General Discussion (13)
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, as the GD discussion threads fills up very quickly.
Readers, all too often, go 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 – at the very least check the side-bar – before posting here, please and thank you! Your “news” may simply be a different angle to a subject already under discussion, so do, please check before posting your comment here.
Feel free, also, to share your favourite spiritual reading books, prayers and devotions.Whatever. Enjoy!
To read previous 10 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 (10) click here
(11) click here (12) click here
Comments (589)
A happy St. Margaret’s Day to everyone.
Vianney,
Happy feast of St Margaret to you, as well!
Good morning, thank you for such an informative blog. I’ve searched for articles on the blog regarding the ordinariate of our lady of Walsingham. Sadly I couldn’t find anything. What are the views of your readers regarding the ordinariate, divine worship missal and the contribution the ordinariate makes to the catholic church? Certainly it doesn’t appear to be growing as anticipated. Why? Thank you. Portsmouth mission blog
Portsmouth Mission Blog,
Please don’t take offence, but I have never been a fan of the ordinariate idea. I think only individuals can convert, not whole parishes. That smacks of some kind of political arrangement, IMHO.
I also dislike the idea of keeping some of the Anglican practice – again that doesn’t suggest true conversion to me. The very fact of being attached to the Anglican schism in any way, instead of separating wholeheartedly from it, makes me wonder about the genuineness of the “conversions”. I especially dislike the fact that married Anglican clergymen have been allowed to become Catholic priests and still live as a married man. I would never accept such a priest, never confess to him or ever confide anything personal to him. Being married just doesn’t suit the priestly vocation and ministry. A married man must put his wife and children first, whereas I want my priests to put me first! LOL! I hope you know what I mean by that!
Please correct me on anything I’ve said that is wrong, but that’s the way I’ve perceived the ordinariate.
Josephine,
I especially dislike the fact that married Anglican clergymen have been allowed to become Catholic priests and still live as a married man
I completely agree clerical celibacy is best and I hope that discipline never changes.
But in this case I think the Church was right to allow the former Anglicans to convert, as some of the Eastern-rite Catholic Churches have long had married clergy and so a double standard would have been unfair.
Certainly, there would seem to be a danger of such conversions undermining the notion of clerical celibacy and this is something the Church must be wary of.
Gabriel,
I think the fact is that the allowing of married priests in the Latin Church has led to an undermining of celibacy, no question about it, and that’s only to be expected. If some men can be married, why not them all?
Josephine,
Sorry for coming into this conversation quite late, but I have been away from the blog for a while. I would like to take issue with something you said, that you would never confess to him or confide anything personal to him. Why not? Just because a man is married, does that make him less trustworthy on your part? That suggest more about hang-ups on your side of the argument than anyone else’s. Would you go to a Mass celebrated by an Ordinariate Priest? I strongly support celibacy as the rule and discipline of Latin clergy, but I realise that there have been historical exceptions to the rule, i.e. the Eastern Rites and the Ordinariates in the UK, Australia and the USA. I would never have a problem confessing to a married priest. In fact, I would make bold to say that if my wife and I were having marital issues, it might be better to seek out a married Eastern or Ordinariate Priest, who may be able to speak from personal experience. Married Priests as the exception has not led to calls en masse for the discipline to be ended. No priests of my acquaintance have started clamouring for change.
Likewise, Lily commented that she can’t see them as Priests. I don’t want to start a debate on clerical celibacy, which I emphasise that I support, but priests were allowed to be married in the early church. St. Peter, the Apostles and the Disciples were married. Granted, they were required to be continent, but St. Peter was married and had children.
Catholic Convert 1,
I think women know how easy it is to squeeze information out of men, so I can sympathise with Josephine in not wanting to confess to a married priest. Maybe it’s unfair, I don’t know, but it’s human.
I also don’t know why you think St Peter had children. I can’t remember any mention of children, or even his wife, in the Scriptures, just his mother in law which some writers think suggest he may have been a widower.
Whatever the truth of that, Scripture tells us that Jesus called the apostles to give up everything to follow him and so it is unlikely that they took wives and children with them on their travels. I remember reading a good article on this blog by Pope John Paul II about that very issue, saying that the itinerant lifestyle would not have been suitable for family life. I wish I’d kept the link as it was a very good article.
I disagree with the argument that a married priest may be able to help married people in their problems. I don’t check to see if my doctor has had the same health problems I have when I go to him for a diagnosis and medicine, or that a lawyer has had problems with a difficult neighbour when I go to him for advice. Sometimes, as the old saying goes, “the onlooker sees the best of the game” so it might be that a single person can help better, but I also can never really understand why any married person would go to a priest for advice anyway, because unless it’s to enquire about an annulment, why would anyone go to a priest?
According to St. Clement of Alexandria and Pope St. Clement I, St. Peter did have children: According to Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, III, vi, ed. Dindorf, II, 276), Peter was married and had children and his wife suffered martyrdom. Pope Clement I wrote: “For Peter and Philip begat children”.
A married person ‘might’ go to a priest for advice if they were going through a marital crisis and wanted to resolve the situation and prevent an annulment/ divorce. Also, a doctor is there to diagnose an illness, and a lawyer is to resolve a legal, for which they have both gone to medical and law school. A marital crisis is far more serious than any illness due to the real and potential moral implications, and the ramifications for wider society. We are talking about a Sacrament here.
I would have no problem confessing to a married Priest. We have a Ukrainian Priest who celebrates the Ukrainian Divine Liturgy and if the opportunity was to present itself for confession, I would have no problem doing so. He is no less a priest because he’s married.
I also want to know how it is easy for women to squeeze information out of men? No women ever got anything out of me. Are you insinuating that men are weak when it comes to women? I’m not.
Catholic Convert 1,
As you say yourself, it is irrelevant whether St Peter was married and had children because once called by Christ, he was continent and followed Christ – he had agreed to leave all to follow Christ, so the argument that Peter was married is a red herring used by the pro-married priests groups.
Priests have no training in counselling, as far as I know, so they are not equipped to give advice to married couples about their marriages except to say what any of us would say, try to get along and work it out, LOL!
Catholic Convert,
To be honest, I don’t get this notion of discussing marital problems with a priest. Maybe I’m modern, but unless the issue was to do with Church teaching on Marriage, I could think of several people I would speak to before I spoke to a priest!
Being a married man, I have to agree with Josephine – I wouldn’t want to confess to a married priest. Marriage is a complicated and intimate business. It’s very difficult to keep anything secret from a wife!
Portsmouth Mission Blog,
I do not have any personal experience of the Ordinariate but, if Fr John Hunwick is anything to go by, then I think its safe to say it makes a positive contribution to the Church.
Fr Hunwick writes an informative blog and does a lot of good work as regards teaching latin and promoting / offering the traditional latin mass. And such a learned man would always be a prize convert!
As for why the Ordinariate is not growing: again I have no personal experience, but at the time it was no secret that the English Catholic Bishops – most of whom are Anglican in all but name – have been very hostile to the Ordinariate since its inception. They much prefer to heap praise on Anglicans, rather than convert them (much like the Scottish Bishops and presbyterians).
The Bishops have done little to support or encourage the Ordinariate, even taking an age to grant it a London Church to call its own (it eventually got Warwick St).
I think the coldness of the Bishops towards the Ordinariate is its main problem, It was definite a viable idea as we can see by the fact that the Ordinariate in the USA is doing well.
Gabriel,
Is Fr Hunwick married?
Lily,
Is Fr Hunwick married?
I understand that Fr Hunwick is married and has grown up children (I think he may in fact be a Grandfather).
I do agree that celibacy is best and that a priest being married must create the sensation of being pulled in more than one direction.
Obviously we want our priests to be focused on God and their vocation, and a family must distract from that.
But these ex-Anglican priests have not created a new issue in that sense, as the Eastern parts of the Church have married clergy (mirroring the local Orthodox).
The Church must be wary that these exceptions to the discipline of celibacy do not fuel demands for it to be ditched altogether.
As far as I am aware, the rule in the Orthodox Churches (and those few parts of the Catholic Church which allow it) is that a married man can be a priest, but not a Bishop.
Thanks for that information. I am sorry to have to disagree with you but just because the Easterns have married priests doesn’t make it agreeable. I just can’t think of them as priests. Sorry.
I have to admit I don’t know much about the ordinariate, so I’m just going by what is said here, and if it’s not growing, then maybe Josephine has a point. If people are converting in groups of parishes, maybe that’s not good. I also dislike the married priests part of it. That’s not helping the situation where the liberals are trying to end celibacy in the Latin Rite.
I definitely agree about the celibacy issue. That was a big mistake allowing Anglican priests to convert, stay as priests, even when married. That should never have been allowed. The liberals are having a field day with it.
Thank you for your comments. It will be interesting to see how things go with the ordinariate. Certainly some bishops do not share the ordinariate vision. One said that he doesn’t see the point in it. Another sent a letter to his local Protestant bishop apologising. Our lady is good however and we see a few supportive bishops including Egan and hopes. Where I worship our two priests were never married. One was a former bishop in the Anglican church. They had prayed for unity for Rome for many years while keeping elements of Anglican patrimony eg the English missal which is pretty much the basis of the ordinariate divine worship missal. This missal, in English, incorporates prayers at the foot of the altar, Last gospel, the proper canon of the mass etc. In fact many suggest this is what should have been implemented at vat ii. Thanks be to god that the priests were able to keep their building (with shrines, eastward facing altar, relics etc). They were also able to encourage many of their congregation to join the catholic church. Masses are offered throughout the week (solemn/low) with Requiem low mass on Fridays. Extraordinary form is celebrated once a month
I have a friend who is an Ordinariate priest who given permission by the local Bishop to approach parishes in his home town for a place for his congregation to worship. One priest told him he couldn’t allow him to use his church as it might offend Episcopalians and another said no because his parish council said that the Ordinariate weren’t really Catholic. My friend tells me that the Ordinariate is growing, not by leaps and bounds, but slowly, which is probably the best way.
Portsmouth Mission Blog,
“Another sent a letter to his local Protestant bishop apologising.”
Shocking, but not surprising.
One detail, though, for your information. We never use the coinage “Extraordinary Form” here – the only “extraordinary” thing about the traditional Mass is that all attempts to kill if off have failed. What is now termed the “Ordinary Form” (the Novus Ordo) will be – according to Cardinal Ranjith – gone in a generation. Roll on!
I’ve just quickly checked, and you are right to say that we have never had a thread on the Ordinariate. I hadn’t realised that. Next time there is an Ordinariate issue in the news, we’ll post a discussion. In the meantime, thank you for raising the issue and allowing us to reflect on the matter.
I had reservations about the “mass conversions” at the time, and, like others, I am not keen on the idea of a kind of apparent partial conversion. Anyway, I could well be wrong (bound to happen some day!) and I wish all those well who have returned to the fold.
Extraordinary form, tlm, tridentine, Latin mass, mass of ages, old mass. Sorry for my using the incorrect term!! I quite agree that the traditional Maas ought to be known as the ordinary form of the roman rite
Portsmouth Mission Blog,
You sound like a real convert to me! Welcome – to the mess!
I hope this isn’t representative of the Ordinariate:- http://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/2078/0/ordinariate-priest-who-entered-civil-partnership-arrested-for-fraud- We already have enough scandal in the Catholic Church without importing in more. Even though this priest claims to have entered a civil partnership in order to keep an immigrant in the country, it is still morally wrong to undergo such a partnership, in order to circumvent immigration laws. A Daily Mail report on the same scandal contains the allegation that there was some sexual element:- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2586966/Rebel-Catholic-priest-conservative-CofE-confesses-secretly-married-Muslim-man-sham-wedding-help-stay-UK.html
Here is part of an Ordinariate Mass and notice how much more reverent and dignified it is to the Novus Ordo. Interestingly the priest prays for Bishop Fellay.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4L-64-xr8g&w=854&h=480%5D
Vianney,
Superb – Many thanks
IS AN UNTIMELY DEATH AN INOCULATION AGAINST OBEYING THE GOSPEL? BY STEVE FINNELL
Some say that immersion in water, [that being baptism], is not essential for salvation. The reasoning is because if a believer should die before he has time to be baptized God would forgive him anyway. Their logic being a loving God would not condemn a person because of an untimely death.
Jesus gave us the gospel terms of pardon. Mark 16:16 “He who believes and is baptized will be saved….(NKJV)
Is a person can be saved because they died before they were baptized, then, why could they not be saved before they believed that Jesus was the Christ?
If a person heard the gospel, but died minutes before they believed that Jesus is the Christ, would they be saved? Of course not.
God wants all men to be saved. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.(NKJV)
1 Timothy 2:3-4 …God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.(NKJV)
If a person hears the gospel and does not believe nor is not baptized, is it because he died an untimely death or simply because he rejected the gospel terms for pardon.
God has the power to insure that believers have time to be baptized.
In Biblical examples men were baptized the same day they believed. No one died before they had a chance to be baptized. Acts 2:37-41….41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.(NKJV) Acts 8:26-38…..So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. (NKJV) Act 16:25-33…..And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.(NKJV)
[NOTE: There is no Scripture where Jesus says. “Baptism will not save you.” There is Scripture where Jesus says “Is baptized will be saved.”(Mark 16:16)
Editor: thank you for your comment. I have removed the link to the blog which you recommend because we do not advertise sites – whether pseudo-Catholic or Protestant – which contradict our holy Catholic Faith. I hope you understand. You are welcome to comment here, but we do not promote any religion other than the Catholic religion. God bless.
Steve,
You are completely correct to say that Baptism is necessary for salvation. That is clear from Christ’s words in St John’s Gospel: “…..unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God” (John 3:5) but Baptism itself – as you seem to acknowledge – of itself is not sufficient to guarantee salvation. We cannot be saved by accepting the truth about the necessity of Baptism, without accepting all the other necessary truths revealed by God, through His chosen Ark of Salvation, the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ.
I’ve taken my quote above from the Douay Rheims (Catholic) Bible, “translated from the Latin Vulgate and diligently compared with the Hebrew, Greek and other editions in divers languages (the Old Testament was first published by the English College at Douay, A.D. 1609 and the New Testament was first published by the English College at Rheims, A.D. 1582.)”
I mention this because I know you are not a Catholic and I like to try to make sure my Protestant friends (and relatives) are aware of the truths of the Faith, as opposed to the propaganda – for example, I usually recommend a little booklet entitled 21 Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura by Joel Peters, because, just as Baptism Alone is not sufficient for salvation, neither is the false doctrine that the Bible Alone will save. Checking for a link to the purchase information I found that the booklet is published in full online here so please do read it and let us know your thoughts.
God bless.
Steve Finnell
Here are a couple of quesions for you to ponder
1. If, as you say, it is absolutely indispensible that a person be baptised with water for salvation, then how do you explain Our Lord’s words to the good thief who was crucified alongside Him on Calvary? Remember the words of the good thief: “Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom”, and Our Saviour’s response: “Today, you will be with me in paradise”. No baptism with water in this case of salvation, was there? And what about “the just” of the Old Testament, the prophets, patriarchs, etc., who were not baptised with water but we know are saved. How would you explain that?
2. If, as you claim from your interpretation of Scripture, there was only instant baptism in the early days of Christianity, which meant that no one waited for the Sacrament, then how do you explain the Catechumens? These were instructed in the Gospel for some time before being baptised, as much to test their fidelity as to ensure their worthiness. Many Catechumens died in the persecutions before receiving formal baptism, but, as the Catholic Church teaches, were saved by reason of baptism of desire or blood: “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for a friend.” These friends of Christ laid down their lives for Him when they could have denied Him and saved their skins. Do you really believe that God will consigne them to eternal hell for such great love as theirs?
This is the trouble with Protestantism, Steve, everyone interprets Sacred Scripture according to how he reads it. We Catholics have the Church to interpret for us. It after all received the divine mandate to teach and preach. So the Catholic Church teaches that God’s mercy is boundless and that although the normal means of salvation is baptism with water, God can, if He so desires, save some souls who are either murdered before they get to the Sacrament or else are living in invincible ignorance.
These latter are people who keep the Commandments of God “written in every heart” and who would most certainly become Catholics if they knew about the Church, say, for example, mentally handicapped people. This is perfectly reasonable teaching and it ties in perfectly with the examples I gave of the good thief and the just of the Old Law.
The only ones who will not be saved are people of bad will who knowingly, or for reasons of sloth, resist and/or reject the true Church founded by Christ for the salvation of souls, the Catholic Church with its unbroken line of Popes right back to St. Peter.
Athanasius
I didn’t read Steve Finnell’s post in the same way you did. I took it he meant that the people who say it doesn’t matter about Baptism because God is all loving, were wrong, which they are. As you say, “the normal means of salvation is baptism with water”, and that is what I thought Steve Finnell was saying Not being a Catholic he wouldn’t have thought about martyrdom, baptism of blood etc.
I think it’s good that he has come on here and seems to be open to learning more. I hope we can help him.
Laura
I have read Steve’s comments again and I have to disagree with you. It seems to me that Steve himself is saying that without baptism with water there is no salvation. For my part, I am putting Steve’s thesis to the test.
I hope Steve will return and clarify the reason for his comments, if not to make a point he believes to be true.
Athanasius,
I agree with you and Editor has made that clear in her reply to him as well when she says “We cannot be saved by accepting the truth about the necessity of Baptism, without accepting all the other necessary truths revealed by God, through His chosen Ark of Salvation, the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ. That’s how we know about baptism of blood and desire, i.e. through the Church’s teaching. Nobody should rely on baptism of blood or desire, because Scripture is plain and clear about the necessity of baptism by water and the Holy Spirit. I’m praying for Steve that he will come to this knowledge and faith soon.
I’ve had a look at the webpage 21 reasons to reject sola scriptura – it’s great. I do hope Steve returns to share his thoughts with us now that we’ve answered him. I’d love to know what he thinks of that webpage.
Athanasius,
I almost missed this – you are right. It didn’t occur to me to distinguish the types of Baptism for Steve. I was too keen to help him realise that his focus on Scripture (alone!) was a mistake, so didn’t think of explaining about Baptism of blood (martyrdom) and/or desire (for those who had desired to be baptised with water, but died before this could happen).
So, many thanks for clarifying that. I do hope Steve will return to let us know if we have been of any assistance to him. The pamphlet on Sola Scriptura takes a bit of reading, so maybe he is still studying it and will return soon enough.
One lives in hope!
I have a question. I have a friend who thinks nothing of missing Mass, or seems to think nothing of it. It’s not a novus ordo friend, it’s a friend who attends a TLM. She’s incredibly often sick in one way or another, and misses Mass. I know it’s none of my business but I can’t help thinking that I ought to mention it to her because she’s young enough maybe never to have been taught that missing Mass without serious reason is a mortal sin. The reasons she gives are “not feeling great” or “a touch of food poisoning” or “under the weather” or “fluey”, stuff like that which are not reasons that would keep me from Mass. I’m aware I’m probably coming across as Pharisaical but I am on the verge of saying something to her but holding back to see what others think. I’m not related to her or her godparent or anything, just an acquaintance, really. I’ll be interested in bloggers’ opinions.
Michaela
I share your concern in this matter because I have also known one or two people over the years who have acted the same way.
In the absence of any real disabling health condition, my conclusion is this: People who attend the Tridentine Mass often have to travel a fair distance in all weathers to get to the nearest chapel. Unfortunately there are a handful who think that this inconvenience provides them with an open dispensation from the obligation that binds all other Catholics. It’s almost as if they think that it is they who do God a favour rather than God having blessed them with the true Mass.
I don’t believe such people act maliciously, just instinctively. They pander to sloth and then try to excuse it by turning the slightest discomfort into a bed-ridden illness. The question is: Would they still be unable to travel if, rather than Mass, a cheque for £10,000 awaited them at the Church on Sunday?
I hate to say this but such presumption is very likely to end in complete laxity and eventual loss of the gifts of God. If you do speak with your friend about this then do so as gently as possible without letting the point slip. Otherwise it could be taken the wrong way. And pray for the person as well, you can’t do more than that. Ultimately, if the faith is slipping away in a soul it is up to them to stop the rot before it’s too late. You won’t be telling your friend anything he/she does not already know in conscience.
Athanasius,
I totally agree. I was going to warn Michaela against going in too heavily or strictly, but I think if we are friendly enough with someone, then we have a duty to say something in that situation. One of the ways we share in the guilt of another’s sin is by our silence – catechism answer. Psychologists even say that accepting the excuses people make in bad situations makes us “enablers” so it’s easy for the person to continue that behaviour, if there is nobody disapproving of it.
I was also going to ask Michaela if her friend was a parent because if so, that means the children are being set a very bad example and once they are of an age to rebel, they’ll do that. If your friend has children, Michaela, then I would definitely raise this issue. If it’s a single female, not married and no kids, well, that’s a bit different, but I would still mention it.
Thank you both, Athanasius and Lily,
I feel better for asking. I am surprised that you, also, Athanasius, have known people over the years who have acted in this way. I actually thought myself that the reason was more to do with the distance she has to travel than sickness, and she has a very easy-going nature, but I can see other signs that she is slipping in the practise of the faith, so I have felt for a long time that I ought to say something. I do feel nervous though in case she gets angry. She does have a small family – and when she doesn’t come the husband and kids don’t come either. That’s been bothering me quite a bit.
I will continue to pray for her and will think about your advice. My gut instinct is to say something. Please pray that I get it right. I’ve also encouraged her to join this blog, but so far no luck. If only she would, that would save me having to bring the subject up, LOL!
Why don’t you ask the priest to mention in his sermon that it is a mortal sin to miss Mass on a Sunday? Priests should be reminding us of our obligations from time to time.
Other than that you, or a friend, could bring the subject up in the tearoom with a few friends around. It would be a very easy way to do it.
Michaela,
I’m very interested in your dilemma. It is rather more common than you might think.
Let us know how you get on with your friend if, indeed, you decide to broach the subject. Tip: pray to her Guardian Angel before you speak. That can only help!
The despicable Nicola Sturgeon (SNP) has said she will consider using Scottish taxpayers money to fund abortions for women travelling from Northern Ireland (where infanticide is illegal).
The idea was proposed by the sodomite Patrick Harvey (Green Party), who is equally despicable.
Apart from the obvious moral bankruptcy of this idea, I was not aware that the NHS and all other public services in Scotland were operating so very well that the Government could afford to spend it’s budget on persons who live elsewhere.
This is a further confirmation of the completely amoral nature of the Scottish Parliament.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14913092.Nicola_Sturgeon_considers_help_for_NI_women_having_abortions_in_Scotland/#comments-anchor
Gabriel Syme,
The only approach to Nicola Sturgeon is to accept her every word and action as infallible. She is a dictator and will do whatever she wants.
It’s a disgrace that she is considering funding abortions for women in NI. That is not only an abuse of Scots taxpayers’ money but a slap in the face to the NI government who have consistently upheld God’s law in both abortion and homosexuality. Sturgeon is an ignoramus who goes along with every new fashion in morality. She’s a lightweight intellectually. No wonder the EU politicians dismissed her requests to stay in the EU post-Brexit – she wasn’t even given a hearing, as far as I know.
Good article about Donald Trump. Make sure you read it if you want the truth.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/
Cbucket,
I’m surprised that this writer overlooks where the “Trump is a racist” smear originated. It originated from the Communist Party USA, during their coverage of the Democratic National Convention (i.e. the party they supported 100%). Here is one of their reports from the Convention:
“Donald Trump steals wages. He’d pick your pocket in a New York minute. He lies and spreads hate. He’s a racist and a bully.”
It is not really surprising, though, where the media get their smears from.
An open Letter to the Press:
A priest in conjunction with a head teacher, vicar General and Bishop has authorised and 8 year old boy to go to a Catholic primary school dressed as a girl and to be treated in all respects as a girl. All children at the school were read an appalling book saying how good, right and proper it was for little girls to be treated as boys and to dress as boys and vice versa. Parents overall were not consulted. This is against the teaching of the Church and popes Benedict and Francis. Pope Francis has recently called such a situation demonic.
The same parish priest, a schools governor, stated that a draft policy for implementation at a Catholic secondary school was in accordance with church teaching. A single school governor was so shocked at its contents that in a necessary breach of protocol he sought external advice. The document contained reference to ‘packing’ which stated girls at school could fit prosthetics in their trousers to create a bulge and make it appear that they had a penis. The draft document is still under consideration. It is possible that a similar policy has also been implemented at another Catholic secondary school in the diocese where a girl goes to school dressed as a boy. All these issues are serious breaches of Canon Law and a case has been brought under that Law against all those involved in these breaches.
