General Discussion (10)editor
If there’s something of interest in the news that’s not covered in one of the topic threads, or you have a question to ask, a comment you’d like to make about anything under the sun, more or less, this is the thread for you. However, please check first, to ensure that you haven’t missed a topic thread or another thread where it would be appropriate to post your comment. Readers have occasionally gone straight to the General Discussion thread to post news that is already the topic of a thread or to ask a question that is already being discussed elsewhere. So, do your Sherlock Holmes before posting here, please and thank you!
Feel free, also, to share your favourite spiritual reading books, prayers and devotions. Whatever. Enjoy!
To read previous 9 General Discussion Threads, click on the links listed below.
(1) click here (2) click here (3) click here (4) click here (5) click here
(6) click here (7) click here (8) click here (9) click here
I just posted this essay about evolutionary biology. It discusses the treatment of creationists and advocates of intelligent design in the United States:
The acceptance of certain views is essential for scientists. Acceptance of evolution is one of these views. Although I heard David Attenborough talking about flightless birds in a TV programme some little time ago. Before the discovery of DNA there was a theory as to the development of flightless birds in all of the Southern Continents. Naturally the scientific commmunity was totally committed to it. After the discovery of DNA, testing on flightless birds demonstrated unequivocally that the theory was wrong. So now the scientific community is 100% committed to the new theory.
This is the mentality of the lynch mob and it is evident when anyone questions the nature of evolution. The scientists are very good at determining the factors relating to “What?” and “How?” and are generally at a complete loss as to the “Why?” because they are atheists, and blindly so.
Those of us who believe in God have the anomalous expansion of water on our side.
Great post. “Blind atheists” sums it up.
It strikes me that the decision by Tesco, recently announced, to end 24 hour service in 76 stores is good news. The UK Government is intent on ignoring past promises made about Sunday trading. Let us never relent on calling on Society to Keep Sunday Special.
The reason Tesco have announced this is because no-one is using the stores late at night / early in the morning, so it isn’t commercially viable to keep them open. Unfortunately, this isn’t the case with Sunday trading. Go to any shopping centre in or around London on a Sunday and they are all packed. People want Sunday trading so the Government are hardly likely to take it away from them. And employers can’t be trusted either. Many moons ago I worked in retail and supported the Keep Sunday Special campaign. We were all given (as it turns out, false) assurances that our jobs would be safe if we didn’t want to work on Sunday for religious reasons. I left retail anyway, but shortly after I heard that the company I had worked for renewed all staff contracts, and the new contracts included Sunday trading.
The Tesco decision undermines the claim that there are not enough hours to shop.
The Government is unlikely to further restrict Sunday trading but, as with Fox Hunting, it wants to re-visit the issue, and liberalise the law(s) even more.
We should resist that further liberalisation with all the support we can muster.
Sunday Trading has had an impact on wages, as most do not get extra money for working anti-social hours, even nights, as there is no such thing as anti-social hours now.
In an ideal world |I would want to overturn Sunday trading, but that won’t happen, but I do I know we can still resist further liberalisation. The Trade Unions, if they had any sense, would support us.
Even now today Tuesday 2nd February, live in The UK Parliament, The Government is trying, through the back door, to amend Sunday Trading Legislation under their new Enterprise Bill.
Just wanted to post an update on my uncle, Vincent Murphy,
Sadly he passed away today at the age of 71 years, having failed to recover from a stroke. I am very grateful for all the prayers offered for him by bloggers during his last illness and would very much appreciate prayers now for the repose of his soul. Thank you all in advance for your charity.
Sincere condolences, Athanasius, and of course, promise of prayers for the repose of the soul of your uncle. May he rest in peace.
be assured of prayers for the repose of your uncle Vincent; may God console and strengthen all your family. Requiescat in pace.
I’ve only just seen this. Of course, be assured of my prayers for your dear uncle.
My condolences to you and your family, Athanasius.
On whose soul Sweet Jesus have mercy.
Athanasius, may I pass on my condolences to you and your family, and will keep him in my prayers.
May Our Lord reward you all for your charity.
I will get back on to the blog at some point early next week.
Sorry to hear of your bereavement Athanasius; my condolences to you and your family and I will say a prayer for the repose of the soul of your uncle. May he rest in peace.
I was so sorry to hear about your uncle, Athanasius. Requiescat in pace.
I also extend my deepest sympathies and condolences to you and your family. May Our Blessed Lady comfort you all in her maternal embrace.
My father’s aunt by marriage (his uncle’s wife) died aged 73 last Thursday after a long struggle against a brain tumour. She died in a hospice. She was not Catholic but pray for her all the same.
CC, I will say a prayer for your uncles wife.
In the case of the Zika Virus in Brazil especially and Latin America as a whole, would the Church permit the use of contraception, i.e. condoms, with the intention of reducing the risk of infection?
The women are presumably bitten by mosquitos, and a condom wouldn’t help!
No. Apart from the fact that we may not do evil even to achieve good, nobody knows if a particular baby is affected or not. It’s (as contraception always is) like walking around in glorious sunshine with an umbrella in hand just in case it rains. Ridiculous.
Thanks for that answer. I wasn’t expressing a view, because I wasn’t sure on these extreme situations, as Benedict XVI said something along the lines of couples where one partner has AIDS then condoms could be used. I imagined the traditional position would be the one outlined by your good self. Zika can be spread by sex now, I read it in the paper this morning. Someone in Texas contracted it after intercourse. The anti-Catholic lobby will use this virus as a stick to beat the Church with and try to spread contraception and abortions. People who know they are infected should abstain from sex. People in affected areas should also abstain lest they are infected but not showing symptoms. I never understood why people had such difficulty with abstinence.
See the link for a great interview with Bishop Athanasius Schneider. Some highlights from his thoughts on the SSPX:
When the SSPX tries to believe, to worship and to live morally the way our fore-fathers and the best-known Saints did during a millennial period, then one has to consider the life and the work of these Catholic priests and faithful of the SSPX as a gift for the Church in our days – even as one of the several instruments which the Divine Providence uses to remedy the enormity of the current general crisis of the faith, of the morals and of the liturgy inside the Church.
I consider their General Superior, His Excellency Monsignor Bernard Fellay, as an exemplarily and true Catholic bishop.
Thank you for that link about the interview with Bishop Athanasius Schneider
It is well worth reading..
We must thank God for him, and pray that He will protect and strengthen him, and grant him a long life.
WOW, Gabriel Syme, thank you for posting that.
A very interesting interview. I’d like to add that Louie Verrechio’s blog post on this interview, as well as some truly idiotic comments in his commbox which smacked of “Resistance” lies, has caused me to remove his blog from my daily reading.
I would like to thank everyone again for the kind prayers and thoughts extended to my family and I during this sad time.
I will pray for the soul of your uncle’s wife.
Thank you for your kind words. Your uncle is in my prayers.
Thank you for posting that very interesting link. Bishop Schneider is certainly not alone in his support for the SSPX. There are other high prelates who appreciate the Society’s stance against the liberal rot in the Church.
Look at this story from Monday, a very interesting volte-face from Peter Tatchell (a prominent homosexual activist based in the UK):
With regard to the Ashers bakery in Northern Ireland being penalised in court for refusing to make a cake with a pro-“gay marriage” message on it – he has abruptly changed sides and now says the bakery should not have been penalised.
He says he still disagrees with them, but ultimately the bakery rejected a message they did not want to support – which is fair enough – there was no evidence that they discriminated against someone based on their disordered sexuality:
To justify his decision, he gives an analogy of a far-right group being able to force a print shop to print anti-immigration leaflets against their will, but I am sure there must be some reason closer to home (ie regarding homosexuality) for this.
In the comment section, its hilarious to see the Guardian readers rush to support his “sound reasoning” – the same Guardian readers who heaped insult and vitriol upon the bakery owners when Tatchell originally set out his stall against them.
But then, Guardian readers are typically shallow, without principle and intellectually bankrupt. Kevin McKenna sometimes writes for the Guardian/Observer group – say no more.
Yes, I read the story of Peter Tatchell’s about turn yeasterday in the papers. What was really interesting about the article was that the last paragraph made mention of his current involvement alignment with a Christian group in the fight against some injustice or other. I can’t remember the name of the group or the cause being fought, but I did wonder at the time if it has influenced his stance against those bakers.
As for Kevin McKenna, I wrote a letter to the SCO destroying a hideous article he wrote against 40 Days For Life and it went unpublished. I know what kind of “Catholicism” Mr. McKenna wants. The problem is it’s not Catholic!
I’ve been wondering if Psalm 71 provides the answer to where the Magi came from. Any thoughts?
The kings of Tharsis and the islands shall offer presents: the kings of the Arabians and of Saba shall bring gifts. (Verse 10)
We had a lecture on this in Adult Catechism class several years ago, including the theory that the Magi came from some community of Jewish mystics that had been founded by the prophet Daniel (not sure where that came from!), but Psalm 71 was never discussed.
At least ONE of those three kings had to come from Scotland – “the islands” is a clue. Shetland, possibly, or Stronsay – there’s monastery at Papa Stronsay – so there’s proof positive… 😀
Note that the Psalm you quote speaks of “the kings of the Arabians and of Saba,” the plural rather than the singular. I think the Psalm refers to something other than the Magi, possibly in anticipation of the Redemption and conversion of the world to Christianity.
Strangely enough, I heard a priest preach about this just a few weeks ago. He suggested that Church Tradition has the Magi as kings representing the black, white and yellow races of the East. That does make sense.
Doesn’t that assume that there were only 3 Magi?
It does assume that, yes, but on the premise of what is recorded in Sacred Scripture, including the three names of the Magi. It’s probably safer in these days of doubt to trust in what is Traditionally held.
You write “but on the premise of what is recorded in Sacred Scripture, including the three names of the Magi”.
Please quote the Scripture reference as the names don’t appear in additions held by other people. Further, which of The Church Fathers mentions black, white, and yellow Magi? Please do give exact sources. Thank You.
*for additions please read editions! But both work as your claims sometimes don’t add up!
Instead of gleefully pointing it out when you believe you’ve caught Athanasius out in a mistake (or anyone else – but you seem to be gunning for him in particular) why not do the charitable thing, re-read his posts, and realise that, since he has intermingled Catholic Tradition with Scripture when writing about the Magi, he may simply have made a simple error/typo or constructed his sentence in a way that might be misinterpreted? Why the demand for “sources” when you seldom, if ever, give a source to back up your ridiculous claims?
Tradition names the Magi as Balthazar, Gaspar, and Melchior. And it was “Catholic Tradition” that Athanasius cited when he quoted the priest who spoke about the Magi perhaps representing different races.
Instead of scouring Athanasius’ posts here to look for what you consider to be errors, why not spend your time more fruitfully in educating yourself on the nature of Christ’s Magisterium so that YOU don’t constantly make whopping errors in matters very much less obscure than the identities etc of the Magi? Now, there’s a thought. Order Father Gruner’s book, Crucial Truths To Save Your Soul – it’s a must-read for all Catholics trying to live faithful Catholic lives during this crisis.http://www.crucialtruths.com/
If you don’t care about knowing the truth and prefer to go along with the Modernism currently dominant in the Church, although not for much longer, then don’t buy it.
Your understanding of a typo and mine differ, and I think the world would see what I see.
Btw I have never heard on homily, or read one commentary, that said they were different race. Their importannc ei sin the fact they were not Jewish, i.e Gentiles, and some attribute symbolism to the gifts they bore. Anything else is fanciful speculation.
WACJ doesn’t even have to buy it – it’s free to read online here:- http://www.crucialtruths.com/read.html
Central to any tradition about The Magi, as Traditionally held, is that they were gentiles, and highlight that Jesus Christ came to save all peoples and nations. That surely means they were NOT Jewish, and, therefore, it is surely nonsense to associate them with Daniel or Jewish mystics.
And people attack the modern Church, and Schools!
A teacher who was the Named Person for 200 pupils has now been found to be a child sex offender and won’t be working with young people again!
This is pretty scary, you UK folks: http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/22483-u-k-targets-christians-and-homeschoolers-in-extremism-scheme
Good one-hour long video here:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAAkEp0BV9Q called ‘Akita and the Fatima Secret’. This video was shown to Sister Agnes Sasagawa who received the messages of Our Lady of Akita, and Sister Agnes approved of it and wanted it to be shown. It’s a good resource for newcomers and those not really acquainted with Akita or Fatima. Fr Gruner’s work on Fatima is praised in the video.
If nobody picks this up I think it may be worth launching a thread on it. I’ve just dipped into it, but looks extremely interesting.
Thank you for posting it.
Lenten Mass Bouquets from the Universal Living Rosary Association – enrol yourself and your loved ones now! https://gloria.tv/media/h7YFYUAvYSr The traditional Byzantine Masses are celebrated in the Ukraine. For further details contact:- Website:- http://www.philomena.org USA e-mail: email@example.com UK e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
From the Christian Institute: “Monday 1st February, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) gave the green light to UK researchers who want to genetically modify human embryos.
Subject to ethical approval, experiments on unwanted IVF embryos could start in the next few months. The current law does not allow these embryos to then be implanted.
Professor Dickenson, Emeritus Professor of Medical Ethics at the University of London, said that subsequent generations may not welcome a “future free of genetic disability”, and they will have no way of changing “our decision” to genetically modify embryos.”
Today on R4 we learn that researchers wish to combine human elements into laboratory animals for research. The vision is to grow human compatible replacement organs in animals, such as pigs.
Our political classes are, as we know, all supportive of murder when the victim is still in the womb, and very relaxed about murder when the victim is in the street. Now they will certainly agree to these developments which mark great steps forward in medical “progress”. The comment was made in the news segment that there would be “certain people” against this, with the clear implication that these people are Stone Age Luddite fundamentalist religious nutters. I guess that I am one.
Rorate Caeli point out that to boost the failing “Year of Mercy”, the Vatican has had to resort to Catholic Tradition – click here to read more
And click here to see a very comical cartoon on the subject
True, the cartoon is very comical, I had to laugh.
Really! “The Year of Mercy” failing? Not to put a fine point on it, but this link which appeared on another thread recently about Traditional Catholics being idolators, etc.
Can anyone give me news of the great Gerald Warner?
I was used to seeing an occasional article of his on Breitbart News, but he appears to have fallen silent. He is sorely missed.
I am a fan of Mr Warner’s writing too. He attends the same Church as me!
As far as I know, this linked website is currently where his main output goes – he seems to have been contributing to it since October ’15:
In fact, Ive just seen that his contributions there go back much further than October 2015 – -that was an erroneous comment from me! Sorry!
Thank you for this. I was really missing my fix of Warner’s wisdom.
The Catholic Herald, following on from the Sunday Times, reports that Pope Francis is considering a flying visit to St Andrews, to sign a declaration against extremism:
Im sure he isnt really considering it and only said that to be polite (much the same as his reponse to ++Tartaglias invite in 2014)
Prognosticum and Gabriel Syme, many thanks for the Gerald Warner link and comments. I found his articles fascinating, especially the ones about Frau Merkel and the EU!
In other words, he’s considering signing a declaration against Traditionalists…
Note, folks, that already orders for tickets to our June conference are coming in. Don’t leave it too late. Order now to avoid disappointment!
N O T I C E . . .
There is the usual Traditional Latin Mass in the Immaculate Heart of Mary church in Balornock tomorrow, Ash Wednesday, 12.30pm with distribution of ashes.
Editor, there is also Mass and imposition of ashes at the Edinburgh chapel at 6.30p.m.
One of my parish priests is ‘friendly’ towards the traditional sacraments and used to say the TLM in Leeds Cathedral. However, I recently asked him if he would absolve me in the traditional rite, but he said that this was part of stage 3 training, which he is not qualified in. How hard can it be to pronounce the words of absolution in the old rite? I would have thought that if he could say the TLM then he can administer the other sacraments in the old rites.
Does anyone have a copy of the old rite for me to give him, as some of the examples online have certain grammatical errors.
It’s unlikely any of us would have a copy (I certainly don’t) but why not just go to confession to a traditional priest – I’m working from memory now but I have a feeling you are within reach of the FSSP and Institute of Christ the King if not the SSPX. If I’m wrong, apologies, but if you can get to a traditional priest, why not just go there?
Unfortunately Ed, the priest could not acquiesce to my very reasonable request. Here is his reply:
‘Regrettably, other sacraments in the Extraordinary Form were in stage three of the training which I never managed to attend and I don’t have a copy of the rite’.
I am not within of the FSSP and ICKSP sadly, as they are in Reading and the Wirral respectively and I reside in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire. The SSPX is in Manchester and Preston. The priest only comes down from bonnie Scotland once a month for a few days for the First Saturday and the subsequent couple of days. Now I am working after a short period of unemployment, I can afford to get to Preston on the First Saturday, but do the family responsibilities, money and transport issues I can’t get to Manchester and definitely not Preston on Sundays.
I can’t bear the New Mass and have not been to Mass for nearly two months, and I am worried about mortal sin for not obeying the Sunday obligation, but Mass is not accessible.
I’ll just have to stick to the First Saturday and say a dry mass at home with my devotions.
If you are interested in traditional forms it is never difficult to dig them out – you can ignore Editor’s remarks. What follows is the old form for the Roman Use – not actually all that old, as it happens, but standard liturgical forms only really came in with the invention of printing.
There is, traditionally, the possibility of a written form of Confession but the traditional aural form requires a church (normally for men and, for the avoidance of solicitation by celibates, always for women) and a seat in a conspicuous and open position. The rite may not be administered in the hours of darkness. The minister vests in surplice and stole (of violet colour); the penitent is to approach humbly and dressed in humble clothes; the minister is to enquire about status (clerical, lay, married and so on) unless this is in some way apparent. The form differs as between a famulus and a famula and as between clergy and laity or if papal, episcopal or religious reservation applies; there are shorter forms permitted if the minister is pressed for time or the penitent is desperately ill and there is a different form again if the penitent is dead.
The minister is not, except in dire emergency, to give absolution in reserved cases without prior faculty and is to instruct those he thinks are too ignorant of the articles of the faith to understand the proceedings.
I have not the beginnings of an idea if use of the old texts of the Roman Use is theologically permissible. But here is the (then) Novus Ordo text of 1614: young Dr A.G. Roncalli’s researches on Reformation turned up a slightly older but very similar text for the Ambrosian Use in Milan and some bits of both are as old as 1215 – the famous utruisque sexus provision. But, following Harper’s rules for authentic performance of historic liturgical texts, this is what you want. (I have tried to be accurate in translation.)
You are to say
Confiteor Deo omnipotenti, et tibi, pater (vel vulgari lingua … – or speak in the vulgar tongue)
The minister is not to ask idle or inappropriate questions, especially of young people of both sexes, nor is he to reprove or interrupt you, unless to understand better, and he is to ensure neither of you can be overheard. You are not to offer him money nor is he to solicit money or, if offered money, to accept it before giving absolution. There is an appeal procedure against excessive or unduly public penances.
The operative text (using the Present Simple) is
Misereatur tui Omnipotens Deum, et dimissis peccatis tuis, perducat te ad vitam aeternam. Amen.
(Deindie dextera versus poenitentem elevata, dicit)
Indulgentiam, absolutionem et remissionem peccatorum tuorum tribuat tibi Omnipotens et misericors Dominus. Amen.
(if speaking to a layman – si poenitens sit laicus)
Dominus noster Jesus Christus te absolvat, et ego auctoritate ipsius te absolvo ab omni vinculo excommunicationis, et interdicti, in quantum possum, et tu indiges : deinde ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis, in Nomine Patris +, et Filli, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.
(the words “deinde ego te absolvo” (or the single word “ABSOLVO” in the Ambrosian Use) may be said in a louder or even loud voice – to make things clear and/or as a signal to the next person in line to approach without wasting time or overhearing anything but the common form)
Passio Domini nostri Jesu Christi, merita Beatae Mariae Virginis, et omnium Sanctorum, quidquid boni feceris, et mali sustinueris, sint tibi in remissionem peccatorum, argumentum gratiae, et praemium vitae aeternae. Amen.
