there is perhaps implied criticism when he talks about people opening up new front or new fights with people whom they should really be allies with.

    I was impressed by Michael Matt’s level headed and considered response.

    March 3, 2014 at 4:45 pm
    • Vianney

      “He does not name Voris”

      True, but he does wave his pencil like Voris does so it’s obvious who he’s talking about.

      March 3, 2014 at 11:00 pm
      • editor

        Vianney,

        I remember Michael Matt taking the same stance as Voris when Pope Francis was first elected. Wouldn’t criticise – wanted to give him time etc. Took him quite a while to speak out.

        Since every informed person knows exactly to whom he is referring, I can’t see any great virtue in not naming Voris. Would perhaps have been better to name him since he is merely putting the record straight, responding to criticisms, which can be done without making any personal remarks about Voris rather than, perhaps, give the impression of a false charity. After all, we have a duty to warn unthinking Catholics against Voris now – he’s like many others in the “orthodox” camp, essentially lying to his audience by not giving them the whole message.

        Still, waving the pencil is, indeed, a clue 😀

        March 4, 2014 at 10:02 am
  • editor

    Gabriel Syme,

    Will watch the video later – thanks for posting it.

    I was pleased to see in the Catholic press this weekend that a new association of priests (confraternity) has been launched in Ireland. It was reported as a countering of the dissident ACP but turns out they are no such thing. The new confraternity is led by a priest who said that there is a “perception” that the ACP is not completely faithful to Catholic teaching, which must rank as the understatement of the century. I’d been told of an article on the ACP website, inspired by Pope Francis’s “Who am I to judge “gays”” (without the inverted commas of course.) So, I paid a quick visit and sure enough, the ACP is, if anything, worse than ever.

    Check it out here – and then check the aims of the ACP and see if you think the new confraternity, with its “diplomatic” refusal to call the ACP a bunch of dissenting er priests, will make a blind bit of difference over there in once-Catholic Ireland. Seems to me that the new confraternity is about as much use as a chocolate teapot. And I say that, despite the fact that I love chocolate 😀

    March 3, 2014 at 8:23 pm
    • Leo

      “Many pastors have destroyed my vineyard, they have trodden my portion under foot: they have changed my delightful portion into a desolate wilderness.” – Jeremias 12:10

      “Henceforth the enemy of the Church is no longer outside the Church; he is now within”. -Pope Saint Pius X, encyclical E supremi apostolatus, October 4, 1903

      Editor

      The objectives of the ACP certainly need to be seen to be believed. Nothing original, of course. In fact, it looks rather like the ring leaders went to Pascendi Dominici Gregis for their material and decided on a few of the Modernist errors condemned by Pope Saint Pius X.

      Rather than encourage your readers to boost visitor numbers at ACP’s website, it might be helpful to do a bit a comparing:

      Pascendi warns that Modernists “disdain all authority and brook no restraint: and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to love of truth that which in reality is the result of pride and obstinacy.” (# 3)

      The ACP invokes the “primacy of the individual conscience.”

      Pascendi warns of Modernist belief that “ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic parts” (# 38) and that the “ecclesiastical magisterium must be subordinate” to “individual consciences” (# 25).

      The ACP calls for “all believers to be treated as equal”, as well as for a “redesigning of Ministry in the Church” and a “restructuring of the governing system of the Church”.

      Pascendi warns that Modernists “lay down the general principle that in a living religion everything is subject to change” (# 26) and for them “there is nothing immutable in the Church” (# 28).

      The ACP’s objectives include “a re-evaluation of Catholic sexual teaching.”

      Pascendi warns that Modernists “actually admit…that all religions are true” (# 14)

      The ACP claims that “full acceptance that the Spirit speaks through all people” is needed so that “the breadth of the Spirit will flow more freely.” I wonder what “Spirit” exactly that is.

      In 1894, in first pastoral letter to the clergy of Venice, Cardinal Sarto, the future sainted Pope, gave a very clear demonstration of his care for souls when declaring that liberal Catholics are “wolves in sheep’s clothing; it is more important than anything else that their murky designs should be exposed to the light and denounced.” Do those words not bear constant repetition today?

      They are nothing more than the restatement of those of another great Saint and pastor:

      “It is an act of charity to cry out against the wolf when he is amongst the sheep, wherever he is.”- Saint Francis de Sales, Introduction to the Devout Life, Part 3 chp. 29

      It isn’t possible to overstate the importance of combatting liberalism, the work and instrument of lucifer. Sin against the Faith is the worst of all breeches of the Divine Law. In rejecting even one Church dogma, liberals reject the very teaching authority instituted by Our Lord, and visible in this world in the form of His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Such rejection wilfully declares that the individual’s own private judgement is the supreme and final arbitrator in faith and morals. Once that line is crossed, the rejection of every element of Divine Law is on the agenda. Though many will of course strenuously deny it, dissenters who reject the Church’s constant and infallible Magisterium march straight from the City of God into the City of Satan; no doubt waving many ignorant and gullible souls onto the path to perdition.

      What Ireland, like everywhere else, needs right now are a couple of battalions of resolute medieval Dominicans. In happier times, any propagator of toxic poison such as those included in the ACP’s objectives would have faced a very uncomfortable appointment at the Holy Office, which might have resulted in adjusted attitudes, and left the souls of the faithful unmolested. Nowadays, by contrast, liberal dissenters enjoy the notoriety that comes with approval of the disciples of the father of lies.

      “When there is an imminent danger for the Faith, Prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects.” –Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, q.33, a.4

      The ACP have now been at large for over two and half years. It hardly needs repetition that this continuing threat to the salvation of souls is just one more example of catastrophic dereliction of episcopal duty. The inaction speaks very loudly indeed.

      No doubt, the shepherds who bear ultimate responsibility for the heresy and perversion which have infested the National Seminary at Maynooth haven’t demonstrated any noticeable determination to alleviate the grave concerns of those Catholics who exercise their right under Canon Law to question the continuing scandal of open dissent amongst the clergy. Perhaps the repetition of the following words might, by the Grace of God, have some effect:

      “And if the watchman see the sword coming, and sound not the trumpet: and the people look not to themselves and the sword come, and cut off a soul from among them: he indeed is taken away in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at the hand of the watchman.” – Ezechiel 33:6

      It really is time to wipe the dust off the Oath against Modernism.

      March 5, 2014 at 1:55 pm
      • Margaret Mary

        Leo,

        That a very good point about not pushing up the numbers of visitors on the ACP website. I like your comparison between what those priests preach and what the Church actually teaches.

        It’s also a first class point to “wipe the dust off the Oath against Modernism”. Unfortunately, I don’t see it happening any time soon.

        March 5, 2014 at 4:55 pm
      • Leo

        Margaret Mary

        Truth be told, as I see it, the enforcement of the Oath Against Modernism doesn’t reasonably appear to be any closer than the Consecration of Russia. One may well follow the other, though.

        As for the Oath, at this point in time, how many Cardinals, Bishops, Seminary professors, and priests could actually take it without being guilty of perjury? Certain names automatically spring to mind when it comes to that matter.Then again, all those who attended Vatican II, and many bishops since then, did actually swear the Oath. That’s a rather grave cause for thought.

        With the runaway train getting faster and faster, and considering the way Tradition is treated in the Church right now, it’s as if we are not far off priests being required to take an Oath OF Modernism.

        March 5, 2014 at 6:24 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    Do the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate have a house of formation in the UK?

    March 5, 2014 at 11:30 am
    • Miles Immaculatae

      St. Joseph’s, Burslem, Stoke-on-Trent.

      The FFI won’t be around for much longer.

      It is likely they will be forced to become mainstream capuchins.

      http://vigiliaealexandrinae.blogspot.it/2014/03/la-fine-dei-francescani-dellimmacolata.html

      Pope Francis will have single handedly exterminated an entire religious order.

      March 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm
      • Margaret Mary

        Miles Immaculatae,

        I didn’t see your answer to Catholic Convert before I posted mine. That is terrible if the Pope has “single handedly exterminated” them. I wish he would exterminate the ACP.

        March 5, 2014 at 4:53 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        There is now evidence that Fr Manelli, the FFI founder, was libelled. This conspiracy against him and his order is totally criminal. To remain silent about the people involved (a la Voris), i.e. even if they are the Supreme Pontiff, IMHO is a sin against justice.

        The neo-Catholics defended Pope Francis’ actions against the FFI by highlighting Volpi’s allegations concerning Fr Manelli’s illegal financial conduct. These allegations have turned out to be utterly unfounded. And the neo-Catholics had the audacity to accuse Traditionalists of ‘rumour-mongering’.

        There is also evidence that the Church was informed about Maciel’s sodomitic violations of children in the 1970’s. Yet nothing was done about this. The Legionaries of Christ remain an intact order. No wonder people hate the Catholic Church. The Vatican is a thoroughly bent enterprise. I am profoundly scandalised.

        I assert, that based on the proofs I have seen, Pope John Paul II undermined a investigation into Maciel by the CDF that took place after nine formal allegations (including former priests) were lodged with the Holy See in 1998. These investigations were shelved. Consider that nothing was done about Maciel until after John Paul II literally died. I believe John Paul II was criminally responsible in this matter, a cover-up. Maciel’s own illegitimate son (who was sodomised by him) recalls how Maciel told his mother, “when John Paul II dies, I’ll be in trouble”. Sick.

        March 5, 2014 at 11:35 pm
      • Josephine

        Miles Immaculatae,

        I wholeheartedly agree with everything you say.

        The scandalous tolerance of Maciel and the cover up of his sexual promiscuity by Pope John Paul II is one of the many reasons why his canonisation should not be taking place and if it does cannot possibly be considered infallible. No way. Any serious examination of his life shows that he was no saint by any Catholic standards used in the past.

        One thing, nobody should hate the Catholic Church because of anything the members are guilty of. I know it seems right now that ALL the members, from the top down, are causing scandal but even so, the Church is holy because the Church is Christ.

        March 6, 2014 at 8:45 am
      • Lionel (Paris)

        Are you sure that Pope John Paul II actually knew at that time what Maciel really was?

        March 7, 2014 at 11:38 pm
      • editor

        Lionel,

        Not sure exactly what Pope John Paul II knew about Maciel, but here is an extract with link to source:

        “Could John Paul not have known about the rumours and allegations swirling around Maciel? It may well be that as his infirmity increased, his aides limited access to information. And plenty of people can now attest to how they have been duped by apparent good, kind and charming people who have turned out to lead double lives. But certainly, there was more than an inkling about Maciel, well before ill-health struck John Paul. Evidence has emerged of Maciel’s abuse of seminarians as long ago as the 1940s. An American bishop sent detailed evidence from a former Legion priest to Rome through official channels on three occasions. Nothing happened. Meanwhile the cash flowed into the Vatican’s coffers from Maciel’s wealthy friends.

        By 2004, Jason Berry and the late Gerald Renner had exposed his double life in their book and documentary Vows of Silence. The following year, Maciel stood down from running the Legionaries, and just days before the death of John Paul, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was speaking of the “filth in the church”, widely interpreted as meaning child abusers in general and quite possibly Maciel in particular. It took Ratzinger just a year following his election as Pope Benedict XVI to discipline Maciel and invite him to a life of penitence and prayer.” Source

        March 8, 2014 at 12:02 am
      • Lionel (Paris)

        Thank you, Dear Editor, for this crucial information!
        Kind regards LD

        March 8, 2014 at 10:08 pm
      • editor

        Miles,

        Absolutely disgraceful. Maybe this will draw more commentary on the new thread, just posted, asking the question “what can we do”…?

        March 6, 2014 at 2:17 pm
    • Margaret Mary

      Catholic Convert

      I found this but it says they do not give the traditional Mass any prominence
      http://www.lmschairman.org/2013/07/trouble-for-friars-of-immaculate.html

      March 5, 2014 at 4:51 pm
  • Wendy walker

    Dear All
    I am writing to inform you that a wonderful event called 40 DAYS FOR LIFE Starts today Worldwide
    People go outside Abortion mills and Pray and offer help and carry placards to make passers by aware of what goes on inside ……..and give out factual leaflets on the harm abortion can do !
    Please can I ask you to pray for this? And/ or fast ?even if you cannot go outside any mill or Hospital that does abortions and if you want to send a donation
    Please go to
    http://WWW.40DAYSFORLIFE.COM/LONDON………..07947698195
    It would be wonderful to see this happening in every Town or City and outside every Abortion mill….We must speak up about the horror of Abortion …sadly lots of people are genuinely very uneducated about abortion and all it encompasses when they do realise often they become very PRO LIFE they cannot believe this could happen around us
    http://WWW.ABORT67.COM…..DO MARVELLOUS PAVEMENT EDUCATIONAL WORK TOO
    Thank you and Bless you

    March 5, 2014 at 12:20 pm
  • gabriel syme

    In a strong statement, Pope Francis has hit out at criticism of the Church regarding sex abuse.

    Pope Francis has strongly defended the Roman Catholic Church’s record on tackling sexual abuse by priests.

    In a rare interview with an Italian newspaper, the Pope said “no-one else has done more” to root out paedophilia.

    He said the Church had acted with transparency and responsibility, yet it was the only institution to have been attacked.”

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26448075

    That’s what I expect from the Pope, to defend the Church, not delight enemies by criticising or running it down.

    He has also said that other Popes may follow Benedict XVIs example of retiring and has attacked his own public “superhero” image. This is the right thing to do as his personality cult is reaching ridiculous levels. You can even buy a weekly “Pope Francis” magazine in Italy now.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/10677567/Pope-Francis-does-not-rule-out-retiring-like-Benedict.html

    March 5, 2014 at 4:05 pm
    • Josephine

      “He has also said that other Popes may follow Benedict XVIs example of retiring”

      I hope he does that soon.

      March 5, 2014 at 4:22 pm
  • jobstears

    “He has also said that other Popes may follow Benedict XVIs example of retiring”

    I agree, Josephine, let’s hope he does that soon!

    March 5, 2014 at 7:16 pm
    • editor

      Catholic Convert,

      I paid a flying visit to the Catholic Herald blog and just couldn’t resist making a few comments in response to the many numpties over there, the exception being our very own Gabriel Syme who just about stands alone in defending the Truth, God bless his tartan socks 😀

      March 6, 2014 at 9:02 pm
    • editor

      Catholic Convert,

      From my skimming of that Catholic Herald report, Cardinal Turkson is only criticising the extreme punishments brought in by the new “anti-gay” law.

      It is the Church’s duty to preach against the introduction of laws which oppose God’s natural moral order in any nation. However, does that mean that immoral actions must necessarily be imprisonable offences?

      Or should there be a means of preventing the promotion of evil actions as a good in society (which is what has happened since the decriminalisation of homosexuality) without making them imprisonable offences?

      March 6, 2014 at 9:10 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        Editor,

        Well, I for one do not believe that homosexuality, or homosexual actions should be illegal, because if they are carried out in private, they cannot be enforced. However, I do believe what Putin is doing is the correct thing, such as banning ‘gay propaganda’. This would probably cover ‘gay pride’ parades, and a ban on lgbt media, not to mention a full restoration of section 28.

        March 8, 2014 at 6:03 pm
  • Miles Immaculatae

    Concerning journalists:

    “Sometimes negative news does come out, but it is often exaggerated and manipulated to spread scandal. Journalists sometimes risk becoming ill from coprophilia and thus fomenting coprophagia, which is a sin that taints all men and women, that is, the tendency to focus on the negative rather than the positive aspects.”

    — Pope Francis

    Add ‘faeces-eater’ to the ever growing list of Pope Francis insults.

    http://thatthebonesyouhavecrushedmaythrill.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-pope-francis-little-book-of-insults.html

    LOL

    March 7, 2014 at 5:08 am
    • catholicconvert1

      Miles,

      To be fair, I don’t think the Pope eats faeces, I think he spits them out.

      March 8, 2014 at 6:04 pm
  • Tirrey

    It appears as if the Protect The pope Blog has been silenced.And this after Ars Orandi shut down.What do you make of it.

    March 8, 2014 at 9:52 am
    • sixupman

      Protect the Pope

      Nick Donnelly is apparently indisposed with health problems.

      March 8, 2014 at 10:16 am
      • editor

        Thanks for that – I have just seen Tirrey’s post and your response, otherwise I’d have “made of it ” that PTP has been shut down. I’m actually amazed that the deacon has been allowed to be so outspoken for so long, so, who knows, his “health problems” may be a euphemism for “wondering what to do now” time. We’ll see…

        March 8, 2014 at 11:22 am
      • Darth Papum

        Deacon Nick, or his wife, deleted my post asking for a straight answer to why he’s not blogging. That leads me to conclude there’s more to this than simple health problems.

        The recent shenanigans at Maryvale I’m sure also has something to do with it.

        March 9, 2014 at 8:24 am
  • catholicconvert1

    We’ve had many discussions on invincible ignorance, but I find historical Papal opinions to what has been said on this blog. Please follow this link: http://onetruecatholicfaith.com/Roman-Catholic-Articles.php?id=309&title=The+Dogma,+Pope+Pius+IX+and+Invincible+Ignorance&category=Catholic+Articles&page=4

    Pope Pius IX said: “it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God…”outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control” … “they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life.”

    Likewise, it says in the Douay Rheims Bible in John 9:41- ‘Jesus said to them: If you were blind, you should not have sin: but now you say: We see. Your sin remaineth’.

    Challoner’s commentary- ‘If you were blind: If you were invincibly ignorant, and had neither read the scriptures, nor seen my miracles, you would not be guilty of the sin of infidelity: but now, as you boast of your knowledge of the scriptures, you are inexcusable’.

    March 8, 2014 at 6:15 pm
  • 3littleshepherds

    Since Our Lady said Russia would be used by God to chastise the world, what will be Russia’s role? Is it part of the new world order or outside of it? Will God use it to knock down a one world government of unified nations through war and then have it consecrated and converted?
    I guess this is kind of a question for Fr. Kramer! But really how do the movers and shakers of the one world view Russia?

    March 8, 2014 at 8:55 pm
    • catholicconvert1

      As you know, 3Littleshepherds, Russia chastised the world and held it in the grip of paranoia and anti-Communist hysteria between 1918-1990, due to its political system, and the largely American fear of the ‘domino effect’ as Eisenhower termed it. However, Russia is an opponent of NATO and will stop at nothing to prevent this encroachment towards its borders. Russia opposed the pro-Western government of Georgia, and in 2008, attacked the country due to perceived Georgian threats to the people of South Ossettia and Abkhazia. In a similar way, Russia has opposed the pro-European and anti-Russian revolution in the Ukraine and rightly sees it as a threat to the ethnically Russian (60%) people of the Crimea. The EU has ruined most of Europe, with its Marxist values. Hence the worldwide fear of war. Russia is again chastising the world. I’m not sure about Russia destroying World Government, but I believe that that will happen after the Consecration and I believe Russia will fulfil the Lord’s aim outside of the system.

      I personally admire Putin, for his defence of marriage, the traditional family and his opposition to the homosexual agenda, not to mention his friendship with various Popes. We should pray for, so he may fulfil God’s plan.

      March 9, 2014 at 9:47 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        I am alarmed by that last paragraph CC.

        Putin is nasty piece of work. He doesn’t deserve any admiration. He is a genuine Communist dictator. If he really cared about the ‘culture of life’ he would pass the same kind of laws against abortion with the same fervour as he does against homosexuality.

        Study this map carefully Catholic Convert:

        http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/mapeuropeabrate3big.gif

        It is precisely because of the Popes’ cosy relations with Russia and the Church’s policy of Ostpolitik that they have failed to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart in the first place.

        Putin is the fruitcake who will start World War III. His aggression against Ukraine and his Anschluss of Crimea is absolutely no different whatsoever to Hitler’s invasion of the Sudetenland in 1938. Come on CC, you do History!

        We should ardently pray that Putin DOES NOT fulfill God’s plan, because God’s plan is that Russia will yet be the instrument of God’s chastisement still more. We should pray rather for the consecration of Russia, because this alone will avert chastisement.

        March 10, 2014 at 12:26 am
      • Frankier

        I wouldn’t say Putin was any worse than most of the other world’s leaders, including Cameron and Obama, regarding his stance on abortion.

        At least he proclaims to believe in God. Mind you, so does Obama and Cameron.

        March 10, 2014 at 1:51 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        Russia strikes me as a rather self-righteous country at the moment. Their vain pretenses about being pro-faith and pro-family don’t fool me one bit. Why have Christians in the west fallen for this muppet? He’s an utterly evil, anti-God, anti-life apparatchik. The ludicrous veneer of social conservatism has more to do with the macho image of himself he tries to convey.

