St John Ogilvie & “Religious Freedom”…editor
A special papal envoy is in Glasgow to mark the 400th anniversary of the death of St John Ogilvie.
Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor will attend a Mass at St Andrew’s Cathedral later to mark the saint’s feast day.
The former Archbishop of Westminster will represent Pope Francis who was unable to accept an invitation from Glasgow’s Archbishop, Philip Tartaglia.
Jesuit priest John Ogilvie was hanged at Glasgow Cross for high treason for converting Protestants to Catholicism.
Archbishop Philip Tartaglia will deliver a homily
The Mass at St Andrew’s Cathedral will be held at 19:30.
In his homily, Archbishop Philip Tartaglia will highlight attacks on religious freedom, which he will claim, is “fragile, not always recognised, not always respected, in some places denied”.
Archbishop Tartaglia will also commend ecumenical engagement in Scotland.
Born in 1579, John Ogilvie was raised as a Calvinist and was received into the Catholic faith aged 17 in 1596.
He was ordained a Jesuit priest in Paris in 1610 and returned to Scotland, which was largely Protestant following the Reformation and break with the Papacy in 1560.
While in Scotland, Ogilvie was arrested and following torture and trial, was convicted of high treason.
He had been denying the king’s spiritual jurisdiction by upholding the Pope’s spiritual primacy as well as conducting Mass in secret.
He was hanged at Glasgow Cross on 10 March 1615, aged 36. Source
It is a lie to say that St John Ogilvie, Scotland’s only canonised martyr, gave his life in the cause of “religious freedom”. Far from it. Asked why he had returned to Scotland, the saint replied: “to unteach heresy and to save souls”. The concept of “religious freedom” as it is being understood today, is a heresy. Comments invited. Oh and Happy Feast Day!
It is interesting that Cardinal Cormac Murphy has been held in high esteem by successive Popes, and has been entrusted, by them, with various roles even after retiring as a Diocesan Bishop.
As The Church teaches religious freedom is a true right to be granted to all, and The Church must do it can to further that right. In so far as any lives, or dies, for the faith they live, or die, to protect the freedoms of all.
Once again, you are at odds with the Magisterial teaching of the Church. Religious Liberty is a condemned heresy.
As for Cardinal Cormac Murphy, the fact that he has been held in high esteem by successive Popes should tell you something about the poor discernment of those Popes. I wouldn’t entrust my dog to said Cardinal!
I wouldn’t let you have care of a dog.
Sorry! The above comment on the thread looks as though I was agreeing with CS. I wasn’t! I was agreeing with Athanasius.
In so far as any lives, or dies, for the faith they live, or die, to protect the freedoms of all. So the Christians being martyred in the Middle East are dying to protect the freedom of the Muslims to continue their killing? Have I understood you correctly?
99.9% of Muslims are peace loving and wouldn’t kill anyone.
In UK Prisons alone Catholics are overrepresented, relative to the number of Catholics in the general population, and many for violence and murder and other heinous crimes, but they are not true representatives of the faith.
I assume that in predominantly Catholic countries the numbers of such criminals is significant.
“99.9% of Muslims are peace loving and wouldn’t kill anyone”.
Brigitte Gabriel: The peaceful majority are irrelevant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiSS-dR5dmk
Common, maybe if more Catholics were in the masons the figures would be lower.
Can you please answer my question? Are the Christians being martyred in the Middle East, the Catholic woman imprisoned in a Pakistani jail just for being Catholic, and the couple who were burned to death in a brick kiln, all dying to protect the freedom of the 99.9% of the peace loving Muslims? The peace -loving Muslims who stubbornly refuse to condemn the actions of their fellow Muslims out of loyalty? Where is your loyalty, CS?
“As The Church teaches religious freedom is a true right to be granted to all, and The Church must do it can to further that right. In so far as any lives, or dies, for the faith they live, or die, to protect the freedoms of all.”
I find this strange thing to write because Pius IX condemned religious freedom in the “Syllabus of Errors” when condemned the belief that-
” Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. — Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.” Syllabus of Errors no. 15.
It would seem the Catholic Church really does have to make up it’s mind. The Church is now teaching something that is in direct contradiction to what it taught before. So which is right?
To quote The Catechism of The Catholic Church:
“1738 Freedom is exercised in relationships between human beings. Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of respect. The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. This right must be recognized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and public order”
And DECLARATION ON
THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON OCTOBER 28, 1965:
“The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.
3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.
Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom. ”
And The Catechism of The Catholic Church once more:
“The Church and non-Christians
839 “Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.”325
The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 “the first to hear the Word of God.”327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”,328 “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.”329
840 And when one considers the future, God’s People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.
841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”330
842 The Church’s bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:
All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .331
843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as “a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.”332
844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:
Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.333
845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son’s Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is “the world reconciled.” She is that bark which “in the full sail of the Lord’s cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world.” According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah’s ark, which alone saves from the flood.334″
I only have time to highlight one error in the above quotes, that from Nostra Aetate where you quote:
“The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth”
Unfortunately, the “one God” whom they adore, is NOT the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit – as the document goes on to acknowledge, they (merely) revered Jesus as a prophet. So this nonsense that we all adore the “one God” is precisely that – a non-sense.