As I say, I am not at all sure even with the text to hand you will find too many ministers who would actually countenance these old rites – or themselves know Latin well enough actually to understand a Latin confession. And the rite, remember, is a unit – it is not some sort of pick-and-mix for use with bits from other rites. Dr Conti very occasionally used the Scottish Sarum Use in his time at Aberdeen but that was for public worship not private adminstrations. I really cannot see any real point in such an antiquarian procedure (and the Extraordinary Form is antiquated enough to raise modern eyebrows – the actual handbooks of instruction for priests were usually considered far too salacious for any wider circulation but are now being poured over by astonished culture and gender historians). But perhaps by some extraordinary coincidence Latin might be the only language penitent and confessor have in common – Mgr Hugh Benson’s quip about his new religion as being organized for the convenience of the travelling public.
Anyway, CC, question answered, in quantum possum et tu indiges.
Prolix, Dowden, in spades and with bells on.
CC don’t be confused by such an embarras de richesses (ou de parlote), you just go in, say your bit in English (or Yorkshireish), listen to your penance in the vernacular, then leave the priest to it while you make an act of perfect contrition in English. Seemples 😀 The text BTW is from the 1962 Roman Ritual.
CC I hope you can sort out replies below – all out of time order because of insertions.
As long as the priest says “I absolve you” – whether in English or in Latin – you are absolved.
Ignore Dowden’s posts – he is an Anglican, without the proverbial clue.
Christina has more knowledge of matters liturgical, than Dowden has had hot dinners, so pay no attention to his un-Catholic (and often anti-Catholic) views.
CC, I don’t think your priest WANTS to do this, but, as you’ve asked, here it is:
After giving the penance to the penitent the priest proceeds:
Miseratur tui omnipotens Deus et, dimissis peccatis tuis, perducat te ad vitam aeternam. Amen.
Then, with his right hand raised and turned towards the penitent he says:
Indulgentiam, absolutionem, et remissionem peccatorum tuorum tribuat tibi omnipotens et misericors Dominus. Amen.
Dominus noster Iesus Christus te absolvat: et ego auctoritate ipsius te absolvo ab omni vinculo excommunicationis, (suspensionis), et interdicti, in quantum possum, et tu indiges. Deinde ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis, in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.
If the penitent is a layman, the word suspensionis is omitted. He then continues:
Passio Domini nostri Iesu Christi, merita beatae Mariae Virginis, et omnium Sanctorum, quidquid boni feceris, et mali sustinueris, sint tibi in remissionem peccatorum, augmentum gratiae, et praemium vitae aeternae. Amen
For any good reason the priest may begin at the words Dominus noster Iesus Christus and continue up to Passio Domini nostri
In danger of death the priest simply says:
Ego te absolvo ab omnibus censuris, et peccatis, in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti, Amen.
The translation, in case anyone would like it is:
May almighty God have mercy on you, forgive you your sins, and bring you to life everlasting. Amen.
May the almighty and merciful Lord grant you pardon, absolution, and remission of your sins. Amen.
May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you: and I with His authority do absolve you from every bond of excommunication, (suspension), and interdict, as far as I am able and you have need of it. And now I absolve you from your sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
May the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the merits of the blessed Virgin Mary, and of all the Saints, whatever good you do, whatever evil you suffer, gain for you a remission of your sins, an increase of grace, and the reward of eternal life. Amen
Oops, sorry, great minds …
Yes, Christina really does have a “great mind”.
Which is what I said.
We both posted the older text at the same time – 1614 (prolix rubrics and all) and 1962. But the rubrics make it clear it not a matter of three magic words if the conditions of the rubrics are not met.
I am sorry you differ, not that it is seldom.
.I had to attend the funeral of a family friend today so this is the first opportunity I’ve had to wish everyone a (belated, now) Happy Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes.
Oremus pro fidelibus defunctis: my condolences and prayers, Editor.
Thank you, Perplexed.
And the Francis effect rolls on:
That’s absolutely scandalous, but last time I was in Lourdes, the official literature warned pilgrims and visitors about thinking of the Lourdes water as healing, that it was (more or less) a symbol of healing. Can’t recall the exact blurb but the meaning was clear: no miracle here.
“Let us pray for our Holy Father Pope : May God bless him, give him wisdom, and strength and preserve him from his enemies. ”
One obvious trait of this pontificate, in his favor, even to his credit, is Pope Francis’ insistence that we, one and all pray for him and not forget to do so. The enemies mentioned above are formidable spirits the discernment of which I wish as a Jesuit he would show greater acumen.
When an (American) quarterback football player gets tossed about on the field and unknowingly start running to the opposite goal, the supporting action of his teammates is precisely to knock him down.
While I would not stretch the analogy -giving reverence its due – I do think we must pray for him with something of the mindset of those supporting teammate players.
Ours is not the position of making intervention in earthly terms but knowing that God hear all prayers and answers according to the greatest good, I can but pray for deliverance. (All analogies limp and while the hapless QB may very well be innocent -there is greater cause for concern with this subject in question) Can we unite our words and pray effectivelyfor this Vicar? Where two or three… What say you?
We take for granted that we have a duty to pray for this, as for every other, pontiff. That’s a given.
If asking for our prayers is evidence of the Pope’s humility, which is implicit in your remark: “One obvious trait of this pontificate, in his favor, even to his credit”, then God help us all. A bit like saying that a three year old who asks for his dinner is a genius.
Confess that you exaggerate. But I think you missed the thrust of my point.
The analogy I often use is that of St. Peter when he was arrested and imprisoned by Herod. The whole Church prayed for Peter and he was delivered from his chains. We should do likewise for Francis, praying that God may free him from the bonds of Modernism that bind him to erroneous thought.
This is my question how can we unite MORE EFFECTIVELY our words and prayers? I for one am trapped in the N.O. rite. While bringing awareness is a spiritual work of mercy how to pray in unison? Is it wrong to ask for deliverance?
One of the greatest tragedies to have resulted from Vatican II is the loss of Catholic unity. There is no longer universal unity in belief and practice, as was the case for almost 2000 years before. In fact, things are so bad that Cardinals now oppose Cardinals and bishops are against bishops, as was clearly evidenced at the recent Synod on the Family.
Given this woeful state of affairs the best we can hope to do is offer our own prayers and penances for the Pope and the Church, and also for the bishops, That Our Lord may soon deliver one and all from the present darkness into which our shepherds have plunged our holy religion. Praying to be delivered from any suffering is a perfectly licit and natural thing to do, provided of course we are resigned to the will of God when we ask.
From the Scottish Catholic Media Office… News from the Catholic Church…
Ordination of new bishop of Argyll and Isles Wednesday 17 February 2016
The Episcopal Ordination of Monsignor Brian McGee as the new Bishop of Argyll and the Isles will take place at St. Columba’s Cathedral in Oban on Thursday 18 February at 7.00pm.
Speaking ahead of his Episcopal Ordination Bishop Elect-McGee said; “I am very much looking forward to my Ordination as Bishop of Argyll. Although it is a challenging vocation God’s grace and the kindness of so many people has greatly encouraged me. I ask for people to pray for me as I prepare”.
The new Bishop will be consecrated by Archbishop Leo Cushley of St Andrews and Edinburgh.
Commenting on the ordination of Bishop Elect McGee, Archbishop Cushley said; “Bishop-elect McGee is a good man, a fine priest and a seasoned pastor who brings many years of experience to bear in his new role as Bishop of Argyll & the Isles.”
“His own family has roots in the north of Ireland, just like St Columba who travelled in the 6th century to Iona in order to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to consolidate it among the peoples of his own language and culture – so Bishop-elect McGee now follows in his saintly footsteps.”
The Papal Nuncio, HE Archbishop Antonia Mennini, will attend, representing Pope Francis.
Has anyone seen this:- Is a cardinal open to homosexual unions to be given top family post at Vatican? https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/is-a-cardinal-open-to-homosexual-unions-to-be-given-top-family-post-at-vati I didn’t know whether to laugh (that we might be seeing the back of him from Westminster) or cry (that he will be in a position to do greater damage to the Church). Thoughts anyone?
Thank you for posting that – it is very useful to have all those pro-homosexual unions statements from Cardinal Nichols in one place. Since we have a lot of readers who are not online, and don’t know the half of what is going on, I will do my best to reprint that in the next newsletter.
A while back, there was an excellent blog (I don’t know who was behind it) dedicated to +Nichols’ publicly dissenting statements on a whole raft of issues – not just homosexuality. It backed up every claim by either linking to the original article or video where +Nichols’ dissent had been written / spoken, so no-one could dispute anything. For some odd reason, the blog got taken down . . . but John Smeaton’s blog contains a lot of evidence on +Nichols’ dissent.
I’d be surprised if he doesn’t get the post; he’ll fit right in at the Vatican, and no doubt his successor at Westminster will be a chip off the old block too. They’re in control now.
You are right. The hierarchy is rotten to the core, packed with Modernists. They’re enjoying undue influence right now, but not for much longer.
Exactly. But I think most of us haven’t got much longer . . . http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3451250/Two-RAF-Typhoons-scrambled-intercept-pair-Russian-bombers-heading-UK-airspace.html
As Sister Lucia said to Father Fuentes in 1957:- “Tell them, Father, that many times the Most Holy Virgin told my cousins Francisco and Jacinta, as well as myself, that many nations will disappear from the face of the earth. She said that Russia will be the instrument of chastisement chosen by Heaven to punish the whole world if we do not beforehand obtain the conversion of that poor nation.” 2016 is the 100th anniversary of the apparitions of the Angel of Portugal at Fatima, who foretold of the sacrileges against the Holy Eucharist and called for Reparation, and next year will be the 100th anniversary of the apparitions of Our Lady at Fatima. I could be wrong but I get the feeling that by October 2017, all will be very different . . . Please continue to do the First Saturdays until it is no longer possible to do them. The next one is March 5th.
Does anyone know if Pope Francis wears the Scapular of Mt. Carmel? Fr. Gruner states, in this video, that every Pope since 1280 has worn it – but this speech was given while Benedict was still Pope. See about 35:10 and following:
I may well be wrong about this, but it would strike me as inconsistent if the Pope regarded the Brown Scapular highly enough to wear it, since he mocks those who “count prayers” and considers the desire of young people for the TLM as a “fad”.
Our Lady’s requests are all designed to make us reflect on the love Our Lord has for simple souls. He who is the King of Kings chose to be born into poverty, of poor people, to live a simple life, in order to underline the nature of true holiness.
Indeed, I wonder how many bishops wear the Brown Scapular, or even priests? Such practices, they may opine (during their sophisticated meetings and lofty theological discussions) are for “simple souls” – and not even recognise the irony in their own words.
Personally, then, and (I stress) I could be wrong, but I imagine that Papa Francis has broken with the papal tradition of wearing the scapular as he has broken with just about every other tradition.
There is no doubt that Pope John Paul II wore the Brown Scapular – no doubt at all – and yet he still gave us the ‘Luminous Mysteries’. http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2309-the-new-rosary-it-s-time-to-say-goodbye I don’t think that just the wearing of the Scapular is a guarantee of orthodoxy or anything else.
I see your point. Traditional Catholics have oftentimes classified Pope John Paul’s Luminous Mysteries as the ‘Ludicrous Mysteries”. I mean, whatever made that Pope think he could improve on what Our Lady herself handed down to St. Dominic? I suppose it was just a way of getting the Social agenda into the rosary. The Modernists can’t leave anything alone, everything has to be changed and innovated out of existence. Poor restless, wandering souls that they are, no longer rooted in sound Catholic theology.
I’ve owned a beautiful book for many years by Alexander de Rouville called ‘Imitation of Mary’. It has some colour inserts in the middle of the book with the mysteries of the rosary and other prayers. I went to buy a copy for a friend a little while ago, and noted that the Luminous Mysteries have now been inserted, so didn’t get it. It’s the case with so many things now. There’s very little in the way of newly published books, pamphlets and devotional leaflets which don’t have the Luminous Mysteries. I’ve even seen a new traditional missal which have them in it.
I tend to agree with you, Editor, Pope Francis being the personification of rupture and secularization. I wonder also if he’s read the Third Secret?
N O T I C E . . .
I have extended the Moderation note on the sidebar, as follows:
Your first comment will go to moderation. Once approved your subsequent comments will go straight onto the blog.
However, comments which subsequently display troll-like behaviour will be blacklisted. Trolls tend to submit a high volume of comments across the topics, and they often disrupt our discussions, trying to pick fights and other, similar, childish behaviour. This is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.
This is a Catholic blog. Anyone who is not a traditional Catholic, or who is a non-Catholic, is welcome to participate in our discussions as long as their purpose is to learn about our Catholic Faith. There can be no other reason for blogging here. Simple!
I haven’t posted in a while as all the children have had the cold and what a lot of work that generated!
I was sent the link below by my Irish cousins and I’m now convinced that Ireland has been deeserted by her pastors:
Me, too! Had a terrible cold yesterday and through the night. In fact, when I dug out my packet of Lemsips this morning and looked at the “use by” date, it read: 1st June, 2014 – presumably that long since I’ve had a cold (although I don’t always take a Lemsip!)
I just thought I’d share that with you. Helps us to forget about the Pope and his mad comments!
Visited your link just now. I’m not sure that advertising Gmail is a sign that Ireland has been deserted by her pastors, but then, what do I know?! 😀
The strangest thing happens when I click on the link – it opens up my e-mail?
Just testing, just testing! Herewith:
Press Release – Thursday 18 February 2016 – Immediate
Attn: Newsdesks, Photodesks and Religious Affairs Correspondents
Pastoral Statement of the Catholic Bishops of Ireland on the Upcoming General Election
A general election is an important moment which offers a democratic society an opportunity to reflect on its successes and failures. In Ireland we are fortunate to live in a lively democratic society, even with all its imperfections. Democracy requires in the first place that all citizens exercise their right to vote and we strongly encourage all to vote in the up-coming election.
Democracy however is not limited to voting. Democracy is fundamentally about people working and walking together to foster the common good. Democracy is damaged by indifference and by a splintering of society or a fixation on individual interests. A general election is a moment in which all citizens, and not just political parties, should reflect and take stock of the health of the nation and especially on how we respond to the plight of the most vulnerable.
Democracy flourishes when it is rooted in a shared social ethic. To succeed, good social policy requires economic stability and sustained growth. But economic growth on its own does not necessarily generate social equity. Social equity has a logic of its own which must be worked on to achieve its aim. Our comparatively wealthy Ireland has still a long path to travel in this task.
We share the anxiety of many citizens in Ireland at the fact that there is an uncertain social climate in the country regarding vital sectors of people’s lives, especially regarding health, homes, education, security, the fostering of a solid human ecology, and international responsibility.
Health: Most people feel great unease about the current health care system. They worry about what would happen to them if they became ill. They worry about the health of their children. They worry about what would happen to their parents and other elderly people should they become ill. They are worried about the cost of health care. They are worried about the quality of health care, including mental health care. Successive governments have presented a variety of solutions and in so many cases they have either failed or have not been implemented. A blame game is not the answer. Ireland’s health crisis is the result of a fundamental failure of politics.
Home: there is a crisis of homelessness, not just of those who sleep rough on our streets, but of those who are housed in inadequate and precarious accommodation especially in hotel rooms totally unsuitable for children and families. All recognise that providing adequate and affordable social housing is an essential pillar of any solution. Some more recent social housing has been poor in quality. Private rental accommodation is scarce and property market dealings are even reducing the available pool.
Education: This General election takes place on the anniversary of the 1916 Rising and the Proclamation of a Republic which set out to cherish all the children of the nation equally. There has been much discussion about inequality in access to education. We are a young country and we will urgently need more and more new schools for the future. The real inequality in Irish schools is not religious in nature but it is the economic inequality where poorer communities and schools with a large percentage of disadvantaged children are not being adequately supported. Ireland is still marred by neglect of children and of lack of opportunity for the children of the most deprived and groups such as Travellers.
Security: Citizens can only exercise their rights fully if they live within an overall climate of security. The most fundamental obligation of the State is the protection of its citizens. Recent killings on the streets of Ireland have shocked all of us. These are not simply about gangland feuds; they are the product of a criminal industry of death which unscrupulously floods our streets and our children with drugs. It is an “industry” which destroys young lives daily and which fosters even broader criminality. People feel insecure in their homes both in rural and urban communities. They will willingly support policies which will strengthen An Garda Síochána.
Human ecology: Pope Francis speaks often of climate change. But he also speaks of a “human ecology”. Austerity is not a popular word but there is another kind of austerity, that of simplicity in life-style in harmony with nature, through which all of us indicate where our real values lie, rather than in the empty values of consumerism and a rush for the superfluous. Families deserve much greater support in their work in fostering and transmitting values. A true human ecology recognises the equal right to life of every person from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death. The Constitution of Ireland embraces the right to life of the unborn child. It is a fundamental affirmation of equality, where the right to life of no child is considered of less value than that of another. We strongly oppose any weakening of the affirmation of the right to life of the unborn.
International responsibility: Ireland is an island nation but not an isle of isolation. We belong within a world community. Ireland’s missionary past is a clear indication of the deep concern of the people of Ireland for the progress of peoples worldwide. As a traditionally emigrant country we share a historical memory of how our emigrants were received or at times rejected in the lands to which they moved. Now it is the time for us to reciprocate the experience of openness by welcoming to our communities people who flee from persecution, from economic exclusion or from religious discrimination. Despite economic challenges Ireland can and must maintain its commitments in international life especially recent commitments to finance development and to combat climate change.
The believer in Jesus Christ cannot separate his or her understanding of responsibility in and for society from those criteria of judgment which are set out in the Gospel:
“For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me” (Mt 25:35–36).
The Christian in politics and in society cannot renounce his or her special responsibility to protect the weak and the marginalised. This responsibility cannot be delegated or supressed to party interests or emptied into the language of spin. Politics is not just the art of the possible; it is a vocation where the interests of all citizens should respected and where the respect and trust of citizens will only be won by honesty and integrity.
As bishops we encourage all citizens to engage with and challenge their local candidates about their commitment to the questions we have indicated, and about their understanding of politics as truly working and walking together to foster the common good.
+ Eamon MARTIN +Diarmuid MARTIN
Archbishop of Armagh Archbishop of Dublin
President of the Irish Vice President of the Irish
Bishops’ Conference Bishops’ Conference
+Kieran O’REILLY +Michael NEARY
Archbishop of Cashel and Emly Archbishop of Tuam
For media contact: Catholic Communications Office Maynooth: Martin Long 00353 (0) 86 172 7678 and Brenda Drumm 00353 (0) 87 310 4444
More utterly shocking news at Remnant TV.
I agree it is utterly shocking. It is hell on earth.
I heard this on the radio earlier this week, but here is info and a news link for anyone who was not aware:
Close to 100 Medieval skeletons have been found in Aberdeen. Its is thought they are the remnants of Dominican Monks from a 13th century religious establishment, likely Blackfriars Abbey (shut down at reformation).
Most were buried in individual graves, but a large amount were buried together.. The radio speculated that this mass burial could have been down to disease or similar (it didn’t suggest that they might have been murdered at the reformation).
I was interested to hear the Archaeologist who was trotted out on the radio say that the skeletons should be reburied with a service “in an appropriate Catholic rite”.
That probably had the Bishop of Aberdeen weak at the knees (!). (Would I be right to think that these 13th Century monks in North East Scotland would have used the Sarum rite?)
In any case, with an SSPX Mission to Aberdeen, plus the presence of the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer in the Diocese, the Bishop of Aberdeen has no excuse for not providing “an appropriate Catholic rite”.
Of course, Its perhaps more likely that he will arrange an ecumenical tambourine session, on grounds that the mass burial “represents togetherness” or some other tosh! 😉
“…an ecumenical tambourine session…”
Dominicans are not and never have been ‘monks.’ They are mendicants.
Did Sarum extend all the way up to Aberdeen? I am not enough of a scholar in this field to say so with certainty off-the-cuff, as it were, but I suspect that it did. I do seem to remember that, years ago, because of this, Bishop Conti of Aberdeen, as he then was, celebrated in the Sarum rite in King’s College Chapel.
I have been reading this post and previous posts after an absence due to a very busy period at work. These are, to say the least, disconcerting times, as institutional Chistianity in Scotland and much of Europe not only stares extinction in the face, but seems not much to care.
I had a phone call this evening telling me that the architecturally significant Coats’ Memorial in Paisley, a baptist church known as the ‘Baptist Cathedral of Europe,’ is about to close due to a dwindling congregation. I was not surpised by this news. I visited it a few years ago and was taken aback by the state of decay of its fabric and by the generally delapidated and sorry state of the West End of Paisley in general. The concomitance of the two was not lost upon me. For if Christ is to be cast out, his place can only be taken by the Prince of this world.