        My friend is a Slavophile. He has been duped into believing the Russian Orthodox Church, and therefore faith is undergoing a renaissance in Russia. It’s not. The ROC is totally bent. Her relationship with Putin has nothing to do with religion and most Russians affiliation with the ROC has more to do with culture than sincere religious belief.

        March 11, 2014 at 3:25 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        Putin and the State Duma has actually undertaken measures to limit abortion advertising- http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/russia-bans-ads-for-abortion and http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/russia-chooses-life-bans-all-abortion-advertising

        March 10, 2014 at 4:18 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        It’s all an act.

        See my comment to Frankier.

        March 11, 2014 at 3:26 pm
      • 3littleshepherds

        I was reading some of the things Fr. Malachi Martin said about the Third Secret. He said there’s something in it that the Popes thought would give an advantage to Russia or, at the time, the USSR. I think it was Fr. Kramer who said he thought that the advantage stated in the Secret was that Russia would win a war against the west.

        March 10, 2014 at 1:37 am
      • 3littleshepherds

        Here’s some of the things I read:

        Sister Lucia’s single-page letter of the “Third Secret” covers three topics—1. A Physical chastisement of nations 2. A spiritual chastisement 3. The central function of Russia in the two which in fact, the physical and spiritual chastisements are to be gridded on a fateful timetable in which Russia is the ratchet.

        Malachi Martin said that, “Russia, according to the text of the ‘Third Secret’, was the regulator of the Fatima timetable. Russia’s role in the ‘Vision of Fatima’ is very important because, if we’re to believe the Vision of Fatima, salvation for the world, the cure for the world ills, will start in Russia, and that was why the Virgin Mary, in the Fatima vision of 1917, was supposed to have spoken actively about Russia.”

        Russia, according to Malachi Martin, first of all, has to be cured of her errors. And then, Russia will help the entire world to get better and to cure itself of its sins. Martin wrote: “It’s a very bizarre message in that sense because one would have said that salvation was going to come from the West as we always think because we are Westerners, but no, according to the message of Fatima, salvation will come from the East, and particularly, from the State of Russia itself, which is extraordinary.”

        Pope John Paul II had obliquely referenced Russia as part of the third secret. The Pope once said, when asked about the Fatima secret:

        “Because of the seriousness of its contents, in order not to encourage the world wide power of Communism (Russia) to carry out certain coups, my Predecessors in the Chair of Peter have diplomatically preferred to withhold its publication.”

        March 10, 2014 at 2:10 am
      • 3littleshepherds

        And this from the TIA site:

        At time 5:56, Fr. Martin reveals the Third Secret was: “… a description of miseries, disasters, that would take place unless certain conditions [conditions stipulated in the Third Secret to be carried out by a Pope] were met. The Pope of 1960, John XXIII, refused to meet those conditions, and, therefore, as they say, we are now in the “or” – it was “either/or” [either meet the condition or suffer a chastisement]. So, the chastisements, these disasters predicted in the Third Secret are about to be unloosed on us all according to the Fatima doctrine.”

        The interviewer then asks him what the Third Secret has to do with the “New World Order”.

        Fr. Martin says at 6:36: “Well, the Third Secret, interpreted at its face value [meaning it is fairly clear and twisting the meaning to “fit” this or that interpretation would not be necessary], without going into the details of it, implies that the “New World Order”, now being installed, and, in fact, between you and me and the Holy Spirit, Michael [interviewer], it is installed in its grand lines now, is definitely something that will not last, and that is unacceptable to God.”

        8:12: “… The Third Secret implies this [the New World Order] is the very opposite of the Kingdom of God.”

        March 10, 2014 at 2:14 am
  • Vianney March 9, 2014 at 11:39 pm
  • Miles Immaculatae

    Correspondence to a (former) subscriber to CHURCH MILITANT TV:

    The SSPX are a symptom of the crisis in the Church, not a cure or even a respite. They are themselves a metastasis of the cancer they observe in the Church.

    “We (CMTV) have concluded that we must do all that we can to encourage the SSPX to rejoin the Church and not hold them up as a possible refuge for those who wish to flee the devastation all around them. To give aid and comfort to those who refuse to be in communion with the Church is an attitude more Protestant than Catholic and but another example of “false ecumenism.”

    Even though the SSPX and its supporters embrace more of Catholic doctrine than what is typical in many (most?) Catholic parishes today, their posture of disobedience and failure to submit to the authority of the Holy Father is a poison that undermines their whole endeavor. They justify their existence by appeal to a privately judged “state of emergency” that is at the heart of all rationalized disobedience. The “Non serviam!” of an ordained priest, alter Christus, offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in persona Christi disobediently is breathtaking.

    This is why we and all others who claim to be faithful Catholics should refrain from saying positive things about the SSPX. The SSPX response to the crisis in the Church is, essentially, Protestant. They are “Protestants with Sacraments” who vigorously reject sedevacantism while, in practice, acting like sedevacantists. They are obedient and submissive to the Pope … except when they are not.

    The writers, publications and others most offended by our recent “statement” all have one thing in common: they support the SSPX with varying degrees of enthusiasm. Without exception they, and many others we could have used as examples, do not see the SSPX as a “bad” response to the overall crisis in the Church, Vatican II, the Mass of Paul VI and the general “pastoral strategies” of the post-conciliar pontificates. If one doesn’t see consequences which flow almost inevitably from one’s actions as “bad,” one is not very open to judging the actions themselves as “bad.” In fact, all these named individuals and publications judge the SSPX to be a perhaps unpleasant, perhaps unfortunate, but nonetheless necessary and good in response to the experience of desperate individuals living in a devastated vineyard within the desolate city of God.

    This is but one inevitable consequence of constant criticism of the Rock of Unity for the Church that is the Pope: it encourages people to find solutions outside visible unity with the Church. The SSPX have “no canonical status and no legitimate ministry” (“no” means “none” NOT “irregular”), none of their bishops or priests have canonical faculties (suspended a divinis, means ALL their Masses are illicit, and the sacraments of Confession and Matrimony are both illicit AND invalid because they lack jurisdiction), they have been asked to “rediscover the path to full communion with the Church” (if you reject the notion of “partial communion,” then the Pope’s words can only mean “not in communion”), and operate in all respects but theory AS IF they are sedevacantists. Their degree of distrust of “Conciliar Rome” is so deep that they are unable to sign a doctrinal protocol out of fear that what they sign will mean one thing to them and another to those asking them to sign it! (I’m not sure they would sign the Nicene Creed if offered by “Conciliar Rome” as a condition for reconciliation because they don’t trust that what “Conciliar Rome” understands the Creed to mean is orthodox!)

    Let me explain further: If you examine the May 5, 1988 Protocol of Accord signed by Archbishop Lefebvre, there is absolutely nothing objectionable regarding doctrinal commitments. Archbishop Lefebvre backed out of this agreement not because he had second thoughts about doctrinal issues but because he didn’t trust the Vatican to provide him with a bishop. I can only presume (because it was never made public) that the recent Doctrinal Preamble presented to the SSPX as the basis for reconciliation with the Church was worded similarly to the May 5, 1988 Protocol of Accord (leaked versions suggest this). Because of the deep distrust of “Conciliar Rome,” I will again presume that their response to this original Doctrinal Preamble sought to make sure that signing something as broad as was presented to them did not commit them to interpretations that were not explicit and with which they would disagree. So they kept refining the Doctrinal Preamble to put a wall around any possible heterodox interpretations. In other words, they didn’t trust the Church to arrive, eventually, at definitive interpretations of various disputed questions with which the SSPX could agree. Finally, they pushed one bridge too far and were presented with the original Doctrinal Preamble that they had already rejected and rejected it again, blaming collapse of the talks on “Conciliar Rome” rather than themselves.

    Although I’ve provided you with the link (above) to the May 5, 1988 Protocol of Accord, I’m going to repeat for you here the “Text of the Doctrinal Declaration” so that I can be sure that you see how broad and acceptable were the doctrinal requirements for reconciliation:

    I, Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, as well as the members of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X founded by me:

    a) Promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff, its Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Blessed Peter in his primacy as head of the body of bishops.

    b) We declare our acceptance of the doctrine contained in §25 of the dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican Council II on the ecclesiastical magisterium and the adherence which is due to it.

    c) Regarding certain points taught by Vatican Council II or concerning later reforms of the liturgy and law, and which do not appear to us easily reconcilable with Tradition, we pledge that we will have a positive attitude of study and communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics.

    d) Moreover, we declare that we recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does, and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.

    e) Finally, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, without prejudice to the special discipline granted to the Society by particular law.

    No faithful Catholic should have had any problem signing this “doctrinal declaration.” It fully acknowledges that there are “certain points … which do not appear to us easily reconcilable with Tradition” and nothing more is committed than to have a “positive attitude of study and communication with the Apostolic See.” If this is the language presented to the SSPX during the recent attempts at reconciliation, failure to agree to this and an inability to reconcile with the Church cannot be laid at the feet of the Church. The SSPX are not being kept out so much as refusing to enter in. They have reached a stage in their corporate existence where their distrust of the Church is now institutionalized. The ONLY response available to them is to “come home to the Church.” “Conciliar Rome” has nothing more to offer than what it has already offered.

    Unless the “traditional Catholic writers” who have disingenuously chosen to frame our “statement” as an “assault” on them rather than what it claims to be — an explanation of why we will not engage in PUBLIC criticism of the Pope and why we recommend that others follow our example in this — recognize their responsibility for embracing and even encouraging separation of faithful Catholics from visible unity with the Church, they (and you) will be unable to understand why we consider our “statement” a matter both of urgency and charity. Relentless public criticism of the Pope and, by extension, the Church Herself (because ubi Petrus ibi ecclesia), is a dream recruiting scenario for the SSPX and other forms of “independent Catholicism” such as the CMRI and other “hard sedevacantists.” If you don’t recognize this as a BAD consequence of this kind of criticism, then you can’t recognize why the criticism itself is so harmful. Our “statement” objects to PUBLIC criticism of the Pope that leads to separation from visible union with the Church and discourages those not already in the Church to seek to become members.

    God bless you.

    Terry Carroll

    ***

    There is no defence against this culpable misremembering of history. CMTV are co-responsible for the crisis in the Church they refer to, and they will be held to account by history. (Not that anyone will remember them, but I speak more of what CMTV represent.)

    We hanged people at Nuremberg even though they claimed they were only following orders. Likewise, in the future, the defence that will be given by Catholics will be “we were only submitting to the status quo and what we were compelled to believe was legitimate canonical authority, we were only following the law, what we were told” etc.. It won’t be sufficient. The average Catholic in the pews might be ignorant of the situation, not so for CMTV. Verrechio for example has come to a conclusion different to Voris, even though they started out the same.

    And if it’s only Pope bashing they’re bothered about, then how come they haven’t once criticised Fr Volpi for his persecution of the FFI (who actually do have a “legitimate ministry”)? Not once! They don’t care that’s why.

    March 10, 2014 at 1:48 am
    • Lionel (Paris)

      Schismatic or heretical? There is no other choice…

      March 12, 2014 at 12:41 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    Are there any particularly Novenas anyone could recommend, such as ones that bestow particularly great graces. I am especially interested in devotions to the Sacred Heart, the physical image of God’s love for humanity. If anyone could inform me of other devotions in this regard, I would be very grateful. The only Novenas I have are the Miraculous Medal and the Divine Mercy.

    March 10, 2014 at 4:11 pm
    • 3littleshepherds

      Hello Catholic Convert,
      Besides the Novena to the Sacred Heart, I think any novena or prayer to the Holy Face, the Holy Wounds, the Precious Blood, or Our Lord crucified is very powerful with God. One of the best ways to obtain graces from God is to first offer the Holy Face or the Precious Blood or the Holy Mass, etc. to God the Father in reparation for sins and then ask Him for any particular graces that you want.

      Here’s a Novena that is very efficacious.

      NOVENA TO THE PRECIOUS BLOOD

      By the Voice of Thy Blood, O Jesus! I would press Thee, solicit Thee, importune Thee, though Thou seemest to reject my supplications. I will not leave Thy bleeding feet until Thou hearest me. Too many graces, too many mercies have come from Thy Blood, for me not to hope, even to the end in its efficacy.

      Then, O Jesus! by the Precious Blood seven times shed for the welfare of men, by each drop of that Sacred Price of our redemption, by the tears of Thy Immaculate Mother, I conjure Thee, I supplicate Thee, hear my earnest prayer. (Here, specify your request).

      O Thou, who during all the days of Thy mortal life, consoled so many sufferings, healed so many infirmities, raised so often a sinking courage; Thou will not fail to have pity on a soul who cries to Thee from the depths of her anguish! Oh, no, it is impossible! Another sigh from my heart, and from the wound in Thine own, there will flow to me, upon a wave of Thy merciful Blood, the grace so ardently desired. O Jesus, Jesus! hasten the moment when Thou wilt change my tears into joy, my sighs into thanksgivings.

      Holy Mary, Source of the Divine Blood! I conjure Thee not to lose this occasion of glorifying the Blood which made Thee Immaculate. Amen.

      Eternal Father, I offer Thee the Precious Blood of Jesus Christ, the merits, love and sufferings of His Sacred Heart, the tears and sorrows of Our Immaculate Mother, as the price of the favor I wish to obtain, if it is for Thy glory and my salvation. Amen.

      March 10, 2014 at 6:43 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        I have just started a Novena to Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal, and I have a question. Part way through the Novena prayer, you privately state your intention, mine being chastity and purity, but do you say the same intention each day, or do you change them?

        March 10, 2014 at 7:39 pm
      • greatpretender51

        Keep the same intention, CC, unless you find that, as a result of your prayers for assistance, it is modified or deepened somewhat.

        March 10, 2014 at 9:20 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        Am I right in thinking that the text to certain Novena prayers have been altered, to make them more modern? If so, could anyone provide a link to a site that has traditional Novenas on it?

        March 11, 2014 at 5:46 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        http://www.fisheaters.com/novenas.html

        Unless the text of a prayer has been theologically dumbed-down to suit modernist tastes, it doesn’t matter whether you say Thee/Thou or You, so no, you wouldn’t need to change it, if that’s what you meant by modern.

        Then again, I wouldn’t ever speak to God like this, personally:

        Lord, like, you are like, a totally, like, safe God, innit. You know, like how we both spoke at secondary school.

        March 11, 2014 at 6:10 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        O most holy Heart of Jesus, fountain of every blessing, I adore Thee, I love Thee and with a lively sorrow for my sins, I offer Thee this poor heart of mine. Make me humble, patient, pure and wholly obedient to Thy will. Grant, good Jesus, that I may live in Thee and for Thee. Protect me in the midst of danger; comfort me in my afflictions; give me health of body, assistance in my temporal needs, Thy blessing on all that I do, and the grace of a holy death. Within Thy Heart I place my every care. In every need let me come to Thee with humble trust saying, Heart of Jesus help me.

        Where do I insert my intentions, or don’t I have to? On the others, it is outlined.

        As for your last statement, I completely agree and do not appreciate ‘thee’ and ‘thou’ being replaced with ‘you’ and ‘your’. You may be aware that a London schoolteacher re-wrote the Lord’s Prayer in cockney rhyming slang. Archb. Lefebvre had a similar problem in France with ‘vous’ being replaced with ‘tous’.

        March 11, 2014 at 10:06 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        Just make the intention mentally. You needn’t be legalistic about it.

        Tu/vous is a false analogy. Standard contemporary French has a formal second person pronoun, whereas English doesn’t. Thee/Thou is an anachronism which is used specifically when writing/speaking in a sacred registers. Thee/Thou wasn’t originally formal, it was informal and in older English it was used in a context of familiarity. The formal pronoun in English (‘vous’ equivalent) was ‘you’. I wouldn’t say ‘you’ was irreverent.

        March 12, 2014 at 3:09 pm
  • greatpretender51

    Miles,

    Thank you for posting that, but may I suggest your last sentence should read “They don’t DARE that’s why.”? Ultimately, they are sycophants.

    I had some correspondence with this Terry Carroll some years ago, in which he claimed to have studied and understood the SSPX position literally overnight, in the midst of our correspondence. He is a shallow fraud, though perhaps well-intentioned; someone with the appropriate lack of depth to match Voris’ hairspray/unbuttoned shirt approach to the crisis in the Church.

    Meanwhile, came across this wonderful article this morning, on VII:

    http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/03/how-to-regard-vatican-ii-special-essay.html

    March 10, 2014 at 4:11 pm
    • gabriel syme

      I liked that article too, a good read!

      March 11, 2014 at 10:33 pm
  • greatpretender51

    I would describe CMTV as the Fox News of the neo-Catholic apostolates. That is, they purport to be conservative and expose liberal corruption and duplicity up to a certain level and point, but ultimately they are completely silent about the real cause of the corruption. In the case of Fox News, the real cause of political corruption – the New World Order and the institutions through which it works – is never addressed. In the case of CMTV, the real cause of the corruption and crisis in the Church is the disorientation in the Papacy, most esp. the current Papacy and its three immediate predecessors (not counting the Papacy of JPI), and the Curia. But no, those sources of corruption are untouchable…which makes one wonder whose money is keeping this apostolate propped up, and why.

    Meanwhile, the only answer to this crisis, the SSPX, is marginalized and even vilified as toxic, because it dares to identify and expose the true sources of the crisis! Very interesting. I think I’ll have a look at CMTV’s tax records to see what I can glean.

    March 10, 2014 at 9:32 pm
    • editor

      It’s a pity you folks are discussing Voris over here while we’re doing the same thing on the “What signal can we send” thread. If possible, let’s try to get it together folks ❗

      March 10, 2014 at 10:57 pm
  • Benedict Carter

    Well, I recieved a long-winded and tortuously-argued email from CM in reply to my email telling Michael Voris that he has lost the plot. I was going to post the letter here but found I had already deleted it.

    Basically, CM has no understanding whatever of the nature of the current crisis in the Church. They see all the symptoms but cannot draw the conclusions.

    Fatima is a stumbling block for them. They show no understanding of its cardinal importance. And the SSPX are Protestants, apparently.

    So that’s Michael Voris done with then. I’d had enough of his wig anyway.

    March 11, 2014 at 6:18 pm
    • Miles Immaculatae

      They most likely believe the 1984 consecration of John Paul II was sufficient in fulfilling the request of Our Lady.

      March 11, 2014 at 6:28 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        I meant to add, they probably also accept the authenticity of The Message of Fatima — the Bertone-Sodano ‘manifesto’. And the notorious forgery ascribed to a letter of Sr Lucia, claiming Our Lady had accepted the aforementioned consecration-entrustment (which was neither collegial, nor mentioned Russia in a solemn and public manner, although I believe it was of great benefit to “youth in search of meaning”).

        March 11, 2014 at 6:34 pm
  • Miles Immaculatae

    If buffoons like Carroll knew anything about anything, they would realise their assertion that the SSPX is both concurrently schismatic and lacking valid faculties for Confession, is completely contradictory. Not even the most liberal canon lawyers would say such a thing (and as it happens, no canon lawyer ever has).

    Even from an anti-SSPX perspective, it can only be one or the other. They obviously don’t understand the situation, since they are ignorant and ill-informed, yet they parade around like pseudo-academic jurist-theologians with clerical authority. Everything CMTV are saying sounds like it has been copied and pasted straight from the [neo-]Catholic Answers Forum.

    March 11, 2014 at 6:22 pm
    • editor

      What do I know? And anyway, women shouldn’t have authority over men. Go ahead and talk about Voris here – see if I care 😉

      March 11, 2014 at 10:08 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        Sorry, I forgot you had asked us to comment on CMTV in the other thread.

        I don’t really have anything more to add about Voris anyway.

        I’ve never said anything about women on this blog, Editor.

        March 12, 2014 at 3:15 pm
      • editor

        Miles Immaculatae,

        You’re forgiven. 😆

        But what’s this “I’ve never said anything about women on this blog…”

        Why are you not saying how wonderful we are, that we are indispensable (or should that be “disposable”? Say nothing ❗ )

        March 13, 2014 at 12:12 am
  • 3littleshepherds

    Editor,
    You or your webmaster can probably design your own emoticons. I was thinking a smiley holding up a stop sign would come in handy.

    March 12, 2014 at 12:51 am
    • editor

      3LittleShepherds,

      I have no idea how to create those emoticons but would love to learn. If you can post the instructions – or is it, just the colon + emotion + colon each time? Surely there has to be more to it than that? If not, I’ll be having a field day!

