A Great Darkness Surrounds Rome…editor
Below, an article by American writer Christopher Ferrara…
Antonio Socci is one of the most prominent Catholic voices in Italy, a journalist, author, commentator, and public intellectual of the first rank. I had the privilege of translating from the Italian his ground-breaking work Fourth Secret of Fatima in which he recounts how had he set out to disprove the existence of a suppressed text of the Third Secret only to become firmly convinced that such a text not only exists but is “well hidden” in the Vatican.
Socci is not a traditionalist. He is a Catholic of the “mainstream” who is nonetheless a supporter of the restoration of the Latin Mass. Indeed, Socci was full of praise for Pope Francis at the beginning of his pontificate. And so was I. (If you don’t believe me, take a look at what I wrote here and here in the immediate aftermath of the conclave.)
I have been forced to change my mind and admit that the earliest critics of the former Cardinal Bergoglio, who knew far more about the man and his ideas than I did, were right from the beginning. Socci, too, has gone from supporting this pontificate to lamenting its alarming trajectory toward what would appear to be the completion of the post-Vatican II autodemolition of the Church (to the extent this is humanly possible and permitted by God).
In a few short months Socci has, in fact, become one of the harshest critics of the Bergoglian agenda, and rightly so. It appears that the last straw for him was the Pope’s outrageous rehabilitation of the Marxist priest Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, suspended by John Paul but restored to the exercise of the priesthood by Francis, even though d’Escoto had only days before thumbed his nose at Rome and hailed Fidel Castro as a gift of the Holy Ghost to the Cuban people (belying the Vatican’s flimsy cover story that he had repented of his errors).
As Socci writes with undisguised contempt: “In the Bergoglian epoch, the Vatican has practically rehabilitated Liberation Theology, born in the Sixties, which has caused many disasters, above all in Latin America, by having fomented the subjugation of the Church by Marxist thought.” As Socci notes with disgust, d’Escoto declared that Castro was the means by which “the Holy Spirit transmitted to us the message, this message of Christ, on the necessity of struggling to establish… the reign of God on earth…” Socci continues: “After this theological exaltation of the tyrant of Cuba, who for decades oppressed an entire people with a communist dictatorship, d’Escoto was gladdened by the revocation of his suspension by Pope Francis.”
The contrast with the brutal treatment Francis has meted out to the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate sickens Socci, as it should any Catholic with a sense of justice:
The velvet glove used by Francis with the famous and powerful “comrade” d’Escoto contrasts with the iron fist he used to strike a good and humble religious of holy life, Father Stefano Manelli, spiritual son of Padre Pio and founder of the Franciscans of the Immaculate. Father Manelli had even written to the Pope, but his letter was not even taken into consideration.
His religious family, orthodox, disciplined, and full of vocations, was annihilated by the will of Bergoglio, inasmuch as it applied the motu proprio of Benedict XVI on the liturgy. And he was too orthodox.
Father Manelli has never disobeyed the Church, has never deviated from right doctrine, has never thrown himself into politics like d’Escoto, and has never exalted communist tyrants. So, he was harshly punished.
Socci’s conclusion is chilling, coming as it does from one who strongly supported Francis but has seen the immense damage this pontificate has already caused, and is likely to cause, to the Church’s mission at a time of unprecedented moral and spiritual decline:
Today, in the Bergoglian epoch, there is a return precisely to Rahner, and to that philosophy which has already caused such damage among the Jesuits and in the Church. And in this empty abyss Catholics are tossed and turned “by every wind of doctrine.” Subjugated by any ideology and corrupted by any heresy. A great darkness surrounds Rome.
Socci shows us that more and more Catholics of good will are coming to the realization that the crisis in the Church has reached a new, and perhaps its final, stage. To remain willfully blind to what is happening is not to “trust the Church” but rather to ignore an alarm that is calling every Catholic to do what our confirmation oath requires: defend the faith of our fathers against an all-encompassing “para-conciliar ideology” that is threatening the Church like no mere heresy ever has. Source
Socci is a “mainstream” Catholic – not a “traditionalist”. Do you agree with his assessment of the state of the Church today and if so, why? Would you identify the same scandals that brought Socci to recognise that “great darkness [that] surrounds Rome” or are there others, even more important, in your view? Over to thee…
Great thread and look forward to the discussion. I’m about to get to the airport here in Ghana to fly to England so will read with interest some time tomorrow and write my 6d.
I agree this is a great thread. The article by Christopher Ferrara is very good but there’s a lot of Pope Francis clangers that he left out that I think show the “great darkness” such as his phoning the divorced and remarried woman to say go to another parish if your priest won’t give you Communion and his terrible comment about not “judging” “gays” (even using that word.) Also his remarks to young people about prayer, about not being “counters” (referring to the rosary). There is definitely a great darkness over Rome since he became pope. That darkness will stay there until he goes IMHO.
The prelates need to ask the Pope to retire on grounds of ill health as he is causing so much damage.
Almighty and ever living God have mercy on Your Church.
I don’t know if my nerves could handle three living popes!
There is never more than one Pope at a time, of course. As to the current situation, I confess to being not entirely sure which one is the real one …..
It would be even worse if the third one elected was that Italian Cardinal Secola. I mean, ‘Pope Secola’ would be too much!!
“Pope Secola” – I laughed out loud at that!
I agree with Graeme Taylor, with one caveat: the “sound”/”orthodox” prelates perhaps, but there are precious few of those, and none in Scotland; none in England and Wales either, for that matter, with the exception of, Bishops Davies in Shewsbury and Egan in Portsmouth.
Sarto, sadly, I agree with you too.
And here’s one prelate who is clearly attracted to Islam – he even uses their “peace be upon him” blessing after pronouncing the name of Muhammed.
The great darkness over Rome has spread abroad, certainly to America.
Prelates in that age group appear to be just a lot of rather silly ageing hippies, gas bags, talking drivel.
Princes of the Church should know better, but all they appear to like is the money and the dress up. The Holy Trinity is not on H.E.’s agenda.
Yet another old moron who doesn’t know the price of fish. How can he stand there with a straight and offer praises to the false Islamic God and the satanic prophet Mohammed. This devil founded the most twisted, warped and bizarre sect in history, and one which has murdered thousands, if not millions of Christians and non-Muslims. Pure evil. Christ brought peace, Mohammed brought hate. I wish people would stop saying Islam is peaceful. the Archeparch has it weighed up right.
Here are some writings of Saints concerning Islam:
“Whoever does not embrace the Catholic Christian faith is lost, like your false prophet Muhammad.”
-St. Peter Mavimenus (d. 8th century), martyr from Gaza. Response reported in the Martyriologum Romanum when he was asked to convert to Islam by a group of Muslims.
“There is also the superstition of the Ishmaelites which to this day prevails and keeps people in error, being a forerunner of the Antichrist…. From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, devised his own heresy. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces of the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain book had been sent down to him from heaven. He had set down some ridiculous compositions in this book of his and he gave it to them as an object of veneration.”
-St. John Damascene (d. 749), Syrian Arab Catholic monk and scholar. Quoted from his book On Heresies under the section On the Heresy of the Ishmaelites (in The Fathers of the Church. Vol. 37. Translated by the Catholic University of America. CUA Press. 1958. Pages 153-160.)
“We profess Christ to be truly God and your prophet to be a precursor of the Antichrist and other profane doctrine.”
-Sts. Habenitus, Jeremiah, Peter, Sabinian, Walabonsus, and Wistremundus (d. 851), martyrs of Cordoba, Spain. Reported in the Memoriale Sanctorum in response to Spanish Umayyad Caliph ‘Abd Ar-Rahman II’s ministers that they convert to Islam on pain of death.
“Any cult which denies the divinity of Christ, does not profess the existence of the Holy Trinity, refutes baptism, defames Christians, and derogates the priesthood, we consider to be damned.”
-Sts. Aurelius, Felix, George, Liliosa, and Natalia (d. 852), martyrs of Cordoba, Spain. Reported in the Memoriale Sanctorum in response to Spanish Umayyad Caliph ‘Abd Ar-Rahman II’s ministers that they convert to Islam on pain of death.
“On the other hand, those who founded sects committed to erroneous doctrines proceeded in a way that is opposite to this, the point is clear in the case of Muhammad. He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity. He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the contrary, Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants.”
-St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), Theologian and Doctor of the Church. Quoted from his De Rationibus Fidei Contra Saracenos, Graecos, et Armenos and translated from Fr. Damian Fehlner’s Aquinas on Reasons for the Faith: Against the Muslims, Greeks, and Armenians (Franciscans of the Immaculate. 2002.)”
“As we have seen, Muhammed had neither supernatural miracles nor natural motives of reason to persuade those of his sect. As he lacked in everything, he took to bestial and barbaric means, which is the force of arms. Thus he introduced and promulgated his message with robberies, murders, and bloodshedding, destroying those who did not want to receive it, and with the same means his ministers conserve this today, until God placates his anger and destroys this pestilence from the earth.
[…] (Muhammad) can also be figured for the dragon in the same Apocalypse which says that the dragon swept up a third of the stars and hurled down a third to earth. Although this line is more appropriately understood concerning the Antichrist, Mohammed was his precursor – the prophet of Satan, father of the sons of haughtiness.