I remember student discussions in my undergraduate years about the decline of Christianity in Scotland. Catholics at that time seemed to consider themselves immune to this, a view which I did not share at the time nor since. In those days the number of practising Catholics was far higher than today but this served only to mask a deep seated crisis which has since boiled over into a state of advanced decline.
A priest friend from Paisley was telling me recently that over sixty percent of the people participating at Mass in that diocese is concentrated in just four parishes. This news was to me incredible, remembering as I do the very large attendances at Mass in Churches like St. Mary’s and the Cathedral. How I used to love popping into the Cathedral when I was in town and going to light a candle at Our Lady’s altar. The re-ordering of the sanctuary at that time (late eighties) had been kept to a mimimum and ran, more or less, to having detached the original altar forward from the reredos (if that is the correct term). How I remember the wonderful atmosphere born of candle-light, burnished brass, wax floor polish, silence and grace. For how grace seemed to hang in the air like incense, comforting those who went to Our Lady to ask for her intercession for themselves or dear ones, of which the lighting of a votive candle in her honour was a visible sign. How I would kneel and look upon those candles, each one of which the symbol of a human drama, their resilient struggle to penetrate the falling darkness of a winter’s afternoon a proxy for our own struggle to win out against flesh and the Devil in order to keep holy. This atmosphere is long gone in St. Mirin’s which now has the feel of a liturgical space, unremarkable for truth or beauty.
Looking back now it is clear to me that the Church back then was living on the fruits of the toils of yesteryear, but herself investing very little for the future. Old school priests abounded as did old school Catholic teachers and old school Catholics who, whatever their faults, had been catechised and had a strong Catholic identity. Over the next three decades they would slowly die off, leaving a desert behind.
Archbishop Lefebvre has been providential for the Church. I pray for full communion between the Fraternity of St Pius X and the Church because it will offer a home to lost souls like me for whom the mainstream Church has nothing to say and is almost an irritation.
The root of it all, of course, is worldliness.
Your comment is very insightful of the present tragedy unfolding before us, especially as regards the beggared state of church interiors today.
I am not particularly sorry or surprised to learn of the fate of that Baptist church in Paisley, for it was never a place that housed the true worship of God and was therefore doomed from the day the first foundation stone was laid. Had it not been for the lifeline that Vatican II threw at Protestantism in general, I think most of the Protestant sects would have fallen into extinction decades ago. Anglicanism in particular was under great threat during the 1950s when many of its more leading lights crossed the Tiber, so to speak, and were received back into the true Church from which their forefathers had so tragically departed. Anyway, that’s just an aside.
My own personal take on the fading away of Catholics since Vatican II is not so much that they were initially wooed by wordliness as gradually deprived of the means of grace to keep the correct balance in life.
Pride stands at the root of thepresent crisis in the Church, the intellectual and spiritual pride of consecrated souls who thought they were especially chosen by God in these days to cast aside what had been handed down in favour of a new vision, a new Gospel, a new dispensation of fraternity with the world, a new Church and a new world order, which some went so far as to dub as “a new Pentecost”.
Of course the light they thought they had was the false light of Lucifer, the light of Freemasonic Rationalism. But they were blinded to this fact and went on in their arrogance, despite the ruin occurring all around them, to follow a “renewal” that was in essence a revolt against all that was once sacred and holy. Christ the King was dethroned and all the emphasis thereafter was placed on Christ the poor carpenter with a view to exaulting the human nature of Our Lord while suppressing all knowledge of His divine person and authority.
This agenda was carried into local dioceses by the bishops, who passed it down to their priests and seminarians, who went on to gradually denude the faithful of all sacrality little by little until only indifference remained. It has always been the teaching of the Church that when God and His grace begin to decrease in souls, worldliness fills the vaccuum. We were created by God to long for and seek happiness, the happiness of His divine life both here below and in heaven for eternity. That longing does not cease when grace is lost, it is merely redirected at lesser form of temporary happiness, worldly pleasures, etc., which are ultimately illusionary and destructive when over-indulged.
I believe that’s where we are today and why there is such an explosion of drug and alchohol abuse amongst the young, not to mention all those sins against modesty and purity. It wasn’t worldliness that led these souls initially to apostasy, rather it was apostasy that led them to worldliness. They were first systematically and consistently de-sensitised of all things supernatural, which predictably gave place to their seeking happiness elsewhere.
The consecrated souls of God, especially those in the higher offices of the Church, bear full responsibility before for this appalling abuse of office, using, as they have, their knowledge and influence to advance the perverse Modernist “renewal” in our time. It started with the clergy, as all historical heresies have, and it has filtered its way down through the ranks of the Church to the faithful. That’s why the Modernists first targeted the seminaries. They knew that by de-sacrilising future priests, filling their souls instead with humanist ideals, that the faithful would eventually become indifferent to divine truth and the salvation of their souls. Hence the reason why St. Pius X highlighted as a most deadly poison those within the clergy who set themselves the task of “renewing” the Catholic religion to suit their Rationalist inclinations, “who lay the axe not at a single branch but at the very root of the faith, from whence they proceed to spread their poison through the whole tree” And they are the more dangerous, says St. Pius X, because of their intimate knowledge of the Church (meaning the theologians).
This tragedy will only begin to reverse when the clergy, from the Pope down, finally calls a halt to that deadly revolution called “conciliar renewal”. We need holy priests again, and holy bishops, whose souls are filled with zeal for the glory of God and the salvation of souls, like those of old. Diplomatic Socialists in cope and mitre we can well do without. Only when that reversal taks place can we hope to see that true renewal and a restoration of all things in Christ. It begins with the consecrated souls of God, of whom some small number at least have remained faithful throughout the present apostasy.
I stand corrected. Worldliness was an effect rather than a cause.
As to the communities of the Protestant reformation, you are right to say that they were doomed from the beginning.
Re-reading your last post, Athanasius, your words reminded me of what a friend used to say many years ago. He himself had come into the Church at the end of the fifties from Anglicanism. One of the milestones in his crossing of the Tiber was a visit he made to Rome and seeing the faithful huddled round the side altars of St Mary Major’s at (very early) morning Mass.
Concerning the so-called liturgical reforms, he used to say that he considered them unwarranted when judged by what should be the supreme criterion of any reform in the Church, i.e. the salus animarum, the salvation (or good) of souls. With hindsight, of course, he was spot on. But he, though a towering giant of an intellectual, was never proud himself and had no inferiority complex concerning Protestantism unlike many Catholic intellectuals of his day.
Looking foward from here over the next two decades, the mainstream Church is plainly staring oblivion in the face. It is simply incapable of withstanding the cultural hegemony of an aggressive secularism which mocks the true religion and exalts the unholy.
Poor Cardinal Winning his many and varied schemes for renewal. I wonder what he would say if he were here now.
Just a word about Coats’ memorial, such an important part of the Paisley skyline. It was built as a memorial to Thomas Coats, scion of the famous threadmaking family and a fervent baptist. Although so familiar to Paisley Buddies, it has been part of the civic furniture for little more than a century, i.e almost nothing when compared to the famous Abbey. Today it serves as a warning about what happens when we build according to our own plans and not those of God.
Is it a sin for Catholics to donate to the Salvation Army? A traditional Opus Dei Priest told me for Catholics to donate to the Salvation Army would be to ‘co-operate with evil’. I’ve always admired the Salvation Army for its work with the poor, homeless, elderly, fallen women, drug addicts and alcoholics. I always donate to their Royal British Legion collection.
Yes, it would be sinful for a Catholic to donate to the Salvation Army because it is an actively Protestant movement pushing Protestantism.
I remember the famous British actor Lionel Jeffries speaking about the Salvation Army. His family for years had been supporters of it but his mind was changed personally when, having fallen on hard times, he sought help from the SA and was shocked by its refusal. It seems the homeless, for example, have to give over their benefits, or portions of their benefits, in return for Salvation Army help. That shocked Jeffries, who went on to convert to the Catholic Faith and found an influential organisation that supports actors who have fallen on hard times. No, I would not give to the Salvation Army.
The Royal British Legion is nothing whatever to do with the Salvation Army so you can continue to buy your poppy!. I see nothing wrong with donating to the Salvation Army. Most of their receipts go to their charitable work which you and I and most other people admire.
I disagree. This statement alone, from the SA website, should set alarms bells ringing:- “Condemning homophobia: The Salvation Army stands against homophobia, which victimises people and can reinforce feelings of alienation, loneliness and despair. We aim to be an inclusive church where members of the LGBT community find welcome and the encouragement to develop their relationship with God. A diverse range of views on homosexuality may exist within The Salvation Army – as among the wider Christian (and non-Christian) community. But no matter where individual Salvationists stand on this matter, The Salvation Army does not permit discrimination on the basis of sexual identity in the delivery of its social care or in its employment practices.”
The Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality is unequivocally clear, and it is binding on Catholics, but it seems the SA permits ‘a diverse range of views’ among its membership. A typical protestant fudge.
I agree with your opinion on what they say vis-à-vis the ‘diverse range of views that may exist within the Salvation Army’. Our Church infallibly teaches that homosexuality is disordered and the attractions are ordered towards a grave moral evil, i.e. Sodomy, and that the latter is an abomination that cries out to Heaven for vengeance.
However, what is wrong with this: ‘The Salvation Army stands against homophobia, which victimises people and can reinforce feelings of alienation, loneliness and despair. We aim to be an inclusive church where members of the LGBT community find welcome and the encouragement to develop their relationship with God’.
Surely our own Church should hold a similar standpoint, whilst upholding its moral teaching? Obviously, homosexuals should be welcome in the Catholic Church, with the Church counselling them to remain celibate and chaste, but without resorting to attacks on individuals.
The problem CC1, is the term ‘homophobia’ itself, which was coined by, and is used by those with same-sex attraction to demonise anyone who dares to disagree with their views, e.g. if you think that same-sex couples shouldn’t marry, or adopt children, then you are ‘homophobic’. Church teaching, as found in the CCC and the Bible is described as ‘homophobic’. Get the drift? Also, the Church has never historically described people with sexual disorders as either ‘L’, ‘G’, ‘B’ or ‘T’ – such titles are ultimately meaningless and also demeaning when used to describe men and women who were made in the image and likeness of God. Of course those who same-sex attraction are welcome in the Church – an international group called Courage exists to help such people, but Courage makes it clear that homosexuality is a disorder, and that it is gravely sinful to practice the disorder. It never uses so-called ‘gay’ terminology such as ‘LGBT’, which the Salvation Army has done.
Well said! Spot on!
It seems the homeless, for example, have to give over their benefits, or portions of their benefits, in return for Salvation Army help.
There’s nothing wrong with that; it’s quite usual for charities to do so. A local Catholic home run by the Little Sisters of the Poor expects to receive a major proportion of the benefits of those they succour. After all, the benefits are paid for the purpose of sustaining those in need.
Whose the brave cardinal referred to?
Ladies (in particular!) – an excellent post on The Remnant
I think there’s a law against this “ladies only” mentality (or is it only “men only”? Probably!)
I’ve not had time to read that article yet but will do so, on your recommendation.
Does anyone know where I can purchase an Agnus Dei wax sacramental? I’ve looked on EBay, but I know it is a sin to buy a sacramental.
See if Universal Living Rosary Association have any:- email@example.com Mrs Anne Curran. Or if Anne hasn’t got any, try the U.S.A ULRA Mrs Patti Melvin:- firstname.lastname@example.org
Agnus Dei hard to find. I have by me at least two. would be willing to mail them if you give me a physical address. email@example.com
I hadn’t realised you were she who has emailed me recently. I had convinced myself you were a hoaxer! Apologies!
I’ve been called worse. No trouble.
Anyone else come across this site? http://en.denzingerbergoglio.com/
Very interesting! VERY interesting!
I’m planning to post the link to the Dici report shortly, for discussion on a fresh thread dedicated to this news, so if you would all hold fire until then.
PLEASE THINK VERY CAREFULLY ABOUT DONATING YOUR MONEY TO SO CALLED CHARITYS ..They are not Pro LIfe …many avidly support Abortion ,Sterilzation,So called Contraception and of course LGBT .
The Salvation Army does agree with …[some ] Abortion ..oh yes …and all so called contraception
Great pure pro Life Groups that use all the money donated to the cause are crying out for Donations ..such as Helpers of Gods Precious Infants …Abort67…The Good Counsel Network ..So .much better than the vile Stygian coffers of abortion minded charletans that the main stream Charitys are ..hope this helps ..you know your donation will be saving precious lives not assisting them to take lives ….Thank you
You beat me to it. I was about to post the following extract from the above report:
February 25, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — In a February 8 interview with one of Italy’s most prominent dailies, Corriere Della Serra, Pope Francis praised Italy’s leading proponent of abortion – Emma Bonino — as one of the nation’s “forgotten greats,” comparing her to great historical figures such as Konrad Adenauer and Robert Schuman. Knowing that his praise of her may be controversial, the Pope said that she offered the best advice to Italy on learning about Africa, and admitted she thinks differently from us. “True, but never mind,” he said. “We have to look at people, at what they do.” Source
This subject alone deserves a serious “separate discussion” in my humble opInion, as Pro Lifers are continually mocked. Words cannot express my feelings of horror in reading this….to compare Emma Bonino to Robert Schumann et al is deplorable…to come from the Pope own lips is reprehensible…..again abortion is being somewhat trivilaised.
Ed: we have already reported and discussed this comment from the Pope but there just isn’t enough time in the day, nor cyberspace, to post a dedicated thread to every ridiculous and shocking utterance from Papa Francis.
Great stuff, Wendy. As I recall, many years ago you tried to garner a bit of pro-life support from the Salvation Army – but all you got was a curt reply from their ‘grand fromage’ in the Luton area, advising that….’both my wife and I are pro-abortion’…
How often do we see this? ‘Holy joes’ – until pro-life issues take centre stage.
hOW DARE THEY CALL THEM FOETUS BEADS….? Shockingly insulting
Wendy, following on from this, didn’t your dear friend Alison Davis (+ R.I.P.) compile an A-Z of ‘charities’, detailing their stance on pro-life and moral issues? Her booklet used to be available from SPUC, I wonder if anyone’s been keeping it up to date since her calling.
It came as quite a shock to find that the likes of ‘Save The Children’, ‘Comic Relief’, ‘Oxfam’ and ‘UNICEF’ support population control policies in third-world countries, advocating abortion and the use of abortifacient ‘contraceptives’ such as the IUD and the so-called ‘morning-after pill’. ‘Amnesty International’ is another one that came down on the ‘women’s right to choose’ side of the fence.
Lent is a time for almsgiving, of course, but we all need to be careful whose coffers we are lining.
I have just received this from an SSPX priest/friend in the U.S. A very enlightening exchange, especially for atheists!
IF YOU READ THE FIRST SENTENCE, YOU WILL NOT STOP UNTIL THE END. THE LAST SENTENCE IS A SHOCKER.
‘Let me explain the problem science has with religion.’
The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.
‘You’re a Christian, aren’t you, son?’
‘Yes sir,’ the student says.
‘So you believe in God?’
‘Is God good?’
‘Sure! God’s good.’
‘Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?’
‘Are you good or evil?’
‘The Bible says I’m evil.’
The professor grins knowingly. ‘Aha! The Bible! He considers for a moment. ‘Here’s one for you. Let’s say there’s a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?’
‘Yes sir, I would.’
‘So you’re good….!’
‘I wouldn’t say that.’
‘But why not say that? You’d help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn’t.’
The student does not answer, so the professor continues.
‘He doesn’t, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Can you answer that one?’ The student remains silent. ‘No, you can’t, can you?’ the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. ‘Let’s start again, young fella.
Is God good?’
‘Er… yes,’ the student says.
‘Is Satan good?’
The student doesn’t hesitate on this one. ‘No.’
‘Then where does Satan come from?’
The student falters. ‘From God.’
‘That’s right. God made Satan, didn’t he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?’
‘Evil’s everywhere, isn’t it? And God did make everything, correct?’
‘So who created evil?’ The professor continued, ‘If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.’ Again, the student has no answer. ‘Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?’
The student squirms on his feet. ‘Yes.’
‘So who created them?’ The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. ‘Who created them?’ There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. ‘Tell me,’ he continues onto another student. ‘Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?’
The student’s voice betrays him and cracks. ‘Yes, professor, I do.’
The old man stops pacing. ‘Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you.
Have you ever seen Jesus?’
‘No sir. I’ve never seen Him.’
‘Then tell us if you’ve ever heard your Jesus?’
‘No, sir, I have not.’
‘Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?’
‘No, sir, I’m afraid I haven’t.’
‘Yet you still believe in him?’
‘According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn’t exist.
What do you say to that, son?’
‘Nothing,’ the student replies. ‘I only have my faith.’
‘Yes, faith,’ the professor repeats. ‘And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.’
The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of his own. ‘Professor, is there such thing as heat? ‘
‘And is there such a thing as cold?’
‘Yes, son, there’s cold too.’
“No sir, there isn’t.’
The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet.
The student begins to explain. ‘You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don’t have anything called ‘cold’. We can hit down to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.’
Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.
‘What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?’
‘Yes,’ the professor replies without hesitation. ‘What is night if it isn’t darkness?’
‘You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it’s called darkness, isn’t it? That’s the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn’t. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?’
The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. ‘So what point are you making, young man?’
‘Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.’
The professor’s face cannot hide his surprise this time. ‘Flawed? Can you explain how?’
‘You are working on the premise of duality,’ the student explains. ‘You argue that there is life and then there’s death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can’t even explain a thought.’ ‘It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.’ ‘Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?’
‘If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.’
‘Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?’
The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.
‘Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?’ The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided. ‘To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.’ The student looks around the room. ‘Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor’s brain?’ The class breaks out into laughter. ‘Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor’s brain, felt the professor’s brain, touched or smelt the professor’s brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.’ ‘So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?’
Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. ‘I Guess you’ll have to take them on faith.’
‘Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,’ the student continues. ‘Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?’
Now uncertain, the professor responds, ‘Of course, there is. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man’s inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.’
To this the student replied, ‘Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God’s love present in his heart. It’s like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.’
The professor sat down.
If you read it all the way through and had a smile on your face when you finished, email it to your friends and family with the title ‘God vs. Science’
PS: The student was Albert Einstein who wrote a book titled God vs. Science in 1921.
I am surprised at that exchange from Albert Einstein because he claimed to be a non-believer in a personal God, and one of his problems with God was the existence of evil. There are some quotes from him on this video:
Albert Einstein rejected the notion of a personal God, and in 1954 he wrote ” As long as I can remember. I have resented mass indoctrination. I cannot prove to you there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws” Page 132 of the biography of Einstein, by William Hermanns, 1983.
The idea that this story has any connection with Albert was debunked decades ago.
He also said if he was not a Jew, although not a practicing Jew, he would have been a Quaker. He was essentially a pantheist who believed God was no more than the essential order of The Universe. Quakers, of course, do not see any book as a Sacred Text.
Perhaps Albert Einstein held the reported views by Athanasius as a young man.
No. He was consistent in his rejection of a personal God, but was a cultural Jew, and always more of a pantheist influenced by the thinking of Spinoza. As I said, this story has been falsely attributed to him, and that attribution was made long after it first surfaced.
Lily and Anthony
Thank you both for the correction on Einstein. Nevertheless, I think the content of the exchange is brilliant and well worthy of remembrance, regardless of the source. It was the demolition of the atheistic philosopher’s argument that I focused on.
I agree. It doesn’t matter who the student was, it was a brilliant exchange and he put the professor in his place.
Apropos of none of the above:
I’ve no resource to pre VII canon law. What would be the best response to the following, please?
What about the distinction of a virtue of obedience and the vow of it?
Doesn’t the vow of obedience require more than discernment of whether the authority is correct?
I would say two things in response to your question. The first is that a person under vow of obedience would be bound to discern less according to his own mind than the mind of the Church when weighing a matter involving obedience to authority. Secondly, if the authority in question is shown to be incorrect then the matter would have to be sufficiently serious to justify a subordinate’s withdrawal of obedience. Matters pertaining to Faith are of suffient severity, hence the position of the SSPX, for example, which has discerned various dangers to Faith post-Council through reference to the constant teaching of the Magisterium throughout history. We cannot obey man to the detriment of obedience to God, which is what some of the post-conciliar novelties demand. In such cases, obedience to God takes precedence over all else.