In this context of transgender issues and other contexts such as no preaching on contraception, the pill (an abortifacient), other abortifacients, IVF and euthanasia the clerics involved in this issue and some others like them represent a grave on-going danger to the integrity of the faith, spirituality and morality of the whole catholic community. Another context affected in the same way is the decision not to recruit priests from abroad and associated racism. A group of English priests within earshot of a Nigerian priest stated ‘we will soon be overrun with Nigerians’. In all my years in industry and commerce no organisation I have worked for has ever been effective based upon institutionalised overtime which is what the priests in Hallam have to endure. Long periods of high overtime levels lead to poor quality work, low output and eventually serious health problems i.e. heart attacks, strokes, addictions, nervous breakdowns etc. etc. Priests in this diocese are running 2 and 3 parishes. Anytime a priest goes on holiday or goes sick we are faced with a totally avoidable crisis since there are priests from abroad ready, willing and able to come and work in the Hallam diocese but they are stopped from doing so by a deliberate and totally illogical diocesan policy which has serious detrimental effects on both priests and the laity.
For further information phone 01709 530072
Liam,
Once again you post a lengthy comment about a number of issues on the General Discussion thread when you said you would email me the details about the key issue, the promotion of transgenderism within a Catholic school in a diocese, which I happen to know is in England. You were to email me the name of the priest-governor and the school. Until I receive those, I am unable to contact the priest in question to let him know that we are discussing this scandal on our blog. You said that was NOT a problem – in fact, I believe you mentioned the priest’s name but because I was with other people at the time, and not free to speak, I asked you simply to email all the information. I was, if you recall, prepared to launch a specific thread of discussion dedicated to that school, that priest, that diocese, if, as is likely to be the case, the priest and/or bishop does not respond in the correct manner to a private approach, by promising an end to this scandal. And those who disapprove of “naming and shaming” can disapprove all they like. That’s what I was prepared to do – a second time. Still, you seem to prefer to use this thread. That’s fine, but will have no effect on the school/priest/bishop concerned. Imagine if the news media reported robberies in that way: a bank somewhere in England was robbed on Saturday. There was a public figure involved. [Shucks, I hope the cops can work it out…] ! I am guessing that there has been no response from the news outlets to which you sent your Open Letter… Of course not.
So, in the absence of the key information all we can say here is that it is shocking, all right, about the scandal. Really shocking. That’s all we can do. We can’t contact the priest, we can’t contact the school, we can’t contact the bishop. Thus, you are unlikely to draw many comments here, but you are welcome to try.
As for the rest – as I’ve said to you over and over again, bringing priests from Africa to provide more novus ordo Masses which are, in and of themselves, displeasing to God, will not cure the crisis in the Church. Maybe your priests will be more physically rested, have less novus ordo Masses that are displeasing to God to say themselves, but so what? So WHAT?
The TRULY “totally illogical diocesan policy” is to follow the alleged “reforms” of Vatican II – most of which are, in fact, entirely UN-authorised by Vatican II, except in the sense of its rebellious spirit – instead of restoring the ancient Mass and disciplining unfaithful priests like the priest-governor of the above (UN-named) school they are continuing with more of the same. And as the saying goes, if you keep on doing what you’re doing, you’ll keep on getting what you’re getting. That is, you will keep on emptying churches and driving the faithful away. My suggestion to you, again, Liam, is to make the effort required to attend the traditional Mass and then all of these other things will be added to you; including the clarity of mind to see the real issues and the grace to see the appropriate path to follow in dealing with these scandals.
I don’t think there is any active thread concerning the SSPX presently, so posting this here:
Pope Francis is to issue an Apostolic Letter on Monday 21st November, “Misericordia et Misera”.
Rorate Caeli confirms that, in part, the letter will concern the SSPX:
Now, many had the intuition, considering the timeframe of the authorization for confessions for SSPX priests (granted last year and ending, supposedly, today), that the Letter would contain something on the SSPX. We can confirm that, at least if no last-minute surprise cones along, that it will indeed contain something regarding the Society of Saint Pius X.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/11/apostolic-letter-misericordia-et-misera.html
Gabriel Syme,
There is no active SSPX thread at the moment, but I was planning to post one tomorrow as this news has been out there for a couple of days. I will post a new thread tomorrow on the subject – unless the subject is exhausted here, as it may be the afternoon before I get down to it. .
Gabriel Syme,
There’s nothing in the letter which is now published, except extending the permission for confessions:-
For the Jubilee Year I had also granted that those faithful who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, can validly and licitly receive the sacramental absolution of their sins.[15] For the pastoral benefit of these faithful, and trusting in the good will of their priests to strive with God’s help for the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church, I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year, until further provisions are made, lest anyone ever be deprived of the sacramental sign of reconciliation through the Church’s pardon.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_letters/documents/papa-francesco-lettera-ap_20161120_misericordia-et-misera.html
I always think that Bishop Fellay will make that announcement himself. The blogs which claim to be “close to” the Society are sometimes blogs which were quite opposed to the Society at one time and now they’re playing catch-up, LOL!
Josephine,
I noticed Rorate had updated their article last night to say an SSPX source had told them the letter didn’t mention canonical structure, but would only extend the confession faculties.
I suppose this is good news in itself: while I always accepted the Society’s argument regarding faculties, this move at least stops hostile voices claiming the SSPX cannot absolve.
I completely agree with what you say about how blogs have changed their stance regarding the SSPX – since the election of Francis, Rorate Caeli now overtly supports the Society whereas this was not the case before.
Gabriel Syme,
I remember something about them calling this blog “wacky” because it supported the Society! LOL! It’s good that they have changed their attitude.
“this move at least stops hostile voices claiming the SSPX cannot absolve.”
It addresses both the licitness and validity of the matter.
Thank you. The names you want are Bishop Heskett, Vicar General D. Sexton, Parish Priest Mgr Ryan St Bedes RC Church Rotherham. Mrs A Wassell head teacher St Bedes RC Catholic Primary School Rotherham.
With regard to your other comments you know I have great love and respect for all at CT. I think that there is a lot less to put right in the traditionalist movement S.S.P.X than the rest of the church. I read the prayers from the mass in two very old daily and Sunday missals everyday. Just after I read your last blog I caught the end of ordinariate mass in Sheffield cathedral. As in traditionalist masses we had all the trappings ‘bunting’ etc. etc.. I understand church vestments where modelled on the upper class outfits of the Italian professional class of lawyers centuries ago. Long tassels and board phylacteries where certainly much in evidence yesterday. A saintly old lady recently went to a traditionalist funeral mass and said did we really have to put up with that in the past. Some years ago after a retreat he had been on a man sold his house and opened a hostel at his own expense saying he was tired of the stench of candle wax. My son a very deeply spiritual and highly intelligent man said to me some years ago dad a mass is a mass is a mass. In all love and respect I do have to say that not just referring to the ‘old mass’ we have to guard against obscurantism and individual and corporate spiritual narcissism and always remember it is always about the song and not the singer.
Liam Jenkinson,
I read your comments on “the mass is the mass is the mass” with a memory that this was not the case at all. I remembered one of the popes saying that it would “incur the wrath of Almighty God” is anyone created a new Mass. I checked around and found that it was Pope Saint Pius V and here is the link to that encyclical http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5quopri.htm
Liam Jenkinson
If your deeply spiritual son cannot distinguish between the NO and the Traditional Mass, then there is nothing left to say.
As for the “saintly” old lady, she obviously prefers to hear fulsome praise of the deceased rather than a reminder to pray hard for their soul. Not quite how I would describe as saintly.
And as for the man who sold his house because he was tired of the stench of candle wax(!), WHAT?? Was the retreat in his house? If so, hasn’t he heard of Febreeze?
Liam Jenkinson
With the greatest respect, you are one very confused and misinformed man. I have never read so much rubbish concerning the ancient Mass of the Church in my life.
Do you truly believe all that nonsense about priestly vestments, “bunting”, as you rather glibly called it, originating from the clothes of Italy’s professional class? Can you truly be that naive? And that old “saintly” woman who criticised the Mass of the saints and martyrs: did you believe her to be genuinely holy? More holy than Godly, I would venture!
But the guy buying a hostel in order to escape the smell of candle wax, you surely don’t actually believe that fantastic tale, do you? Gerragrip Liam!
Why?
Pope Francis Dismisses Entire Membership of Pontifical Academy for Life
http://www.onepeterfive.com/pope-francis-dismisses-entire-membership-of-pontifical-academy-for-life/
Gerontius
I’m afraid it is becoming more and more difficult to defend this Pope against increasing accusations that he is a destroyer of the Catholic Faith.
With the re-writing of the statutes of the Pontifical Academy for Life, which effectively fires the present staff and sets the way clear for a new breed supportive of the Pope’s moral relativism, together with his elevation of the most liberal Cardinals he could find, especially ++Cupich and the other two American appointments, which shifts the balance of power in the U.S. Episcopate from morally conservative to downright immoral, not to mention the one he elevated in Belgium, it seems clear now that Francis is quite deliberately set on at least obscuring the infallible moral teaching of the Church. He is by far the most disastrous Pope the Church has ever had and there is good reason to believe that many who voted in conclave to elect him had no idea who and what he was when they voted. This raises the question of what went on before and during the conclave that led to so mistaken a choice by the Cardinals.
What really troubles me is that few, if any, in the hierarchy are prepared to stand up in public for the faith and challenge this Pope’s abuse of office. He is using the Papacy to neutralise the Church’s condemnation of immorality and to promote the present Communist spirit of the world. Nowhere was this more apparent than in his poorly veiled attempt to destroy Trump’s Presidential campaign in favour of Clinton’s. His intervention was so horrendous a blow to Christian morality it beggars belief.
It is high time the hierarchy in the Church took a firm public stand against this Pope. They have a duty before Our Lord to confront him with these terrible acts that threaten the life of the Church and of countless souls worldwide. Time they put their diplomatic cloaks to one side and donned the breastplate of faith. The silence thus far is a scandal, though not unexpected given what Our Lady of Quito foretold for our time and this crisis.
Athanasius,
I agree with you that it is becoming more and more difficult to defend this Pope against increasing accusations that he is a destroyer of the Catholic Faith.
If anyone in the hierarchy do not remember what Our Lady of Quito foretold, then they should read this link, now.
https://www.olrl.org/prophecy/goodsuccess.shtml
Many Rosaries and sacrifices need to be made in reparation for the damage so far to the Catholic Faith. Especially pray for the Pope and Hierarchy.
Theresa Rose
Thanks for posting the link to Our Lady’s Quito prophecy for these times, I forgot to add it in.
Many rosaries and sacrifices are indeed required for this Pope and hierarchy, assuming of course that they are men of good will who are just misguided in their Modernist errors. The problem is that the Pope and so many Cardinals and bishops seem so hostile to theTradition Catholic Faith that it’s becoming extremely difficult to continue believing that they are men of good will. Still, I suppose we have to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Hopefully the SSPX rosary crusade for the year running into the centenary of Fatima will bring down sufficient grace from heaven to shake the lot of them out of their worldly ways. But it’s going to take something very dramatic to set this hierarchy back on track.
I completely agree which is why the four/five cardinals who have started the process of public correction deserve our full support.
https://catholictruthblog.com/2016/11/17/cardinals-join-battle-with-pope-francis/
Sorry, my comment was addressed to Athanasius.
Josephine,
Now that the protest of those Cardinals has been cast aside as out of order by the Pope, I hope they have the strength of will to take the next step and encourage their Traditional confreres to join them. We need such an episcopal voice of opposition to this Pope that it will halt him in his tracks and reverse the damage he has done.
Athanasius,
I think I’m right in saying the four or five cardinals are going to publicly correct Pope Francis because he’s not replied to their letter. That’s probably why he cancelled the cardinals’ meeting on Saturday, didn’t want a showdown. It’s a disgrace that there are only five, but even those have “halted him in his tracks” – he’s been reported as being mad as anything about it, and the fact that he cancelled the meeting shows that. The other cardinals who know better and yet don’t join the five, should be ashamed of themselves.
Athanasius,
Many thanks for your reply.
You have encapsulated in a few paragraphs, my own thoughts exactly. We who love the Church must now above all, comfort and accompany her in her passion during these dark times.
Thanks be to God for the Church’s good and faithful Priests of the SSPX who so diligently look after us.
The consequences of failing to obey Our Lady of Fatima are now self evident.
“If people do what I ask, many souls will be saved and there will be peace.”
Hmmm… not Popes failing to consecrate Russia but rather, not enough PEOPLE complying with Our Lady’s request delayed the grace of consecration.
And the consequences? The satanic fruits of Communism and the damnation of souls. No wonder the sacred images of Jesus and Mary are crying tears of blood.
Mater Ecclesiae, Mater Misericordiae, ora pro nobis.
Gerontius
You hit the nail on the head when you mentioned Communism. It’s revolutionary operators have penetrated the Vatican at the highest levels. It is these faithless men disguised as prelates who are working for the undoing of the Catholic Church. They will not of course succeed, but that doesn’t mean they won’t drag millions with them to Hell in the process of trying. So many silent, willing disciples who want the easy life they offer with Modernism.
A question to the Editor from a sassenach who has never set foot on Scottish soil (though I have sailed around the top of it).
In the old days, as far as I am aware, the Highlands were almost entirely Catholic. Is that still the case, and is there any particularly strong connection between Highlands Catholicism and the Traditional movement (one might expect there to be for various reasons)?
Just curious!
Bencjcarter, there is a great book, now out of print, “The Catholic Highlands of Scotland” which gave a great insight into the areas that remained Catholic during the reformation. On the mainland places like Lochaber, Glen Roy, Morar, Strathglass, the Braes of Glenlivet and the Enzie (pronounced Ing-ay) in Banffshire remained untouched by the reformation and are still predominantly Catholic. They used to say about Morar, “Blessed Morar where the voice of the minister has never been heard.” Now they will tell you that Protestantism arrived with the railway. Many of these areas contain Mass Stones where people would gather in the open air to hear Mass celebrated by the heather priests. These priests wandered the country offering Mass for the faithful and earned their name because they would sleep at night outdoors in the heather.
In the Outer Hebrides, South Uist, Barra, Eriskay and Vatersay are Catholic. South Uist is famous for having wayside shrines dotted throughout the island. Benbecula, known as the “buffer island” because it lies between the Protestant northern isles and the Catholic southern isles, used to be half and half but is now predominantly Catholic. In the Inner Hebrides Canna is Catholic while Eigg is half and half.
Sadly, despite the heroic efforts of their forebears, only the Novus Ordo is available to most Highlanders. There is an elderly priest on South Uist who celebrates the Tridentine Mass and there ae some Traditionalists in Sutherland and Lochaber who are in contact with the SSPX. To be fair, there has been no attempt to open Mass Centres in the north and it remains to be seen what would be the outcome if that happened.
Vianney,
I am aware Fr Ross Crichton (who is based in the Isles) occasionally offers the traditional mass. In recent years he journeyed to Glasgow to offer the mass for the anniversary of St John Ogilvies martyrdom.
He used to be a parish priest in Benbecula, but is now in Eriskay.
Sadly he doesn’t do the traditional mass exclusively – he also offers the N.O. in gaelic! Interestingly, Fr Crichton is himself a convert, which perhaps explains why he doesn’t have the pathological aversion to the latin mass exhibited by so many other Catholic clergy.
Gabriel Syme, I’m not sure of the name of the priest concerned, only that he was in one of the parishes on South Uist and Tony Fraser’s brother (Hamish, I think) was one of his parishioners and encouraged him to say the Traditional Mass. I think he may now be retired but still stays on South Uist.
By the way, the NO in Gaelic is the norm many of the island chapels. Speaking of which, I remember being told about a priest on one of the islands who, after saying Mass one Sunday, was accosted by a couple of visitors from London who demanded to know why he had said Mass in Gaelic. “That;s the way we do it here” he said, and one of the visitors said “you should be using the vernacular” and when the priest pointed out that Gaelic was the vernacular there the other visitor retorted that English was the vernacular not Gaelic. He continued by saying that they had stopped going to Spain because “they insist on saying Mass in Spanish.” The priest asked them in what language they thought Mass should be in in Spain and they both said “English” and one added “how else are we supposed to follow Mass when we go abroad unless it’s in English?” The priest just shook his head and said he had to go and one of the visitors said he was going to report him to Cardinal Hume. The priest said “never heard of him” and walked away.
Vianney,
That’s PRICELESS!
In fact, though, an entire industry has grown up around the provision of Masses in English on the continent, with priests employed to “cater” for the “English speaking communities” in various far flung places.
The Edinburgh dissident Fr Gilhooley, who famously left the ministry with a flourish, making headlines all over the place, only to return when he couldn’t get a day job in Ireland, was given one of these “jobs” as chaplains “catering for the Catholic community” overseas; don’t ask me where. I’ve deliberately blocked the information from my mind.
Other dissenters, who were the subject of our reports, have also crossed the channel to serve the “English speaking communities” abroad. It’s nothing short of hilarious. If they’re so keen on the vernacular Mass, then they need to stick with the vernacular Mass wherever they choose to live and work, and not take priests away from the UK… On second thoughts…
Ben,
I cannot improve on the responses already given. The Highlands to me mean two things: the awful Monsignor Basil Loftus and the Bishop of Aberdeen who permits him to write his rubbish-through-to-heresy week in and week out in the Catholic press, including one paper read UK-wide.
So, don’t spoil my day again by mentioning The Highlands! 😀
Bencjcarter
I’m sure editor will answer in her own way but I can tell you that the Highlands, once very Catholic, is no longer exclusively so. Most of the Islands off the mainland are now largely Protestant, apart from the Isle of Barra, I think. It still has a big statue of Our Lady facing out into the sea that can be seen for miles. There are still a number of Catholics in the Highland region, but these are dispersed and most of them are Modernist. Sad to say there’s not a great demand for Traditional Catholicism in the Highlands now, although to be fair it’s such an awkward territory to serve that there may be more than we know.
Thanks gents for your replies. I had visions of the McDonald of the McDonalds descending on the oafs who pass for Bishops nowadays, howling clansmen at his back, spreading Traditional Catholicism widely with every sweep of his claymore. Sadly a dream.
To all bloggers across the ‘pond’ – Happy Thanksgiving Day!
Pat,
I didn’t realise this is thanksgiving day in the USA, so allow me to add my happy Thanksgiving Day wishes to yours – our American blogging community seems to have reduced to RCA Victor and Margaret USA, but, what the heck, here’s my greetings card to mark the day…
http://thanksgivingwallpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Thanksgiving-Cards.jpg
Go easy on the turkey, though – it’s not long now until Christmas!
Happy Thanksgiving to you all over in the USA.
My experience of the Highlands is that is is no longer really Catholic. Most of the churches I have visited are super N.O. However, many of the natives have a very strong Faith of a neo Catholic bent. They are very devout and their children keep the Faith such as they know it.
From LifeSite News:
GREECE, November 22, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — A Roman Catholic Greek bishop, who, during the Synod on the Family stated “it is not easy to sin,” has accused four Cardinals of “two very serious sins” for presenting Pope Francis with a set of yes-or-no questions that seek to clarify his recent exhortation Amoris Laetitia.
Retired Bishop Frangiskos Papamanolis, who serves as President of the Bishops’ Conference of Greece, wrote in a scathing open-letter dated Nov. 20 to the Cardinals that they should have renounced their title as “Cardinal” before presenting the Pope with their “dubia,” and thereby committing the sins of “apostasy” and “scandal.”
Following a standard, but little used, procedure within the Church, Cardinals Walter Brandmüller, Raymond Burke, Carlo Caffarra, and Joachim Meisner wrote to the Pope asking him to answer five questions that would dispel what they called the “uncertainty, confusion, and disorientation among many of the faithful” stemming from Amoris Laetitia.
The exhortation continues to be a hotbed of controversy since its publication in April. It has been criticized for its ambiguity on the issues of the indissolubility of marriage and whether couples in adulterous relationships can receive Holy Communion.
The four cardinals stated when they went public with their “dubia” last week, after the Pope failed to give them a response, that Amoris Laetitia “implies different, contrasting approaches to the Christian way of life,” and thus their questions touch “on fundamental issues of the Christian life.”
The five yes-or-no questions they ask are: 1) whether adulterers can receive Holy Communion; 2) whether there are absolute moral norms that must be followed “without exceptions;” 3) if habitual adultery is an “objective situation of grave habitual sin;” 4) whether an intrinsically evil act can be turned into a “‘subjectively’ good” act based on “circumstances or intentions;” and 5) if, based on “conscience,” one can act contrary to known “absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts.”
IMPORTANT: To respectfully express your support for the cardinals’ letter, sign the petition to Pope Francis. Click here.
The cardinals explain that they were “compelled in conscience by our pastoral responsibility” to call on the pope “with profound respect” to give answer to the questions posed, reminding him that, as Pope, he is “called by the Risen One to confirm his brothers in the faith” and to “resolve the uncertainties and bring clarity.”
During his pontificate, Pope Francis has stressed “dialogue” and “openness” to those with whom one disagrees. In 2013 Francis personally phoned a Catholic journalist — who had been fired by a Catholic news organization after writing a piece critical of the pope — to tell him that the pope considers it “important” to receive “criticism.” On another occasion that same year, the pope wrote to conservative Archbishop Agostino Marchetto, thanking him for offering him correction on an undisclosed theological matter.
Instead of addressing the specific concerns raised by the Cardinals in their letter to the pope, Bishop Papamanolis accused them of heresy for questioning the pope, even claiming that as a result of their intervention, their Masses are sacrilegious.
“I fear your mental categories will find sophisticated arguments to justify what you are doing, so that you will not even consider it a sin to be dealt with in the sacrament of penance, and you will continue to celebrate Holy Mass each day and receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist sacrilegiously, while you claim you are scandalised if, in specific cases, a divorced person receives the Eucharist and you accuse the Holy Father Francis of heresy,” wrote the Bishop Emeritus of Syros, Santorini and Crete.
Last year Pope Francis broke away from standard practice by inviting two retired bishops, Papamanolis being one of them, to partake in the Synod on the Family. Prior to this, emeritus bishops were not permitted to attend such events.
Papamanolis concluded his letter this way: “Dearest brothers, may the Lord enlighten you to recognise your sin as soon as possible, and to make good the scandal you have given. With the love of Christ, I greet you fraternally.”
The four Cardinals have been the objects of derision for raising their concerns to Francis.
Last week Jesuit priest Fr. Antonio Spadaro took to Twitter to criticize the cardinals, at one point comparing them to a “witless worm.” Newly minted Cardinal Joseph Tobin has called the four “troublesome,” while Cardinal Blase Cupich, also newly minted, stated that Catholics who have “doubts or questions” about the exhortation need to have “conversion in their lives.”
Despite the backlash, the cardinals are holding fast to the course they have set, with Cardinal Burke stating last week that should the pope not clarify his meaning in the exhortation, they will consider making a “formal act of correction of a serious error.”
N O T I C E . . .
We have confirmation from a first hand source that Father Depard’s appeal to the Vatican has been partly successful. I’m told the story will be reported in the Scottish Sunday Mail although, apparently, the report is a “very mixed bag”.
REMINDER …
Our blog will be closing down on Sunday next, 27th November, the first Sunday in Advent, to re-open on Christmas day.
Editor, for us marooned faithful, any chance of a link to The Scottish Sunday Mail before you shut down the blog for Advent?
Crofterlady,
I’ll leave the blog open for the entirety of tomorrow, and close it around midnight, to allow some commentary on the Father Despard situation. I’ve also emailed the Vicar General of the Diocese of Motherwell to ask if Fr Despard’s suspension will now be lifted, so I will report any reply from that quarter as well.
I have toyed with the idea of leaving open the General Discussion thread, since I’m hearing that four weeks seems to be a long time to go without access to the blog – we usually only close down for Holy Week in Lent, not the entire six weeks …
Anyway, for now, be assured that I will post a link to the Scottish Sunday Mail tomorrow if nobody else beats me to it, and allow until midnight, at least, for comment.