[…] Even if all the things contained in his law were fables in philosophy and errors in theology, even for those who do not possess the light of reason, the very manners (Islam) teaches are from a school of vicious bestialities. (Muhammad) did not prove his new sect with any motive, having neither supernatural miracles nor natural reasons, but solely the force of arms, violence, fictions, lies, and carnal license. It remains an impious, blasphemous, vicious cult, an innovention of the devil, and the direct way into the fires of hell. It does not even merit the name of being called a religion.”
-St. Juan de Ribera (d.1611), Archbishop of Valencia, missionary to Spanish Muslims, and organizer of the Muslim expulsions of 1609 from Spain. Quoted in several locations from his 1599 Catechismo para la Instruccion de los Nuevos Convertidos de los Moros (my translation)
“The Mahometan paradise, however, is only fit for beasts; for filthy sensual pleasure is all the believer has to expect there.”
– St. Alfonsus Liguori (d. 1787). Quoted from his book, The History of Heresies and their Refutation.
CC, many thanks for all that research. I hadn’t realised that Islam had been so condemned by so many early saints, particularly St. Thomas Aquinas. Daily we view the unspeakably bestial brutalities of Muhammed’s followers, and their determination to exterminate all Christians. Here in Manchester we hear of ‘peaceful Muslims’ in our midst who are raising momey for Islamic State, And then we read of Pope Francis welcoming our ‘dear Muslim immigrants’ at Lampedusa, indulging in his tree-planting publicity stunt, taking part in common worship with them in the Vatican – all in addition to this first salvo after his election http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2013/08/pope-francis-to-muslims-we-are-called-to-respect-the-religion-of-the-other/
This is outrageous, Editor. How can “peace” be upon that scoundrel?
Who are you to judge?
The answer is of course ‘JESUS CHRIST ‘ Son of God, SAVIOUR, REDEEMER. Not the institutional Catholic Church or it’s clerical or lay members; who are obsessed by trying to turn GOD into their own image and likeness. CT is a very good example of this in all it’s arrogance and pride. JESUS CHRIST, is the answer. One day it will become clear to you all!!!
The answer to what? What, tell us, are you ranting on about now?
If, as I suspect (since you’re not responding directly to any particular blogger as far as I can tell) you mean that Our Lord is the answer to the crisis, that He will not abandon His Church etc. Well, we know that, Sugar Plum. We really do 😀
However, we must presume that it was Our Lord who sent His mother to earth to warn us about the coming crisis in the Church and the world, so we would be rather silly billies, wouldn’t we, not to use our God-given intelligence to discuss the issues surrounding said crisis? Yes? No? Oops, forget I said that. We’re not using those words again until at least Friday morning – if ever again! 😀
The Church is undoubtedly in crisis.
Personally, I think we are in the midst of what I will call the Relativist Reformation. I have moved this in my own thinking from a thesis, certainly to a hypothesis and now close to a theory. By the way, like Socci, I am not a traditionalist just an ordinary Catholic in the pews who has come to realise the utter mess the Church has got into in the last 48 years.
There are forces at work in the Church, just as there were during the time of the Protestant Reformation. They went quiet during Benedict’s time but now think, rightly or wrongly, that their time has come.
The coming Symposium of the Family will probably be decisive. If there is any concession, doctrinal, or under the guise of “pastoralism”, which allows the divorced and remarried to receive Holy Communion, then that’s it. The Church will probably split in to the Catholic Church, which will not permit the divorced and remarried, or cohabiting homo or heterosexuals, or murderers, or enslavers, or extortionists of the poor, to receive Holy Communion, and the other lot, who sooner or later, will.
I wonder who will get the Vatican?
“By the way, like Socci, I am not a traditionalist just an ordinary Catholic in the pews.”
It is a sobering thought that prior to Vatican II EVERY Catholic was a “traditionalist” – there just wasn’t any other kind. Tragic.
PS to answer your concluding question – hopefully, Catholic Truth 😀
Yes, I think we are agreed . I am just an ordinary Catholic (pre-Vat II) in the pews, 2/3 way back on the left hand side, wondering what on earth or rather in Heavens has happened to my Catholic Church in the last 49 years.
I’m also beginning to get a bit angry, but sadly there is probably no point in getting the pike head (that would have been my preferred weapon ) down from the loft. I would get out of breath just climbing up there.
What we are facing is a truly demonic conjunction of:
1. A second great eruption of Protestantism, this time WITHIN the Church, with its leaders refusing to leave the Church as did their German, English and Swiss exemplars centuries before.
2. A filthy wave of heresy carried forward by “Neo-Modernism” and the so-called “New Theology”.
3. The triumph of Darwinian evolution in all thought and its transfer to all elements of Church life.
4. The infiltration in decades past into the priesthood and then the highest reaches of the Hierarchy of active malevolents consciously seeking to destroy the Faith: Marxists, active homosexuals.
5. The general breakdown into chaos of the notions of authority, public and private morality and freedom.
5. All the above to a lesser or greater extent, or maybe in toto, planned and executed by Jewish Freemasonry.
The result is the almost-total eclipse of authentic Catholicism within the visible structure of the Catholic Church. In human terms the enemy has won almost entirely.
So, what to do?
We must think like the great First World War General Ferdinand Foch. “My centre is giving way, my right is in retreat; situation excellent. I shall attack.”
Our General Staff consists of The Blessed and Holy Trinity and Our Lady. Our regimental officers are the Saints and Angels. We are the foot soldiers. Our weapons must be primarily spiritual, because our enemy is the devil and his demons.
We are bound to win, though the trenches are full of water and rats, the shells from Rome keep whizzing overhead and most of our Officers and men have deserted to the enemy.
With respect, Benedict Carter, I don’t think there is any need to speak of “Jewish Freemasonry” – Freemasonry is enough IMHO. The Church and Catholics in general are so open to being called anti-Semitic, that I think it’s better we avoid anything that could be misinterpreted that way. I hope you don’t mind me pointing this out.
I loved your paragraph before the final paragraph “Our General Staff…” and of course you are completely correct in your final paragraph.
Whenever anyone writes “with resoect” it means “with no respect at all” of course.
I would challenge you to prove your assertion by pointing out in Margaret Mary’s comments where she has treated you with anything other than respect, as she said she would. Catholics are obliged to assume good intentions in others, not bad ones.
” I shall attack.”
Agreed. Fuelled by righteous anger.
Hi Margaret Mary, yes I know exactly what you are referring to but we’re way beyond the time we should give way to the great fear of being seen as anti-Semetic.
Funnily enough I have been sitting down this afternoon discussing Francesca with a Jewish American!
Read ‘The Revolutionary Jew and His Impact on World History’ by E. Michael Jones.
I’m sorry, Benedict Carter, but I think it is misleading to talk about “Jews” when being a Jew is not just a religion but a race. I dislike reading stuff about “the Jews” because it misleads people into thinking “all Jews” and that’s not the case. How would we like it if people spoke about “the Catholics2 when speaking about wrongdoing by some Catholics in history or today re the child sex abuse. I already get very annoyed when I read some stuff about Catholic priests as if they were all paedophiles.
I think it is enough to say “Freemasonry” to avoid causing unnecessary divisions. It’s really the same point as Athanasius made about Fr Villa’s book. We don’t really need to know about “Jewish Freemasonry” – it’s enough to know about Freemasonry itself, goals etc.
Don’t be sorry for disagreeing. Be sorry for disagreeing without examining the evidence for the views you so easily dismiss.
I have examined the evidence more deeply and for many more years than you have, and I can tell you that the expression of your views is not consistent with the Church’s Traditional method, which is always without antagonism.
The fact is that it’s Our Lord’s own disciples who are harming the faith throughout the world with their Modernism, not the Jews. The Catholic Church was the moral compass of this world from its divine institution up to Vatican II, at which time these men at the very heart of the Mystical Body turned the compass point due south with their “New Evangelisation” and knocked the world off its axis. This is the principle revolution that we Catholics need to fixate on today, “the Revolution in Cope and Mitre,” as a Michael Davies book title once so aptly highlighted.
I must say I’m the same about “the Jews” – reminds me of the whole fiasco with Bishop Williamson.
That is a really good article by Chris Ferrara – and if a mainstream Catholic like Socci can see that there is a great darkness surrounding Rome, why can’t the rest of them see it? I still marvel at the way NO Catholics think everything is fine, and Pope Francis is the greatest. It’s a true saying, there’s none so blind as those who can’t see.
Sorry, I got that saying wrong – it should end “as those who will not see”.
Yes, Josephine, very well said. I agree about a lot of modern Catholic being blind.
I’ve just seen on teletext that the Pope has married cohabiting couples. Whatever happened to sin? Forgiveness is one thing, but you need repentance as well. We must hope that they went to confession. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29198491
The Pope is completely mocking and denigrating the sanctity of chastity outside of marriage, and the pearl of great price that is Christian marriage. Fornication is a sin. I don’t want the Pope to abdicate, because then we would have three Popes, causing more confusion, but the Pope is strangling the faith with his evil modernist heresy. It’s truly like a virus.
Holy Mary, Our only Hope, pray for us. Sacred Heart of Jesus, pray for us.