First, Thank you for the reply. Second could you unpack this for me:
A vow of obedience is made to a person, a rule (usu. “the rule and constitutions”). The written code provides boundaries for what can be legitimately commanded. But the current mindset of obedience is often put in terms of obeying the “mind ” of one’s superior. Hence the confusion.
Yes, the statement you posted simply means that where once a vow was made in accordance with rules and norms long established by the Church within certain guidelines, it is now subject to the whims of individual superiors who often abuse their authority by commanding obedience to their will rather than the established rules and norms that the vow originally pertained to.
Sorry I meant to include your comment to be unpacked: The first is that a person under vow of obedience would be bound to discern less according to his own mind than the mind of the Church when weighing a matter involving obedience to authority.
Check out Rorate Caelii latest headlines on Pope and Emma Bonino ‘ La Bicicletta ‘…. Truly astonishing !
Look at this from Fr Ray Blake; the picture itself is probably just a convenient photo-op, but I think it must capture something of the way this Papacy is unfolding.
Fr Blake says:
I think this is just the saddest picture of our beloved Holy Father. His face seems full of unhappiness. I am not sure where this from.
Is that Cardinal Sarah the other Bishops are gathering around or are they just leaving together?
I am told this is increasingly not unusual in the Vatican.
At first, Fr Blake seems unsure of what the photo really tells us (if anything) – but then his last sentence is quite intriguing. It also interesting that he has chosen to make the photo his new headline banner for his blog.
“Our beloved Holy Father”? Eh? Is Father Ray Blake being serious? He is THE Holy Father as far as I’m concerned, in that he holds that office. “Beloved”? Not remotely. Not by any Catholic who abhors his shocking words and behaviour, which are, by definition, an all-out attack on the Faith.
And what to make of the commentator who quotes the Fatima seer’s prophecy that the “Holy Father will have much to suffer”? As if Pope Francis could, by any stretch of the imagination, be that pope?
In fact, I think it’s stretching the imagination to read ANYTHING into that photo. After all, it was those very cardinals who elected Papa Francis, knowing, as they must have done, precisely what kind of pontiff he’d make. There will be some simple explanation for the fact that he is waiting behind, not exiting the event (whatever it was) with the others – it’s highly unlikely to be due to his unpopularity. He’s an “outright modernist” (to quote Bishop Fellay) and, having voted for him at the 2013 conclave, it’s clearly not keeping any of them (or, at least, the majority of them) awake at night.
The reference to our “beloved” Holy Father is a rather wry remark from Fr Blake! He tends to satirise Francis, or damn him with faint praise!
I agree with what you say about the poster who linked Francis with the Fatima prophecy, that is indeed absurd!
Well, maybe Fr Ray Blake could learn from you and use inverted commas when he is being “wry”.
Can anyone advise? I have received a request to search for a Fr. Thaddeus Doyle CC as this person thinks his writings are wonderful. Well I did and he sounds dodgy to me. For one thing, he seems to promote Medjugorje and for another he says Fr. Gruner was suspended and that he has written Vatican correspondence to prove it. Anyway, can you informed lot help a wee lassie out?
We’ve reported on Fr Doyle several times in the newsletter. He’s serious bad news. Even after giving him documentary evidence of the false claims he was making about Fr Gruner, he repeated them. He is a very dishonest person. The person who tells you he’s wonderful, clearly hasn’t got the proverbial clue.
I should have mentioned that Fr Gruner himself wrote to Fr Doyle in response to his attacks to give him the facts about his situation. Still, he persisted in perpetrating the falsehood that he was a suspended priest, not incardinated. Lies.
I fear that lying about Fr Gruner is the least of his problems . . . Fr Doyle seems to believe he was converted and healed by Jesus when a Presbyterian minister laid hands on him. http://www.jesuspowerministries.org/n1.htmI
Yes, Fr Doyle is an out and out (fill in the blanks) anything but orthodox priest. Consider these comments, a spiritual health warning, Crofterlady and avoid his writings at all costs.
Just in case there was any lingering doubt about Fr Gruner’s alleged ‘suspension’, all the info is here:- http://www.fatima.org/apostolate/defense/notsusvir.asp
It has come to light that an elderly former priest, Fr Paul Moore (Irvine), was arrested wrt child abuse in December. Anyone heard of, or encountered him, before?
Fr Paul Moore has been a problem in the Diocese of Galloway for years now, with people shocked that the Bishop (Maurice Taylor) protected him. Bishop Taylor was an out and out “liberal”, for the record.
However, the case of Fr Patrick Lawson, mentioned in the report you linked, should be viewed separately.
Whatever his links to the Fr Paul Moore allegations, Fr Lawson has long been a cause for concern himself. I do not mean to suggest that he is involved in child abuse – not at all. That is not the concern. However, there are journalists (or at least one!) who try to portray him as a victim, forced out of his parishes because of “whistleblowing” about the Paul Moore child abuse when that is not the case.
Fr Lawson first came to our attention following a bit of whistleblowing by a priest in another diocese, but for reasons that I am unable to divulge at the present time, we agreed not to publish anything about him beyond what is already in the public domain. Interestingly, there is nothing in the public domain along the lines of the information passed to us by the “whistleblowing” priest who – it must be said – appears to have been proved right now that the church court in Rome has upheld the original decision to remove Fr Lawson from active ministry.
What times we are living through – incredible. No wonder St Charles Borromeo said “better no priests at all, than bad priests”.
As RCA Victor might say …. You betcha!
Look at this great new online resource provided by the excellent Baronius Press – the full texts of the Clementina Vulgata, the Douay-Rheims Bible and the Knox Bible. Included are the Challoner notes from the Douay Rheims, and Mgr Knox’s comments from the Knox Bible.
The site is mobile-device friendly and allows a direct side-by-side comparison of the texts (which seems to be the default option):
‘Bergoglio must be deposed’ – check this out….
Gerontius has already posted that link on the Pope Francis/SSPX thread.
Hopefully, this on-line petition to stop NHS funding of abortion hasn’t already been posted elsewhere.
I shall forward to my local parish newsletter editor and ask for it to be published therein. Could as many as possible also please do so? Tnx.
Thanks Pat, I have now signed.
Can anyone here confirm the rumor that Pope and Card. Mueller(sp?) have spoken against Communion for the Divorced and Remarried aka adulterous unions. ??
Don’t know about the Pope, but Cardinal Muller has: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/03/breaking-news-cardinal-gerhard-muller.html
Tks, much for that lead. I hope it will quell some fears.
DETAILS ABOUT THE HUSH FILM
I was reading the latest Ite Missa Est today. There is a lot in it about Catholic Schooling, a good read. On Page 9, an article by District Superior, Fr Brucciani, ends by asking that Our Lady “find the wherewithall to establish a new junior school in Glasgow”.
Naturally, I found that very interesting – is this something that is being considered at present, (even at a high level), or is it simply a long-standing ambition / hope for the future?
Can I ask bloggers advice on combating lukewarmness? I would say I have been lukewarm for around two years. I keep trying to shake it off but I don’t have the same fervour as I did, say three or four years ago. I’m going to Confession weekly and ask for the grace to become more fervent at Holy Communion, but as soon as I leave the church the last thing on my mind is spiritual matter. I leave with good intentions but simply forget to do things like pray, read, blog etc.
Any words of advice would really help….
In making a judgement about lukewarmness, be careful that you don’t confuse “feeling” with intention. The value of your Morning Offering is precisely that you frame the whole of your day in its intentionality. “Man looks at the appearance (even the interior appearance) but God sees the heart.” and He alone knows your heart.
Secondly, Like the javelin throws of ejaculatory prayer you may for a time want to focus on the Little Way of St. Therese. Even putting the key in the ignition can be done with an act of love. One pure act of love is more pleasing in the sight of God that whole burnt offerings.
Remember, Naaman the Syrian.
Thank you for this.
I know what you mean about feeling. However, I do think I have become more worldly and less supernatural. It’s not just that I don’t feel like praying, reading, blogging etc it actually just doesn’t occur to me to do these things. I say a Morning Offering but I just rattle it off out of habit and then I simply switch off and don’t think of religion again.
I’m hoping that by acknowledging this is an issue and tackling it then it is the beginning of an improvement.
You’re very on target! Acknowledgement is the first most helpful step. But from what you briefly describe it “sounds” more like dissipation than true lukewarmness. Faith in the indwelling presence of God in the soul gives a moral certainty of your nearness to God. That being the case, I strongly encourage you to make the practice of the present moment your offering for the rest of Lent.
Your honesty is commendable – which goes without saying, really, but you know me, if it’s there NOT to be said, moi will say it, anyway!
In fact, it is very easy to become worldly. Very easy, especially for those who are working in a secular environment, with those around us filling the air that we breathe with talk of career progress and financial betterment as the measure of our “success”. Once we set ourselves to follow that road, without at the same time doing all in our power to build up our spiritual lives, then we may well end up losing our Faith. That’s the Devil’s intent, and I think it is self-evident that what you are experiencing, is a level of diabolical attack.
At the beginning of Lent, one of our priests threw out some novel ideas for Lenten penances, NOT, thank Heavens, along the “Lentfest” lines but things such as more spiritual reading – if there’s a book we’ve been meaning to read, do it now, that sort of thing. In my own case, it reminded me that a relative had lent me her copy of the writings of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich but I’d not yet opened it, so I set myself to read it during Lent and have been doing so – and plan to finish it before the six weeks is over. I thought that was a great penance to do for Lent because Father said nothing about avoiding having a cup of tea and a biscuit at the same time (!) 😉
Reading some spiritual book, especially the lives of the saints, in an atmosphere of silence, coupled with more Masses, if possible, is perhaps advisable in your situation. I was stunned recently to hear a teenager say that he never misses the chance to attend Mass (he only attends the TLM) because he loves the thought of getting “all that grace into my soul.” As well as the SSPX announced Masses, there are TLMs in the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Balornock, on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 6.15pm and at 12.30pm on Wednesdays.
Perhaps for the couple of weeks left of Lent, you might try to do as I do! 😀 and read more, plus try to get to more Masses, in addition to your Morning Offering; the daily rosary, tough as it may be to fit in, is really a must. If you can’t manage the extra reading and Masses, I think you really must make yourself pray the rosary. And include the intention of becoming more fervent.
All this at no charge. Goodness. Are you one lucky guy or what? 😀
Thank you very much for that jewel of a post. Crystal clear and full of practical advice.
I similarly suffer from lukewarmness. I confess monthly, say the rosary and other devotions for a few days and then my zeal fizzles out, and then I confess to neglecting my prayer life next month. When I do pray its out of habit. I think it is because I cannot attend Mass weekly and receive Communion.
Also, I should have said, I feel the urge to pray and read spiritual books, but I don’t have the willpower. I also have the attention span of a boll weevil. When I lived at an Opus Dei Centre for 3 weeks I prayed the Rosary and other prayers and attended daily Mass. I think it’s not having a timetable. I will write one up and show it to my SSPX confessor.
Sorry to be so late chiming in, but have you tried mental prayer?
By chance I have just read this.
The first thing I would say is that regardless of what friends you have in this forum this is not the forum to discuss such personal matters.
Secondly, I would say the fact you are constantly seeking the remedy says more about you, and what is in your heart, than it does about the extent of the problem itself. However you presumably don’t see it that way.
Clearly prayer is important but in the issues you have raised you have not suggested that you are failing in your secondary vocation, which is as a husband and father. Living that vocation, as much as prayer will assist you. (The primary vocation is being a Christian which should inform, and form, the secondary vocation.)
If you read practically the life of any saint you will find they experienced similar problems. You are in good company.
Earlier today, or sometime this week you, wrongly suggested I had no sense of The Real Presence. For you, and me, the desire to be in that presence, and receive that presence, and the efforts we, mainly you, take to be there says more about how we are, and what we genuinely desire, than what we feel when we are there. We won’t always feel a sense of awe and wonder. (I say mainly you because I have no problem attending Mass etc!)
In terms of time, and inclination, even making The Sign of The Cross, and nothing else, hands the time, and the situation, over to God anyway.
I hope this makes sense. I genuinely don’t know why, or how, I read this post. I certainly wasn’t looking for it.
It is some days since you wrote the above. I hope light has dawned.
I thank you for this. I appreciate your time and effort.
Just onething I’d like you to clarify. How can you deduce from my post that I am “constantly” seeking the remedy? I’ve read over my posts and I just don’t see it.
I summarised this “I keep trying to shake it off but I don’t have the same fervour as I did, say three or four years ago. I’m going to Confession weekly and ask for the grace to become more fervent at Holy Communion,”. It says to me what I said it said!
Thank you, Father. Much appreciated.
I assume you now see what I saw in what you wrote? I hope my words do make sense and provide encouragement on your pilgrim journey.
I would like to offer some words of encouragement based on your own experience as a husband and father. I am sure that you occasionally keep showing love and devotion even when you don’t feel like it, and that you do so because that is what you promised God you would do when you made your marriage vows and welcomed your children into the world. You stick in there, you persevere! The Gospel tells us “by their fruits you shall know them”. Take heart and keep up the good fight!
St. Augustine once said: “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they find rest in you”. Even the restlessness that comes from loss of fervor is a sign of a soul thirsting for God “like a land parched, dreary and waterless” (Ps. 62).
God bless you and your family.
Thank you. Very much appreciated.
Very few go through life feeling constant fervor in their souls. The saints in particular, and more particular yet the Mystics and contemplatives, suffered greatly in this regard. It is called the dark night of the soul when we are put to the test to seek the God of consolations rather than the consolations of God. As has rightly been observed, during these times of apparent darkness we gain great merit for our desire to be fervent and for our perseverance. As Fr. Considine once said of these times of spiritual dryness: “If we even present ourselves before Our Lord’s Real Presence and remain there like the statues in the chapel as adornments, that is very pleasing to God”
Of course it is incumbent upon us not to lose fervor because of a neglect of our spiritual duties and then think to call it a trial sent by God. We must always desire God in everything and resign all to Him even if we don’t always feel particularly devout.
I find that where exposition of the Blessed Sacrament takes place in a modern parish it is much more difficult to focus on the supernatural than in a Traditional chapel. This is because in a Traditional chapel the Blessed Sacrament exposed is adorned with flowers and candles that express the great dignity of the one whose Presence is in the monstrance. In modern parishes the exposed Blessed Sacrament, a rarity in itself these days, resides in a plain monstrance with usually an electric candle on either side and little or no flowers. The bareness of the altar, or table these days, is so minimalist as to give the impression that the parish priest doesn’t really believe in the Real Presence of Our Lord at all. This apparent indifference is compounded by the number of modern priests I have watched go back and forward in front of the monstrance with little more than a bow of the head, if you’re lucky.
In contrast to this, I have admittedly seen some faithful drop on to both knees before their Lord and Master in adoration. These are all outward signs of inward grace, or lack thereof. Modern priests generally, in my experience, are less devout before the Blessed Sacrament exposed than some of their flock. Of course I put much of this loss of reverence down to the abuse of Communion in the hand. Priests cannot hope to be devoted to the Blessed Sacrament when they encourage a practice so alien to the faith of even the early Christians. It is an invitation to indifference and in many cases, as we know since its illicit introduction by Cardinal Suenens, sacrilege. I will never come to terms with so Protestant a practice entering our churches and being imposed universally by bishops and priests as though it were the church’s normal practice. It is not.
These are all important things that cause souls to grow cold rather than to grow in their love of our Sacramental Lord. Not kneeling for Holy Communion is another innovation that has helped rob souls of their fervency. The clergy in our times have much to answer for before Our Lord. Little wonder that the Church urges the faithful always to pray for priests and other consecrated souls.
I came across your reply to Petrus by chance. So good to see a really good, sensitive priestly post from you, with advice that I too can take to heart. Thank you Father.
If you as a Catholic priest, especially if your are of the old school, utilise lay ministers of Holy Communion and/or place the Blessed Sacrament into the unconsecrated hands of Standing communicants, then I’m afraid I would have to say that your words about loving Our Lord’s Real Presence are rather shallow. Ignorance of Traditional Eucharistic teaching and practice excepted, to encourage these manifestly Protestant and de-sacrilising practices, whoever approves at whatever level in the Church today, is not consistent with the Eucharistic love of the saints or of past generations of Catholics.
The only people recorded in the Gospels as laying hands on Our Blessed Lord were the traitor who kissed Him and those who mocked and crucified Him. There is not a single Gospel account of a true believer touching Our Lord’s person. Why doesn’t this resonate today with most bishops and priests? Could it be that deep down many of them don’t truly believe in the Real Presence, or is it all down to grave ignorance and perhaps no little indifference.
I put this comment on the Sedevacantism thread yesterday: I don’t think the Church at large has anything to fear from sedevacantism, but I think the SSPX does, whether they are affiliated with the Resistance or lone wolves. I have had the misfortune of attending the SSPX chapel, and if it wasn’t for the kind, faithful and gentle priests, I would have stopped going. According to one barmpot the ‘Pope is not even a validly ordained Priest’ and basically if it ain’t Tridentine it ain’t valid. She is not alone, but she, her husband and another woman think that Bishop Williamson is the best thing since sliced bread. She insisted in most forceful terms that I get my Rosary which was blessed by the Holy Father re-blessed (and which was a gift from a dear friend) in the Tridentine way by Bishop de Galarreta and insisted that I make a General Confession to a Society Priest, in case I did not receive absolution from the Novus Ordo. They deny the Novus Ordo Sacraments carte blanche, and some of the SSPX priests who possess the positive qualities above have been evasive in responding to my queries. Can someone give me a source that attests to the validity of the Novus Ordo? My quiver is out of arrows, so I need your assistance to help my poor and misguided acquaintances.
I find your post of 10.32am to be very dishonest.
I have spent a lot of precious time in email correspondence with you answering your alleged concerns about individuals in the Society and all the rest of the stuff in your post. You say you understand now, and then write up the above nonsense. The Society is not affiliated with “the Resistance” – they’re a bunch of headcases who LEFT the Society. You know this perfectly well. Stop being mischevious.
If you don’t like the SSPX, don’t go there. I’ve been going for years and never met anyone who holds the views that you report. You are quoting a few extremists and using them to misjudge the Society. Outrageous to speak about the “misfortune” of attending an SSPX chapel when, but for the Society, there would be no other means of attending the TLM.
We’re sick of giving you links to attest that Archbishop Lefebvre did not deny the validity of the new Mass – that’s all you need to say to those nuts. Personally, I would stop casting pearls before swine. But if you are looking for other sources, find them yourself. I, for one, am far too busy to keep reinventing the wheel.
Tell me what is dishonest about my post from 10.32am? It is entirely truthful, although I should have said that I had the misfortune of attending the SSPX Chapels in Manchester and Preston. I wish I had your ability to ignore those ‘headcases’, and suppress my concerns for their souls. I have explained time and time again that Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer, Cardinals Ottavianni and Bacci and others never denied the Novus Ordo Sacraments as a whole (not just the Mass), and I have spoken to Priests about these people, but the Priests who officiate at these chapels either are not bothered or share those views and just can’t bring themselves to say it. I am thankful for Archbishop Lefebvre and his fight to keep traditional Catholicism alive, but the problem is one the Society must deal with. Bishop Fellay should tell them where to go. Can you tell me why Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, after Bishop Manat (a ‘Tridentine’ Priest, but a ‘Novus Ordo’ Bishop) confirmed SSPX laity in Thailand, he insisted on conditional confirmations? He is a ‘headcase’? What would you do if Archbishop Tartaglia confirmed candidates at your SSPX chapel in Glasgow last year and then Bishop de Galarreta insisted on repeating the Sacraments conditionally? Would you refuse him?
Stop moving the goalposts. There is nothing more to say about conditional baptisms etc – we’ve explained it a million times.
You have no authority over nor responsibility for the nuts whom you quote. So stop making ridiculous excuses for bothering us with their nonsense. Either stop going to that chapel if you just can’t grasp that, or go to Mass and Confession and then go right home. You have no obligation to convince anyone of anything. If the priests are not correcting the errors you claim abound there, then leave them to it. There is no need to come onto a public blog to blacken the name of the Society when you know perfectly well that these are a bunch of extremists – assuming they exist – I only have your word for it.
Move on to something that is of interest to us all – this is yawn yawn stuff.