Our Lord Himself said that unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Now, would you seriously contend along with the Modernist authors of Nostra Aetate that Jews and Muslims are exceptions to this divine law?
Are you saying that the Holy Spirit misinformed the Church for almost two thousand years up to Vatican II, so that now all should accept that salvation is perfectly achievable in Judaism and Islam as in the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ by reason of a shared patrimony with Abraham? I certainly hope not, for then you would be rejecting the infallible dogma ‘Outside the Church no salvation’.
Here’s a little reminder of the Church’s authentic Magisterial teaching as expressed by Blessed Pope Pius IX in his Encyclical Quanta Cura:
“They do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, viz., that ‘liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed in every rightly constituted society’…But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching liberty of perdition.…”
There are many such pre-Council Magisterial quotes demonstrating the contradiction that Nostra Aetate represents.
So we have the Church contradicting what it said earlier??? No wonder people are leaving the Church en masse. What credibility can it possibly claim to have?
Not “the Church” – we have dissenters trying to give the impression that certain things can change, which can’t. We had the same thing at the Protestant Reformation – do you remember Father Martin Luther? Well, Cardinal Kasper & Co. are cut from the same faithless cloth.
Editor is absolutely right, it’s not the Church contradicting herself but certain Churchmen contradicting the Church and pretending that their ambiguity and innovations are consistent with Tradition. A close examination of what the Church has consistently taught for almost 2000 years up to Vatican II, however, very quickly betrays their betrayal.
The Church is not contradicting itself, for it cannot, but is correcting false, erroneous, and nonsensical interpretations of historical documents addressing entirely different problems.
Editor: this went into moderation of its own accord… In any case, would you explain what you mean by giving an example of “historical documents addressing entirely different problems” that are the subject of “nonsensical interpretations”. You’ve lost me, big time.
He’s lost me as well. I look forward to a full and detailed explanation from CS.
Simply, The Magisterium safeguards, interprets, and transmits the correct understanding, and application, of past documents, and ensures they are received, and heard, in the light of Tradition, and are not the subject of self selecting, and appointed, focus groups who, mistakenly, believe they are more Catholic than The Pope.
For example, when you objected to non Christian prayers being used, in various contexts, I pointed out the Psalms were one such example. You attempted to counter that The Jews were, as it were, the Church of its day.
Now the argument is that Muslims do not believe in The Trinity, but neither r do the Jews.
Consistency is important, and that is what The Pope, and The Magisterium bring to this discussion, and not you.
The CCC states: “85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.”47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. “. You, and others here, are not The Magisterium, and you can quote Docuemnts, but it The Magisterium , in Communion with the current Pope, that interprets them.
On the overall topic may I quote Lumen Gentium:
“16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”,(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.”
Yes, the Magisterium must INTERPRET – but they must not CONTRADICT. Two very different things.
We are not asked to leave our intelligence at the front door of any church. The great saints and doctors of the Church have taught us that the litmus test, when the Church is in crisis, is to measure what the pope and bishops are teaching against Catholic Tradition – what has always been taught and believed, everywhere and by everyone. The current pope and bishops do not measure up against that test. At no time in history, has the Church taught that it is possible to reject Christ and be saved. Baptism into Christ is an essential condition of salvation. It’s not possible to interpret that truth, given in Scripture and received by the faithful always and everywhere, in any other way.
You are correct in saying that Muslims and Jews do not accept that Jesus is God, they reject the one, true, Trinitarian God. Hence it is a non-sense to say that we all worship the same God.
Logically, therefore, you must conclude that there is something very rotten in the way churchmen at the top today are “interpreting” Catholicism. They are leading souls AWAY from the truths of the Faith.
Or do you really believe that the current pontiff, whoever he is, is authorised to overturn previous teachings? You certainly can’t have it both ways. To claim that we all worship the same God, when the non-Christian religions reject Christ and do not believe that he is God, is not remotely the same as saying what the Church has always taught – that we worship different gods and must pray and work for the conversion of the pagans. Can’t both be true.
You get an A+ for that response! 😀 It was clear, concise and thorough!
You are correct in saying that Muslims and Jews do not accept that Jesus is God, they reject the one, true, Trinitarian God. Hence it is a non-sense to say that we all worship the same God.
I will wait anxiously for CS to show us how JP II in the CCC says we worship the same god as the Muslims, and how Pope Francis telling the world religions that they don’t need to convert to be saved, is consistent with Catholic teaching that there is only one God.
Clearly we don’t all worship the same God, in the sense Jews do not recognise Jesus for who is he, but he is definitely the Saviour God our Father promised them, and who they await, but certainly the most ancient of prayers speak of their faith in the One God.
I don’t think that in relation to other faiths we worship the One God, as we don’t have any scriptures in common with them as we do with The People of The Covenant. A Covenant that has not been revoked but the Jews see as complete.