CTREXIT deal being considered in the meantime, after due representation at home and abroad (that’s YOU Margaret USA!) … 😀
The saintliness of Bishop Bernard Fellay:
https://damselofthefaith.wordpress.com/2016/11/26/an-example-of-bishop-fellays-saintliness
Also, before the blog closes for the season, I would like to wish everyone a holy, happy and blessed Advent!
DOTF,
Thank you for that – it’s a beautiful article about Bishop Fellay and a bit surprising coming from One Peter Five, since I believe he tries to keep his distance from the Society, following disapproval from some of his supporters some time ago when he mentioned the SSPX in positive vein.
I’ll close the blog tomorrow night, reciprocating your good wishes for a holy, happy and blessed Advent!
I agree, Editor, regarding 1P5 and the SSPX. Earlier today I read his article about the Church split in 3 (the “Footnote Church,” the “JPII Church,” and the “Traditional Church”). In his description of the latter, not one single mention of Abp. Lefebvre and the SSPX, so I posted a comment asking why that glaring omission, since the “Traditional Church” would not even exist without ++Lefebvre and the Society he founded. An hour or so later, this article appeared, shared by the SSPX Facebook page!
And here I was about to cynically accuse him of avoiding the truth in order to avoid losing readership…just call me a hot-head, jumping to conclusions again…(Frankier, hold your fire!)
RCA Victor,
The new IP5 website means one has to be a detective to find stuff, so, although it took time, I found the article which first alerted me to Steve Skojec’s “keeping the Society at a distance” policy.
“I have not EVER (nor has any article in this publication) advised that people attend SSPX chapels – and I have never attended one myself.
That said, I think the article in total reveals him to be a fair man or should that be person, writing according to his lights…
Here’s the link but note that he did not allow comments on this article.
Editor,
I wonder what Mr. Skojec will do about Roberto De Mattei’s new Remnant piece, in which he claims that the indefinite extension of the validity of SSPX Confessions constitutes a de facto regularization?
There are 7 sacraments and the Pope also observed, in the same letter, that the society continue talks aimed at formally restoring the society’s full communion with the Church. Pope Francis said he was extending the pastoral provision ‘lest anyone ever be deprived of the Sacramental sign of reconciliation through the Church’s pardon.’ It is strange that some can argue that others have abused previous specific Indults, and wrongly applied them universally, then try to “nit pick” to extend a generous. though limited, provision that can only be read in the context of the Year of Mercy
I am surprised that no-one here has delighted that The Pope has, as he has done throughout his ministry, emphasises the centrality, and importance, of The Sacrament of Confession for everyone on a pilgrim journey of faith.
John D,
So you’re a “Francis Fan”.
You won’t be happy here. As for “no-one here…delighted.. Pope emphasises Confession” …Priceless!
We WOULD be delighted if only he wasn’t at the same time abolishing sin. Catch-up here
And then… Gerragrip!
I am not a Francis fan. I responded to a post suggesting an over interpretation of a very limited provision relating to ONE Sacrament in The Year of Mercy.
I would like, for example, the attempt to clarify some aspects of Amoris Laetia to succeed. The divorced have recourse to seeking an annulment, if such can be legitimately, declared, and they should not be getting “bargain basement” get out of a fix solutions which demeans the Sacrament of Marriage and is a slap in the face of those who have, admirably, carried the burden of living The Christian Life when such an annulment cannot be justly granted.
The Pope should give fewer interviews, and consider the impact of offering ad hoc solutions to complex – moral, pastoral and theological problem -, that people, in good faith, grapple with every day.
May I say the over-egging of the limited extension of the ability of The SSPX to licitly celebrate ONE Sacrament, is part of the same “grab the bargains before the offer is withdrawn” mentality, and, as I said before, comes from those who allege others have abused, and extended, limited Indults in the past.
JohnD,
I really don’t understand your final paragraph but you need to know that it is the Vatican and the popes who have been seeking meetings with the SSPX not the other way round. The SSPX doesn’t need to “grab the bargains before the offer is withdrawn” because the Vatican is forever chasing the SSPX.
Re. Amoris Laetitia. I don’t think it needs clarifying, it needs binning, IMHO.
John D
Pope Francis could not have extended any permission to validly administer any Sacrament to an institution that was not already in full commuion with the Church. The claim is a fallacy which does not stand theological scrutiny. It is clear that this nonsense about the SSPX not being in full communion with the Church is just that – Nonsense!
The SSPX has changed nothing of the faith handed down, either in belief or practice. The same, sadly, cannot be said for the Church’s authorities. Who, then, is truly in communion with the Church and who is not, I wonder?
Can it be that an institution which refuses dangerous and destructive novelties and innovations, previously condemned by the Church’s Magisterium, novelties and innovations that have reduced the Church to rubble these past fifty years, can truly be accused of not being in communion with the Church?
And by the way, granting indults to stem the damage done by illicit liturgical and Sacramental abuses introduced without Papal mandate or consent is not the same as extending to fully Catholic priests the power to absolve sins, a power they were never really deprived of in this time of crisis. So speaks Canon Law, or did until they changed that to fit the new theology.
Athanasius
As the one person with Supreme, Universal, Authority in The Church has more than once said, in writing, and in speech, that The SSPX are not in Full Communion, and Bishop Fellay has only used slightly different terminology, to speak of the same issue, I think it might be that you are wrong.
John D
Cardinal Hoyos was the Pope’s delegate to deal with the SSPX – he said that anyone who thinks they are in schism (“not in full communion”) doesn’t understand the situation.
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2005-1130-hoyos-30days.htm
Michaela
You are confusing schism and full communion, and Cardinal Hoyos has made that distinction in every interview.
As recently as November 20th 2016 Pope Francis wrote “For the Jubilee Year I had also granted that those faithful who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, can validly and licitly receive the sacramental absolution of their sins.15 For the pastoral benefit of these faithful, and trusting in the good will of their priests to strive with God’s help for the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church, I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year, until further provisions are made, lest anyone ever be deprived of the sacramental sign of reconciliation through the Church’s pardon.”
As I said earlier The Pope has Supreme, and Universal, Authority. He has in various writings, and speeches, made the same point about “full communion” over and over again. Bishop Fellay, again in various writings and interviews, acknowledges that is the view/teaching of ” the authorities”, as I believe he quaintly calls them,, although he disagrees with them. However, he has no such Supreme or Universal Authority.
It is all rather academic, however, as possibly one day reconciliation with Rome may come.
John D,
I really didn’t confuse schism with full communion that’s why I put full communion in parenthesis because I’ve always found that people who say that are really suggesting schism.
The fact is, people who talk about full communion are actually confusing full communion with a particular pope with full communion with the Catholic Faith.
The people who followed St Athanasius instead of Pope Liberius at the time of the Arian crisis were not in full communion with the pope and neither was St Athanasius, obviously, because he refused to accept the heresy. They were in full communion with the Church because Christ was fully divine and fully human, equal to the Father in the Trinity, and they stuck to that teaching instead of going along with the Arian belief that Jesus was subordinate to the Father. So to stay faithful to the dogma of the Trinity they had to fall out of full communion with that particular pope.
There’s no difference today. With the popes we’ve had since the Council there’s no way anyone can be a Catholic in full communion with the Church’s teaching and also in full communion with the modern popes. They’ve all taught stuff that contradicts the teaching of Christ in one way or another. The modern popes have never actually used their Supreme Pastor authority anyway, to make any of their errors part of the deposit of the faith, which the Holy Spirit has kept them from doing.
Michaela
Full Communion is always with The Pope and The College of Bishops – always – and in fact The SSPX have now, formally, not been in Communion with three Popes, and so people are not saying in Communion with a particular Pope.
John D,
Like so many others, it seems you equate blind obedience to the Pope with full communion with the Church. This has never been the teaching of the Doctors and saints, nor indeed of the Popes themselves.
Popes can and do err, history is replete with examples, so to refuse obedience to Papal novelties and innovations that are harmful to the faith is actually meritorious, not schismatic. It is they who go along with a destructive abuse of the Papal office who sin, not those who resist on the basis of what has been handed down and taught consistently throughout 20 centuries.
There is a higher authority than the Pope and that is Christ Our Lord. So when the Pope tells us that his predecessors for centuries got it wrong when they formally condemned ecumenism and inter-religious initiatives, when he says they got it wrong when they forbid unconsecrated hands from touching the most Blessed Sacrament, when he says that a Mass closer to the Protestant meal, over a table, is preferable to the explicit holy sacrifice of Calvary offered at a high altar, etc., then we have a duty before God, like St. Paul did with St. Peter, and as the saints have admonished should a similar situation arise in future, to respectfully resist the Pope to his face and do all that we can to prevent his will from being exercised to the great detriment of the true religion and the salvation of souls.
It is not we (SSPX faithful) who decide what is and what is not Catholic. No, the Magisterium over time, the deposit of faith handed down, tells us what is and is not Catholic. There cannot be a contradiction in official Magisterial teaching, and I’m pleased to say that all the aforementioned damaging innovations have been introduced without Papal binding. So the formal teaching remains what it always was despite these Conciliar liberal Popes speaking and acting as though it were otherwise.
The ancient Latin Mass is still the Mass of the Church, never formally abrogated; Communion on the tongue is still the Church’s discipline, the alternative being a mere Indult granted in an attempt to stem Sacramental abuses; ecumenical and inter-religious initiatives have never reversed the Church’s teaching that it is a mortal sin to participate in non-Catholic worship, etc. So you see, it’s all a big facade giving the appearance of Church authority by reason of the personal heterodoxy of individual Popes, but in fact having no authority whatsoever in the eyes of God and certainly not binding on the faithful.
The ones who love God, His Catholic Church, the Pope and souls more are those who stand against Modernist perversions of the faith at great cost to themselves, not the sycophants who believe every Pope to be a reincarnation of God and worthy of blind obedience regardless of the obvious destruction he is inflicting on the Church before their very eyes.
To be in communion with the Church is to keep the faith handed down unaltered through 20 centuries. It is not going along with the whims of those who abuse the Papal office to enforce their Modernist agenda.
This is what Bishop Fellay means when he speaks of full communion. He doesn’t recognise any split with the Church, just the keeping of a firm and respectful distance from today’s dangerously innovative Popes.
From the hierarchy side in Rome and elsewhere, they mostly hate Tradition and will put any spin on “full communion” that puts the worst light possible on those who resist their destructive reformation.
Athanasius
Actually, I clearly said in Full Communion with The Pope and The College of Bishops.
Michaela
Can you clarify for everyone: Is “The Remnant” an official Church Document, published with the authority of The Holy See, and with an Imprimatur, and Nihil Ostat and which ecclesial authority granted them?
“Actually, I clearly said in Full Communion with The Pope and The College of Bishops.”
Ah, yes! But first the Pope and the College of Bishops have to be in full communion with the authentic Magisterium of the Church of 2000 years. If they go off on their own agenda with a new liberal Gospel that is alien to Christ’s flock then we have a duty to resist them.
Would you say that the beliefs and practices in the Church today under the present hierarchy are in line with Traditional Magisterial teaching and practice? I certainly don’t see the link, only a break.
True Catholics don’t do blind obedience for then they would not be free children of the Church, merely slaves to the whims of Popes and Bishops.
JohnD,
“Michaela
Can you clarify for everyone: Is “The Remnant” an official Church Document, published with the authority of The Holy See, and with an Imprimatur, and Nihil Ostat and which ecclesial authority granted them?”
That comment shows you really do not have a clue. You said you were”not a Francis fan” and then criticised Amoris Laetitia, but you wouldn’t have found out about the problems with Amoris Laetitia from any “official Church document published with the authority of The Holy See, and with an Imprimatur, and Nihil Ostat.” LOL! Far from it. The four Cardinals who are trying to get the pope to clarify Amoris Laetitia and did so using the common method of asking questions of doubt – called Dubia – haven’t had a reply. How would they be able to get anything published officially and with an Imprimatur,and a Nihil Obstat? LOL!
The Remnant is a traditional Catholic newspaper with articles from very well informed and faithful Catholics, as I’m sure you know fine well.
Lily
May I suggest gently that many people don’t need newspapers like “The Remnant”, or even The four Cardinals, to highlight possible difficulties with a document if they have the wit, and intelligence, to read for themselves. I am glad, however, I am glad those secondary sources help others.
John D,
So you only read the original sources – no newspapers, no watching TV news reports about the Government unless they interview the PM etc. LOL! What are you doing on here, then? LOL!
You are not engaging in debate, as Athanasius spotted early on. You can’t win because you’re on the wrong side of the argument, but instead of staying quiet you are just making yourself look very foolish.
Thank you though for telling me “gently” that you don’t read anything except original documents. I won’t ask for your opinion on the writings of St Teresa of Avila then! The translations might not be perfectly correct. LOL!
Lily
I didn’t say I ONLY read original documents.
I said people. including me, don’t rely on secondary sources to form opinions, or educate themselves.
I am not aware I am trying to win an argument.
John D,
“I am not aware I am trying to win an argument.”
That’s good because you’re losing! LOL!
John D
As you probably know, the liberals in the Church are so devious that it often takes Traditional media outlets to highlight the dangers inherent in their ambiguous statements and documents. We are not living in the days when Popes and prelates spoke openly in defence of the Faith in clear and concise manner. No, we are living in times whne they fancy their own intellects as greater than their predecessors, churning out documents and statements that a Philidelphia lawyer would struggle to make sense of. There is of course method in their seeming madness, it’s just not always apparent to the average Catholic. Hence the usefulness of Traditional Catholic media outlets.
John D
It is impossible for me to be wrong, I’m afraid, unless you, the Pope or anyone else can demonstrate how it is possible for the Church to extend permission to validly administer the Sacraments to an institution that is not in full communion with it.
Not to be in full communion with the Church is to be in schism with it, which means that the Sacraments can NEVER be said to be licitly administered. Now we know that the SSPX is not in schism with the Church, how could it be, so in what way can it be not in full communion?
You need to look beyond the statements of liberals and actually weigh the facts in light of Church teaching. This is the problem today, too many people consider every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Pope to be 100% true and unquestionable. The history of the Papacy demonstrates how far from reality this is, however.
Now if you continue to insist that the SSPX is not in full communion with the Church then I will have to ask you to provide evidence of what Traditional Church teaching the SSPX has rejected to place it in schism. And please don’t quote Vatican II, which was a purely pastoral (non-dogmatic) Council whose teaching and implementation in places certainly is at odds with previous Magisterial teaching. Just look at the bitter fruits of 50 years and the rot is evident enough.
Bishop Fellay publicly accepts that The SSPX is not in a regular situation!
Regardless of what language you use no-one within The SSPX has the authority to grant clergy the faculties to licitly celebrate The Sacraments. The Pope, who has Supreme and Universal Authority, has granted them the right to licitly celebrate ONE – of 7 – Sacraments.
Athanasius
We can agree on one thing: you believe it is impossible for YOU to be wrong.
John D
Bishop Fellay speaks of an irregular situation, not of an absence of full communion with the Church. There is a huge difference in the two. The irregular situation has arisen with Popes who are Modernist and dangerously innovative. These Popes have no power whatsoever to change the Faith handed down, yet they have done so either by their own heterodox behaviour or by their weakness in stemming abuses. The evidence is everywhere present in the Church and cannot be denied.
In these circumstances Bishop Fellay keeps a firm but respectful distance and that’s what he means by irregular situation. The SSPX can in no wise be called out of communion with the Church since it is precisely because of its defence of the Faith handed down that it has been forced into the position it is in. It does not reject the Papacy as schismatics do, rather it rejects the abuse of Papal office since Vatican II that has come to threaten the faith and live of the Church. Whenever the Pope says something in line with Tradition the SSPX is first to bow in obedience to the Pope, but not when it is ordered to do things contrary to the faith handed down over 2000 years.
Canon Law does allow for an emergency situation such as we presently live through, whereby the Church supplies jurisdiction to priests who are unjustly deprived by Popes and Bishops who resent and persecute them for their fidelity to Sacred Tradition.
The primary and overriding duty of the Church is the salvation of souls and that’s why Canon Law is written to protect priests against those who would threaten the salvation of souls and persucte them for resisting their errors.
The Supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff is not a personal charism that individual Popes are free to abuse according to their whims. It exists exclusively for them to protect the deposit of faith handed down and pass it on unaltered. No one with any sense at all could argue that the Popes since Vatican II have protected and handed on the faith unsullied. Quite the contrary.
Athanasius
The fact that Bishop Fellay uses different terminology does not mean that his terminology, when compared with those he call “the authorities”, is correct. If it does then he has to explain why he publicly calls them “the authorities” if he doesn’t think that is the right attribution for them, He doesn’t say “Full Communion” because he thinks it is not the right term, but he always calls them “the authorities”. Go figure!
John D
“We can agree on one thing: you believe it is impossible for YOU to be wrong.”
That is a very unjust perversion of what I said. But I suppose it gets you off the hook in terms of backing your assumptions with acual evidence from Church teaching. You’re not the first to deviate from the debate in this way.
I think we’ll leave it there, since it’s quite obvious that you’re not on here to debate properly the facts, just to quote blind obedience to the Pope. It’s that attitude of deferential indifference, so widespread, that has the Church in such a mess at present.
Athanasius
I didn’t come here to debate the issue of The SSPX. Indeed I said in one post that it is an academic point as reconciliation is probably on the cards.
I originally responded to one post that suggested that the permission to celebrate ONE Sacrament was, in fact, the regularisation of the situation. That is the only point I was challenging.
Athanasius
Further, in another point I made a serious critique of some of the actions of the current Pope, and said I was hoping the challenge of the four Cardinals comes to bear fruit.
Sorry, buddy it isn’t me that is misjudging anyone. Someone is, though.
John D
Here’s an extract from The Remnant on the matter of full communion. I put the link at the end so you can read the whole thing, as it is very clear:-
“Ever wonder why people get a little cynical when it comes to the Vatican getting all indignant over that “terrible” and “scandalous” lack of canonical status on the part of the Society of St. Pius X?
Could it be because everyone knows the SSPX has not deviated one iota from Church teaching, dogma and doctrine while countless priests and even bishops and cardinals have and do every single day?
Could it be because to the extent that Vatican II itself reiterates the traditional teaching of the Church the SSPX accepts substantially more of the teachings of the Council than 90 percent of the rest of the Catholic faithful?
Could it be because the Vatican doesn’t seem to give a damn about countless priests, entire orders, parishes and communities that are openly hostile not only to Catholic teaching but even to the Vatican itself when it comes to matters of faith and morals?
Could it be because the only ones who are expected to follow the rules and honor the requirements of holy obedience as if this were still the High Middle Ages are the priests and bishops of SSPX, while everyone else can jolly well do as they please?
Could it be because while the SSPX is consistently bashed, pilloried and condemned for not being in “full communion” with the Vatican, numberless heterodox, heretics and real schismatics are given the green light to show contemptuous outrage, sacrilege and indifference to God, the Blessed Sacrament and the teachings of His Church while enjoying “full communion” with the Vatican–whatever in hell that means? ”
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/1055-are-you-in-full-communion-with-the-vatican-or-are-you-still-catholic
John D
The fact remains that the Pope could not extend permission to the SSPX to validly and licitly administer the Sacrament of Confession if the SSPX was not already in full communion with the Church. To state otherwise is just a nonsense.
Therefore this “reconciliation” everyone speaks of is not a reconciliation of the SSPX with the Church but rather a reconciliation with Rome. And for that to happen anytime soon the Holy See will have to demonstrate a willingness to re-evaluate 50 years of disastrous conciliar reform, or, at the very least, give assurances to the SSPX that neither the Pope nor the bishops will seek to silence or otherwise undermine the fidelity of the SSPX to Sacred Tradition.
The way things are going under Pope Francis, only a miracle of grace will produce a reconciliation in the near future. His words and actions are such that great damage is being done to both faith and the moral teaching of the Church. He certainly is a Pope of contradictions, not a good sign for the one who sits on the throne of Peter.
RCA Victor,
Robert De Mattei is correct, but it has really riled the modernists especially the halfway house mods like Michael Voris who can barely hide his rage that Pope Francis has extended the unnecessary permission for SSPX Confessions beyond the Jubilee Year.
It’s just unbelievable that Voris is sticking to his policy of never criticising the pope, no matter how far he moves from the faith while he castigates the SSPX who haven’t changed a single doctrine of the deposit of the faith. If that isn’t a first class example of the Fatima diabolical disorientation before our very eyes, what is, I wonder.
Lily,
Michale Voris’ opinions are bought and paid for by his SSPX-hating financial backer, Terry Carroll, who has about as much Catholic depth as Pope Francis. If I had my druthers, Voris and Carroll would get sucked into their own vortex and never be heard from again.
Meanwhile, I’ve just read through the many excellent replies to John D’s objection to Roberto De Mattei’s article, and I’d have to say that he has completely failed to make a coherent objection. In fact, in sticking to his “full Communion” nonsense, it would appear that he thinks the SSPX is only in 1/7th communion with Rome, since the Pope has “made” only one of their Sacraments licit.
Meanwhile, in addition to Michaela’s Remnant excerpt above, here is Christopher Ferrara’s classic on “full communion”: http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2011-0205-ferrara-gnostic-twaddle.htm
Beautiful, DAMSELOFTHEFAITH, thank you for sharing it.
Who is One Peter Five?
http://www.onepeterfive.com/
DOTF
Thank you for posting that link, it was very edifying. I wish you and all associated with you a very blessed Advent and Christmas. I hope you have now fully recovered from your misfortune of some months ago. God bless you and yours.
Thank you for your kind words, Athanasius. I read every one of your daily posts here, which are always so informative.
Recovering is a process. If you would, please pray for our parish, yet to have repairs started. Lots of bumps in the road, but we’ll get there.
Thanks and Happy Advent!
DOTF
I will be happy to offer prayers for your parish. I hope everything gets sorted out and back to normal soon.
Promised update on Father Despard…
I could not find the Sunday Mail report about Fr Despard’s Vatican appeal online so I bought a copy of the Scottish Sunday Mail. There was no mention of the Vatican appeal in the report.
I’ve now found the same report in the Daily Record online…
A Catholic priest at the centre of a gay mafia row is being pressurised to resign as parish priest after a three-year battle with the church.
Father Matthew Despard was sent a three-page letter from Bishop of Motherwell, Joseph Toal, calling for him to quit his post at St John Ogilvie’s Parish in Blantyre.
Father Despard wrote a book claiming that a “powerful gay mafia” was operating at the top of the Catholic Church in Scotland and was responsible for sexual bullying.
The Amazon-published book, Priesthood in Crisis, was later withdrawn from sale.
Priest at centre of gay mafia row
It’s understood that the 52-year-old priest will resign before the Tuesday deadline set by the bishop.
The missive hit out at Fr Despard, who was ordered to leave the parish house last year after a legal battle with the Diocese of Motherwell.
Bishop Toal wrote: “This caused considerable scandal which affected the church in general but in particular the parish of St John Ogilvie… and some of whose parishioners were written about in a derogatory manner in the book.
“Your behaviour on being called to account for publishing such a book caused serious division in the parish and showed disregard for authority.”
He also said a church investigation into his behaviour found him guilty of behaviour “unbecoming” of a priest.
The bishop added: “From the evidence… you seemed to have clashed with parishioners in a manner that caused them to leave the parish distressed and offended by the way they had been treated.”
Bishop Toal said the publication of the book was “a grave violation of your duty of care towards your parishioners and a serious wounding of their good name”.
He added: “It caused great unrest within the parish and across the whole diocesan community.
“This cannot be denied in any way and because of that, I do not want you to return to ministry in this parish.”
Fr Despard declined to comment, but one of his supporters, Helen Duddy, said: “He feels he hasn’t got any other option than to resign. I think it’s been a kangaroo court and he hasn’t been able to respond or defend himself.
“The parishioners haven’t had the full story from the church. It’s been very one-sided.”
Fr Despard’s infirm parents face losing the home in Motherwell they have lived in for more than 30 years, with the courts moving to seize his assets after he lost a battle with the Catholic Church to stay in the parish house and costs were awarded against him. [emphasis added by EditorCT]
A spokesman for the Diocese of Motherwell said: “Bishop Toal cannot comment on correspondence with Fr Despard in order to respect his right to reply in confidence to him before making any public statement.” Source – Daily Record
Comment:
We had a blogger on the “Naming & Shaming” thread, all guns blazing at the thought of a housekeeper (and her occasionally resident family) being made homeless if she were asked to leave a presbytery in order to remove all appearance of scandal. It will be interesting to see if the Diocese of Motherwell does, indeed, make Father Despard’s elderly parents homeless in order to pay the costs of a court action which the Diocese (not Fr Despard) raised – and whether any righteous individuals will speak up to object to that scandal.