I agree. But even if they have gone to confession, which I sincerely hope they have, the Pope’s action in marrying these couples in person risks undermining the virtue of chastity before marriage, a teaching that the Church has always held up as most pleasing before God. Also, the couples in question maybe should have considered a less public ceremony given their past failings. Surely all concerned knew that the media would make a meal out of this business. But, then, maybe that was the intention!
Surely all concerned knew that the media would make a meal out of this business
Yes they did, including (presumably) the Pope.
Of course, the timing of this event – just a few weeks before the synod – is a complete coincidence. Isn’t it?
I couldn’t agree more. It is very good that these couples have chosen to marry, but such a public ceremony is not at all appropriate.
I’m appalled at that report but no longer surprised at anything Pope Francis says or does. I agree with you that he is mocking and denigrating chastity. It makes me sick thinking of the damage he is doing to the faith of thinking Catholics, not the majority who haven’t a clue, but I’m think especially of converts I know who have become Catholics after a lot of study and thought. They just can’t understand him at all. As a convert yourself, you will know what I mean.
I am no expert on canon law but I don`t see any reason why any of these couples should not have been married, irrespective of how they lived their past lives. At least it stopped them from cohabiting, surely they were entitled to that opportunity.
You can`t condemn someone`s way of life and then condemn them again when they try to regulate their relationship.
As far as I am aware, you don`t need to be in a state of grace to get married.
It would have been different if some of them were still married in the eyes of God to a previous partner but even the one whose marriage was annulled is still entitled to get married in the Church, assuming of course that it was the Church that granted his annulment.
I may not agree with all that much of what Pope Francis does or says but I don`t think he can be condemned for this. Does anyone seriously think that similar marriage ceremonies conducted by previous Popes involved couples who had never fornicated or committed adultery in their past lives?
I know what you mean but the Church has to be prudent. This public ceremony gives the impression that the Church doesn’t really have a problem with cohabitation.
I think there’s a parallel here with the way the Church used to deal with mixed marriages. They were private affairs which took place in a side chapel to show the Church’s tolerance, but disapproval of such marriages.
Frankier and Petrus,
A reader has just emailed this report from Rorate Caeli which shocked me to the core (presuming it is accurate – they’ve quite a history of clangers so I can’t help wondering)
Anyway, after my initial shock, I thought, “Editor” I said to myself “Just who are you to judge?”
Yes, I read that yesterday and it is both predictable and shocking. I feel the great schism is looming that we all fear.
I think the marriages in the side chapel or sacristy were to rectify a situation like cohabitation, so the priests did not want to be seen approving of cohabitation by allowing a big wedding when scandal might be caused because people might get the impression cohabiting was OK before marriage. I think that’s what it was, not that they didn’t approve of the couple marrying – that has to be a good thing, but without announcing that the couple had been to confession, there would be no way the priest could make it clear that he was not “blessing” living together outside marriage.
Sacristy weddings were also common when one of the spouses was non-Catholic, and this precisely to demonstrate that the Church does not countenance mixed marriages as a general rule.
Yes, you do have to be in a state of grace before marriage as marriage is a Sacrament and a Sacrament cannot be received by those in a state of mortal sin, which would be sacrilege.
I don’t think CC or anyone else has denied that these couples did the right thing by getting married. All we’ve done is express concern that they went to confession first with a genuine sorrow for their past sins. In the present climate in the Church it is not at all clear that this happened. The other observation made was that, given their past, these couple maybe should have chosen a less public wedding. By inviting them to the Vatican to be married by the Pope could be, and certainly seems to have been, misconstrued by some as the Church accommodating the modern view that cohabitation before marriage is ok. This is about potential bad example, not judgment.
Does this mean that anyone getting married in a state of mortal sin could possibly get an annulment on these grounds if things went wrong in their marriage? Surely it couldn`t have been a marriage in the first instance.
It seems to me that there must be a lot of sacrilegious marriages out there.
What about marriages between Catholics and those of other religions or even no belief at all?
I don`t see why these weddings should have been “less public” when they had done nothing wrong. Why should they be swept under the carpet in case “some” misconstrue?
Maybe “some” will see that it can be a forgiving Church and it may encourage other Catholics in similar situations to follow suit.
Would it have been OK for the Pope to marry engaged couples who have indulged in pre-marital sex (it does happen) before going home their separate ways but wrong to marry cohabiting couples just because they are seen to be living together? Who knows whether or not they are living in sin?
I smell a bit of hypocrisy here. Sin as much as you like as long as nobody knows or sees.
Even if they had all been to confession it is obvious that they would still have been condemned.
So much for the parable of the lost sheep.
As regards your question on marriages contracted in mortal sin, I have a book called “The Catechism Explained,” which says: “…it is also enjoined on persons intending to marry to approach the Sacraments of Penance and of the Altar, because it is indispensable that they should be in a state of grace, in order to participate in the graces conferred in the Sacrament of Matrimony…those who do not approach the Sacraments worthily, and enter upon the matrimonial state in mortal sin, deprive themselves of grace and call down on themselves the curse of God…”
That sounds pretty conclusive to me that a marriage contracted in mortal sin can be annulled.
Concerning this other matter of Pope Francis marrying former cohabiting couples, I think you miss the point.
Someone went to great lengths to find out about the private lives of those couples the Pope was marrying. Why did someone do this? It seems to me that it was done less to emphasise God’s mercy in the Sacrament of Confession than to imply a change in the Church’s attitude towards those who cohabit or indulge in sexual activity before marriage. If it was all above board, then I feel sure that some kind of emphasis would have been placed on the Confession and repentance aspect. Yet we have not even been told if these couples confessed their former sins before being allowed to marry. Why do you think there is so little clarity in the matter?
What about people who get the last rites who may be in a state of mortal sin but unable to confess? Is their sacrament valid?
Some priests preach that the act of receiving communion
absolves all sin.
If, as you say, that a sacrament cannot be received in a state of sin then I think it goes without saying that these couples would have been to confession beforehand and had nothing to hide from anyone, especially those for whom it was none of their business.
Yes indeed! A person in a state of mortal sin but unable to confess would still benefit fully from the last rites provided he/she had true sorrow for their sins. In those cases, God reads the heart.
Any priest who teaches that the act of receiving communion absolves sin is a heretic, pure and simple. Avoid any such priest like the plague.
Did they go to confession before getting married? We may assume so but we can’t be certain in the present light of things. I would certainly like to think they went to confession because the alternative doesn’t bear thinking about.
Surely it would be very difficult to base an annulment case on this as it would be almost impossible to judge on whether or not the person was in a state of mortal sin? How could you prove full knowledge or full consent? Of course, if a person admits that they knew they were in mortal sin then that is an entirely different matter.
I think this highlights the importance of proper instruction before marriage. I “married” outside the Church before coming to my senses and approaching the Church to put things right. I was given no instruction at all and wasn’t told that I should to to Confession before the private ceremony. Thankfully I did. The whole thing is a complete mess. I can only conclude that if you want everything done properly, go to the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X.
It’s interesting that you mention the importance of instruction before marriage because the Catechism I quoted from earlier (a Traditional Catechism) says exactly that.
Apparently it is incumbent upon the priest to give some weeks of instruction to couples before they marry, especially if one or other is non-Catholic or non-religious. Sufficient absence of interest in religion on the part of one or other can actually be an impediment to marriage. As you say, it’s such a mess now they don’t even insist that marrying couples be free of mortal sin before approaching God to take vows and receive His blessing. There’s no way God will bless such a union.
As to mortal sin itself being cause for annulment, you’re right about the Church’s authorities first having to know about it. Of course the marriage would not be valid before God anyway, but the Church’s authorities could only make the call if they knew of circumstances pre-marriage that definitely meant that one or other was not in a state of grace, or, as you say, someone owned up.
Annulment usually involves careful investigation (or used to), so I imagine all kinds of information would be made available to the investigators via written statements from the spouses and/or witnesses. That’s the way I see it anyway.
This is the reason I said you can get married in the Church while not in a state of grace.
I didn`t claim it was valid in the eyes of God.
Surely, if it had been arranged that they would be getting married by the Pope, or any priest even, it would have been drummed into them during the six months` preparation that they would need to go to confession first.
The priest I referred to has since died. He was a vet before he became a priest, well before Vatican 11 I may add, so he was maybe getting his jobs mixed up.
As for being in a state of grace during the marriage ceremony: would you advise the bridegroom to own up if he had looked lustfully at some of the bridesmaids
just as the best man was producing the ring or would
he ask for another go at confession?
As I have stated before, there must be more than a few Catholic marriages who would qualify for annulments if
they decided to depart from their partners. I may have to start looking at my own.:)
No, it has nothing to do with the bridesmaids.
In respect to your first question, I would refer you to two stories on the Rorati Caeli website. The first of these is concerns an Argentinian priest who has just carried out the Church’s first transsexual marriage “blessing”. There are pictures of the event on the website. The other story, again in Argentina, concerns a couple having their baby baptised. They are man and wife, but the man is in a dress and the wife is in a suit. Again, there are pictures.
So to your question about these couples being advised to go to confession before Pope Francis married them. I would have to say that the question is very much an open one.
Now, any spouse on the point of marriage looking lustfully at another is clearly not in the correct state of soul to contract vows before God. Therefore, that marriage would be void in God’s eyes.