The Church still teaches it is only through Jesus can be saved.
Your last sentence confirmed precisely what we have been saying to you all along, e.g: “The Church still teaches it is only through Jesus can be saved.”
Thank you. Now you acknowledge that outside the Catholic Church founded by Jesus there is no salvation.
Judaism can’t save souls, Islam can’t save souls, Hinduism can’t save souls, etc. Only the Catholic Church can save souls.
What St. Paul meant by God not repenting of His promise to the Jews is that one day they will finally acknowledge Our Lord as Saviour and be converted “when the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled,” says St. Paul. Until that happy day, there can be no salvation for those who wilfully reject Jesus as the Son of God or who fail to discover the truth by their own fault.
Invincible ignorance alone is the exception to the general rule, with the proviso of course that the exception never becomes the general rule!
No member of The Magisterium has ever denied that it is only through Jesus that people can be saved, However, formal membership of The Church is not necessarily a requirement as Lumen Gentium etc, etc, make clear.
God is not limited to formal structures in dispensing his graces, and mercy. Jesus died to save all peoples.
You’re wrong. Formal membership is generally required for salvation, the exception being spiritual membership by invincible ignorance. Either way, membership of the Catholic Church is essential for salvation.
Remember the INFALLIBLE DOGMA ‘Outside the Church no salvation’. This is non-negotiable because it is divinely revealed truth.
And here is a reminder also of the teaching of the Church from Pope Gregory XVI’s Encyclical Mirari Vos:
“Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism.This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the Apostle that there is: “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself who said: “He that is not with me, is against me” (Luke 11:23), and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic Faith whole and inviolate”.”
Lumen Gentium cannot change this teaching!
As is usually the case, it is you that is wrong. To quote The catechism of The Catholic Church:
“846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”338”
Knowing that other people believe in Jesus, and their is a “Catholic” Church is not the same thing as living in invincible ignorance. I forgot which author said in effect people often don’t hear the Gospel, because Christians don’t live it. It went something like: it is not that the Gospel has been tried and found wanting. It is that it has never been tried.
The Church isn’t helped by ignorant Whited Sepulchres who lives their lives in judgement of how other people stand before God, and in so judging condemn themselves.
You may attempt to detract from the truth all you like with lengthy quotes and long personal interpretations, but you cannot get away from the contradiction I demonstrated further down this page between Nostra Aetate and Pius XI’s Mortalium Animos.
Ignoring the evidence doesn’t do you or your argument justice. It just proves that you are wilfully blinding yourself to the unpleasant truth.
This quote you made from Lumen Gentium is not what you think it is:
“…Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life…”
The highlighted sections are just a reiteration of the Church’s teaching on Invincible Ignorance, which is to say that some souls by the grace of God, if they strive to know the truth with the lights given them and keep the Commandments of God written in every heart, can be saved in their false religion but not by their false religion. For if they meet the correct criteria then they are, unknown even to themselves, spiritually united to the Catholic Church, apart from which there is no salvation.
So there is nothing new here. All we have is a re-stating of the Church’s teaching on Invincible Ignorance, not a new doctrine of false ecumenism and Religious Liberty.
CS:- “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.”
― G.K. Chesterton, What’s Wrong with the World. That is the author you were quoting.
How do we know that the correction of false, erroneous and nonsensical interpretations of historical documents isn’t itself false, erroneous and nonsensical? Surely if we are free to ignore historical documents like the Syllabus, we are equally free to reject historical documents like Nostra Aetate and the CCC?
Editor and Athanasius,
I’m with you on what you say. The only issue I have is that Luther left the Church and formed his own, while Kasper and co have stayed in and used the full authority of the Church, or at least pretended to. That’s the only possible explanation I can see. Otherwise, Catholicism is a false religion, and always has been.
Yes, and this is precisely what Pope St. Pius X warned of concerning the Modernists. He said that they stay within the Church and do greater harm because of their intimate knowledge of her. These Churchmen play the part of Judas Iscariot, the first Fifth Columnist.
Martin Luther didn’t keep his mouth shut until he’d started up his own ecclesial community. Ditto Kasper. They leave in their hearts and souls first. Do lots of damage and then launch their own particular product – we’ve got the Brand Lutheran. Watch for the launch of the Brand Kasperian.
How on earth anyone could seriously deny that St John Ogilvie was not a martyr for the faith is totally beyound me.
I have put a “not in where it should not be. I should have written “How on earth anyone could claim that St. John Ogilvie was not a martyr for the faith is totally beyond me”
No one is saying that he didn’t die to witness to his faith, but that faith is concerned for freedoms for all. We cannot demand freedoms for ourselves that we deny to others.
“No one is saying that he didn’t die to witness to his faith, but that faith is concerned for freedoms for all. We cannot demand freedoms for ourselves that we deny to others.”
