General Discussion (4)

General Discussion (4)

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.


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

Comments (540)

  • gabriel syme

    What to make of the latest SSPX-Rome rumours?

    Recently, I saw in a +Fellay statement that – since the advent of Francis – Rome had made a low-key approach to restart discussions, but that +Fellay felt it best to take a breather for a short while.

    Now there are rumours swirling around the internet that Rome is poised to offer the SSPX something which is (I think) called “Recognition of tolerance” on a trial basis. Apparently this means no agreement needs to be reached, or anything signed, instead they will simply try to tolerate one another!

    I think it is just make-believe, as I have seen nothing official or hugely credible about it. Most of the discussion seems to be on foreign-language Catholic forums. The root of it seems to have been the website of former-SSPX Bishop Williamson, though he in turn refers to “bad news from France”.

    Given the source and kinds of people involved in discussing this, I don’t think its genuine but is in fact an attack on the SSPX by ex members/adherents – eg there are claims of their capitulation etc, if Rome is offering this etc.

    it also seems strange that Rome would offer some generous deal to the SSPX, whilst still oppressing the FFI.

    So I am pretty sure these new rumours are just gossip, but what have others heard / think?

    May 8, 2014 at 12:30 pm
    • Petrus

      Gabriel Syme,

      I agree with you – I think this is fantasy.

      If it were true, I’d hope Bishop Fellay would tell them to get stuffed. We don’t tolerate heresy.

      May 8, 2014 at 12:35 pm
    • Miles Immaculatae

      These rumours first appeared on Bishop Williamson’s blog. It must be remembered that he is paranoid, and for a long time now he has been convinced that Bishop Fellay is determined to join “modernist Rome”. Now that it is obvious Bishop Fellay has had no such intention, Bishop Williamson is imagining things, so he can keep up his ‘Resistance’ project. After-all, you can’t be resistance without something to resist.

      May 8, 2014 at 4:42 pm
      • Petrus


        Well said. In fact, I would caution everyone to ignore rumours of any kind that surface on the Internet. The last time this happened, a number of people went well and truly off the rails.

        As for Bishop Williamson, I think His Lordship lost the place a long time ago.

        May 8, 2014 at 4:49 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        Williamson is hardly credible anyway. He makes himself appear rather foolish by saying only around 300,000 Jews died in the Holocaust, and thus makes the SSPX look rather foolish. There are many people of his ilk in the Society, with extreme far right views, regarding the Jews etc, and I know that he is no longer part of it, but as they say, ‘mud sticks’. He is more than paranoid, I think he has mental health problems.

        May 8, 2014 at 5:48 pm
      • Petrus

        Catholic Convert,

        I think you should be very careful. Your comments are coming across as ill informed at best and uncharitable at worst.

        Now, have you ever been to a SSPX Mass? Have you ever met a SSPX priest? There are not many people in the SSPX who have crazy views. They are in the minority.

        I do not agree with Bishop Williamson about the numbers killed in the holocaust. I think it was foolish because he is not an expert and it’s not a bishop’s role to comment on these things publicly. But to be honest, I am sick to the back teeth of hearing him demonised for it. I tell you what, I would entrust my soul to Bishop Williamson any day before I would go near any of the bishops in the Uk.

        To be honest I’m astounded at some of your recent posts. You speak of wanting to attend the SSPX but then say you have issues because of some of the attitudes towards Matthew 16:18. I’m still waiting on you explaining that one. Then you find Eileenanne, our resident Modernist in Chiefess, “edifying” and now this! I like you a lot, Catholic Convert. I’ve always liked and admired you. But I think you need to nail your colours to the mast and declare which side you are on.

        May 8, 2014 at 6:07 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        It took me a few years. CC is a neophyte. I don’t think it is fair to insinuate he is a ‘fence-sitter’.