      March 12, 2014 at 9:37 am
      • 3littleshepherds

        I think you’d have to use a plugin. I know there’s one called “custom smilies” for WordPress. I think you can upload your own smilies with that. I’ve never done it, either, but there’s probably some tutorials available.

        March 12, 2014 at 4:53 pm
      • greatpretender51

        Editor: Great Pretender, at your service:

        http://en.support.wordpress.com/smilies/

        March 12, 2014 at 6:58 pm
      • editor

        Brilliant, thanks, Great Pretender. 🙄 😆

        3LittleShepherds, thanks for your suggestion too. That’s on the list of “must-do asap” 😉

        March 12, 2014 at 7:22 pm
  • Lionel (Paris)

    What about infallibility concerning canonizations? This is the question:
    Pope Gregory XVI authorized, on 30th January 1837, the public cult of Saint Philomena, virgin and martyr.
    In 1961, John XXIII withdrew the feast of Saint Philomena from the liturgical calendar.
    Now, which one was wrong? what value can we give to canonizations since the concept of “evolving truth” has been introduced?

    Monday, 23rd January 2012 5:14 p.m.
    “We are the way, the truth and the life” – “traditional Christianity, consisting of baptism… First Communion… Sunday Mass… do not kill, do not steal… had nothing of Christianity, it was a junk” – “Mass is a sacrifice of praise… the idea of ​​sacrifice is a full return back to the Old Testament that Israel already had surpassed”. That is what dared declare the “pythoness of the sacristy” close to John Paul II, Carmen Hernandez! and her alter ego, Kiko Argüello, added: “the passion and death of Christ was not a real sacrifice offered to the Father in order to overcome sin and redeem man” – “it is from the assembly that the Eucharist springs” and concerning the confession, “the value of the rite is not in absolution… this is the ecclesial community… which actually forgives” – “all men are priests and divine and regarding the Church, Vatican II is the only valid Council for today and tomorrow, while the Council of Trent is a regression in the life of the Church” etc… etc… (Monde & Vie n°734 of 15th July 2004)
    And these pitiful and apostate theologians are precisely those chosen to be sent on a mission “to transmit allegedly the Faith”!… Which kind of Faith might it be? a “new evangelization” or in some extent a “new gospel”?
    Ultimately, I am not sure that Rome really wants a reconciliation between Catholics. Rome uses a double language and it is unfortunate!
    It is a new Reformed Church which wants to replace the Church of Jesus Christ, a true “spiritual abuse”.
    Confidant of Paul VI, Jean Guitton, did he not say to Michèle Reboul (Monde & Vie n°734 of 15th July 2004): “the Catholic Church is dead on the first day of the Council, leaving the place to the ecumenical Church”? Perhaps, but it is not the religion that we chose the day of our Baptism and to which we are committed. There would be, somehow, a “breach of contract” by the Authorities of the Church…
    Apart from that, in September 2003, there were talks about the upcoming beatification of Paul VI!…
    Saturday, 18th February 2012 11:12 p.m.
    If what publishes Monde & Vie n°734 of 15th July 2004 is true, I find it appalling that such fanatics belonging to this completely heretical sect be asked to train future priests… There must be elements that are beyond my capacity of comprehension?
    How can we remain Catholic while frequenting such heretics acting with impunity in full opacity, as admitted by Kiko Argüello himself: “the approval of the pope and the bishops, does it come from ignorance of the real objectives of the “Path” and secret conferences which Kiko gives to his catechists to whom he asks: “this, do not tell people because they would run away at full speed”” (Ibid)?
    It would be good that we be all objectively informed of what this sect actually is.
    Our Lady, did She not tell at La Salette: “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antéchrist (the “Antéchrist” refers to a person or a personalized power, which embodies the denial of Christ, so the Devil… when the “Antichrist” is an adjective (and also an adjective noun) which means a person engaged violently in anti-Christian proselytizing), and the Church will be eclipsed for a while”? It is true that we can no longer trust anyone and when in doubt, I trust the Successor of Saint Peter to whom the Lord entrusted the keys…
    Regarding Saint Athanasius, he reportedly threw to the heretical clergy: “I leave you the walls and I keep the faith”.

    March 13, 2014 at 5:18 pm
    • Fidelis

      Lionel Paris,

      I think there is a case for sometimes moving a saint’s feast day off the calendar, to make room for other feast days but that doesn’t mean that Philomena isn’t a saint.

      Surely it is acceptable to move someone off the calendar sometimes?

      March 13, 2014 at 5:49 pm
      • greatpretender51

        Lionel,

        This from the Wikipedia entry on St. Joan of Arc:

        “Although changes to the Church-wide calendar in 1968 moved many medieval European saints’ days off the general calendar in order to make room for more non-Europeans, her feast day is still celebrated on many local and regional Church calendars, especially in France. Many Catholic churches around the globe have been named after her in the decades since her canonization.”

        March 13, 2014 at 6:01 pm
      • Lionel (Paris)

        About the “vérité évolutive”:
        Dear Greatpretender51,
        More precisely:
        INFALLIBLE? THE PREVIOUS CASE OF SAINT PHILOMENA
        …In 1961, during the revision of the Roman martyrologe, Pope John XXIII signed the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites removing from the calendar the feast of Saint Philomena previously scheduled for the 11th August. Refusing to register her in the martyrologe, he suppressed her own Office and Mass. At Ars, the sanctuary followed the instruction and did not organize any more since any public celebrations in her honour. In Lyon, in the chapel built by Marie-Pauline Jaricot (a miraculously cured person), the relics of Saint Philomena were removed as well as her statue. But in admitting that Bx Pius IX was “deceived” by erecting the cult of Saint Philomena, it is to recognize that the causes of saints is not covered by infallibility and this prepare the way for a rehabilitation of Saint Philomena, correcting the “mistake” of Pope John XXIII and that of Francis with canonizing John Paul II… (CRC n°137 – March 2014)

        March 15, 2014 at 10:20 pm
      • Lionel (Paris)

        Fidelis,
        Yes indeed, you may be right, but the point is that John XXIII specified that he did not believe in the story of Philomena in spite of the recognition of Gregory XVI…

        March 13, 2014 at 11:23 pm
  • Josephine

    There is some good news today. SPUC is reporting that Bishop Egan says politicians who vote for abortion should not receive Holy Communion.
    http://spuc-director.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/politicians-who-vote-for-abortion.html

    March 14, 2014 at 12:29 pm
    • Lionel (Paris)

      Joséphine,
      This is indeed good news; I hope others will follow

      March 14, 2014 at 3:13 pm
  • leprechaun

    Madame Editor,

    I notice that the later comments on this thread relate to St. Philomena just as I have an appeal to launch concerning St. Philomena. Is that Divine providence, or is it Divine Providence?

    Please allow me space to publicise my appeal, which also appears on the current thread about Pope Francis courtesy of Nicky and a comment she made on that thread:

    Madame Editor,

    Nicky mentions above that there are bloggers who no longer post on this blog.

    May I draw the attention of current and past bloggers (and current lurkers) to one ex-blogger and young mother in particular who used to post under the pseudonym of Jacinta.

    Although she had lost the use of her right arm following a stroke, she still contrived to post. Sadly she subsequently suffered a severe brain haemorrhage which paralysed her from the waist down resulting in her being confined to a wheelchair and losing much of her power of speech and thus her ability to hold a conversation. It also ended her blogging capability. It did not stop her attending the Catholic Truth Fatima Conference in Glasgow in September 2009 where she managed a heart-warming smile for all who set eyes upon her.

    I am making this post to appeal to all who read it to offer up a prayer on behalf of Jacinta to St. Philomena (pronounced Fee-loh-may-na) also known as “The Wonder Worker” for a miracle cure for Jacinta, whose brave heart surely merits a few minutes of our time, that she may be restored to full health and be able once more to go about the duties of her station as a wife and mother.

    This prayer could be suitable, and I thank all of you who offer it up, if only once, for a very deserving case. Thank you and may God bless you.

    Prayer to St. Philomena – The Little Wonder-Worker

    O Glorious virgin and martyr, beloved child of God, blessed Philomena! I rejoice in thy glory, and give God thanks that He has bestowed on thee such power, for the glory of His name, for the edification of His Church, and to honor thy merits in life, and thy sufferings and martyrdom in death. Looking up to thee in heaven, I rejoice to see thee so exalted, so powerful, so pure, so generous. I congratulate thee on being so faithful to the precepts and counsels of Jesus Christ, while on earth, and on being so munificently rewarded by Him in heaven. Moved by thine example to the practice of solid virtue, filled with hope at the view of the rewards bestowed upon thee, I resolve to imitate thee in the avoidance of all evil, and in the fulfilment of God’s holy will. Assist me, O glorious little saint, by thy powerful intercession, and obtain especially for me perfect purity–invincible fortitude in all trials, temptations, and sufferings–generosity which refuses nothing to God–and love stronger than death for the one true Faith–a ready and willing obedience to the Holy Roman Catholic Church and to our sovereign Pontiff, the common Father of all the faithful, the Pastor of pastors and of their flocks, and vicegerent of Jesus Christ throughout the universe.

    Beside these favors which I have now asked through thy powerful intercession, O blessed Philomena! I also ask an additional grace and favor, which I have the fullest confidence of obtaining through thy powerful intercession. (Here mention the graces and favors.) Surely God, who is so good, and for whom thou hast given up thy life–God who is so good, and who has bestowed so many gifts and favors upon and through thee–God who is so good as to have died for me, and to give Himself to me in holy communion–God who is so good as to have revealed the burning love of His sacred Heart for me, surely He will not refuse to hearken graciously to thy prayers, to my supplications, and even to His own desire to help the afflicted. For this do I hope, while I put all my confidence in God and in thee, O blessed Philomena! Amen.

    O Jesus, grant me grace to love Thee, and to make others love Thee. O Mary, my tender Mother, obtain for me a great love for Thy divine Son Jesus. Holy St. Joseph, bless me and intercede for me. St. Philomena, pray for me.

    Amen.

    A free .pdf ebook on the life and miracles of St. Philomena may be obtained from the link below. Scroll 80% down to “Misc. Works” and it is the fourth entry.

    http://saintsbooks.net/BooksList.html#Featured%20Books

    March 15, 2014 at 11:32 am
    • westminsterfly

      Will certainly commend Jacinta to St Philomena, and also the prayers of the Universal Living Rosary Association of St Philomena, http://www.philomena.org for further info about this apostolate in the UK contact Anne Curran ulraengland@hotmail.com ULRA’s prayers are far more efficacious than mine, I’m sure!

      March 16, 2014 at 5:35 pm
    • greatpretender51

      Leprechaun and Jacinta,

      I have a small shrine to St. Philomena in my prayer room, which houses a couple of her relics and to which I repair every morning and evening. Rest assured, Jacinta (whom I know by another name) that I will add my prayers to Leprechaun’s and many others for your full recovery!

      (PS: Stay away from that haggis stuff – it can’t be good for your health!)

      March 17, 2014 at 1:34 am
      • editor

        Great Pretender,

        When I read these comments to Jacinta later today, she’ll be intrigued by your assertion that you know her “by another name.”

        I’ll need to ask her to cast her mind back to list the number of Americans she’s met via Catholic Truth. Can’t be too many, surely?

        Are you going to “out” yourself or are we to continue mulling the matter over our coffee and haggis biscuits?

        PS no such thing as haggis biscuits – thank goodness 😀

        March 17, 2014 at 10:10 am
      • greatpretender51

        Well, Ed, I see those Columbo re-runs are keeping you as sharp as ever! There are 2 answers: one, I knew Jacinta’s real name (though not from you citing it on the blog), and two, I used to refer to her as “Dear, Sweet [ ]” in a previous CT incarnation….

        Hope those answers go well with your coffee and haggis biscuits..as for me, I prefer porridge with walnuts and raisins, with my latte…

        March 17, 2014 at 4:10 pm
      • editor

        Ha! Gotcha now. I had an idea you were the culprit after reading your remark about knowing Jacinta by another name – “dear sweet Betty” to be precise! Had you not added this additional information I was going to check out for more clues by asking the following question:

        1) Have you ever visited Scotland?
        2) If “yes” have you ever visited Loch Lomond?
        3) Have you ever wondered about the population of Glasgow?

        I think we both know that the answer to all three is “yes” “yes” and “yes” again.

        Welcome back! Believe it or not, you had me fooled, and me quite an expert in the science of “tone and style”!

        March 17, 2014 at 7:37 pm
      • greatpretender51

        I have a hard time believing I had you fooled, Editor, but thank you for welcoming me back. Wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been a “prodigal son.” So uh, if I answered yes, yes and yes to those questions, would that make me a yes man?

        March 17, 2014 at 9:18 pm
      • editor

        Honestly, Great Pretender, I really didn’t think you and he were the same blogger, if you get my drift. In fact, I think at one point I thought “if only our previous American blogger had been as helpful, knowledgeable, friendly as Great Pretender…”

        Kidding 😀

        March 17, 2014 at 10:42 pm
      • 3littleshepherds

        I only remember two US bloggers. One was from Dixie, he was a warm soul. And there was a feisty one from the Northwest.

        March 17, 2014 at 9:42 pm
      • editor

        “Feisty” is an understatement but it takes me all my time to remember that Edinburgh is on the east coast and Glasgow on the west coast, without having to work out in which direction His Predendership resides in the USAl I haven’t a clue.

        Great Pretender – over to thee…

        March 17, 2014 at 10:44 pm
      • greatpretender51

        That would be feisty from the Midwest (Cincinnati Ohio), rather than the Northwest, 3LittleShepherds, but I’m much less feisty these days, though still very impatient with these legions of people who have their heads in the sand about the crisis in the Church…and/or, who are PAID to have their heads in the sand about it.

        March 18, 2014 at 11:06 am
  • Vianney

    St Philomena is a great little saint and it was she who obtained the chapel in Edinburgh for the SSPX where there is a first class relic before her statue. As someone said at the time when she was “demoted”, “If St. Philomena doesn’t exist then who is answering her phone?”

    March 15, 2014 at 10:52 pm
  • 3littleshepherds

    St. Philomena always answers my prayers. She’s really at the top of “most friendly” saints, along with Little Therese. I chose St. Jean Vianney for my confirmation Saint, but I think I got St. Philomena as co-patron.

    March 16, 2014 at 6:04 pm
  • greatpretender51

    My mother was named after St. Philomena, but never thought she was a real saint. I was only too happy to disabuse her of that notion a couple of years before she passed…

    March 16, 2014 at 6:06 pm
  • Christina

    Leprechaun,

    Re Jacinta. The beautiful church of SS Peter and Paul and St. Philomena in the diocese of Shrewsbury (which has a Catholic bishop, Bishop Mark Davies) is in the sole care of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest. After Mass every Saturday morning the novena to St. Philomena is said by the congregation, and I have asked that Canon Montjean name Jacinta in the intercessions, asking St. Philomena to pray for the intention you ask for her. I will also ask Canon to offer a Mass for Jacinta, but he’s so inundated with Mass intentions that it will probably be some time yet before he can manage it.

    March 16, 2014 at 7:29 pm
    • leprechaun

      Christina,

      Many thanks for your kindness. I am sure Jacinta will be very moved when Madame Editor is able to read it to her.

      Would that St. Philomena will also be moved – to grant the miracle that Jacinta deserves.

      Thank you, 3LittleShepherds for your assurances too, and Great Pretender – perhaps your mother could have a word with St. Philomena as well?

      Thank you, Westminsterfly for your links and your own prayers.

      God bless you all.

      March 16, 2014 at 8:48 pm
  • editor

    Thank you all for your posts & promise of prayers / Masses for Jacinta. I will be seeing her tomorrow afternoon and will read over your comments to her.

    March 16, 2014 at 9:42 pm
    • Lionel (Paris)

      Dear Editor,
      Thank you for your moving post!
      I shall join you all in your payer for Jacinta.
      Kind regards LD

      March 16, 2014 at 10:27 pm
  • crofterlady

    I too have joined in the prayer to Saint Philomena for Jacinta. May God bless her.

    March 16, 2014 at 11:03 pm
  • editor

    Well, I visited Jacinta (Betty) today and she was thrilled when I told her about Leprechaun’s original post requesting prayers for her full recovery.

    When I read out each comment, she looked very serious and listened intently. At the end, when I’d finished reading them all, she said: “WOW!” and “I can’t believe it”. “Wonderful.”

    I asked if she wanted me to thank everyone…. “OH PLEASE!” she responded immediately and her husband also expressed deep gratitude.

    Jacinta then pointed to a little shrine she has in her living room, with a few statues, candles etc. She pointed to a little statue which her mother RIP gave her some years ago – St Philomena !

    She was truly touched and grateful for all your prayers, folks. And I think she is renewed in her hope for a miracle. Let’s keep up those prayers!

    Thanks again Leprechaun for setting the ball rolling and to everyone who has kindly responded with promise of prayers. She reacted to each of your comments individually, seriously and shaking her head in astonishment at your charity.

    March 17, 2014 at 7:35 pm
    • Lionel (Paris)

      Parfait! I hope that she will recover…
      God bless you all and especially Jacinta! LD

      March 17, 2014 at 10:41 pm
    • leprechaun

      Update on the prayers for Jacinta

      Thanks to WestminsterFly and the Universal Living Rosary Association I have been able to forward to Jacinta (a.k.a. Betty Martin) some blessed oil, and some cord which has been touched to the relics of St. Philomena, together with some prayer cards.

      I have also spoken to Fr. McLoughlin from the Priory at Carluke who will be offering Mass at 09:45hrs at Saint Andrew’s Church, 202 Renfrew Street, Glasgow G3 6TX on this the third Sunday of Lent. He has agreed to touch the oil and the cord to Betty’s forehead in a brief ceremony after the Mass, and for those of us who are too far away to be present, I thought we might each offer a prayer to St. Philomena at 11.00hrs GMT on that day and ask her to obtain a miracle cure for Betty.

      Is it a coincidence that Fr. McLoughlin has a sister called Philomena?

      Let us all pray for a miracle for Betty Martin.

      God Bless.

      March 20, 2014 at 6:59 pm
      • jobstears

        Will certainly pray for that miracle for Jacinta by entrusting her to St. Philomena through the prayers of the Living Rosary Association. If one rosary is powerful, imagine what a million rosaries can do!

        March 21, 2014 at 4:45 pm
      • leprechaun

        Jobstears,

        Thank you for supporting my humble attempt at Catholic Action on behalf of Betty.

        Time has passed. The touching of the blessed oil and the cord to Betty have presumably been accomplished, hopefully with a recitation of the litany to St. Philomena, and now we must ask St. Philomena to share with us her fortitude for the acceptance of the will of God.

        If Betty receives a miraculous cure at the hands of St. Philomena, I am sure she will be doing the highland fling as she makes her own unassisted way to Mass to offer thanksgiving, and if not then let us pray that Betty will feel the heat of our compassion for her and that she will draw strength from it.

        March 23, 2014 at 2:47 pm
      • editor

        Leprechaun,

        I was just about to email you to say “thank you” for organising this.

        We had the little ceremony after Mass today. I’m afraid I didn’t get the opportunity to speak to Father before Mass so didn’t ask him to announce it. Still, there were a fair number of people who were present in the Church when Father emerged from the sacristy in surplice and bearing Holy Water and everything else necessary for the ceremony.

        It was a lovely ceremony and Betty was very VERY moved by it.

        Just before it began, while waiting for Father to return from the sacristy, Davy whispered to me “Is Leprechaun here?” I replied that Leprechaun lived too far away, in another land, so couldn’t be present. Davy looked amazed and said “he said he’d be here”. I had to be very naughty (we’re not encouraged to talk in church even in whispers!) and make one more reply to enlighten him: “I think he meant he’d be present in spirit”. He looked very disappointed!

        Anyway, thank you very much indeed for going to the trouble of organising that very lovely ceremony, honouring St Philomena and giving great hope and peace to Betty & family.

        God bless you.

        March 23, 2014 at 3:07 pm
      • leprechaun

        Madame Editor,

        Thank you for this update on the plea to St. Philomena on behalf of Betty, and the news that Betty was very moved by it.

        Thanks be to God and to St. Philomena, and to Fr. McLoughlin for his part.

        I am sorry that Betty’s husband was disappointed by my absence but it would have entailed a round trip of 600 miles for me to get there. What I actually said in my letter to Betty was:

        I will put a post on the CT blog asking those who cannot be present, which will include me of course, to offer up their own prayers to St. Philomena at 11.00am that day.