Actually, we can. Until V2 the Church had always taught that religious “freedom” is only for Catholics, to be “free” to practice the Catholic Faith. No-one has the “right” to follow a false religion, any more than we have a right to disobey the first commandment. It may be prudent for the common good to tolerate people worshipping false gods if they don’t know any better, and not try to force Christianity on them against their will, but that is not the same as saying that they have the right to worship false gods.
The last words of St. John Ogilvie: ‘if there are any hidden Catholics here, then let them pray for me, but the prayers of heretics I will not have’. Does that sound ecumenical to you? Didn’t think so.
The attempts to be “politically correct” and not be “offensive” cause minds to devolve into sheer stupidity.
How right you are!
Sadder still than political correctness is the call of some “loyal” Catholics who daily denounce The Jesuits, who have served the Church for centuries, and have many martyrs in their ranks, and who pray the Order will cease to be. It is a strange way to honour fidelity, and the martyrs!
It’s impossible to speak of ‘Jesuits’ as one entity any more. Certainly, there are real Jesuits, who have faithfully served the Church for centuries – I myself have deep gratitude for the help given to me by a faithful Jesuit who has now gone to his eternal reward – and then there as those who disgrace the name Jesuit by supporting a barrage of dissenting causes diametrically opposed to Church teaching.
Yes, I am one who would see the Jesuit Order disbanded today. Once the greatest defenders of Catholic orthodoxy, they have since deteriorated into a rabble of heretics. I feel certain that St. John Ogilvie would concur.
I agree. The Jesuit who helped me (RIP), grieved at the way his Order had gone.
And no doubt many more delight in the way the order responds to The Holy Spirit!
Believe me, it’s not the “Holy Spirit” the Jesuits of today are responding to! You are free to read into that what you like.
Yes, the last decent Jesuits as far as I can tell died off a wee while ago.
There is one reigning in Rome and loads of others out there. All a credit to their Order, and the wider Church.
Eh? I’m rarely lost for words…but I’m stumped! Are you being serious? Don’t you watch the news or come on true Catholic blogs? I’ll let others deal with you, as I don’t have the time nor the patience.
[Editor: rest of this comment deleted – personal remarks not allowed, CC. Not allowed!]
No, CS has demonstrated over and over again he is rarely, if ever, capable of being serious. He’s a contrarian troll, who derives some sort of deeply unhealthy pleasure in visiting traditional Catholic blogs and making statements which he knows will exasperate / offend. It’s the nature of the beast, I’m afraid. I hope and pray he gets more human interaction in his life than he does on this blog.
You now have me convinced that there is such a phenomenon as a parallel universe. What’s the weather like there? Ours is hellish, so I imagine yours is heavenly.
Parallel universe? I wish!
The noted Dominican theologian, Melchior Cano actually believed the Jesuits were ‘the forerunners of the Antichrist’. It may seem extreme, but given what we are witnessing, he may have been right. I do believe that the Pope is doing the work of the Antichrist, by dripping poison into the ears of the faithful, so many of them ignorant and bemused, and weakening them and their spiritual armour and faculties for when the true antichrist comes. Prepare yourselves folks, because we’re in for one helluva ride!
This piece in The Remnant was interesting – and this from a Novus Ordo priest! http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/1581-afraid-of-pope-francis-a-sobering-email-from-father-anonymous
Many thanks for that link. I’ve copied the priest’s email here, for ease of reference, although the Remnant editor’s introduction is also worth reading:
[To] Editor, The Remnant:
I’m reassured to read your articles taking Pope Francis to task for his many attacks on faithful Catholics, while at the same time endorsing the immoral behavior of others.
I am a priest and have been for twenty-five years. I’ve never experienced such a spiritual upheaval in all those years, and, believe me, I have seen what I thought was the worst the Catholic Church had to offer.
Pope Francis’ behavior and his continued off-the-cuff remarks have left me feeling demoralized. I have never experienced such ill-will coming from the Holy See. The confusion the Pope’s remarks is causing among the faithful to whom I minister, and the way his actions are emboldening an already anti-Catholic culture seem to me to have something of the sinister about it. When I look into Pope Francis’ eyes I do not see love and compassion, I see vainglory and cunning.
Now we face the possibility of catastrophe when the Synod reconvenes in Rome this fall. My own archbishop sent out requests for input from parishioners about issues of marriage and family. The questions asked of my parishioners seem leading, as if he’s looking for particular responses to suit a predetermined outcome. I fear, in a way I’ve never feared before, that we’re facing serious doctrinal changes. Although Pope Francis continues to insist that these would only be discipline changes and not doctrinal, my gut tells me that he’s being disingenuous.
All over the world we’re seeing cardinals, archbishops and bishops affirming behaviors which are unequivocally condemned by Popes and Councils in previous centuries. As I listen and watch these events, in my mind, over and over, I hear the phrase, “the smoke of Satan has entered the sanctuary.” Could it be that all that is happening is truly the work of Satan? I’m not ready to affirm that it is, but in my heart I fear that it may be true. If it is then it may also be true that many members of our hierarchy do not belong to Christ.