Any spouse, post marriage, who looks lustfully at another is guilty of mortal sin but has not voided his/her marriage by that fact. It’s all to do with disposition before and during the marriage ceremony itself, because that’s when the spouses stand before God to participate in a Sacrament.
“This is the reason I said you can get married in the Church while not in a state of grace.
I didn`t claim it was valid in the eyes of God.”
This makes no sense. If the marriage was not valid in the eyes of God, you didn’t get married in the Church. You absolutely have to be in the State of Grace.
With respect, I think you are confusing validity with worthy (fruitful) reception. The state of grace is certainly necessary to receive the sacrament worthily and obtain thereby the grace that the sacrament confers – but not for validity.
Excepting the Sacrament of Penance, neither orthodox belief nor moral worthiness is necessary for the validity of the Sacrament, on the part of the recipient.
(Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Book 4, part 3, section 1, ss 10,2(a) [p345 in the Tan edition])
Receiving a sacrament (other than baptism or penance) whilst in a state of mortal sin is a thoroughly bad idea but it would not impair its validity.
However, the recipient must intend to receive the sacrament. (see (b) of the above reference).
Should the couples married by the Pope have gone to confession first? Yes, they should have. Did they, in fact go to confession? I don’t know. Either way, it does not affect the validity of the marriage.
You have raised an interesting point there, something for me to investigate deeper.
At any rate, I would say that those who would approach to receive the Sacrament of Matrimony in mortal sin will generally not be taking their vows before God seriously. This is especially true since they will have been informed by the priest well beforehand of certain impediments to marriage and the indispensability of being in a state of grace.
In the event of one or other of the spouses later seeking annulment of their marriage, any absence of right intention that can be proven could constitute grounds to annul.
Well, I`ll try and make sense.
Unless I am seriously mistaken there must have been over the years many marriages conducted in Catholic churches where the bride or groom (or both) weren`t in a state of grace, knowingly or unknowingly.
So physically, technically or whatever ally you wish to add, they were “married” in Church but maybe not in the eyes of God. This is what I meant. They certainly would have been married according to the state, so therefore you can get legally married in Church.
Maybe I should have used the word legally earlier.
To put it another way, I don`t recall the priest enquiring as to whether I was in a state of grace before or during the marriage ceremony.
It doesn`t really matter if a person has been to confession or not, the state of grace can disappear at the blink of an eye, especially in my case.
I read once where natives in remote countries where a priest could only visit once a year at most had their relationships blessed when the priest managed to visit.
As far as I was lead to believe the promises and commitments these people made and kept made their relationships valid in the eyes of the Church.
The priest only blessed their relationship.
As my mother, God rest her, used to say,
married but not churched.
Interestingly, only yesterday I was visiting a friend who suffered a second stroke a couple of years ago and was at death’s door. She lost her power of speech. The family sent for an SSPX priest to administer the Last Rites. The priest told her to think about her sins before he absolved her. She lived but still cannot speak, so I presume that when she goes to confession (which she does, regularly), the priest says the same thing.
Such a case of extreme necessity is the exception, and understandable for the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, but for cohabiting couples to go straight to the altar to marry without first going to confession, cannot be right. Yet, when I said this to a lay Catholic in the Archdiocese of Glasgow a couple of years ago, he dismissed it, saying the main thing is that they put their situation right. I couldn’t see then and I can’t see now, how anything is put right until the objective mortal sin of cohabiting/adultery is confessed. Wouldn’t a Catholic WANT to do that? Why else are they marrying if they don’t realise they are causing offence to God by cohabiting?
Is it because the real or at least the main reason for wanting to marry is often because the “bride to be” (who is no such thing, in fact) wants a big wedding, often with her children as flower girls or bridesmaids etc ?
“…for cohabiting couples to go straight to the altar to marry without first going to confession, cannot be right. Yet, when I said this to a lay Catholic in the Archdiocese of Glasgow a couple of years ago, he dismissed it, saying the main thing is that they put their situation right…”
That lay Catholic was obviously very seriously mistaken.
Isn’t it tragic how flippant modern Catholics are now about mortal sin, yet I remember reading that just one mortal sin (Adam & Eve) was enough to warrant the Son of God to have to come into the world to suffer and die a most painful death in expiation. It beggars belief, then, that so many can just write of mortal sin as though it’s no big deal.
Oops! Forgot to remove bold brackets after my quote. Oh well, the dark text will help those who forgot to go to Specsavers!
You are correct, a lot of young women especially want a “church wedding” even if they have never been to church since they were confirmed.
I spoke to a young man a couple of months ago who thought he was pleasing me by saying he was baptised in the Church and would be getting married and buried from the Church.
I told him if that there might be no Church in this country when the time comes for his burial. In fact, he is getting married in a few months time so he might just make it in the nick of time.
I know your problem with travelling etc to attend a TLM, so I am not getting at you, don’t take offence, but reading your posts on this thread has underlined for me the difficulty for even the most well meaning Catholics (like yourself) forced to attend the novus ordo in terms of keeping a truly Catholic sense alive.
The secular mindset is deep rooted now in Catholics across the world, and this comes out time and again on this blog when we are discussing sin and repentance. And that’s without the (shudder) abominable “Francis effect”. Of course, I may have misinterpreted some of your comments, which may have been meant tongue in cheek – I appreciate that. But if we are to take them all at face value, we need to sort you out, my beloved Frankier. Big time…
I know it’s not possible for you to get to Traditional Mass regularly, so, I repeat, I’m not “getting at you”. Well… not really…
Do you think I’ve got a darn cheek to say that? Or do you see where I’m coming from – even if I’m heading for the doghouse now? 😀
I asked questions in the past regarding the TLM. Never got answers.
They went along the lines of, do the SSPX have exposition, stations of the cross, suitable confession times, visit hospitals, take communion to the sick, etc., etc. These are the things many Catholics wish for to enable them to live as seven day rather than one day a week Catholics. It isn`t only the NO.
I did ask if the SSPX priests offered Latin Masses for a persons intentions and did get an answer.
I sent a Mass stipend to the only address I could find, in Glasgow, for such a Mass. I was informed that a Mass would be offered, not told when, and was almost scolded for sending my letter to the wrong address.
I still don`t know if the Mass was offered.
End of story.
Well, that’s a pity that nobody answered your questions. I try to watch for that sort of thing. For example, Catherine posted a very important article last night on the Ireland Home-schooling thread, simply asking what others thought of it. Nobody responded, so I went in with my tuppence worth. Hence my utter frustration at the total waste of time and energy battling here about “Jewish Freemasonry” as if it mattered. So, I understand your annoyance, Frankier. Sorry you didn’t complain sooner, as I’d have been more alert to the fact that nobody had answered you. I’ll do my best now…
[D]o the SSPX have exposition, stations of the cross, suitable confession times, visit hospitals, take communion to the sick, etc., etc. These are the things many Catholics wish for to enable them to live as seven day rather than one day a week Catholics. It isn`t only the NO.
Firstly, the SSPX is like the Cavalry. They are an emergency brigade to provide the Sacraments during this crisis, and their numbers are not sufficient to allow us to have e.g. Benediction every Sunday at 4pm.
In Glasgow, we have Benediction on the second Sunday of every month, right after Mass. Given that the parishioners are travelling often long distances to attend Mass, from as far away as Perth and Aberdeen and that even some of the “locals” depend on Sunday public transport services (not good) that is about all we can expect of our priests. So, that’s Benediction in Glasgow – I’m sure there will be a similar system for Edinburgh, but I don’t know which Sunday they have Benediction. We also have Benediction after First Saturday Mass. We have Mass for both the First Friday and the First Saturday every month, always with prayers for vocations included: O Lord send us priests… O Lord send us holy priests… O Lord send us many holy priests and religious vocations. When was the last time you heard that in a diocesan parish? Oh and we have the rosary before Mass every Sunday and on First Saturdays. We are fairly regularly exhorted to pray the rosary every day ourselves and with our families. Our priests regularly quote from various saints and tell us about sacramentals, relics, indulgences and other devotions. There are announcements from time to time about being enrolled in the Brown Scapular and both Glasgow and Edinburgh have little shops which sell solid books and various devotional items.
On various days of the year we have days of Exposition, little day long retreats from time to time, and residential men’s and women’s retreats are held in England annually.
Confessions are before every Mass, which is every Sunday morning, Tuesday and Friday evenings and Saturday mornings. that’s a heck of a lot more confession times that you will find in the average NO parish where the bulletin often advertises “confessions on request.” Any priest who has ever heard MY confessions knows I’m not going to go knocking on any doors to show my face 😯
We have Stations of the Cross during Lent, usually before the Tuesday evening Mass, if my memory serves me correctly.
The priest will take Communion to the sick when requested. They will conduct funerals when necessary and will do so in a diocesan parish church if invited to do so. I attended one in a church in Coatbridge, which was packed. The deceased parishioner had made sure his priest agreed to allowing an SSPX priest to conduct his funeral. Although a modernist to his tonsils, that priest agreed. I presume he had sufficient sense not to ask the Bishop or we might all have ended up on the beach at Saltcoats, like the Irish SSPX priest whose permission to offer a funeral Mass was withdrawn when the timid priest who had initially granted permission, decided (in – don’t laugh – conscience) to check with his bishop. The bishop’s nasty refusal backfired because the young people who attended the Mass at the beach were blown away by it and I don’t mean due to the weather.