        May 8, 2014 at 6:14 pm
      • Petrus


        I know what you are saying. However, I don’t think you were reading this blog for the few years it took you. Catholic Convert, to his credit, has been on this blog for a good while now.

        My comments weren’t exactly criticising him per se. These are confusing times. Sometimes it takes strong words, said charitably (which I hope I did) to nudge someone in the right direction.

        Believe me, I got plenty of strong words from editor, Athanasius, Leprechaun etc when I came to the blog almost 7 years ago now. Without those strong words I might not have “clicked” until much later.

        What really has to be challenged is the offensive remarks about the SSPX. These are ill informed and need to be challenged.

        May 8, 2014 at 6:22 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        I re-read the bit about “mud sticks” etc.. I didn’t absorb that part when I read it, hurriedly. I suppose you have a point.

        May 8, 2014 at 6:33 pm
      • catholicconvert1


        I’ll start with commenting on what you said regarding Elieenanne concerning her posts on the Legion of Mary. It was edifying because it was well-balanced. Miles, whom I like very much and admire because he is a very articulate blogger, on the otherhand did not seem to be very objective, and did not mention any positives on the Legion and what good it still does.

        Regarding my comments on the SSPX, Williamson and the Jews. There are many anti-Semitic elements, but they are, like you say are a vocal minority, and that clouds issues. The vast majority of SSPX attendees are devoted to the Holy Mother Church. However, my gripe is the way SSPXers denigrate and question the validity of the faith and the sacraments of the NO Mass attendees. My comments are not ill informed and Williamson’s views on the Holocaust, such as his citation of the Leuchter Report have been debunked. As you say Bishops should stick within the realm of faith and morals, not historical revisionism.

        I have actually spoken to an SSPX PP in the UK, and he was one of the most courteous men I’ve spoken to. He’s clearly a good man, needless to say it’s vocal minorities who cloud outcasts judgements on the SSPX, and make people wary. This presents a wrong image of the Church prior to the Council.

        To be frank, I don’t care where I attend the TLM. I’ll most likely attend it at the Diocesan Low Mass in Halifax, out of convenience as I cannot get to Preston or Manchester on Sundays. I would be happy with the FSSP or the ICKSP.

        I very strongly sympathise with the traditionalist position, to combat the loss of faith, adherence to doctrine and liturgical abuse. I refuse to nail my colours to the mast. There are many NO Mass attenders who have a great faith and my sponsor and his family attend it (though they like the ‘EF’). I refuse to alienate them. That is all I will say.

        As for Miles’ comment below, I am not a ‘neo-phyte’, but a fully fledged Catholic. I was confirmed on the 19th of April. I’m as Catholic as Petrus, you, Editor and anyone else.

        May 8, 2014 at 7:08 pm
      • Petrus

        Catholic Convert,

        You are a neophyte. This is someone who has recently converted to the Faith. I believe there’s usually a “Mass of Neophytes” which takes place around about Pentecost.

        There are very good Catholics who mean well and attend the New Mass. Most don’t know any better. YOU do, Catholic Convert.

        A diocesan or FSSP TLM is certainly better than the New Mass. However, I have to be honest. Anyone (I speak in general terms, not aimed specifically at you, CC) who is happy to attend Modernist groups like the FSSP is part of the problem, not the solution. A good book to read is “Iota Unum” by Archbishop Lefebvre. I believe “Iota Unum” should be the motto of every true Traditional Catholic. We will not compromise! Not “Iota Unum”. Error has no rights.

        May 8, 2014 at 7:31 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        A neophyte is a fully fledged Catholic.

        It’s not a insult. If anything it is the exact opposite: it denotes spiritual purity and spiritual childhood. I was once proud to call myself a neophyte, which you are entitled to do about a year after baptism. I suppose you aren’t strictly one though, because you were baptised in infancy.

        Bishop Williamson has been expelled from the SSPX. You probably know that, I just thought I would bring it up to help the conversation.