The Diocese only had to resort to The Courts because Fr Despard ignored legitimate requests to vacate the parish/property. That was his choice and not that of The Diocese.
JohnD,
It is my understanding that, as Parish Priest, Father Despard should not have been told to vacate the parish house. This has been his position throughout, and that includes throughout the court case. I’m no expert on Canon Law (or anything else, in fact, with the possible exception of fresh cream meringues) but it makes sense to me that a Parish Priest cannot, arbitrarily, or due to a dispute with parishioners or bishop, be forced to leave the house attached to the church where he is the legitimate Parish Priest. The fact that Bishop Toal has now written to him to ask him to resign, confirms that he remains the PP at this point in time.
Further, if you recall, when this whole situation came into public view, the then bishop, Bishop Devine, said that no further action would be taken. Thus, Father Despard remained in place as PP and it was only after Bishop Devine’s own resignation and the appointment of an administrator, that this tussle about the presbytery began. Again, to the best of my knowledge, a mere administrator cannot overturn the rulings of the previous Bishop. In any event, there cannot be any good reason for the Motherwell Diocese to make an elderly couple homeless, in these (or any) circumstances. I’d be amazed if anyone thought differently.
What is also rather puzzling is why we are not being told the outcome of Fr Despard’s appeal to the Vatican. I heard from a very reliable source only yesterday, that this appeal had been successful, at least in part. Yet, the newspaper report makes no mention of this aspect of the case.
Finally, it does seem that Fr Despard is set to resign, quite probably having been talked into signing a confidentiality agreement, which, were I to be President of the World, would be outlawed on day one of my anything-but-merciful rule. When it comes to employers covering their own backs and suppressing the truth about wrongdoing within their institutions – and that, sadly, includes the churchmen running dioceses right now – I have no confidence in a just outcome. It is a disgrace that any Catholic churchman would invoke a confidentiality agreement – when these are clearly designed to suppress the truth and gag the victim.
The reports, over the house, say he was suspended from priestly ministry in 2013 and that would mean that he could not be the P.P,. If he was the P.P. he would ordinarily be required to live in his Parish. Perhaps the current newspaper report is wrongly speaking of his “resignation”.
Further I believe he was recently barred from celebrating a funeral, and that for some years priests from outside the parish have celebrated the public Masses etc.
The Diocesan website lists a Fr Lamb as The Parish Administrator which would mean that there is no Parish Priest in place, surely.
John D,
I really intend to keep as much of an Advent “silence” as possible and only agreed to keep open this GD thread to please other bloggers who were disappointed at the prospect of a four week break from this site. So, I am not going to be entering into lengthy discussions on this (or anything else!) but will simply make a couple of points and offer you the links to our previous discussions on the subject of Fr Despard…
Yes, Fr D was suspended by Bishop Toal despite the assurance of the previous bishop that no further action would be taken. That is unjust in itself. None of the priests allegedly identifiable in the book took legal action against Father D, including the one who publicly threatened to do so. His name escapes me at the moment. So, that’s important. It is puzzling, then, that the new Bishop should make it, apparently, the priority of his episcopacy to suspend this priest for writing his book, whether or not the decision to publish was ill judged. I’ve never heard anyone allege that he wrote it out of bad motive. If there IS a “gay mafia” in the Diocese of Motherwell, don’t you want to know about it? I sure do. And then there is the question of proportionality – the punishment meted out to Fr D stands in stark contrast to the kind treatment of Cardinal O’Brien, now living in luxury, by all accounts, in a beautiful bungalow in a peaceful little English village. Prayer and penance? Yeah right.
You mention the fact that Fr D was not permitted to conduct the funeral of Teresa Howie RIP – a parishioner and friend. That was a total disgrace and smacked of vengeance – big time.
Apart from the possible charge of poor judgment, I can’t see how anyone can justify treating Fr D so badly, when there are priests – in senior positions – guilty of much MUCH worse. Not only are they not suspended or victimised, their names go forward as possible (desirable) bishops! Truly, you couldn’t make it up.
To answer your final point – the fact that Bishop Toal is asking Fr D to resign the parish, suggests that Fr Lamb is merely an interim administrator, not PP.
Anyway, I won’t be back for a bit, so you ought to read through our previous discussions – links below (not necessarily in correct date order, sorry) and – unless you have information that we do not know about to add to what we already know – I would ask you to wait until there is news about the Vatican appeal and/or any major development before further comment. Thank you.
PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS ON FATHER DESPARD…
https://catholictruthblog.com/2016/10/14/fr-despard-banned-from-conducting-funeral-of-former-parishioner-friend/
https://catholictruthblog.com/2014/06/28/motherwell-priest-facing-eviction/
https://catholictruthblog.com/2013/11/18/scots-priest-suspended-mass-riot-during-bishops-announcement/
https://catholictruthblog.com/2014/01/06/letter-from-a-bishop/
Editor,
I noticed today that Fr Despard’s case is making the news around the Catholic web-media:
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=30070&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+CatholicWorldNewsFeatureStories+(Catholic+World+News+(on+CatholicCulture.org))
Editor,
Speaking of suppressing the truth and gagging the victim, I meant to comment on Therese’s Nov. 25 post on the “Doubting the Faith” thread (actually it was from 1P5), regarding the “reports that the Vatican is like an occupied state.”
This confirms my suspicions about the ridiculous pablum that Cardinal Ratzinger has allegedly been issuing since his abdication, not to mention the laughable statements of Abp. Ganswein, talking about how wonderful Francis is and how well he, Ratzinger, is being treated. I’ve never believed a word of it, and given Therese’s/1P5 post, I’ll just go ahead and blurt it out: I’d be willing to bet that, given the true nature of the Francis dictatorship, Ratzinger is a virtual prisoner in his comfortable lodgings, and has been told to say nice things about Francis…or else. Or else what? Given that his “captors” are just a bunch of Communists and Freemasons and their useful idiots, I’d say a threat has been issued about what could occur should Ratzinger spill the beans, or object to Francis’ crazed destruction of the Church. A threat along the magnitude of, say, Chernobyl? (I refer back to what Fr. Gruner was told about Chernobyl years ago)
Sound ridiculous? I also recall that in the Conclave of 1958. the sedevacantists claim that someone other than Roncalli was elected first (they claim it was Cardinal Siri, Franco Bellegrandi claims it was an Armenian Cardinal), but then a threat of similar magnitude was immediately conveyed to whomever was elected, whereupon that Prelate refused the Papacy. Malachi Martin also referred, regarding that election, to the “little brutality.” While Fr. Gruner has put to rest the sv notion that whoever was elected was actually a Pope, he did not put to rest, as far as I know, the claim that a major threat was issued.
In short, to me, Ratzinger – his mild-mannered Modernism notwithstanding – exhibits telltale signs of a prisoner of war. Too bad he doesn’t have the guts to do what one sailor from the USS Pueblo did in 1968, when captured by the North Koreans (bottom row, third from the left):
https://iconicphotos.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/610x.jpg?w=700
RCA Victor,
Were it not for Cardinal Ratzinger’s/Pope Benedict’s own heresies (think Jews don’t need Christ; think condoms for prostitutes; think Assisi event) I’d say you were onto something, but I’m afraid I think, having prayed, on the day of his election “that I do not flee for fear of the wolves,” that is precisely what Pope Benedict did! And I don’t rate him too highly as a result. I wouldn’t give him the status of a POW. A “soldier” gone AWOL, yes, but not a POW. I really am a hard wummin…
Now, I’m gone for Advent. Will talk at Christmas! Those of you who complained (albeit nicely) about the closure of the blog may now take over. I will check in to release moderated posts and to make sure we’re not breaking any rules, but beyond that… I’m outa here!
Editor,
No argument here about Ratzinger’s modernism, and I don’t rate him highly either, but my point is slightly different. I’ll take that back, my two points are slightly different:
1. If Ratzinger indeed fled for fear of the wolves, that means his abdication was not entirely of his own will, as he has claimed: he fled because he was afraid of them. Intimidation strongly affects the will. Moreover, since I don’t really believe anything he has claimed since he announced his abdication (and there are numerous analyses out there pointing out the absurdities of his narratives), I don’t believe he wasn’t threatened, including from secular sources. In fact, I vaguely recall some posts here from 2013 or earlier about some secular threats that had been issued should he regularize the SSPX.
2. Why would the Francis revolutionaries threaten him? Because to them, he is actually a “conservative”! To paraphrase Luke Skywalker, there is still some black and white in him, he is not all gray (have at it, Frankier!!) – and that is not acceptable to the wolves in wolves’ clothing. They want it all, and they want it now. None of this gentlemanly, slow-track, Benedict-style destruction for them. They want to march through the Church like General Sherman marched through Atlanta during the American Civil War, leaving behind nothing but rubble – which is exactly what they have been doing since their Marxist strongman was elected.
And so, I believe, they have dispensed with Ratzinger and, to a certain unknown extent, locked him up, treating him kindly as long as he keeps his mouth shut.
Meanwhile, the Church’s equivalent of Fidel Castro continues to peddle his phony “mercy” with an iron fist…
What DID the sailor do?
Helen,
Look at his right hand, which is crossed over his left. Which finger is sticking out?
Is the new UKIP Leader the only Catholic Pro-Life Leader? Do they get much support in Scotland?
It is a shame the party is tainted with anti-immigrant, racist, views though. Hopefully, he can change public discourse for the better.
I don’t know if the new UKIP leader is the only Catholic pro-life leaders and I didn’t know he was either. I do know that the rest are mostly in gay relationships but you won’t know that not reading newspapers etc. LOL! I don’t know, either if UKIP gets much support in Scotland. I’ve no idea about that.
It’s obvious that you are trying to be controversial on here and I suspect that editor will put you right in your place when she gets round to checking the blog, so I’m throwing in my honest opinion which she is welcome to delete if it falls short of the high standards here.
Only brainwashed simpletons have fallen for the line that UKIP is “anti-immigrant” or “racist”. It’s not “racist” to want to know how many people are in the country and to have control of the borders. You can’t just decide to move to America or Australia without permission and you don’t hear them accused of racism or being anti-immigrant.
Taking your uninformed views on both the SSPX and UKIP I can’t see you making much headway on this blog (editor, sorry if I’m overstepping the mark but I really do think JohnD is a troll and they always spoil our discussions IMHO.)
No offence intended, John D, but I do think you are not in good faith, but trying to wind us up. That is unchristian.
Lily,
You haven’t overstepped the mark, worry not.
And you won’t need to reply to JohnD again. He’s gone and, in no time at all, like every other troll, soon to be forgotten!
John who?
John D
It’s a common trick of the liberals to tag all who challenge unrestricted immigration as racist. They did it with Trump and they do it with UKIP. But no person of average inteligence pays the slightest attention to the liberal establishment now, even if they do control the media. There is a massive sea change underway at the present time and it’s set to continue.
Same in the Church. Growing numbers of prelates, clerics and faithful are sick to death of the hippies and what they have done to our holy religion. For years they got away with persecuting the defenders of the faith as “disobedient”, while they themselves were the disobedient ones. Well, eyes are being opened slowly but surely and liberalism is on the decline, despite appearances to the contrary under the present Pontiff. The mask of “conciliar reform” is finally slipping to reveal all the ugliness of a rebellion against Sacred Tradition.
Athanasius,
The name “Fr. Bernard Haring CSSR” recently surfaced from the dark recesses of my memory, (probably due to my frequent retreats at Kinnoull Monastery in the 70s and 80s) and today I found this:
http://www.torchofthefaith.com/news.php?extend.1476.1
If you have not already read this article, you may find that it contains some very interesting information, especially with regard to Communism, Liberation Theology and the Jesuits.
Gerontius
P.S.
In the 70s, I considered Kinnoull Monastery to still be a good Catholic retreat venue. During the early 80s it became for me a “no go area” – here is JUST ONE of the reasons why:
St Mary’s Monastery, Kinnoull, Perth is an international, multi-cultural, ecumenical place that offers its visitors the opportunity for relaxation, renewal and rest
Gerontius
Much obliged for the link to information about Fr. Bernard Haring CSSR. I have to admit that I didn’t know about this priest, which surprises me given his influence in Modernist circles. His name doesn’t crop up very often in realtion to the Modernist rebellion, yet it is clear from that article that he was a substantial contributor, well in the know with the chief architects and peddlers of the liberal revolution in the Church.
Interestingly I noted that Fr. Haring and his works were censured during the reign of Pius XII, yet John XXIII lifted all censures and placed him in a very important theological rile during Vatican II. Pope John did exactly the same thing with Fr. Henri de Lubac S.J., who was also heavily censured by Pius XII for his heretical views. Here’s a rather lengthy, but greatly insightful, expose on de Lubac.
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1993_December/They_Think_Theyve_Won_PartIII.htm
Between them, Haring and de Lubac greatly influenced a number of conciliar documents and became the two principle pillars of the Modernist revolution against faith and morals. Pope Francis is a disciple of both men.
Here is his praise for the moral dissenter, Fr. Haring, taken from LifeSiteNews:
ROME, November 24, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Pope Francis has praised the 1960s German moral theologian Bernard Häring, one of the most prominent dissenters from Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, for his new morality which the pope said helped “moral theology to flourish.”
“I think Bernard Häring was the first to start looking for a new way to help moral theology to flourish again,” he said in comments, published today by La Civiltà Cattolica, that were given during a dialogue with the Jesuit order which was gathered for its 36th general Congregation on October 24, 2016 in Rome.
Pope Francis gave his comments while answering a question about a morality he has often spoken about based on “discernment.”
“Discernment is the key element: the capacity for discernment. I note the absence of discernment in the formation of priests. We run the risk of getting used to ‘white or black,’ to that which is legal. We are rather closed, in general, to discernment. One thing is clear: today, in a certain number of seminaries, a rigidity that is far from a discernment of situations has been introduced. And that is dangerous, because it can lead us to a conception of morality that has a casuistic sense,” he said.
Francis criticized what he called a “decadent scholasticism” that his generation was educated in, that provoked what he called a “casuistic attitude” towards morality.
We should bear in mind here that Fr. Haring’s “discernment” was just another way of saying that conscience should be master in the moral lives of individuals, not the divine law.
Regarding de Lubac, who in essence argued that faith is less a gratuitous supernatural gift from God than a charism of human nature, in other words, faith is not divine it is purely natural, Pope Francis first quoted him as “the great Cardinal Henri de Lubac” during his address to the pre-conclave which elected him Pope. He then quoted his writings extensively in his first Encyclical Evangelii Gaudium. It was de Lubac who coined the phrase “spiritual worldliness” that Pope Francis likes to use so often. He also coined the “narcissist” accusation against those who uphold the divine law.
Suffice it to say that Pope John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Francis have all sung the praises of Henri de Lubac, the architect of the new theology. They have similarly praised Hans Urs von Balthasar, another who was censured during the reign of Pius XII for expressing heterodox views. Yes, they have all known each other a long, long time, as research into the names consistently links them all as close associates from their earliest days.
As the old adage goes: “Show me your friends and I’ll tell you what you are”
Here are a few links to some other interesting reading on the subject of de Lubac and Haring.
http://www.waragainstbeing.com/partii-brokencisterns
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/the-historical-roots-of-dissent-from-vatican-ii-to-the-synod-on-the-family
Gerontius
I should have included the name of Benedict XVI among those Modernist Popes with high regard for de Lubac and his new theology. I should also have emphasised more clearly that Fr. Haring proposed a morality that is subjective, open to evolutionary change in accordance with the times and individual conscience, which he calls “discernment” to make it sound religious. His perverse ideas are of course completely at odds with the divine law (the Commandments), and yet Pope Francis endorses them.
Athanasius,
Many thanks for your comprehensive and very interesting replies.
….open to evolutionary change…..
It would seem that current modernist thought has been influenced to a large extent, by the late Fr. Pierre Teilhard De Chardin SJ. These extracts from wIkipedia:
Fields Paleontology, philosophy, theology, cosmology,
evolutionary theory
Influenced Henri de Lubac, Thomas Berry, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Léopold Sédar Senghor, Pope Benedict XVI
End of Wiki Extracts.
Teilhard has garnished a significant amount of attention in recent years. Those of the “New Age” movement have latched on to many of his ideas, and he has even been dubbed “Father of the New Age Movement.” Pope Benedict XVI, in a homily delivered in 2008, had spoken on the relationship between original sin and evolution, noting that there is no contradiction between the two (excluding atheistic assumptions).
This, however, does not mean he supported Teilhard’s views on the issue, despite the claims of some. There was an animated controversy within the Church over nuns who supported Teilhard’s notion of “conscious evolution.” Cardinal Gerhard Muller, head of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, emphatically stated that such notions stand in stark contrast to Christian revelation and truth.
In Laudato Si Pope Francis mention Teilhard de Chardin. This is the first time that Teilhard de Chardin was mentioned in a papal encyclical. St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI had previously rehabilitated and endorsed the ideas of Teilhard in their writings and speeches but Laudato Si, and specifically footnote 53, was the first time Teilhard de Chardin made it in an encyclical.
For me, evolution in all its forms, sources and manifestation is nothing more than gnostic nonsense and an attack on the Genealogy of Our Lord AND an attack on the Dogma of the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OF OUR LADY.
Gerontius
You are absolutely correct about Teilhard de Chardin, he and Fr. George Tyrell were the Jesuit architects of Modernism. Faithless men who introduced evolutionism into Catholic theology.
Modernism is at its heart evolutionary: everything is in the process of change, nothing is fixed. It is this evolutionary principle that gives the Modernist what St. Pius X described as imminance, the notion that the religious sense is less a divine gift than a charism of nature, “the latent seed”, of the Gospel, they claim. From this they peddle the false idea that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy because they all proceed from this latent seed, even if they are all at different levels of evolutionry development. Hence ecumenism and inter-religious initiatives.
Research shows that de Lubac, von Balthasar and all Popes since Vatican II were heavily influenced by these two men. Pope Francis, a Jesuit, is the most infected of them all, to the extent in fact that he, as you state, mentions Teilhard positively in his Encyclical and now gives the impression that the Church’s moral teaching, like her doctrinal teaching, is subjective, open to evolutionary change. The alternative for him is not fidelity to God’s divine law but rather “rigidity”, a failure to “discern”, “mental instability”, “narcisism”, etc. It truly beggars belief.
Editor states,
“Fr Despard’s infirm parents face losing the home in Motherwell they have lived in for more than 30 years, with the courts moving to seize his assets after he lost a battle with the Catholic Church to stay in the parish house and costs were awarded against him.”
Editor states,
“We had a blogger on the “Naming & Shaming” thread, all guns blazing at the thought of a housekeeper (and her occasionally resident family) being made homeless if she were asked to leave a presbytery in order to remove all appearance of scandal. It will be interesting to see if the Diocese of Motherwell does, indeed, make Father Despard’s elderly parents homeless in order to pay the costs of a court action which the Diocese (not Fr Despard) raised – and whether any righteous individuals will speak up to object to that scandal.”
Editor states,
“A friend of mine was once a priest’s housekeeper. When he died, the next priest brought his own housekeeper and my friend applied to the Council – and was granted – a new home, plus she successfully sought alternative employment.”
Alex F,
What is your point?
Alex F
I’m not entirely certain of your reasons for posting these various quotes of Editor, but I assume it is an effort to highlight apparently contradictory statements she has made.
If so, I can tell you that there are no contradictions in these juxtaposed quotes. Note that Fr. Despard’s parents are said to be infirm (indicating old age) and have lived in that property for thirty years. Where are they to go at their age?
The other two examples speak of one housekeeper who was able to find a council house and young enough to land new employment by her own volition The other housekeeper is living with her children in the presbytery with the parish priest, which is clearly scandalous. I suppose there is only a comparison of sorts to be made if you remove morality from the equation. But that’s an option for godless secularists, not Catholics.
Athanasius,
Thank you very much for that. You are correct to suggest that Alex F is trying to discredit me. And, I mean, I really do care…
Clearly, Alex F has forgotten his own statements indicating that Catholic Truth is wrong to follow up the scandal outlined on the “Naming” thread giving as one of his reasons, the possibility that the housekeeper and family would find themselves homeless. I should emphasise that the housekeeper’s family do not live there all the time but visit / stay over often enough to have their own accommodation set aside within the presbytery.
In response to Alex F’s argument that we might be the cause of the housekeeper ending up homeless, I was making the point that no housekeeper is guaranteed a job for life, and I gave my own friend’s situation from some years ago as a case in point. As you rightly point out, in any case, the “housekeeper” example is entirely different from the plight of the parents of Fr Despard, who should not be made to suffer homelessness because of their son’s dispute with the diocese.
I should have made clear that Fr Despard’s parents are NOT living in church property. They have their own home; I believe they bought their Council house and it is that property which is to be sold to pay the diocese’s court costs. I think I’m correct in saying that they put it in Father’s name, which allows the court to seize it as one of his assets.
Special prayers for papa Francis, please!
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/11/for-record-in-latest-interview-pope.html#more
Crofterlady
Strange that you should link that Rorati article just as Gerontius and I are discussing Fr. Bernard Harings bitter influence on the moral teaching of the Church, and on Pope Francis. Here’s one of Haring’s classic declarations straight from the mouth of the Pope in that article:
“On the subject of morality, “I note the absence of discernment in the formation of priests;” the Pope stated. “We run the risk of getting used to seeing things in “black or white” when it comes to what is legal. “We are rather closed, in general, to discernment. One thing is clear: today, in a certain number of seminaries, a rigidity that is far from a discernment of situations has been introduced. And that is dangerous, because it can lead us to a conception of morality that has a casuistic sense.”
For Haring this meant that the laws of God and Church (Pope Francis’ “rigidity”) should be cast aside on the basis of changed times and a new concept of primacy of conscience, which he calls “discernment”. Pius XII condemned this as heresy and censured Fr. Haring.
Athanasius,
“I note the absence of discernment in the formation of priests;” the Pope stated.
Any bets on his meaning, Discernment of Spirits? Formation of Exorcists?
Gerontius
Alas, when Pope Francis says “discernment” he means dissembling. Discernment for the Modernist means looking for ways to circumvent doctrinal teaching.
Discernment of spirits and the formation of exorcists were part of the Thomistic programme in seminaries, a programme that the Modernists disdained. They don’t do the supernatural! So when the Pope speaks of priestly formation and discernment we may be sure he doesn’t speak in the Traditional sense that Catholics understand.
OnePeterFive is reporting that the College of Cardinals supports Pope Francis
http://www.onepeterfive.com/cardinal-hummes-on-the-dubia-the-whole-college-of-cardinals-is-with-the-pope/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Onepeterfive+%28OnePeterFive%29
I wonder if all the UK bishops would say the same thing if they were polled?
Margaret Mary,
Cardinal Hummes is one of the Francis wolves, and, like all the rest of them, a clever propagandist (euphemism for: liar). His remarks are an obvious attempt to shore up the revolution as it begins to crack and crumble, and as Francis continues to “boil with rage” over the dubia.
Your Holiness, you ain’t seen nothin’, yet…
RCA Victor,
That’s a relief. I thought “there’s no hope at all” if all the cardinals bar 4 support the Francis revolution. I keep looking for the next step, the public correction, promised by Cardinal Burke. Let’s hope it comes sooner rather than later.
Amen to that! 2017 could be a very interesting year!
Is this a serious threat against the 4 Cardinals who asked Pope Francis for clarification of Amoris Laetitia?
http://voxcantor.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/bergoglian-dean-pinto-four-cardinals.html
Would the Pope seriously carry this threat out? I hope rather the next step be the public correction taking place instead.
Theresa Rose,
If Francis will resort to threats instead of just insults, he will sink his own ship even faster, as he will have open, widespread rebellion on his hands – esp. if he carries out those threats. However, I notice there is a seriously erroneous statement directly above the picture of, presumably, an angry Mons. Pinto, who looks like he is trying to cast a spell on someone. The error is this:
“And a heretic cannot be Pope!”
Unfortunately, this is a variant of sedevacantism. A Pope cannot be labelled a heretic until he is judged guilty of that crime by a Council – which, as we’ve discussed before, cannot be convened without two public warnings, and then, only if the Pope refuses to recant his error. (The dubia do not constitute a warning, they are a preliminary step).
I’ve warned bloggers before to ignore this “Vox Cantoris” blog, since they feature a link to Fr. Paul Nicholson, the smarmy boor (and SSPX-hater) who published a hit piece against Fr. Gruner right after he passed away.
That said, I’m not surprised that such threats are being issued. They only put this sorry pontificate in its true light (darkness), and strengthen the hand of the faithful Cardinals.
RCA Victor,
Thank you. I’d forgotten your warning of the Vox Cantor blog. My memory is worse than our Editor. True to say that the Pope and Bishop need our prayers.
Theresa Rose,
My memory isn’t so great either: Editor who? 🙂
Theresa Rose,
On the same subject, here’s a real masterpiece from Christopher Ferrara, complete with great music and wit:
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/2906-don-vito-warns-the-four-cardinals-your-red-caps-will-sleep-with-the-fishes
The comments are worth reading too, here’s one:
javcus • 3 hours ago
This guy Pio Vito Pinto appeared in 1978 in Pecorelli list of Italian Freemasons in the Church, symbolic name: PIPIVI
This is the link to the Pecorelli list to which the comment refers:
http://en.rightpedia.info/w/Pecorelli_list
“Don Vito Pinto Corleone” – Arf Arf Arf, Luv it !
In the Light of the Law A Canon Lawyer’s Blog
Cardinals in the Church have rights too
November 29, 2016
The rashest reaction to the “Four Cardinals’ Five Dubia” so far is that from Bp. Frangiskos Papamanolis, President of the Bishops’ Conference of Greece, whose railing against the questions posed by Cdls. Brandmüller, Burke, Caffarra, and Meisner in regard to Pope Francis’ Amoris laetitia must be read to be believed. The Greek prelate hurls epithets such as apostasy, sacrilege, heresy, schism, at four brothers in the episcopate (brothers making text-book use of their rights under Canon 212 § 3 to pose doctrinal and disciplinary questions that urgently need addressing in our day) giving little indication that he even knows what those canonical-theological terms mean. I’d like to think that even the staunchest defenders of Amoris cringed when they read Papamanolis. Perhaps I am naïve.
While other contenders for an over-reaction prize can be suggested, here I consider the speculations voiced by the Dean of the Roman Rota, Msgr. Pio Pinto, namely, that Pope Francis might strip the four cardinals of their cardinatial dignity. Setting aside how inappropriate it is for one of the Church’s highest judicial officers to speculate publicly on the possible legal liability of and canonical consequences against bishops as yet uncharged with any crime, let’s review a pope’s canonical authority over prelates holding the office of cardinal.
Eleven canons (1983 CIC 349-359) regulate the institution of cardinal in the Roman Church, including one norm, Canon 351 § 2, that states in pertinent part that “From the moment of the announcement [that the pope has created some cardinals,] they are bound by the duties and possess the rights defined by law.” And what might those rights be?
Though largely honorific in nature, “cardinal” is, at least for those under age 80, also an “office” in the Church (1983 CIC 145) authorizing, among other things, one’s voting in a papal conclave (Universi Dominci Gregis [1996] 33). Appointments to the office of cardinal are made for an “indefinite period”, meaning that one holding such an appointment can be “removed” from said office for “grave causes according to the manner of proceeding defined in law” (1983 CIC 193 § 1) or could be “deprived” of said office as punishment for a canonical crime duly alleged and proven (1983 CIC 196 § 1). The suggestion that Brandmüller, et al., have committed any canonical “crime” is risible, so that leaves only the possibility of Francis treating a cardinal’s asking questions about his document Amoris as constituting “grave cause” to remove four cardinals from office (and along the way eliminating two electors currently eligible for the next papal conclave). But Francis (who alone can judge a cardinal, 1983 CIC 1405 § 1, 2º) has not said word one about stripping the four cardinals of their dignities nor of banning any of them from a conclave; such speculation is, so far, entirely Pinto’s.
But assuming, against all precedent and common sense, that one’s publicly asking the pope to clarify important questions raised in the wake of his document amounts to canonical “grave cause” for stripping several prelates of their offices, it would still remain to honor at every stage of the removal process numerous canonical rights expressly guaranteed all the Christian faithful, including the ability to “defend the rights which they possess in the Church in the competent ecclesiastical forum”, the right to “be judged according to the prescripts of law applied with equity”, and the right “not to be punished with canonical penalties except according to the norms of law.” 1983 CIC 221. Note that depriving one of “a power, office, function, right, privilege, faculty, favor, title, or insignia, even merely honorary” is an expiatory penalty for crime under Canon 1336 § 1, 2º, so the standards of proof should be high indeed (1983 CIC 18). How anyone can conclude, then, based on the facts at hand, that the four cardinals are at risk for deprivation of their office, escapes me.
No one, least of all the four cardinals in question, challenges the special authority that a pope enjoys over the Church (1983 CIC 331) nor do they harbor any illusions that a pope could be forced to answer the questions they posed. My hunch is that four cardinals, while they would welcome a papal reply, are probably content with having formally preserved these vital questions for a day when a direct answer might be forthcoming—although they might yet exercise their own episcopal office as teachers of the faith (1983 CIC 375) and propose answers on their own authority. For that, these men are, I think, prepared to accept personal ridicule and to suffer misunderstanding and misrepresentation of their actions and motives.
But an actual assault against their offices and against their possible roles in a future papal election? No, I don’t see that happening.
https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2016/11/29/cardinals-in-the-church-have-rights-too/
RCA Victor
Yes, sister of Dr. Who!
RCA Victor & Athanasius,
Watch it! I’ve been busy the entire day and nothing to do with either Advent or Christmas, believe me. Not a moment to spare. But now – I’m back!
“Editor Who?” First time I’ve laughed all day!
“Yes, Sister of Dr Who!” Second time I’ve laughed all day!
Theresa Rose: your dig at my memory has cost you the Christmas bonus. Laugh? I thought I’d never start! 😀
With some Greek numbskull of a Bishop calling the four Cardinals heretics, schismatics and apostates and with another saying that Pope Francis might throw them out of the College of Cardinals, who can say now that he is not within a Church that is not only riven by myriad heresies but is in a state of more-or-less formal schism?
Happy St Andrews Day to all our bloggers in Scotland.
Elizabeth
Thank you. I, too, wish all my fellow Scots a blessed St. Andrew’s day.
Happy Feast Day everyone – I was disappointed that we didn’t sing When Christ Our Lord To Andrew Said… after Mass today, and I could only find this abbreviated version on YouTube
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhJBvy7ScKY&w=854&h=480%5D
Below, the lyrics:
When Christ our Lord to Andrew cried:
“Come, thou, and follow me,”
the fisher left his net beside the Sea of Galilee.
To teach the truth the Master taught,
to tread the path he trod
was all his will and thus he brought
unnumbered souls to God.
When Andrew’s hour had come,
and he was doomed, like Christ to die,
he kissed his cross exultingly,
and this his noble cry:
“O noble cross! O precious wood!
I long have yearned for thee;
uplift me to my only good
who died on thee for me.”
The faith that Andrew taught once shone
o’er all this kingdom fair;
the cross that Jesus died upon
was honoured everywhere.
But times once changed and Andrew’s name
was for a while forgot;
the cross, though set in kingly crown,
became a sign of shame.
St Andrew now in bliss above,
thy fervent prayers renew
that Scotland yet again may love
the faith, entire and true;
that I the cross allotted me
may bear with patient love!
‘Twill lift me, as it lifted thee,
to reign with Christ above.
Vianney, thank you for that – but only two verses?
That’s SO Scottish. I used to notice when I lived in England that we sang ALL the verses of every hymn. Up here, the statutory two only. Drives me crazy. See below – moi singing long after the rest of the congregation have finished their two verses…
https://motmob.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/singing_in_church.gif
Editor, I had meant to put a comment on about the video but it went off before I got a chance. I know what you mean about the number of verses. Usually at our chapel we have three or four verses but I have heard that in Ireland, in most churches, the final hymn is usually only one verse. I have looked at Masses broadcast on line from Irish churches and it seems to be true.
This from 1P5
Extract:
Just how far the confusion in the Church reaches and spreads nowadays is shown by the third event coming to us from the German-speaking world. Cardinal Karl Lehmann – one of the members of the progressivist “Sankt Gallen Group” – has recently made another stunning commentary in which he now invites all bishops to an act of disobedience toward the Church. As Peter Winnemöller, author at Kath.net reports:
http://www.onepeterfive.com/confusion-conflict-and-chaos-increase-in-the-wake-of-the-dubia/
LOL! The latest is that Pope Francis has already answered the dubia!
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/11/29/the-pope-has-already-answered-the-four-cardinals-questions-says-fr-spadaro/
It’s crazy!
I agree. I actually think he’s quite narcissistic.
Those “Black Hermit” Monks (a small group) are in the news again – recall last year they had got into trouble in England for distributing pamphlets condemning homosexual behaviour (so much for freedom of speech).
This time the leader (Damon Kelly) has disrupted two Church of Scotland services in Argyll, deriding the Presbyterian Churches as “synagogues of sin”. He was then taken to court but was not jailed despite arguing with the Sheriff.
While I admire his zeal – its much better to speak frankly regarding protestantism, than it is to legitimise and praise it (like the Bishops do) – I think his tactics here are a misjudgement.
It would be much better to engage with people as they left their services, rather than to disrupt their services, which will always be seen as aggressive and disrespectful – and so counterproductive.
Still, even if nothing else, it is slightly amusing to think of the Bishops’ curled toes over this incident:
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/courageous-monk-preaching-to-heretics.html
Gabriel Syme,
I agree with you – priceless, really comical to read, but not the most sensible tactic in the world.
Speaking of “the world” – I was intrigued by the author’s description of Scotland as “one of the darkest places in the earth”. I think that epithet must go to the Vatican these days!
Don’t know if other readers know this work by William Mundy, one the great Catholic composers who made England the centre of Sacred Music for much of the 16th Century.It’s just astonishing:
This is quite a good article from 1P5, regarding the current situation with the Dubia etc.
The article doesn’t tell traditionalists anything new, but to see such discussion becoming mainstream is very encouraging. Some excerpts:
At long last, the “third way” of comfortable “conservatism” is being demonstrated to be false. “Conservative” Catholic bishops are being handed a long overdue lesson in the third and most neglected of the Laws of Rational Thought: that there can be no third thing between yes and no.
and
Under the “great” conservative pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, denial allowed this festering cancer to grow unchecked in every corner of the Church. The effects of the effeminate terror of confrontation demonstrated by so many churchmen – their decades of refusing to stand up for the Faith out of fear of looking “divisive” – have come home to roost. It is not the so-called “liberals” who have created this situation; it is the good men who have spent fifty years doing nothing.
http://www.onepeterfive.com/bishops-enter-war/
Please could everyone sign this petition against the despicable Nicola Sturgeon, who is considering using Scottish taxpayers money to provide “free” abortions for women who live in Northern Ireland (where infanticide is illegal).
http://www.citizengo.org/en/lf/39056-nicola-sturgeon-considers-offering-free-abortions-women-n-ireland-we-must-urge-her-not
It is particularly repugnant that Sturgeon, who has previously attempted to make political capital via angling for sympathy over the fact that she once had a miscarriage, now attempts to make political capital via proposing to kill infants “for free”.
A completely amoral woman, wholly unfit for the office she holds.
Gabriel Syme,
Thank you for posting that petition. I’ve now signed.
Also signed.
Also signed.
Gabriel Syme
Duly signed.
Gabriel Syme,
Signed as requasted.
Thanks to all who signed the petition.
Finally, one of the Bishops (+Keenan) has managed to say something about Sturgeons proposal. Though sadly it seems as if his argument is based not on the sanctity of innocent life, but on the fact that Sturgeons proposal “disrespects the democratic will of Northern Ireland”.
Still, judging from the public comments posted so far, he has managed to get up the noses of the usual suspects and so that is something, at least. The arguments used to justify abortion are typically absurd – it is both amazing and dismaying how ignorant, callous and amoral the general public are.
(I haven’t read the full article as you need to log into the Herald to do so).
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14947906.Nicola_Sturgeon___s_Irish_abortion_offer_is__disrepectful___says_Bishop/
https://weoccupyearth.wordpress.com/2016/11/21/hillary-clinton-pizzagate-child-trafficking-pedophilia-scandal/
KILLORY CLINTON AND PIZZAGATE IT IS NOT ABOUT FAST FOOD!!!!!!!!!
Wendy
I’ve been following this. There are no words.
There is also a report that Julian Assange is missing – believed by some to be dead. He has not been seen for a few weeks, and the WikiLeaks site has, apparently, been hacked.
Therese,
That report about Julian Assange being missing / dead and CIA took over Wikileaks, is a hoax, according to the Daily Star (which I don’t read, BTW! I just caught the headline!).
Here’s a report from 5 hours ago
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/738767/Wikileaks-Julian-Assange-free-United-Nations-UK-Government-appeal
Lily
Oh thanks – I hope that’s true.
Wendy Walker,
I don’t think that website is reliable. They are reporting that Assange is dead and he’s not. So, I’m not sure if the Killory story is true either. I’d want to read it somewhere else known to be trustworthy, before I’d believe it.
How about this for leading souls to the edge of Perdition?
Belgium bishop co-authors book in support of pre-marital sex, same-sex relations
Another question:
Whilst he was reigning, Pope Benedict stated that the Church needs to be cleansed of this filth, so I ask, is it likely that action will be taken to protect Souls, bought at such a great price by Our Lord, by having this walking abomination and others like him defrocked and excommunicated?
There can be no compromise with evil in any of its forms sources or manifestations – It MUST BE WITHSTOOD AND DEFEATED.
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5234/belgium_bishop_coauthors_book_in_support_of_premarital_sex_samesex_relations.aspx
Gerontius
that’s really beyond belief, a bishop co-authoring a book like that. He’ll roast in Hell unless he repents. I cannot begin to comprehend the ways his mind works, and those like him.
Pope Benedict knew about this filth, spoke openly about it and yet still didn’t do anything about it. Maybe he’s going to need to repent as well, and at his age, sooner rather than later IMHO.
Lily,
Many thanks for your reply.
Here are some words of truth from a true son of St. Ignatius, Fr. John Hardon, on the Novissimi.
Four Last Things:
Death, than which nothing is more certain;
Judgement, than which nothing is more strict;
Hell, than which nothing is more horrible;
and Heaven, than which nothing is more beautiful!”
John Hardon S.J.
I admit to having a great fear of my coming judgment.
Gerontius,
“I admit to having a great fear of my coming judgment.”
Me, too. Big time.
But then I read the following and have been trying to mend my faithless ways ever since:
Saint Gertrude’s Boundless Confidence in Our Lord
Supreme, unstinting trust in God’s mercy, and boundless confidence in His love, are keys in obtaining sanctity. The Holy Fathers have always taught that the measure of our hope and confidence is the measure of the graces which we receive from Heaven because it is through our unreserved confidence in Him that God is most honoured and glorified. Nothing will be denied to an unlimited confidence. Our Lord revealed: “It is impossible that anyone should not receive all that he has believed and hoped to obtain. . . . when men hope great things from Me I will always grant them more than they expect.” Click here to read more
Editor,
Many thanks for your uplifting reply dear Lady.
Saint Gertrude – yes indeed. A re-read of SAINT GERTRUDE THE GREAT: HERALD OF DIVINE LOVE is long overdue.
Should give a fine follow-on to The Imitation of Christ
Just found this sermon again, which I first read years ago. Good reading for Advent, I would say . . . if you haven’t read it, I urge you to – if you have – read it again! A blessed Advent to you all from WF.
The sermon is titled “The Little Number of Those Who Are Saved” by St Leonard of Port Maurice. http://www.olrl.org/snt_docs/fewness.shtml
Anyone hear any news about John Vennari’s surgery (serious intestinal blockage related to his cancer)? Still praying for him…
RCA Victor,
I’ve just checked CFN and The Remnant and there is no update on either site.
Let’s hope it’s a case of “no news is good news”.
Dear All, on the topic of the infiltration of the Church by its enemies (Masons, judaizers, protestants, Communists): I would be grateful if readers could list here the various evidences that we have now of this infiltration’s reality (this is for a book I am planning to write).
We all know about the Alta Vendita and Bella Dodd.
Then there was a Romanian former military intelligence Colonel who wrote a book about Moscow’s plan to destroy the Church from within but I’ve forgotten his name.
We know when the plague of homosexual priests started (mid 1950s).
We know about the list of ecclesiastical Masons made public in Italy in the late 1960s / 70s (the man who released it was later shot dead).
What other instances and citations can readers offer? If you would like to write privately, you can do so to benedict.carter@cantab.net
Benedict,
The following article from 1P5 will be of particular interest to you… (as it is to all of us).
Seems the name of the priest who is one of the fiercest critics of the four cardinals’ dubia, is found on the famous “Lista Pecorelli” — a list of alleged Freemasons within the Church:
FROM ONE PETER FIVE BLOG…
I don’t know about you, but I just love a good Freemasonic conspiracy.
Let’s face it: Freemasons have been trying to infiltrate the Church for over a century. They even announced their intentions in the mid 1800s, and were condemned by several popes who had no qualms about expressing the danger they represented to the Faith.
The ubiquity of the threat, however, began to numb most Catholics to its reality. The subtlety of their work makes them appear innocuous, and this is by design. Their method of infiltration was laid out in a document known as The Permanent Instruction on the Alta Vendita, written in 19th Century. In it, they proclaimed their grand designs in a way that, in hindsight, can be seen to have been marvelously effective:
The Pope, whoever he may be, will never come to the secret societies. It is for the secret societies to come to the Church… The work we have undertaken is not the work of a day, nor of a month, nor of a year. It may last many years, a century perhaps, but in our ranks the soldier dies and the fight continues… Now then, in order to secure to us a Pope in the manner required, it is necessary to fashion for that Pope a generation worthy of the reign of which we dream. Leave on one side old age and middle life, go to the youth, and, if possible, even to the infancy. Never speak in their presence a word of impiety or impurity. Maxima debetur puero reverentia. Never forget these words of the poet for they will preserve you from licenses which it is absolutely essential to guard against for the good of the cause. In order to reap profit at the home of each family, in order to give yourself the right of asylum at the domestic hearth, you ought to present yourself with all the appearance of a man grave and moral. Once your reputation is established in the colleges…and in the seminaries – once you shall have captivated the confidence of professors and students, act so that those who are engaged in the ecclesiastic state should love to seek your conversation…then little by little you will bring your disciples to the degree of cooking desired. When upon all the points of ecclesiastical state at once, this daily work shall have spread our ideas as light, then you will appreciate the wisdom of the counsel in which we take the initiative… That reputation will open the way for our doctrines to pass to the bosoms of the young clergy, and go even to the depths of convents. In a few years the young clergy will have, by force of events, invaded all the functions. They will govern, administer, and judge. They will form the council of the Sovereign. They will be called upon to choose the Pontiff who will reign; and that Pontiff, like the greater part of his contemporaries, will be necessarily imbued with the…humanitarian principles which we are about to put into circulation… Let the clergy march under your banner in the belief always that they march under the banner of the Apostolic Keys. You wish to cause the last vestige of tyranny and of oppression to disappear? Lay your nets like Simon Barjona. Lay them in the depths of sacristies, seminaries, and convents, rather than in the depth of the sea… You will bring yourselves as friends around the Apostolic Chair.
“
With this in mind, I found it really quite interesting that more than one of our readers has pointed out that Father Pio Vito Pinto — Dean of the Roman Rota and perhaps now the loudest of the critics of the Four Cardinals — is to be found on the famous “Lista Pecorelli” — a list of alleged Freemasons within the Church.
I say “famous” because many people know about it. I didn’t. But the list has been around since the 1970s, compiled by the Italian investigative journalist — later murdered — who gave it its name: Carmine “Mino” Pecorelli.
In a comment on the 1P5 Facebook page, reader Andrew Guernsey writes:
Here is a high quality version of the original Pecorelli list, which famously includes Bugnini, the architect of the New Mass https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B65x5F_RAFfwQVRjSUVGRUdaWmM/view
Investigative journalist and a member of the elite Propaganda Due (P2) Lodge, Carmine “Mino” Pecorelli, Director of L’Osservatorio Politico, a press agency specializing in political scandals and crimes, was murdered on March 20, 1979. Prior to his death he published what became known as “Pecorelli’s List.” It contained the names (code names and card names as well) of alleged Freemasons in high level Vatican offices during the reign of Paul VI. Among the prominent prelates identified as Freemasons were Jean Cardinal Villo, whose family is believed to have historic ties to the Rosicrucian Lodge; Agostino Cardinal Casaroli; Ugo Cardinal Poletti; Sebastiano Cardinal Baggio; Joseph Cardinal Suenens; and Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, C.M.; and Archbishop Paul Casimir Marcinkus, to name a few. END OF EXTRACT.
To read entire article and see copies of the relevant documents, click here
Benedict,
You May already have this information but if not I hope you find the following both useful and fruitful.
http://chiesaviva.com/chi%20era%20realmente%20don%20luigi%20villa/chi%20era%20realmente%20don%20luigi%20villa%20ing.pd
Who Really Was Father Luigi Villa?by Dr. Franco Adessa
EXTRACT:
One might not even attempt to understand who, in fact, Fr. Luigi Villa was,
without taking into account the words spoken by Pope Pius XII to his
Pro-Secretary of State, Card. Domenico Tardini:
Tell Mgr. Giambattista Bosio I approve the assignment entrusted
to Fr. Luigi Villa from Padre Pio. I grant him a papal mandate,
he must earn a degree in Dogmatic Theology and he must be entrusted to the Cardinals:Alfredo Ottaviani, Pietro Palazzini and Pietro Parente.
Also tell Msgr. Bosio that,in the history of the Church,
this is the first time that such a task has been entrusted to a young priest.
And also tell him that it will be the last.
THE PAPACY: AN EXPOSE OF THE MASONIC INVASION
Based on the Writings of Father Luigi Villa, Th.D
and the Book Who is Father Luigi Villa?
by Dr. Franco Adessa
Published by the Apostolate of Our Lady of Good Success
http://chiesaviva.com/chi%20era%20realmente%20don%20luigi%20villa/chi%20era%20realmente%20don%20luigi%20villa%20ing.pdf
EXTRACT FROM:
http://freemasonrywatch.org/hans.kueng.culture.award.german.freemasons.html
Report: Exiled Theologian Hans Kueng Earns ‘Culture Award of German Freemasons’ for ‘a Lifetime of Service to the Craft’
and
“We control the seminaries, the academic departments of theology, the catechetical and liturgical institutions, the publishing houses, the magazines that matter and the chanceries. Most of the bishops are now on our side and those that aren’t have been neutralised. Anybody who wants a future in the hierarchy or the Catholic academy has no choice but to co-operate.”
‘Father’ Hans Kung
Gerontius,
There really isn’t any evidence that Padre Pio gave Fr Villa an assignment, and I don’t think he would have done that. I’ve read that stuff lots of times and I’m not convinced by it at all. The quote from Pius XII doesn’t seem right either. I’m very cynical about the Father Luigi Villa claims. I’ve read warnings about him on this blog although to my shame I can’t remember the details, LOL!
Michaela,
I absolutely agree with you that there is no evidence whatsoever that Pope Pius XII entrusted any kind of anti-Masonic crusade to Fr. Luigi Villa. I am one who in the past has criticised certain claims apparently made by Fr. Villa, mostly by sedevacantists and schismatics. I am also generally opposed to Catholics getting too involved in Masonic and other conspiracy theories, which are a waste of valuable time. We know these people have infiltrated the Church to some degree or other, the difficulty is identifying them with anything close to solid evidence.
My approach is the belief that, whether intentional or not, the Popes and bishops since Vatican II, whether intentional or not, God knows, have acted to undermine the faith handed down in such a way that the Freemasonic ideal for the Church and the world has become a reality. That Freemasonry is delighted with the liberal reformers in the Church is obvious from their public testimonies, the most gushing being the Masonic tributes paid to Paul VI upon his death.
I see no point in Catholics spending half their lives or more digging for circumstantial evidence to prove something we already know, i.e., that the Church is infiltrated. Indeed Paul VI himself declared that “the smoke of Satan has entered the Church and set her on a path of auto-destruction”. Names of culprits will not change that tragedy.
Our Lord is in charge of His Church and He will sort matters straight when the time of chastisement is over. Our Lady of Fatima has told us ordinary Catholics what we have to do to sanctify ourselves in the meantime, which is to say the rosary, keep the Commandments and do our duty in accordance with our state in life. That, she said, is all God now requires for salvation. Let’s not waste valuable time trying to identify the Church’s dark enemies within, it’s fruitless and often divisive.
If we recognise the Modernist errors and respectfully oppose and resist authorities who try to impose them, then we are doing well. We have no other remit from God.
Thanks for your reply Michaela.
There really isn’t any evidence that Padre Pio gave Fr Villa an assignment
Hmm… not so sure about that Michaela …absence of evidence does not necessarily imply evidence of absence.
The information was posted of course,in the hope that it would be of benefit to Benedict in his research.
Both the Fr. Villa extracts and references were taken from the website of the Apostolate of Our Lady of Good Success, and written by Dr. Franco Adessa.
I am of the opinion that Dr. Franco Adessa would have been very careful with his research before presenting his work for publication – likewise due care, I expect, would have been taken by the Apostolate of Our Lady of Good Success.
Anyway, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. Benedict has taken up a noble task. I hope his research will result in a future best-seller- I wish him every success, as I’m sure we all do.
Gerontius,
In such an important matter, we have to look for solid evidence. Imagine a lawyer in a murder trial prosecuting an accused person by saying “absence of evidence does not necessarily imply evidence of absence.” LOL!
The other thing I have to say is that I’ve never heard of this Dr Franco Adessa. I Googled to see if I could find out anything but all that I can find is different webpages repeating the same claims about Fr Villa without any information about Dr Adessa.
Have you any information, as to who he is, what kind of doctor he is, and how does he know that it’s all true etc?
Thanks Editor, yes indeed.
What, if anything, has come out of Russia or Eastern Europe since 1991 with regard to the Communist infiltration of the Church? Can anyone remember the name of the Romanian Colonel who wrote a book (1990s?) concerning this infiltration?
Any other evidence from a proven source would be gratefully received.
Benedict Carter,
I’ve never head of any Romanian Colonel so I Googled and found this at Wikipedia. Is this him? There is a section on the Vatican if you scroll down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_Mihai_Pacepa
Thank you Gerontius and Lily.
Athanasius’ attitude appears to be this: there is a group of serial killers out there, but we won’t bother trying to unmask it or know who are the individual killers because it’s “a waste of valuable time”.
I agree that much of the infiltration (do you accept that it exists? Your use of the phrase “conspiracy theory” at least suggests that you may not) is and will be unknowable in terms of who are the individuals and the exact chronology of events. However, to blithely ignore it altogether seems to me to be a gross disservice not only to the historical record but to the Church, as it shovels into the background the very reasons why we have the present Crisis in the first place.
On the contrary, to know the history is to be able begin to address to the present situation the right solutions.
I am not interested in an argument with you so any response to this will not be replied to.
Benedict Carter,
I think you do a disservice to Athanasius by your opening remarks about serial killers. That’s not what I took out of his comment. I don’t think it helps to be glib and to refuse to engage with someone just because they happen to disagree with you. What’s the point of blogging, then, LOL!
If you want to write a book on this, then good luck to you, but personally, I think there’s already loads of articles and books which deal with the infiltration of the Church. I don’t see much point in re-inventing the wheel.
I agree with Athanasius that it’s enough that we know the basic fact that the Church was infiltrated. His quote from Pope Paul VI is really all we need to quote to show that fact.
Benedict Carter
If you want to play amateur sleuth then go ahead and knock yourself out. I operate in the world of what can be established by absolute fact. I have been a writer for many years and it has always been my policy to avoid hearsay stories and circumstantial evidence for my own credibility’ sake. Truth is not served by a compilation of unsubstantiated claims.
Your “serial killers” comparison is wrong. First, because serial killers can be tracked and identified by appropriately trained law officers within a reasonable time of their crimes. Second, because mankind was not promised by Our Lord that the Gates of Hell will not prevail, he promised this to His Church and I trust in Our Lord’s promise.
Just to re-iterate what you clearly missed in my first comments, however. I know the Church to be infiltrated by the enemies of God, so there is no doubt on my part. I simply draw the line at wasting valuable time trying to identify members of secret societies on the basis of unsupported stories relating to Pius XII and Padre Pio, that they assigned a priest to identify and publicise the names of Masonic infiltrators in the Church. This Fr. Villa business has only recently surfaced on the Internet, promoted usually by bitter schismatics and sedevacantists. Does that not raise questions in your mind? I mean, it tells me that if Fr. Villa was even half good at his task he would have collected and revealed the names of the Church’s infiltrators decades ago. And what evidence is there now, apart from the three deceased protagonists just named? None whatsoever.
No, my advice is to spend your time wisely and profitably researching and writing a devotional book that will make Catholics want to sanctify themselves a little more, not one that will at best fill minds with inordinate suspicion, possibly even cause sins against charity and justice. There is no real profit for the Church or souls in what you propose because there is no sound evidence upon which to build a case. Why do you think Fr. Malchi Martin only revealed what he knew or suspected through novels? And he was a lot more in the know than any of us will ever be.
Athanasius,
Your advice to Benedict Carter reminds me of some advice I was given by our Prior almost 4 years ago. I had a strange dream which I could have sworn was suggesting that I write a book about the “Paul VI double” theory (this was also before I was advised to be very wary of dreams).
Attempting to follow up on this, I discovered several websites where this theory had already been explored, with photos and voice-print graphs allegedly proving the existence of a double. I began to wonder what the purpose would be, then, of writing a book, so I took the problem into Confession.
Our Prior, though he was familiar with the theory, advised me firmly against it, saying that he thought it would only do further harm to the Papacy. I then dropped the idea.
Likewise, I’m not sure what Benedict Carter hopes to accomplish by trying to unearth names, when it is already widely known, as Michaela points out above, that the Vatican has been marching under the Masonic banner since 1958, under various disguises such as “aggiornamento,” “ecumenism,” “collegiality,” and “religious freedom.”
In fact, I hope he does not put himself in danger…he might find that too persevering a study will be the equivalent of stepping into a river full of piranha…
RCA Victor,
Like you, I used to read about all these things, Paul VI doubles, Sister Lucy doubles, the Masons in the Vatican, etc., until I got so engrossed with it, and at the same time confused by it all, that I soon realised that I was chasing shadows. That was a long time ago but I suppose, like me, you have reached the same conclusion. You know what they say: “with age comes wisdom”!
I’ve seen so many Traditional Catholics turn bitter and divisive over this stuff, the sedes, schismatics and others, that I now have nothing to do with it. Our chief business is to sanctify our souls and help the Church through this time of crisis. That’s best done by prayer, penance and spreading devotion to Our Lady. If I do write, and I know you have done a lot of writing in the past as well, I restrict myself to facts. That way I give no opportunity to the Church’s enemies to point the finger at me as some kind of conspiracy theorist nut. Solid facts they can’t argue against, that’s my battle ground.
Thank you (and Michaela) for helping to try emphasising this to Benedict Carter. I think he could do a great book on a devotional subject. He clearly has the passion for it. There’s quite enough conspiracy stuff going around already.
RCA Victor
I forgot to say that blogs like this are also a great apostolate during the crisis, helping to enlighten our fellow Catholics to the Church’s true bi-millennial teaching in a time of Modernist confusion and heresy.
Athanasius,
You know what they say: “with age comes wisdom”!
I didn’t know they said that. So, there’s hope for me yet 😀
Editor
There is if you reflect on the life span of Methuselah!! Kidding of course. I have never known anyone as wise as you. How you manage to give us all salaries, for example, and yet pay nothing out is just mind boggling.
Athanasius,
I’ll bet Editor has discovered the secret of fractional reserve banking – i.e. making money out of nothing…
Athanasius & RCA Victor,
I’m thinking of launching a Pity the Poor EditorCT fund to see if I can scrape up enough to book a holiday. I need to build up my strength to deal with certain bloggers here, no names, no pack drill!
Editor
Just so long as it doesn’t interfere with my Athansius Rest Fund (ARF!).
24 shares
Comments
Ryan Penza
Ryan Penza Don’t want pregnancy, don’t have sex. It’s as simple as that… and stop talking lies Ann.
Like · Reply · 2 · 29 November at 12:22 · Edited
Ryan Penza
Ryan Penza Women like Ann should be ashamed of themselves and shouldn’t be called ‘women’ any more.
Like · Reply · 2 · 29 November at 12:25
Stephen Genockey
Stephen Genockey Aisling destroyed poor Ann. She doesn’t even know the basics of how a contraceptive works (which we all know well she does and is just trying to change the definition to suits her cause and for the $$$s)
Like · Reply · 3 · 29 November at 12:40
Michael Petek
Michael Petek I destroyed her yesterday. When she spoke about decriminalising abortion, I pulled out the indictment from the Nuremberg Trials that determined abortion to be a crime against humanity of murder.
Like · Reply · 3 · 29 November at 15:10
Leigh de Paor
Leigh de Paor Hi Michael, would you be kind enough to provide a link to the document or a scanned PDF?
It would be very useful.
Thanks
Like · Reply · 1 December at 09:10
Wendy Walker
Write a reply…
Dorothy Boyett
Dorothy Boyett The pregnancy test will be negative because it is designed to detect hormones in the mothers blood stream which will not be detected until the developing embryo implants itself in the wall of the uterus. So BPAS and other abortion enthusiasts can claim the woman is not technically pregnant however a new life is there.
Like · Reply · 2 · 29 November at 14:40
Michael Petek
Michael Petek Actually, it is correct to say that pregnancy begins at implantation, though life has already begun at conception.
The Slovene word for it is “nosečnost” which is derived from the verb meaning “to carry”….See more
Like · Reply · 29 November at 15:08 · Edited
ABORT67
ABORT67 The popular understanding of “being pregnant” is “being with child”. To mislead people in this way is reprehensible of them.
Like · Reply · 1 · 30 November at 08:03
View more replies
Che Hall
Che Hall the vile old hag is a real nasty piece of work. Aisling Hubert showed the trash up for what she was…………….a mouthpice for a sick industry
Like · Reply · 1 · 30 November at 09:45
Michael Petek
Michael Petek You should have heard what her young hangers-on said to me at the book-signing event the previous evening. If you put to them the proposition that, if abortion ought not to be a crime, they’ll nod at you when you suggest that the SS Generals who were convicted and punished at Nuremberg for abortion were victims of a miscarriage of justice.
Like · Reply · 30 November at 10:19
Che Hall
Che Hall if the eyes are dead the soul is dead
Like · Reply · 30 November at 10:38
Becky Lynwood
Becky Lynwood She gets a bit personal doesn’t she!
Like · Reply · 1 · 30 November at 21:12
Wendy Walker
Write a reply…
ABORT67
ABORT67 While appreciating people’s anger, please express your thoughts, avoiding name calling – keep it polite. Many thanks.
Like · Reply · 1 · 30 November at 18:43
Michael Petek
Michael Petek “You just need to develop into a more adult and mature version of yourself.”
Best double entendre I’ve ever heard.
I twigged only this afternoon that Aisling was referring to the human embryo in general, not to Ann Furedi.
Like · Reply · 2 · 30 November at 18:47
Che Hall
Che Hall I fear it was lost on her!
Like · Reply · 30 November at 21:53
Wendy Walker
Write a reply…
Wendy Walker
Wendy Walker I am wondering how A Furedi Event held in Waterstones London went o n28/11/16.?..it was held to give information on her book about abortion many many pro life people contacted Waterstones telling them in no uncertain terms if this event went ahead they would permanently boycott Waterstones across the Country …Can anyone think of a more horrific way to spend an evening listening to Furedi ?…..
Like · Reply · 23 hrs
Michael Petek
Michael Petek I attended the event, and I didn’t find it particularly horrifying. What surprises me is that someone whom the Nuremberg Tribunal would have sent to the gallows for the killing of more people than Saddam Hussein could be so ordinary.
Like · Reply · 16 hrs · Edited
Wendy Walker
Write a reply…
ABORT67
ABORT67 You will find our post on this below Wendy Walker. The London team did a display outside in the freezing cold for three hours. Waterstones very kindly brought out hot drinks for the team. There were a couple of people (in the warm 🙂 ) inside who went in to hear her promotion of ‘The Moral Case for Abortion’. I imagine we will get feed back on that soon.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · 17 hrs · Edited
Wendy Walker
Wendy Walker well done and thank you so very much ………so grateful indeed
Like · Reply · Just now
Wendy Walker
Write a comment…
ABORT67
29 November at 09:47 ·
Loving this!
Like
Like
Love
Haha
Wow
Sad
Angry
CommentShare
1 1
Comments
Wendy Walker
Write a comment…
ABORT67
29 November at 09:40 ·
Aisling Hubert on Sky news now with Ann Furedi
Like
Like
Love
Haha
Wow
Sad
Angry
CommentShare
Chronological
5 5
Comments
View 3 more comments
ABORT67
ABORT67 Have you all seen it?
Like · Reply · 29 November at 12:34
Clare Margaret Therese
Clare Margaret Therese Wonderful. Look forward to link!
Like · Reply · 29 November at 13:39
ABORT67
ABORT67 It’s on the main page now.
Like · Reply · 29 November at 13:41
Wendy Walker
Write a comment…
ABORT67
28 November at 22:14 ·
Aisling Hubert will be back on SKY News tomorrow morning at 09:30 to discuss the morning after pill.
Like
Like
Love
Haha
Wow
Sad
Angry
CommentShare
4 Jean Stephenson and 3 others
2 shares
Comments
Wendy Walker
Write a comment…
ABORT67
28 November at 20:39 ·
Outside Ann Furedi’s book signing, confirming that there really is no moral case for abortion.
Ann, it doesn’t count if you just title your book “The Moral Case for Abortion” and then fail to make a convincing case.
Image may contain: 1 person
Like
Like
Love
Haha
Wow
Sad
Angry
CommentShare
Chronological
25 Jean Stephenson, George Lydda and 23 others
6 shares
Comments
Michael Petek
Michael Petek Well, I’m back from the Ann Furedi book signing. When she addressed the topic of decriminalising abortion I introduced the elephant in the room. I had with me the Indictment from the case of United States v Greifelt & ors [1948], the precedent that establishes abortion as a crime against humanity of murder in international criminal law.
I told her to her face that, had she been on trial alongside the SS, that Tribunal would have sent her to the gallows.
I had a conversation afterwards with her young followers, and I was able to get them to admit that, if they were right about abortion, then the SS officers should not have been tried for it, nor two of them convicted.
Like · Reply · 1 · 28 November at 23:45 · Edited
Michael Petek
Michael Petek She said that enabling abortion is an exercise in celebrating humanity and that it is inhumane to compel a woman to give birth against her will.
On a wide construction of “inhumane” I suppose she’s right; but she’d have an uphill struggle to convince me that compelling an unwilling woman to give birth is comparable in its inhumanity to the bestiality that international criminal law is designed to deal with.
If there were a born alive rule that prevents abortion from being legally a crime against humanity of murder, then there’s no law against encouraging abortion and providing abortion services, even if done for the purpose of destroying national and ethnic groups.
Like · Reply · 28 November at 23:57
Wendy Walker
Write a reply…
Wendy Walker
Write a comment…
Wonderful ABORT 67 went outside Waterstones on the night of Furedis book event ..they stood in freezing cold conditions to do so thats what I call dedication ….thanks to them so very much
Wendy Walker,
“When she spoke about decriminalising abortion, I pulled out the indictment from the Nuremberg Trials that determined abortion to be a crime against humanity of murder.”
Well done, the pro-lifer who made that point.
One of the members of the Father Despard support group rang just now to alert us to the following report in the Motherwell Times:
“However, a church ruling that he had made damaging accusations against priests and lay people in his book was overturned by a court in Rome, and a support group is calling for his re-instatement as parish priest in High Blantyre. The latest court action is said to be to recover previous legal costs. The house in question, a former council property, is in Fr Despard’s name.” Click here to read the entire report.
Editor
Do you know if there is anyone making a collection or doing a bit of crowd funding to help Fr Despard’s parents stay in what is their home rather than just their house?
I would certainly wish to contribute.
I really think it’s a disgrace the way this innocent couple are being treated
when you consider the Class A corruption and scandals that are being swept under the carpet every day.
These are the people who are quick to claim that they are now fully transparent regarding the Church scandals and then severely punish someone who brings it into the open. You couldn’t melt their brass necks with a blowtorch.
A Year of Mercy? A total and utter joke.
Frankier,
There was a small collection for Fr Despard some time ago but I doubt if they could cover the cost of a re-housing Father’s parents.
We’re watching this to see what happens. After all, if they can afford to pay for a beautiful bungalow in a prime location in the north of England for Cardinal O’Brien, they will have to do something to help Father Despard’s parents.
Or we’ll just HAVE to ask the Pope of Mercy to intervene…
Editor
I was thinking along the lines of funds to pay Fr Despard ‘s legal fees, which I understood to be the cause of the house being sold, rather than the cost of the house.
I would suggest he looks up his house insurance to see if he has legal cover which might cover the costs, even for an employment
tribunal. Most policies now have this cover available. He surely must have a claim for unfair dismissal, especially when more serious incidents have been “punished” by exile to a nice wee house in The Lake District.
I would have thought a half decent lawyer would win a case like this, especially when dealing with someone who acted like a bull in a china shop in an effort to get rid of them.
You know the mess the bull would leave behind and I’m certain the
bull who got rid of Fr Despard will be hoping there’s been no mess left on the shop floor that could finish up on his face.
Frankier,
Fr Despard has a good lawyer so I suppose he will be aware of all to do with the house.
Sorry, I meant to say wouldn’t worry about it.
Lily
He must be a good lawyer if his parents are going to lose their house.
If that’s the case I don’t see any reason why a parishioner would send an SOS to Catholic Truth.
I was only making a suggestion. Sometimes the things that are staring you in the face, especially when under stress, are the things you miss out on.
Frankier,
I just meant that he has a good lawyer so the lawyer will be dealing with the house matter, not to worry about it. I thought it was kind of you to worry about it. Sorry I was not clear enough, and I didn’t mean anything by my reply, so I’m sorry you have taken offence. Please forgive me.
I don’t remember any parishioner sending an SOS to Catholic Truth. The supporters of Fr Despard have kept the blog informed all along, this was just the latest, I thought. I must have missed it if they asked for financial help. I’m not in a position to give money and anyway it’s up to the diocese to look after its priests.
Saying that, I don’t suppose there is anything to stop you sending money to Fr Despard yourself if you want to do that. I suppose if you send a cheque to him care of the Diocese of Motherwell, they will send on his mail to him.
Lily
I don’t know whether you are having a laugh or not
but the Diocese of Motherwell is the last place I would send a cheque for Fr Despard. It would have more chance of getting to Fr Despard if I sent it to Barlinnie Prison. Are these not the ones who are giving him the grief?
When I mentioned the “SOS”” I was only referring to an alleged phone call to the Editor from a supporter of Fr Despard. The crowd funding was my own suggestion and it was only to help with legal fees.if he lost his appeal.
A person doesn’t need to owe much nowadays to lose their house. It depends also to whom you are in debt.
Anyway, I am not actually worrying and I certainly didn’t take offence to what you rightfully said.
Frankier,
If I report receiving a phone call, I received a phone call. There was/is nothing “alleged” about it.
When I report updates on Fr Despard, they come from people who are supporting him. They are doing all that they can and they have already collected money for him. We are taking nothing to do with any of the practicalities – we are merely offering moral support to Fr Despard because he has been singled out for punishment for writing his “whistleblowing” book, while others guilty of much worse, receive no punishment, are not disciplined and, in fact, are sometimes even promoted.
Fr Despard is no traditionalist and he may not even be all that orthodox – I don’t know, never met him, never heard him preach. He’s entirely UN-sympathetic to the restoration of the traditional Latin Mass, so he’s not on my Christmas card list. The above reason is the one and only reason for our support.
But, be assured. There was no “alleged” phone call. Just the latest in a string of real phone calls from Fr Despard’s supporters to keep us informed and that because, I believe, we are the only Catholics in the country, outside the support group, with a means of publicity at our disposal via our newsletter and blog, who are sympathetic to his plight.
Regarding the diocese forwarding his mail – any letters would HAVE to be forwarded to him, but if you are genuinely concerned that they not be, you can always use registered mail.
Editor
Further to the replies I have received regarding Fr Despard. I have re-visited my initial post to see what I actually said to justify the song and dance which has followed.
I felt I was making a Christian gesture in enquiring, only enquiring mind you, if there was any sort of crowd funding set up to help this unfortunate priest’s parents.
I really wasn’t asking anyone on here to join a posse to raid the local Clydesdale Bank.
If there had been such a fund I would have been willing to contribute. As they say, every little helps. There would be no point on me making a contribution on my own.
I would be hoping my contribution would be part of a large enough sum to help solve the problem.
As far as sending a donation on my own volition, if that’s the correct word, I would hardly need to ask anyone here how to go about it.
I don’t see anything in my post that suggests anyone reading it should contribute. That’s up to each individual.
However, I will leave things as they are, I was only making an enquiry and am sorry
If I offended anyone.
As for the word alleged: I find that in this day and age of political correctness and compensation culture it is a word which is safer to use. Whether it offends or not really doesn’t bother me. It is better than getting a writ at 2 o’clock in the morning when I am out cutting the lawn.
Astonishing discovery at Christ’s tomb supports Turin Shroud
The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology. The unusual electromagnetic phenomena observed at the site of Christ’s tomb 2,000 years after the Resurrection may be the after-effects of the event that created the image on the Shroud. I
https://www.ewtn.co.uk/news/world/astonishing-discovery-at-christ-s-tomb-supports-turin-shroud
Gerontius
A very interesting article indeed. But it will not alter the opinion of those who deny the divine origin of the image on the Turin Shroud, since they already know that it’s genuine. It has long been established that the samples cut from the Shroud for carbon dating were taken from that part of the Shroud which had been repaired following a fire in the middle ages. There has long been a conspiracy amongst certain scientists to cast serious doubt on the authenticity of the Turin Shroud, with, I might add, some ecclesiastical insider assistance and the assistance of the media. The idea is to bring religious belief into doubt as a result and help pave the way for the atheistic New World Order.
Try as they may, however, there are still scientists out there who are religious, who have run tests of their own and have shown the Shroud to be truly the burial cloth of Our Lord. And try as they may, the pilgrims keep flocking to Turin to venerate the sacred image whenever it’s on display. They won’t silence God. Maybe this latest discovery will finally expose them for the godless deceivers they are.
Tell me if I am wrong in my reading of this article. It seems to me that a priest in France is ready to carry out giving Holy Communion to those divorced and remarried Catholics.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/french-bishop-opens-door-for-remarried-divorced-couples-to-receive-the-sacr
Theresa rose,
That shocking report closes with the following words:
“But one thing is clear: the bishop of Rouen is sure that he is acting according to the Pope’s will.”
Were he a properly formed Catholic in mind and soul, he would be EQUALLY sure that the Pope is NOT acting according to God’s will.
Who – I mean WHO – would ever have thought for a second that we would live to see a pontiff like this one? It’s beyond incredible.
Pray for him – he is heading for eternal damnation, nothing surer, with complicit bishops like the Bishop of Rouen close on his heels.
This article talks about these people being rejected. Who are the ones who are rejecting them? I have never witnessed this “rejection” and certainly not from the Church. In my experience these are the people in society who are now the trend-setters. After all, how could anyone live with the same person for the rest of their life?
Anyone who claims to be happily married is looked upon as if there was something queer (no, not in that way, that’s to be admired now) about them. Children at school must feel ashamed when their friends find out that they have a mother and only one father, especially a father who actually lives with them. How boring could that be?
As for divorced Catholics who “re-marry”. Is this not looked upon by the Church as a bigamous relationship since they don’t recognise the divorce? They surely can’t say that they don ‘t recognise the second marriage since they talk now about them being re-married.
Frankier,
I think Francis and his gang of clerical thugs are clearly following the Marxist line (which, since they are all Marxists, is not surprising): create victims, even where there are none, and then offer them something. The alleged victims, in this case, are apparently those who cannot receive Holy Communion because they are – as the Church used to say when she was sane – in a state of mortal sin.
But now….mortal sin? What me worry? No problem, dude (or whatever gender you think you are today): we’ll slip you right in with some slick situation ethics, a dash of “conscience,” and what the heck, if that doesn’t work, we’ll use a footnote! Voila! Luther ain’t got nothin’ on us!!!
Totally agree, RCA.
Theresa Rose
Yes, you read it right. That Bishop, God have mercy on his soul, has given the nod to his “missionaries of mercy” to make the decision as to whether or not divorced and remarried couples who come to them can receive the Blessed Sacrament. Pope Francis has given these radicals various pretend reasons as to why they may be permitted to oppose the Commandment of Christ Our Lord. It is scandal the likes of which the Church has never before seen, and it has no less than the Pope himself at its centre. Appalling!
Well, where does the Bishop of Portsmouth stand in all of this ….
FROM THE TABLET…
Acting Head at Catholic school forced to leave due to “irregular relationship”
A popular acting headteacher at a Catholic school in Hampshire has been told by the Bishop of Portsmouth he cannot apply for the permanent position because he is in an “irregular relationship”.
Lyndon Strong has been covering the role of Headteacher at St Mary’s Catholic Primary School in Gosport since 2015 after then-Headmistress Ms McIvor retired.
Despite his popularity among students and parents alike, he has not been offered the permanent role because he is divorced and remarried.
A petition calling on the diocese to reverse their decision has been signed by 425 people so far – the majority of whom are parents of pupils. They say the departure of Mr Strong would be “detrimental for the children who love and respect him” and that the situation constitutes a “grave injustice”.
“He [Mr Strong] has enabled St Mary’s to express its catholicity, in a way that was never present before. He has created an atmosphere of love, kindness and a joy of learning, for both staff and children. He is an inspirational head teacher who has brought great stability to St Mary’s”, they add.
A statement from the Diocese makes clear that those in positions of senior leadership are required to be a “practising Catholic”. According to the definition of a practising Catholic laid out in the Bishops’ Conference ‘Memorandum on Appointment of Teachers to Catholic Schools’, Mr Strong’s “irregular relationship” prohibits him from receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist and therefore prevents him from fulfilling the required criteria for the role.
In a letter to parents, Strong said: “This is a difficult time personally as I have relished being the acting headteacher, deputy headteacher and most importantly teacher at St Mary’s but there are personal circumstances I would like to remain outside the public domain that won’t allow me to apply for the post of substantive headteacher.”
Strong will leave St Mary’s at the end of the term and a new acting head will replace him in January 2017.
Photo: Bishop of Portsmouth, Philip Egan.
Good for Bishop Egan, for sticking up for Catholic values here.
What baffles me is these people who, very clearly, do not even try to live by Catholic teaching yet insist on trying to be at the heart of Catholic organisations and ventures etc.
What gives? it makes no sense at all. Like someone who hates football demanding a ticket to every match.
I suppose, since Vatican II, the lay people have been been taught / encouraged to have a large degree of self-importance and to expect the Church to duck and dive to accommodate their every whim – I suppose it must be down to this.
Well, there are lots of non-Catholics teaching in Catholic schools. We have here a Catholic alleged to be “living in sin” or “open and public concubinage” as the Vatican has called such stuff in the past.
Now how do we investigate candidates for the role of headmaster? What secret sins will exclude them? Perhaps all candidates must produce a Communion Card that has been stamped by the parish priest (and witnesses) on 52 consecutive weeks?
We are in dangerous territory here. The really bad stuff is kept hidden by people.
Enforce selection rules by all means, but do it consistently and impartially, thoroughly and to the letter. Do it thus and there will be no Catholic teachers in any Catholic schools, maybe?
Andrew Paterson,
I’m surprised that any Catholic could make such a basic mistake.
We are ALL sinners. That’s why we’re ALL obliged to confess regularly, repent and do all in our powers to overcome our sins. Even venial sins.
However, a Catholic living in a state of PUBLIC sin, is in a different category. No amount of “Communion cards” will permit those living in adulterous unions, or other states of public sin, to be employed as Head teacher in a Catholic school.
In saner times, nobody in a cohabiting situation would even think of applying to teach in a Catholic school but these are anything but sane times within the Church and all sorts of things are going on with priests and bishops either turning a blind eye or openly approving of public sin (the case of the transgender pupil in Hallam Diocese springs to mind – boy one term, girl the next…) So, it’s good that even one bishop is drawing a line in the sand. It’s not a new line, it’s just been rubbed out in some places in recent times.
So, you see, there’s no question of “secret sins” excluding anyone from any kind of participation in the life of the Church. If you really think we should pay a Head-teacher’s salary to a public sinner, someone who is counter-witnessing to the Gospel, let’s know your reasons. I’m all ears. Well, none of us is perfect…
Thanks for your prompt response. The Church has a say in the appointment of staff in Catholic schools. This is fine. I did not say that Mr Strong should be appointed. He has been covering the position for a year. I have always adopted the view in business that if a stand-in is good enough for a month then they are good enough to be permanent. Why, one might ask, did the good Bishop not take his stand on this last year?
I do still think that we should be careful in this. My comment on secret sins, or concealed unsuitability if you prefer, still stands. That was my point. We can say Mr Strong is unsuitable as he has publicly ruled himself out. (Both by being in a divorced/”remarried” state and by his own admission.) There are those who do not publicly admit their unsuitability. Consider a Catholic teacher living with someone in an unmarried relationship, which may not be public, or mentioned at all.
As for Communion Cards, that, I am afraid, is a little joke about Presbyterian practices.
Andrew Paterson,
Why, one might ask, did the good Bishop not take his stand on this last year?
I don’t think a bishop would necessarily know about temporary appointments in Catholic schools but once it came to his attention, it’s good that he acted. Most don’t bother, as it is perfectly normal for cohabiting teachers to be employed in Catholic schools, that’s been the case for years, sorry to say.
I don’t know what you mean by “it may not be public or mentioned at all” because the fact that someone is cohabiting makes that person a “public sinner”. It doesn’t mean they are telling everyone, although these days they do and don’t care who knows it, but it’s not because they tell people that they are public sinners its because the way of life is a public scandal, i.e. just living as husband and wife without being married, is a public scandal.
Cathoics are represented in the selection process following the Act of 1918. the Bishop should know. It is part of his job.
Andrew,
What you say applies at original appointment. I believe this acting Head was appointed within the school AFTER his appointment. I am not sure the Bishop would be informed then. Whatever, it’s good that he acted, better late than never. I cannot imagine that any Catholic would be pleased that a cohabiting Head be appointed to a Catholic school. If that is your position, I take back my reassurance in the comment I’ve just posted, about your orthodoxy. No orthodox, let alone traditional, Catholic would be anything other than horrified that a Headteacher, living in public sin, was appointed to a Catholic school.
Andrew,
I understood the point about the “Communion cards” – which is why I put the term in inverted commas. My reply meant simply to convey that NOTHING (not even a mountain of such cards even if they did exist in the Catholic Church) would entitle these public sinners to Holy Communion. It’s not any of us, but Christ Himself who called them “adulterers” and not even Pope Francis can change that fact – although I dare say he agrees with Cardinal Kasper that it’s best not to use the word “adultery”. Gimme a break.
Of course, nobody should be employed in a Catholic school in a teaching capacity if they are living at odds with the Church’s teaching. As for such a cohabiting situation being “secret” – it should be asked openly at interview these days. But for the fact that there has been a massive loss of Catholic Faith and, thus, Catholic identity, that would be the obvious thing to do when interviewing candidates to teach or take up senior management posts in Catholic schools. Obvious.
Non-Catholics teaching in Catholic schools were always required to offer an assurance that they would not do anything to harm the Catholic “ethos”. That’s now a joke, of course. The “Catholic ethos” just means mentioning God an odd time and maybe throwing up the occasional statue. Nevertheless, if it were the custom to ask for such an assurance from non-Catholics working in Catholic schools, there should be no problem taking steps to ensure that those seeking employment who claim to be Catholics should offer the same assurance. As for those who cohabit etc AFTER they have taken up post, they should be sent packing. End of discussion.
Won’t happen, of course,because the goal posts have been moved; it’s no longer considered a problem. Cohabitation, transgenderism, “gay” relationships, divorced and “remarried” (i.e. adulterers) are the norm now, thanks to Papa Francis, and they must be allowed to pretend they’re Catholics and have something to “contribute” to pupils in Catholic schools, never mind that all they can really contribute is utter confusion.
Now, Andrew, I had planned to close down the blog completely during Advent and but for the pleas of a certain American lady, I would have done so. She was suffering “withdrawal” symptoms already, she said, please, please, don’t close down the blog. So, against my own will and better judgment, I decided to leave the blog open, albeit reducing the facility to this General Discussion thread only. And, need you ask, the one blogger who has not shown her face since Advent began, is the same blogger who talked me into leaving it open. They do see me coming. Whatever, I am determined not to spend much time blogging during Advent, and certainly not to write lengthy posts so I hope you will understand that I won’t be entering into any more lengthy exchanges. In fact, we’ve decided that we will return to Plan A – and close down the blog completely for the final two weeks of Advent. See, I know how to compromise… 😀
NOTE then that the blog will close down on Monday, 12th December, and reopen on Christmas Day.
Thanks for that. I seem to have inadvertently given the impression that I am at odds with orthodoxy on this, when this is not the case. You present a case against adulterers receiving Holy Communion which is not something I suggested ahould be allowed. I am perplexed that you should take that from what I said.
How people live is their “private” life, even if everyone knows about it. “Public” means, as far as I am concerned, that they tell people.
When places in Catholic schools are being taken by muslims, and the schools are ensuring compatability, I think that the good Bishop should be frying other fish.
I refer you to an article in the Herald a couple of weeks ago about some Catholic primary school intending to keep places for Catholics.
One final point. You say in respect of cohabitation, “…it should be asked openly at interview these days.”
That might very well be considered illegal. While there are exceptions to the law, the fact that the Hierarchy has long ago conceded that non-Catholics will teach in Catholic schools causes possibly insuperable difficulties.
How can a non- Catholic teacher in a Catholic school be held to Catholic standards when they are following the standards of society in general?
Enjoy Christmas.
Andrew,
Non-Catholics have ALWAYS taught in Catholic schools. But for willing Protestants, the Catholic schools here in the west of Scotland would never have gotten off the ground. However, until these times, they understood that by taking up post in a Catholic school, they had to sign a promise to do nothing to damage the Catholic ethos – that is, the nature of the Catholic school.
As to legality – it never ceases to amaze me that bishops, priests and laity are more concerned with keeping on the right side of the law of the land, no matter if it means breaking God’s law, even to the point of showing bad example to children despite the warning from Christ Himself that it were better for that person that a millstone be placed around his neck and he drown in the depths of the sea.
Elsewhere on this blog we’ve had a report about Bishop Keenan of Paisley gently objecting to Nicola Sturgeon’s offer of free abortions to women from northern Ireland where abortion is illegal, but he refuses to speak plainly about the evil of abortion, basing his objection on the fact that it is a bit “disrespectful” of Sturgeon to go over the head of the politicians in northern Ireland! Incredible.
If something is taken for granted – i.e. that Catholic schools are permitted and that the Church has right to appoint suitable Catholic candidates, then it would be crackpot and contradictory law that said candidates at interview could not be questioned on their Catholicity.
Andrew Patterson
You may be right about the bishop having other fish to fry in terms of Muslims teaching in Catholic schools, etc., but that does not by any means pernit him to turn away from the issue he has addressed. Indeed, the brave stance he has taken is exactly what all bishops should be doing. Cherry picking when it comes to the proper formation of young Catholic minds and souls is not acceptable. Only the very highest Catholic standards can be adhered to when it comes to teachers teaching Catholic children. Compromise is fatal in this regard.
Andrew,
I didn’t say you were at odds with orthodoxy. I understand your position. However, you are a tad mixed up about what constitutes a public sinner. It’s got nothing to do with “telling people” – I know people who are cohabiting and they’ve never told me. It is a situation which is normally widely known. Lack of a wedding ring, mention of “partner” and the fact that the couple share a home, usually smacks of a hint! A “public” sinner is one who lives OPENLY in a situation which contradicts the moral teaching of the Church, such as cohabitation, homosexual unions.
Please do not think we are naive enough to think that the situation in Portsmouth is a one-off. The fact is, Catholic schools, north and south of the border, are jam-packed with teachers who are living in immoral situations, counter-witnesses to the Gospel which is, think about it, one of the reasons why young people in Catholic schools lose the Faith before they leave school.
It’s really pretty simple stuff. The theory of Catholic education rests on the passing on of the Faith through the parish (liturgy and sermons), home (parents taking children to Mass and praying at home etc) and school, teaching the faith WITH CONVICTION. – i.e. fully believing teachers passing on Catholic doctrine and morals. Cannot be done if they don’t believe it and if they are cohabiting, then they clearly do not adhere to the Catholic Faith.
If you think the most important thing is to have bodies standing in front of a blackboard/whiteboard, and paying lip service to the Faith, then that’s a different matter. Cohabitees will do the job nicely. If you want a genuinely Catholic education in school, then cohabitees will spoil the party.
I’ve really been as clear as I can be, so let’s just leave it there as I really cannot see errors or confusion without correcting and/or clarifying and I really am up to my eyes right now. So, Andrew, let’s agree to differ, if you still think I’m off the wall on this.
A new low in the Amoris Laetitia affair – Fr Antonio Spadaro has been caught creating fake twitter accounts (“sock puppets”) which he was then using to tweet support for his “mainstream” tweets and Amoris Laetitia.
Very embarrassing, but wholly typical of the standard of clergymen who have brought the Church to situation it finds itself in today and who are nowhere near as smart or as cunning as they think they are.
There is nothing normal about a priest who is both the editor of a major Catholic publication and a close advisor and spokesman to the pope using phony Twitter accounts under pseudonyms to bolster the credibility of his social media scoffing — least of all over serious questions about dangers to the faith posed by four distinguished members of the curia and echoed by Catholics around the world.
(Somehow, a picture of Cardinal Dolan dancing the “can-can” makes up part of this report – what times we live in).
http://www.onepeterfive.com/father-spadaro-dubia-pope-doesnt-give-binary-answers-abstract-questions/
In better news, Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider have been pictured meeting together in Rome:
http://www.onepeterfive.com/seen-together-evening-rome/
Their deceit has no bounds. And, they call themselves men of God. Tragic really.
There must be somegood bishops and other prelates somewhere (if not in Scotland, L.O.L) and I’m wondering why they are not signing up in support of the 4 and others?
Crofterlady,
This article from the Remnant Newspaper might give some good bishops and other prelates food for thought.
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/2917-can-the-church-judge-a-heretical-pope
Crofterlady,
Weak characters, false “prudence”, human respect, you name it. It’s always a minority who speak up for the truth in almost any situation. Haven’t you noticed that? Remember Mrs Mary Whitehouse, battling against the filth on TV, being mocked and ridiculed at every turn? Always a minority. Which is perhaps why certain saints have taught that only a minority attain Heaven – most souls end up in Hell. Terrible thought… But the arithmetic works, if you think about it…
Crofterlady,
According to the “Filial Petition to His Holiness on the Future of the Family,” issued in October 2015, eight cardinals and 203 archbishops and bishops signed it when it first came out and was delivered to Pope Francis.
I’d say that was quite a substantial beginning to a sleeping giant awakening. Now they are asking for signatures for a new appeal: http://www.filialappeal.org/
RCA Victor,
Well, where are they now? Why not publicly support the four Cardinals of the Dubia? In fact, that “filial appeal” is simply a re-statement of Catholic teaching, with signatures indicating acceptance of same. I’m sure if he were asked, Pope Francis would sign it as well. I certainly don’t remember reading anywhere that he was livid or “boiling with rage” when handed the “filial appeal”.
Asking for “yes/no” responses to the specific concerns of AL, is a tad more pointed.
Let’s hope more and more members of the hierarchy DO come out of the woodwork to support the “Rome 4” but I’m not holding my breath.
Editor,
I’m not holding my breath either, but if things get any worse (?? could they get much worse?) maybe the Sleepers will Awake….
This article on Rorate Caeli makes a connection between AL and Lutheranism, which never occurred to me at all. In other words, AL in its proper context appears to be really another step in the direction of the “rehabilitation of Luther”! Here is an excerpt:
“It is helpful to compare these specific theses with the position of Protestants on marriage and divorce. Since the Reformation, Protestants have claimed that it is possible for Christian marriages to be dissolved. They base this claim on a Scriptural text (Matthew 19:9) that they misinterpret as providing an exception to Christ’s ban on divorce. In consequence, they hold that it is permissible for divorced and remarried Christians to receive the Eucharist, because they think that such Christians are no longer married to the former spouses and are actually married to the persons they have remarried. But Amoris laetitia explicitly upholds Catholic teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. It rules out the possibility of divorced and remarried Christians no longer being married to their original spouses and actually being married to their civil partners. In consequence, when it states that the divorced and remarried may under certain circumstances receive Communion, it is explicitly asserting that adulterers may receive the sacrament. It is difficult to identify a heresy in the history of the Church that has so flatly denied Scriptural teaching.
This affirmation of the indissolubility of marriage logically requires support for some elements of Luther’s understanding of justification. Justification makes a person acceptable in the sight of God and secures their eternal salvation. If a person can break a divine law – the law pertaining to divorce and remarriage in this case – yet not be in a state of mortal sin, and not suffer eternal damnation if they continue to break this divine law without repenting and choosing to keep it, then their justification must consist in something other than their keeping divine law; and it must not require their keeping of the divine law. This is what Luther’s conception of justification claims. Following this logic, Pope Francis has in fact endorsed Luther’s conception of justification, as we shall see below. This endorsement need not be supposed to extend to every component of Luther’s thought on justification, but it certainly embraces Luther’s claim that justification is independent of the keeping of the divine law. Pope Francis’s stand on Luther suggests that his approach to divorce and remarriage is not a purely practical one that is motivated by a desire to accommodate divorced and remarried Catholics, but a worked out theoretical position.”
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/12/article-considerations-on-dubia-of-four.html
RCA Victor,
Talking of connections between Al and Luther, check out this report from Eponymous Flower.
It exposes how the German section of Vatican Radio published a picture of “Pope Francis as Luther” (basically Francis’ face photo-shopped onto the famous image of Luther).
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/pope-francis-as-new-luther-humor-of.html
Here is a link referencing the AL correspondence.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/papal-advisor-embrace-hermeneutic-of-mercy-not-binary-dubia?utm_source=LifePetitions+petition+signers&utm_campaign=933e759ab8-Catholic_12_612_6_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c5c75ce940-933e759ab8-400576309
Andrew Paterson,
From your link…
“[Father Spadaro] …said that the exhortation does open the door for sexually active divorced and “remarried” Catholics to access the Sacraments, and that Pope Francis’s response to the dubia can be seen in the interpretations of the exhortation he has approved, such as the guidelines of the Buenos Aires bishops. The Buenos Aires bishops’ implementation of Amoris Laetitia allows for remarried divorcees to receive Holy Communion, something the Church has long taught is sacrilegious because of the indissolubility of marriage.”
Can’t you see that the above shocking affirmation of the pope’s heresy, requires, all the more, that he respond to the dubia? He must give the traditional “yes” or “no” answers to the doubts, so that we know from the Pope himself, not spokesmen, that he is knowingly adhering to heresy. A letter to the Bishops in Argentina doesn’t cut it. Might as well be a letter to you or me for all the status that letter has in Catholic teaching.
It may seem obvious that he does adhere to the heresy, but we need (or, rather, the cardinals need) to hear it directly from him, in order to officially correct him – if necessary. Hopefully, his responses to the dubia will show that he is entirely in line with traditional Catholic teaching on marriage and morals 😀 (it’s the way I tell ’em) but until he answers the dubia, we can only assume the worst, relying on the likes of the Fr Spadaro quote above. And, of course, the interpretations of dissenting Cardinal Schonborn, to whom the Pope has directed us for accurate interpretations.
You really couldn’t make this stuff up!
My posting of the link was not an endorsement of the views of Fr Spadaro. Far from it. I was simply indicating the way that things are going. Fr Spadaro does not speak as one who fears that he may imminently be fired. (Although regardless of his heresies, his fooling around with sockpuppets on social media would do him no good if employed in the real world.)
The site “lifesitenews” seems to be very orthodox and a kind of Canadian version of “Catholic Truth”, although a pale shadow, obviously.
Andrew,
Yes, Lifesitenews is a very good site. At one time they would not say a word about any of the previous post-Vatican II popes, as long as he broadcast the pro-life message, which, I admit, was better than nothing. However, at long last they’ve seen the light and come out fighting against Papa Francis.
As for your very winning closing remark that Lifesitenews is a “kind of Canadian version of Catholic Truth, although a pale shadow, obviously”
Top of the class! Your Christmas bonus is now secure! 😀
Dear All,
Take a look at this – words fail me !
https://www.gloria.tv/video/o8LkSCXo68vB2oxrBNuM6ECUg
Gerontius,
Red flag! Quoting Hilary White’s opinions, as this video does, is a dead end and a dangerous practice. As noted previously on this blog, she has already stepped into the shallow end of sedevacantism – which is confirmed by her quote that “Bergoglio isn’t a Catholic.” He may be a Marxist, but unfortunately for us, he thinks he is Catholic…and a more humble and better Catholic than the rest of us, actually.
Like you, however, words do fail me at the rest of the Hilary White quotes (assuming they are accurate – perhaps a reality check would be in order, given who the writer is), including the imposition of “Vespers for Creation.” And the spot-on quotes from Philip North are equally as applicable to Catholics and they are to the Henry VIII-ers.
Ahhh, the Procrastinatn’ Choo Choo appears right on time!
VATICAN CITY — Cardinal Peter Turkson has proposed placing on stage all the main parties publicly debating the correct interpretation of the Pope’s apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love) so they can listen to and better understand one another.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/church-leaders-respond-to-the-dubia
Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin! Panic in their Modernist ranks?
Here are some definitions of Procrastination:
From Wikipedia, Procrastination is the avoidance of doing a task that needs to be accomplished.[1] It is the practice of doing more pleasurable things in place of less pleasurable ones, or carrying out less urgent tasks instead of more urgent ones, thus putting off impending tasks to a later time. Sometimes, procrastination takes place until the “last minute” before a deadline.
Procrastinate Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
to keep delaying something that must be done, often because it is unpleasant or boring:
Dictionary.com
Procrastination definition, the act or habit of procrastinating, or putting off or delaying, especially something requiring immediate attention:
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
No retreat – No surrender – NO COMPROMISE
Gerontius
One of the early things I remember from primary school was the proverb…..Procrastination is the thief of time.
RCA Victor,
Thanks for reply,
Red flag! Quoting Hilary White’s opinions, as this video does, is a dead end and a dangerous practice.
The Truth remains the Truth, no matter what It’s source.
Accordingly, in this particular case, I consider Gloria TVs video quoting Hilary White to be neither a dead end, nor a dangerous practice since their defence of The Blessed Sacrament is obvious.
So far I have found Gloria TV to be orthodox, faithful and trustworthy – Until proven otherwise, it will remain so.
However, the attention of the Faithful MUST be drawn to the indifference towards the Blessed Sacrament by the Novus Ordo Church in general and by Pope Francis in particular.
It’s enough to make you weep!
Gerontius,
I don’t really follow Gloria TV so can’t say whether I think they’re orthodox or not but in the typed piece under the video, this is on the list:
Nixon Aid Becomes Anglican Bishop: The Anglican Canon John Taylor was elected on December 3rd as the new Bishop of Los Angeles. Taylor was director of the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library from 1990 to 2007 and had served as Chief of Staff to the former president. (End of piece).
I would have thought any truly orthodox group would not be reporting the appointment of an “Anglican Bishop” since Anglican Orders were declared null and void by Pope Leo XIII – why did they put that on their news list? IMHO it will only add further confusion among the majority of Catholics who are poorly informed and steeped in ecumenism.
I don’t know who runs Gloria TV – do you know? I wonder if they are part of EWTN, in which case, don’t count on them for orthodoxy.
Laura,
There is a short Wikipedia entry on Gloria TV: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria.tv Doesn’t say who owns it, however.
Gerontius,
As someone once said, “OK, but proceed at your own risk.” Can you find another source to verify what Hilary White claims on her blog (about Vespers for Creation, etc.), aside from her glaring error in stating “Bergoglio isn’t a Catholic”? And are you familiar with her recent piece of yellow journalism, in which she put false words in Cardinal Zen’s mouth?
As for Gloria TV, I’ve always thought they were reliable, but now I will think twice. As Ronald Reagan used to say, “Trust, but verify.”
In case anyone misses it on the website, here’s the Salve Regina to mark the Feast of the Immaculate Conception.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B91RUv2lI8&w=441&h=228%5D
Traditional Latin Mass in the SSPX Glasgow chapel at 6.30pm
Maybe Vianney will post the time of the Edinburgh Mass, in case I get it wrong.
Thanks for posting that. It is exquisite and moving.
Gerontius,
Pursuant to my request to obtain confirmation of Hilary White’s statements as quoted by GloriaTV, I’ve just Googled “Francis abolished the First Vespers of Advent sung by the Pope,” which is Hilary White’s first claim as quoted by GloriaTV.
The results? Nothing, nada, zilch, zip, other than the text below the GloriaTV video in question! See if you can find it for yourself. Meanwhile, I will attempt to warn GloriaTV about Hilary White.
RCA Victor,
” I will attempt to warn GloriaTV about Hilary White.”
Please do!
There’s more news on the Named Person Scheme – the Scottish Government are still pushing it and saying the Supreme Court supported it but I remember the SC saying it was like something a dictatorship would introduce.
I’ve copied the email that came today from the No2NP campaign group but before that, their report online: http://no2np.org/no2np-action-day-girfec-third-sector-conference-edinburgh/
Hi,
John Swinney is ignoring you – but you can still be heard!
As you know, back in September Deputy First Minister John Swinney started a period of ‘engagement’ on the future of the Named Person scheme.
If you’ve been engaged with, you’re one of the lucky few! As far as we can tell, the ‘engagement’ has mainly been between the Government and people who agree with them. So parents have been left out of the loop.
You’re not alone. Swinney wouldn’t let NO2NP ‘engage’ either.
But here is your chance to make your views known.
The Government sent us their ‘engagement’ document which we have made available here http://no2np.us8.list-manage.com/track/click?u=81e0edb40e1dcbfcf8003af09&id=444bb47d93&e=3951b18e33.
It asks questions around information sharing, consent and safeguards. We suggest politely making one or two of the points below in your own words.
You can email your response to: DFMCSE@gov.scot
We’re told that the ‘engagement process’ ends on Wednesday 14 December, so please get your thoughts in before then.
Regards,
The NO2NP Team
Suggestions:
• Say you object in principle to giving state officials statutory duties to police the wellbeing of children and monitor parenting against Government targets.
• If the Government is going to amend the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act anyway, it should take the chance to revisit the idea of every child in Scotland having a Named Person regardless of whether they need or want one. Instead, it should be a voluntary single point of contact for those who want to use it to help them access services – something for families, not about them. This should be written on the face of the Act.
• If they are amending the Act, it should make clear the right to decline to have a Named Person at all and to ignore a Named Person’s advice even when it has been sought. It must be made clear in the law that parents will not get a black mark against them for exercising these rights.
• Families have a right to informed consent if agencies want to share their personal information. Parents should not be asked to sign vague blanket consent forms to authorise the sharing of private information on them and their children. Practitioners must make clear to parents what info they want to share, with whom, and why.
• The UK Data Protection Act 1998 has information sharing provisions that are familiar to practitioners. They strike a balance between the privacy of families and sharing information where genuinely necessary. The Scottish Government should simply point to the Data Protection Act to set the terms under which information can be shared. As the Supreme Court made clear, any new law has to satisfy the Data Protection Act anyway. The Government has failed once already. Trying to come up with a new balance will just confuse matters again.
• The Government should make it explicit that everyday parenting decisions – like what TV children watch – are matters solely for parents and not to be second-guessed by officials. The Supreme Court said some of the SHANARRI indicators the Government tried to use to define their ‘wellbeing’ test are “notably vague”. Many parents have found that this means judging ordinary parenting. Wellbeing has no universally accepted or legally robust definition, so assessments are based on the subjective views of individual officials.
• The Government keeps saying the Supreme Court judgment does not require current policy to change. But this assumes the current practices of local authorities are lawful. Considering local authorities were acting on ICO advice which has now been withdrawn, the Government should be far more concerned about whether local authorities have been breaking the law on information sharing.
NO2NP opposes the Scottish Government’s plan to assign a ‘Named Person’ to every child in Scotland because it undermines families and diverts resources away from children who need them.
This most recent article from the Remnant Newspaper, Catholic priests and academics issue letter in support of the Cardinals’ Dubia –
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2926-catholic-priests-and-academics-issue-major-letter-of-support-for-the-four-cardinals-dubia
http://citizengo.org/en/ed/39419-student-union-continues-censor-minority-views-cannot-go-unopposed?dr
Please could you sign this very important Petition re Pro Life Students being censored in Strathclyde thank you
Wendy,
Many thanks for posting that petition – Strathclyde University cannot be allowed to get away with this censorship.
I’ve just signed the petition and urge others to do so, asap.
Wendy
Duly signed.
Also signedl
A good article from Damian Thomson regarding the concerning eccentricity of Pope Francis and his hypocrisy. (Warning – he uses a swear word at one stage).
The Pope’s bizarre rant about eating faeces makes me wonder if he should retire
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/12/popes-bizarre-rant-eating-faeces-makes-wonder-retire/
Here is an excerpt below, highlighting the stark difference between what the Pope says and what he does:
• The Pope who denounces ‘disinformation’ is doggedly reluctant to provide much-needed information about his own policies. The four cardinals who submitted a document (known as a dubia) asking him to clarify his evasive stance on communion for the divorced-and-remarried have been ignored.
• Talking of fake news, Francis’s right-hand man, Fr Antonio Spadaro SJ, has been caught using sock-puppets to attack the aforementioned cardinals.
• Lectures on journalistic accuracy are hard to take seriously coming from a Pope who communicates his most controversial thoughts to a nonagenarian hack who doesn’t take notes.
Gabriel Syme,
What the Pope said is completely disgusting. He should know that it is homosexuals who eat faeces (among other disgusting practices) yet he said “who am I to judge?” not ordinary people.
I see the article points out he will be 80 this month and maybe a good time to retire. I couldn’t agree more, although I’m against retiring popes in principle. I’m only too glad to make him the exception, though, LOL!
Josephine,
I’m just waiting for the other shoe to drop: that is, someone from the Homosexual Mafia denouncing Francis for his “fecal-phobia,” or some such made-up term.
Then, of course, Francis will have another opportunity to apologize for yet another sin of the rigid Church…
This is so sickening it is hard to believe that the Pope would talk about it. I didn’t even know such depravity existed. I feel full of anxiety about what he will say next. Please Our Lady come to the aid of our suffering church!
Elizabeth,
Believe it or not, that information is – or was – given in materials for use in sex-ed in schools, with instructions how to get the most out of it. It really is depravity.
Josephine,
I remember seeing some such materials a few years ago but they called it “scatting”. Ughhh!
What a completely vile and disgusting thing for the Pope to say. If I wanted to hear such vulgarity, I would switch on the devil’s own box (TV) or walk onto the street, but I do not expect to hear these words falling from the lips of the Roman Pontiff. People who imbibe the lies and half-truths peddled by the media are gullible, not coprophilous, and the those who spread them are sinners against charity, as calumny is a sin. As Damian Thompson rightly points out, the Pope is the one engaging in disinformation by refusing to respond to the dubia.
Josephine, whilst many homosexuals do consume faeces and derive abnormal pleasure from it, you may be interested to know that many heterosexuals engage in this act, just as many heterosexuals engage in sodomy, i.e. men sodomising their wives. Not all homosexuals perform coprophilia and not all homosexuals are sodomites.
Catholic Convert 1,
Nobody said all homosexuals do that,although it’s been advertised on homosexual websites as something desirable to do. I’ve never seen it advertised anywhere except on homosexual websites when I’ve visited them to check for what young people are being told on them (for reasons I prefer not to discuss in public.)
With respect, I doubt if “many” non-homosexual people engage in coprophilia – I’ve never heard it mentioned ever by people who are not homosexuals.
Yes, you said: “He should know that it is homosexuals who eat faeces (among other disgusting practices) yet he said “who am I to judge?” not ordinary people”. You made a sweeping statement. You’ve visited a few websites and made the assumption that ‘many’ homosexuals do it. I’m sure if you look hard enough, you’ll find that many heterosexuals do that, sodomy and much else besides.
I find your defensiveness towards homosexuals quite astonishing. What difference does it make if others partake of this repulsive and depraved activity? It’s certainly not a majority sexual activity or approved by anyone teaching about traditional marriage,but it is (or was, a few years ago, not sure about now) published as one of the “fun” activities on school worksheets/books provided by gay groups. I just checked the Stonewall website and they don’t seem to list those books any more, mostly about dealing with homophobia etc. I’ve definitely never seen any book or worksheet on traditional marriage or about sexual matters/relationships that listed that vice or sodomy as desirable. If some perverts do it, they’re the minority. Maybe you are right to say that only a minority of homosexuals do that as well, but it seems odd that they would be advertising it as a normal activity on their educational resource materials. I’d dearly love to see some of the materials used today, just to check if “scatting” is listed.
I am surprised at your keenness in making it seem that everyone who is sexually active engages in that and sodomy. It’s as if you are keen to show that homosexuals are only doing what others do! I’m wondering if you are maybe of that orientation, if so please accept my apologies, nothing personal intended.
Whatever, this is not a nice topic and I’m sure editor won’t be keen for us to keep it going.
Josephine,
“…this is not a nice topic and I’m sure editor won’t be keen for us to keep it going.
You got it in one, there. A disgusting topic. Let’s leave it there. Please and thank you!
I thought this was good from the SSPX Dici site:
Four Cardinals deprived of their hats?
On Saint-Sulpice Square in Paris there is a fountain depicting four bishops: Bossuet, Fénelon, Fléchier and Massillon. With a grain of salt it is called “the fountain of the four [pause] cardinals” because the famous preachers who adorn it were never cardinals. The same thing almost happened retroactively—and hypothetically—to four Roman prelates.
On November 28, 2016, Msgr. Pio Vito Pinto, Dean of the Tribunal of the Rota that decides on appeal cases of nullity of marriage, reacted violently to the decision by Cardinals Brandmüller, Burke, Caffarra, and Meisner to make public the doubts about Amoris laetitia that they had submitted to Pope Francis two months before, without receiving a response. He accused them of having caused grave scandal that could lead to the loss of their cardinalatial hats. Then he corrected himself, saying that that was not what he said, while doubling down: “It is insane. There could not be such a thing as an advisory council of cardinals that could demand an accounting from the Pope.” But that is not the essential thing.
Msgr. Pinto mentioned this hypothetical sanction: the four cardinals could lose their hats, whereas they do not want to lose their heads! Realistic heads which cannot think that true is false, that evil is good, and cannot answer yes and no at the same time. Theological heads that believe only what was revealed by the Son of God could not possibly bend to the demands of biodegradable modernity, which today is quite degraded. Catholic heads that refuse to declare that what is true and good doctrinally could become false and bas pastorally, in the name of a particularly elastic sort of mercy.
What Msgr. Pinto does not understand is quite simple, however: what good is it to keep a hat, even a cardinal’s hat, if the head that fills it is empty?
Father Alain Lorans
Josephine,
what good is it to keep a hat, even a cardinal’s hat, if the head that fills it is empty?
Game, set and match!
I notice Mundabor is now calling him ‘Poop Francis’.
Pew Catholic
I really dislike that Mundabor site. He’s often crude.
The fact that the Pope has left himself open to such crudity, just completely brings the papacy into disrepute, IMHO. Pope Francis is a disgrace. I am astounded that there are any Catholics who think he’s a good pope. I wonder if they really know the half of the things he says.
Josephine, I don’t like Mundabor either. He’s hate-filled and, as you say, crude. But in this case, I think the Pope deserves it. The more voices raised against HIS disgusting crudity, the better.
What will it take to get rid of this dreadful, abominable Pope?
Josephine,
I’m with you. I stopped looking at Mundabor’s blog over two years ago. He is way too quick with the insults (and so is Louie Verrecchio, btw), but he also scoffs at the idea that the VII revolution was instigated by Freemasons. No “conspiracy theories” for him!
One wonders why he thinks he has anything of value to say about the Church.
How much credibility should we give to the prophecies of Marie-Julie Jahenny and others regarding the Three Days of Darkness? Is it one of those private revelations we should take with a pinch of salt or actively prepare for?
You just need to find out if her prophecies are approved by the Church, then you can decide for yourself whether to believe or not. If not approved, best to avoid altogether.
One of our readers/pro-life activist from Aberdeen, asked me to post the following link, to protest at the campaign to have all restrictions on abortion lifted in Scotland – i.e. abortion up to birth, permitted.
http://citizengo.org/en/lf/39867-proposals-make-abortion-legal-birth-scotland-must-be-rejected?tc=gm
I’ve signed, and urge everyone else to do so. Thank you.
Hi, regular bloggers – hope you had a peaceful Christmas and may I wish you all a Happy Hogmanay and a Blessed 2017.
Meanwhile, if you’d like to help out on this ‘Premier Christianity’ blog re the George Michael issue, I’d be very appreciative.
http://www.premierchristianity.com/Blog?year=2016&month=December
Pat,
I posted a comment on that blog, so thank you for the alert.
We do have a special Happy Hogmanay/New Year thread, so would others please not add to the length of this thread with those greetings. Please and thank you!
Many thanks for your input to that blog, dear Editor. Slap on the wrist accepted.
Pat, I’ve just answered two response to my input – I always forget about the awful Disquis system of sending replies by email. Drives me nuts. Anyway, I hope they leave me in peace now – it’s been a long year and I’m due a rest, as any criminal worth his salt might say (think about that one – due a rest – criminal)… 😀
“Slap on the wrist!” ? But also gave you a pat on the back (get it… Pat…?) for posting the link to the “Christian” blog…
Editor,
That blog recommended by Waterside4 (of occasionally happy memory), which turned out to be quite excellent, is going to post his predictions for 2017. What say you to posting the same exercise for us?
Waterside4? I don’t see anything from him here – in fact it’s been quite some time since he graced us with his presence.
Explain thyself, RCA Victor. Either that, or lay off the hard stuff…. New Year’s celebrations are over!
Editor,
This is the blog which he recommended (at least, I think it was he – all that hard stuff has clouded my short-term memory): http://wmbriggs.com/
A bit of a tangent, but I thought this story about the Titanic was extremely interesting: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/31/huge-fire-ripped-titanic-struck-iceberg-fresh-evidence-suggests/
RCA Victor,
Interesting “tangent” – and so is this…
Editor,
WOW!!!
The madness continues…https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/female-catholic-bishop-holds-service-in-dublin-1.2748122?utm_content=sf-man
Notice the headline….
RCA Victor
If ever there was a manifestation of Hell, a congregated band of demons posing as caring Catholics, it was in that photograph in the Irish Times. The Catholic Church should set an army of exorcists on the lot of them.
2017 AD – Methinks it’s going to be a very interesting year indeed for both Holy Mother Church and the World. Things are already getting underway as this article from Todays Rorate shows.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/01/bishop-schneider-i-have-asked-msgr.html
Thanks for that link Gerontius!
I am sure +Schneider would not have made such public comments without the prior approval of +Fellay, as to do so would have put pressure on +Fellay.
Perhaps the comments are intended to “set the scene” for +Fellay’s acceptance of a suitable personal prelature offer. Accepting in response to a public plea from a good Bishop like +Schneider portrays the SSPX as the cavalry riding to the rescue; whereas +Fellay accepting off his own back could be portrayed (by “resistance” nutters) as the SSPX “capitulating to modernist Rome”.
In any case, let us hope this statement does indeed indicate another step towards the regularisation of the SSPX – which justice demands.
2017 could indeed be a momentous year for the Church. As a minimum I would like to see:
– the regularisation of the SSPX
– a new Pope
– a kick up the jacksie for the large part of the Church which has lost all sense of itself
Please God!
Bishop Schneider’s remarks are interesting, I think, in that a conciliar Churchman is publicly saying that it would be good for the Church at large is Bp. Fellay accepted a personal prelature. Aside from that detail, I didn’t see anything new in the article.
Rorate Caeli has long been saying “now is the time – later will be too late!”
But the truth is that the SSPX has been doing the Church a great amount of good; the quarantine the SSPX and the faithful at its chapels have been under have allowed Tradition to flourish unmolested by modernist intrusions, Deo gratias.
For the record, that Rome has not yet granted the prelature is not Bp. Fellay’s doing, as Rorate Caeli indicated. Rather, Rome keeps attaching conditions that the SSPX could not accept without signing its own death warrant. Absent the unreasonable conditions from Rome, and the personal prelature for the SSPX is an accomplished fact.
WurdeSmythe,
You should email at least one of the moderators of RC to remind them of that fact!
Here are some beautiful and moving photographs of the Church before Vatican II:
https://churchpop.com/2015/09/19/27-fascinating-photos-of-pre-vatican-ii-catholicism/
Thanks for that link CC, the pictures are indeed very beautiful.
Presently they show what the Church has lost, but let us pray they also indicate what the Church will soon rediscover.
CC what wonderful photos! I’m far too young to remember anything like what they portray but they make me almost weep to see how banal our Church has become. May God forgive our prelates for their negligence of the flock.
CC,
Thank you for those photos. I can remember seeing the Sisters of Charity, with their huge hats, walking down Sauchiehall Street and wondering how on earth they would manage on and off the bus! It didn’t occur to me that they may have a car – in which case, even worse!
I wasn’t a fan of that particular Habit but I do miss seeing Religious Sisters in their Habits and veils. How sad to see the way they dress these days – not remotely as dignified as in days of yore.
Editor, a few weeks ago I saw a nun dressed from head to to in black and wearing a veil. The person with me said that she couldn’t be Catholic as she was dressed as a nun should be. Just before Christmas I saw her again at the cathedral and I asked her what order she belonged to. She said it was the Sisters of Mercy of Alma and apparently they have just opened a convent in Edinburgh. When I told her what my friend said about not being Catholic as she was dressed as a nun should be, she laughed and said “things are changing.” Let’s hope she is correct.
Editor,
I’m not a fan either. Those hats look a bit silly to be honest. However, I agree that nuns should be dressed properly.
The headteacher of my primary school was a nun and for the first few years I was there she wore the habit. I remember being shocked to the core going back to school after the summer and seeing her with her cardigan and blow dry!
Ed,
To be honest, the Sisters of Charity’s habit is one of my favourites. I always thought that they were very distinct and enabled people to recognise the order.
CC
Thank you for posting those photos. I think, sadly, they should carry the title “What we have lost”. The damage is incalculable
I received a link to this funny video today. Its of a protestant pastor remaining stoic during a service whilst a disaster plays out behind him. Although a protestant service, this has all the panache of a novus ordo mass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YdyIHWXFEg&feature=youtu.be
The carry on reminded me of many years ago, when I was a lay reader in the novus ordo Church. I remember once somehow managing to do the wrong reading at one mass and I recall the priest hissing at me in disgust, as he arrived at the lectern to read the (thus wholly unrelated) Gospel.
These debacles underline the genius of the traditional mass – keep the lay people well out of it, as otherwise chaos always ensues!
Gabriel Syme,
Comical – thanks for that much needed light relief!
I have received a text from a friend asking for prayers for the happy repose of the soul of Bishop Fellay’s father who has recently died. May he rest in peace.
Spiritus,
Thank you for that. Praying for the repose of his soul. RIP.
Spiritus
Thanks for this information. I will pray for the repose of the soul of Bishop Fellay’s father.
According to the media spin-meisters, ….‘how lovely it is to see QEII now well enough to attend church at Sandringham this morning’… (Sunday 8th Jan). However, I wouldn’t like to change places with her when she finds herself in the dock before the Court of Heaven (as one day she surely will).
As I’m sure most of us know, the reigning monarch is head of the Church of England, this is how it’s been ever since Henry VIII founded it back in 1537, when he broke away from Rome. Now, on her Coronation Day in 1953, QEII vowed that she would….’uphold the laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel’…. One of the laws of God (at least, the God WE worship) is …’Thou Shalt Not Kill’… (Yes/no?).
Another point of information, should it be needed – an Act of Parliament has to be ‘rubber-stamped’ (i.e. given ‘Royal Assent’) by the reigning monarch in order to reach the Statute Book. But despite her Coronation vows, QEII had no hesitation in granting Royal Assent to the 1967 Abortion Act, thereby passing a death sentence on 8.7 million of her unborn ‘loyal subjects’ to date.
I am reminded here of Luke 6:26 …’Alas for you when the world speaks highly of you’….
Bonus time – here’s a ‘leaked list of new-world-order generals’ (so-called ‘Illuminati’) – and guess who’s top of the pile? Josef Ratzinger and Vincent Nichols are also named, no big surprise…..
http://www.neonnettle.com/features/648-illuminati-leak-full-list-of-secret-society-members-names-exposed
Pat,
I’d find that list (which I’ve seen before) more convincing but for this bit at the end: “The anonymous whistleblower…”
If the list is authentic, and he’s a former member, it won’t be difficult for the listed folk to work out his identity, so there is no need to conceal it. The rest of us can only form an educated opinion if we know the source of the list. I’m taking it with a bucket of salt, until we know his or her identity.
I thought the following correspondence of interest to us all – self-explanatory:
Dear Folks –
A most blessed New Year to all !!
As they requested it, Delta Airlines solicits passengers’ feedback, relative to flight experiences. Well, I submitted my feedback, saying that I regretted that airline’s adulation of the sodomy-based homosexual lifestyle – as evidenced in a pre-flight video, in which Delta Airline’s CEO puts-in a plug for the airline’s support of “Pride” events.
Maybe if a few more of us would regularly express our disagreement (maybe even outrage) over depravity-based initiatives (and the implicit hatred of purity and virtue), things might just change a tad. I hope and pray that this new administration will help inspire and motivate some kind of moral rebirth to our nation . . .
Blessed Christmas Season,
– Fr. Joseph Klee
FR. Klee’s original letter to Delta Airlines. at ContactUs.Delta@delta.com:
Delta Air Lines Customer Care Form Response: The flight experiences ( (4) in total) were just fine. I only write to express my deep regret of a Delta Airlines corporate policy communicated in the introductory pre-flight video. Your CEO spoke of Delta’s commitment to “Pride” events, meaning that your airline promotes the active homosexual lifestyle. This is most unfortunate, as my experience of (11) years as a Catholic priest / chaplain with the Catholic organization “Courage”, has shown the anguish and pain that a sodomy-based lifestyle causes. Simple proof of this is the very high suicide rate of those in this sad lifestyle. I don’t plan to fly with your airline again in the future, given this corporate irresponsibility that you thus engage in.
Response from Delta:
Thanks for writing us regarding your trip from New York City to Tel Aviv. I realize that content of the on board video made for an unpleasant flight. I’m [sorry] this was your experience while traveling with us.
We hear you! You ar[e]n’t pleased with the video shown onboard, and we respect your comments regarding the video from our CEO. Please know , as a global airline that serves millions of passenger everyday world-wide we are here to serve everyone well. Our goal is for each passenger to have a pleasant and enjoyable flight. I’m really sorry this wasn’t your experience. I’ve forwarded your comments directly to our In-Flight leadership fo[r] internal revei[ie]w. We value your comments and will use them when making needed improvements.
Father Joseph, we know you have a choice when you travel, and we hope that you will allow us to provide the world class service we are known for! Thanks for flying Delta!
Regards,
D. F. M.
Aside from the obvious template language adapted to individual complaints, it seems Delta Airlines needs a corporate checkup from the neck up. Apparently, “serving everyone well” means, to them, endorsing self-inflicted perversion, sickness and suffering. Now there’s a new definition of well-being!
RCA Victor,
We hear you!
I’ve just signed this petition and urge others to do so as well.
I note that it says that the deadline is today, 9th January, but I only received it in my inbox today. No harm in signing, in the hope that we’re not too late, since today lasts until midnight or did last time I looked!