        Note: “cannot be present” – but I did offer renewed prayers to St. Philomena at 11am, and I trust that I was not alone amongst the absent bloggers who want to see Betty able to leave her wheelchair and go about the duties of her station.

        Now it is up to St. Philomena to work one of her wonders.

        Incidentally, I have been told of an SSPX priest who was put in charge of an area where the school was in danger of closing due to finances. He made a promise to St. Philomena that if she helped the school out of its troubles, he would lead a local pilgrimage to her shrine in Mugnano in Italy. The school did climb out out its troubles. He did lead the pilgrimage, and he is now in the process of organising a world-wide based pilgrimage to the shrine of St. Philomena.

        Another verified example of the work of St. Philomena.

        March 24, 2014 at 9:39 am
      • editor

        Leprechaun,

        I hope you didn’t take Davy’s disappointment at your absence as a criticism. I thought it would cheer you up to know he had wanted you there! He fully understood when we spoke later. He’s so busy all the time that he’d obviously forgotten what you’d written in your letter. All in all, it was a lovely occasion and we are all grateful to you for your charity in organising the event.

        Wonderful story about the SSPX priest and the school.

        March 24, 2014 at 9:52 am
  • Miles Immaculatae March 19, 2014 at 10:05 pm
  • greatpretender51 March 21, 2014 at 1:51 pm
    • Josephine

      Great Pretender,

      That is amazing. I hope the Pope gets that petition and acts on it really soon.

      March 23, 2014 at 8:25 am
  • leprechaun

    Madame Editor,

    By your leave I am trying to post a picture of St. Andrew’s Church on Renfrew Street in Glasgow for the assistance of strangers wanting to be with Jacinta after the 09:45 Mass this coming Sunday March 23rd:

    I hope it works. If it does, I will explain to other bloggers how to do it.

    March 21, 2014 at 4:58 pm
  • leprechaun

    Madame Editor,

    As you see, it did not work. Oh well, back to the drawing board!

    March 21, 2014 at 5:02 pm
  • fryderykfranciszekchopin

    If anyone has a Google+ account, here’s a page I made for Editor: https://plus.google.com/u/0/100045482991822406186/posts

    The more followers it has, it looks more popular, and more people will find it which might bring new bloggers on! 🙂

    March 21, 2014 at 5:38 pm
    • editor

      Chopin

      Thank you SO much for going to that trouble to create a Google+ page. I see 5 circles (I presume that means “email circulation groups) are following it so that is just great.

      Let’s hope lots of new followers sign up.

      March 22, 2014 at 12:04 pm
  • leprechaun

    Madame Editor,

    Regrding the embedding of images to blog threads:

    WordPress operates a whitelist which determines which urls can be posted and which not.

    As the SSPX is not on that whitelist the following link ought not to produce the intended image – but it might, so here goes:

    http://www.sspx.co.uk/image_chapel_glasgow_01.jpg

    Oh well – you win some and you lose some.

    March 21, 2014 at 5:45 pm
    • editor

      Leprechaun, sorry that didn’t work. Thanks anyway for trying and for linking the photo of our little Glasgow SSPX chapel.

      March 22, 2014 at 12:01 pm
    • greatpretender51

      Lep,

      Was trolling through the old posts here (at the risk of Editor calling me a troll) and came across your attempts to post images. Have you come across these instructions?

      http://en.support.wordpress.com/images/

      April 8, 2014 at 9:33 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    I have a question regarding the traditional Mass, or the Mass of Paul VI. Firstly, could you tell me whether a Priest can say Mass without any lay people or Deacons/ Sub-Deacons present, and if not, does the Priest omit ‘Dominus Vobiscum’, ‘Sursum Corda’, and ‘Gratias agamus Domine Deo nostro’ and the relevant responses? This may seem a stupid and pointless question, but I’ve never attended a TLM.

    March 22, 2014 at 9:06 pm
    • Miles Immaculatae

      If the priest is totally on his own he himself says the responses the server would usually make.

      March 22, 2014 at 9:13 pm
    • greatpretender51

      CC,

      I don’t know where you live, but you should make every effort to find a TLM, ASAP. It will change your life, I guarantee it.

      March 23, 2014 at 5:14 pm
    • leprechaun

      CATHOLICCONVERT1,

      If you want to obtain an insight into the rite for a Traditional Latin Mass, you could visit this link where by clicking on the thumbnails and the links to the Latin rubrics within them you will be able to follow the Mass from start to finish.

      I am sure you will find it gives you a good starting point:

      http://sspx.co.uk/page_mass_pictures.htm

      If you then click on the navigation button called “Chapels and Mass Times” on the same website and scroll down, you will see the locations of all the Chapels and Mass centres together with Mass times, and there might be one close enough for you to make a visit in person.

      The Chapels usually have repositories from which you can buy a Missal without having to pay packing and postage charges, and there will be people on hand who may be able to answer any questions you may have.

      Not wishing to be mischievous, but you might ask the priest about the preparatory course you are on leading to your reception into the Catholic Church, just to confirm that what you are being taught coincides with what the Church has been teaching for the past 2,000 years.

      March 25, 2014 at 3:10 pm
      • Vianney

        “The Chapels usually have repositories from which you can buy a Missal without having to pay packing and postage charges,”

        The Edinburgh chapel has Mass books with a Mass sheet containing the Sunday propers available in the cry room for newcomers to use.

        March 25, 2014 at 10:42 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        ‘Not wishing to be mischievous, but you might ask the priest about the preparatory course you are on leading to your reception into the Catholic Church, just to confirm that what you are being taught coincides with what the Church has been teaching for the past 2,000 years’.

        You devil you 🙂 I can tell you that my Priest, generally speaking is faithful and pious, apart from the fact he isn’t keen on the TLM and he is all for the Ecumaniac movement, not to mention he believes Catholics, Jews and Muslims believe the same God. I know what I am about, and I inform Ed about certain puzzling things he has said at the RCIA.

        As much as I would like to attend an SSPX Mass, I simply don’t have the time to get to the nearest (Preston) on a Sunday, nor the money. However, in a neighbouring town, a Diocesan Priest (v. orthodox) says a Low Mass on a Saturday evening. Neither does the FSSP or the ICKSP have a presence near me. I will endeavour to attend that. That being said, I would still attend the NO with my PP, as I am very loyal to my Priest, not to mention that my friends, and a family member who converted goes there.

        March 26, 2014 at 8:08 pm
  • Steve

    Talking of the old rite I see mgr basil is having another go in the catholic times. Since he hijacked Card Kasper’s presentation which was quickly discredited by Card Burke perhaps the straight jacket he refers would best be fitted to his corpus or should that be “boady” it is also,worthy of note that in the book of Daniel the writing on the wall ( which is where the phrase comes from incidentally ), with said hand is precisely a response to using temple gold,used for worship as a drinking cup.. Furthermore the ceremonial vestments used in worship were held by the roman authorities and only to,the high priests at the ceremonial festivals thus elevating the significance of the vestments. They were carefully secreted off to some closet after so as to protect the Romans from political insurrection. After the fall of the temple,one of the few things that survived were said vestments. Loftus’s disregard and dismissive tone cannot be accepted as accurate – certain, his occasional Latin verse suggests he grew up in the old rite but it would seem his memory is needing enlightened with his bible history. I’m thinking of sending him a life jacket with the words traditional mass safe landing

    March 25, 2014 at 6:09 am
    • editor

      Steve,

      Mgr Basil Loftus is getting worse each week. His column is increasingly vicious and always – no matter what the topic he is spouting, usually Communion for the divorced and remarried these days – he ALWAYS takes a swipe at the Traditional Latin Mass. He is a complete disgrace – but not quite as much of a disgrace as his negligent and hypocritical bishop, Hugh Gilbert of Aberdeen, who told two of our readers that if they sent him evidence of Loftus’s anti-Catholic writings he would be in a position to do something (that’s the implication of what he said). Yet, I had sent him a lengthy letter on his appointment to Aberdeen. packed with quotes from Loftus’s articles, asking him to exercise his authority to end these weekly assaults on the Faith in both the Catholic Times and the Scottish Catholic Observer. If one bishop can prevent a deacon from blogging in defence of the Faith, then another can act to prevent a priest writing columns attacking it. And if he doesn’t then we are justified in drawing the only conclusion possible – that he agrees with the dissenter. Now, there’s a surprise.

      Loftus is, himself, a marathon hypocrite. Banging on about “dialogue” and involving the laity, yet writing to me to say “don’t send me any more of your material” when I once emailed the link to a blog discussion we ran (on our old blog). Very “tolerant” and “diversity” conscience when it suits him, as long as those on the receiving end of his alleged tolerance are public sinners and not Catholics now described as “traditional” where, at one time, ALL Catholics were “traditional” – there was no other kind of Catholic until protestant priests like him got to work.

      March 25, 2014 at 10:32 am
  • catholicconvert1 March 26, 2014 at 4:06 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    Would anyone recommend membership of Juventutem?

    March 26, 2014 at 4:18 pm
    • Josephine

      Catholic Convert,

      I think Juventutem are OK but I wouldn’t recommend anything these days. I have a feeling that that group were very “pro Pope John Paul II”. I think if we attend Mass and pray our Rosary and do what little apostolic work we can, that’s all we should feel we have to do. Once you start mixing with people who are half hearted about some things, and have their own views about others, you put your own soul in danger.

      March 26, 2014 at 4:46 pm
    • Josephine

      Crofterlady,

      That’s very encouraging. Thanks for posting that link.

      March 26, 2014 at 10:27 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26761181

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-raises-abortion-religious-liberty-in-candid-meeting-with-obama

    It seems the Pope, according to the reports in standing up to Obama, the most evil man of the age.

    March 27, 2014 at 7:45 pm
  • 3littleshepherds

    Prayer to St. Joseph Cupertino for a Good Life

    O, glorious St. Joseph Cupertino, who in this life spoke constantly to the hearts of the faithful through heroic virtues and marvelous wonders worked by the hand of God, turn to us who implore your blessing. Arouse in our hearts some spark of that divine love which so inflamed your soul, so that we may desire nothing more than to please God all the days of our lives. And just as you were lifted up from the earth in ecstacy on hearing the sweet names of Jesus and Mary, pray that we, too, may detach ourselves from the things of earth, realize the vanity of the world, detest our sins and obtain pardon for them. Strengthen our faith, O good St. Joseph, revive our hope and inflame our love, so that we may have Jesus always in our minds and hearts, and after a good Christian death may merit to enjoy His glory with you in Paradise. Amen.

    March 28, 2014 at 11:21 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    Given my above question, and Josephine’s answer, can anybody recommend a Catholic society/ group that is worth joining today?

    March 29, 2014 at 7:00 pm
    • Miles Immaculatae

      The Legion of Mary would be excellent, however presently, they are affected by the ecclesial crisis, so much so that to join them would entail all kinds of compromises and conflicts. There is at least one other former legionary here and she will be able to inform you of its problems. It is tragic. But the Legion will one day be a profound force for good when the crisis is over.

      Juventutem in the UK are provided Masses by diocesan priests. The clerical leader in the UK is an FSSP priest. I am sure they are good, however their general view of things means they are not accommodating to the SSPX, since they are a mainstream group. When I was in contact with the clerical leader in Great Britain he was sympathetic to my position, and he was very courteous. There are no Juventutem chapters near where you live anyway. The only two in GB are London and Bristol. You will undoubtedly encounter opposition within these chapters if you support the SSPX.

      The most important ‘group’ a Catholic benefits from is the Mass, because this is the supreme ‘community’ of the Communion of Saints. It is the only group that literally meets in heaven itself, because that is what the Church teaches Mass is, the literal heaven coming down to earth, heaven truly present in the sanctuary.

      March 29, 2014 at 8:42 pm
      • jobstears

        MI, at an FSSP parish I attended, the congregation was told that their Sunday obligation would not be fulfilled if they assisted at Mass offered by the SSPX. I got the distinct impression from the homily that the congregation was being led to believe that any association with the SSPX would somehow endanger their souls.

        March 31, 2014 at 3:29 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        Shocking.

        The FSSP are to undergo an apostolic visitation. What if they are treated like the Franciscans of the Immaculate?

        March 31, 2014 at 5:33 pm
      • jobstears

        I have wondered about that too. Unlike the Franciscans, the FSSP do not say the NO Mass, so if the Vatican stopped them from offering the Real Mass, their congregations might, just might turn to the SSPX. I doubt Rome would risk that!

        April 1, 2014 at 2:13 am
      • catholicconvert1

        How could the Holy See suppress the FSSP, given that this Society, along with the ICKSP was founded in order to celebrate the TLM exclusively? I agree with Jobstears, the Holy See couldn’t stomach it if the SSPX gained more power or a greater following. The Pope might be daft, but he’s not that daft.

        April 1, 2014 at 6:19 pm
      • Vianney

        “Unlike the Franciscans, the FSSP do not say the NO Mass,”

        I read somewhere that some FSSP priests do say the NO if the local bishop requires them to.

        April 1, 2014 at 10:39 pm
      • gabriel syme

        I heard that Miles, what is the reason for this? Or is this something which occurs periodically anyway?

        April 1, 2014 at 10:59 am
      • gabriel syme

        It is very irresponsible and mean-spirited of that particular FSSP priest to pass on such bogus information.

        It has been clarified many times that an SSPX mass fulfills ones Sunday obligation.

        I even had a priest of my Archdiocese affirm my SSPX attendance, saying that I was doing no wrong by attending Sunday mass there.

        The anti-tradition, modernistic elements in the Church look increasingly stupid the longer they attempt to discredit the SSPX in their various underhand ways.

        Who can possibly take their objections and issues with the SSPX seriously, while – at the same time – the modern Church panders to every heretic and infidel going?

        It is absurd and this obvious incoherence is one of the main reasons the Church suffers from such a lack of credibility.

        April 1, 2014 at 11:07 am
      • editor

        Gabriel Syme,

        Well said – I even know of one diocesan priest who told someone who said he was thinking of attending the SSPX Masses on Sundays that that is where he SHOULD go. And he was not being sarcastic but deadly serious. The best of the clergy considered to be “orthodox” know the truth about the Society and have sufficient integrity not to lie about it, but, on the contrary, as with the above mentioned priest, encourage enquirers to attend.

        April 1, 2014 at 11:12 am
      • catholicconvert1

        Gabriel,

        Was it not the Pope himself (BXVI) or Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos who stated it was ‘lawful’ to fulfil our Sunday obligations at SSPX Chapels. I love arguing with liberal kooks about this. A liberal friend said the SSPX ordinations are ‘valid but illicit’. I responded by saying, well, the Orthodox ordinations are ‘valid but illicit’ but we can’t attend their Masses, whereas we can attend SSPX Masses. Basic common sense therefore dictates that they are also ‘licit’, not least because of what the Holy See stated.

        April 1, 2014 at 6:24 pm
      • Vianney

        This could just be the priest at that church. Last year when in Amsterdam I paid a visit to the FSSP church there and the SSPX newsletter was available there. When I mentioned this to a Dutch friend he told me that the priest there was very sympathetic to the SSPX.

        April 1, 2014 at 10:36 pm
    • greatpretender51

      CC: If you are attending an SSPX chapel, you could become a Tertiary (i.e. Third Order member) in the Society:

      http://archives.sspx.org/third_orders/sspx_third_order/sspx_third_order.htm

      (this is for the US District; here is the counterpart for the UK District: http://www.sspx.co.uk/page_movements.htm )

      Please note that the Third Order is more of a discipline than a “group.”

      March 29, 2014 at 11:11 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        Regrettably, I am not, as I have said on numerous occasions, able to attend an SSPX Mass. I did have an offer from somebody on this blog to take me via car, but it would only be once a flood. I plan on attending a TLM said by a Diocesan Priest after my confirmation.

        March 30, 2014 at 2:23 pm
  • Graeme Taylor

    My parish priest has asked for 12 men and/or women to have their feet washed on Holy Thusday evening Mass.
    Are other priests in the Arch-diocese of St Andrew and Edinburgh asking woman to have their feet washed?

    March 29, 2014 at 7:52 pm
    • editor

      Graeme,

      I think you could safely bet money on it. And not just in the archdiocese of St Andrew & Edinburgh. Now that the Pope has given the dreadful example himself, the dissidents will be out in force this Holy Thursday.

      March 29, 2014 at 11:53 pm
      • Vianney

        Given the Pope’s first Holy Thursday Mass last year, there are probably notices on Mosque notice boards asking for volunteers.

        March 30, 2014 at 8:38 am
  • Graeme Taylor

    It is like dealing with teenagers, so ill thought out. Everything has to be new and if it aint new, oh well it aint worth doing.
    Ego is all i see at work, it has to be new and draw attention to the priest instead of what it should be – the opposite.

    March 30, 2014 at 8:36 am
  • Graeme Taylor

    Great news from Argentina, two women living in a state of mortal sin have met the Lord and His mercy, they have confessed and are both to be received into the Sacrament of Confirmation and ….they are to have their adopted baby baptised into the Catholic Church. What a super arch bishop that Cathedral has. Clearly a man of deep faith and love , rich in the Mercy of God and clearly abundant in the fruits of The Holy Spirit – when these two women can be helped to see that they needed to turn away and repent of their sin full lives. What marvels!

    March 30, 2014 at 7:06 pm
    • catholicconvert1

      I always understand that Confession was only worth the effort if you actually made the effort afterwards to change your life, and tried not to sin again. Someone correct me if I’m wrong?? If these two women (presumably) have confessed to the sin of Lesbianism, but still continue as Lesbians, then what is the point? Your sarcasm, Graeme, blew my mind, but this issue is far too serious for sarcasm I fear. The Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Mario Poli, is the successor to Pope Francis in that see. He was always made a Cardinal at the last consistory. Do these halfwits really have no shame??

      March 30, 2014 at 7:23 pm
  • Graeme Taylor

    Catholicconvert

    I could not believe what I read on rorate caeli – that the archbishop allowed this nonsense.
    Apostasy indeed!
    But then “prelates” and the monied ( the President may be one of the godmothers), it really is like dealing with teenagers.

    March 30, 2014 at 8:09 pm
  • Graeme Taylor

    Couldn’t agree more Josephine and the Holy Father needs to carry out some disciplining amongst these “prelates”, not only in Argentina but in Germany, but then there is the money…..

    March 30, 2014 at 8:57 pm
  • Leo

    Better include Brazil too.

    Novus ordoism is self-liquidating. But hey, he’s in full communion and good standing.

    Courtesy of the Remnant:

    http://gloria.tv/?media=113050

    March 30, 2014 at 10:07 pm
    • editor

      Leo,

      How can anyone, in their right mind, even begin to argue that this Mass is valid? About as valid as and eleven pound note.

      March 30, 2014 at 10:26 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        Is he an actual Priest? Ed, you know about my fragile mental state, but I’m just going to book myself into the local nuthouse-that’s tipped me over the edge. Visiting hours are between 2 and 4.

        March 31, 2014 at 1:30 pm
  • Graeme Taylor

    The devil is having his day indeed.

    March 30, 2014 at 11:26 pm
  • greatpretender51

    Apparently the purpose of a Novus Ordo Confession (er, uh, “Reconciliation”) is to obtain God’s approval for one’s sins. Small wonder then that they call it “celebrating” the Sacrament of Reconciliation. It is man celebrating himself and congratulating himself for turning away from God. And this disgrace during Lent, no less.

    Graeme, the odds of Pope Francis (I’m already tempted to call him an anti-pope) disciplining these clergy are zilch, since he himself sympathizes with and privately approves of this sickness. Truly, as Mundabor has already noted, this is the Pope of the enemies of the Church. Well, live it up while you can, boys, your time is coming soon…

    March 31, 2014 at 12:40 am
  • jobstears

    I just looked at the links posted by Josephine and Leo and am speechless. Straight from hell. And these are the elements in the Novous Ordo church in full communion with Rome.

    I am starting to think this Pope is the anti Christ. He is destroying the Church with – love. And the avenging angel of the Vortex defends his every action thereby assisting him.

    Let us join with our beloved Pope as we pray for his intentions for the month of April- “that governments may foster the protection of creation and the just distribution of natural resources”.

    God help us.

    March 31, 2014 at 3:10 pm
  • fryderykfranciszekchopin

    Talking of the Holy Father’s intentions for the year, I have these on a bookmark:

    January- “That all may promote authentic economic development that respects the dignity of all peoples.”

    July- “That sports may always be occasions of human fraternity and growth.”