        May 8, 2014 at 7:43 pm
      • editor

        Catholic Convert,

        You won’t find Eileenanne too “well balanced” when writing about Catholic Truth.

        And if being “well balanced” means tolerating error and sacrilege (such as Communion in the hand) than, far from being a virtue, it is a matter of grave concern.

        May 8, 2014 at 9:29 pm
      • catholicconvert1


        I know Eileenanne is a modernist, but I took it upon myself to praise her objective viewpoints re the Legion of Mary. The fact is, I say my Rosary daily, so I have no need to join it. I was just enquiring. That’s not a sin.

        May 8, 2014 at 9:41 pm
      • editor


        Well said. I’m finding it highly confusing trying to make sense of Catholic Convert’s position. My best advice to one and all is to leave him alone now, to go wherever he chooses. He’s getting all the key information here, but if, as I suspect, he is asking advice from this diocesan priest or that diocesan layperson, it’ll take him much longer for the truth to really sink in. You’ve all done your best to educate him in the crisis – time to leave it to him now, to exercise his free will, clear in the knowledge that we will all have to account for our choices in due course.

        May 8, 2014 at 9:27 pm
      • catholicconvert1


        It’s not healthy for young (not to mention glamorous and witty) gals such as yourself to be getting confused. Please rest assured that my ‘colours’ are fully nailed on the traditionalist mast. My sympathies fully lie with those who follow the ‘faith of our fathers’. I get all my spiritual formation from my spiritual reading, and I do not consult any Priests, as I want theological clarity not gobbledegook. You must understand that I’m in a very difficult position, and I have to attend an NO Mass most of the time. Thr truth has ‘sunk in’, but I will say that I’m a victim of circumstance. As soon as the opportunity presents itself, as I have said, I will attend the TLM with the FSSP, ICKSP or the Oratorians, or any other available outlet. Attendance at an SSPX chapel is also a strong possibility. It would be harder for me to receive Communion at an SSPX chapel, though. An SSPX priest (name removed by editor) said he would not give me Communion, due to doubts over my confirmation, even though two other SSPX priests (names removed by editor) said my Anglican Baptism was valid, and my confirmation in the NO was valid. The Priest used olive oil and said ‘be sealed with the gifts of the Holy Spirit’. One SSPX priest said that was valid form:

        “Regarding Confirmation, you should know that the Sacrament of Confirmation can usually be conferred conditionally on those who were confirmed according to the Novus Ordo rite only. Throughout the history of the Church, olive oil was always and only used for the confection of Sacred Chrism and was considered to be necessary for the validity of the Sacrament of Confirmation. The olive, pressed in order to give its oil used for nourishment and healing represents Our Lord Jesus Christ, pressed and crushed in the Garden of Olives and on Calvary in order to give us life. Since Vatican II, other oils (usually vegetable oil) are commonly used for the confection of Chrism. Given the crisis in the Church and the constant practice of nineteen centuries to use olive oil even in times when it was difficult to obtain it, there is a legitimate doubt hanging over the validity of many Confirmations conferred in the Novus Ordo. The formula itself is certainly not invalid, but it is quite likely that olive oil was not used in the confection of the Sacred Chrism”.

        Olive oil was definitely used, because I asked the PP and he said it would be invalid if it wasn’t used. I followed advice given on the blog.

        If the SSPX cannot accept me as a valid Catholic, and sees me as inferior, then there is nothing I can say to that. To follow such reasoning is to say that one must be confirmed by an SSPX Priest to be a ‘true blue’ trad.

        As for your last statement, I don’t like the insinuation that Catholics who attend the NO Mass are at risk of losing their place in the economy of salvation. All of the Catholics I know are faithful to doctrine, they just seem afraid to speak it.

        May 8, 2014 at 9:58 pm
      • Petrus

        “To follow such reasoning is to say that one must be confirmed by an SSPX Priest to be a ‘true blue’ trad.”