I’ve had conversations with priest friends about all of this. We are all fearful for what is to come. None of us feels as if we’re standing on doctrinally solid grounds any longer. We all cringe every time Pope Francis steps in front of a group of journalists. What will he say next? How will he berate those who are faithfully serving Christ? How will he beat up on us this time?
One of my priest friends asked me during a conversation what I would do if the Church does formally approve what it previously formally condemned. I had to confess in all honesty that I’d probably have to leave priestly ministry. He admitted that he’d probably have no choice but to do the same.
My deepest fear is that if Pope Francis continues to push the Church toward heresy that we may experience a war among the faithful that would make Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s opposition after Vatican II appear like a simple objection!
I know you’ll understand why I’m not signing my name to this email.
May God preserve His Holy Church from the forces, visible and invisible, within and without, who seek to destroy it. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners!
We need a new inquisition! Those Jesuits would be the first on the pyre!
The real sorrow for me is that they continue to use the Holy Name of Our Lord to peddle their Modernism. St. Ignatius would be appalled!
Yes, things are often given a veneer of orthodoxy but underneath are rotten and modernist to the core. The Jesuits frequently advertise about ‘Ignatian Spirituality’ in retreats etc but when you look deeper, it is very far removed from the Spiritual Exercises of St Ignatius and is more usually based on New Age nonsense. I remember the notorious Campion Hall in Westminster Diocese – since mercifully closed and now a luxury housing estate (I wonder what happened to the mega-millions from the sale of that land?). The retreats that used to be held there were an utter scandal. I know because I participated in one once. I walked out in disgust. Blatant dissent, blasphemy and modernism.
And – I meant to add – overseen by Jesuits.
I think that’s a very real form of blasphemy. It’s exactly what the Protestant Reformers did in the 16th century and exactly what St John Ogilvie fought against. The awful truth is, they are probably so deluded they don’t even know that they serve a very different master.
It is the modern Jesuits who dishonour the memory of their martyr saints! They are absolutely enemies of the Faith and agents of the devil.
The crazy thing is that if St John Ogilvie had been put to death in the cause of “religious freedom”, he needn’t have died at all. All he had to say was, “sorry I went about the place offering Mass when it’s forbidden… I recognise your right to punish me for causing offence… I really want to set an example by respecting your religious freedom, so I’m truly sorry, blah blah” and all manner of things would have been well for him.
He was martyred because he refused to deny the Catholic religion. End of.
As for Cardinal Cormac Murphy of “the Pope is merely first among equals” infamy, the least said, soonest mended.
To recognise, and promote, religious freedom is not to deny your own faith, but create the possibility of dialogue, and ensure your own freedom.
If I truly believe in God then I know God won’t be defeated.
I don’t think you understand Religious Freedom at all. Certainly, no man can be coerced into accepting the one, true religion of God, but man does not have the moral freedom to reject the true religion. He has the ability to do so, through Original Sin, but he doesn’t have the moral freedom.
I also think you have a limited understanding of “dialogue”. If you mean discussing religion with people of different faiths in order to become more respectful of each other and recognise what unites us, rather than what divides us, then let me be quite clear – we do not have the moral freedom to engage in this behaviour. It only leads to indifferentism.
The only kind of “dialogue” that a Catholic can engage in is proselytism. We must, in charity, explain clearly the truths of the Faith and show why all other “faiths” are false. This is what the Jesuits did. It’s what St John Ogilvie did.
I understand perfectly as does The Pope, The Magisterium, and the majority of faithful, well informed, , loyal Catholics.
No, you tragically do not understand and clearly have no wish to understand. You are, in fact, just another indifferent nominal Catholic.
To quote The Catechism of The Catholic Church:
“1738 Freedom is exercised in relationships between human beings. Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of respect. The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. This right must be recognized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and public order” This quote surely speaks of religious freedom, and the need for dialogue with others.
No, your quote from the CCC does not speak of religious freedom. Note that it reads “the right to the exercise of freedom,” not ‘the freedom to exercise’ as in religious freedom. You have misread the quote. If anything, given the “within the limits…” part at the end, this quote stands more in support of the Church’s long-time teaching on “Religious Tolerance” than of the novelty of “Religious Liberty”.
Besides that, it is impossible that human conscience be considered more inviolable than divine revelation, for then we would be saying that every man is his own god free to choose, exercise and spread his own religious beliefs. Such insanity, as we have seen in our own time, is a short route to apostasy and chaos.
Hence the Church’s true teaching on Religious Tolerance as opposed to the modern error of Religious Liberty.
It`s a pity you hadn`t been around to act as counsel for John Ogilvie at that time.
I`m quite sure we wouldn`t have been having this discussion now.
Let’s hope CS is around if and when we are faced with martyrdom. I’ll be glad to forego the discussion 😀
His fees might be a bit steep for my liking.
You mean you would not throw in that pinch of incense? That is most insensitive and uncharitable of you, what about the feelings of your persecutors??? 😀
It would be remiss of me to not think of the people who were helping me to get to Heaven, especially when it is a struggle to get there on my own.