    And the January Mission Intention- “That Christians of diverse denominations may walk toward the unity desired by Christ.”

    If you want to read all of them: http://www.apostleshipofprayer.net/AP/Intentions-2014.EN.pdf

    March 31, 2014 at 4:20 pm
    • editor

      Jobstears & Chopin,

      Kidding, right?

      March 31, 2014 at 4:38 pm
    • Leo

      Chopin

      Whenever Celtic and Rangers get to play each other again, maybe the Holy Father’s July intention could be posted on the front of the match programme, or on the signs around the ground.

      Nope, something tells me that’s not a runner.

      Seriously, you gotta laugh.

      March 31, 2014 at 6:06 pm
  • jobstears

    Editor, I only wish!

    March 31, 2014 at 5:30 pm
  • Miles Immaculatae

    I am afraid this is NOT an April Fool joke.

    The content is shocking.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100265744/pope-sanctions-ecumenical-missal-this-is-really-big-news/

    April 1, 2014 at 1:33 am
    • GabbyGlasgowGirl

      MI,

      I’m afraid it IS an April Fool joke – the link to the translation leads to this page
      http://translate.google.com/#la/en/Aprilis%20Stulte%20%E2%80%98Dies

      It started out on an ecumenical blog, and Damian reblogged it.

      April 1, 2014 at 1:46 am
      • Miles Immaculatae

        How utterly embarrassing. I completely missed that. I also notice the bold letters spell April Fool vertically. You wouldn’t believe I was a university student! What a dunce.

        Seriously though, if this was able to fool me, what does that say about the state of the Church.

        April 1, 2014 at 2:16 am
  • jobstears

    Frankly, I wouldn’t have been surprised if this pope did approve an ecumenical missal! The joke is that he didn’t.

    Something tells me, today might not be the best day to believe anything anyone says! 🙁 I’d be better off burying myself in the “Cross and the Crown”, so far an excellent read.

    April 1, 2014 at 2:10 am
  • Miles Immaculatae

    Researchers in the Ukraine have been testing a new hypothesis that radioactive contaminants from the Chernobyl disaster may have caused many cases of dyslexia.

    A scientist today told journalists “At this stage in the study the findings are still nuclear.”

    April 1, 2014 at 2:21 am
  • gabriel syme

    I cannot recall it verbatim, but another excellent homily at St Andrews (SSPX, Glasgow) last Sunday. My favourite part, from Fr Wingerden, was:

    Whats the difference between protestants and Catholics?

    The difference is: protestants are miserable but Catholics are happy. Oh sure, the protestants will try to put a happy face on things at times, but – in their heart of hearts – they are miserable.

    Why is this? Its because, unlike Catholics, protestants have no means to confess their sins and wipe their slate clean. Go to Confession.

    Availing themselves of confession brings Catholics an inner peace; Catholics should feel this inner peace always, even despite the minor everyday worries we all have.

    If you don’t feel this inner peace, you are a rubbish Catholic who is not living their faith life properly. Go to Confession.

    For someone raised with the sickly-sweet, vacuous novus ordo, its *really* something to hear a priest challenge his congregation like this – even offering a measured criticism of them, such that they may improve their faith lives.

    There have been many very rewarding aspects of my switch from the Archdiocese to the SSPX – e.g. not least being able to receive Holy Communion like a Catholic – but the quality of homily/instruction from the priests is prominent among them.

    The priests at the novus ordo see themselves mainly as entertainers who chiefly seek to please the congregation via jokes and anecdotes and through blindly affirming anything an everything the congregation does or says.

    It is exceptionally refreshing to leave this kind of puerile, unsatisfying rubbish behind and hear something instead with a bit of substance to it, which is even directly challenging to those of us in the pews.

    April 1, 2014 at 11:25 am
    • catholicconvert1

      Gabriel,

      They sounds like a great sermon. Whenever I get the opportunity, I too will cross over to the SSPX (as it were). I like my PP very much, but it is too wishy washy. When people take Holy Communion in the hand it fills me with rage- why are people so irreverent to Our Lord? It’s the Priest’s fault. They cultivate indiscipline, whereas all people, in their heart of hearts, love rules.

      April 1, 2014 at 6:35 pm
      • Eileenanne

        I am a little surprised to hear a priest make so much of feelings in his homily. I have always found feelings to be a poor guide to spiritual wellbeing.

        April 4, 2014 at 1:53 pm
      • jobstears

        Eileenanne,

        It is funny how two people can read the same thing and draw different conclusions! When I read Gabriel Syme’s post, I saw nothing more in it than what saints in the Catholic Church have always said- when we do God’s Will, there is no turmoil or unrest within the soul; there is a peace that comes from knowing we are right with God. Our circumstances don’t change, our perception of them does and with this comes peace.

        April 4, 2014 at 2:41 pm
      • editor

        Jobstears,

        Exactly.

        Eileenanne will never EVER say anything positive or interpret anything charitably, unless to support the modernist revolution in the Church. The fact that she’s broken her Lenten resolution not to blog during Lent in order to take yet another swipe at the SSPX says it all.

        April 4, 2014 at 3:29 pm
      • editor

        Eileenanne,

        Father was NOT talking about “feelings” as you seem to be interpreting his words but about the kind of inner peace which all Catholics in good conscience (as opposed to those allegedly in good standing) experience in the sense that such inner tranquillity is the norm in their souls.

        No matter how much the turmoil may appear on the surface in times of tribulation – as all the great saints, mystics, and Doctors of the Church teach – there is always peace in the soul and a real happiness knowing that – as we often say in such circumstances – “God is above it all”.

        Sadly, poor diocesan Catholics are so immersed IN the “feelings” business with no real spiritual nourishment or educaton being provided in their parishes, that they no longer understand the distinction between true spiritual peace and happiness in the soul and the kind of hedonist pleasure peddled as “happiness” in our society. They also pursue a false peace (e.g. the ecumenical/interfaith dialogue nonsense) in the name of going along to get along. It’s all very sad. As we can see from yesterday’s Herald attack on the Church (see that thread) it isn’t working. The Catholic Church remains the most hated institution on the face of the earth. Forget that false peace and follow the example of the great saints to establish true peace in our own souls, and thus realise, in our souls, the true happiness which comes only from God.

        April 4, 2014 at 3:40 pm
  • Benedict Carter

    Dear Editor,

    I work in the Curia in Rome, and after hearing Pope Francis’ wonderful discourse on how we Curia workers must feel joy all the time, I composed this little ditty which will be manically sung on each Feast Day of the Holy Depressives St. Desperate Joyousness and St. Prozac (Curial Patron Saints). It goes like this:

    I skip around like a little lamb
    While eating up all my spam
    Shouting Joy oh Joy it is so nice
    Eating spam with lots of spice.

    Chorus:

    We don’t need no Curial guidelines
    We don’t need no thought control
    No dark Pelagianism in the Curia
    Leave them liberals alone
    Hey!
    Leave them liberals alone.

    I skip around like a little lamb
    While eating up all my spam
    Shouting Joy oh Joy it is so nice
    Eating spam with lots of spice.

    Yours,

    Father Tomasso Mogadon

    April 1, 2014 at 10:08 pm
    • Eileenanne

      So is the priest quoted by Gabriel Syme wrong in his assertion that Catholics should be happy and feel inner peace always? Or is that something different from the joy spoken of by the Pope?

      April 4, 2014 at 1:56 pm
      • editor

        Eileenanne,

        You persistently create false dichotomies. The priest quoted by Gabriel Syme is not wrong – and I’d wager a bet that he’s a great deal more likely to be correct in his assertions about all things Catholic, including the spiritual life, than Pope Francis who contradicts himself like there’s no tomorrow.

        Anyway, here’s Bishop Fulton Sheen – not of the SSPX – on the subject of peace and happiness in the soul:

        “Divinely wise souls often infuriate the worldly-wise because they always see things from the Divine point of view. The worldly are willing to let anyone believe in God if he pleases, but only on condition that a belief in God will mean no more than belief in anything else. They will allow God, provided that God does not matter. But taking God seriously is precisely what makes the saint. As St. Teresa put it, “What is not God to me is nothing.” This passion is called snobbish, intolerant, stupid, and unwarranted intrusion; yet those who resent it deeply wish in their own hearts that they had the saint’s inner peace and happiness.” ― Fulton J. Sheen, Peace of Soul: Timeless Wisdom on Finding Serenity and Joy by the Century’s Most Acclaimed Catholic Bishop

        Well? Do you agree with Fulton Sheen (who is saying exactly the same thing as the SSPX priest quoted by Gabriel Syme?)

        April 4, 2014 at 3:36 pm
  • gabriel syme

    I enjoyed this recent blog post by Fr John Hunwicke, pitched as a “spring examination paper”.

    Questions 3 – 6 were especially titter-worthy:

    Question 3. Construct a treatise, as if written by a German Cardinal, demonstrating that, although Genocide is not, strictly speaking, acceptable in the current state of the Magisterium, it could nevertheless (given its abiding popularity in both the developed and developing worlds) be tolerated.

    Question 4. Construct a treatise, as if written by an Anglo-Irish Cardinal, demonstrating that, although Genocide is not in accordance with the current state of the Magisterium, application of the principles elucidated by Newman in his Essay on Development might, in the future, make it doctrinally acceptable.

    Question 5. Write a Petrarchian sonnet upon your emotional transports of delight when, on 13 March 2013, standing in S Peter’s Square, you heard the words Buona sera; sono il vescovo di Roma. Have a nice day. [Candidates may not describe the physical charms of Beatrice.]

    Question 6. “The excommunications incurred by the SSPX bishops were remitted by Benedict XVI, but they are still excommunicated schismatics”. How, as a pastor, would you explain this fruitful and elegant paradox to a layperson without a doctorate in Canon Law?

    http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/father-hunwickes-spring-examination.html

    I can just imagine the likes of Kaspar or Murphy-O’Connor arguing that we should tolerate Genocide in a “pastoral” sense :laughing:

    April 2, 2014 at 10:43 am
  • gabriel syme

    Here is a good letter from a priest in America, Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S, regarding Cardinal Kaspars assaults on marriage:

    Fr Harrison on Kasper’s Assault on Marriage: “Satan shaking the Church”

    http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/8ed2dad73bcb11bbb3a6ff38c0d8d583-197.html

    The level of influence these German apostates are able to exert on the overall Church is frankly ridiculous.

    April 2, 2014 at 11:12 am
    • editor

      Gabriel Syme,

      I saw Fr Harrison’s letter a week or two ago – it’s very good indeed. Will also pay a visit to Fr John Hunwicke’s blog post asap. Thanks for posting both links.

      I watched the BBC Panorama on Pope Francis’s Revolution this evening and considered posting a thread on it but there’s really nothing new in there at all. It’ll be available to view here soon, if anyone wants to take a look (40 minutes in all)

      Towards the end the presenter points out that the new Pope is popular with the faithful … so the message isn’t getting through to the BBC that not all Catholics are fans of “Holy Father Francis” – by the longest chalk imaginable!

      April 3, 2014 at 12:38 am
  • Graeme Taylor

    Gabriel,
    the German bishops influence, sadly, is all to do with the billions of Euros they have control over. Nothing, in reality, to do with Our Lord and His Truth.

    April 3, 2014 at 9:06 am
  • gabriel syme

    Look at this bigoted anti-Catholic rant in The Herald, masquerading as a TV review.

    A TV program is vaguely alluded to in just three of the paragraphs, the rest is bitter ranting and unfair demonisation, straight out of a Chick tract or similar.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/arts-ents/tv-radio/tv-review-panorama-on-whether-the-new-pope-can-start-a-catholic-revolution.1396510818

    The Herald is truly a cheap, parochial rag and is a publication which has done much to foster and maintain divisions and resentment in Scottish society.

    April 3, 2014 at 9:26 am
  • editor

    N O T I C E …

    I have received the following email from our sometime blogger in the USA, “Wurdesmythe” (Sean)

    Dear friends,

    In your charity, please remember in your prayers the repose of the soul of my father, Robert Romer. He passed away March 24; his death was due to complications arising from multiple sclerosis.

    The obituary and photos are online at
    http://obits.dignitymemorial.com/dignity-memorial/obituary.aspx?n=Robert-Romer&lc=4821&pid=170362228&mid=5905434

    A brief account of dad’s last hours is online at
    http://mapskeysclocks.blogspot.com/2014/03/dad-rip.html

    Thank you and God bless you. END OF MESSAGE

    I’ve just read the account of Mr Romer’s death and it is beautiful. Sean was able to get the priest for his father who had been away from the Church for a long time. Well and truly ‘recommended reading’!

    April 5, 2014 at 7:28 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    I enquired, on this blog, the other day, concerning Priests saying Mass without a congregation, and Miles told me that the Priest makes the responses in lieu of the faithful, i.e Dominus Vobiscum-Et Cum Spirito Tuo, Sursum Corda-Habemus ad Dominum etc. However, I’ve just looked at the current and former codes of Canon Law and this is what they said re Masses without a congregation or server:

    1917 Code of Canon Law prescribed: “A priest is not to celebrate Mass without a server to assist him and make the responses.”

    Making explicit the canonical principle that a proportionate cause excuses from an ecclesiastical law, the present Code of Canon Law states: “A priest may not celebrate the eucharistic Sacrifice without the participation of at least one of the faithful, unless there is a good and reasonable cause for doing so.”

    Could someone clarify this?

    April 7, 2014 at 4:45 pm
    • Miles Immaculatae

      That surprises me.

      I have attended traditional low Mass, where there was no server.

      I was also under the impression priests said private Masses without congregations all the time.

      April 7, 2014 at 6:48 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        But does the Priest say the responses in lieu of the congregation? Why would a Priest say ‘Dominus vobiscum’-‘the Lord be with you’, when they are addressed to the people?

        April 7, 2014 at 7:56 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        In the Mass I was at, this was the case. However, this could have been an irregularity. It does seem strange.

        There will be cases a priest is on his own. Saying the responses himself appears to be the only option. Logically, I would therefore say yes. But I don’t know.

        There is a way to find out. But it is time consuming. The following documents may be available on line. They will contain the required information. But I can’t look for you, these books are enormous!

        Rubricae Generales Missalis (General Rubrics of the Missal) (1960)

        Ritus servandus in celebratione Missae (Rite to be observed in celebrating Mass) (1962)

        Good luck.

        There are actually very few responses in the Mass. As a server, I can tell you, it doesn’t take long to learn them. Seven year olds manage it.

        To be honest, I don’t particularly like the 1962 Mass. Archbishop Lefebvre adhered to it out of necessity, because it was the last legitimate revision of the Missal. However, it is quite possible in the future when the crisis is over, there will be a new Missal which will restore some of the pre-1962 prayers and rubrics, for example, the old octaves of some feasts. In my opinion some of the revisions to Missal before 1962 were good, like the restoration of the Easter Vigil. Some traditionalists dislike even this, however, the Easter Vigil is an ancient practice in the Roman Rite.

        It should be remembered a priest never offers Mass on his own in the mystical sense. There is always a ‘congregation’ even if the priest is on his own: the angels and the saints. If the priest says the responses, he does so on behalf of the angels and the saints, just as he says the Mass on behalf of Christ.

        April 8, 2014 at 5:26 am
  • Lily

    I don’t see the problem. Most times people would be present but say a priest is retired and living alone or if nobody turns up for Mass, then that would be a good and reasonable cause to say it without any faithful present.

    Why does this concern you, if you don’t mind me asking?

    April 7, 2014 at 5:12 pm
    • catholicconvert1

      I have never attended a TLM and was just curious. That’s why it ‘concerns’ me.

      April 7, 2014 at 5:15 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        You live in Yorkshire? Are you able to get to York on a Sunday evening?

        The Oratory of Saint Philip Neri (a very liturgically competent bunch) have taken over this Church:

        http://www.stwilfridsyork.org.uk/mass-times.php

        April 8, 2014 at 5:35 am
      • catholicconvert1

        I could, but I can’t afford. It would be far easier for me to attend a Low Mass at a local Diocesan Church in Halifax which is only a 20 minute bus ride away, as opposed to 45 minutes on the train, costing around £20. Msgr Smith is also v. liturgically competent, and he has a beautiful Church. You can see it on the website, St. Mary’s gibbet street.

        April 8, 2014 at 12:13 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        I like the Oratorians, I was thinking of pursuing a vocation there.

        April 8, 2014 at 12:14 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        Would you not rather go to an SSPX seminary?

        April 8, 2014 at 12:53 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        I could not go to an SSPX seminary, such as in Econe or Flavigny because I do not speak French. In a similar way I could not go to Zaitkofen as I cannot speak German (not fluently- I did an A-level, but it is still garbled and grammatically atrocious when it comes out). Nor could I go to America as I cannot afford. I don’t fancy flying neither.

        April 8, 2014 at 2:16 pm
  • Lily

    Also, since women servers are not allowed at the Tridentine Mass, even if there were women present, and no men, they wouldn’t be able to make the server’s responses, I presume.

    April 7, 2014 at 5:14 pm
    • Miles Immaculatae

      I believe the 1962 missal is a dialogue Mass, so couldn’t women make the responses? As long as they weren’t servers of course.

      April 7, 2014 at 6:52 pm
      • editor

        I dislike the dialogue Masses intensely. Attended one in the USA and another one at the SSPX chapel, of all places, in Lourdes, both some years ago.

        I once attended a traditional Mass (not a traditional priest) where I was the only lay person present. The priest did ask me to say the responses (and ring the bell) but I declined. It’s the sheer peace of the traditional low Mass that I love, so it was not an issue for me to follow the prayers and responses in my missal just as I do at every Mass.

        April 7, 2014 at 7:18 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        ED,

        Is a dialogue Mass the low Mass, but where the congregation says the responses, as well as the server? What is wrong with dialogue Masses? Don’t you sing the responses at a high Mass?

        April 7, 2014 at 7:53 pm
      • 3littleshepherds

        If a priest offers Mass without a server and if there is no one to answer the prayers, he must make all the responses himself. He says the Confiteor only once and omits the words et vobis, fratres, and et vos, fratres. He says the Kyrie nine times himself.
        I’ve been to hundreds of private Masses and there was almost always a server. The occasional Mass without a server took just as long to offer. I’ve also been to many public Masses that had no server.

        April 7, 2014 at 8:55 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        What about when the Priest has to say- ‘pray my brothers and sisters, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the almighty Father. May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands etc’?

        April 8, 2014 at 12:17 pm
      • editor

        Catholic Convert,

        Yes, dialogue Masses are as you describe, but note, they did not exist in the Church until recently. They were, I remember reading somewhere, the liturgy “experts” way of “softening us up” for their future “New Mass” experiments. Be that as it may, they certainly promote the modern error that unless the faithful are making their present felt vocally, they’re not “participating”. I think you might find this article of interest The author, Fr Black, is a Scots SSPX priest.

        As for Sung Masses – I’m afraid I am not a fan of those, either. I love the peace of the quiet low Mass. EOD (End of Distractions)…

        April 7, 2014 at 10:39 pm
      • Vianney

        Editor, the dialogue Mass isn’t quite as recent as people think. Apparently in the 1920s certain churches throughout the world were chosen to start dialogue Masses to see how people took to them and Edinburgh Cathedral was one of those churches. When it was decided to introduce the dialogue Mass throughout the Church it became very popular in the Archdiocese of St Andrews and Edinburgh and I know that many times local people who have visited the Edinburgh chapel have commented that “in the past we didn’t sit in silence, we answered the responses.” In France and Switzerland the dialogue Mass is the norm and I remember one priest saying to me that it is no coincidence that those two countries have the strongest Traditionalist movements. Sometimes when we have French visitors at Mass we end up with dialogue because the visitors answer the responses and the natives join in. On one such occasion one of our regulars (now passed away and over a hundred when she died) remarked “oh that took me back, that’s what it used to be like in the local parishes.”

        April 7, 2014 at 11:23 pm
      • editor

        Vianney,

        I find it intensely irritating when people answer the responses. It happened when I was in the USA and it just rankles with me. Why on earth there is this need to speak out the responses, beats me.

        But when you say that in the 1920’s “certain churches were chosen to start dialogue Masses to see how the people took to them” the question arises…

        WHO chose them? Who decided that we needed dialogue Masses?

        Yes, you are correct, they seem to have started in the 20’s not 50’s but that’s still “recently” – it’s a very short time in the great historical scheme of things, as I believe Fr Black points out in his article – what did you think of his arguments?