PS your post is “dishonest” – as I explained in my earlier response – because I’ve answered these concerns over and over again by email and over and over again on this blog. If you can’t grasp the answers, just stop asking the questions. Who cares! Somebody in our chapel mentioned, by name, one of the nuts in Glasgow who had gone off with the daft “resistance” bunch – I started in surprise, because I had forgotten all about him/them. So, stop wasting precious time on them. Leave them to it. WHO, as I said a minute ago, CARES?!
Thank you very much for the kind advice above. It is much appreciated.
However, I have to say that I’m shocked at your subsequent comments. I’ve attended Mass at Preston several times and I’ve never ever had anyone mention the things you quote. How on earth does that come up in conversation of you are an occasional visitor? Like editor, I’ve never even discussed these things with anyone in the SSPX. It looks like you might be resisting the Truth and looking for excuses to do so.
The reason I am only an ‘occasional’ visitor to Preston is because of financial constraints, though I have been able to visit more regularly of late due to the fact that I have found employment. I befriended and exchanged mobile numbers/ email addresses with several people whom I cannot name on here BEFORE I knew they were with the Resistance and were sedevacantists. There are some more extreme than others, but they are all supporters of Bishop Williamson. They brought the subject up with me! The Devil knows I have a scrupulous conscience and he introduced me to these people.
Petrus, how can you say I am resisting the Truth? I defend the traditional Catholic doctrines and the errors of the Council to anybody and everybody. A friend of mine is in Opus Dei and I attended their centre in Manchester where I defended pre-Council doctrines on ecumenism, interreligious unity, religious liberty, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, the Tridentine Mass and the SSPX/ Archbishop Lefebvre, not to mention the all important Fatima apparitions of 1917 and the subsequent ones from 1925, 1929 and 1930. So no, I am not resisting the Truth.
Petrus, I ask you the following question in friendliest manner possible, and I hope you respond in the same spirit: should I have any scruple about going to confession with NO Priests, and other Sacraments celebrated by them in the Old Rites? Do you have doubts?
I think it would be best for me to attend the Missa Cantata in the Oratorian Church in York.
Catholic Convert 1,
It’s not that long since we had a discussion about confessing to novus ordo priests and all the SSPX people on here said that was fine. I have to agree with those who say you keep asking the same questions over and over, even though they’ve been answered many times.
I remember one blogger from the USA left in a huff because she said nobody here should have anything to do with non-Society priests and not confess to them, then later Editor posted a reply from the superiors of the Society saying she was wrong.
Nobody should have any doubts about Confession as long as the priest says “I absolve you”. That was explained really really clearly on the blog not that long ago. I remember it distinctly because I recommended the discussion to friends of mine to read.
Margaret Mary has summarised the main points. I can only comment on my personal situation.
I confess to both SSPX and non-SSPX clergy without any scruples. I don’t attend the New Mass, however I attend the Traditional Masses offered by Diocesan clergy.
Dear Petrus and Margaret Mary,
Thank you for those replies and I have decided to no longer attend the SSPX Masses for the sake of my spiritual wellbeing in avoiding those headcases. I will attend Mass in York and the FSSP Church in Warrington.
That will surely please the devil very much!
I am more than a little disappointed in you, CC, not least because you speak of these “nutcases” as though they are a majority in SSPX congregations. The truth is that for every “nutcase” in the SSPX there are hundreds of decent ordinary Catholics just trying to keep the faith through these difficult days.
I have been attending SSPX Masses for nearly 30 years and have met only a handful of such people as you mention. You, by your own admission, have only recently and infrequently attended Masses at the SSPX and yet you say you’ve run into all these “nutcases”. I find that very hard to believe.
At any rate, if it’s your local parish Novus Ordo you’re choosing to sanctify your soul, then good luck to you on that one. You’ll meet a lot more nutcases on that journey!
I missed the part where you say you will attend Mass in York or at the FSSP in Warrington, so it is clear that you will not be attending the Novus Ordo. Well, that’s something at least. I’ll stick with the SSPX’s defence of both Mass and doctrine. The alternative is too easy.
Please don’t think that I am saying this sarcastically, or in an unkind way, but has any confessor or spiritual director ever told you that you might have a tendency to scrupulosity? Think about it. Has anyone ever mentioned that word? Because although I am not a priest or reader of souls, some of your posts are looking like that might – and I say MIGHT – be an issue with you. Seek out a good spiritual director, either in or outside of confession, allow time to express all your concerns (not a good idea if there is a long queue outside the confessional, so maybe book a time outside of confessions), and if he suggests you are prone to scrupulosity, then listen to his counsel.
If people here, accept what Archbishop Lefebvre taught, namely that The Ordinary of The Holy Mass is valid, why would they then counsel people, who visit this site, not to attend such an Ordinary celebration of Holy Mass on a Sunday, and instead stay at home and celebrate a “dry Mass”? In the Catechism of The Council of Trent, and The 1917 Code of Canon Law, missing Holy Mass is on a Sunday, or Holyday, is a mortal sin. I doubt the Archbishop counselled committing mortal sin, and if he believed the Ordinary of The Holy Mass was valid he wouldn’t have stopped people attending surely?
Further, as far I know a “dry Mass” is a practice of Holy Mass undertaken by a seminarian in preparation for Ordination, and his future celebration of Holy Mass.
The only people, I assume The Archbishop, would have said could miss Holy Mass on a Sunday, and remember it is valid, would be the sick, and infirm, and aged, and they no doubt would have been counselled to read The Mass Readings, and appropriate prayers, and, most probably, say The Rosary.
I doubt he ever counselled lay people to celebrate a “dry mass” as part of their wilful act of mortal sin.
To quote Archbishop Lefebvre correctly, he said the New Mass could be valid (depends on the priest) but is at any rate a great danger to faith. It is replete with Protestant theology and it greatly undermines the Holy Sacrifice of Calvary, In addition to this there are the liturgical abuses of altar girls, Communion in the hand (standing) and Communion under both kinds, to name but a few.
Yes, the Archbishop was absolutely correct when he said it gradually erodes the faith of Catholic souls. And that is exactly what Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci wrote in their critique of the New Mass to Paul VI. They said: … the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The “canons” of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any; heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.
The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition, even if such reasons could be regarded as holding good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem to us sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicions already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever. Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith.
Amongst the best of the clergy the practical result is an agonizing crisis of conscience of which innumerable instances come to our notice daily…”
Well, we have since witnessed the greatest decline in priestly number in the history of the Church, not to mention an apostasy of the faithful that numbers in the millions worldwide.
This is what Fr. Annibale Bugnini, chief architect of the New Mass, had in mind when in a L’Osservatore Romano article dated March 19,1965 he declared: “We must remove from the Mass and from our Catholic prayers all that can be the shadow of a stumbling block to our separated brethren, that is, to the Protestants.”
By 1974, Mgr. Bugnini was able to declare that the New Mass was in fact “a conquest of the Catholic Church” He was soon after sacked by the Pope from his high liturgical and theological office and sent packing to Iran as Papal Delagate where he died of Consumption. This all happened around the time that public revelations surfaced about Mgr. Bugnini’s affiliation to Freemasonry, which was never denied by the Vatican.
Anyway, The words of Martin Luther come to mind here: “Destroy the Mass and you will destroy the Catholic Church.”
I trust this is answer enough for you?
Trust me, I have committed more sins, mortal and otherwise, at the novus ordo “celebrations”, listening to priests damaging the Faith and Morals of the congregation. In one case, my PP insulted the Pope (John Paul II) for insisting on celibacy and his successor, complete with pony tail and sandals, outlined the Church’s teaching on marriage absolutely correctly, only to say “but we all know it’s not possible”…
When I told him outside that if he ever again publicly mocked and distorted Catholic teaching on marriage or anything else, I would publicly correct him, he went for me all guns blazing, telling me (and the gathering crowd) that HIS parents had been in an unhappy marriage and it was not a good thing, blah blah.
The new Mass is like everything else that is “new” in today’s Church – optional. I do believe Pope Paul VI said so – albeit late in the day. So, don’t try to make out that anyone is obliged to attend the new Mass. We’re not. When asked by a bishop in South America quite recently, the Vatican replied that it was only “licit” in that it was permitted at this present time. The Vatican refused to confirm that it was “fully orthodox and pleasing to God.” I ain’t risking breaking the Commandments to worship God and keep holy the Sabbath day by attending a rite that even the Vatican won’t claim is pleasing to God.
Not only is nobody obliged to do anything which may endanger their souls, they are obliged to AVOID any such occasion of danger. It took me twenty years to see it but I got it in the end. “Dry Mass”? I’d sooner join in the fun down at the Salvation Army hall than attend a novus ordo Mass again, funerals and weddings excepted, only for the sake of keeping the peace with family and friends.
In terms of the priest who spoke about Marriage you concede he gave the correct teaching about Marriage, and ended by saying, in effect, that living out any vocation is difficult.
With regards celibacy, as I understand it, The Church could change its discipline on it tomorrow, but is unlikely to do so. You may be aware that The Orthodox Churches, in Communion with Rome, have married clergy as do we in many parishes.
I gather you don’t, generally read recent Church documents, but I am confident you are aware that in Summorum Pontificum, and the accompanying letter, Pope Benedict states clearly there is only one Mass, but two forms. Both are valid and licit, and anyone who denies The Ordinary Form should be denied The Extraordinary Form. Further, the document that the SSPX were required to sign to bring that into Full Communion, states that accept it is valid and licit. At the moment the only Sacrament they celebrate, for The Holy Year only, that is both valid and licit is Confession.
The newspaper headline was not proper, it was deliberately salacious and provocative. We are not defined by our sins. We are all human beings made in God’s image and likeness, and offered redemption in Christ.
I note that you have ignored my comments of March 11 @ 7:44pm above. Why would you bypass such important information relating to the New Mass if you are a priest of good will and objectivity? Could it be that you have no answer to what is written? It is not very honest on your part, and dishonesty is not good in a Catholic priest.
I also note from your comments above to editor your reference to Pope Benedict’s spurious declaration that the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms are effectively the same rite of Mass. No one could possibly compare these rites and make such a declaration. It is a patent falsehood.
But you should bear in mind that Benedict was trying at that time to calm a revolt of the Bishops, who were almost universally furious at the rehabillitation of the ancient Mass and were, in many cases, making that fury and their rebellion against Benedict very public indeed.
It is also worth balancing that declaration of Benedict with his life-long adherence to the heresy of separation of Church and State. Yes, it is a formally condemned heresy to promote separation of Church and State, yet it has been held and peddled in the writings of this adbicated Pope for many decades. Of course you will be aware that his name once appeared on the old Holy Office Index of those suspect of heresy. Perhaps that was the reason. You need to research more and perhaps be a little more honest and balanced in your argument.
No.You are twisting what I reported. My PP said, not that living out the Church’s teaching on marriage difficult, but that it was impossible – you are extremely dishonest to twist what I reported in that way. He went on to applaud those who just ignored the Church’s teaching, and this in a congregation of young families. In a later incident, talking with a priest from a neighbouring parish who had left the active ministry to shack up with a girl from the choir (they were in attendance at Mass and had gone up at Communion time for a blessing with their offspring and nobody batted an eyelid, except moi, of course) – anyway, even HE nodded in agreement that my PP would “bless a monkey”, so ignorant was/is that PP of all things Catholic.
I see that Athanasius has answered your other ridiculous assertions about the new Mass, so I won’t add to that.
Being offered redemption in Christ is not to be confused with liturgical abuse. We all pray for the conversion of the Muslim prisoner. But she should not have been included in the washing of the feet on Maundy Thursday – that, of course, is not HER fault, but is the fault of our very bad pontiff.
As for your comments about celibacy – I believe that one of the outcomes of the current crisis in the Faith and priesthood will be that celibacy WILL be recognised – as Christ recognised it – as being integral to the priesthood. The great convert, Cardinal Newman, said that even as an Anglican vicar, he recognised the integral nature of celibacy. I think it is a mistake to accept men into the seminary who are “sacrificing” marriage. They need to WANT to be priests and NOT WANT to be married. That is the healthy attitude. The rest, who want the best of both worlds, do not have a genuine vocation and in time, that will, I believe, be explained clearly by the Church. It will one of many clarifications that will arise from this current crisis in the Church. Roll on.
In terms of the priest who spoke about Marriage you concede he gave the correct teaching about Marriage, and ended by saying, in effect, that living out any vocation is difficult.
Do you not see the difference between something that is very difficult, and something that is not possible,as the priest in question stated it was? It almost seems that you are deliberately trying to muddy the waters.
No, I am saying his own background distorted his views about the living out of Marriage ,as such, but, as editor said in his first post, he was doctrinally correct.
I can’t make up my mind about you. Not sure if you are (with respect) just confused, a product of the modern diocesan church, or if you are (with respect) maliciously distorting meanings or if you are (with respect) intellectually challenged. I’m just not sure, so won’t express a view just yet, if ever.
In case it is number 3 on the above list, allow me to try again to explain clearly.
My then PP, outlined the Church’s teaching on marriage. He said that the Church expected couples to make vows, for better, worse, richer, poorer, sickness and health, and forsaking all others, stay together until the death of one spouse.
He said the above as he wandered across the sanctuary, microphone in hand, looking solemn. Nodding his head a lot.
He said it all a few times. At least twice.
Then he added “that’s what the Church teaches. Stay together in all circumstances, until death. But WE know it’s not possible, don’t we?” Grinning from ear to ear – like this 😀
Clearly, then, he wasn’t faithfully preaching about Catholic marriage. With his opening words, he was setting the scene for what was to come: his shameful mockery of Catholic marriage. That his own immaturity prevented him from leaving aside his own alleged experience of family life, to preach the Faith properly, and with conviction, means that he, like many others today, should not have been ordained in the first place.
I really can’t make it any clearer. He was a bad priest – and if he is still around (which I doubt) he’s probably STILL a bad priest.
For all the talk of shortage of priests, I often reflect that there is no shortage of bad priests. More’s the pity.
In the original post about the incident YOU did not give as many details. The further details alter the facts/telling of the story. However, if with the full facts we know he was damaged by the marriage of his parents. Doctrinally he was correct. I seemed to recall a future Apostle said to Jesus, when the teaching was first give, “in that case we would be better not to marry.
My thinking isn’t confused. I hope I hear the human side of the story. A human being hurt by a human experience.
Just came across this website: http://retrocatholic.com/cgi/insult
Looks interesting. Should be a good resource, although I seem to remember another similar site being launched. Can’t remember any details, though, so will keep a note of this one, once it is finished. I hope the source of each “insult” is given.
That’s a good point about sources: I don’t see any given.
I have received the following email from a reader, which I think is of much interest. Not recommending anyone actually BUY a copy of the Scottish Catholic Observer(SCO) but if you can take a few minutes to check it out on Sunday at the back of your church, I can’t see anybody objecting… Unfortunately, this article is among those NOT published online. Wonder why.
You may already know that the SCO has an interview this week with a leading official in Stonewall. The article claims that she is a practising Catholic while at the same time stating that she believes in gay marriage.
You may wish to alert readers of the blog to this anomaly. END
The interview is mentioned in the editorial Click here to read
It is among those listed in the sidebar, which will not be published online. Here’s the blurb:
“Ian Dunn talks to Stonewall CEO Ruth Hunt, a Catholic, in search of common ground between religious groups and the gay community.”
Appropriate? For a Catholic paper? The “g” word? A chat with a leading homosexual activist lobby group? What do you think? I know what I think: I think that the only common ground between us is the Confessional box. Anyone can go in there, man, woman, child, traditionally married people, homosexuals, you name it. As long as we all have a determination to admit our sins, repent of them, make a firm purpose of amendment NOT to commit those sins again, then we’re absolved and ready for a fresh start.
To say that, requires an interview in a Catholic newspaper?
Whattsa matter, Editor, didn’t you know there was all sorts of common ground between mortal sin and grace, Heaven and Hell? Yep, it’s called the Church Effeminate, better known as the religion that replaced the Catholic Faith after Vii.
RCA Victor, LOL. There, I’ve said it for the first time😀!
I don’t know if anybody has already seen this article, but I’ve only just seen it, and it is of great interest : https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/beautiful-video-of-living-18-week-miscarried-baby-gives-face-to-babies-plan
What a beautiful baby, and God gave it a few precious hours of life with its parents and siblings.
Thank you for that. I do get the Lifesitenews bulletins but had missed that. Beautiful. Thank you very much for alerting us to it.
Here (from the USA) is a heartwarming story of faithful and bold lay people in action:
I have added some asterisks at suitable points!
On the first morning of the 31st annual Cathedral Flower Festival, with its theme of “A Night at the Movies,” an agitated church custodian made a bold move.
Mark Kenney, 59, who grew up in the parish, had worked at St. Cecilia Cathedral for three years. Around 8 a.m. on Jan. 29, he went to a work shed, picked up a pair of heavy-duty bolt cutters and ascended to a catwalk high above the mostly empty nave, or main sanctuary.
He looked through a peephole, he said, to make sure he wouldn’t hurt any people. And then he cut a steel cable, which sent a suspended, umbrella-carrying, hat-wearing Mary Poppins figure crashing to the floor.
Kenney then went downstairs and removed a cardboard Buddha figure from the Nash Chapel, which also featured costumed mannequins from “The King and I.” He threw the Buddha out one door and proceeded to toss costumed mannequins out two other doors.
Someone alerted the pastor, the Rev. Michael Gutgsell, who ran from the rectory next door to the church and saw Kenney.
“Mark,” he called out, “did you see who did this?”
“Father, it was me. You need to call the police.”
Gutgsell had known that his custodian had misgivings about secular displays in the church but says he was dumbfounded and didn’t understand why Kenney would take such drastic action. In a brief meeting that week, the pastor said, he had asked for Kenney’s promise not to be disruptive.
Now the priest was shocked, saying, “You promised!”
In response, Kenney said, he lashed out. “I started screaming, ‘Father, this is b***s***! We can’t have this in the church. This isn’t culture, it’s Disney c***!’ ”
God save Mark Kenney!
Sadly, noble Mr Kenney was fired from his job at the Cathedral for this brave and just action. And he was attacked by a priest for his supposedly “slanderous” complaining about the display in the Cathedral.
The eponymous flower link (below) encourages people to contact the Archdiocese of Omaha, to make their feelings known about this affair.
The Janitor was wrong on so many levels, and committed a criminal act in damaging the displays. More especially as an employee he should respect the property he was paid to maintain. That is not to say he should not have protested in conversation, or in writing.
However, all things within a Church – whether flower festivals or music festivals – should only be of a Sacred character. Guidelines from Rome ban the use of secular music in Churches whether during worship or not. The Church, too, needs to learn from this sad experience.
Was Jesus wrong to overturn tables and makes corded whips to drive the money changers out of the temple? He would certainly be guilty of breaking more than one law today, wouldn’t he?
The employee was an employee, and previously promised to respect the displays and so that would mean he had already registered a legitimate protest. Jesus, in case you don’t know, was human and divine, and ultimately was crucified for his actions, and teaching. The Janitor is human, and was the janitor, and as a Christian should be seen to keep his promises, and respect the law. Jesus didn’t make false promises.
That is an absolutely incredible response to MM’s question.
Does it not say explicitly in the reported The Janitor has PROMISED to respect the display? That promise could only have been requested if he had previously registered a protest. To quote:
“Gutgsell had known that his custodian had misgivings about secular displays in the church but says he was dumbfounded and didn’t understand why Kenney would take such drastic action. In a brief meeting that week, the pastor said, he had asked for Kenney’s promise not to be disruptive.
Now the priest was shocked, saying, ‘You promised!'”
Jesus made no such promise to The Temple authorities, and he did have prior rights!
Would you have representations of Mary Poppins and Buddha in your church?
I hope Fr Arthur has sufficient sense of fun to allow me to say, well, that’s a very silly question 😀
Ye’re a little divil…
I note Editor has already replied but at 1.16 p.m., on the day you posed your question, I wrote:
“However, all things within a Church – whether flower festivals or music festivals – should only be of a Sacred character. Guidelines from Rome ban the use of secular music in Churches whether during worship or not. The Church, too, needs to learn from this sad experience.”
Thanks for reinforcing the point though, that people shouldn’t attack things, and take things out of context, but, in so far as they can, judge things on all they know about a person. For example, to place an adult interpretation on what someone wrote about their childhood, experiences, and feelings, is dishonest, intellectually lacking, and, ironically, even childish.