I think that takes care of your unanswered questions. Feel free to say if anything needs to be further clarified.
You then wrote:
“I did ask if the SSPX priests offered Latin Masses for a persons intentions and did get an answer.
I sent a Mass stipend to the only address I could find, in Glasgow, for such a Mass. I was informed that a Mass would be offered, not told when, and was almost scolded for sending my letter to the wrong address.
I still don`t know if the Mass was offered.”
In my entire life, asking all sorts of priests to offer Mass for all sorts of reasons, I’ve never once been told either when the Mass would be offered or that it had been offered. It’s completely irrelevant. Why does it matter? Unless you think the priest is pocketing the stipends and not offering the Masses, what difference does it make? I remember one of our priests announcing that he could accept no more stipends as he now had a lot of Masses to offer that he had hoped would have been offered by now. And I was actually present when one NO priest offered to return a stipend to a stupid woman who was demanding that he tell her that the Mass would be offered on the date she wanted. He said he couldn’t guarantee that, but would do his best. She was a nasty piece of work and Father held out the envelope and suggested she might try another priest to see if she could get the date she wanted. As if it mattered. Clearly, in her case – more likely than not – she had some sentimental notion in her head that having a Mass offered on a particular anniversary or birthday or whatever would make it “work better” or some other such superstitious nonsense.
As for the “scolding” you received for not sending your request to the correct address; seeing the way things have been distorted and twisted on this blog over the freemasonry nonsense, I suspect you were merely informed that the delay was caused by you not sending your stipend to the correct address. The addresses are not difficult to find online. Carluke is where you send correspondence for the clergy. Now, THAT’s a bit of a scolding, for which I make no apology. I am, of necessity, away from my computer quite a bit these days and am beginning to feel that I’m running a crèche instead of a blog. So much darn silliness, unpleasantness where there should be none. There’s no need for it. I should not have written that. I should have offered it up. Maybe if I had offered up that bit of annoyance (instead of thinking, what a bunch of weans) I would be feeling better right now and maybe if you had charitably accepted that you had sent your stipend to the wrong address without trying to blame the person who told you so, YOU wouldn’t now be tempted to reply in kind to me.
If you have any further questions, feel free to ask but be prepared, Frankier, not to always like the answers. And maybe offer up your annoyance at me right now? Could help a soul in Purgatory? What do you think? Isn’t THAT a good way NOT to be a one day a week Catholic?
There is visible in these comments a (very English?) desire not to step near the mess in the road.
“Let’s not go to the heart of things – it’s enough to know we are in trouble.”
Unfortunately a middle distance view of the mess in the road inevitably means one cannot see clearly what the mess actually IS. If we do not know precisely what it is, then the people who put it there will continue to.run rings around us.
Similarly, there are plaintive crys of “How can the Pope not see? Why do they not DO anything?”
All very human and all very blind. I think a lot of commentators here need a cold shower of reality.
Francis talks constantly as he does because he evidently believes in what he says. All of them believe in their new Ecumenical, Inclusive, New, Non-Judgemental Church of Joy; whether because they themselves are Masons, homosexuals or for more banal reasons.
The visible Church is almost entirely in the hands of the enemy. Daneels’ elevation to the Synod, the recent imprimatur given to liberation theology, the promotion of men who support the liberal-progressive line.
Someone said that when Francis dies the Church will wake up.
I wish the person who.wrote that would wake up. The Great Chastisement is coming to a world near you very shortly. Watch the Synod. If they overturn there not only narural law but Divine Law, Christ will not stand by.
Would you say the same about the great popes who identified the dangers of Modernism but didn’t mention “Jewish Freemasonry”? I don’t think you could accuse Pius X of “a desire not to step near the mess in the road” yet he managed to write Pascendi without mentioning Jewish Freemasonry at all.
IMHO, there is no point in giving our enemies an excuse to write off what we say by allowing them to say we are anti-Semitic when that is not true. If we can get the same message across without mentioning Jewish Freemasonry then why not do so to avoid possibly damaging the message? I know I haven’t read at all about Jewish Freemasonry yet I understand as well as any of us, I guess, about the terrible apostasy in the Church today. I think anyone who is read up on Fatima has all the information they need to make sense of this crisis.
I played rugby for thirty years, Josephine, and only gave up eight or nine years ago when I got 44 stitches in one eye and then a month later in my last game broke my neck. I don’t much believe in a ‘nuanced approach’ which gives even one inch to the Politically Correct crowd, who are our enemies. But maybe that’s just me.
As I said, try to find the time to read E. Michael Jone’s book (and listen to his youtube discussions on both that book – ‘The Revolutionary Jew’ – and on Nostra Aetate) and at least you will know the depths of an aspect about the modern Church that people simply do not want to confront: its judaizing element.
I used to like rugby except when they got down to the scrum, I thought they were talking about me, so stopped watching 😀
The best background reading to the crisis in the Church today is, in my view, the Alta Vendita
While the writings of Michael E Jones and others on the various underlying strands of the crisis may be interesting and even helpful to have, as background information, at the back of one’s mind, I think what someone (either Margaret Mary or Josephine) said above, is important, and that we ought to beware of becoming distracted by the claims of “Jewish subversion” of the Church etc. I agree with whoever said it can be unjust to talk about “the Jews” when most Jews wouldn’t have a clue about any of this. The buck will lie – as ever – with the minority of “liberals” with their own agenda. Michael E Jones is adamant that he is not anti-~Semitic, and I take his word for it. It irritates me to bits that it’s impossible to discuss controversial issues relating to members of non-Christian religions without being labelled “racist” or “anti-Semitic” but since that is the fact of the matter, we might be well advised to apply Our Lord’s exhortation to us to be as wise as serpents and simple as doves, and to be a wise in our ways as the children of this world. Play, in other words, our enemies at their own game! Scripture scholars eat your hearts out!
The fact is that the entire ecumenical and inter-faith movement is subversive of the Catholic Church. That’s why the Alta Vendita is so important – it points out the spirit, the rationale which sought (and appears to have achieved) a Pope who would fly under the banner of Freemasonry by default, so to speak.
Our Lady has given us the cure for this subversion in her request for the conversion of Russia by the Pope and all the bishops of the world in union with him. That will sort it all out and take care of all the claims, whether conspiracy theories or factual.
Our task is to be aware of what is going on and to educate ourselves and others by repeating and promoting authentic Catholic doctrine and morals at every opportunity.
I wouldn’t worry too much about Jewish Freemasonry. I think we’ve enough to worry about waiting, in fear and trepidation, for Papa Francis’s next off the cuff descent into religious, spiritual and moral confusion, which, in his great humility, he is keen to share with the rest of us!
But keep smiling Benedict – keeps you young. And we all want to outlive this pontiff to see what happens next… 😀
And they accuse the Society of Saint Pius X of schismatic sentiment and of being non-canonical (which is of course absolute tripe).
Thank you God for the lifeboat of the Society!
Summa, Amen to that.
Here is a really good discussion and explanation of the philosophies that control the Church today – naturalism, liberalism, Modernism – using language every non-specialist can understand.
Francis, his minions, those who control the Church, are clearly in this camp, no question about this question at all. Listen to the discussion then think about the things they say on a daily basis. Similarly, groups like ACTA and all the other groups peddling Revolution in the Church belong firmly in this camp.
A friend in Argentina told me there were always doubts about his validity for the priesthood let alone the Pontificate, due to his close association with Marxists even then. Saint Francis of Assisi told his followers shortly before his death ” Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer.” As far as I am concerned, this is what we have today.
All that is expected of us as Catholic faithful is that we uphold and defend the Faith as handed down, we have no remit from God to go further than that. Hence, with respect for the sacred offices of the Church instituted by Our Lord, we may legitimately highlight and resist the Modernist errors of our superiors, even Popes, but always with fraternal charity and prayers for the conversion of those whose hearts and intentions we cannot possibly know for certain.
Once we step outside of this remit with sensationalist and bitter claims of Freemasonic association and deliberate bad will on their part, quoting this or that prophecy as confirmation of our suspicions, then I’m afraid we have entered upon the road of formal schism. While it may be true that some in the hierarchy have deliberately sold Our Lord out to his enemies, it is equally true that many more have fallen into the errors of Modernism with no such malice in their souls. Accusations borne of frustration and anger at the unprecedented tragedy unfolding in the Church will not win back a single soul to the truth. As Our Lord Himself admonished: “Be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves”.
Josephine made an excellent point that we should all take note of, which is that the holy Popes before the Council, most notably St. Pius X, were able to identify and dissect the heresies afflicting the Church, their authors and purveyors, without leveling personal accusations against individuals, groups or races of people. These Popes truly lived Our Lord’s admonition. We must do likewise lest we get distracted from the real issue, the supernatural issue, with useless earthly controversies. Our Lord’s disciples at the very heart of the Church are the ones who are endangering the Faith of Catholics right now – who do far greater harm from within than any external enemies could ever hope to do from without. It is enough for us to combat this internal sickness in souls without looking to blame external agents for it.
In Matthew 24, Our Lord predicts and describes the end times to His Apostles, adding: “And the charity of many will grow cold as they see wickedness abound everywhere”. We should beware this pitfall in the sure and certain knowledge that Our Saviour is still fully and firmly in charge of His Church. Let’s concentrate on the crisis within, then, and leave all the useless speculation and bitter controversy to the less charitable.