        We never had them in my parish as I was growing up, and it’s news to me that you had them in Edinburgh. One learns something new every day, Vianney. Doesn’t one?

        April 7, 2014 at 11:47 pm
      • greatpretender51

        I agree with you, Editor: the faithful answering the responses seems quite out of place. It has a definite Novus Ordo feel to it. That does not happen in our Society chapel, thank goodness. The only dialogue going on during Mass, among the faithful, is parents reminding their children to keep silent and pay attention! (Which is actually more of a one-way conversation…)

        That said, I find Vianney’s statement quite odd, that these Dialogue Masses were the most common in the two counties with the strongest Traditionalist movements, i.e. France and Switzerland. You would think it should be the opposite.

        Is Abp. Lefebvre on record anywhere with his opinion on Dialogue Masses?

        April 8, 2014 at 12:19 am
      • Vianney

        “Is Abp. Lefebvre on record anywhere with his opinion on Dialogue Masses?”

        The Archbishop was French so would be used to the Dialogue Mass, in fact, a few years ago I had the privilege of attending Mass celebrated by him in a small upstairs chapel at Econe and those present answered the responses with gusto.

        April 8, 2014 at 11:04 pm
      • editor

        Vianney,

        That is very disappointing indeed. Very disappointing.

        April 10, 2014 at 3:31 pm
      • Vianney

        Editor, haven’t a clue how they chose the churches and as those who chose them are probably all deid we will never know.
        You are right about learning something new every day, stick with me kid, I’ll keep you right. lol.

        April 8, 2014 at 10:44 pm
      • greatpretender51

        “As for Sung Masses – I’m afraid I am not a fan of those, either.”

        Gee whiz, Editor, here I allowed myself to be roped into the Schola last year thinking you might be quite pleased with my chanting and singing! That is, when I can figure out why certain neumes are held longer when they are not marked as such….

        April 8, 2014 at 12:38 am
      • Miles Immaculatae

        You remind me of a priest I know. He loves the silence of low Mass.

        I do as well, but I love sung Solemn High Mass. For me that is absolute perfection.

        I wish we had one in Glasgow, at least once a month like before.

        April 8, 2014 at 5:39 am
      • editor

        Miles,

        This “absolute perfection” didn’t arrive on the scene until the 18th century, according to Fr Black (see article I linked above) – here’s a short extract:

        “…the fact that Sung Mass (Missa Cantata) only appeared in the 18th century and bilingual missals for laity in the 19th suggests that the idea of active lay participation – if such an idea existed at the time – was , in fact, discouraged. That this state of affairs existed for more than 1000 years must surely mean that it cannot be considered merely as an abuse as the result of neglect of the laity by the popes and ecclesiastical authorities.”

        April 8, 2014 at 9:49 am
      • Miles Immaculatae

        I don’t think I fully understand what you mean.

        I believe Missa Cantata is rather a form of low Mass, whereas I was referring to Solemn High Mass. Solemn High Mass properly uses plainsong, which goes all the way back to the ancient Church.

        I don’t particularly have much taste for the kinds of ‘orchestral’ Masses you get in some places, like for example in the English Oratories. But these needn’t be used for Solemn High Mass. What I meant by ‘sung Mass’ could in fact be a purely chanted Mass, using only chants from the Liber, without the accompaniment of the organ. That is the simplest and most austere from of ‘sung Mass’ possible, and that’s what we had at Saint Andrew’s Glasgow, last time.

        As a musician, personally I love singing Gregorian chant. I think it’s a good thing, and the laity should learn how to sing chant if they get the opportunity. Although they shouldn’t be forced to. In the past, only clergy sang because they were the only ones who could read Latin and musical notation. Things are different now. Just because it’s a relative innovation doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing. I wish more folk would participate in sung Mass at Saint Andrew’s, although I respect it is their decision, and they are not required to.

        April 8, 2014 at 11:36 am
      • gabriel syme

        I wish more folk would participate in sung Mass at Saint Andrew’s, although I respect it is their decision, and they are not required to.
        ———

        Agreed Miles, I would really like a sung mass at St Andrews too – even if only once per month or whatever was practicable.

        April 8, 2014 at 12:01 pm
      • Vianney

        “I would really like a sung mass at St Andrews too – even if only once per month or whatever was practicable.”

        Do you have people who would be able and willing to sing? If you did then the priests would be only too willing to have a Sung Mass. In Edinburgh we have one on the first Sunday of the Month. We have a good choir and they do a good job. We are having a few Sung Masses in the next couple of weeks. We had one on Sunday, we are having one this Sunday, one on Holy Thursday and another on Easter Sunday (with Easter eggs being distributed to everyone after Mass.)

        I have to say that I like a Sung Mass and find it very uplifting.

        April 8, 2014 at 10:54 pm
      • Whistleblower

        “Just because it’s a relative innovation doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing.”

        Miles,

        I have always said this. The celebration of the liturgy, as far as I am led to believe, wasn’t perfect in the 1950s and early 60s. We should be aiming to “restore all things in Christ” not harking back to 1950s liturgical rubbish.

        More power to your elbow!

        April 8, 2014 at 9:59 pm
      • editor

        Whistleblower,

        You’re winding us up. Watch it 😯

        April 8, 2014 at 11:25 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        Saint Augustine says, that to sing is to pray twice. By singing I really meant chanting.

        I suppose this is what I meant by ‘absolute perfection’: i.e. to sing Mass is logically the most perfect way to pray it, according to my preference.

        But I appreciate your preference is for low Mass, which I respect. I wasn’t criticising that.

        April 8, 2014 at 11:40 am
      • Vianney

        “I love the peace of the quiet low Mass.”

        Just a thought, what do you think about the singing of hymns during low Masses on a Sunday? I know that many people would like more singing at a low Mass and I know that in the parish I used to attend the 6.30 and 7.30 Masses had no singing, the 9 am had two hymns, the 10.15 am had four hymns and the 11.30 am was the Sung Mass.

        April 8, 2014 at 11:12 pm
      • editor

        Vianney,

        In my youth (what a memory!) during the distribution of Holy Communion, we had organ & choir provide Panis Angelicus and Ave Maria. Absolutely beautiful. Then at the end (what today they call the “recessional”) we sang a hymn in the vernacular – a great way of instilling/reinforcing solid doctrine and a love of the Faith. There were no happy clappy songs in those – increasingly – far off days :grin:)

        My only memory of sung/high Masses is when the archbishop paid us a visit, and a friend from the same parish has the same memory, she told me recently.

        However, that’s not to say I’m/she’s not mistaken. Another friend thinks it was normal for every parish to have a sung Mass – usually the noon Mass – but this only reinforced my belief that we didn’t have them regularly, since I was into late night prayer vigils at that time and often attended the 12 noon Mass on Sundays, as a result. Quite a contrast with my weekends these days when, as you all know, I’m often out and about in the pubs and clubs…

        😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀

        April 8, 2014 at 11:23 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        Low Mass is profoundly venerable, and often preferred by some people, which is perfectly fine. However, low Mass is an abbreviation of the Mass for practical reasons.The default norm for Mass is solemn High Mass: sub-deacon and deacon, chant, incense etc.. Some people believe these are added extras, but they are not, they are the default norm. If a parish has the ability and resources to offer Solemn High Mass on Sundays/ Feasts, then it must do so. In the Eastern rites, Mass must always has these elements, and there is no equivalent of low Mass.

        Not all the responses are sung, no. The only parts of Mass which the congregation would sing are the Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, Angus Dei, and perhaps a couple of others like the Deo Gratias after the solemn dismissal and the Credo. The ‘schola’ sing the entrance, tract, alleluia, offertory, and communion chants as well.

        Unfortunately, outside of traditional orders, most seminaries produce priests who are absolutely incompetent in Latin, liturgy and music. This has accelerated the liturgical destruction.

        April 8, 2014 at 5:52 am
      • Whistleblower

        Low Mass was once an innovation!

        April 8, 2014 at 10:00 pm
      • editor

        Whistleblower,

        So were pay rises for Catholic Truth bloggers! Get with the programme if you want your Easter bonus!

        April 8, 2014 at 11:26 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        I agree. I’ve never been to a dialogue Mass, but I know I would find it a distraction. I wouldn’t take to it. Just as well it hasn’t caught on.

        Another thing I dislike is collect, epistle and gospel recited in English. It is permissible. But the practice supports the idea that the readings in the Mass are solely for the instruction of the faithful. Which they are not, they have a adorational element as well.

        April 8, 2014 at 5:04 am
      • editor

        Miles,

        I’ve never heard the collect read in English but I do like the epistle and Gospel to be given in English as well as in Latin, for the sake of young parents struggling with babies who may not be able to follow their missals. When I used to take my then (wriggling) toddler nephew out to the back, I was always grateful to be able to hear the readings in English after they’d been read in Latin.

        April 8, 2014 at 9:53 am
      • Miles Immaculatae

        Oh that’s different. Of course I do not resent the readings in English from the pulpit before the Sunday sermon, after they have already been prayed in Latin. In this case, the readings do take on a purely instructional role.

        What I meant was the practice of the priest replacing the Latin Epistle and Gospel at the altar with English. Whereby the readings are only read once, in English alone.

        April 8, 2014 at 11:44 am
    • Vianney

      Lily, a woman can answer the responses and ring the bell if there are no men present but would do so from outwith the sanctuary.

      April 7, 2014 at 10:59 pm
      • editor

        Vianney,

        I’m very glad I didn’t know that – I must be inherently lazy, just let me follow my missal in peace and quiet, is my liturgical motto.

        April 7, 2014 at 11:50 pm
    • Vianney

      Lily, I replied to you but for some reason it has appeared further down the page.

      April 7, 2014 at 11:24 pm
  • catholicconvert1 April 7, 2014 at 5:16 pm
    • editor

      Catholic Convert,

      “Totally shocking” is right. That report is utterly horrendous. Who, in their right mind, would consult that doctor – about anything?

      April 7, 2014 at 7:13 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        Well said Ed. I suppose ‘totally shocking’ was an understatement. Maybe there’s a Mengele in every doctor??

        April 7, 2014 at 7:52 pm
      • Eileenanne

        That is like saying there is an abuser in every priest.

        April 21, 2014 at 10:00 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        Didn’t you see the ‘maybe’? Keep up will you.

        April 22, 2014 at 9:52 pm
  • gabriel syme

    Rorate Caeli reports that Pope Francis was without warning introduced to a couple at mass. 6 of the couple’s 9 children are members of the Franciscan Friars (2) and Sisters (4) of the Immaculate and they asked the Pope to end the FFI intervention:

    http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/04/intervention-in-franciscans-of.html

    April 7, 2014 at 10:43 pm
    • editor

      Gabriel Syme,

      Thanks for that alert – we must keep an eye to see precisely how “soon” the intervention ends. Why does “don’t let’s hold our breath” spring to mind?

      PS bet Pope Francis got the shock of his life when he realised to whom he was being introduced. Why does “rabbit caught in headlights” also spring to mind 😀

      April 7, 2014 at 11:55 pm
  • Miles Immaculatae

    The following link is of relevance to the recent discussions about extra-terrestrials on this blog.

    Is the Vatican hiding aliens?

    http://angelqueen.org/2014/04/08/is-the-vatican-hiding-aliens/

    April 9, 2014 at 12:49 pm
    • catholicconvert1

      I for one think that this alien business is absolute hokum. I just can’t for the life in me, believe in aliens. It is totally against all Christian and scriptural teaching. Man is the pinnacle of creation. That being said, I did love the comments about Pope Francis, Card. Kasper and Card. O’Malley.

      Beam me up Scottie.

      April 9, 2014 at 2:51 pm
      • Margaret Mary

        That’s just amazing about the aliens and Vatican. It’s very true that when you think you’ve heard everything, you hear something even worse. I agree with Catholic Convert this is rubbish.

        April 9, 2014 at 3:55 pm
  • editor

    N O T I C E . . .

    Just to remind everyone that the blog will be closed down on Palm Sunday for Holy Week, in order that we may all concentrate on reflecting on the suffering and death of Our Lord. We will re-open on Easter Sunday with a thread to congratulate Catholic Convert who is being received into the Church at the Easter Vigil. Don’t you be going and taking cold feet now, Catholic Convert 😀

    As ever, if there is some major dire event (or wonderful news) we may launch a thread – otherwise, we’ll be closing as usual for the duration of Holy Week. Miss you all already!

    April 9, 2014 at 3:50 pm
  • fryderykfranciszekchopin

    http://bookstore.wau.org/productdetails.cfm?sku=BJPGE3

    I found an ad for this book in a Catholic devotional booklet…I think they were celebrating the canonizations of Popes John Paul II and John XXIII by saying that they reached out across all boundaries and all religions.

    I’m already doing a paper evaluating the political unrest, moral collapse and wars in the world in the light of the Fatima apparitions; now I have a horrible feeling my teacher will want me to to do an apologetics paper on why these canonizations are troublesome :'(

    April 10, 2014 at 8:38 pm
    • editor

      Chopin,

      On and after April 27th we’d love to hear more about that troublesome (:grin: )teacher and those wonderful (:shock:) canonisations.

      As I’ve just said to Paul below, however, we’re reserving that discussion until the canonisations have taken place, in order to make sure that we fully understand the issues and don’t make the mistake of going down the wrong road.

      But since you touch on politics and Fatima, I’ll be looking for your opinion on the new thread about the brand new history we seem to have acquired, where we will be celebrating the Protestant Reformation (not the Fatima apparitions) in 2017.

      Truly, you couldn’t make it up !

      April 10, 2014 at 9:12 pm
  • Paul Commins

    Comment removed

    Paul,

    Thank you for taking the time to comment, but I have looked at the site your recommend and it is not suitable for us here. We will be discussing the canonisations if and when they occur (and since God does not usually interfere with our free choices, they are very likely to occur) at which time you are welcome to participate in our discussion. Until then, we’re focusing on other topics.

    I hope you understand but, if not, hey, what’s one more enemy? 😀

    April 10, 2014 at 8:57 pm
  • catholicconvert1 April 11, 2014 at 11:12 am
    • Miles Immaculatae

      The above links are sedevacantist websites.

      April 11, 2014 at 3:02 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        OK, sorry Miles, I didn’t know that. The sedevacantists despise traditionalist Catholics as much as they despise the modernists.

        April 11, 2014 at 3:17 pm
  • Miles Immaculatae

    Clerical celibacy under attack again. By Pope Francis:

    http://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/659/0/pope-francis-married-men-could-be-ordained-priests-if-world-s-bishops-agree-on-it-

    The idea that clerical celibacy is a mere discipline and that the Church can change it because it is not doctrinal is an absolute myth! But we hear it all the time.

    The reality is, the default norm for all priests in celibacy. This is the gold standard. Always has been. Married clergy is a deviation from this norm for practical reasons. No such reasons exist today.

    April 11, 2014 at 3:07 pm
    • catholicconvert1

      Miles,

      After reading the Tablet’s usually well balanced (?!!£$%) piece, I have come to the conclusion that permanent Deacons were introduced in order to, amongst other things, soften the laity up for married Priests. How can a Priest fulfil his duties and ministry when he has a family, or ‘things of the world’ as St. Paul put it? Here are statistics (outdated) on the territorial prelature of Xingu- http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dxing.html#stats

      I was reading John Allen’s book, ‘Secrets and power inside the Catholic Church: Opus Dei’, some time ago, and one thing stuck in my mind. An Opus Dei Priest in Peru (or Bolivia) had to make a journey through dangerous terrain in order to minister to remote mountain communities on a regular basis. How could he do that if he had a wife and children? A proper father wouldn’t want to leave them. Similarly, an Anglican vicar, at the top of my road, had a wife who used to catch the same train as me on a morning. She was a leftist. However, she told me that she made her husband, the vicar, turn the phone off at night lest a parishioner should phone and wake her and the kids up!!!! That is not commitment by any stretch of the imagination.

      Practical reasons aside, I would be interested to know the doctrinal reasons. I have always understood celibacy to be a discipline. I know that in the Bible, celibacy, is preferred by Christ and St. Paul.

      April 11, 2014 at 3:28 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        That’s what I meant by doctrinal. It’s not absolutely necessary if there is a good reason, but it’s preferred. To me ‘discipline’ sounds ambivalent.

        April 11, 2014 at 4:43 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    What obligations are members of the SSPX Third Order under? Can one join it if one attends SSPX on, say, a monthly basis, but attends the NO most of the time?

    April 11, 2014 at 4:14 pm
    • gabriel syme

      CC,

      The obligations for third order members are twofold:

      I) First those obligations common to all Catholics
      – morning and evening prayer
      – daily rosary
      – confession at least once per month

      II) Additional obligations for the third order:
      – habitual abstinence from television
      – 15 minutes of mental prayer daily (or daily mass, if possible)
      – a retreat once every two years

      See here for further information:

      http://www.fsspx.org/en/presentation/the-third-order/the-third-order-2/

      The SSPX would never recommend attending the NO – I expect they would advise you to simply attend their Churches as often as possible, even if only once per month is possible.

      To be honest, once you were “used” to the mass of all time, you would not wish to return to the NO. That has been my experience – I now find the NO jarring to the senses in various ways and generally dissatisfying.

      When the NO was all I knew, I thought it crazy to hear traditionalists refer to the NO as “protestant”. But I promise you, that is *exactly* what you will think if you ever experience the NO as a Latin mass attendee.

      April 11, 2014 at 5:24 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        If I did cross over to the SSPX and attended their Masses on a monthly basis, what would my PP think? Would I have not wasted six months of his life through the RCIA?

        April 11, 2014 at 7:01 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        Merely attending an SSPX Mass does not ‘make’ you SSPX. You cannot be a member of the SSPX unless you are a priest, consecrated person or a member of the third order. You as a layman are a member of your diocese, and whether or not the diocese likes it, this cannot be revoked solely by attending an SSPX chapel.

        One may attend a public Mass at an SSPX chapel anonymously. They do not take an attendance register. There are people at my chapel who turn up, and leave straight after Mass, not speaking to anybody. And that’s because the society respects it is essentially a private matter. Contrary to what some neo-Catholics may believe, the society is not a cult.

        Where you attend Mass is none of your parish priest’s business. Once you are received, you are a member of the universal Church. You are legally Catholic. You may therefore fulfil your Sunday obligation at any Mass in a Catholic rite that you so wish.

        I told a priest in ‘good canonical standing’ I attended Mass at the SSPX. He did not oppose this, in fact, he said he did the same when he was younger. However, other priests will inevitably be different. Your parish priest may very well hold a condemnatory stance toward the SSPX. In fact, that’s likely. Just don’t tell your priest. What’s the problem?

        Being a member of the third order is a vocation. Most laypersons who attend SSPX chapels are not members. In fact, I don’t know any.

        I share Gabriel’s sentiments. Attending the Novus Ordo was bad enough, I managed. However, after I had become conditioned through habitual attendance at the Traditional Mass, going back to the Novus Ordo was impossible. So much so, that I couldn’t attend the Novus Ordo, even if that was the only Mass available (this is morally legitimate).

        Apart from your priest, other Catholic friends/ acquaintances may reject and condemn you if it is known you attend an SSPX chapel. You may experience an unexpected reaction that constitutes a fratricidal hatred of the sort you previously imagined was reserved only for the most wicked of reprobates. This is not an exaggeration. I myself have lost friends due to the diabolical disorientation in the Church.

        For me, the Novus Ordo constitutes a spiritual and psychic trauma. It is dangerous to my mental health. The last few times I went to the Novus Ordo I had to wear ear plugs because of the sensory assault on my hearing. Even thinking of the Novus Ordo invites intrusive and unwanted flashbacks which case distress. I have no intention to expose myself to further psychological harm. To the liberal dissident or neo-Catholic, this sounds histrionic. They cannot empathise with this because they lack the ‘sensus catholicus‘, which is a gift from God. If they had it they would feel the same.

        The Novus Ordo Missae is evil. This is profoundly offensive to neo-Catholics, but I mean this in the philosophical sense, not the polemical sense. (Of course, I do not deny it is an approved rite that is normatively valid.)

        April 11, 2014 at 8:00 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        Thanks, Miles. I will endeavour to attend either the ICKSP Chapel in the Wirral (irregularly due to distance) and the SSPX Church in Preston or Manchester. You may remember Naomi on the blog? She lives near me so i’ll go with her, as she has graciously offered to drive me. I share your concern about the NO. Evening Masses were psychologically traumatic for me. I could feel myself having a mental breakdown, what with guitars and a choir that couldn’t sing. They wouldn’t know Gregorian chant if it came up to them with bells on. I switched to morning Masses as they used the organ and a half decent choir.