I take your point about the Janitors behaviour, but any failing on his part is only a symptom of the priests own idiocy in denigrating the Church in this way. Why so many priests wish to infantlise, dilute or make a joke of Christianity is beyond me.
If you went into someones home and openly dis-respected it, they would chastise you and/or throw you out. So we can hardly be surprised a someone being angry at God’s house being dis-respected in this fashion.
Its never desirable to be disruptive or cause dispute, but in some cases it is necessary and just and this is such a case.
His word, however, should have been his bond. I have also said at least 3 times such displays have no place in a Church.
I didnt mean to suggest you were in favour of these kind displays, (apologies if I seemed to), yet many clergy are. Why do their Bishops and peers tolerate it?
And you are right that, if a person says something, then they should stick to it.
But then, the story of Christianity is full of examples of people doing something different to what they said at first: from St Peter denying Our Lord three times (after originally saying he would die for Him), to Archbishop Lefebvre changing his mind about the Vatican II documents, after agreeing to sign them at first.
So, while an about-face might leave one open to criticism, I think Mr Kenney is in good company here!
The criminal act, as you well know, or should know, was in turning the House of God into a house of mockery. Another example of lost supernatural faith!
Welsh government to prohibit “undesirable” teaching outside school:
You’re doing what Crofterlady does from time to time, posting a Google link to —– an advertisement! Try again!
Oh dear. I don’t know how else to do it, so reproduce the lot from Citizen Go below:
Last month we launched a campaign against the Government’s plan to implement new powers to regulate and inspect ‘out-of-school-education’. Should these plans come into effect, we could well see censorship of traditional views on sexual ethics and the inherent dignity of the human person, as well as other currently unorthodox views.
Before seeing how this works in practice the Welsh government has launched a public consultation over plans to regulate out of school education including Sunday schools and church youth groups. The Welsh Government’s proposals are very similar to those previously proposed in Westminster.
This proposals represent an outrageous intrusion of the state into community and family life and must be stopped!
Sign this petition to the Welsh Government Minister for Education and Skills, Huw Lewis, urging him to reject these proposals.
As with the plans in Westminster, the Welsh government proposes that any “out-of-school” education settings that provide intensive education (over six to eight hours a week) will be required to register and undergo inspection. Importantly, the state will also be given power to shut these down if such things as “undesirable” teaching are detected.
There are many families and communities which are seeking to teach their children their own traditions and they should be able to do this free from the prying and censoring eye of the state.
Forbidden activities subject to state regulation include “undesirable teaching” or “teaching which undermines or is incompatible with our values of mutual respect and tolerance, or which promotes extremist views.”
Sign this petition to the Minister for Education and Skills, letting him know that the state has no place in overriding parents and communities in the moral education of their children.
As before, exactly what constitutes “extremist views” is unclear, and we should be deeply concerned since the standards for what constitutes extremism are likely to continue expanding. Today, support for traditional marriage is considered extreme (by none other than the Education Secretary Nicky Morgan!) as is being pro-life. Tomorrow it could be virtually anything!
In this Godless society, one would think that children were mere property of the State. There is such an attack upon the family. In any case I have signed the petition.
The UK Government said the same on December 11th 2015.
Editor, watch it !!
Human respect, concern for human laws should not take precedence over our fidelity to the Commandments, notably those which instruct us to put God first. It would surely be a grave sin to condone, by silence and acceptance, the blasphemy in that church.
I’d sooner be found guilty of criminal damage in this life, and pay the price, that be found guilty of blasphemy in the next. It’s a no brainer.
But Editor, he promised! Where’s your sense of proportion? You’re straining on a camel and, erm, swallowing a gnat…..?!
Human beings have a legitimate right to protest.
Hopefully, most can say “I am The King’s good servant, but God’s first.
It is right, too, if you are employed to raise concerns with your employer.
However, morally, and legally, you cross a line if you promise your employer that you will not undertake some action you then do so, and, more so, if that action constitutes criminal activity.
Jesus said say yes if you mean yes, and no if you mean no. (Matthew 5:37)
I would say a person is a more effective witness to The Gospel if they, where necessary, raise legitimate concerns and keep their word. Honesty says more than a set a box cutters (or whatever tool he used). I would say it is difficult to dialogue with a liar, but you can dialogue with a person of principle.
As I said at 1.16 on the 13th:
““However, all things within a Church – whether flower festivals or music festivals – should only be of a Sacred character. Guidelines from Rome ban the use of secular music in Churches whether during worship or not. The Church, too, needs to learn from this sad experience.”
I, myself, have protested to my Bishop, and other clergy, when Churches, more especially, a Cathedral, have held secular Music Concerts, and Flower Festivals. I find it offensive, and Rome, even the Rome of today, says it is wrong.
The janitor should never have made a promise not to be disruptive in the first place. I suppose that on reflection he regretted doing so and felt, since his objections had been ignored, that he had no choice but to take action. Good for him! It took courage, conviction and determination but ultimately he lost his job. I hope he does not now regret what he did.
That’s my read on it too: he made a promise he should not have, then took corrective action.
Perhaps he could be awarded the St. Theodore Tyro Award: “He enlisted in the army and was sent with his cohort to winter quarters in Pontus. When the edict against the Christians was issued by the emperors, he was brought before the Court at Amasea and asked to offer sacrifice to the gods. Theodore, however, denied their existence and made a noble profession of his belief in the Divinity of Jesus Christ. The judges, pretending pity for his youth, gave him time for reflection. This he employed in burning the Temple of Cybele. He was again taken prisoner, and after many cruel torments was burned at the stake.”
Excellent example, Wurdesmythe.
There is such an emphasis laid on obeying the man made laws of the land these days that even Catholics – and even priests – have come to consider that the litmus test of character and even virtue. Of course, it’s this same thread of thinking (false obedience) that has taken us so quickly into crisis in the Church. Crisis of totally unprecedented type and proportion.
Yesterday’s orthodoxy is today’s heresy.
The late 20th century saw the phenomenon of the Second Vatican Council and its wake. During that period Catholic bishops attempted to modernize the Church and attune it to contemporary life by making sweeping changes to the Catholic Church’s worship and devotions, teachings, and laws.
The changes left few people happy.
Progressives complained that the council failed to thoroughly modernize the Church. They continue to agitate for the implementation of further changes, promising that the elusive new springtime will bloom when further legacy practices and beliefs are replaced or abandoned.
Conservatives were devastated when the foundation of their existence was replaced by a pedestrian version of itself. Vocations to the priesthood dried up; seminaries, monasteries, convents, and schools closed; Mass attendance collapsed; belief in core doctrines waned. Many Catholics quit the Church altogether; a small few held out a feeble hope for the restoration of things past.
Church leaders who proved unable to predict the tumultuous consequences of the changes they mandated became obsessed with bureaucratic control. Unwilling to admit that their new plan did not achieve the intended results, torn about introducing further changes lest more of the flock quit the fold, hampered by a new governance model that suppressed autonomy and made individual bishops subject to the rule of their bishop’s conference, the majority of bishops turned their attention to maintaining a veneer of calm in their dioceses. Progressives were permitted a long leash that was only occasionally given a tug. Conservatives were treated to platitudes about obedience and fed reminders of their obligations to support the Church. And energies that in times past would have been spent shepherding the flock were directed towards career advancement.
The Organisation “Voice of the Family” has produced an in-depth analysis of the Bishop’s final report at the family synod in October 2015.
Voice of the Family argues that the bishops’ report undermines the teaching of the Catholic Church on matters relating to human life, marriage and the family. The report, Voice of the Family says, by striving to bring Catholic moral teaching into line with the norms prevailing in the modern world, pursues an approach that runs contrary to divine revelation and the natural moral law.
Since the long awaited exhortation, to be based on the Bishops’ final report, is supposedly due any day now, it will be interesting to see how the two match up – or, hopefully, don’t.
Regarding the soon-to-be-released exhortation, look at this report from Eponymous Flower:
As reported by La Croix , the daily newspaper of the French Bishops’ Conference the electronic notification comes from Curial Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, President of the Pontifical Council for the Family . He urged all bishops to convene a press conference – if possible everywhere at the same time, namely, simultaneously, with the press conference in Rome – to present the post-synodal letter of Pope Francis about the family.
I am not sure how to regard this – is it because Francis knows his document will cause uproar and he wants everyone taken by surprise at once, or is it simply a long overdue effort to “control the news” instead of letting the secular media twist and adapt the message which reaches most Catholics?
I was encouraged to read elsewhere that, of Francis’ 200-page draft, the CDF made changes to 40 pages. So its clear that the original one was rubbish and – given Cardinal Mueller was a prominent opponent of the Kasperites at the Synods – hopefully the CDF have had it polished up to something half decent (if not better).
It did occur to me that, if the Bishops of the world are to hold simultaneous press conferences with Francis in Rome – maybe they could use the opportunity to finally get around to the Consecration of Russia at the same time, eh?
Thank you for this – however, as already intimated in my previous comment, it would be best if we all could resist the temptation to comment on the various news items about the Exhortation, since we will be posting a thread on it if and when it is released – it’s certainly a long time a-coming, but better to wait until we have the actual document in front of us, rather than waste time discussing what others think it may contain.
It is difficult to know what to make of the suggestion that all the press conferences take place at the same time, more or less but I suspect that will come out in the wash when we see the Exhortation itself.
For information only…
Apparently, the Exhortation is to be published on April 8th
“Amoris laetitia”, Pope’s exhortation on the family, to be released April 8 – The document comes following the two Synods held in 2014 and 2015. Cardinals Schönborn, Baldisseri and a married couple will be presenting the Exhortation, which is to be published in Italian, French, English, German, Spanish and Portuguese
Note: no mention of Latin, the language of the Church, but perhaps that is a given and the other languages are translations.
We will discuss the Exhortation when it is released on 8th April. Hold fire until then, please and thank you. Seeing the make up of the press conference panel, I know you will all be itching to comment, but wait! Be good! Hang fire! Your day WILL come!
Just in from Zenit… an update, some more information since I posted yesterday on the release of the Exhortation…
Pope Francis’ widely-anticipated post-synodal document will be released next Friday.
During an unexpected briefing in the Holy See Press Office this morning, Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, its director, informed journalists present that next Friday, April 8th at 11:30 a.m. the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (Latin for ‘Joy of Love’) will be presented.
The document will gather the Holy Father’s conclusions, following the two synods dedicated to the theme of family: the Extraordinary Synod of 2014 and the Ordinary Synod of 2015.
The panel presenting will include Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, general secretary of the Synod of Bishops; Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna; and the married couple Professor Francesco Miano, lecturer in moral philosophy at the University of Rome at Tor Vergata, and Professor Giuseppina De Simone in Miano, lecturer in philosophy at the Theological Faculty of Southern Italy in Naples.
A simultaneous translation service will be available in Italian, English and Spanish.
The press conference can also be seen via live streaming on the site: http://player.rv.va and will subsequently remain there, available on demand.
Remember, hang fire. I WILL post a thread the minute the Exhortation is released.
Would bloggers be so kind as to pray for my nephew, Sean, who was drowned along with his son of 3 yrs. on Saturday evening? He was away from the Church for many years. He was 36 yrs old. R.I.P.
What a terrible tragedy. I will definitely pray for your nephew and great-nephew. RIP.
My sincere condolences for your loss. What a terrible tragedy to come to your door at Easter. Be assured of my prayers for your nephew and his little son, as well as for you and your family at this sad time.
My sincere sympathy for your loss Crofterlady. What a tragedy. I will pray for your nephew and his son, as well as for you and your wider family at this time.
I’ve just seen our post. What a dreadful tragedy. I will pray for your whole family and for your poor nephew. God bless.
So very sorry to hear of such a tragedy. Of course I will pray for him and for all of you.
Yes Crofterlady, will do. When I hear about awful tragedies like this I always find hope in what I read in Abbe Trochu’s book about the Cure D’Ars. A widow went on pilgrimage to Ars after the death of her husband, a lapsed Catholic, who had committed suicide by throwing himself off a bridge. She hadn’t said anything to anyone about this and was in extreme distress regarding her husband’s salvation. The Cure D’Ars saw her, and without her having said anything to him, he approached her and told her that her husband had been saved by the intercession of the Blessed Virgin, who had obtained for him the grace to make an act of perfect contrition before he actually drowned. This was in return for some small honour that the man had shown towards Our Lady earlier in his life. How wonderfully merciful and generous of Our Blessed Mother that She remembered this small honour and obtained mercy for that man in his hour of need.
I want to say that I’m not suggesting for one moment that your Sean took his own life – you didn’t mention the circumstances of his drowning and there’s no need to – but just wanted to tell you this, in order to give you some hope in what is, humanly speaking, a seemingly hopeless situation. God bless, WF.
WF, thank you for such a consoling post. It was an accident but he hadn’t lived a good life for many years. For some reason he recently purchased and gifted to his mother (my sister) a Rosary. Perhaps Our lady will have interceded for him.
My sincere sympathy to you and prayers for your nephew and his son. RIP.
How sad that they were taken in a tragic accident.
Yes, the purchase and gift of that rosary is certainly a consolation. I recall a relative of mine, long lapsed, who once told me he still said a Hail Mary from time to time, so I pray that those words “pray for us, now and at the hour of our death…” stood him in good stead at his judgment.
It’s always a problem with non-Catholic or lapsed relatives . . . being a convert, all of my immediate relatives are non-Catholic. I’ve done the First Saturday devotion over a period of years on behalf of my closest relatives, for their conversion and salvation, one set of Five Saturdays for each relative, and am working my way through the wider family! I know the promise of Our Lady’s help at the hour of death with the graces necessary for salvation was made to the person that did the devotion, but to the best of my knowledge, no-one has ever said that the promise of the devotion couldn’t be won on behalf of others. In fact, I read once that a priest who was well-informed about Fatima said he thought it was in the spirit of the message of Fatima that the devotion could be done on behalf of others (I’ll try and find where it was I saw that) and Sister Lucia wrote in 1929 about the “great number of souls who will be saved through this lovable devotion” which at least gives us some cause for hope!
I have been following the reports about the Indian Catholic priest, Fr Tom, kidnapped by ISIS who threatened to crucify him on Good Friday. According to this report, they have done so. Truly incredible.
Update: since posting the above, it seems the reports are unconfirmed – read a more recent report here
Here is a clip of a press conference given by a priest who was released by ISIS – the Rosary, Our Lady, sustained him during his captivity. Let’s pray the same for Father Tom, still being held by ISIS, as far as anyone knows.
Christina will be interested, and I hope pleased, that her blog article on Fr Rowe has received commentary from none other than …. Fr Rowe – click here to read more…
I read Fr. Rowe’s response to Christina. It seems he is more taken with human resopect than zeal for the salvation of souls. Why would he want to remove a prayer for the conversion of the Jews when such a change will only lend credence to the false accusation that the Church was in some way party to Hitler’s evil. Removing the Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews would be like an admission, albeit indirectly, of guilt. The Church has no guilt in relation to the Jews, so we continue as always to pray openly for their conversion to Christ.
I have to laugh at these Modernists, yes Modernists, Fr. Rowe, whose liturgical innovations always result in a greater obscuration of the truths of our holy religion. How utterly predictable they are!
Glad you saw that – I think Christina must be off on one of her jaunts or she’d have been on to this in a heartbeat. I emailed to alert her so she’ll get here eventually. Probably with an enviable suntan. Jealous? Moi? Gerrourahere!
Suntan, WHAT? Welsh beach, howling gale, black, black clouds and driving rain. Wind-swept lonely figure staggers along screeching in vain at manic companion dog (recently retired search dog) busy guzzling sea water by the gallon. You’re mistaking me for someone else. Pass the waffles.
Aw Christina, man up and have a whisky!
I am quite concerned about this (see links). It seems to be progressing quietly in the background, via the sock puppet politics which pass for democracy in Scotland. I believe the SNP will magic this out of a hat, post election, as make it a central pillar of their next Government:
THE SNP has unanimously passed a motion supporting the Time for Inclusive Education (TIE) campaign, which is calling for LGBT+ inclusive education in all Scottish schools.
The progression of this scheme and the seemingly stage-managed unsuccessful “first pass” at Holyrood is laid out on the campaigns own webpage:
You are right to be concerned.
I have watched the two TV debates with all the party leaders of the Scottish political parties – the first one on BBC last week and then last night on STV, ahead of the Holyrood elections in May. What a joke. The only good reason to watch these pretend debates is to see the latest Nicola Sturgeon outfit. I do like her suits, it almost kills me to admit… Willie Rennie’s tartan tie, on the other hand, was a bit too obvious!
It’s laughable to listen to the “professional commentators” getting excited about the “lively debates” when absolutely nothing of any real importance has been discussed so far.
All the talk is about policy on taxation and inevitably we get the usual rounds of statistics, bandied about with each party contradicting the other – and then last night, hilariously, the leader of the Greens, Patrick Harvie, assured the audience that really, for the most part, in the Scottish Parliament, there is a lot of consensus. Too true.
Only Ruth Davidson, the Tory leader, mentioned, as a side-swipe, in passing, at Nicola Sturgeon, the Named Person scheme – and nobody picked up on it.
I was so irritated by the lot of them that at the break I emailed Radio Scotland where they were advertising The Big Debate, asking if we wanted to confront the leaders on air. I expressed my amazement that nobody so far had raised the Named Person Scheme so could they include that… If they had contacted me, I was going to suggest interviewing or including in any discussion, our blogger Clotilde who rang in before on the subject and was outstanding on the Kaye Adams show. No reply so far.
So, there is clear consensus on the really important issues, i.e. they all agree about “homophobia” and spies in the home, over-ruling parents where they refuse to conform to the PC agenda, with a cigarette paper between their policies on taxation. I’m gobsmacked that anybody takes politics seriously these days – truly gobsmacked.
I do wish parents would get their act together and organise a formal protest, be more militant. But then, they might end up in jail, with their children in care, such is the nature of our “democracy”. Or, put another way, democracy, my foot!
I wonder if Westminster Fly or anyone else might be able to shed some light on this below.
I was reading Fr Ray Blakes blog and, while discussing how Francis washes the feet of anyone who owns feet, he drops in this info:
Closer to home I met with a gang of Westminster clergy recently, most anticipate their own bishop to resign in the next few months.
He is definitely talking about Vincent Nichols, as he goes on to mention the fact he is a Cardinal.
Now, Vincent Nichols is only 70 – so this doesnt refer to the usual practice of Bishops offering their resignation when they turn 75 (or am I mistaken about that?).
So what could this mean? Is he in poor health? I have asked Fr Blake what might be behind this.
If the expectation of the clergy proves right, who might replace him?
Well, there was talk a while back about him going to Rome, which John Smeaton mentioned on his blog:- http://spuc-director.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/the-appointment-of-cardinal-nichols-to.html Maybe this was some speculation based on that. I’ll ask around.
Thanks Westminster Fly.
Seems I was wrong to think of the retirement as good news then!
I think it is sad when Catholics engage in gossip in the guise of “Traditionalism”. I have no idea if Cardinal Nichols will resign soon, and I assume he will announce it when he does.
However, it is great to note Fr Ray, an ardent apostle of “Traditionalism” notes of The Mandatum: “If one takes the Tradition seriously, then the Twelve were clergy at this moment, it is Christ the High Priest washing the feet of his bishops. It is as Fr Hunwicke points out an intimate act with intimates. In the liturgy it happened rarely before the Bugnini reforms but I suspect the the most perfect parallel would have been the Bishop washing the feet of the Canons of his diocese, it would have happened in the intimacy of the Chapter House, during Prime, well away from the popular gaze.”
When I said the same thing elsewhere I was told I was wrong and an ardent modernist.
Welcome to the club Fr Ray! But do avoid gossip.
I think, with respect, it depends on the spirit of charity, whether we interpret something as speculation, just being curious, or gossip. I remember the news being given that Cardinal Nichols was to be given a top post in the Vatican but nothing since, so it is not gossip to wonder if that is the reason for him perhaps resigning.
You are again going off on one about the Mandatum. If there’s one thing I’ve learned through this discussion it is that it really isn’t important about the history of it, what is important is that it is out of sync with the Church’s tradition of washing the feet of men only, to suddenly bring in women and members of false religions. Thanks to you trying to deflect attention from that, it’s not ingrained in my mind!