        Catholic Convert,

        The SSPX priests don’t usually administer Confirmation. The ordinary minister of this sacrament is a bishop. Now, the only desire of the SSPX is to keep the Faith and do things properly.

        I don’t know how certain the parish priest could be that the oil was olive based. He would have collected it from his diocesan bishop after the Mass of Chrism. He might know that it should be olive oil, but I don’t think he could be certain.

        Please be assured that no on thinks you are inferior in any way. Just arrange for the Sacraments to be administered conditionally for your own piece of mind. The SSPX care greatly for souls, that’s their only agenda.

        May 8, 2014 at 10:10 pm
      • editor


        Please do not let’s go down this road again. If his priest is certain that the oil was olive oil, why should anyone question him? It never crossed my mind as an eleven year old to ask the Archbishop of Glasgow to convince me that he was using valid matter etc.

        Enough has been said on this matter and CC has been in touch with enough SSPX priests to hold his own Vatican III Council, so let’s leave it there.

        Even if he chooses to have the Sacrament of Confirmation conditionally re-administered, that has no bearing on his freedom to receive Holy Communion. I received Holy Communion for four years before my Confirmation. On the tongue, kneeling, by the way 😀

        May 8, 2014 at 10:34 pm
      • Petrus


        My apologies. I didn’t mean to carry on that particular conversation. I just didn’t want Catholic Convert to think that anyone, particularly the SSPX, viewed him as “inferior”. I was trying to reassure him that the SSPX just try to do things properly.

        That’s a good point you made about Confirmation being after First Communion. At the end of the day, what matters to me is the disposition of my own soul with regards to receiving Holy Communion. I’ve got enough problems there without worrying about someone else !

        May 8, 2014 at 10:41 pm
      • editor

        I understand – thanks for your clarification, Petrus.

        May 8, 2014 at 11:53 pm
      • editor

        Catholic Convert,

        I have removed the names of the Society priests you mentioned, as there is no need to publish their identity. I put you in touch with them so would not publish their responses to you without their explicit permission. Please do not publish their names again – I know you would mean no harm at all by doing so, and it may be that they wouldn’t mind at all, but I’d prefer not to do so without their explicit permission.

        I did, in fact, say to you by email that the priest you chose to telephone was NOT a priest I would have recommended. As it turns out, his opinion differs from the two I DID recommend yet you choose to label the Society’s position as being the one he espoused. Neither of the other two would hesitate to give you Holy Communion, so you might deduce from that that “the Society’s position” is not that of the priest you say would have a problem giving you Holy Communion. If you came to the Scottish chapels you would be given Holy Communion without any problem. I did say I wouldn’t recommend the priest you chose to ring. Goes to prove what I’ve said many times on this blog, the SSPX is the lifeboat God has given us for these awful times, but that’s not to say that it’s perfect. Nothing in this world is perfect. The Society is a heck of a lot more perfect than anything else on offer today, though, and that should be all any of us needs to know 😀

        I do, of course, appreciate your problems of distance etc. I had the very same problem when I lived in the north of England. I do understand that, particularly since you depend on public transport. It just seems to me reading your recent posts (and I could, of course, be wrong) that you appear to want to be as much “mainstream” as possible while still adhering to the label, once unknown, of “traditional” (because all Catholics believed the same thing(s), before this crisis in the Church.) Once the penny drops that you need to avoid all of the poison dripping from the various parishes, groups etc. in the “mainstream” diocesan outlets, you’ll find it much easier to live a Catholic life.

        As for YOUR last statement – I have not insinuated, anywhere, that NO Catholics are “at risk of losing their place in the economy of salvation.” If you have been reading my writings for any length of time, you will find that I have never said any such thing. The people most at risk of “losing their place in the economy of salvation” (if what you mean is “losing their souls”) are the clergy and hierarchy who are leading souls astray. They are, unquestionably, the people most at risk of ending up in Hell. Forever. You heard it here, first.