        I’m a borderline aspie like you, so I hate the touchy feely nature of the NO. I could go to Mass and not gorm a living soul- but the humans insist on talking.

        April 11, 2014 at 10:15 pm
    • WurdeSmythe

      May will make 11 years since I made my profession as an SSPX tertiary. Gabriel “Thursday” Syme provided a useful link to the rule for the Third Order. The spirit of the SSPX Third Order is devotion to the traditional mass, so a tertiary would not go to the NO.

      April 12, 2014 at 2:39 am
  • Leo

    On the question of clerical celibacy, raised in Miles Immaculatae’s post of 3.07pm , if a priest has difficulty with the vow of chastity, what makes those seeking its abrogation confident that the vows of marriage are any less testing? Chastity and fidelity for the laity, whatever their station in life, are no less demanding. In view of our fallen nature, who amongst the promoters of the possibility of married clergy can say that priests would have no difficulty with marriage vows? And is a priest to have two spouses; the Church of Christ and a wife? How long would it be before liberals started talking about annulments, separations, and divorces for any married clergy?

    Does anyone ever hear talk of sanctifying grace in all this discussion, except from those who support priestly celibacy.

    The constant talk of priestly celibacy indicates an apparent obsession with sexual matters amongst liberals. As indeed they have been for dissenters and heretics throughout Church history. As with so much else of the novus ordo nuclear devastation in the last five decades the demand for the abandonment of priestly vows of celibacy links back to a loss of a sense of the supernatural. The blurring of the distinction between the natural and the supernatural is of course one of the cornerstones of the New Theology. Also, it must be said that the spiritual dimension to priestly celibacy is really far more important than the practical arguments. On the issue of priestly celibacy, I fear all the casual talk about “discipline” as opposed to “dogma” really has done nothing but undermine the value of celibacy in the minds of many Catholics, priests included.

    The following link to a short article should prove informative on the matter of the tradition of priestly celibacy.

    http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/celibacy_for_deacons.htm

    The following are just a few excerpts that I picked out.

    “This tradition was solemnly proclaimed by the Council of Nicea, the first ecumenical council, in 325 AD. Canon no. 3, unanimously approved by the Fathers, made no concession whatsoever. The prohibition imposed thereby on all bishops, priests and deacons against having a wife is considered absolute; and all subsequent councils that have addressed the subject have renewed this interdiction.

    “If the Church has the right and power to abolish her own decrees, she cannot abolish those which have been indicated to her by Christ and His Apostles. This is what was affirmed by the Council of Carthage in 390 AD when, explaining the inviolability and the universality of the discipline decreed by the Nicean Council, the Fathers stated that celibacy is of Apostolic tradition. For instance, St. Epiphanius, Father of the Church, wrote, ‘It is the Apostles themselves who decreed this law.’ St. Jerome also testified:
    ‘Priests and deacons must be either virgins or widowers before being ordained, or at least observe perpetual continence after their ordination… If married men find this difficult to endure, they should not turn against me, but rather against Holy Writ and the entire ecclesiastical order.’

    Pope St. Innocent I (401-417 AD) wrote in the same vein:
    ‘This is not a matter of imposing upon the clergy new and arbitrary obligations, but rather of reminding them of those which the tradition of the Apostles and the Fathers has transmitted to us.’

    “If in fact the foundation of clerical celibacy is doctrinal and not disciplinary, it is because the cleric in major orders, by virtue of his ordination, contracts a marriage with the Church, and he cannot be a bigamist…

    “…St. Peter Damian (1007-1072) wrote:
    ‘No one can be ignorant of the fact that all the Fathers of the Catholic Church unanimously imposed the inviolable rule of continence on clerics in major orders. The Body of the Lord in the sacrament of the altar is the same as the one carried by the immaculate hands of the Virgin at Bethlehem. To be able to touch It, it is necessary to have pure hands, sanctified by perfect continence’.”

    I think it fair to say, that whatever the motives, the attack on the law of priestly celibacy, which goes back to the Apostles (Pius XI, Ad Catholici Sacerdotii Fastigium December 20 1935), is an attack on the holiness of the priesthood. Just as no one has a right to be ordained a priest, no man is forced to be ordained.

    “…We regard (celibacy) as the greatest glory of the catholic priesthood and what seems to us to be the most perfect fulfillment of the wishes and designs of the Sacred Heart for the sanctification of his priests.” Encyclical Ad Catholici Sacerdotii Fastigium, Pius XI December 20 1935

    Surely priestly celibacy is part of the solution of the crisis in the Church today? The priesthood is a life of sacrifice.

    “The priestly office demands of you, so to say, various particular forms of sacrifice amongst which is that primary and complete sacrifice of self in devotion to Christ which is made by celibacy.” – Pius XII Discourse to the Seminarians of the Roman Colleges, June 24 1939.

    “…This zeal for the glory of God and the salvation of souls, so characteristic of our Redeemer, should so inflame and so to speak, consume the heart of the priest that, forgetting self and personal interests, he will dedicate himself entirely to this sublime mission…”- Encyclical Ad Catholici Sacerdotii Fastigium, Pius XI December 20 1935.

    “In the words of the angelic Doctor, the use of marriage ‘holds back the soul from complete dedication to the service of God.”- Summa Theologica II-II, q.186, a. 4.

    Celibacy is also related to a priests role of acting as an alter Christus, serving at the Altar. As Archbishop Lefebvre said, priestly celibacy is related to faith in the Mass. It is surely not out of place to say the novus ordo Mass, by undermining the sacrificial aspect of the Mass has undermined the understanding of priestly celibacy. By replacing thoughts and words of the Mass as a sacrifice with those of an assembly, is it not inevitable that many priests will lose a grasp of their reason for being a priest: i.e. the Sacrifice?

    April 11, 2014 at 5:40 pm
  • Petrus

    I feel I must, in good conscience, respond to one or two of the erroneous comments on the thread just closed. This is my last word on the matter because I see that some people are letting human emotions get in the way of the facts.

    This is nothing to do with the SSPX being part of the Church, or a parrellel church etc. that argument is a complete red herring. The fundamental issue is that of the validity of Baptism. My wife was an “existing Catholic on paper” to use Miles’ words, but was asked to stop receiving Holy Communion once the priest discovered she hadn’t been conditionally baptised. Sure they won’t go round asking “Are you a convert? Have you been conditionally baptised?”. However, a person who has not been validly baptised cannot receive any other Sacrament.

    Indeed, the SSPX insisted on investigating the validity of my marriage when they discovered my wife hadn’t been conditionally baptised. When we were married in a modern parish, my wife had not yet converted so a dispensation was sought. The dispensation was for “A Catholic wishing to marry a baptised Christian of another denomination”. The SSPX queried whether this dispensation was correct, considering they couldn’t be certain of the validity of my wife’s baptism. So, the notion that “it’s none if the SSPX’s business and they do not ask for a membership card” is simplistic. The SSPX know fine well that all is not well in the modern Church and protect the dignity of the Sacraments.

    I note Vianney’s comment about Church of England copying what the Catholic Church does. Whilst that may have been true of the “High Church” Anglo-catholic parishes of the 40s and 50s, I’m not sure how certain we can be of that today. We can be even less certain of the evangelical wing of the C of E. it certainly seems to have been the case in the USA too, according to this paragraph by Fr Peter Scott:

    “However, the usual situation is that it is practically impossible to prove the validity of the Protestant baptism. Since the investigation is very difficult to do and the validity of the Protestant baptism practically impossible to establish, the custom before Vatican II was to baptize conditionally practically every convert being received into the Church. This is still the practice of traditional priests, who are aware of their obligation to guarantee with certainty the validity of the sacrament. This does not mean that the validity of Protestant baptisms is denied, but simply that they do not have the certitude. [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]”

    For the life of me I cannot believe that bloggers are happy to tell CC that he should ignore this issue when Baptism is so important. The fact remains that if he has not been validly baptised then he is not a Catholic and cannot receive any of the other Sacraments.

    April 21, 2014 at 7:18 am
    • Petrus

      This article from New Advent sums this matter up succinctly :

      Conditional baptism

      From the foregoing it is evident that not all baptism administered by heretics or schismatics is invalid. On the contrary, if the proper matter and form be used and the one conferring the sacrament really “intends to perform what the Church performs” the baptism is undoubtedly valid. This is also authoritatively stated in the decree for the Armenians and the canons of the Council of Trent already given. The question becomes a practical one when converts to the Faith have to be dealt with. If there were one authorized mode of baptizing among the sects, and if the necessity and true significance of the sacrament were uniformly taught and put in practice among them, there would be little difficulty as to the status of converts from the sects. But there is no such unity of teaching and practice among them, and consequently the particular case of each convert must be examined into when there is question of his reception into the Church. For not only are there religious denominations in which baptism is in all probability not validly administered, but there are those also which have a ritual sufficient indeed for validity, but in practice the likelihood of their members having received baptism validly is more than doubtful. As a consequence converts must be dealt with differently. If it be certain that a convert was validly baptized in heresy, the sacrament is not repeated, but the ceremonies which had been omitted in such baptism are to be supplied, unless the bishop, for sufficient reasons, judges that they can be dispensed with. (For the United States, see the First Council of Baltimore.) If it be uncertain whether the convert’s baptism was valid or not, then he is to be baptized conditionally. In such cases the ritual is: “If thou art not yet baptized, then I baptize thee in the name”, etc. The First Synod of Westminster, England, directs that adult converts are to be baptized not publicly but privately with holy water (i.e. not the consecrated baptismal water) and without the usual ceremonies (Decr. xvi). Practically, converts in the United States are almost invariably baptized either absolutely or conditionally, not because the baptism administered by heretics is held to be invalid, but because it is generally impossible to discover whether they had ever been properly baptized. Even in cases where a ceremony had certainly been performed, reasonable doubt of validity will generally remain, on account of either the intention of the administrator or the mode of administration. Still each case must be examined into (S. C. Inquis., 20 Nov., 1878) lest the sacrament be sacrilegiously repeated.

      As to the baptism of the various sects, Sabetti (no. 662) states that the Oriental Churches and the “Old Catholics” generally administer baptism accurately; the Socinians and Quakers do not baptize at all; the Baptists use the rite only for adults, and the efficacy of their baptism has been called in question owing to the separation of the matter and the form, for the latter is pronounced before the immersion takes place; the Congregationalists, Unitarians and Universalists deny the necessity of baptism, and hence the presumption is that they do not administer it accurately; the Methodists and Presbyterians baptize by aspersion or sprinkling, and it may be reasonably doubted whether the water has touched the body and flowed upon it; among the Episcopalians many consider baptism to have no true efficacy and to be merely an empty ceremony, and consequently there is a well-grounded fear that they are not sufficiently careful in its administration. To this may be added, that Episcopalians often baptize by aspersion, and though such a method is undoubtedly valid if properly employed, yet in practice it is quite possible that the sprinkled water may not touch the skin. Sabetti also notes that ministers of the same sect do not everywhere follow a uniform method of baptizing.

      The practical method of reconciling heretics with the Church is as follows:– If baptism be conferred absolutely, the convert is to make no abjuration or profession of faith, nor is he to make a confession of his sins and receive absolution, because the sacrament of regeneration washes away his past offences. If his baptism is to be conditional, he must first make an abjuration of his errors, or a profession of faith, then receive the conditional baptism, and lastly make a sacramental confession followed by conditional absolution. If the convert’s former baptism was judged to be certainly valid, he is only to make the abjuration or the profession of faith and receive absolution from the censures he may have incurred (Excerpta Rit. Rom., 1878). The abjuration or profession of faith here prescribed is the Creed of Pius IV, translated into the vernacular. In the case of conditional baptism, the confession may precede the administration of the rite and the conditional absolution be imparted after the baptism. This is often done as a matter of fact, as the confession is an excellent preparation for the reception of the sacrament (De Herdt, VI, viii; Sabetti, no. 725).

      April 21, 2014 at 7:27 am
      • Michaela

        Petrus,

        You should not accuse everyone of “letting human emotions get in the way of the facts.”

        Catholic Convert has said he will check out what you are saying. What else do you want him to do? None of the rest of us has any authority to do anything, so please do not insult us by implying that we are all inferior to you in some way because we are not taking your side in this.

        You go on about your wife’s situation – how would you have liked it if other lay people had badgered you about her reception into the Church? Yes, the priest said what he said but he had some authority – no lay person has that authority. I think you may have told them to mind their own business, and you would have been right to do so.

        CC has said he will look into the matter. That’s all he can do. As far as the rest of us are concerned, he has been received into the Church and nobody here has any authority to cast doubts on that.

        I hope editor will come on to end this questioning of the validity of his baptism. I’m sure it must be very upsetting for CC.

        April 21, 2014 at 9:06 am
      • Petrus

        Michaela,

        On the contrary, I was very grateful for the comments of numerous lay people who advised me when it came to the validity of my wife’s baptism, my confirmation and my marriage.

        Yes, Catholic Convert has said he will look into the matter. Great. I have never claimed authority to cast doubt on the matter. However, the practice of the Church sets a precedent. The “rest of you” might believe that CC has been received into the Church, but that means nothing. Since there is always doubt over Protestant baptism you, nor anyone else, can state with any certainty that his baptism is valid, just like I cannot state with certainty that it wasn’t valid. I refer you to the link above from Fr Peter Scott and the New Advent. This isn’t really all that difficult to understand.

        It’s very sad that such an important issue cannot be discussed without sensitive souls calling for discussions to be closed down.

        April 21, 2014 at 9:24 am
      • editor

        Michaela,

        Thank you for your comments of concern about Catholic Convert. Don’t worry about him – I’m in email contact with him and although he was very unsettled at what he read on his “Congratulations” thread, he is fine now.

        As you say, he is doing all he can by promising that he will look into the matter of the validity of his baptism – once again; he did, remember, contact Fr Nicholas Mary well in advance of his reception, and Fr Nicholas Mary is an SSPX-affiliated priest.

        As a very sound traditional priest assured me some time ago in a similar situation, we must presume in such cases that the baptism/reception/marriage, whatever is valid since we cannot possibly know otherwise. Therefore, there’s little point in going round in circles “discussing” it. It’s puzzling that anyone would want to continue on the subject when it’s clear that (a) Catholic Convert has promised to, yet again, check it out, or, more accurately, double-check it and (b) it is not for us to make any judgments in the matter, but, rather, we must presume the best and congratulate Catholic Convert who has not only faithfully attended his instructions but has blogged regularly here to ask questions seeking the truth and wanting to make sure that he is on the right track.

        I repeat – don’t worry about Catholic Convert – he’s fine now but thank you for your concern. I suggest, Michaela, that you don’t respond to any more comments on this subject, It’s now up to Catholic Convert and I know that he is double-checking the matter. In other words, there’s nothing more to be said.

        God bless.

        April 21, 2014 at 10:06 am
      • Petrus

        Editor,

        You’re a scream! 🙂

        April 21, 2014 at 10:11 am
      • Petrus

        What we must conclude from all of this is that the confusion that is running rife in the Church is evident in the SSPX too. The Catholic Encyclodpedia, as well as numerous SSPX priests, as well as the practice of the Church prior to the Council, tells us that when we cannot be certain of validity the Church errs on the side of caution. Respectfully, Father Nicholas Mary needs to look at this issue again before handing out advice contrary to the tradition of the Church.

        What is evident once again, is that there are two types of responses. Several bloggers have responded objectively but a number of sensitive souls with an emotional disposition have shyed away from looking at this issue through the lenses of “let’s forget about Truth and try not to upset Catholic Convert”.

        April 21, 2014 at 10:17 am
      • Josephine

        Petrus,

        Nobody has “shyed away” from anything. Everybody is wrong except you, is what I’m reading, sorry but that’s how it looks.

        I see that CC is going to look into the matter again having already taken your advice to consult an SSPX priest. What more do you want from us here?

        I’m not one of the “sensitive souls” as you put it, but I think you were wrong to spoil the day for CC when there wasn’t anything he could do about the matter. I think you are very in-sensitive, though, not to be able to let the matter drop. You don’t seem to be able to see that it’s not about upsetting CC but about not being able to do anything about it anyway. So, what is it you want us all to do or say? Is it a pat on the back for all your knowledge about baptism and validity? I don’t know what you want. Sorry to be blunt, but unless you say what it is you want, I won’t understand what you are on about.

        April 21, 2014 at 10:30 am
      • Petrus

        Josephine,

        I am not wrong. Not because my opinion is correct , but only because I have provided documentary evidence of what the practice of the Church was before the Council. But hey, if you and the rest of the bloggers think it’s ok to ignore this and draw your own conclusions, what do I care? It seems that the spirit of Vatican II is alive and kicking!

        April 21, 2014 at 10:39 am
      • Josephine

        Petrus,

        You are being very insulting in your posts saying there are “a number of sensitive souls with an emotional disposition” suggesting psychological instability in some of us. That is disgraceful.

        You keep on about us all “ignoring this” but we’ve pointed out that it’s not our business. Editor has said that Catholic Convert is looking into it, so I repeat my question which you’ve ignored. What do you want us to do about it? Is it not good enough for you that Catholic Convert is checking it out – what more can he or we do? Please answer this, without suggesting that I’m a “sensitive soul” or “emotional”.

        What is it you want from us now?

        April 21, 2014 at 11:39 am
      • Petrus

        Josephine,

        I think we are at crossed wires here on a number of levels. First of all, I’m not for one minute suggesting that it is psychological instability. Some people show more emotion than others. This doesn’t imply that they have psychological problems. It’s rather worrying that you think it does.

        It’s not your business to comment on the teaching of the Church regarding validity of the Sacraments? It’s not your business to comment on the practice of the year prior to the Second Vatican Council? Goodness, we would never discuss anything if we took it to that extreme.

        Now, let’s look at the matter objectively and take Catholic Convert out of the equation. Your, and others, inability to do this is what has ruined a vitally important discussion. If a person is received into the Church and there are doubts over their Baptism, they are not Catholic and cannot receive any other Sacrament. If we simply smile and congratulate, always congratulating ourselves about “minding our own business” and this person goes on to request “ordination” – we could be “ministered to” by a non-Catholic posing as a priest. I couldn’t think of anything that is MORE my business. I’m flabbergasted that some other people cannot see this.

        This isn’t about sticking our noses into Catholic Convert, or anyone else’s business. The editor has quite rightly said that we cannot come to any conclusion about the validity of a baptism, marriage, confirmation, whatever.

        So, I repeat: this is not about Catholic Convert’s specific case. He has said he will go and double check. God bless him for it. He has done more than most to make sure he is doing the right thing and I respect him for it.

        What this IS about is the negligent attitude/ignorance of modern priests (and perhaps some not so modern priests) who do not protect the integrity and dignity of the Sacraments by properly preparing catechumens. It’s a downright scandal. Let me give you an example from my own parish. A man was being received into the Church and a week before the Easter Vigil the parish priest said, “Oh by the way, have you been Baptised?” The man answered, “Ermmmm I’m not sure. I’m sure I’ve seen a picture of me as a baby with my two aunts and I’m dressed in a baptismal gown.” The parish priest said, “Oh that’s fine”. He didn’t ask anything else. This is scandalous. THIS is one of reasons why I am highlighting this issue.

        If I made this too personal towards Catholic Convert I apologise to him. That wasn’t my intention. My intention was only to highlight the practice of the Church and the negligence, confusion and inconsistency of several priests, modern and traditional.

        I hope that has cleared up the matter. It’s not about an individual case.

        April 21, 2014 at 5:31 pm
  • editor

    David Cameron’s sudden concerns about the UK being “Christian” isn’t fooling many people. Christian Concern (Anglican group) have pointed out that there are clear political motives for this because, they say, he has offended Christians over a range of issues.

    I think he’s clearly worried at the unexpected backlash over same-sex marriage and is now in the business of trying to fool at least some of the people some of the time – especially at election time. Won’t wash. Here’s one report which shows he’s now made enemies of everyone else! Compromising truth = trying to be all things to one and all, and it really doesn’t work. He’s struggling to learn that, so it will be interesting to see where his sudden bout of concern for the national Christian identity of the UK leads. Watch this space. Or maybe not… Personally, I think this latest little political enterprise will end in tears. They’ve got Peter Tatchell on the case. End of 😀

    April 21, 2014 at 7:25 pm
    • Petrus

      Editor,

      I couldn’t agree more. In fact, David Cameron could be the most anti-Christian Prime Minister we have ever had. Look at the Sins that cry out to Heaven for Vengeance:

      1. Exploitation of the poor – the “Bedroom Tax” and cutting Child Benefit etc.

      2. Defrauding Labourers of their wages – robbing public servants of their pensions etc.

      3. Wilful Murder – DC said a lot about reducing the limit for abortion before the election. It’s never come to anything.

      4. The sin of Sodom – his Government were the first to bring in Gay Marriage.

      If David Cameron is a Christian then I’m changing my name to Muhammed Singh Goldberg!