Sorry, typo – that last sentence should be “it’s NOW ingrained…”
If The Mandatum isn’t important to some here why publish a thread on it, and why did you comment on it, unless the thread wasn’t another veiled reason to attack Pope Francis. I have said consistently The Mandatum isn’t that important, and nor is it Christian to use a ceremony about Christ like service to attack his Vicar on Earth. With your every post you make my point for me.
If Cardinal Nichols is going to get a top job then wait until he gets it. However, Fr Blake is suggesting there are negative reasons for it. I can’t see any speculation about promotion.
If The Mandatum isn’t important to some here why publish a thread on it, and why did you comment on it, unless the thread was another veiled reason to attack Pope Francis. I have said consistently The Mandatum isn’t that important, and nor is it Christian to use a ceremony about Christ like service to attack his Vicar on Earth. With your every post you make my point for me.
If Cardinal Nichols is going to get a top job then wait until he gets it. However, Fr Blake is suggesting there are negative reasons for it. I can’t see any speculation about promotion.
I might add that if The Pope offers a Bishop another role he doesn’t resign his present one. By virtue of accepting the new role he ceases to occupy the old one. NO resignation is necessary. The Pope alone hires and fires. A Bishop only resigns if the decision is not that of The Pope. The Pope alone decides whether to accept it.
Everything liturgical is ultra important because it pertains to the worship of God. Yes, some aspects are more important than others, but personal innovations in any liturgical act are anathema. Pope Francis gave great scandal with his multicultural, inter-religious Mandatum, an act that contradicts the very example of Our Saviour Himself as recorded in the Gospels, and contradictory of the traditions handed down. There is no precedent for Pope Francis’ departure from liturgical Tradition and no excuse for it. It was a liturgical abuse and a cause fro consternation, not least because it sends out messages to every liberal cleric in the land that they may, according to their own lights, innovate in any and all “unimportant” liturgical acts. It’s not on. Pope Francis was wrong!
I don’t think it’s gossip to comment on rumours a public figure is going to resign. I wish you had these same scruples about keeping and defending the Faith!
Rumours are gossip. I actually do defend The Faith, and not some made up version of “my faith” devoid from Communion with The Bishop of Rome.
I think, based on the evidence presented, you don’t really have a clue what the Catholic Faith is or what it means to be in Communion with the Holy See. Don’t worry, you are not alone.
From what you have contributed to this blog so far it seems you are only in communion with Modernist Rome. You are an apologist for the Modernism and liberalism of a handful of Popes since Vatican II. We, on the other hand, are in communion with eternal Rome, with the entire Papacy, including the present Pope when he himself speaks and acts consistently and in communion with his predecessors back to St. Peter.
I fear you confuse us with the Vatican II revolutionaries. We have changed nothing of the old faith handed down, they have changed everything. And if the truth be told, it is the Modernist/liberals who frequently dismiss the Pope’s authority out of hand when he speaks or acts to stem abuses. But I suppose the best way to disguise that reality is to accuse the Traditionalists of being the disobedient ones.
But how can they who have altered nothing of the faith handed down, the faith of the saints and martyrs, be labelled disobedient. Disobedient to whom – men or God?
I don’t see that any of the above posts can be classed as ‘gossip’ under the guise of ‘traditionalism’.
Fact 1: Gabriel Syme read on Fr Blake’s blog that some priests in Westminster were saying that there was talk of Cdl Nichols’ resignation. Fr Blake is a diocesan parish priest who celebrates the Novus Ordo Mass, so can hardly be described as a ‘traditionalist’.
Fact 2: I pointed out that the priests’ comments may have been speculation based on a post which had been made by the director of SPUC on his blog, which was a public matter – easily refuted by those in authority, I would assume. I don’t think John Smeaton can be described as a ‘traditionalist’ as I am aware that he attends the Novus Ordo Mass.
Fact 3: I did, as I said to Gabriel Syme, ‘ask around’ to those who would know, and received replies, and I have decided to keep the outcome of my enquiries to myself for the time being. You will note there were no further posts from me on this matter.
So where, precisely, is the ‘gossip’ under the guise of ‘traditionalism’ ?
We need to wake up:
You’ve posted another advert! Unless you are meaning that the advertised phone has an inbuilt alarm from which we would all benefit, I think you’ve copied and pasted the wrong link!
You need to have the article or report in front of you when you copy the link from your browser. I don’t know what you are doing, but you are posting a Google page, not the page I presume you want us to read. Unless Google are paying you big bucks and you’re not telling us 😀
LOL! Crofter Lady’s link took me to my Gmail box and wiped out all the tabs I had open from the Blog! You need to put more water in it CL – it’s rough stuff ye distill up there 😂.
Well I clicked on it and got the required link. If it doesn’t work for the thread, please delete it. Thank you.
According to The Eponymous Flower, Cardinal Kasper has died of a heart attack. He went to Confession for the first time since 1990…
May God have mercy on his soul.
I just noticed that article has “satire” as one of its labels on the EF site.
It is April 1st, but surely EF wouldnt joke about someones death?
I never know what to believe on 1st April!
Yes, I realized it was April Fools…
I guess it’s a joke. A wrong joke, indeed.
I don’t think it’s funny. It is not a good joke, IMHO.
I don’t find it funny although the joke was probably Cardinal Kasper going to Confession!
It is a true saying that death comes like a thief in the night.
May God have mercy on his soul.
I tried to post this on the last Named Person thread (SNP Government out of control) but it is closed so posting here. It is good that so many are speaking out about it, but Nicola Sturgeon has a brass neck and is continuing to say that the scheme is not compulsory when it is – a Scottish news clip follows below:
So the death of Cardinal Kasper id not true? Shame. Of course AFTER he had confessed!
From the Times…
David Cameron was urged last night to follow Nicola Sturgeon’s lead and give full legal protection to people who are “neither male nor female”.
Equality campaigners praised the SNP leader for committing her party to a radical reform of the gender laws in Scotland and called on the UK government to follow Scotland’s lead.
Ms Sturgeon said that if her party was re-elected next month, her government would make sure that Scotland took strong action on the gender issue.
Under SNP plans, people who see themselves as neither male nor female — known as “non-binary gender” — would have legal protections they do not have now.
If the law is reformed as expected in Scotland, people would be able to change a birth certificate to recognise their gender status and use it on official documents such as passports.
The reforms could also allow 16 and 17-year-old transgender people to be recognised officially for the first time.
At present, Denmark and Malta are the only countries in Europe that recognise people who are neither male nor female. Outside Europe, New Zealand, Australia, India, Pakistan, Argentina and Nepal give such recognition.
Ms Sturgeon’s announcement came during a hustings organised by LGBTI groups in Scotland, and all the party leaders expressed general support for the cause of non-binary people.
Ms Sturgeon said: “Enabling young people to make informed choices about their gender and sexual identity is about supporting them to be themselves so that they might fulfil their potential.
“I am hopeful that in the next Scottish parliament, we can build as much consensus on LGBTI issues as we did in this session — and take another leap forward for equality.”
A representative of Stonewall, the equality campaign group, said: “We were very pleased that trans equality was highlighted as the next big challenge to tackle, and to hear all of the leaders agree that non-binary people should have their identities recognised.
“We absolutely agree that there is an urgent need for greater recognition and greater protection for non-binary people and we welcome changes to legislation that would make this happen, not only in Scotland, but in Britain too.”
A spokesman for the UK justice ministry said that ministers were considering the issue but had not yet made a decision on whether to follow Ms Sturgeon’s lead.
The Commons women and equalities committee investigated the problems faced by the UK’s transgender community last year and issued a report two months ago calling on the UK government to provide greater legal protection to transgender people.
The justice department spokesman said: “The government is considering the recommendations of the report and will respond in due course.”
Ms Sturgeon’s announcement was not greeted enthusiastically by everyone.
The Rev David Robertson, moderator of the Free Church of Scotland, wrote to Ms Sturgeon yesterday calling on the first minister to ditch what he described as her “destructive and harmful” policy. He said the ordinary people of Scotland regarded “gender fluidity” as “a nonsense” and parents “already have enough problems” raising children without the Scottish government “creating this kind of confusion”.
Someone wake me up from this nightmare!
Nightmare is exactly what it is! I’m afraid the looney’s have truly taken over the asylum. This is what happens when Communists get into power, they morally and financially bankrupt the nation. The moral bankruptcy is already evident and the financial is well under way. The UK governement will inevitably adopt the same course.
This contradiction grabbed my attention: “Ms Sturgeon said: “Enabling young people to make informed choices about their gender and sexual identity is about supporting them to be themselves so that they might fulfil their potential.”
But I thought the whole thrust of this was about people who cannot make an informed choice about their gender and sexual identity, about themselves, even when biology answers the question for them. So now we can expect there to be male, female and informed potential-fulfilling genderless entity. Lovely! How very inclusive! I can see psychiatry being put out of business very shortly if this trend continues!
I also note the lack of response from those in the Catholic hierarchy… I assume that there was none.
The Scottish hierarchy are on permanent leave from exercising their authority to lead in matters of faith and morals, apparently determined not to “feed their flocks” if such nourishment might draw criticism from “society” – once something is accepted by “society” and politicians place an aberration into law, it’s just dandy with them. The result is that Catholics are as confused as, if not more than, everyone else in how to deal with these moral issues.
God help these bishops at their judgment. I mean, “transgenderism”? Absolutely crackers. Our Aunt Evangeline answers a concerned parent, worried about this issue, in the current newsletter, p.14, pointing to some research on this which confirms that it is NOT a biological issue. Worth a read.
I’m not sure these Bishops expect any kind of ‘judgement’… just a big hug or something. I kid you not.
That times article is here http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/snp-gender-laws-would-introduce-protection-for-non-binary-people-nbv9bngcl but my comment never made it past moderation. Non-binary? What a load of crock.
A reader emailed the original letter from David Robertson, from the Wee Flea (!) website:
The Ultimate April Fool – An Open Letter to Nicola Sturgeon
Posted on April 1, 2016 by theweeflea
Dear First Minister,
I am writing to you as the moderator of the Free Church of Scotland and want to assure you of our prayers for you and your government. I also write in a personal capacity as a supporter of both you and the SNP. It’s no secret that you have long been the recipient of my vote. So please take this as a letter from a well-wisher not a detractor.
I am greatly concerned to read of your remarks on Thursday evening at the LGBTI Parliamentary Leaders debate (I note with interest that this seems to be the only special interest lobbying group that gets its own debate) and I would ask you to reconsider some of what you are proposing.
At one level of course much of what you said most reasonable people would agree with. Equality, anti-bullying, promoting children’s health, tolerance, respect, human rights, good citizenship, healthy relationships, inclusion and a modern fairer, Scotland; is the motherhood and apple pie of todays Scottish politics. But the trouble comes when we try to put some meaning and substance to these buzzwords.
The first thing to note is that this is not primarily about ‘equality’ in education, but rather the advancement of a particular teaching about sexuality and gender. In one sense it is the easy option for you (and other political leaders) to promise more LGBT ‘equality’. It doesn’t cost you a great deal to spend yet more millions of our money on the 1% of the population who are LGBT. Whilst it looks good to get a headline in the media saying ‘government promises more gay rights’, I suspect the vast majority of Scots are far more concerned that this is a diversion from wider issues. The real issue in equality is the growing gap between rich and poor in education and how that can be bridged. That is by far the greater need and dare I suggest that that is the key issue the new Scottish government needs to address. As another politician once said, the mantra is ‘education, education, education’.
The problem with the approach advocated by The Equality Network (a government funded lobby group) and others, is that it is limited to one very narrow area of life and one very narrow philosophy. You may regard it as a given that the redefinition of marriage to allow SSM was the best thing for society, but can we request that you don’t demonise those of us who disagree with that point of view as being homophobic supporters of inequality! Likewise what I say to you just now is not because of some deep-rooted transphobia or some kind of backward religious doctrine. I believe that you are being conned into accepting a philosophy and doctrine about gender that will have the opposite effect of what you intend.
Although the philosophy is narrow, its application is clearly not, as exemplified by Kezia Dugdale in her remarks last night. She wants LGBT issues to be taught not just in social education but also in every subject – in English, History, and Maths etc. This is nothing more than total indoctrination and as all the speakers said, they want teachers to be re-educated (indoctrinated) so that they can indoctrinate our children. Can you imagine the fuss that would be created if we suggested that Christianity should be taught in and through every subject in school? Why are you prepared to allow, fund and encourage this for the 1% of the population who profess to be LGBT and leave out the 50% who profess to be Christian? Are some more ‘equal’ than others?
We believe that what is proposed could actually be harmful to many children, and will not promote children’s health and well being and will not produce the utopia envisaged. The trouble is not with transgender or those who suffer from gender dysphoria. We would encourage the government to provide support and the right kind of help for those who struggle with gender identity disorder. It is a serious problem and people do need help. The problem is that you seem to have accepted the whole philosophy of gender fluidity. Is it now the policy of the SNP that there are no longer two genders, male and female, but many genders? And that people can choose to switch between as many of them as they wish? Is transgender now no longer trans between two genders, but trans multi-genders?
We do not believe that this will lead to the Brave New World envisaged by the proponents of the multi gender doctrine. It is destructive of humanity and will cause chaos in our society. Your statement seems to indicate that you now accept the unproven and somewhat bizarre notion that even children get to choose their own gender and sexuality. We believe that if this policy is accepted and acted upon, it will result in confusion and brokenness amongst our children rather than fulfilled potential. It is a policy that will bring untold disaster and harm upon Scotland’s children. This is nothing less than state sponsored indoctrination of the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society. To tell children that they can choose their own gender is a recipe for misuse and abuse. Teaching children they can choose their own gender is itself a form of child abuse.
We are also concerned that there will not be equality for those who do not agree with the new morality that children can choose their own gender or that such choosing should be encouraged. Your statement that “the very fact that we are still having debates like this at election time just underlines that there is still much that we need to do” is very concerning. Firstly having watched the ‘debate’ last night, I simply observe, where was the debate? All of the political leaders were falling over yourselves to boast how much each of you was meeting the LGBT agenda. There was no dissent, no questioning, no debate. No one dares challenge the narrative of the LGBT activists.
patrick_holyrood Your words suggest that you think that even having such a debate should not be permitted in a modern ‘progressive’ Scotland. These words were echoed by Patrick Harvie who wants anyone who disagrees with his agenda to be bracketed along with racists. Can I simply ask that we be allowed to have a debate? It seems to me that you and the political elites in Scotland are seeking to close down any debate. There is no rational, no reasoning, no looking at evidence. Like your ‘debate’ last night it is just emotion, virtue signalling and demonising anyone who dares to question. If you doubt that let me show you the hate mail and abuse I have received even from last night. We need to discuss and think about the kind of changes we are imposing upon our society. To you and your fellow party leaders it is obvious that you are right. But can you allow for the possibility that you might be wrong and that everything is not as black and white as you seem to think?
We too want ‘tolerance, respect and inclusion’, but we ask that that is extended to those of us who don’t automatically accept the latest change in the moral zeitgeist handed down to us from the Equality Network and others who consider themselves in the vanguard of the new moral enlightenment. Are we allowed to differ? And can I ask that if you really want a debate that you don’t just debate with those who already agree with you, but actually take time to debate with those who disagree? Would you be willing to debate myself and others?
There is also a major contradiction between your policy on gender balance in politics and boardrooms and your new ‘gender fluid’ policy. You intend to allow transgender people, who switch from the gender recorded at birth, to change their birth certificates without having to seek approval from a tribunal of lawyers and doctors. What happens if someone feels that their political career is being hampered because they are the wrong gender? If all they have to do is fill out a form and announce that they are another gender then what is to stop someone deciding to change gender if they think it will enable them to further their careers and job prospects? I’m sure you are aware that there has been a major clash between some in the radical feminist community, such as Germaine Greer, and those who support Transgender, precisely because of this problem. The bottom line is that if you accept the gender fluid philosophy it drives a cart and horse through your gender quotas policy. By the way if you strictly apply the quota system in order to enable ‘fairness’ and due proportionate representation (that the number of say party leaders who are female reflects the proportion of the population) do you think that should apply in other areas? Should only 1% of MSPs be gay? Ruth-250x300I note with interest that two thirds of the party leaders in Scotland are gay. Personally that doesn’t bother me, sexuality should no more be a factor in electing a politician than gender, but it does bother me if that is then used to push a gay rights agenda which overrides the rights of others and becomes the predominant moral issue in politics, media and education. And it also shows how selective politicians who advocate quotas are – do you not think by your logic that you should be pushing for a majority of leaders to reflect the majority of the population?
For me the most disturbing part of your speech is the statement that “Enabling young people to make informed choices about their gender and sexual identity is about supporting them to be themselves so that they might fulfil their potential.” This was echoed by Willie Rennie who stated that people need ‘education’ to ‘remove the archaic system that we have just now’ and the people should have the right to choose their own gender for themselves.
I believe in this statement you are out of touch with the vast majority of people in Scotland. We do not believe that we choose our gender, or that we are assigned it at birth, as though a doctor is picking gender for us. Gender, like skin colour is something that we are born with. This week I became a granddad. My granddaughter was not ‘assigned’ gender at birth, as though she were being given a name. She IS a girl. She is not one of several genders that she can get to pick and choose as she pleases later on, according to some societal construct or government edict. To teach that girl when she is five years old that she has the ability to choose whether she will be a boy or girl or one of the other 26 genders on Facebook, is to create a world of confusion, distortion and insanity. I believe you have made an enormous mistake by buying into this confused policy, just because you have been told it is the ‘progressive’ and caring thing to do.
You may be fortunate in that I suspect most senior politicians, educators and journalists won’t take on the LGBT lobby over this issue (it’s more than their job is worth or the emotional hate they will receive) and therefore no-one will challenge you at the elite level. But if you ask the ordinary people of Scotland about ‘gender fluidity’ I suspect you will find that most people regard it as nonsense. As parents we already have enough problems bringing up our children without the State creating this kind of confusion.
Willie Rennie asked a key question “for those who find this difficult. if nobody is restricting your freedom, why should you restrict anybody else’s freedom?” Of course nobody answered or thought about that on the panel. The fact is that your government constantly restricts people’s freedom – the smoking ban for example. You want to restrict the number of any specific gender who are on company boards. You do so because you believe, rightly, that some restrictions are for the good of the wider public. The other problem with Willie Rennie’s statement is that he and all of the political elites are proposing restricting the freedom of those who want their children to grow up in a community where they are given clear teaching about gender and sexuality.
First Minister, we have moved in a very short space of time from sexuality being perceived as something we are born with, to now being perceived as something fluid which we can choose. We have moved from marriage being a life long covenant between a man and a woman, to being a civil contract between any two people who ‘love one another’. We have moved from having fixed genders to letting children choose their own gender. Now we are moving from gender being male and female to gender fluidity. When will it stop? Unless someone has the courage to say, ‘stop this nonsense, enough!’ we will find that our political, media and social elites will have led us down a path that inevitably leads to destruction. It may be that you and others genuinely believe that you are progressing us to the secular Nirvana we keep hearing about. But what if you are wrong? What if, in hubris, our rulers are sowing the seeds of our destruction as a nation and people?
Today is April the 1st. Reading that the Scottish government intends to add a ‘third’ (why not 4th, 5th, 5,000th?) gender would make me wonder if this is an elaborate April Fool. Sadly this is not an April Fool, although it is one of the most foolish things that any politician has ever proposed. Do you seriously think government dictate can re-make humanity?
This is a very important issue. For me it is so important that if your policy announced tonight is something that is to be mandatory upon all SNP MSP’s you will lose my vote and I suspect I will not be the only one. Can I ask you to reconsider and to think again before introducing such a destructive and harmful policy?
David A Robertson
Moderator of the Free Church of Scotland END.
If only the Scots Bishops were half as clear – and conscientious.
The very same issues are being fought in Australia. Google ‘safe schools’ if you want to cry.
Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae.
Et concepit de Spiritu Sancto.
Happy deferred feast to all bloggers!
Thank you Christina
Elsewhere some have claimed physical signs seen at Fatima raise its significance for The Church, and The World. However, nowhere does The Church say that and she has expressed major reservations about the, so called, apparitions at Medjugorje where it is claimed millions have seen The Sun spin: “From the beginning days of the apparitions and continuing into the present, millions of pilgrims coming to Medjugorje have witnessed the spinning of the sun. Pilgrims have witnessed this miraculous happening at different times during the day, but it seems that it is especially seen during the evening Rosary, Apparition time and Croatian Mass each evening in Medjugorje. For many of the youth, growing up in Medjugorje, the spinning of the sun has become almost a natural occurrence, as this has been happening daily since they were born. They may consider it supernatural if the sun didn’t spin.” (www.medjugorje.com)
This is scurrilous, poorly informed garbage. The phenomena at Fatima was widely reported by the (very) secular Portuguese press. You cannot compare Fatima to Medjugorje in any way, shape or form.