Religious Liberty (the proper Vatican II name for it) is precisely to deny your own faith. It is a repudiation of the Kingship of Christ and His right to rule over the nations through His Church by means of one faith, one shepherd and one baptism.
You put it in the proverbial nutshell. Couldn’t have put it better myself. Well, I probably could’ve but it would have taken another twenty paragraphs 😀
If religious freedom is creating the possibility of dialogue, why did God not dialogue with Lucifer when he said, ” I will not serve”. Why did He not give Lucifer the option of peacefully co-existing?
Yes that’s right, I remember that erroneous comment from Cormac. ‘Never the eleven without Peter, never Peter without the eleven’.
Exactly. I remember a friend of mine saying that the lay organisation – Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice – should have taken that up and never stopped repeating it, pointing out the error until every Catholic in England got the message. That one statement from him alone, shows his true dissenting colours. What an insult to the memory of St John Ogilvie, for Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor to be appointed papal envoy to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the saint’s martyrdom.
My understanding is that John Ogilvie died rather than renounce his Catholic faith in a context that was certainly one of odium fidei. This much would appear not to be in doubt. The question here would seem to be if it can be affirmed that he also died for religious freedom.
I would contend that there is always a necessay sense in which Christian martyrdom is also an affirmation of religious freedom. If we take the early Church, for example, we more often than not have a context of a pagan society, with elements like emperor worship, in which Christians are asked to sacrifice to the emperor and thereby to deny Christ. There is no doubt that the early martyrs died for Christ. But is it so wide of the mark to say, especially given the pagan context, that their death was also an affirmation of their personal freedom to worship the one, true God? On the contrary, if martyrdom is not an exercise in freedom, can it still be martyrdom? Common sense would tell us that it cannot.
The problem here surely derives from how we understand religious liberty. If we understand it as the exaltation of religious anarchy, the freedom to believe as one likes regardless of God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ, that is one thing and would clearly be a misuse of our created free will. But if we understand it as the freedom to adhere to God’s self-revelation, that is quite another, since one of the most fundamental requisites for an authentic act of faith is that it should be free.
Is it wrong for the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland to stress religious liberty in the forthcoming celebrations for the 400th anniversary of the saint’s martrydom?
Before attempting to answer this question, let me say at once that so much of the ecumenical effort in Scotland since Vatican II has been effectively syncretist and has tended to deny any substantial difference between catholicism and protestantism. (A good example of this would be the syrup-laden, doctrinally indifferent rubbish spoken by Keith Patrick O’Brien during a famous, or should I say infamous, visit to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and widely reported at the time in the Catholic Truth Newsletter.) This fundamentally lazy approach has done great harm, not least to the Catholic Church. But what we must not forget is that the context of the profession of the true faith in Scotland is no longer one of Protestant persecution, but one of resurgent paganism in which the prevailing culture does not hesitate to exhibit its disdain for religion at every possible opportunity. In this context, it is surely right to emphasize religious liberty.
To say that John Ogilvie died for the Catholic faith is surely not in contrast with saying that his death is also an affirmation of the inviolable right to a religious conscience and therefore an affirmation of religious liberty.
So did John Ogilvie die so that his executioners could enjoy their (protestant) religious freedom?
I remember reading that from the scaffold John Ogilvie asked for any Catholics in the crowd to pray for him, and then stated “the prayers of Protestants I needs not.” Not very ecumenical.
Firstly, I hope you don’t take offence but I have twice corrected your use of the Protestant-inspired name for the Catholic Church – just mentioning because you don’t seem to have noticed. Please check out this short article – although “RC” has, unfortunately, gone into the language now, with the majority of Catholics ignorant of its genesis, we do not use it on this blog and I also link to the EWTN article when visitors use it. The fact that it’s used all over the place, with diocesan websites banner headlining Roman Catholic Diocese of… doesn’t change the fact that RC is NOT the name of the Catholic Church.
As for your comments about religious freedom. John Ogilvie did not die for “religious freedom” but out of duty. He knew that he could not deny the Faith for fear of hearing those terrible words of Our Lord: “If you deny Me in the presence of men, I will deny you in the presence of My Father in Heaven.”
Your concluding paragraph fails to take account of the meaning of so called religious liberty today. It has been clearly defined all over the place as meaning everyone should have the liberty to worship as they choose. Hence we found Pope John Paul II allowing the removal of the Blessed Sacrament from a tabernacle in Assisi to be replaced with an image of the Buddha, to permit the followers of that false religion, their “freedom” to venerate him. And ditto the example you gave of Archbishop O’Brien, as he then was, praising the Protestant Eucharistic service to the skies and speaking of intercommunion at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, when he spoke of “my Church” as opposed to [their] Church – equal partners in the salvation industry.