        And for the record, I am not given to “insinuating” anything. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. If I think anyone is at risk of losing their souls, I will soon say so in plain English. I won’t “insinuate” it. Rest assured.

        May 8, 2014 at 10:30 pm
      • catholicconvert1


        Sorry for mentioning the names of those Priests. I may one day receive the conditional Sacraments, but it won’t be for a long time due to distance issues. Given your views on one of the fathers, I might avoid him, but I don’t know when i’ll be near your neck of the woods. I already have peace of mind, thanks to the reassurances of certain Priests who you put me in touch with. I only attend a mainstream Church out of necessity, but I pray that I can attend a TLM. Finally, I don’t know where I got the idea that you were one to insinuate, you’re not that kinda gal.

        May 9, 2014 at 10:55 am
      • editor

        Thank you Catholic Convert. I think you should be at peace now, and – when it becomes possible – attend the Society Masses. Until then, Keep calm and Blog at Catholic Truth 😀

        God bless

        May 9, 2014 at 11:31 am
      • Petrus

        Catholic Convert,

        The distance is a real issue these days because the Traditional Mass is so restricted, so I understand and appreciate your position.

        Personally, I’d rather do without other things and spend the money on travel, but it’s very difficult, especially for students.

        Sent from my iPhone


        May 9, 2014 at 1:06 pm
      • Vianney

        “There are not many people in the SSPX who have crazy views. They are in the minority.”

        Well that’s true outside London. I remember someone saying that the London Chapel should have a notice at the door saying “warning, contains nuts.” However, I believe most of them have gone over to the resistance.

        May 9, 2014 at 10:48 pm
      • Petrus

        I suppose that’s the blessing in disguise – the Resistance allowed us to get rid of the nuts!

        Sent from my iPhone

        May 9, 2014 at 10:50 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        Yes, although his views on the musical film ‘The Sound of Music’ are spot on. The Church has been shamefully silent on the dangers of this film. Consider these points which we should warn fellow Catholics about:

        “Maria”. This is clearly blasphemy of Our Lady’s name. The song “problem like Maria” is a subversive code to ridicule devotion to the Our Lady.

        “My Favorite Things”. All these things were materialistic.

        “16 going on 17”. This is shocking. You may have missed this. What is 16 going on 17? It’s 17.5. Double it and you get 33.

        They are 33 degree masons! This is Masonic code.

        People need to open their eyes to this filth.

        This is an excellent blog, but I am disappointed at Editors affections and promotion of this evil film.

        May 8, 2014 at 6:09 pm
      • Petrus


        Am I detecting tongue in cheek?

        Sent from my iPhone


        May 8, 2014 at 6:27 pm
      • Petrus


        Take the tongue out your cheek 😉

        May 8, 2014 at 6:28 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        Where exactly did you get this rubbish? I’m not saying that you are talking rubbish, but the source you got from is, I’m afraid. If you can read anything Masonic, insulting to the BVM or materialistic then you are looking for bother. The likelihood is, many girls in Austria were, and still are, called Maria, and it served, and still serves as a popular name in religion. As for the Masonic argument. Coincidence. As for the song, ‘my favourite things’, she was only trying to comfort the kids in a storm. I realise that you may be on a wind up, but as Editor would say Gerragrip!!!! That’s the trouble with this blog sometimes. Healthy debate is a good thing, but to deliberately look for trouble is to allow oneself to be used as an instrument of the Devil.

        May 8, 2014 at 7:14 pm
      • editor

        Catholic Convert,

        Petrus pointed out that Miles is writing “tongue in cheek” about The Sound of Music – that’s another way of saying, Miles is joking.