Athanasius, Pascendi was written more than 100 years ago and Fatima was nearly 100 years ago.
A great deal more is known now than then about all these questions. As an example, Akita has illuminated Fatima; the consequences of what St. Pius warned us of are now seen in all their horror.
Your long post is really a proof that even Traditionalists are influenced by the tyranny of Political.Correctness. It may be of course that those like myself who.have luved for years in places where political correctness does not exist are not encumbered by it.
All these posts are really whispering, ‘Ben Carter is an anti-semite’. Such is the effect of the tyranny of thought in these sad days.
No-one is accusing you of being anti-Semitic. But Our Lady of Fatima could easily have warned of “Jewish Freemasonry” at Fatima as she warned of the rise of Freemasonry at Quito in the 17th century. She didn’t.
As for “political correctness” – hey, I was nominated for the Stonewall Bigot of the Year award a few short years ago. I’ve no time for the PC brigade, and I doubt if Our Lord did either, but still He exhorted us to be as “wise” in our ways as the enemies of the Faith are in their ways. In other words, don’t hand your enemies a gift on a plate. No need to do so. We HAVE to tell all and sundry that without the Catholic Church salvation is not possible, but there is no dogma that commands us to publish Michael E Jones’s view that “Jewish Freemasonry” is to blame for the world’s ills and the crisis in the Church.
That’s all that’s been said here.
I’m not intimidated by the thought police, as you imagine. My sole reason for posting as I did was to attempt to persuade you that no amount of discussion about Communism, Freemasonry, etc., is going to resolve this crisis in the Church. Such controversies only distract from the real issue and usually end in bitterness. Believe me, I’ve witnessed it happen many times in my 30 years in Tradition. If that doesn’t convince you then just have a wee look at “the Resistance” side show started by Bishop Williamson. What has that achieved?
What amazes me on my second reading of Christopher Ferrara’s article is this part:
“I have been forced to change my mind and admit that the earliest critics of the former Cardinal Bergoglio, who knew far more about the man and his ideas than I did, were right from the beginning. Socci, too, has gone from supporting this pontificate to lamenting its alarming trajectory toward what would appear to be the completion of the post-Vatican II autodemolition of the Church (to the extent this is humanly possible and permitted by God).”
I well remember being amazed when both he and Michael Matt, Editor of The Remnant refused to comment negatively on the new Pope at the beginning. For me, seeing him on the balcony minus the papal stole worn only on that one occasion after election because it is a symbol of papal authority, was enough to know he was bad news. The name “Francis” too, coming from South America, was another clue that he would be fixated on “the poor” of this world,
So, it beggars belief that these supposed expert “traditionalists” took so long to see that this was a very bad choice of pope, and so long to say so. Made me think of “You have hidden these things from the learned and wise.”.
You surely know Athanasius that you have to know the enemy before you can defeat him. What I seem to be witnessing here is a willful susoension of one’s faculties of reason and intellect.
Aside from that, what an examination of these things achieves (at the very least) is the growth in Traditionalist numbers from those Catholics who read these blogs but don’t comment. They are here to learn, many of them.
My own online work has brought to my certain knowledge several Catholics to the Traditionalist fold. They are desperate for information, for knowledge, for instruction in the historical causes of this present crisis.
Refusing to do that or refusing to call a spade a spade hardly does any of those things.
We do know the enemy. He’s called Satan and he often manifests himself disguised as an angel of light. He is master of all revolutionaries, from secular liberal world organisations to individuals and groups within the Church who peddle extremist views and methods that harm souls. He is the angry author behind all dissent, division and deviance; the firer of unruly passions and curious minds. Yes, we know the enemy very well and we know very well that his trademark is to destroy peace in souls through enmity.
I disagree that naming Jews as a race of Freemasons and Communists will in any way add to the numbers of Traditional Catholics. It’s far more likely that such blanket accusations would simply add to the “looney” label Bishop Williamson successfully managed to attach to the cause of Tradition. Thankfully, he took that label with him when he formed his own sect.
It is not Bishop Fellay’s or the SSPX’s policy to throw these kinds of accusations at Jews, just as it has never been the Church’s policy. It is a great error to believe otherwise or to believe that the times we live in call for a change in policy, that’s the line the Modernists have given us since Vatican II as their excuse for altering the Faith.
Whether secular Jews are behind Freemasonry and Communism is NOT the point. The point is that it’s the Christians who are doing the most damage to the Church in our day and bringing Christianity to its knees in all the once-strong Christian countries. The Jews are not the authors of this present apostasy from the Faith, Christians are, the so-called children of the Church!
But just to add a little balance: Even if we accept that Freemasonry and Communism are works of the secular Jews, that does not taint the entire race with the same revolutionary brush. Indeed, we are all aware of honorable Rabbis who have vehemently defended the good name and memory of Pope Pius XII against the scurrilous accusations raised by some of their racial brothers, and we will all have seen the Rabbi on Fr. Gruner’s Fatima video arguing against the destructive conciliar reforms in the Catholic Church and promoting devotion to Our Lady.
Blaming the Jews for it all, then, is neither charitable nor truthful. There are many more non-Jews than Jews in this world. If the latter have successfully lured the former into apostasy, then, it is only because the former have been willing to go along.
We need to focus a lot more on the supernatural and a lot less on the geopolitical!
“Even if we accept that Freemasonry and Communism are works of the secular Jews ….”
We must accept it about Communism because it is historical fact, attested to by Robert Conquest, Professor Richard Pipes and many other expert historians. Not only Marx and Engels were Jewish, so were 80% of the Ministers of the first Bolshevik government, while the founder of the CHEKA, Feliks Dzerzhinsky was a Polish Jew was his successor Menzhinsky and up to 75% of the upper directorship of that organisation and its successor the OGPU.
An organisatioh that conducted the Great Terror, the mass murder of millions of Christians, Orthodox and Catholic, founded the GULAG, was later called the KGB and as today’s FSB has just led the invasion of Ukraine.
All these seem good reasons to me to enquire why Jews predominated in that demonic and bestial system, a system of tyranny that conducted the greatest persecution of Christianity in history.
You may choose to shut your eyes to uncomfortable facts (not conjecture): I will not.
No Benedict, the greatest persecution of Christianity in history was when Our Blessed Lord underwent His Passion and death on the Cross. The Jews of the time certainly had a hand in that persecution, but so did we! I am not aware that Our Lord uttered a single angry word against His persecutors, rather pitying them and offering His sufferings for their conversion and salvation. I like Our Lord’s way of doing things and so I try not to hate my enemies. I am more aware of historical events than you realise.
Anyway, you are free to restrict your search for answers to this world. I’ll take Our Lady’s word for it that the present crisis of Faith has a supernatural origin, the “diabolical disorientation” as she called it. The answer to that chastisement, as she pointed out, is prayer, penance and mortification on our part and the Consecration of Russia by the Pope and the Bishops of the world. In the meantime, it suffices for us to respectfully counter the errors of Modernism with sound Traditional Church teaching and leave the judgments to God.
Athanasius, forgive me but that’s plain silly — using Our Lord’s sacrifice as a means of avoiding a pertinent question. I will drop this subject as clearly I am not going to be answered reasonably. A shame.
I think you have been answered reasonably on several levels, but what you really want is for everyone to agree with you about the importance of Jewish Freemasonry in the current crisis. We have a difference of opinion there, so why not simply acknowledge that and move on, without arguing that we are “unreasonable” not to agree with you – which is, in effect, what you are saying.
Now, it’s downright disgraceful when folks don’t agree with ME, but that’s a different thing altogether. Get it now ? 😀
You think Our Lord’s example of charity and patience in regard to His persecutors is “plain silly”. Perhaps you’re right, the subject should be dropped.
I should say, though, that the “pertinent question” was well answered by myself and others, which is to say that we advised for reasons of charity and objectivity that Catholics, imitating the Popes and Archbishop Lefebvre, should not name the Jews in a controversial, clearly antagonistic, way as at the heart of all the woes of the Church and the world.
You view that opinion as cowardice on our part. We see it as a wise and prudent action in line with how Our Lord, His Church and the saints have always conducted themselves.
Bishop Williamson has made a career out of this naming and shaming business and look at the trouble he’s caused. He hasn’t won a single soul to God by his actions and accusations, though he may have scandalised a significant number.
The bottom line is that the Church is in crisis because Catholics have abandoned her teaching. The Jews didn’t force them to do this, they did it all by themselves. That’s the mystery of iniquity, “the diabolical disorientation,” that we are faced with today. Sin is at the root of all our troubles and we are every bit as guilty on that front as anyone else.
We need to concentrate on devotion to Our Lady and her Fatima message, placing all in her hands. She knows the good and the bad and will deal with all of it in due course.
It seems to me, although I may be wrong, that it would be OK to mention Scottish masons, Chines masons, African or American masons but don`t dare mention Jewish or homosexual ones.
What would be the point of mentioning Scottish masons, Chines masons, African or American masons? Would “Freemasons” not serve the same purpose?