I personally don’t take claims about Medjugorje serious and I have declined every invitation to visit there. I was, however, aware of the claims of the spinning sun, and similar claims are made about Fatima. However, in neither case do such physical signs alter how The Church sees the sign.
The Church specifically says Revelation ended with The New Testament, and all Private Revelations remain private revelations.
“…..there is a need for some basic clarification of the way in which, according to Church teaching, phenomena such as Fatima are to be understood within the life of faith. The teaching of the Church distinguishes between “public Revelation” and “private revelations”. The two realities differ not only in degree but also in essence. The term “public Revelation” refers to the revealing action of God directed to humanity as a whole and which finds its literary expression in the two parts of the Bible: the Old and New Testaments. It is called “Revelation” because in it God gradually made himself known to men, to the point of becoming man himself, in order to draw to himself the whole world and unite it with himself through his Incarnate Son, Jesus Christ. ….
Because the single Revelation of God addressed to all peoples comes to completion with Christ and the witness borne to him in the books of the New Testament, the Church is tied to this unique event of sacred history and to the word of the Bible, which guarantees and interprets it. …..
In this context, it now becomes possible to understand rightly the concept of “private revelation”, which refers to all the visions and revelations which have taken place since the completion of the New Testament. This is the category to which we must assign the message of Fatima. “
The Congregation for The Doctrine of The Faith, published under the authority of Pope (Saint) John Paul, by Cardinal Ratzinger 26th June 2000
I’m hearing disheartening news that our friends in Ireland who attend the masses provided by the SSPX, are bedeviled by the so called resistance, who are increasingly strident in their campaign to sow the devil’s work amongst the faithful. Can anyone from Ireland shed light on this?
I hope this is just a rumour. If not, however, then we must let them go without troubling our own hearts and minds. Only a certain kind of soul can be bedeviled by the so-called “Resistance”, such is its obvious bitter zeal. If they’ve reached that point of blindness, then they are best away in their own wee sect lest they poison the holy work and legacy of Archbishop Lefebvre. The Archbishop more or less foretold that some would go down this schismatic route in the future. It is only fortunate that the numbers are really relatively small in comparison with those who remain faithful to the spirit of His Grace and his SSPX.
For those who do leave under the spell of Bishop Williamson and his fellow Protestants, I fear that many of them will eventually abandon the faith altogether as their charity continues to grow cold. A five minute exchange with any one of their spokesmen is sufficient to demonstrate how hardened their hearts have already become. Such are the times, I’m afraid!
I’m afraid a fair number have gone down that ridiculous road. I suspect it’s because Fr Kramer lives over there in Cork, and has an undue influence on some of the Society people there. None of them have told me directly, but a reader in a different part of Ireland rang me a few weeks ago and asked if I realised that So & So had “gone over” to the resistance. Completely mad. I do believe, frankly, that it’s more likely than not because they are influenced by Fr Kramer – the gentleman named in the phone call is certainly a friend of Fr K. What a shame, to lose such good people to such a load of twaddle.
Poor Ireland. Caught between the claws of two devils then. As Petrus says, I think that is the first step to abandoning the Faith. You find this pattern with these folk: nothing is perfect enough, then they split, then splinter then dissolve. Very sad. And worse still, Pride stops them from coming back.
in answer to your post of April 6th at 2:04pm. Unfortunately “The Resistance” is indeed very much alive and well in Ireland among former SSPX faithful. Whole church communities have left SSPX parishes (if they may be termed such) to form their own Mass centres. It is especially so in Cork and Wexford. We have suffered greatly in Ireland, for the past number of years from their constant stirring up of the faithful in an attempt to turn us away from the Society. We have had many priests come and go in the past 6 years or so. They have done great damage to our own local priory, and it is only now with a new District Superior and newly ordained priest (Fr. Wingerden’s nephew, no less!) that we are beginning to recover and rebuild our parish. We hope to attract many more with young families to continue our task of rebuilding the parish.
Thank you for the update. Yes, it is very unfortunate and confirms what I have heard about Cork and Athlone too. But I would say that before you can say ‘pride’ they will be fighting amongst themselves, arguing about who is the most faithful to the Archbishop, when the last real pope was on the Petrine chair and how many perverted versions of reality that you can construct from reading between the lines in Bishop Fellay’s latest letter to the faithful.
It is great to see a new young Priest enter Ireland at this time. May God bless him and fortify him for his ministry.
Somewhere today I read a demand I reply to The Luminous Mysteries Question, and The 1997 Instruction Question. You suggested I had both to hand. I don’t.
As I said to you elsewhere my recollection of The 1997 Response is precisely because you said it was your favourite publication, Then, as now, I doubted it was true. Then as now it amuses me to think you said it. I remember many things especially those that seemed, unintentionally or otherwise, as spectacularly humorous.
I can’t provide links as I don’t know how to.
You also mentioned I mentioned by Bishop in an email. I haven’t. I would say I currently have the finest Bishop in the land. The one I mentioned, and I clearly said former Bishop, is sadly, in some sense, no longer with us.
“Somewhere today…. blah blah”
I have never said anything about the 1997 Instruction being my “favourite publication”. Lie. You have not been able to quote my words because you are lying. And you discount, ignore, my previous denial. That shows that you are not a person of good will.
It doesn’t amuse you at all to think I said it. You are livid because I have been able to demonstrate, through direct quotes in our exchanges, link to original thread, and one of your emails, that you have told lies. You have now come onto a different thread in the hope of fooling readers,distracting us away from the proof already given but you won’t. EVER. I’m keeping a closer eye on you that the Inland Revenue on tax dodgers. I’ll be back later to post the link to my previous correction.[Ed: I’m back later – see below] You are really causing quite a bit of scandals with your lies and other dishonesty, twisting and distorting words.
You cannot provide links? Why do I struggle to believe that? Oh, I know, because you fib as easily as some of us eat chocolate.
Anyway, let me tell you how to post links, because it’s very simple.
On any page on any website, if you look up to the top where you will see your browser and the name of the website and other words/numbers indicating that this is the page you are reading. If you wish to copy this page, then that name and numbers etc is what you need to copy. For example, as I am looking at the top of this page right now, I see
If I want to copy that link to post somewhere else, I would cover that name with my curser, right click to select “copy” and then return to the comment box where I’d place my curser, then right click to select “paste” and I will see the webpage address in front of you. Not difficult. Anyone who clicks on the link will be taken through to that same page.
The nonsense about your bishop is just the usual games playing. At one time your former bishop WAS your bishop, so who cares? Not as if any of us knows who you are, is it? And frankly, I for one, couldn’t care less.
Later that same day…
I’m afraid your dishonesty has caught up with you this time. I made time to search out my comment on the 1997 document and I am posting the exchange we had below, since you refuse to admit that I had corrected my initial mistake. I am also including your persistence in peddling what is now demonstrably a lie, (not merely a falsehood, perhaps by mistake), in one of your emails to me today…
March 14, 2016 at 10:20 am
The same Vatican Document (1997 Instruction on the roles of ordained and laity) that prohibited (without ever enforcing it) the use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, also forbade the use of titles such as Chaplain to lay people – again never enforced.
FR ARTHUR says:
March 14, 2016 at 10:40 am
I suggest you carefully re-read article 8 of the 1997 document. It does, not , anywhere ban their use, but it restricts their use. Therefore, if restrictions are put in place their use must be lawful.
March 14, 2016 at 11:23 am
I should have said prohibited their habitual use (as we see it in parishes today) – Article 8 clearly states that a number of abuses are to be avoided including “the habitual use of EMHC at Mass, thus arbitrarily extending the concept of “A great number of the faithful”
In other words, a packed church (even if you can find one) is not a reason for their use.
EXTRACT FROM AN EMAIL FROM FR ARTHUR TO EDITOR, DATED 5 APRIL, 10.42. am.
NOTE: If you deny the following statement from your email, I will forward the email to anyone who requests it.
“Further, I can say with certainty you did NOT amend what you said about the 1997 Instruction. and you like it precisely because you placed overemphasis on its provisions.”
As clear a case of “game, set and match” as ever I’ve know. Apology due, methinks.
As far as I know you can locate the original 1997 exchange and in it you do say, probably tongue in cheek, it is your favourite publication.
No, YOU locate it and post it as I am not wasting time looking for something I couldn’t possibly have said because it is not true. YOU find it.
“I would cover that name with my curser” (I wonder what Freud would say about that one!)… Editor, you are adorable!!! Forgive me for picking up on that typo, but, as I believe you said not so long ago, we need some light-heartedness in these trying times. I commend you on your patience and tenacity!
Are YOU not distracting from what you said about your nephews, and sister, being unable to accept in their ears The Praying of The Luminous Mysteries?
My sister has never been mentioned in any post at any time on this or any other blog. Stop lying.
Nor did I every use the phrase “unable to accept in their ears The Praying of The Luminous Mysteries.”
Unless you wish me to block you before Friday, possibly tonight – stop playing silly beggars (oops, I very nearly typed “stupid beggars” there – I really need to slow down!)
Seriously, either get onto a topic thread and try to make sense or have an early night. I’m going offline now and if I return to more idiocy in your posts, I’ll block you without any further warning. I will, of course, correct anything in your comments that require correcting but you won’t be able to respond.
And in case you think of returning under a new identity, be warned that I am going to be adding to our House Rules, a very clear indication that from now on any level of troll like behaviour will result in blocking immediately – Fr Z style – without fear of favour and certainly without warning.
My reply to Margaret Mary is addressed to her on the basis of writing about YOUR post citing Christian Order. She claims to have read that post. In THAT post, published, by you The Psalter is cited.
The 150 psalms and 150 Hail Marys – the connection is well known. Nobody on this blog that I know of has ever said anything about the Divine Office apart from the link to the Rosary. You went on about the canticles added to the psalms but that is not the issue. The link is the psalms and the beads, Sorry if I didn’t make that clear, I thought it was quite clear in the article and to be honest I thought everyone, especially priests, would know about that connection.
No I mentioned Canticles added to The Office also called The Psalter, or Divine Office.
Editor: have you any idea how ridiculous this response is? MM explained clearly that the connection is NOT between “The Office” and the Rosary but between the 150 psalms and the Rosary. You really need to pay attention.
Whether your nephews are the children of your brother or sister I do not know. However you referred to their Mother who I assumed was your sister.
Editor: another example of not paying attention. Go and check out my original reference to my nephews. I’m done spoon feeding you.
I think it is quite disgraceful that you, a priest, have so much time to spend on this blog. What about your priestly duties? Do you have any? You are just typical of the self-indulgent, lazy clerics of today, getting the lay people to do your duties while you spend excessive time on a blog. Don’t you realise how fanatical your numerous posts are beginning to look? Frankly, your present behaviour is scandalous.
I agree, Athanasius.
Athanasius and Petrus,
Patience, lads. Leave it there. Tomorrow is the 7th. As soon as we have Fr Arthur’s predictable response to the Exhortation, if it turns out to be as bad as we expect, he’ll be history. Remember, no Pope has the authority to permit Bishops to encourage/permit sin and sacrilege, so if the Exhortation is dressed up as I suspect it will be, we will be able to separate the wheat from the chaff, big time. Patience, now. Say as little as you can now. Trust me. You know it makes sense.
PS I’m totally shocked that neither of you offered to be witnesses to my self-correction, as requested on the Exhortation thread. Shocked 😀
If there’s a bacon roll and tunnocks teacake involved then count me in!
Ah! The great British teacake 🙂
As Editor has told you I am not Parish based. I most often celebrate Mass when most priests are still in bed! My first post on here each day is usually after Mass that day. I can report that I am often one of the first into my workplace, and often the last out. I regularly don’t have proper rest or lunch breaks. I also only quote stuff written by “The Authorities”, or those in Full Communion with Rome, and only take part in sacraments licitly and validly celebrated in Communion with The Pope.
I have it said their Mother home-schooled them.
I believe you are removed the original FULL quote from me of your original post. Just as I believe you retrospectively edit your own posts when challenged about what you have written.
What an absolutely outrageous comment. You should be ashamed of yourself.
As I have already pointed out comments by you that I find deeply offensive have been allowed to stay on the record. Only this morning I read your suggestion that my words are demonic. I, unlike you, have been formally schooled and trained throughout my life, and more especially in a Seminary which awards Pontifical Degrees. I have also on my person, to produce, as necessary to attest to the facts I have all the faculties of a priest. If you think quoting Tradition, and Holy Scripture, and documents of the Church, and celebrating Sacraments declared to be valid, and licit, by that same Church, in Communion with The Pope is demonic the you insult not just me, but all priests, and Christ and His Church as well.
Editor: as I have already said, nobody should be making personal remarks or such personal judgments about others, so Petrus, please do not do that. I have now removed the “demonic” reference. I have sailed close to the wind myself in this regard, but you do test our patience by refusing to give straight answers to questions and by twisting and distorting words. Please do not do that. This is your first day in moderation, so I’m letting these posts through with my editorial inserts. I just do not have the time to keep doing this so anything that is clearly a twist and distort comment or containing personal remarks, will simply go to the trash can from now on. Sorry, but life is too short for me to do what I have just done – spent the best part of an hour inserting footnotes in the comments submitted today. Won’t happen, so either take the discussion seriously, or be prepared for me to block your comments altogether.
I apologise for the personal comment.
Once again, though, your lack of humility is noted. You seem to jump to conclusions regarding the qualifications, intelligence, qualifications and competence of others. Most distasteful and disappointing. Humility goes a long way!
Editor: thank you for that, Petrus, although I think it is noteworthy that Fr Arthur has not once apologised to anyone for any of the rude through to nasty personal remarks that he has published. I’m eliminating them from future posts, so hopefully we can manage to restore the more pleasant atmosphere in which our discussions usually flourish.
It not a lack of humility to point out that I am a priest.
Editor: please would bloggers not respond to this. I had to delete most of this comment as this priest persists in his going over old ground misinterpreting and repeating allegations already dealt with. Since what remains in this post is true, please leave it at that.
You seem to be acting more troll like everyday. Seemingly looking to get banned, you are now accusing Editor of inappropriate underhand behaviour?
Well I’m not surprised. I spotted you a mile away. You pride was flashing like a beacon.
Your defamatory remarks, posted at 6.28 am have been noted. Others have already commented on your false allegations, and so I cannot be accused of adding to your post by abuse of the editing facility, since only now have I read your 6.28 am comment – which is very disappointing, indeed, and surely unworthy of you.
Since I am frequently challenged on this blog, and have even had fierce disagreements with regular bloggers including Athanasius and Petrus, I think I’d have been caught out long ago if there were even a glimmer of truth in your defamatory accusation that I edit my own comments when challenged about what I have written. I did not remove a word from my original comment. Not a punctuation mark. The fact that you persistently refuse to take me at my word, while expecting me to take you at yours – see the emails about whether or not you really are a priest; I have had to accept your word, despite the fact that there are readers and bloggers who don’t believe you. I have taken you at your word, as charity demands, in the absence of solid evidence to the contrary.
I definitely do want to allow you to have your say when the Exhortation is released around this time tomorrow morning but until then your comments will be moderated in advance by me. Ironically, this means your comments will be subject to editing by me, to remove all rudeness and false allegations. We need to restore a more harmonious tone to the blog in order to enjoy fruitful discussions.
With regret, therefore, not least because I believe I’ve been shown to have been in the wrong to allow you free rein for so long despite the objections of the regular bloggers, I have now placed your details into the moderation list. Only comments which address the topic and contain no personal remarks will be released – and that when I see them: I am not tied to my computer, I have other things to do, so there may be a delay between your submitting a comment and my seeing it. Your response to the Exhortation will be released in full – minus only any personal abuse directed at other bloggers, myself included, as soon as I see it. Anything submitted by you in the afternoon will not be posted until I see it later in the evening as I will be away from my computer all afternoon on Friday, 8th April.
And despite all the ding dongs the three of us remain friends!
You ask me to provide links and I tell you I can’t.
Editor: I explained, in detail, how to provide links. It’s very simple. Have you tried to follow my instructions?
On all that I hold sacred, and believe to be true, I would assert I have not lied about the contents of your posts in their original format.
Editor: And on all that I hold sacred and believe to be true, I assert that I have not change a single word of any of my comments. They remain as originally posted. To assert otherwise, is defamatory. For the record, are you claiming that I have changed my comments more than once?
I would also wish to say that you and I know that when you invited me to give you my personal details I said I have seen more than once where you have published the very emails you were asked NOT to publish sent by others.
Editor:And when you sent a supposed example, I was able to demonstrate that the sender had NOT asked me not to publish his email – on the contrary, he thanked me for setting the record straight on the blog, which was why he’d emailed me in the first place. I posted all of this on the blog at the time of your false allegation.
To which you replied that was an outright lie.
Editor: I probably didn’t use the word “lie” since I tend only to think of a falsehood as a lie once I have demonstrated that the allegation or statement is not true and the person persists with the demonstrably false statement. You are repeating that falsehood here which now makes it a lie, though. Give up, you can’t win this…
You cannot seriously deny you have published parts of emails I have sent to you without permission, and even after I have a cast iron personal assurance you do no such thing.
Editor: I don’t need permission to publish any email, in whole or in part. Correspondence belongs to the person in receipt. In your case, I gave an unsolicited assurance that I would not publish any information about you (in an effort to put your mind at rest in the context of discussing your identity) and pointed out that I had never divulged the identities of any of the priests who had hitherto blogged here. But then, not one of them has ever published lies about me, made false allegations etc. Sorry about that but you were warned. And for the record, just to emphasise the point, YOU did not solicit a promise from me not to publish or share your emails – I offered. You did not even make any reference to my offer when you replied, so it seems to me that you didn’t care that much, one way or the other.
I have also said that I find some comments by others to be a personal attack on me, and untrue, but whereas you edit my comments, often in an unjust way, and allude to dark content, you leave the offensive posts intact.
Editor: I have indeed removed some remarks from comments about you but the fact is, I can scarcely keep up – there are nasty swipes at others in some of your comments remaining today. In due course, when I can set a day aside to “house-keep” the blog, I WILL go through and remove anything that is nasty or personal – no matter who the author is, so would all bloggers take note and do NOT make any personal remarks about anyone, Fr Arthur included, from now on. I WILL be ruthless in deleting any and all personal remarks when I see them, and the fact that I may not see them for a bit, may raise my temperature to the extent that I will simply delete entire comments. So, don’t push me.
SOME TIME LATER…
Having read your nasty reply to the above, I am not releasing it from moderation – it’s now in the bin. To call me a hypocrite, well, that wasn’t too clever.
However, before consigning your nasty comment to the bin, I took the time and trouble to do some of that promised “housekeeping”. I trawled through two threads, and I found that by far the worst offender in terms of making personal remarks, often nasty, was instigated by you, with our long-time bloggers being very moderate in reply. So much so that I have not removed any of their remarks, mild by comparison with yours. Live with it.
I doubt very much if you’ll get Fr. Arthur’s true take on the Exhortation. We’ll see.
I am all patience. And so is Petrus!!
Trust me. Trust me. Trust me. He’ll be gone quicker than the last box of chocolates presented to me by a well-meaning friend. It’s now part of my confectionery history… 😯
Just to inform bloggers, I noticed this message on the SSPX (UK) website tonight:
“In the next few days this website will undergo a change of format to the new global format commissioned by Menzingen. Efforts are being made to retain the content, but there are fewer navigation links so more key clicks may be required to find the information you want, or to verify the uploading of information you have submitted for publication.
Please be patient whilst you accustom yourself to the new layout.”
I have to say that I don’t like the new layout that is being introduced.
Already your disobedient spirit is showing – “be patient whilst you accustom yourself to the new layout”… remember?
Your impatience with the new site reminds me of an email I received some years ago when we had just posted a new site; it was from a gentleman who was fed up because, he said, no sooner had he become used to a site, than it was all changed, and he went on to complain about “Catholic Truth and the BBC” being the worst offenders. Didn’t know whether to be flattered or insulted at being mentioned in the same breath as the BBC.