        May 8, 2014 at 9:22 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae May 9, 2014 at 12:07 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        “Mud sticks” etc. …

        The accusation of ‘far right’ political views among Traditional Catholics, including the SSPX is fallacious. Much of this comes from American neo-Catholics. This is unfair, and ironic, since many of these neo-Catholics are strong Republicans, who support laissez faire, Reganite economic policies, are opposed to universal health care, and fiercely supported the war in Iraq and much of Bush’s foreign policy. Instantly, that makes them, in reality, more ‘right wing’ than most European SSPX supporters, including people on this blog. This is why I find remarks like this from Voris, Staples, Coffin et al. very tiresome, and absurdly hypocritical. The Remnant Newspaper even ran a story about this: do you know what Catholic Answers Radio based their attack on the SSPX on? The radical left-wing and secularist Southern Poverty Law Centre in the USA, who define the society as a hate group. The Remnant called SPLC and neo-Catholics “strange bedfellows”.

        Also, when people accuse the SSPX of being politically ‘right-wing’, they are often attacking straw men. They believe the SSPX stands for French legitimist
        right-wing politics. In reality, nobody outside of France in the SSPX is interested in this. Also, the society has never publicly promoted this.

        May 8, 2014 at 6:49 pm
      • WurdeSmythe

        “Mud sticks” etc.

        It sticks in a few places, though I would emphasize “few.”

        I’ve never known an American traditional Catholic who supported Obama, the SPLC, or their Gramskyist ilk; by necessity the Trad crowd is going to be toward the right end of the political spectrum. Is that a problem, risk, or danger? In itself, of course not. Do some people lack balance or demonstrate a deficiency in prudence? Certainly: probably every group has its Conspiracy Corner – which is always comprised of only the few. After all: if they were the majority, then they couldn’t claim that the masses are out to do them in, now could they? I’m speculating, but perhaps the phenomenon is less right wing than gnostic; Lord knows we’ve had that sort trundling around Catholic chapels for a few millennia now.

        For the record, the leftists have more than their fair share of unstable elements. You’ll recall that it was a former American first lady who publicly groused about the “vast right-wing conspiracy” in the country. A difference between the two ends of the spectrum, I think, is that the leftist loons high office these days…

        May 9, 2014 at 2:16 am
      • Miles Immaculatae

        I feel the terms ‘right/left-wing’ have different connotations in the USA. In America people are more comfortable identifying as either left wing, or right wing, are they not? But that is not the case here, not even among ‘political’ types. American culture is also extremely politically polarised, which bemuses many non-Americans.

        I firmly do not believe in the labelling of Traditional Catholicism as ‘left/right-wing’. These terms denote ideology, which our holy Faith is not. And these terms originate during the French Revolution. People also have strong emotional prejudices attached to these terms and what they evoke. For many, if Catholicism was marketed as ‘right wing’, we would have a very difficult job of evangelising them. According to my understanding, traditional Catholic Social teaching condemns both economic systems of Capitalism and Socialism. Where does that place us on the political spectrum? I don’t thin there is a place for us.

        May 9, 2014 at 8:57 am
  • 3littleshepherds

    Has anybody read wikipedia’s List of Conspiracy Theories? Golly, everybody’s got one! I wonder what Conspiracy Theories Modernists and Masons have? ( I bet they’re superstitious, too.)

    May 9, 2014 at 8:33 am
  • catholicconvert1

    Can anyone recommend a books that contains traditional Eucharistic Adorations? I prefer books from before the Council. I found this on Carmel Books- and (although I’m not sure if the latter pertains to Eucharistic Adoration). If anyone has these books, please could you tell me what they are like and if you would recommend them. Any other recommendations would be appreciated.

    May 9, 2014 at 10:01 pm
    • Burt

      I am assuming you read Thomas a’ Kempis Imitation of Christ. It is a beautiful devotional book for a young man. It would be even better appreciated I think by a soul with access to the true Mass. (I refuse to term it extraordinary form)

      May 10, 2014 at 11:10 pm
  • Petrus

    Things just keep going from bad to worse. Pope Paul VI is to be beatified in October. If ever we needed proof of a diabolical disorientation it is the beatification and canonisation of all the post conciliar popes and the ignoring of the recent pre-conciliar popes, namely Pope Pius XII. This is just simply evil.