Yes, what would be the point, and yes “Freemasons” (normally) would serve the same purpose but if you did mention them I don`t think there would be the same hue and cry from people like yourself as there is in naming Jewish ones That is all that I am trying to get across.
In case you get a grip of the wrong end of the stick again I will point out that I have no dislike or hatred of Jews but I can`t stand how some groups of people in this life seem to be protected species while it is OK to denigrate others.
To go back to your question, would “Freemasons” not serve the same purpose? If the discussion was about the Ku Klux Klan I think it would be appropriate to mention Scottish Freemasons.
And what is the point of mentioning Italian or even Vatican masons when talking about the Vatican Bank scandals?
I won`t even mention the accusations that Pope Paul V1 was a mason.
Perhaps we should all take our example from the Papal Encyclicals and just speak of the evils of Freemasonry without naming individuals or races. That seems to me to be the wise way to go.
You surely know Athanasius that you have to know the enemy before you can defeat him. What I seem to be witnessing here is a willful suspension of one’s faculties of reason and intellect.
Aside from that, what an examination of these things achieves (at the very least) is the growth in Traditionalist numbers from those Catholics who read these blogs but don’t comment. They are here to learn, many of them.
My own online work has brought to my certain knowledge several Catholics to the Traditionalist fold. They are desperate for information, for knowledge, for instruction in the historical causes of this present crisis.
Refusing to do that or refusing to call a spade a spade hardly does any of those things.
I have a natural interest too. Educated as a historian, I want know more precisely how all this has come about. The Editor says just knowing the Alta Vendita is enough. I strongly disagree: there are 200 years between the AV and now. How can we trace the AV through those years? Who carried its flame forward and how? Who are tbe guilty parties?
I don’t lack knowledge of who the Church’s enemies are, I lack only the will to hate them. I do my bit to keep the faith and challenge error, but I leave the judgments to God.
It’s not a question of *hating them* though, is it, but of hating everything that they believe. You have left the field of battle, evidently. Don’t dare criticise those still engaged in ****** fighting.
Editor: this time, your post went into spam due to the adjective chosen to describe “fighting”. It’s in our box of banned words, so take care.
Now you are being plain ridiculous. So, anyone who doesn’t want to blether on about “Jewish Freemasonry” and the wonderful Michael E Jones, has “left the field of battle”?
Gerragrip. I’m not remotely interested in Michael E Jones book. There. Have I “left the field of battle”?
Behave yourself. Or the next time you go into SPAM it’ll be no accident 😀
I agree with Athanasius that we know who the enemy is – Satan. Also that it’s Catholics to blame for the mess in the Church not the Jews.
Editor only said that the Alta Vendita was the “best” background reading for the crisis not the only.
You ask “who are the guilty parties” but seem to have made up your mind that it’s the Jews. I disagree. One of the popes (I think Pius X) said that more than anything else it was the apathy of Catholics that is always to blame for the bad things in the Church and the world. That makes sense to me.
The answer is Fatima and the Consecration of Russia. Everything else is secondary IMHO.
I think following our Lord’s Ten Commandments comes before everything. If we had complete compliance on that then every other problem would dissolve…
Seek first the Kingdom of God.
Well said. With bells and whistles on! Bad grammar, but what the heck…
I have been reading the recent entries here with very mixed feelings. Petrus has summed up the counsel of perfection that Athanasius, Editor, et al are blessed in being able to follow. They imitate Mary in the Gospel story, while more troubled souls are afflicted with the Martha syndrome.They cannot help but be ‘troubled about many things’, and reasons for, and ‘historical causes’ of, the present crisis trouble them. I am in the latter group, and so I am in sympathy with Benedict Carter’s views and with his need to root for ’causes’. Of course, like him, I am sure, I know full well that Satan is the ultimate enemy and that Catholics are to blame for allowing him to triumph thus far, but I really do think that trying to work out how he has managed to do so so spectacularly, and whom he has used as his instruments is not a futile or ‘wrongful’ exercise. It really is a matter of temperament, and I do so wish I were a Mary, and had her blessed peace of mind.
If only I were as Mary-like as you seem to think I am! Boy, that would be serious progress!
Believe me when I say that I am not without curiosity in these matters. It’s just that I’ve been there, done that and got the T-shirt. I have found generally over the years that this kind of investigation either proceeds from or ultimately leads to bitterness and a desire to apportion blame and demand justice. Life’s too short for that!
We have the teaching of the Popes about the evils of Freemasonry and Communism, surely that should suffice for us.
Being as wise as a serpent and as harmless as a dove is not an easy teaching for Catholics of a more warlike inclination, but it’s Our Lord’s counsel and we have to abide by it or else end up all bitter and twisted like the “Resistance” folk.
By all means do your historical investigations, but in a spirit of objectivity knowing that God will reward the good and the bad in due course. I’ve witnessed too many lose charity by their over-fixation on scandals they can’t handle!
I fail to see, Athanasius, why one should end up as embittered as you suggest is inevitable from an investigation of the guilty men. The reasoning is puerile. Maybe you and others have reached the “comfortably numb” stage. Well, others refuse to go down into the night without a fight.
If you fail to see then perhaps it’s because you’re not looking carefully enough. Read Bishop Williamson and his “Resistance” people, or try reading the various sites and blogs of the sedevacantists. That, hopefully, will open your eyes.
In the meantime, I challenge you to present me with a single authoritative Church document or approved Catholic work from before the Council that goes further than a firm and general condemnation of Freemasonry and Communism as enemies of Catholicism.
None of us should be prepared “to go down into the night without a fight,” that’s why we should concentrate all our efforts first on sanctifying our own souls.
Bishop Williamson and his pathetic “Resistance” people number no more than what, fifty souls, and are a total irrelevance to the Traditionalist movement. I am surprised that you have even bothered to mention them (four or five times now).
I mentioned them because your comments about Jewish Freemasonry smacks of their mindset, which is destructive to the Traditional Catholic cause.
You say fifty souls, but in fact the “Resistance” numbers a good many more than that, 16 priests in France alone, all mouthing off about the “Judeo-Masonic New Church” and now talking about consecrating a bishop. I’ve exchanged correspondence with some of these people and have experienced their bitterness first hand. That’s what happens when Catholics lose humility and charity.
You should recall the damage done to the mission of the SSPX a few years ago when Bishop Williamson decided to tell the world what he thought of the Holocaust. Did his words advance the supernatural mission of the SSPX, or did it hamper that mission and ultimately lead to the loss of these souls from Archbishop Lefebvre’s holy work? I’ll say no more than that.
This ‘resistance’ to me is a fanatical fringe splinter group who have no grounds to claim that the Society of Pope Pius X have abdicated the tradition in any way. Not once have I heard or sniffed an atom of liberalism or modernism at the Chapel I attend.
I cringe at their terminology of Resistance MC – Marian Corps.
Not sure if we have a stable group of people here.
This is a blog Athanasius, not a hassock where we can be found on our knees praying.
What we say on public forums should reflect the graces we receive when on our knees praying. I am assuming of course that we are all to be found daily on our knees praying, especially the Rosary. Blogging is a distant second to that particular duty.
“Well others refuse to go down into the night without a fight”.
Tell those “others” that their attitude smacks of pride. By the truckload.
Great saints did not have that attitude. St Thomas More kept silence for as long as he could, because he did not wish to give the Church’s enemies an excuse to put him to death. St Catherine of Siena wrote her plain speaking letters to popes and prelates without “investigating” the root cause of their weakness of character and faith. Those saints, like the rest, followed the grace being given to them by God, they didn’t seek to replace it with their own preferred methods along the lines of the Glasgow gang culture – “agree with me, or else, pal. ”
Frankly, your comment to Athanasius that “maybe you and others have reached the comfortably numb stage” is arrogant in the extreme.
Benedict, my advice is to beware of the danger of pride. It’s an ever-present danger for anyone seeking to work in Catholic Action. We must all pray and protect ourselves against it, every day.
You read up all you want to about Jewish Freemasonry. You’ve now told us about a book to read if we want. You’ve done your bit. Now – rather than cause unnecessary argument, why not drop the subject? I have less interest in the writings of Michael E Jones than I do in the latest edition of the Woman’s Own. 😀
So, let it go. We’ve had it up to the eyebrows. Which reminds me, I really do need to make an appointment with the nearest beautician asap…
I still think, wrongly of course according to some, that if you had mentioned any freemasonry other than the Jewish you wouldn`t have had all this hassle.
That`s only my opinion though for all it`s worthlessness.
Frankier,sure. It’s the great unmentionable and I am astonished at how Athanasius and others refuse to even let it be discussed.
Look: I lost two uncles to our German friends in World War II. Another one was in a Nazi POW camp for five years. I have no axe to grind as far as the Jews are concerned OTHER THAN:
i. The clear and material change on the Church’s teaching on the Jews (even now to the extent that Francis is on record as saying that there is no evidence whatever that the Catholic Faith has replaced Judaism and that therefore they remain the Chosen People), a change I totally reject;
ii. The very deep – and growing – Judaizing tendency within the Conciliar Church;
iii. The Talmudic hatred of Christ which is very evident today with the ADL and other organisations;
iv. The role of Talmudic Judaism in fomenting revolution and anti-Christian persecution wherever and whenever possible.
I have NOT said in any post here that (a) I hate Jews, (b) that all Jews are guilty of these crimes; (c) that I have any answer to any of it.