This is a major error of our times, which has been given the stamp of approval of the Modernist popes in recent times. While I am certain that you are trying to make the best of a bad job, so to speak, by putting a Catholic gloss on the term, the fact is, religious freedom/religious liberty is a heresy. John Ogilvie SJ would have no part of it and it is to fail to understand the nature of his martyrdom to reduce it to nothing more than “an affirmation of religious liberty”. Your remark: “His death is also an affirmation of the inviolable right to a religious conscience and therefore an affirmation of religious liberty” is a statement to which no Modernist would object. I know that you mean to restrict that statement to the liberty to follow the Catholic religion but that’s not how it would be read today. Why use the language of the enemy, which can, at best, only lead to ambiguity?
No, John Ogilvie did not die for religious freedom/religious liberty as it is being peddled today. No way.
I should point out for balance’ sake that the EWTN article you link is actually inaccurate. The term “Roman Catholic,” contrary to the author’s claim, has been used in official Church documents.
For example, in Divini Illius Magistiof Pope Pius XI, we read: “…This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing…” (Paragraph 54).
And again, in Humani Generis of Pope Pius XII, we read: “…Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing…” (Paragraph 27).
It is also worth noting that Pope Benedict XVI used the term in two official Church documents in 2006.
I have said before and I say again that I do not have any personal problem using this term. If it was good enough for Pius XI and Pius XII, it is good enough for me. I really don’t think the matter is of any real importance in the grand scheme of things.
I will now await your decision on my pay decrease!
That is interesting but doesn’t change the fact of the genesis of the term. Even as a schoolgirl I remember questioning it and have never used it. Protestants in my experience refuse NOT to use it, as it supports their branch theory belief that the “Roman” part of the Church is only one part and they belong to the “one holy catholic church” of the creed – they just don’t belong to the “Roman” part.
In this time of confusion into chaos, I prefer to have no part of any theory that undermines the Faith or the doctrine of one Church – not one Church with many branches.
I accept that the EWTN article has the inaccuracy which you have identified but, frankly, even a couple of swallows do not make a summer! Pope Benedict, remember, not only used but coined the term “Extraordinary Form” to describe the ancient Mass but I suspect you – like me – will never use that term, unless quoting A.N. Other – EVER!
No pay decrease for pointing out a fact, but while I won’t make an issue out of it, I would appreciate if bloggers would desist from using “RC” if only out of respect for the fact that we are mostly Scots Catholics on this blog! Given the inaccuracy in the article, I won’t link to it any more but the fact that a couple of popes used it in relatively recent times (and Bishop Fellay, disappointingly, uses it a lot) doesn’t change the fact that its purpose on introduction was to give credibility to the Protestant Reformers’ claim that they were (and remain) a branch of the Catholic Church.
Here endeth the lesson!
“Roman Catholic” is a term which, regardless of its genesis, is now in very common usage among Catholics.
As it happens, the term is actually quite complimentary today in that a good many Modernists in many countries over the last 70 years or so have refused to use it, preferring instead to refer to themselves as German, Scottish, Dutch or whatever Catholics to emphasise their dissent from the teachings of Rome.
Now I know that this is not your reason for rejecting the term, but you can surely see that a refusal to use it is more pleasing to Modern heretics within the Church today than outwith it.
If it was a term dangerous to Faith then I feel quite certain that Popes Pius XI & XII, as well as Bishop Fellay, would have recognised the fact. But, as I say, it has come to be more upholding of the True Faith than its Anglican instigators intended, and I love that! God always brings good out of evil.
I do not intend to concede that because Modernists have got something wrong, I’m going along with it. They get everything wrong!
I have never seen any Modernist refuse to use the term RC – on the contrary, it is a term which (as you point out yourself) has gone into the common useage, much to the delight, no doubt, of our Protestant friends, and you will read it in any edition of any dissenting publication – try The Tablet for example, any week of the year. I actually quoted a Church of Scotland minister, writing in the dissenting Open House, not that long ago, in which he made the very point under discussion, that he was a member of the Catholic Church, just not the “Roman” part of it.
I did not say that it was “dangerous to the Faith” – please do not put words into my mouth. I said that it was coined to support the heretical theory that the Catholic Church is made up of many branches, of which the “Roman” church is but one branch. That is a fact. If you think that is unimportant, I find that interesting but won’t lose any sleep over it.
I doubt very much if the two fairly recent popes you named and if Bishop Fellay, are aware of the genesis of the term, precisely because, as you admit, it has become part of the language, in common useage. I believe the author of the EWTN article made that very point that outside of the UK, not many people will be aware of its genesis. That the Fathers of the Council of Trent took care not to use it in any of the documents of that dogmatic Council at the very time when it was going INTO the language is far more significant than the fact that recent and contemporary prelates use it today.
Now, as you say, in the great scheme of things today, it’s not a matter of monumental importance, so let’s not take up cyberspace arguing the toss. I’m getting my head down today to get on with the April newsletter, so I’ll finish with this: you can call yourself a Roman Catholic till the cows come home. I’m NOT a Roman Catholic. I DO know the genesis of the term and its significance even if the two popes and Bishop Fellay didn’t. It’s not a matter of divine revelation or infallibility – and no pope and not even Bishop Fellay (!) can be expected to have a grasp on every aspect of the Protestant Reformation or any other historical event, given the distance in time and geography. I would add that, personally, I think they should have made it their business to know the correct name of the Church, but then, who am I to judge? 😀
So, let’s leave it there. I’ve tried to be generous in conceding the essential case, given the inaccuracy in the EWTN article, so don’t let’s belabour the point. Please and thank you. Otherwise, there WILL be a cut in pay!