      April 21, 2014 at 7:36 pm
      • Nicky

        Petrus,

        “If David Cameron is a Christian then I’m changing my name to Muhammed Singh Goldberg!”

        That made me laugh and oh how I agree with you. Cameron is an idiot if he thinks anyone will fall for his sudden Christian conviction.

        April 21, 2014 at 8:13 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        I can personally tell you that the ‘bedroom tax’ has caused a lot of misery for a lot of people.

        My mother for example, she has been hit hard. She cannot afford to move house. She has lived here for years and it would be a huge upheaval to just pack up and leave. If she can’t afford bedroom tax, she could hardly afford removal men and all the additional costs and efforts involved in moving. These politicians don’t seem to realise this. Not only that, there are no homes for her to move to! And nobody wants our house, simply because, they would likely be hit by bedroom tax as well.

        My mother is not a work-shy layabout: she is a mature student who gets student loan, and she has dependants.

        I live in George Osborne’s constituency. It is fairly wealthy. Nevertheless, many sick and disabled people have been affected by the ‘tax’ here.

        We live in a society where two parents in a family who work, full time, still find themselves living below the bread line. Work doesn’t pay: low wages don’t cover high costs of living (food, fuel, ever increasing energy bills). However, companies like Amazon continue to exploit workers in our country, but themselves enjoy tax privileges. What a twisted system. Working people are using food banks. And the majority of people who receive social security benefits are working!

        Murder is commonplace on our hospital wards. The elderly sick are now routinely and frequently denied food and water so that they die quicker. This happened to a relative in 2008. The practice has increased. Human-animal chimeras are being harvested for embryonic research in labs up and down the country.

        And how ironic, it was not Labour or the LibDems who introduced homosexual marriage, no, it was single-handedly introduced by the Tories! And adoption as well as IVF/ surrogacy/ gamete donation for homosexual couples has increased, creating many Frankenstein families.

        And finally, what has DC done to help persecuted and martyred Christians in the middle-east? Not much. Perhaps nothing?

        April 21, 2014 at 8:26 pm
      • Nicky

        Miles Immaculatae,

        “I live in George Osborne’s constituency. It is fairly wealthy.”

        So is George Osborne. He’s a millionaire like plenty of others in Cameron’s cabinet. I’ve no time for any of them. I hope they’re trounced at the next election, because there are so many people like your mother who are suffering under their tyrannical rule. They’re anything but Christian, the lot of them.

        April 21, 2014 at 8:31 pm
      • Petrus

        I don’t mind politicians being wealthy. What I do mind is when the wealthy look after their wealthy friends whilst exploiting the poor.

        April 21, 2014 at 8:33 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        Being rich is fine. But this lot mostly went to Eton and Oxford. Boris, George and David were all in the Bullingdon Club. A lot of them are likely in the same lodge, Freemasonically speaking.

        April 21, 2014 at 8:50 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        Even Thatcher was a grammar school girl who worked in industry after she graduated, studied for the bar and ran for parliament the old fashioned way. John Major didn’t even go to university.

        Cameron on the other-hand was working for the Tories as a researcher straight out of Oxford. It was if he was groomed for high Tory leadership. The whole establishment seems to have regressed back a century.

        April 21, 2014 at 8:55 pm
      • Eileenanne

        Much to his chagrin David. Cameron was not in the Bullingdon Club. Boris was.

        April 21, 2014 at 10:13 pm
      • gabriel syme

        They were both members, see here:

        http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2010/03/14/the-bullingdon-club/

        April 21, 2014 at 10:43 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        Madam, Cameron was. Are you picking fights again?

        April 21, 2014 at 11:20 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        Eileenanne,

        DC most certainly was in the Bullingdon Club, as is the journalist David Dimbleby. One of the rites of initiation is to burn a £50 note in front of a tramp. I think Iain Duncan Cough should also be excommunicated due to his public support for sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance. He penalises the poor and supports sodomites relationships. How this man can go and receive communion is beyond me!

        April 22, 2014 at 12:14 pm
      • Eileenanne

        I was sure I saw a TV programme about David Cameron and Boris Johnson in which much was made of Cameron’s failure to be a member. I stand corrected.

        April 24, 2014 at 11:36 am
      • Petrus

        Well said, Miles. This “end of life” care plan is horrendous. When my Gran was dying in 2010, the doctor was desperate for her to be moved onto one of these care plans. Thankfully, she was cared for at home by her children and died peacefully at home.

        April 21, 2014 at 8:32 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        I have spoken to Catholic medical students/ Catholic medics about this, and they are completely in denial. They also don’t like laypeople expressing too much of an opinion about medicine. One thing all doctors have in common, even the Catholic ones, is too high a regard for their own profession. In our society, our morals come from technocrats (medics, scientists, economists etc.), whereas in a Christian society, the technocrats’ morals come from the Gospel.

        April 21, 2014 at 8:43 pm
      • gabriel syme

        One thing all doctors have in common, even the Catholic ones, is too high a regard for their own profession
        —————–

        Truer words were never spoken!

        April 21, 2014 at 10:45 pm
      • editor

        Agreed. I think it was Frankier who once made the point that the same folk who use the excuse of “abuser priests” to justify never darkening the doorstep of a church for the rest of their lives, wouldn’t stop going to the doctor just because of bad doctors like Harold Shipman. Bad and negligent and even murderous doctors are, like Islamic terrorists, always the exception in the Land of Double Standards.

        April 21, 2014 at 11:55 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        The government reforms have also directly affected me. My father is being ‘medically examined’ by Atos and they have judged him to be ‘fit for work’, despite the fact he has grade 4 osteoarthritis in his right knee, irreparable nerve damage, muscle wasting and pseudo-locking. My dad broke his leg coming home from work at a mill, in a motorcycle accident!!!! Hardly a coaster when he did 12 hour shifts in a dyehouse. I wonder if that chinless person in number 10 can say the same?

        There have been others like this, such as a man with heart disease, who was sent back to work and dying shortly after and a man with chronic emphysema being judged fit for work. A legless soldier was asked to touch his toes during an examination. You couldn’t make it up.

        April 22, 2014 at 12:21 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        Atos would declare a dead donkey fit for work.

        April 22, 2014 at 6:31 pm
    • catholicconvert1

      I think the Humanist Association was being offended for the sake of being offended. It is interesting how the leaders of the HA, Andrew Copson and the NSS, Porteous Wood and Sanderson are active homosexuals. They also mentioned that Jews signed it and Muslims. Well, correct me if I’m wrong, but the Jews have hated Christ and His Church since the crucifixion.

      April 22, 2014 at 12:27 pm
      • Dr John Dowden

        Yes, you are wrong. It is always a mistake to start making remarks about ‘the Jews …’ the result will almost inevitably be anti-semitic. It is untrue to say ‘the Jews’ hold the views you attribute to them. Jewish people do have reason to be wary of Christian anti-semitism but otherwise have no need to take a view on other religions. On our side, we really have got good historical reasons to be careful how we speak on these issues – now that you have crossed the Tiber. it might be time to discover the head office line on these issues.

        April 25, 2014 at 12:14 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        Christ Himself said ‘he who is not for me is against me’. The Jews are against Him. Jews cannot plead ignorance as Jesus is in the Talmud, where He is denounced as a ‘bastard’ and the B.V.M is denounced as a ‘whore’. If I called you a bastard or your mother a whore, you would assume that I was your enemy.

        April 26, 2014 at 10:18 pm
  • Helen

    I regularly read this blog but have never before now contributed to it. However, upon reading all the posts regarding the validity of Protestant baptisms, I feel compelled to write. My brother-in-law (Eddie) was received into the Catholic Church in 1984. He had been baptised in the Church of England as an infant. Prior to his reception the priest said his baptism was valid. He is now a very well informed Catholic indeed.

    In 2005, Eddie started attending the Tridentine Mass down in England. Somebody made the same points as Petrus has been making about the validity of his earlier baptism and this worried him greatly. He asked 3 priests about this: one a society priest, one a traditional monk and the last one an Oratorian Father. All three said that his C of E baptism was indeed valid. Therefore I don’t think it is very kind to be unsettling Catholic Convert on this matter. Obviously, if there was truly a question mark over this something would have to be said but I don’t think there is.

    Congratulations Catholic convert!

    April 22, 2014 at 9:59 am
    • Petrus

      Helen,

      It really is unbelievable that these comments are still being made. For the last time, Conditional Baptism was the norm before the Second Vatican Council. It matters not what three priests said in 1984! So all of those here who have happily ignored this and argued to the contrary must believe that the Church was wrong to insist on this. That’s the only logical conclusion.

      What is absolutely clear is that anyone who offers an opinion that differs from that of the flavour of the month blogging establishment they are at best ignored and at worse accused of being unkind. This is true even when that opinion is based on the traditional practice of the Church as shown by the quoting documentary evidence. It would seem that all bloggers are equal, but some are more equal than others!

      April 22, 2014 at 10:57 pm
      • Petrus

        Helen,

        Really it matters not what you think. What matters is what the Church has always done. As I said, the Spirit of Vatican II is alive and kicking here.

        April 22, 2014 at 11:00 pm
      • editor

        Petrus,

        I’m sure you have many other things to keep you busy, so this post is intended to draw a line under the issues which appear to vex you with regard to Catholic Convert’s reception into the Church.

        On what was intended to be a “Congratulations” thread for Catholic Convert, you reminded us that you have pointed out more than once to CC – prior to his being received into the Church – that he ought to check with a traditional priest about conditional baptism etc. That should have been an end to your interest in the matter. You should, in other words, have presumed, in charity, that CC would have followed your advice and made all due enquiries. You are not in any position of authority over him, nor do you hold any responsibility for him, least of all in spiritual matters.

        The Catholic spirit (our duty) is to make the point/highlight the error, whatever it is, and then leave it – as God does – to the conscientious free choice of the individual concerned. God doesn’t force anyone to do the right thing and neither should any of us.

        As he told you on the Congratulations thread, CC did, in fact, follow your advice way back when you first suggested he check his situation with a traditional priest, asking me for contact details for a traditional priest which I supplied. The priest replied to him at great length. I have seen his email. It is thoroughly sourced and solid. There is nothing in it to contradict Catholic teaching prior to Vatican II.

        Still, when you persisted, CC promised to double check the situation as soon as possible. He was, as I know from his emails, unsettled by your comments about your wife being told by a traditional priest not to receive Holy Communion until she had the Sacrament of Baptism repeated. He is very anxious to do the right thing. Despite being told that the situation of a convert from the Church of Scotland is entirely different from an Anglican convert, he still worried about his situation. You did a great job, Petrus.

        With his permission I spoke to a traditional priest, outlining what has been happening on the blog. Father lamented the unnecessary distress caused on the blog to the new convert and told me that he must definitely NOT stop receiving the Sacraments, that he must continue to receive Holy Communion/Confession etc and that since the new convert has said on the blog quite openly that the correct form of the Sacrament of Confirmation was not used, he ought to have that repeated at the first opportunity, but not to in any way worry about it. Also, to put his mind at rest, he should be conditionally baptised “just in case”. Father added that this need not be done by Society priests – “a good ‘conservative’ priest could do it just the same.” There may well be extremist nuts among the laity in the Society, but I don’t think anyone could accuse the clergy of being anything other than balanced and sensible. That’s not a personal remark aimed at you but merely a general observation – I’ve never found the Society priests to be anything but intelligently sensible when seeking their opinion on a whole range of things.

        I have tried my best not to intervene in this matter, hoping that you would realise the truth of what others have pointed out – put simply, it’s not any of our business whether CC was conditionally baptised or not – having pointed out the changes in the rites, and having suggested he look into conditional baptism, the right thing for us to do is leave it to him and to mind our own business. Our duty is done once we’ve passed on the information. If I were to chase everyone with whom I’m in contact in a whole range of situations of similar ilk, in the dogged way you have pursued this matter, I’d be recovering in the funny farm ward of the nearest hospital. And that after my nervous exhaustion had been treated. “Over the top” springs to mind.

        In conclusion, I must repeat, you made the point about conditional baptism prior to the reception of Catholic Convert and it was therefore inexcusable for you to spoil what should have been a wonderful, memorable occasion for him. Your duty was done. You should have presumed the best and wished him every blessing instead of making jibes about the “spirit of Vatican II” which is anything but “alive and kicking” on this blog, as you know perfectly well. That was just silly and childish, if not downright nasty.

        Now, I would prefer you to let the matter drop – but I doubt if you will You’ll want the last word. All the rest of us can do is hope that your last word is “sorry” and is sincerely addressed to CC.

        April 23, 2014 at 12:24 am
      • Petrus

        Editor,

        You are correct. I apologise to Catholic Convert for unsettling him. I should have taken his word that he would investigate and let the matter drop.

        Catholic Convert,

        Please accept my apology. I wish you well and ask for your prayers. Be assured of mine.

        I apologise to the other bloggers for derailing several discussions.

        April 23, 2014 at 11:01 am
      • editor

        Petrus,

        So the rumour is true then – there will be THREE (not two) canonisations next Sunday 😯

        Thanks for your humble apology. It’s good to meet someone else with that virtue (humility). It gets lonely up here in the heights of holiness sometimes 😀

        April 23, 2014 at 11:29 am
      • Petrus

        Editor,

        Wow! I love to boast about my humility too! We have so much in common. Isn’t it great being so humble and righteous? 🙂

        April 23, 2014 at 11:37 am
      • editor

        Petrus,

        Well, I’m not sure about “righteous” although, as an old Parish Priest of mine used to say: “I might not always be right, but I’m never wrong” 😉

        April 23, 2014 at 12:06 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        Thank you for your apology Petrus. I apologise for being a ‘nervous Purvis’. I will pray for you, and I request that you pray for me as I search for the truth.

        April 23, 2014 at 10:15 pm
      • Petrus

        Catholic Convert,

        Thank you for your good grace. As editor said on a previous thread, stick close to Our Lady and you won’t go wrong.

        April 23, 2014 at 10:23 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        Thank you Petrus. As the late Hilaire Belloc said, ‘the grace of God is found in common courtesy’. God bless you.

        April 24, 2014 at 10:53 am
    • Dr John Dowden

      Work has got this horrible habit of getting in the way of blogging, but belated congratulations to ‘Catholic Convert’. Now that you have crossed the Tiber, does the name change to become ‘Anglican Pervert’?

      April 25, 2014 at 12:07 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        ‘Anglican pervert’? How do you mean?

        April 26, 2014 at 10:14 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    Could someone please explain to me which is the preferred way to say the Stations of the Cross? Do traditionalist Catholics use the ‘traditional’ form that includes St Veronica, or John Paul II’s scriptural Stations? I was just curious, given that St Veronica is not actually in the Bible.

    April 22, 2014 at 10:06 pm
    • Miles Immaculatae

      John Paul II’s ‘Way of the Cross’ is apparently more ‘Scriptural’. I suspect its invention was an ecumenical gesture, for the benefit of those Christians who reject the extra-Biblical content of the Traditional devotion.

      You are free to practice the new devotion because it does not contain anything contrary to faith or morals.

      However, I would caution the attitude that the new devotion is somehow ‘superior’ due to its professes ‘Biblicism’. I would also caution the view that both are the same devotion. They are not, they are different devotions, albeit misleading with the same name. Similarly, the Luminous mysteries are a new devotion, a new chaplet, they are not part of the Rosary devotion. The 15 decade form of the Rosary is inherent to the devotion itself.

      Personally I think the creation of this new devotion is a cause for yet more confusion for the faithful. The Traditional stations are profoundly meritorious, tried and tested, and have been a source of great sanctity for the Church and the saints. They are also highly indulgenced ( I am unsure whether the new devotion caries the same indulgences, if you are interested you will have to consult the the Enchiridion of Indulgences). I wouldn’t make things harder for yourself: Just stick with the old ones.

      April 22, 2014 at 11:13 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        As my old granny (RIP) said: ‘old is best’.

        April 24, 2014 at 10:56 am
    • editor

      Catholic Convert,

      Below, is an extract from the traditional form of the Stations with which I grew up. They are used during Lent in the traditional chapel which I attend. However, when making the Stations on our own, as one of our priests recently reminded us, there is no particular form that we must use. We may say our own prayers at each Station.

      The following extract is from the traditional form –

      The Way of the Cross by Saint Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1787), with Scriptural references and the stanzas of the Stabat Mater (in Latin and English) added:
      ________________________________________
      SIGN OF THE CROSS AND FORMATION OF INTENTIONS

      (Make the Sign of the Cross and say:)

      In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end.
      (Now one forms the intention of gaining indulgences, either for one’s self or for others)

      ACT OF CONTRITION
      My Lord Jesus Christ, Thou hast made this journey to die for me with love unutterable, and I have so many times unworthily abandoned Thee; but now I love Thee with my whole heart, and because I love Thee I repent sincerely for having ever offended Thee. Pardon me, my God, and permit me to accompany Thee on this journey. Thou goest to die for love of me; I wish also, my beloved Redeemer, to die for love of Thee. My Jesus, I will live and die always united to Thee.

      ________________________________________
      FIRST STATION
      Jesus is Condemned to Death
      (John 3:16, Isaiah 53:7, John 18:33-John 19:1-16)

      V. We adore Thee, O Christ, and we praise Thee.
      R. Because by Thy holy cross Thou hast redeemed the world.

      Consider, that Jesus, after having been scourged and crowned with thorns, was unjustly condemned by Pilate to die on the cross. My adorable Jesus, it was not Pilate, no, it was my sins, that condemned Thee to die. I beseech Thee, by the merits of this sorrowful journey, to assist my soul in its journey toward eternity.

      I love Thee, my beloved Jesus; I love Thee more than myself; I repent with my whole heart of having offended Thee. Never permit me to separate myself from Thee again. Grant that I may love Thee always; and then do with me what Thou wilt.

      All:
      Our Father, Who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy Name. Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth, as it is in Heaven. And give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

      Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the Fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.

      Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

      Stabat Mater Stanza:

      Stabat Mater dolorosa (At the cross her station keeping)
      Juxta crucem lacrymosa (Stood the mournful Mother weeping)
      Dum pendebat Filius (Close to Jesus to the last)

      Response:

      Sancta Mater, istud agas ( Holy Mother! pierce me through)
      Crucifixi fige plagas (In my heart each wound renew)
      Cordi meo valide (Of my Saviour crucified)

      Source (including rest of the Stations)

      April 22, 2014 at 11:34 pm
    • WurdeSmythe

      St Veronica is not actually in the Bible.

      Neither is John Paul II.

      April 23, 2014 at 2:11 am
      • Eileenanne

        As the Staions of the Cross is a private devotion we can make them in any way we like. We can spend as long or short a time as we wish meditating on each staion and use whatever prayers and / or readings we find helpful.

        The St, Alphonsus version is probably still the most popular, but many many other suggestions are available in prayer books and online. Different versions will appeal to different people. I have a fairly modern version that I like, but I always use the traditional “We adore thee O Christ …” and “I love thee Jesus my love…” with any versions of the satations.

        April 24, 2014 at 11:41 am
      • catholicconvert1

        I like the Stations with meditations by Cardinal Newman. Does one have to genuflect during the Stations?

        April 24, 2014 at 11:56 am
      • Eileenanne

        It is usual, but not essential if it’s difficult for you.

        April 24, 2014 at 4:12 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        It’s not difficult, as I’m a spring chicken, but do you genuflect at the start, before you say ‘we adore thee O Christ’?

        April 26, 2014 at 10:13 pm
  • Miles Immaculatae

    More on Pope Francis and Communion for the Remarried.

    However, it is very unclear what was actually said.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100268718/pope-francis-phones-divorced-woman-to-say-she-can-receive-communion-this-is-potentially-a-huge-story/

    April 23, 2014 at 5:54 pm
    • catholicconvert1

      There have been numerous rumours similar to this knocking about. I personally don’t believe them. Any tom, dick or harry can say they got a call from Il Papa. Ooh…did I mention? I received a phone call from Cardinal Parolin, inviting me to his stag do!!!

      April 23, 2014 at 7:36 pm