The “hate” word and the “bad temper” words are all from Athanasius,not from me,
“It’s the great unmentionable and I am astonished at how Athanasius and others refuse to even let it be discussed.”
I’m astonished that you’re astonished! It has never been the method of the Church to single out individuals, groups or a particular race for condemnation, simple as that. The sin or error is roundly condemned but never the sinner or proponent of error.
If conciliar Churchmen have succumbed to Masonic ideals it’s because they chose to sacrifice the truth for error. There’s no advantage to be gained by blaming the Jews for it.
You have missed the point of my posts entirely Athanasius.
By the way, to assert that the Church has never singled out this or that individual or group or race is palpable nonsense. The traditional teaching on the Jews of course leaves aside any subjective judgement of the state of soul of any individual but is clear on the collective guilt for Christ’s death of the Jewish race – at the same time as forbidding any actions against them that proceed from a desire for collective vengeance. A teaching that has always led to a tension on the borders but nevertheless coherent and clear.
There are people who hate being called homophobic for condemning the lifestyle of “good as you” people that aren`t a bit backward themselves at
inferring that someone is anti-Semitic for condemning the bombing of Gaza.
Are you deliberately trying to cause trouble? Benedict Carter has taken his leave of the blog and the subject is now dead. Let the matter rest!
Please DO NOT term me a troublemaker.
You have acted in a very unchristian manner to someone simply because of your desire for political correctness.
You certainly didn`t seem to want the matter to rest.
“Hassle”? So, we have to agree with Benedict, not discuss or it’s “hassle”?
Please try to understand that when a person prefixes the word “Freemasonry” with “Jewish”, he does so in an antagonistic spirit. He would say he’s just being honest. The rest of us say he’s being imprudent in the extreme. Antagonism of this kind may satisfy bad temper but it’s not how the Catholic Church conducts herself and it will not win a single soul to God.
How can the truth be “imprudent”? And why do you ascribe its use to bad temper? Now that one CAN call “imprudent”!
You are in deep trouble.
Your behaviour is being described as being worse than the Cathoiic Church.
There lies the answer to all the, I`ll say it again, hassle..
Obviously the simple answer is that it all depends on how you read it. I certainly didn`t detect any antagonistic spirit in what was said and I think Benedict`s replies show that he didn`t mean it in that way either. Otherwise, I would have condemned him too.
I would assume that if there is ever any reason for anyone to mention the hanging of Mr Calvi (?) under London Bridge that they will be careful not to mention Italian freemasonry.
If you read the first post on this thread Mr Carter was very enthusiastic in getting involved but I`m quite sure he may be sorry he didn’t catch a later plane from Ghana.
I wonder why I keep thinking of an old departed near neighbour of mine, Rabbie Burns.
Well, Rabbie was a Mason and Calvi was done in by P2, Italian Masons. So much for that information. I think we’re all generally aware of these facts.
But your claim that Benedict Carter was enthusiastic in getting involved is a wee bit misleading. He was antagonistically enthusiastic. There is a huge difference between holy zeal and bitter zeal; the former being constructive, the latter destructive. Anyway, Benedict got angry and left so let’s leave it at that and move on.
The truth can be imprudent when it is only part of the truth, BC, or when it is used to incite bad feeling towards others. A priest could reveal your confessed sins to someone; he would be telling them the truth, but that truth would constitute a very grave sin.
See my reply to Frankier above.
Your reply to Frankier does not address what I said about the proper and/or improper use of truth. Would you agree that truth can be used for ignoble purposes?
Of course. But if you hide truth because this or that evil man may misuse it, you do no-one a service.
I am amazed that Catholics supposedly knowledgeable about the causes of this great crisis refuse to see the links between Talmudic Judaism, Masonry – and the growing direct influence on the ecumaniacal Church of Francis’ Jewish friends (as a latest example).
For the life of me I cannot see the point of all this carry on about “the links between Talmudic Judaism, Masonry and the influence on the…. Church” etc.
I think I pointed out in my very first comment in response to you on this subject that the entire ecumenical and interfaith movement is at the root of the crisis – so what does the rest, the details, matter? What difference does it make whether this or that non-Christian religion has links to Masonry and so has influenced Pope Francis etc. HE is to blame for allowing himself to be influenced by non-Christian religions. End of. We know that the whole ecumenical movement is diabolical What possible difference can it make to blether on about “Jewish Freemasonry”? It’s a total red herring.
On this blog, we like to get to the point and stay there, Benedict. The reasons for the crisis, humanly speaking have been well discussed on here but they are not the most important thing. Fatima matters. Whatever links exist between Talmudic Judaism & Freemasonry don’t. To prove me wrong on this, you need to explain clearly what we can do to end these links. Nought, I’d wager.
I’ve returned to my computer after hours away and am dismayed that this (non)topic is still being aired.
Give it a rest. Please and thank you…
Editor – why are you directing this solely at me? I have no interest in prolonging a discussion to no purpose, but I do have the right to reply to posts made to me.
Anyway, you all enjoy your cozy little club. You obviously have your club line which I see I am not following. This Catholic blogging is a waste of time if the subject matter is closed.
Goodbye from me!
Not so long ago we were the only blog where you could express your opinion without being blocked. Now we’re a cozy wee club / a waste of time, and all because we disagree with you on a particular topic.
Anyway, thank you for your contributions from time to time on this blog. Much appreciated.
Goodbye and awra best!
Someone sent me this article today
It shows a deeply embedded Protestant mindset in Catholics. I hope it fits in here. It definitely made me think of “great darkness”!!!
Yes, quite true MM.
That article epitomises the cart before horse mindset of the Catholic Church of today.
It is one that views Latin Mass as a turn off; something that won’t respond to the needs of the young team. That is why we have the surrender of the Church to the liberal and modernist mindset.
Next thing we will have the Church condoning teenage sexual exploration as a pastoral solution to the demands of the youth of today.
I have a real ongoing fear that we are only at the beginning of a massive lurch towards laissez faire Catholicism, which will initiate a renewed attack on the SSPX by the corrupt within the. Vatican, hoping to bring about an expulsion.
The article you linked does not show a Protestant mindset in Catholics, it shows complete apostasy from God and His Holy Church. There are practicing Protestants with more morals than those so-called Catholic students. As for the NCR, I can’t believe that publication is permitted to retain the name ‘Catholic’. We’re living in an increasingly insane world!
I have to say that I am sorry how this has ended for Benedict.
People should realise that not every one of has the odour of sanctity about them More like BO in my case.
But it can get a bit disheartening to read comments from bloggers that would, in my case anyway,
require the full sackcloth and ashes treatment, while saying the rosary 24 hours a day to make me worthy to be in the same room as them never mind being allowed to look at them.
Benedict, please come back, I`m on my own now.
Nobody was anything but courteous to Benedict. I would have intervened otherwise.
I’ve no patience with folk who thrown their rattles out of the pram because they are not getting their own way. These are discussions, and any adult should be able to discuss and disagree without being silly. People who don’t like heat should stay out of kitchens.
Your comment above, e.g. about Calvi and “Italian Freemasonry” reveals a determination to stick with the non-issue which has, unfortunately, dominated this thread.
I followed the Calvi murder closely and I never read anyone, anywhere refer to “Italian freemasonry.” Not even once.
As others have pointed out, the popes have never prefixed freemasonry with any nationality or race. So why are you so offended by a reminder that all we need not do so either? Why is it so important to you to say “Jewish freemasonry”?
What IS the big deal? Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.
I’m sorry you feel that you are “on your own” on this blog – I have clearly misunderstood you altogether. You are welcome to continue to blog here but on our terms, Frankier. On no other.
Why would any Catholic with good intentions feel alone on this blog, of all places? What do you mean by “I’m on my own now”? What is it about your views on the Faith or your motives that makes you feel isolated here?
And another thing: I will thank you not to give the impression that anyone here is portraying himself/herself as in the odor of sanctity, making you feel sinful. We are all sinners on this blog, not one of us even close to canonisation (except editor, of course). So please, cut out the hypocrisy.
Can you not take a joke? Really!
I was only trying to be a bit light-hearted when I said I was on my own but
you again take it the wrong way.
They say it takes one to know one.
As for Rabbie, I was thinking more along the lines of his “admiration” for Holy Willies than his masonic tendencies.
Catholic convert: way up above you spoke of Islam as evil. Somebody told me that it actually says in the koran that it is good to commit jihad against the infidel or words to that effect. Would you have any idea how I could find these references, verse and chapter, so to speak?
Thanks for your very interesting research on what the saints had to say.
Well, I can’t actually find chapter and verse as I no longer own a Koran sadly. But suffice it to say, I can say with certainty that Muslims are commanded to strike at the necks of the non-believers. Just look at the writings of the above Saints and what St. Paul said re the Mahometans.
Why look for references in the writings of a false religion, when in Holy Scripture (Galatians 1:8) St Paul clearly condemns any attempt to supplant the teachings of Christ and His Church:- “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema”. A very prescient warning in view of the fact that many years later, Mohammed would allege he received a new revelation from God, via the Archangel Gabriel . . .
Try this website – there are lots of quotes here:-
What does the ‘religion of peace’ teach about violence: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm
Thank you, Wesminsteryfly.
Comments are closed.