I’m all for agreeing to disagree in this matter of little importance.
However, before I shut up I should present an example of what I meant when I spoke of Modernist dissenters who seriously dislike the term “Roman Catholic” because it gives the impression that they are subject to the teaching of the Roman Pontiffs.
I think the following excerpt from a reported interview with Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Germany amply demonstrates the point I was trying to make.
“But concerning pastoral practice, he said the German Church “cannot wait” for synodal statements, as marriage and family ministry has to be undertaken now, according to an article in Die Tagespost, translated by the blog Catholic Conclave.
Cardinal Marx, the archbishop of Munich and Freising, said as far as doctrine is concerned, the German episcopate remains in communion with the Church, but on individual issues of pastoral care, “the synod cannot prescribe in detail what we have to do in Germany.”
The German bishops want to publish their own pastoral letter on marriage and family after the synod, the article says.
“We are not just a subsidiary of Rome,” Cardinal Marx said. “Each episcopal conference is responsible for the pastoral care in their culture and has to proclaim the Gospel in its own unique way. We cannot wait until a synod states something, as we have to carry out marriage and family ministry here.”
Note that the Cardinal speaks principally of a “German Church” which is “not a subsidiary of Rome”.
Right, I’ll say no more on the subject. I’m now off for a long walk, because I’m a “Roaming Catholic”!
Just before my lunch/tea break (head’s been down since we last “spoke” and I’m starved) I must reassure you that I am all for submitting to “Rome” – that’s not the issue. The issue is the NAME of the Church, only. Not the authority of Rome. Far from it. The heretics, like the schismatic German Church, do not submit to Rome but once they make their final break, they’ll be determined to distinguish (as they’ve already hinted) between the RC Church and the German Church – which they will claim is part of the whole Catholic Church. Just you wait and see!
That’s my point – thanks for helping me to underline it with a (sadly) contemporary example. Wish I’d thought of it. Will you STOP doing that? Thinking of examples that I should have thought of?!* 😀
What! You mean to tell me that you get lunch/tea breaks? Now there’s an example of how this world has gone to pot! You haven’t got time to eat, there’s a war on and this is Lent!
I think the confusion in this matter stems from a loss of proper distinction between “religious tolerance” and “religious liberty”. It is a crucial distinction that all Catholics must comprehend if they are to correctly uphold the teaching of the Church.
Now, if I understand you correctly it is your contention that a certain cooperation between religions, one that avoids syncretism, is acceptable, even desirable, today in order to present a united front in defence of the “inviolable right to a religious conscience” against the growing tyranny of pagan society, which seeks to suppress religion and persecute its adherents.
The difficulty with this proposition is that it acknowledges by default the freedom of all to adopt and express the religion of their choice, which is ultimately what the enemies of the true religion seek to establish as a means of supplanting the City of God with the Tower of Babel.
In his 1928 Encyclical Mortalium Animos, Pope Pius XI explains it thus:
“When there is question of fostering unity among Christians, it is easy for many to be misled by the apparent excellence of the object to be achieved.
Is it not right, they ask, is it not the obvious duty of all who invoke the name of Christ to refrain from mutual reproaches and at last to be united in charity?
Dare anyone say that he loves Christ and yet not strive with all his might to accomplish the desire of Him who asked His Father that His disciples might
be ‘one’? (Jn. 17:21)….If only all Christians were ‘one,’ it is contended, then they might do so much more to drive out the plague of irreligion which, with its
insidious and far-reaching advance, is threatening to sap the strength of the Gospel. In reality, however, these fair and alluring words cloak a most grave
error, subversive of the foundations of the Catholic religion…”
This “most grave error” referred to by the Pope is the Modernist (Masonic) error that religious faith and truth are internal to man’s own conscience rather than supernatural gifts bestowed by God which demand ascent to the authority of the Church He established for the salvation of men.
That’s why the Church has always made another distinction, the distinction between properly and improperly informed conscience. Improperly informed conscience in religious matters is as deadly to immortal souls as paganism itself, which it ultimately results in. Hence, the Church forbids ecumenism as subversive of the true religion.
It’s actually quite logical when we consider that ancient pagan Rome was a champion of religious liberty, persecuting and martyring only those who challenged that demonic myth with the divine truths of the Catholic religion.
I’m in a bit of a hurry this morning so please excuse me if this post seems a little patchy. You may wish to read my Angelus article of last March which is elsewhere on the blog. I think it explains matters a little better. Here’s the link:
Cardinal Murph-O’Connor, of all people to pick.*Sighs*
Make that two sighs 😀
Comments are closed.