    May 10, 2014 at 6:15 pm
    • editor


      I’m just in the process of sending that latest news up on the website, so I hope you will all vote in the poll. I’m not given to telling people how to vote but here’s a hint. I’ll be voting “a joke”…

      May 10, 2014 at 7:39 pm
      • Petrus

        That made me howl with laughter!

        Sent from my iPhone

        May 10, 2014 at 7:56 pm
    • benedict


      Get a grip, as someone here is want to use.

      You are placing your soul in perdition using comments like that. What, in effect, you are stating is that the latest miracle attributed to Paul VI is fraudulent – wow, your audacity just takes away my breathe.

      May 10, 2014 at 10:17 pm
      • Petrus

        Hey Benedict! Long time no see. Hope you are well.

        As for your post, too much sentimental rubbish for me to waste my time on. Miracle or no miracle, and with no Devil’s Advocate how do we really know there was a miracle, surely you must acknowledge that the speedy canonisations and beatifications of, at best, HORRENDOUS popes, whilst Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius XII are ignored, is sinister?

        Sent from my iPhone


        May 10, 2014 at 10:26 pm
      • benedict


        I am well thank you for asking – I hope you are too.

        So it is “sentimental rubbish” and “how do we really know…..” Very easy to flight out comments like that on this blog but why don’t you post those charitable expressions off the the young 13 year old girl who is alive today and she what she has to say.

        May 10, 2014 at 10:42 pm
      • Petrus

        Well, Benedict, you probably know as well as I do that the Vatican hasn’t released details of the “miracle”. Italian secular media have speculated, that’s about it.

        I’ve read the story of the alleged miracle and it sounds quite impressive. However, these prenatal scans which can diagnose prenatal complications are not 100% accurate. Having had the pleasure and good fortune of experiencing prenatal care on four occasions in the last five years, I’ve heard of a few instances in which these scans have been inaccurate. So, how do we determine whether this alleged case is a “miracle” or an inaccurate scan?

        Then again, this is what the Devil’s Advocate would have studied. Alas!

        Sent from my iPhone

        May 10, 2014 at 10:48 pm
      • editor


        Please tell me if I have the facts correct here – I’m not sure:

        1) mother told there may be a problem with her unborn baby.

        2) someone placed a picture of Pope Paul VI on the mother and prayed to him

        3) pregnancy progressed well and no problem with baby.

        4) baby born healthy.

        Is my synopsis correct? If so, would you answer the following questions:

        (1) had the unborn child had actually been diagnosed with any particular illness or disability

        (2) in the case of an affirmative response to (1) did the doctors prescribe any treatment

        (3) when the baby was born in good health, what was the response of the medical staff – were they amazed? Did they attribute the fact to the supernatural?

        Thank you – I look forward to learning the facts of this alleged miracle.

        May 10, 2014 at 10:52 pm
      • editor


        Have you read the account of the “miracle” attributed to Mother Teresa? See the article “Doubts & Confusion” in our current newsletter.

        Nobody’s accusing anybody of “fraud” – but in days of yore only an unmistakeable cure was classed as a “miracle”. Now it seems to be a miracle if the “saint” believes in God.

        May 10, 2014 at 10:55 pm
  • sixupman

    I am confident that +Fellay has a drawer full of ‘long spoons’!

    May 11, 2014 at 9:12 am
  • editor

    I realised too late that this thread is overdue being closed – we usually close by 500 comments. Added to that the fact that some would like this latest topic to be a new thread, so I’m going to close this thread and delete my own and subsequent comments when they have been transferred to the new thread.

    Sorry for any confusion, folks.

    May 11, 2014 at 2:33 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: