Growing Catholic Identity Crisis…editor
Since Pope Benedict XVI’s motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum, permitting all priests to offer the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) without seeking permission from bishops, there has been a kind of “traditionalist identity crisis” within the Church, where “conservative” priests and people have taken to the ancient Mass and, coupled with their orthodox adherence to the natural moral law on “life” matters (contraception, abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality etc), thereby consider themselves to be “traditionalists” – straight down the line Catholics, the real McCoy. It is not, however, that simple.
Often, these same Catholics hold positions that are absolutely at odds with the truths of the Faith. Many, if not most, are outright papolatrists – they will not accept that there are limits to papal authority and they are in denial about much of the scandal caused by Pope Francis. Then again, others take the opposite view: he is so bad that he can’t be a true pope, so the papal seat is vacant – sedevacantism. Or, they jump on the latest bandwagon, support the latest fad, “Benevacantism” where the claim is that Benedict is still pope because not only is Francis so bad that he can’t be a true pope, but Benedict was forced to resign, so Francis’ election must be invalid. None of these positions fits the “traditional Catholic” profile. Some – believe it or not, including folks in the above categories – still attend the novus ordo Mass, even on weekdays when there is no obligation, and argue that they have to attend on Sundays, under pain of mortal sin, if unable to get to the TLM.
Most of the Summorum Pontificum priests still provide the novus ordo, although I am aware that, certainly in a number of UK-wide cases that have come across my desk, there are priests would much prefer not to do so and who keep those Masses to a minimum. The majority, however, remain “on diocesan message”, their “traditionalism” filed in the box marked “Making the TLM available for those who want to attend” – and they’re not exactly setting the heather on fire with forceful sermons on the topic, exhorting their parishioners to switch to “the old Mass”.
Finally, there are self-styled “traditional” Catholics, priests and laity, who go along with various novelties introduced in the post-Vatican II era, and even support various controversial (to say the least) initiatives within the Church, new movements such as the Charismatics, the Faith movement and the Neocatechumenate. Some who dislike the new Mass, like the new Rosary, and they may read books which a truly Catholic mind would bin.
Time, then, perhaps, to reflect on the precise nature of Catholic Tradition. In his Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Archbishop Lefebvre (SSPX Founder) spells out what it means to be a Catholic – and there’s no getting away from the fact that truly traditional Catholic priests follow the exhortation of Pope Saint Pius X: “Far, far from our priests, be the love of novelty.” And truly traditional Catholic laity keep the clergy’s feet to the fire on this, to minimise the risk of being led astray, albeit by well-meaning priests who are not sufficiently “traditional” in their souls to recognise the dangers inherent in the modern Church. Below, a superb definition of Catholic Tradition – comments welcome, but note: do not name any priests or lay people whom you may consider to be in the “identity crisis” category. This thread is to remind us all, each one of us, what it means to be a faithful Catholic – that we must all adhere to Tradition, as defined below. So, unless you’re identifying your own infidelity, no names, no pack drill!
Archbishop Lefebvre writes…
Modernism is indeed what undermines the Church from within, today as yesterday. Let us again quote from the encyclical Pascendi some typical features which correspond with what we are experiencing now. “The Modernists say that authority in the Church, since its end is purely spiritual, should strip itself of all that external pomp, all those pretentious adornments with which it parades itself in public. In this they forget that religion, while it belongs to the soul, is not exclusively for the soul and that the honor paid to authority is reflected back on Christ who institutes it.”
It is under pressure from these “speakers of novelties” that Paul VI abandoned the tiara, bishops gave up the violet cassock and even the black, as well as their rings, and priests appear in lay clothes, usually in a deliberately casual style. There is nothing among the general reforms already put into effect or insistently demanded that St. Pius X has not mentioned as the “maniac” desires of the modernist reformers. You will recognize them in this passage: “As regards worship (they want) to diminish the number of external devotions or at least stop their increasing… Let ecclesiastical government become democratic; let a share in the government be given to the junior clergy and even the laity; let authority be decentralized. Reform of the Roman Congregations, above all the Holy Office and the Index… Finally there are those among them who, echoing their Protestant masters, seek the suppression of priestly celibacy.” Notice that the same demands are now being put forward and that there is absolutely nothing original. As regards Christian thought and the formation of future priests, the intention of the reformers of St. Pius X’s time was the abandonment of scholastic philosophy among the obsolete systems.” They advocate “that young people should be taught modern philosophy, the only true philosophy, the only one suitable for our times… that so-called rational theology should be based on modern philosophy and positive theology on the history of dogmas.” In this respect, the Modernists have got what they wanted and more. In what passes for seminaries, they teach anthropology, psychoanalysis and Marx in place of St. Thomas Aquinas. The principles of Thomist philosophy are rejected in favor of vague systems which themselves recognize their inability to explain the economy of the Universe, putting forward as they do the philosophy of the absurd. One latter-day revolutionary, a muddle-headed priest much heeded by intellectuals, who put sex at the heart of everything, was bold enough to declare at public meetings: “The scientific hypotheses of the ancients were pure nonsense and it is on such nonsense that St. Thomas and Origen based their systems.” Immediately afterwards, he fell into the absurdity of defining life as “an evolutionary chain of biologically inexplicable facts.” How can he know that, if it is inexplicable? How, I would add, can a priest discard the only explanation, which is God?
The Modernists would be set at naught if they had to defend their elaborate theories against the principles of the Angelic Doctor, the notions of potency and act, essence, substance and accidents, body and soul, etc. By eliminating these notions they would render the theology of the Church incomprehensible and, as one reads in the Motu Proprio Doctoris Angelici, “the result is that students of the sacred disciplines no longer even perceive the meaning of the words by which the dogmas which God has revealed are propounded by the Magisterium.” The offensive against scholastic philosophy is a necessary preliminary when one wants to change dogma and attack Tradition.
But what is Tradition? It seems to me that the word is often imperfectly understood. It is equated to the “traditions” that exist in trades, in families and in civic life: the “bouquet” fixed to the roof of a house when the last tile is laid, the ribbon that is cut to open a monument, etc. That is not what I am referring to: Tradition does not consist of the customs inherited from the past and preserved out of loyalty to the past even where there are no clear reasons for them. Tradition is defined as the Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Magisterium down through the centuries. This deposit is what has been given to us by Revelation; that is to say, the Word of God entrusted to the Apostles and transmitted unfailingly by their successors.
But now they want to get everyone inquiring, searching, as if we had not been given the Creed, or as if Our Lord had not come to bring us the Truth once and for all. What do they claim to discover with all this inquiry? Catholics upon whom they would impose these “questionings,” after having made them “abandon their certainties,” should remember this: the deposit of Revelation concluded at the death of the last Apostle. It is finished and it cannot be touched until the end of time. Revelation is irreformable. The First Vatican Council re-stated this explicitly: “for the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention, to be perfected by human ingenuity; but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ (the Church) to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared.”
But, one will object, the dogma that makes Mary the Mother of God only dates back to the year 431, transubstantiation to 1215, papal infallibility to 1870 and so on. Has there not been an evolution? No, not at all. The dogmas which have been defined in the course of the ages were contained in Revelation; the Church has just made them explicit. When Pope Pius XII defined in 1950 the dogma of the Assumption, he said specifically that this truth of the assumption into Heaven of the Virgin Mary, body and soul, was included in the deposit of Revelation and already existed in the texts revealed to us before the death of the last Apostle. We cannot bring anything new into this field, we cannot add a single dogma, but only express those that exist ever more clearly, more beautifully and more loftily.
That is so certain that it forms the rule to follow in judging the errors that are put before us every day, and rejecting them with no concession. As Bossuet forcefully wrote: “When it is a matter of explaining the principles of Christian morality and the essential dogmas of the Church everything that does not appear in the Tradition of all time, and especially the early times, is from then on not only suspect but wrong and to be condemned; and this is the principal basis on which all the holy Fathers of the Church, and Popes more than anyone, condemned false doctrines, there being nothing more odious to the Roman Church than novelties.”
The argument that is pressed upon the terrorized faithful is this: “You are clinging to the past, you are being nostalgic; live in your own time!” Some are abashed and do not know what to reply. Nevertheless, the answer is easy: In this there is no past or present or future. Truth belongs to all times, it is eternal.
In order to break down Tradition they confront it with Holy Scripture, after the manner of the Protestants, with the assertion that the Gospel is the only book that counts. But Tradition came before the Gospel! Although the Synoptic Gospels were not written nearly as late as some would have us believe, a number of years had passed before the Four Evangelists had completed their writing; but the Church already existed, Pentecost had taken place and brought numerous conversions, 3000 on the very day the Apostles came out of the Upper Room. What did they believe just at that moment? How was Revelation transmitted if not by oral tradition? One cannot subordinate Tradition to Holy Scripture, still less reject it.
But do not imagine that, adopting this attitude, they have an unlimited respect for the inspired text. They even dispute that it is inspired in its entirety: “What is there in the Gospel which is inspired? Only the truths that are necessary for our salvation.” In consequence, the miracles, the accounts of the Holy Childhood, the actions and conduct of Our Lord are relegated to the category of more or less legendary biography. We fought in the Council over that phrase: “Only the truths necessary for salvation.” There were some bishops in favor of reducing the historical authenticity of the Gospels, which shows the extent to which the clergy is corrupted by neo-Modernism. Catholics should not allow themselves to be imposed upon: the whole of the Gospel is inspired and those who wrote it had the Holy Ghost guiding their intelligence, so that the whole of it is the Word of God, Verbum Dei. It is not permissible to pick and choose and to say today: “We will take this part but we don’t want that part.” To choose is to be a heretic, according to the Greek derivation of that word.
It remains no less a fact that it is Tradition that transmits the Gospel to us, and it appertains to Tradition, to the Magisterium, to explain to us the contents of the Gospel. If we have nobody to interpret it for us, we can reach several completely different understandings of the same words of Christ. We then end up with the free interpretation of the Protestants and the free inspiration of the present day charismatics which leads us into pure fantasy.
All the dogmatic councils have given us the exact expression of Tradition, the exact expression of what the Apostles taught. Tradition is irreformable. One can never change the decrees of the Council of Trent, because they are infallible, written and published by an official act of the Church, unlike those of Vatican II, which pronouncements are not infallible because the popes did not wish to commit their infallibility. Therefore nobody can say to you, “You are clinging to the past, you have stayed with the Council of Trent.” For the Council of Trent is not the past. Tradition is clothed with a timeless character, adapted to all times and all places. Source
This is a very important thread. The Mass itself is not enough. That’s why important to be discerning about where you go to a Traditional Mass.
However, I think it’s extremely difficult these days to keep on the right path. The Modernists are dangerous, the half way house crew are dangerous and the extremists are dangerous!
I guess a good way to keep on the right track is to read Catholic Truth!
You are right – the various groupings are dangerous, not least the extremists who think they’re the “real” traditionalists. I found a bunch of sedevacantists languishing in the “go away” file when I reported for duty just now – they seem to be able to sniff out a discussion like this a mile away.
My very LEAST favourite of their daft arguments, the one that is really “yawn yawn” is that when a pope dies, we’re all sedevacantists until the next pope is elected.
Well, yes, of course. Quite. But when the next one is elected, er… that’s the end of the sedevacantism and we have a pope reigning over us once more. Usually a good pope, occasionally not so good and even more occasionally – i.e. seldom or in this case uniquely – a uniquely bad pope. A pope, however, nevertheless.
Imagine a Head-teacher resigning or retiring, and the vacancy for his position appears in due course in the Times Educational Supplement. Oh dear, the school is missing a Head-Teacher, let’s hope they find one soon. Vacancy duly filled, only there’s a bunch of dissatisfied parents who don’t think he’s the best person for the job, so they refuse to recognise him as Head and go about the place saying that there’s still a vacancy for Head-Teacher at St Evangelina of the Four Gospels up the road, if anyone’s interested…
Crazy people. Anyway, they’re gone now, but if they’re reading this, allow me to exhort them to read our House Rules where they will find that we do not permit any promotion of sedevacantism or benevacantism or francisvacantism and definitely NO discussion of editorvacantism.
So, nice try, but don’t try again. You won’t convince us and we won’t convince you, so let’s not waste our combined time, so to speak… Off you go and enjoy your new religion.
PS re concluding sentence – cheque in post 😀
“I guess a good way to keep on the right track is to read Catholic Truth!”
LOL! I agree!
I actually think too many of us belong in the “half way house” crew, unfortunately. It’s really difficult to be a truly traditional Catholic when the priests are modernist leaning not traditional leaning and you’re stuck with them unless you’re lucky enough to live near a church where the priest is traditional in his sermons, at least. You can make an effort to get to the old Mass sometimes, but for most of Catholics, it’s easier just to go to the nearest parish.
I wouldn’t go near a Charismatic group, but I think a lot of people would be surprised to read that the Faith movement and the Neo-Catechumenate Way are to be avoided. I don’t know much about the NeoCats but i have friends who say the Faith priests are very orthodox.
I’m not surprised at your surprise about my warning against the Faith Movement. Far from seeing the dangers of the Faith Movement, most see it as a stamp of orthodoxy. It’s amazing.
Friends invited me to attend one of their meetings in York when I lived in the north of England some years ago and I left convinced that they are a major danger to the Faith.
I was stunned, for example, when one of the many students in attendance asked their guest speaker (Fr Francis Marsden, who writes for the Catholic Times) if, in fact, given the Church crisis, the Holy Spirit might work through one or other of the Protestant denominations, to which the supposedly orthodox Fr Marsden replied in the affirmative.
I waited to see if anyone would correct this, since I’d already spoken out and didn’t want to reinforce my reputation as a talker (!) but nobody did, so, as the young priest Chairman was closing the meeting, I put up my hand and said that I could not, in conscience allow one important error to go uncorrected – and as I said it, Fr Marsden said “You mean what I said about the Holy Spirit working through other denominations…” You bet. He clearly realised his error but had no intention, it seemed, of correcting it.
I quickly did my best to concisely correct the error with him nodding all the while, but the young Faith priest Chairman, impatient to close the meeting, said that if “we” wanted, “we” could continue the “debate” after the meeting. Incredible. As if the hall full of students going off with the impression that this was a debateable issue, didn’t matter.
The Faith movement promotes evolution and is anything but rooted in Tradition.
As for the Neo-catechumenate – that bunch has destroyed parishes where they have been given a foothold. They follow their own “Way” and their Masses are concocted to suit their own teachings with umpteen liturgical abuses based on their own anything-but-Catholic private teachings. They have caused trouble, dividing parishes all over the place – here’s one report of an Asian bishop banning them.
Sticking with the principle of avoiding all novelty, it is best to avoid all these new “initiatives” until the wheat can be separated from the chaff post-crisis.
Yes, I’d be very wary of the Faith Movement. I think they lead souls seeking Tradition astray!
They sure do, they definitely lead people away from Tradition. Evolution is the Devil’s answer to Genesis 1 & 2. Tragic that a group of Catholic priests should – albeit unwittingly – help him.
They are a strange lot in the Faith movement. In some respects they seem very orthodox, but they have a peculiar attachment to the visions of one Mrs Holloway who I believe was the mother of one of the founding priests. In said visions she received a message form the Lord (allegedly) about the truth of the theory of Evolution.
Not wishing to get into the evolution/creation debate now, but whenever anybody gets dogmatic about a scientific theory which is questionable, or gets dogmatic about private revelations which have not been tested by the Church, it always gets my “heresy radar” twitching.
Brilliant to post a CO article on Faith here – that is terrific. I’ll have read it at the time, and will refresh my memory by reading it again, so many thanks. Highly recommended reading folks, well worth the time required to read it through.
That is precisely what makes the Faith movement dangerous – they seem very orthodox…
The fact that their stance of evolution is based – to the best of my knowledge – on those alleged visions claimed by the mother of one of the founding priests, makes it all the more ridiculous.
As for your final paragraph – exactly! Got it in one. The whole nonsense about evolution is stark to anyone with common sense. Nobody needs a science degree to know that order does not come out of chaos. Anyway, as you say, we don’t want to get into the evolution (non) debate. We’ve had them in the past and we will no doubt discuss it on a topic thread in the future, but right now, let’s not (as they mysteriously say these days) go there!
I agree with Petrus that this is an important thread, because right now, the sacraments are being belittled with the latest gimmick from the Scottish Bishops – the Mercy Bus – I quote:
Mercy Bus – Monday 31st July – Saturday 5th August 2017 11 am – 3 pm. daily. Bishop John Keenan and priests from Paisley, Glasgow and Motherwell Dioceses will be on top deck hearing confessions or just having a chat with people. There will be a music group playing on the lower deck and some of the team will be out on the streets giving candles to people and inviting them to pray. The event will close with Bishop John celebrating Holy Mass on the Bus on Saturday 5th August 2017 at 2 p.m.
I find that so far removed from the Tradition of the Church which I presumed required us to go to Confession in a confessional box unless there’s an emergency of some kind, like the victim of an accident or a dying person in hospital or at home. I can’t imagine trying to concentrate of confessing my sins on the top of a bus when there are others chatting to priests or confessing around me, music playing etc. I am truly scandalised by this.
I’m going to read the rest of that book (Open Letter) – the chapter above is first class.
I’m going to read the rest of that book (Open Letter) – the chapter above is first class.
You can find an online copy to read here:
As regards the mercy bus, I heard a lady interviewed on the radio earlier today.
She was involved with the organisation and was saying how people who had not been to church for years had come to confession on the bus (which is a positive thing, if in absurd surroundings). But what concerned me was when one lapsed man said to her “I will be in there for ages” – she said “don’t worry they will give you a general confession”.
And while I don’t want to put words in her mouth, the strong impression this gave to me was not the proper understanding of a general confession: the impression given was that a general confession meant a “catch-all click of the fingers absolution”, as opposed to a thorough confession of known all sins to date, following a rigorous preparation.
Yes, Gabriel Syme, that is concerning. I was told once in Confession to stop, I was being too detailed and just give a general account. I think modern priests expect things like “I’ve hurt a lot of people”.
“She was involved with the organisation and was saying how people who had not been to church for years had come to confession on the bus (which is a positive thing, if in absurd surroundings).”
This is typical of the numbers-game Catholicism that we are seeing played out all the time.
We’ve got the American evangelist guy coming to “reboot” the Faith in Glasgow and no doubt the so-called Catholic press will be full of the “packed venue” with xxx number of young people enthusiastically hip-hopping their appreciation of the latest rave hymns and sentimental slush where sound doctrine and morals ought to be, and now we have the “Mercy Bus” where people can hop on and hop off, fully absolved of their sins which we can bet our bottom dollar will not include pre-marital sex, cohabitation, contraception abortion, homosexual activity, or one’s application for a transgender operation.
Nope; as one priest said to me in recent years, commenting on the chatty Medjugorje confessions: “They are not confessing as you or I would confess…” My reply? You can bet money on it.
So, let’s wait to see the fruits of these gimmicks – let’s see how many youngsters pack the Glasgow churches after the “rebooting” exercise, or how many turn out to be faithful Catholics of the only brand that are truly Catholic at all – traditional Catholics, accepting the entirety of Christ’s teaching, hook, line and “pre-Vatican II” theology, after a spin on the Mercy Bus.
Thank you for the link – I got through to it when I clicked the image of the book at the top of this page, but I appreciate your kindness in posting the link. I am already reading it and it is a marvellous book. If more Catholics read it, they would have their eyes opened.
No problem, glad to have been of some help. Its a real boon that the SSPX made it available only for free and that Catholic Truth promotes it vigorously.
Unfortunately I doubt if many modern Catholic read books about the faith, but we can but hope the book gets the wide readership it richly deserves,.
I am horrified at this scandalous “mercy bus” – what sort of mind thinks up these gimmicks?
You are right to raise concerns about such open confessions. There is nothing in Canon Law to stipulate suitable venues for Confession but it seems self-evident that – in keeping with the sacred nature of the Sacrament – the venue should always be as private and conducive to reverence as possible. The top of a double decker bus, with socialising going on, and music playing, does not cut it.
The Open Letter is linked on our website – see Links page, and is well worth reading from beginning to end.
I had an email from a reader in England this morning who summed up the “Mercy Bus” gimmick in three words: Smacks of desperation.
To which I replied in ONE word… Exactly!
I am horrified too. I didn’t give it a lot of thought when I first heard about it. I even wondered if it was quite imaginative. Then I visualised going to Confession on the bus. Talk about debasing the Sacraments! Who on earth would be attracted by such a novelty?
It’s a fantastic book – and I have an extra copy that needs a good home…
If you like, please give your address to Madame Editor and ask her to email your address with postal/zip code and I will send it to you.
Margaret USA 🇺🇸
I’ve found the book online – just by clicking on the image of the book at the top of this page so I will read it on my computer, but thank you very much for your kind offer. I appreciate that, a lot. Thank you.
You’re welcome. 😊
Often, these same Catholics hold positions that are absolutely at odds with the truths of the Faith. Many, if not most, are outright papolatrists
I think much of the papolatry is a symptom of how ignorant and poorly instructed modern Catholic area (there is another “fan boy” kind of papolatry, as exemplified by Austen Ivereigh).
When you hear modern Catholics from the parishes air their beliefs or views, it often becomes very clear that they are not Catholic in any meaningful sense whatsoever.
Two examples really stick in my head, one of Bishop Keenan’s “paisley synod” and one from St Bride’s (of recent infamy) facebook page. I am probably paraphrasing, but here goes:
The paisley example, was someone claiming that (regarding how to invigorate itself) the Church could “learn from pentecostal groups – they really know what they are doing”.
The St Bride’s one related to homosexuality and said “We need to move with the times and realise love is love”.
When this is the widespread standard, its not a surprise that the novus ordo church is such a moribund and failing structure.
It fails ordinary catholics so badly, that they are reduced to looking to secular society or to false religions, in an effort to find some kind of meaning in their faith.
Well, I can’t resist posting this piece from Zenit, because my memories of the Church’s interest in “tourism” was when our priests reminded us to make sure we could get to Sunday Mass before booking a holiday. Needless to say neither Mass nor God gets a mention in this baloney to follow – it’s about as “traditional” as a smart-phone. I think the text below importantly highlights just how far “the Vatican” has moved from Catholic Tradition. Read on and all will be revealed…
Vatican Publishes Message for World Tourism Day
“Sustainable Tourism – a Tool for Development”
August 1, 2017ZENIT StaffVatican Dicasteries/Diplomacy
Here is the Vatican-provided text of the message of the Dicastery of Integral Human Development on the occasion of World Tourism Day which, as usual, will be celebrated on September 27, this year on the theme: “Sustainable Tourism – a tool for development:”
“Sustainable Tourism – a tool for development”
1. On the annual occasion of World Tourism Day, celebrated every 27 September 2017, the Church joins civil society in addressing this phenomenon, in the conviction that every genuinely human activity must find its place in the hearts of Christ’s disciples .
For the first time, this message is issued by the new Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development, as part of its mission.
The United Nations General Assembly has proclaimed 2017 the International Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development. Opportunely, the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) has followed in the same vein by choosing Sustainable Tourism: a tool for development as the theme for this year’s Day.
2. When we say tourism, we are talking about a phenomenon of major importance, both in light of the number of people involved (travellers and workers) and for the many benefits that it can bring to society (economic, cultural and social), but also given the risks and dangers that it can create in many areas.
According to the World Tourism Organization’s latest Barometer, for the year 2016, the number of international tourist arrivals is around 1.2 billion. Worldwide, the sector accounts for 10% of GDP and 7% of total exports, also considering that 1 out of 11 jobs are in tourism. It therefore occupies an important place in the economies of individual states and in policies that focus on inclusive development and environmental sustainability globally.
3. Tourism can be an important tool for growth and the fight against poverty. Nevertheless, according to the Church’s social doctrine, true development “cannot be restricted to economic growth alone”. In fact, “to be authentic, it must be well rounded”; that is, “it must foster the development of each man and of the whole man”, as the Encyclical Populorum progressio  notes. In this regard, Paul VI stressed the need to promote a “full-bodied humanism”, including the material and spiritual needs for the full development of each person in dignity . Twenty years later, in 1987, the UN introduced the concept of sustainable development as a development that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” . For the Church, the concept of integrality, when connected to the expression human development, also includes the United Nations’ idea of sustainability, and embraces all aspects of life: social, economic, political, cultural, and spiritual, making them elements in a single synthesis, the human person.
The UNWTO has applied these ideas to promoting sustainable tourism . This means that it must be responsible, and not destructive or detrimental to the environment nor to the socio-cultural context of the locality. Moreover, it must be particularly respectful of the population and their heritage, with a view to safeguarding personal dignity and labour rights, especially those of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable people. Holiday time cannot be a pretext either for irresponsibility or for exploitation: in fact, it is a noble time in which everyone can add value to one’s own life and that of others.
Sustainable tourism is also a development tool for economies in difficulty if it becomes a vehicle of new opportunities and not a source of problems.
In its 2017 Resolution, the United Nations recognizes “the important role of sustainable tourism as a positive instrument towards the eradication of poverty, the protection of the environment, the improvement of quality of life and the economic empowerment of women and youth and its contribution to the three dimensions of sustainable development, especially in developing countries” . In this sense, three dimensions of sustainability are promoted: the ecological, aiming for the maintenance of ecosystems; the social, which develops in harmony with the host community; and the economic, which stimulates inclusive growth. In the context of Agenda 2030, this International Year is therefore an opportunity to encourage governments to adopt appropriate policies, the industry to embrace good practice, and to raise awareness among consumers and local people, highlighting how an integral conception of tourism can contribute to sustainable development.
4. Conscious that “in all her being and actions, the Church is called to promote the integral development of the human person in the light of the Gospel” , we Christians want to offer our contribution so that tourism can assist in the development of peoples, especially the most disadvantaged. We therefore propose our reflection. We recognize God as the creator of the universe and father of all human beings, and He who makes us brothers. We must put the human person as the focus of our attention; we recognize the dignity of each person and the relationships among persons; we must share the principle of the common destiny of the human family and the universal destination of earthly goods. The human being acts not as a master, but as a “responsible steward” . In acknowledging each other as brothers, we will understand “the principle of gratuitousness and the logic of gift”  and our duties of solidarity, justice and universal charity .
We now ask ourselves: how can these principles be practically applied to the development of tourism? What are the consequences for tourists, entrepreneurs, workers, governors, and local communities? It is an open reflection. We invite all those involved in the sector to engage in serious discernment and to promote practices towards attaining this, accompanying behaviours and lifestyle changes towards a new way of relating to each other.
The Church is making its own contribution, launching initiatives that really place tourism in the service of the integral development of the person. This is why we talk about tourism with a human touch, which is based on projects of community tourism, cooperation, solidarity, and an appreciation of the great artistic heritage which is an authentic way of beauty .
In his address to the United Nations, Pope Francis stated: “The common home of all men and women must continue to rise on the foundations of a right understanding of universal fraternity and respect for the sacredness of every human life, of every man and every woman […]. This common home of all men and women must also be built on the understanding of a certain sacredness of created nature”. May we live out our commitment in the light of these words and these intentions!
Vatican City, 29 June 2017
Cardinal Peter Kodwo Appiah Turkson
As the old saying goes, the shepherd has been struck and the sheep have been scattered. That has happened many times in the history of the Church. A large part of the trouble this time, however, is that the shepherd was struck from within, and so the enemy is within, the wolf is disguised as the shepherd. The fact that so many Catholics regard everything the Pope says as Gospel is a sure sign that their faith was very superficial to begin with. So by defending a horrendous pope(s), they are unwittingly revealing their lack of depth in, and ignorance of the Faith. That’s the Novus Ordo part of the equation. What makes it worse is that they have most of the clergy, the hierarchy, and the buildings to support their ignorance with status and prestige: the trust factor and all the accidentals of the Church.
Among traditional groups, part of the problem appears to be that many tradition-minded folk have been out in the cold too long and have absorbed strange, un-Catholic ideas as they search for answers to this revolutionary collapse. Sort of a do-it-yourself approach to the Faith. So for example some SSPX parishes are infested with Feeneyites, sedevacantists, “benevacantists,” and “Resistance” sympathizers, each of them cherry-picking their own quotes from the Magisterium to “prove” their false opinions. At Fraternity parishes, priests are not allowed (at least, on paper) to talk about a crisis in the Church, and they have to do things like celebrate Divine Mercy Sunday…..while mouthing the party line about the SSPX being “not in full communion,” “schismatic,” or what-have-you.
I agree with Petrus that much of the unhealthy thought among traditionalists can be traced to blogs, and so a blog is needed to grasp hold of the rudder and keep the ship sailing straight in rough seas. That blog would be this one! Another solution would be to read True or False Pope, which not only completely exposes and refutes sedevacantism, but is also a trove of information on Catholic doctrine.
I’d imagine we traditionalists are frequently in the same position as were the Apostles during Our Lord’s Passion and Crucifixion. Their Master was tortured and executed like a common criminal – how could this be? Where could they turn for an explanation? And when the Explanation appeared after the third day, they still didn’t get it right away. Traditionalists need to remember where the explanation lies. Modern Catholics, on the other hand, don’t think they need an explanation, because they have become Protestants, happy with a Church “moving with the times.” The motto of the modern Catholic should probably be “What me worry?”
Well said – every word. Especially these words: “That blog would be this one!”
Cheque/check in post! Snail mail… should be there by the time we’ve left the EU 😀
I hope it gets here while I’m still on this side of the grass!
That made me laugh heartily! “… this side of the grass!” I must remember that one! I can see how it might slip into one of my editorials… e.g. hoping we get another Pope Saint (a real one) while I’m still on this side of the grass…
Priceless – I would, of course, acknowledge you as the original source of my witticism, along the lines of “to quote one of our witty bloggers… ” OR in a footnote (with the smallest font I can find!) 😀
I’ve been booted off 1P5 for stating my belief that while the Holy Father (!) is indeed the Pope, he is the False Prophet. That’s Damian Thompson’s ‘Holy Smoke’ blog (about six years ago, on the same say as about twenty others); the Remnant (for opposing Michael Matt’s ludicrous mid-Western red-neck Traditionalist belief that Putin will save the world and is a secret Catholic. Or something like that); the Catholic Herald (for being a Catholic); and now 1P5.
As long as Our Lord Jesus Christ doesn’t boot me out! That’s all that matters.
I’ve had it with Catholic blogging. Even the so-called “Traditionalist” blogs are unable to draw (or face) the conclusions plain eyesight and common sense tells them.
For eight years or so I’ve spent countless hours battling Novus Ordoites, homosexuals, militant atheists (interesting how those three online find themselves to be natural allies ..), and brain-dead Catholics. Most of the Americans can’t even spell.
It’s enough. Signing off.
Whether or not Pope Francis is “the False Prophet” is neither here nor there. If he’s TEN false prophets rolled into one, there’s not a darn thing you or I or every Catholic blogger in creation can do about it. So, who cares?
Why not keep your soul at peace by doing what Catholics ALWAYS do when there’s a bad pope – pray for him, and resist his errors. The Pope really doesn’t impact on our daily lives. I just don’t get this desperation to see him off, I really don’t. I mean I wish him gone, I definitely do, but in God’s own time and according to His plan. Not your plan, or any of the nutty sedevacantists, benevacantists, francisvacantists’ plans. Leave it to God for (literally) Heaven’s sake. If you read our House Rules we don’t allow that sort of speculation here – it’s a pure and utter waste of time, and who among us has time to spare for that sort of nonsense? He’s the pope. A very bad pope, but the pope nevertheless. A future pope/Council will deal with his memory. It’s not your job or mine to do so.
If, in fact, though, the crisis in the Church is disturbing your peace of soul, then definitely give up blogging.
You’ve not been here for a while anyway, presumably because you’ve been contributing to the other sites you name, so thanks for sharing that with us, and for signing off here.
Miss you already! 😀
Dear Madame Editor,
I just posted a lengthy reply to Benedict Carter. If he does reply, please allow it. I’ve been trying to contact him for a few days and am very worried about him.
Yours in Christ the King,
If Benedict replies to you, his post will go straight onto the blog. He is not moderated here. In the past, he has announced that he is leaving us, due to a disagreement over a topic, but we’re used to that! But he generally returns, even if, as on this occasion, it’s only to say “goodbye” 😀
Huge sympathy and understanding. Take comfort from the fact that you are not feeling anything that Our Blessed Lord didn’t feel during His Passion – in spades.
He needs prayers right now. The Enemy never rests. May St. Benedict pray for him and all of us.
I saw what happened to you on 1P5. D. Johnson and James begged me to contact you and ask you to come back. Everyone (including Steve) misses you.
Whether you realize it or not, you have influence in the American blogosphere. There were others on 1P5 who were dismayed at your banishment. They love you dearly. (I think you know my feelings by now.)
As the old saying goes: It’s not just what you say but how you say it. I made a one-sentence comment on another blog and was called “snobbish”. (The person in question made a spelling error and I corrected them.) I thought it was charitable but another blogger thought otherwise. You, me and other Catholic bloggers have to speak the truth in charity, as your latest namesake remarked before his election in 2005. (I know you’re not crazy about him but I still love him.)
Maybe you and I should take a break from blogging. However, neither of us should stay away too long. Your words (and mine!) can help or hurt someone. That’s why I edit and re-edit my posts on Disqus. (I can’t do that on CT once I submit my post – WordPress doesn’t allow it, so I’m extra careful here.)
Madame Editor does have some good points that I think you should take into consideration. Even if Pope Francis WAS the False Prophet (which I DON’T think he is), it’s not our place to so declare him.
You, Madame Editor and countless Catholics all over the world have and are suffering. As St. Ignatius says in his 6th rule “Agere contra.” If you are tempted to believe that Pope Francis is the False Prophet, then offer up an extra Rosary for him.
The devil WANTS you to think that Pope Francis is the False Prophet so that you won’t pray for him. Maybe YOUR prayers would help the Holy Father resist the snares of the Enemy. By NOT praying for him, you are depriving him of the spiritual help he needs, just like if he was being robbed and you stood by instead of calling the police (which of course you would not do).
If I knew your address in Norfolk I’d send you a Jubilee Medal of St. Benedict (blessed with the traditional Benedictine blessing and exorcism by a Benedictine priest affiliated with the SSPX).
Finally, did you get the 2 emails I sent you? I’ve checked my inbox and I haven’t yet seen your Mass article. I was only able to find you through CT.
Please forgive the rambling nature and length of this post. That’s my 10 pence for now. Sending you a hug.
In Christ the King,
Margaret USA (your Ukrainian Greek Catholic pal from across the Pond)
P.S. I hope I’m an exception to your observation re Americans. I always proofread my posts before submitting them. 😉
Why would thinking Francis is the False Prophet stop someone praying for him? Surely one prays more? I pray for him every day (draw your own conclusions ;-)) If the False Prophet is indeed a person, wouldn’t you want him prayed for if he turned out to be one of your relatives?
Out of interest – well seriously actually, why are you so sure it isn’t Francis? He seems to be playing the part of an anti-John the Baptist really well.
Better to pray for Pope Francis without broadcasting your personal view that he is “the False Prophet” – as I keep saying, who cares? That’s way above our pay scale, so let’s leave that sort of thing to those with the authority and power to deal with it. I’m busy enough trying to keep up with my domestic and religious duties, without worrying my ever-greying head about some false prophet.
I hope I’ve answered your question to Margaret, i.e. how can she/we be so sure he’s not…. We can’t! Nor can we be sure that he IS – so, I repeat, it’s not our business. Pray for him, refuse his errors. Sleep well. Amen!
I agree entirely. It is the teaching of the saints that Catholics avoid all useless controversies in the public domain since they only result in anger, resentment and division. All Catholics are obliged by God to pray for the Supreme Pontiff, no matter how bad a Pope he might be.
It’s one thing to respectfully resist a Pope’s errors in public, but quite another to start making personal and very serious judgments on his person and intentions. The latter is gravely wrong, not very distant from the Protestant spirit.
It isn’t my personal view that he is the ‘False Prophet’. How would I know? He is however A false prophet who is teaching/spreading false doctrine and dogma.
Christ told us to take heed of the times and signs (loosely put). I don’t want to stand before Him and be asked why I didn’t care about the possibility that we might well be in ‘those times’ but thought I could just leave it all to ‘someone else’. Saint Francis appears to have been pretty specific about whom God would send us as Pope ‘in those times’ and Pope Francis fits the bill pretty well.
Are we to take heed of Catholic Prophecies when it suits us and then ignore them when we think the issue ‘is above our pay scale’? What if God says to us “I gave you all the information you needed to recognize what you needed to and all you could say was ‘none of my business?’
There is no-one in authority and power who is dealing with it or at least, who is able to deal with it from a human point of view. There are precious few who are even voicing concern about the current scandals, so it seems It’s up to the laity as much as anyone else to consider it and keep praying.
Whether Francis is or is not the False Prophet is most definitely our business. You might as well say that whether Christ is or is not returning to earth ever isn’t our business!
Just my viewpoint on this matter.
Perhaps you will discover this in a surreptitious moment.
Your position is more than perfectly understood. I share your discouragement and am going to attempt to withdraw from the conversation at 1P5 and other sites as well. There is some good advice provided here by others which I too will take to consideration.
You have contributed much, TGS. Rest on the heart of Christ for as long as required.
Thank you for your love for the Church.
I’ve just had posts removed on the Remnant for the umpteenth time. What for? Yet again, for disagreeing with a ‘moderator’ who then gave me a mouthful which didn’t make any sense whatsoever. My second reply (polite) was deleted along with my original post and the moderator’s rambling. As I pointed out, trolls love to trigger such irritated responses form moderators. Genuine posters just get fed up with it. I also said I wouldn’t be posting there again. There is little point as they obviously don’t want genuine discussions on the – er – discussion threads! Just agreement. Fair enough. So you’re not alone – I think it’s happening to quite a few so bear up and smile – and just keep praying!
The same happened to me recently on the Remnant blog and I used to be one of the newspaper’s columnists. I don’t know exactly what’s going on over there but some of the moderators of the blog appear to be of the bitter zeal variety. There is far too much tolerance of the sedevacantist/”Resistance” mentality and a consequential intolerance for those who voice objective Catholic opinions. My posts all disappeared and I was denied an explanation.
Michael Matt is a decent man who has done a great deal of good for the Church and for souls. I hope he gets a grip quickly on what appears to me to be a takeover of his blog by those of a schismatic mindset.
Perhaps you should email Michael Matt re the deletion of your posts. He has a dozen moderators who monitor posts; very rarely does he respond directly. Since you once wrote for the Remnant, I’m sure he would take your concerns under consideration.
Actually, the Remnant blog is much more moderate than some other Catholic blogs.
There’s another Catholic blog (which shall remain unnamed so as not to give them publicity) I occasionally comment on which is officially anti-sedevacantist but there’s one sedevacantist blogger who dominates the conversations. I had an online argument with the moderator and the sedevacantist blogger. Result: yours truly rarely comments there now.
Personally, I’ll take the Remnant, CT and 1P5 over that one.
Yours in Christ the King,
In one sense, I’m glad it’s not just me because I couldn’t for the life of me work out what I’d said each time to incur so much wrath and sarcasm. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘objective Catholic opinions’ – all I said this time was that I agreed with a poster that so many churches in Europe were being used for other purposes that there might not be many left for use at the ‘Restoration of the Faith’ time. Hardly an heretical opinion!!
Actually I think the sarcasm is worse because I’ve seen it directed against those quite obviously just trying to find out about Traditional Catholicism and innocently asking very basic questions, from a clearly uncatechized or badly catechized position, and who were just pounced on. It’s depressing that Trad Catholics behave like that.
I was in two minds about posting last night in case I was being unfair and just adding to an already fiery situation, but am now glad I did because I also think they need to get a grip and quickly. I’ve learned so much in the last two years from the discussions over there and on other sites, whilst trying to reconnect with my childhood True Faith (having left the NO Church completely).
As one of those people whose sole contact with Trad. Catholicism is online, I feel I can speak for a lot of people in a similar situation, and we need to be able to discuss things with people more knowledgeable about Catholic doctrine/dogma etc. The articles are a starting point and give material for such discussions but yes, they are being subtly hijacked. Others words come to mind but you get my drift!
I now hope these comments DO make it back to Mr Matt because he must be very busy and therefore possibly unaware of what’s going on (although I sometimes find his own sarcasm misdirected and unhelpful).
Thank you for taking the time to reply.
MSApis and Aqua asked me to send their regards to you. Is there anything you’d like me to tell them since you can’t post on 1P5?
In Christ the King,
P.S. Did you get a chance to visit your mum’s grave in Norfolk?
I believe you are a well educated and good Catholic man at heart with the best of intentions for the Church. But I also think you assume too much to your own strength, leaving little to God’s grace and providence, and therefore become discouraged when things go contrary to how you expect them. I know this because I’ve been there!
My advice is that you reflect that Our Lord is in charge of His Church, despite appearances to the contrary, and He will sort this mess out in His own good time. In the meantime, use that God-given talent you have to uphold the truth in charity and patience. Avoid all angry exchanges and unneccesary speculation about the validity of Popes, etc., matters that we are neither qualified nor required to answer, and you will do a great deal of good for souls. You will also be more at peace in your own soul and less prone to discouragement in the face of apparent failure.
Please take these comments in the spirit they are intended, that is, in the spirit of fraternal correction and encouragement. You have more to offer than you know, but perhaps more through firm persuasion with the truth than “battling” unto frustration and exhaustion.
I think we’re now at the stage where it’s almost a case of being “POST-Catholic identity”.
On Bishop Toal thread, we’ve briefly discussed the “dag queen” priest from the diocese of Waterford and Lismore in Ireland. Now, check out this one – from 1971, and resurrected, so to speak, in today’s The Times – and tell me if he is remotely a “traditional” (i.e. authentic) Catholic…
Ireland seems to be particularly diabolically afflicted since “that Council”, no doubt because of its past history as a wonderfully Catholic nation.
I think the trickiest part of this identity crisis is the issue of conversion – that is, modern Catholics actually need to convert to the real Catholic Faith, and renounce the pseudo-religion they are practicing.
So how do you tell a modern Catholic that they need to convert to Catholicism? Without being laughed at, that is….
That’s a great question. I think, perhaps, aside, of course, from praying for them, and, if you’re not too fond of chocolate, making sacrifices 😀 it might be worth offering them something absolutely sound to read. Ideas welcome…
Note: I’m not suggesting our newsletter – I never do suggest it for lapsed Catholics. We specifically address it to “informed Catholics” which means those who are aware that there is something not quite right in the Church/world at the present time.
Your comment is very interesting and apposite. I would add only this: how do we “tell a modern Catholic that they need to convert to Catholicism”, not only without being laughed at, but without annoying them in any way, notably (as in my own case) by being forthright.
Following a recent discussion with modern Catholics and their outright modernist priest, it was suggested to me (by someone who wishes a similar conversation in his parish) that in such discussions two things would help: firstly, don’t mention the bishops (in any negative way) and secondly, don’t be “militant”. If they only knew, that wasn’t me being “militant”, that was my feminine side 😀
Any tips? How does one outline the crisis in the Church without mentioning the bishops’ role in it, and – in the light of our recent transgender discussion – how does one change one’s personality?
Before I answer, here’s a stray thought: remember I posted recently that when something disappears in the Church, it appears in the secular world, in perverted form? Like “servers” are now waiters and waitresses; like people wearing beads and no longer saying their Rosaries? Well, speaking of TRANSgenders. could that be the secular substitute for TRANSubstantiation, since the Real Presence is largely forgotten in the Novus Ordo world?)
Anyway, to take a breather from such profound thoughts…..this recently came up in a conversation. if someone who had left the Church in 1960 came back any time between, say, 1975 and today, would they recognize the Mass? The priest’s vestments? The servers? The way the faithful are dressed? The nearly empty building? The nonexistent line for Confession? The ruinous mysteries? etc. etc.
That sort of introduction avoids blaming it on anyone, and logically leads to questions like: why? What was the justification? etc.
I’m afraid that line (about a lapsed soul not recognising the Church after years away) wouldn’t faze your average modern Catholic, sorry to say, not least because they wouldn’t recognise a piece of logic if it arrived in the mail wrapped in the Vatican flag. The answer to that question, they would argue, is quite simply that the Church has to move with the times and they’ll just have to learn to live with it.
I think the only answer can be that, instead of giving facts and naming the lead players in the crisis, and doing so in a forthright manner, a person with an animated personality type ought to leave it to others to deliver the facts in a more acceptable manner.
Some of my nieces, nephews and I were having a laugh about this only this morning, when we turned the whole thing into a kind of game. We had to decide which is more offensive – an example from the list follows:
Aunt, you are very rude, offensive, far too outspoken
(said gently and with a kindly smile)
Aunt, you are very rude, offensive, far too outspoken
(said forcefully and with a sour grimace)
Answer: a unanimous both!
In other words, even my eleven year old nephew could see that it’s not so much HOW you say something, as WHAT you say that’s the problem!
I’d love to hear someone speak convincingly about the unfulfilled parts of the Fatima Message – Consecration of Russia and the suppressed part of the Third Secret – in a way that lays no blame at any door, causes no offence to modern Catholics and modernist priests. Feel free to do so here. I can’t wait!
How’s this for a deadpan delivery? I never heard of Steven Wright before, but maybe he needs some work and can be our spokesman for Fatima and Tradition…..just the facts, Ma’am….
That’s hilarious! I laughed so much I thought “this guy has jes GOTTTA be a Catholic” and I popped into Wikipedia to check. Sure enough, he was raised a Catholic and, icing on the cake, his father is of Scottish descent.
I agree with you that he would be terrific as a Fatima speaker … just deliver the facts, deadpan, and pray and hope that it hits home. Brilliant!
OR we could get Tucker Carlson to interview the allegedly traditional Catholics who are doing nothing to spread Fatima and watch, with delight, as he grills them to bits! Either/or/both gets my vote!
Here’s another go at it: perhaps Bella Dodd’s prediction, 10 years before Vat. II, that “in a few years you will not recognize the Catholic Church,” would make a dent in the heads of the dense?
In other words, the revolution was hatched and carried out by the Communists who, as ex-Communist Bella Dodd warned us, had infiltrated the Church at the behest of Stalin.
And if the dense inquire as to how she knew that, she herself stated that, as a Communist Party official in New York, she was in touch with the very Cardinals who were doing the plotting.
So, if that doesn’t work, I recommend smelling salts…
Here’s Chris. Ferrara’s new bullet-point summary of the causes of the identity crisis:
As usual, Chris Ferrara hits nails on heads. A very good summary of the causes of the identity crisis, as you say.
I second the motion. All in favor, shout AYE! 😉
It is almost impossible to find two Catholics who agree on anything. Nearly everyone thinks the new Mass is better than the old because they can understand it better, and in general everything is a matter of personal opinion.
There are many following various claimed apparitions, most notably Medjugorje, and the fact that the bishops of the region have said they are not approved, doesn’t bother them in the slightest.
As for the Charismatics and Faith movements, I agree they are misleading people, to say the least. I don’t know anything about the neocatechetical movement, but I agree with Pope St Pius X, that we should be avoiding things that are “new”.
All in all, I don’t think there’s such a thing as a single “Catholic identity” any more. People are now labelled liberals or conservatives or traditionalists, and I find that very sad. I wish I knew the answer.
I think the identity crisis is one of the consequences of the diabolical disorientation. Very few of us have escaped unscathed. It is difficult to work out, especially at the beginning, what the right thing to do is.
What I don’t understand are those Catholics who DO know better, or SHOULD know better, and they continue to have a foot in both camps. Some of the Una Voce Scotland crowd fall into this category, attending the Traditional Mass on most days apart from a Sunday – the only day they are obliged to attend Mass. Diabolical disorientation ? With bells on!
I think that most people just want a quiet life and they are happy with the situation as it is, because they don’t need to do anything. The priests are modernists, the vast majority, and the general view is that it doesn’t matter what Mass you attend, it’s the same Mass. Take two! I don’t think so! They actually couldn’t be more different!
I agree about Catholic identity no longer existing. That’s obvious, IMHO. This video at The Remnant shows how far this identity has been lost. The video is dated 2015, so what must the speaker be thinking now! Basically, Pope Francis has told us there is no such thing as “Catholic identity”. It’s mind-blowing.
The crisis in the Church is now so deep and so extensive that I have to agree with those who argue that there is no longer any such thing as a unique “Catholic identity”. Even Celtic FC – the football wing of the Church! – has sold out to the LGBT lobby! Click here for more. What next!
In recent weeks I’ve been in contact with various diocesan Catholics, ordained and lay in a variety of contexts, and have found that the overwhelming majority are modernists, including some who regard themselves as “traditionalists”.
I find it incredible when, for example, a priest tells the people that “obedience” is key to being a faithful Catholic.There is no distinction made between true and false obedience, which means that, for example, any criticism of Amoris Laetitia is out of the question. Pope Francis says that the divorced and “remarried” may, in good conscience, approach for Holy Communion and so he is entitled to be obeyed. The unbaptized may enter Heaven, contrary to 2,000 years of Catholic teaching on salvation, but since the Pope says it, we must accept this new teaching in a spirit of obedience. The Archbishop of Southwark, who defends the introduction of gender neutral uniforms for primary school pupils in one school, and brings in Stonewall, militant LGBT activists, to provide workshops in another primary school, must be obeyed. The list is endless. This sort of anything-but-Catholic teaching is being pushed by priests in modern parishes, and – above all – there must be no criticism of the new Mass or of Vatican II. Little wonder that the faithful don’t know whether they are on foot or on horseback. Religious illiteracy is rampant and it is difficult to know how to put an end to it.
We need to redouble our prayers for the Consecration of Russia, in this centenary of Fatima year. Only then will the spiritual blindness enveloping so many priests and bishops be brought to an end. Our advertisement in the July newsletter to take our little Fatima group to wherever they are invited has brought a few invitations so far, and a good stock of excellent literature has been distributed already, so we pray that this solid reading on the full Message of Fatima will help educate more and more Catholics as to the diabolical nature of what they are witnessing and hearing in their parish churches and in the wider Church. Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!
Dear Madame Editor,
The only way the crisis in the Church will end is 1) when the Holy Father reveals the Third Secret of Fatima (NOT the vision, but the exact words of Our Lady which follow: “In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved…”) and 2) when the Holy Father orders and makes in union with all the bishops of the world the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
The late Fr. Malachi Martin said that when the Holy Father does reveal the Third Secret as noted above, the churches will be packed and there will be long lines for confession.
On another note, someone on another blog asked me to look at this:
I’ve always supported the Fatima Center (oops, Centre – Queen’s English) and this really shook me up. Any advice?
Yours in Christ the King,
P.S. One of the reasons why I like CT is because you support the Fatima Centre.
Thank you for these latest posts. Reading the akacatholic link shook me up a bit myself, I have to admit. I’ve only skimmed it but am going to re-read it properly and then take stock. Will comment when I have a considered view. I’m not a fan of the akacatholic site, as you know, but if he’s right about this, well, we have to admit it. More in due course.
You’re welcome. 😊
I have now read it properly and he makes some important points. There’s no escaping it. However, I’ve just finished working on a new thread (just gone up – see sidebar) and I need one of my regular energy breaks. O yes, I’m into the green lifestyle (or rather the brown – chocolate – lifestyle!) So, more in due course!
I’ve been in email correspondence with the Fatima Center (FC) about the akacatholic and other similar statements, and they are going to put something on their website about these claims, and more today from another source, from people who’ve only met Fr Gruner on rare occasions and DON’T know how he thought, need to be corrected. Alleluia!
I must say, one thing came to mind when I read the Louie whatsisname critique of the Cardinal Burke piece on the FC website, and it was this. I remember being surprised that Fr Gruner was making rooms available for diocesan priests and bishops to say the new Mass and I said so at the time, when I attended my first (of two) FC conferences in Rome. The answer was simple: that Fr Gruner wanted the Fatima Message spread and he would do what was necessary to encourage the novus ordo priests and bishops to attend, and then, on their return home, spread the truth about Fatima. Especially important to encourage bishops to attend, Fr Gruner felt, because they are the people, with the Pope, whom Our Lady wishes to consecrate Russia.
Thus, I suspect the FC would argue, the fact that Cardinal Burke is no canonisable traditionalist, doesn’t mean that we can’t and shouldn’t welcome his albeit belated moves in the right direction, as in his comments about the Consecration.
I must say, it would kill be to have to agree with akacatholic, so here’s hoping the FC statement ticks all the boxes, dots the i’s and crosses the t’s and… well, you’ll get my drift!
Anyway, more in due course. Will be watching for the FC statement and will link to it, needless to say.
I read the akaCatholic article just now, and I’d have to say, besides still being thoroughly fed up with Louie’s pedantic style, that the lead statement in his article certainly applies to him in spades:
“Back in May, I suggested that the Evil One seems to be stirring dissension among the ranks of those once united in the cause of so-called “traditional Catholicism” – most notably as it concerns Fatima.”
Apparently everyone has to be perfect, have all their traditional ducks in a row, and support all the right people and statements before they can be allowed to state that Our Lady’s request at Fatima has still not been fulfilled. Hogwash. At most, I would concede that perhaps a footnote would be in order, warning readers by affirming Fatima facts, rather than leaving them exposed to questionable positions and skeletons in various closets.
I would also point out that the SSPX has long quoted, with approval, Novus Ordo bishops, theologians, historians and journalists who have publicly begun to question Vat. II – to show that the SSPX position does not exist in a vacuum, and is justified.
Meanwhile, this is the same Louie V. who has decided, on his own authority, that Pope Francis is a heretic, and is not really the Pope. This is the typical bitter zeal of the sedevacantist.
Give your righteous indignation a rest, Louie: you’re old, tiresome news and nothing more.
Well said. I actually smiled a hollow smile (or should that be “laughed a hollow laugh”?) when I saw his concluding reference to a bishop in good standing who contacted him to praise him and encourage him to keep up the good work just be more “diplomatic” – and he remarks that he thinks he achieved that in this article.
I thought of an American news anchor (Tucker Carlson) who was interviewing a black woman about the decision of Black Lives Matter to have some sort of celebration where only blacks were invited. Tucker tried to get her to see that this was exactly the kind of racism that BLM were supposed to oppose but she just didn’t get it. Tucker finished the interview with the hilarious: “what must it be like to live in an irony-free world…”
THAT came to my mind on reading Louie’s humble I’m being diplomatic” now, cos that way I’ll get the approval of
Irony of ironies!
I’m going to apply Louie’s purist attitude to him,: since he has decided, on his own authority, as if he were a Council, that Pope Francis is a heretic, and therefore could not be the Pope, I hereby proclaim that Louie has disqualified himself from ever commenting on anything regarding the Church, until he renounces his error.
As to who will pronounce him absolutely error-free and pure as the driven snow…..well, perhaps he will continue his current pattern and elevate himself!
I’m puzzled by your attitude(s) to Louie V. I can’t think of anything I have read that he had written with which I disagree. Possibly I have joined him in the disqualified from commenting zone.
When he first came on the scene, I thought “hurrah!” A number of things changed that, but they are really irrelevant now, because Louie has declared himself an authority, with the power to depose a pope. Something that no Catholic is qualified to do. He wrote this on his website on November 18th, 2016:
Even if others in Catholic media are afraid to say it aloud, at least thus far, I am not:
Francis has judged himself a formal heretic. He is, therefore, an antipope. Read the entire article here.
Some might consider that a tad arrogant. Whatever. The fact is, we do not support sedevacantism, nor do we take any lessons in theology or ecclesiology from a sedevacantist. Even if he does a cool Billy Joel impersonation!
As for joining him…. well, you know that our House Rules prohibit discussion of the error of sedevacantism, designed as it is to lead souls out of the Church. To date, you have not crossed that line and I don’t expect that you will, not for a second.
No, that is a line I will not cross, as I do not have the authority to do so. However, every fibre of my being is in sympathy with Louie’s position; I am at present in the parlous state of seeing a Pope why doesn’t sound, act, behave or think like a Catholic, and whose every every action seems to be designed to destroy the Catholic Church, so forgive me for wondering if something has gone terribly wrong with the election of a Pope, when we already had a Pope in situ, albeit one who was apparently too frightened to continue in the supreme office to which he was called. This is a unique situation in the Church, and I can’t help but wonder if the Devil has played a clever trick, and is once again using “obedience” to fool the faithful; let’s just say that I wouldn’t be too surprised if future events prove Louie right.
I also wonder what the point of prophecy is if we are supposed to ignore it.
If my thoughts/doubts in this matter are a cause of possible dissention on the blog, then I quite understand if you wish me to refrain from further comment.
With all due respect to Louie V, he’s not unique in his “position” about Pope Francis. But before I fall over myself in admiration allow me to ask where he was during all the years of the pontificate of Pope John Paul II, the dubious statements of Pope Benedict and so on. Pope Francis did not appear out of the blue. His immediate predecessors were also liberals so I don’t have much patience for this sudden angst about the latest of the liberals, just because he happens to be the worst.
We’ve been covering the crisis in the Church in writing since 1999 when we launched our newsletter; before that, we were writing letters to the Vatican. It’s a bit much to suggest that Louie V has come, like an angel from heaven, with a message to resist heresies! I think, rather, it’s the other way around. Louie came back to the Church and saw there was a battle. He joined in – he’s not been a saviour-leader. Michael Matt and John Vennari beat him to it – big time!
As for this, “I’ll understand if you wish me to refrain from comment” blether – look, I have said nothing of the kind. YOU are the person who keeps raising the issue of not blogging here. Do what you want. If you feel that Louie V’s blog is offering better fare for your soul, off you go. I wish you well. We’ll miss you, of course, but we don’t believe in forcing anyone to blog here.
Just do not ask me to admire a man who is doing absolutely the wrong thing by announcing – with no authority whatsoever – that this very bad pope is not a pope. He is the pope until either a future pope or a Council, probably both, decree otherwise. That’s been our position from the start, and it will continue to be our position. So, does that mean we, unlike Louie, will be proved wrong in the future? There’s a lot of very muddled thinking on this issue right now, thanks, mainly, to people like Louie V, Fr Kramer & Co.
Whether or not Louie (& Co.) is proven right in the future, is neither here nor there. He won’t be a canonisable saint even if he IS proven right in the future, because he is arrogantly taking to himself an authority that he does not possess, and leading people out of the Church. We’re supposed to admire this?
Personally, I prefer spiritual safety at all times. I may not be as intelligent or knowledgeable as Louie V, but I know my place. I am an ordinary lay Catholic, who, in order to save my soul, must exercise pure faith in Christ’s promise to be with His Church until the end of time. Not quite as glamorous as charging in on a white horse dressed like Joan of Arc, to save us all from a non-pope, but it’s more likely to please God, if you don’t mind me saying so.
As for this, “I’ll understand if you wish me to refrain from comment” blether – look, I have said nothing of the kind. YOU are the person who keeps raising the issue of not blogging here. Do what you want. I don’t care. .
It’s news to me that I “keep raising the issue of not blogging here”. As far as my failing memory goes, this is the first time I have brought up the subject, or is my memory at fault? Please clarify if I have ever mentioned this before as it is news to me. On second thoughts, why bother. We both know that I haven’t, so let’s leave it at that.
but I know my place. I am an ordinary lay Catholic, who, in order to save my soul, must exercise pure faith in Christ’s promise to be with His Church until the end of time.
Well, quite. Me too.
If you feel that Louie V’s blog is offering better fare for your soul, off you go. I wish you well. We’ll miss you but we don’t believe in forcing anyone to blog here.
I didn’t realise that I must make a choice between posting here and reading and commenting upon LV’s blog; I would have liked to do both, as I feel a great affection for yourself, this blog, the majority of the bloggers here, and for the likes of LV, Michael Matt, Chris Ferrara, Frank Walker (another no-no here apparently) et al who so clearly love the Faith.
I’m sorry that this offends you, but I want to read everything I can about what the enemies of the Church are up to, and comment upon it if I find it interesting, and I find much to admire and support in what Louie Verrecchio writes, along with much that I read in Canon 212, even though it uses large font. That doesn’t mean I find them better than CT. It’s not a competition.
I can only echo your own words: I wish you well.
I’ve confused your statement about refraining from commenting here, with refraining from blogging. I get it now. That’s not what you meant. It’s my computer’s fault. It keeps typing the wrong thing. I’m going to have to replace it…
Visiting a sedevacantist site like Louie V (I’ve no idea who Frank Walker is) doesn’t offend ME but I know that if I frequented a sede site, I’d fear that I was offending God.
That’s why we recommend avoiding sede sites, and ask bloggers not to link to their sites. Margaret did so unwittingly, not realising that it was sede and for the purpose of seeking our opinions on Louie’s comments about Michael Matt et al. So, as a one-off exception, I allowed it to remain.
You say you visit certain sites to keep up with what the enemies of the Church are doing, but Sedevacantists ARE enemies of the Church, which is why we do not think we can learn anything from them at all, and prefer to avoid risking our spiritual wellbeing by reading their material. Their material includes very good stuff which is precisely, as with Modernism, what makes it dangerous.
There’s no competition in my mind between our blog and any other(s). I have visited and posted on other blogs, notably The Remnant although I don’t often contribute to other blogs, mostly through lack of time. Many times we use articles and videos from The Remnant on our blog and in our newsletter – I have an ongoing permanent permission from Michael Matt to reproduce any of their material in our newsletter and blog. So, there’s no competitive spirit at Catholic Truth, just because we’re the best 😀
As long as it’s Catholic and as long as it’s Truth, we support it. Which is why, I repeat, we avoid Louie’s site and all other sedevacantist websites and blogs, like the plague. However, it’s a free country and you’re a gal of independent means and mind so which sites you frequent is entirely up to you or, as they tend to say in these disoriented days, down to you 😀
I hope that’s cleared up things. Bad enough that we’re facing the threat of World War III out there in the big bad world, let’s not launch one here, as well!
Is akacatholic a sedevacantist website?
If so, I profoundly beg the pardon of our beloved Editor and everyone here on CT.
In Christ the King,
In 2016 (November 18th to be precise) Louie V declared Pope Francis an “antipope” – and thus, the Chair of Peter is vacant.
After a very short spell in the “fan” category, I came to hae ma doots (have my doubts!) about him, and in November, 2016, he confirmed my worst fears.
It is very troubling that so many Catholics do not comprehend the nature of the papal office and that if we are afflicted by having a bad pope thrust upon us, we must suffer that until, in His own good time, God removes him. Seems very simple to me and to moi. I just don’t get it – why the AB (Antipope Bandwagon) is so full.
Your labelling of Louie V as “sede-vacantist” appears to be facile and unwarranted.
It is true that LV wrote on 2016/11/18 that “Francis has judged himself a formal heretic. He is, therefore, an antipope.” And as you point out, that may be presumptuous on his part.
But it does not follow that “Louie V declared Pope Francis an “antipope” – and thus, the Chair of Peter is vacant”. What about the rest of what he believes? As far as I have been able to determine (I am open to correction), for various reasons Louie V holds the opinion that Benedict is still the Pope. Therefore Louie does not believe that the Chair of Peter (sede) is vacant (vacante).
It is true that Louie V has his faults, and he may be wrong on this papal point, but that does not make him guilty of sede-vacantism, because a sede-vacantist under current conditions thinks that neither Francis nor Benedict is on the Chair of Peter.
I do not like to see a good man mischaracterized, especially if he is Catholic. Louie may be mistaken (or not) as to who, but he does believe that we have a Pope.
I was never, and am not now, a follower of Louie’s blog and so when I was sent the link to his statement about “antipope Francis” – having been told by a friend that he had gone down the “sedevacantist road” – I took that statement to mean just that.
It’s actually splitting hairs anyway: whether he is a sede or a bene-vacantist/francisvacantist makes no difference. The key issue is that he is refusing to recognise the duly elected Pope Francis and I have no reason, therefore, to trust his judgement on other matters pertaining to the Church when he can’t even get the Pope’s name right! I wonder if he knows the name of the Church itself, or does he think he’s a “Roman Catholic” – one wonders… All in all, if he can’t get the basics right, he’s got nothing to teach any reasonably informed Catholic. Like it or not Francis is the pope. A very bad pope and we need as many informed Catholics as possible pointing that out, but Louie has now removed himself from any serious sphere of influence.
There was no intention on my part to “mischaracterize” Louie. I hadn’t realised he thinks Benedict still pope (himself a modernist with some shocking anti-Catholic statements under his belt, or, more accurately, in his writings) but, as I say, that’s to split hairs. Louie is leading souls astray and now comes with a spiritual health warning. We are supposed to avoid dangerous writings and that includes the writings of all these strands of blogs where the papal office is being undermined. We are not permitted to choose our own pope – if that were the case, I’d be recognising Pius X as the current pontiff!
You’re right about Louis V, he seems to hold the same opinion as Fr. Kramer which is that Benedict XVI is still the valid Pope. It’s a strange and wild argument considering the wording of Benedict’s abdication speech and the fatc that the entire hierarchy accepts Francis as his legitimate successor.
What these guys should have taken issue with is that Benedict is portrayed as having “resigned” the Papal Office when he clearly abdicated it, and is referred to by the novel title “Pope Emeritus”. This is a completely false representation of the facts as they are before God. There is no such thing in the Church as a Pope Emeritus, nor can there be. He is now simply Cardinal Ratzinger and he should not be wearing Papal clothes. They are trying to undermine the unique office of the papacy and few seem to see it.
Louis is way off the mark re Benedict, as is Fr. Kramer. They are simply men who are adding to the confusion because they think they are very clever and can see things that no one else can. Louis for that reason, like Fr. Kramer, has lost all credibility in the eyes of objective Catholics who know their Faith.
I agree – these people who bang on about the anti-pope are only adding to the confusion. I wish, frankly, that they would go away.
This is ridiculous. The Church has never been healthier. I left the Church but I have come back now, mainly because of Pope Francis. He has changed the tone of the discourse between the Church and the modern world, which was much needed. The Novus Ordo Mass and the Tridentine Mass are no different to each other. There is no spiritual value in outdated forms, such as Latin or the priest with his back to the people. That said, I do love the practice of women wearing a mantilla during mass, which is something I do at my new parish, which also happens to be accepting of gender and sexual minorities.
Thank you for providing a perfect example of the loss of Catholic identity. That is, if your post is serious and not a jest.
Well it’s sort of serious, sort of in jest. I haven’t changed my name to Rachel. I don’t wear a mantilla, and I am quite happy being the gender I was assigned at birth. However, I have come back to the Catholic Church and I attend mass at a new parish, this is true. I am also serious when I say Pope Francis has changed the tone of the discourse between the Church and the world. Obviously people here would disagree, but I don’t think much of what Pope Francis has written or said is particularly heterodox.
Please read Michael Matt’s commentary:
Re the TLM vs the NO: When PJPII died, I watched his funeral Mass on TV and followed it with an old Latin missal that used to belong to a priest friend of the family.
As I followed it, I kept saying to myself: This prayer is missing…that’s changed…that prayer is missing…” all through the Mass. I was dumbfounded. The Mass WAS changed. All the TC publications I’d read (CFN, the Remnant, the Angelus) all talked about how the Mass had been charged. I felt the same way as you did re the Mass until the funeral of PJPII.
So do yourself a favor: Get an old Latin missal, take it to church with you and do as I did. THEN tell me that they’re the same.
I am aware there are differences between the two missals. Although I do not read Latin, I am fairly liturgically literate. I just simply am not bothered about the differences any more. I remember reading an article by Damian Thompson “Confessions of an ex-traddie” in the Catholic Herald about how he no longer minds female altar servers, or the sign of peace etc.. These things don’t make me angry any more. I can go to any mass and experience joyfulness. Is Catholicism not about joy? A lot of traditional and conservative Catholics are always angry and miserable. They want the church to be perfect, but this is just not possible.
Michael Matt’s commentary in that link is much more down the line traditional than the quotes given in the akacatholic article, so which is it? What does Michael Matt really think – is he all for going along with less than traditional groups or is he straight down the line, no compromise. It’s not clear at all.
I’m so glad you’ve found a parish which suits you. I really am, and I hope you can stay there long enough to get the hang of it, because you do tend to move around, from one ideology to another, from one theological school of thought to the next, from one gender identity to another, from one obsession to another, if my memory serves me well which it doesn’t usually, but, hey, who’s counting…
Anyway, I remember you well from your Latin Mass days and I can assure you that, whatever else may or may not be true about you, Sugar Plum, you definitely WILL suit a mantilla
I am delighted you think a mantilla would suit me! I think much of what you said in the first paragraph is true… But is it not a good thing that I can grow, change my mind, and be open to new things? I am on a journey and I don’t pretend to know the truth. Isn’t the inability to accept evidence and be open to new ideas a symptom of fundamentalism?
What you have become part of is a delusion. It may make you feel good but it won’t get you to heaven. Your parish priest may be all sweetness and light but he’s a fraud who, as St. Paul warned, has turned away his hearing from the truth and has been turned unto fables.
The divine and infallible teaching of the Church has always been, and always will be, that homosexual practice is a sin crying to heaven for vengeance, as is all impure living. But if it’s just superficial Christianity and nice smiley faces you’re happy with then stick with your present parish and lifestyle. You’ll know the truth of your choice one day.
I hope that’s not a dig at my smiley face above. My smiley faces are important to me. I identify with them, blah blah.
You just have to laugh at this baloney, do you not? I mean, one really does have to smile(y) doesn’t one?!
Now do you really think that Athanasius would do that to you, our beloved Editor? 😉
Are you kidding? I’m not “beloved editor” to Athanasius – he’s a “guy’s guy” as you Americans would say, and you are now asking how I know that and what does it have to do with your comment?
Well, Athanasius was recently asked if he’d seen me crossing Sauchiehall Street a few minutes ago, and did he know what I was doing in town. His reply: ” I don’t know, but where’d she get shoes and what is she doing out of the kitchen?” 😀
It might be a good thing that you got out of the kitchen. I hear your meat loaf glows in the dark….
I was commenting on your observation to Athanasius: “I hope that’s not a dig at my smiley face above.”
Athanasius may be “a guy’s guy” as you Americans would say” (I’m not familiar with the term and I’m an American 😉), but I’m sure he’s a Catholic gentleman and would not insult you over the use of smileys. It had nothing to do with my comment.
I knew what you meant, took it light-heartedly, and made a light-hearted response. So, all’s well that ends well.
“Now do you really think that Athanasius would do that to you, our beloved Editor?”
Quite right, I wouldn’t!
Editor knows that I value her smiley faces very much. I’m not so keen on her grumpy ones, though. She also knows that I know she has a secret escape route from the kitchen, via the coal cellar, and always wears knee high wellies on her City Centre excursions, even in summer! I have never grudged her the happiness of temporarily slipping her sink anchor to enjoy a wellie good time on Sauchiehall Street.
I knew you were a Catholic gentleman.
Btw, I was going through my Remnant files and found some of your articles. I’d post it if I knew how to attach a photo here.
Yours in Christ the King,
Thank you. I want you to know that I think you are a very charitable Catholic lady. It’s always a pleasure to read your comments on the various forums.
I see, however, that you are as clueless as me when it comes to attaching files on this here blog. I, however, have no excuse since I’m an IT engineer to trade!
Worry not about posting my Remnant articles, I think they have all been published on the CT blog over the years. By far the lengthiest article I wrote was published some three years ago in the Angelus, just at the beginning of the reign of Pope Francis. It’s approximately 3000 words long. If you haven’t read it I would be happy to send you a copy via email. Just give your email address to editor and she’ll pass it to me. Of all the articles I’ve written by God’s grace, that one is the one I thank Him for the most.
Thank you for your kind words! I’d love to read your last Angelus article.
I once subscribed to the Angelus, but couldn’t afford it anymore, so I cancelled my subscription.
Madame Editor has my email, so if she doesn’t see this (unlikely as the case may be 😉), I will let her know.
Also, I didn’t know that you were an IT engineer. I wish I’d known earlier. I would have recommended you to my boss. (Our company did hire someone to build us a new website.)
I’m looking forward to your article!
Yours in Christ the King,
I’ve just sent Athanasius your email address. I’ve attached superior surveillance equipment so that I can monitor your conversation(s) in case this is a ruse for your two to plan a coup – Catholic Truth Coup would make a good headline… over at the Remnant!
“I’ve attached superior surveillance equipment so that I can monitor your conversation(s) in case this is a ruse for your two to plan a coup – Catholic Truth Coup would make a good headline… over at the Remnant!”
A coup against the Remnant? Surely you jest. (I wouldn’t even think of it.)
I have a viewing to go to this morning and then work, so cheerio!
In Christ the King,
What would we call ourselves? The Resistance? No, I think we’ll let others do a coup while we stick with you. There now, I’m a poet and I didn’t know it.
The article is on its way to you, thanks to editor’s superior surveillance equipment!! I’m convinced this wummin is related to Uri Geller!
As for building websites, I wouldn’t have a clue. I’m what they call a hardware/network engineer. In other words, I repair and configure computers, multi-function printers, etc., although I’m also a TV engineer and a data communications engineer. But websites? I know absolutely nothing about them.
Leprechaun’s your man for website construction, and he’s very good at it.
I did receive your article today. I have to read it on my laptop in order to properly read it. (I’m typing this on my smartphone.)
I will let you know when I’m finished reading it.
Thank you very much for sending it and to Madame Editor as well.
Yours in Christ the King,
You’re very welcome.
Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for sending me the article. You beautifully put into words what I’ve been trying to say to the sedevacantist that I was arguing with online.
Imho, you should contact John Salza and Robert Siscoe via the Remnant. The three of you would knock off the socks of the sedevacantists.
Now I have to read the article on the Mass that Benedict Carter sent me. He had to send it a second time to me (probably because he didn’t have Madame Editor to help him 😉).
Yours in Christ the King,
Athanasius & Margaret,
(Sorry, no room left to reply further down)
I think I can save you the trouble of sending files. Check out the Angelus archive, which goes back to 1978:
I tried checking out past editions before on the Angelus website and I’m sure I was prompted to subscribe. Ever the optimist though, I’ll give it another bash. How I wish I could hack!!
Thanks for the link, but Athanasius already sent it to me. I’ll keep it in mind, though.
What do you mean? Editor’s smiley face is fabulous! She’s obviously delighted that I have come back into the fold. Atheism and naturalism don’t particularly make much sense, philosophically speaking. But then again, neither does Catholicism a lot of the time, at least in the way it is presented. Christ and the gospels are the centre of my faith. If what you say is true, then hopefully the Holy Spirit will illuminate my conscience and reveal to me my errors.
As for my sexuality… I am surprised you mentioned it. Why are Catholics so obsessed with sex? I am capable of committing other kinds of sins you know.
Maybe it’s because Our Lady said most souls go to Hell because of sins of the flesh?
I think the loss of Catholic identity was exactly what the embedded enemies of the Church planned, via pseudo-Catholic Council documents, a pseudo-Catholic liturgy, a pseudo-Catholic priesthood and formation, a pseudo-Catholic catechism – not to mention the conciliar Popes, hierarchy and clergy setting such abysmal examples, themselves being anything but models of Catholic identify. In short, the pseudo-religion Bella Dodd warned the world about, 10 years before it happened. It’s like floating in a spiritual sensory deprivation tank, with no way to get your bearings. Most Catholics, however, either don’t realize the predicament they are in, or don’t care, or actually approve of it.
This transformation of the psychological basis of the Faith was necessary in order to reduce the Faith and the Church into a malleable, harmless cog in the machinery of the New World Religion. As Margaret Mary pointed out above, “malleable” in the sense that no two Catholics agree on anything, even in most traditionalist circles. And taking that malleability from the top down, we now have Cardinal against Cardinal, Bishop against Bishop, diocese against diocese, parish against parish, priest against priest, and even blog against blog!
I think this is beyond human recovery on a large scale, though not in local settings (small victories can still be won), and I agree with Editor that only supernatural intervention via the Consecration will restore the Church at this point. Until that time arrives, the Church will continue to decompose just like the Protestants, with no central point of authority that can be trusted, and everyone doing his own thing as “inspired by the Holy Spirit.” We do still have that central point of authority, but obviously, he has surrendered to the enemy., and so he is a destroyer, not a guardian.
But again, all of this is the direct result of God’s displeasure and wrath, so we have to make sure we remember that the chastisement applies equally to those of us trying to be faithful, as well as to those who have abandoned the Faith.
All well said – although to say that your final paragraph is chilling is like saying it’s a tad cold in Siberia 😀
I’d rather be in Siberia,than have to face the heat further south….as someone said in the choir loft this morning, “I hope certain people are wearing asbestos underwear when they leave this earth!”
“But again, all of this is the direct result of God’s displeasure and wrath, so we have to make sure we remember that the chastisement applies equally to those of us trying to be faithful, as well as to those who have abandoned the Faith.”
Now that last paragraph quoted above is something I’ve often wondered about. How can that be just? So why bother being faithful, one might ask?
“Behold he cometh, saith the Lord of hosts.  And who shall be able to think of the day of his coming? and who shall stand to see him? for he is like a refining fire, and like the fuller’s herb:  And he shall sit refining and cleansing the silver, and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and shall refine them as gold, and as silver, and they shall offer sacrifices to the Lord in justice.”
(Malachius/Malachi 3) In other words, we are being tested and purified by keeping the faith in these dark times. That is what Our Lord does with His own, those who hear His voice….
Oh, I see. Thanks for that.
I came across this earlier on today
This really disturbs me. Guests are invited to the reception at the discretion of the Chairman? Shouldn’t it be the parish priest who decides who can attend an event in his parish? How on earth will this be managed? Will the chairman come and ask you to leave if you are not welcome? It’s bizarre.
Bear in mind that the chairman in question is Fred Stone. Chairman of Una Voce but chooses to fulfil the Sunday Obligation by attending the Novus Ordo because he likes singing in the choir! You couldn’t make this stuff up!
Thank you for posting that advertisement.
I think I’m not a million miles wide of the mark when I say that it’s really just me and moi that he wishes to keep away – in case you haven’t noticed, I’m labelled “controversial” and not welcome anywhere within the Church in Scotland, despite all the talk of “welcoming” everyone and their granny; maybe, therefore, when word gets around that I have not the slightest intention of attending – even though my fourteen year old great-nephew, who met the Cardinal during the Chartres Pilgrimage recently, is desperately keen to go and I’m his chauffeur. I’m hoping he’ll forget about it, but if he persists, I will probably agree to drop him off and go and kill time somewhere, but I won’t be attending, no way, because if I’m spotted at the Mass, I will spoil it for the neo-conservatives AND for the Novus Ordo Chairman of Una Voce. Rather than be a cause of distraction during Mass, I’ll participate in some retail therapy at the nearby shopping centre. No problem, except for my bank manager.
Once he hears that good news, I guess the “discretion” of the Chairman will extend to welcoming everyone in attendance at the Mass.
Trust me on this 😀
Having had a run in with Mr Stone fairly recently when I politely questioned an inaccuracy on the Una Voce website, I guess I would be as welcome as a biretta in an Orange Lodge!
Yes, I’d forgotten that – you told us about your disagreement on another thread. We’re a right pair, then, probably the first Catholics ever to be banned from a traditional Mass/reception by a novus ordo Catholic.
Mind you, I bet Mr Stone is the first ever novus ordo Catholic to become Chairman of Una Voce! One really does have to question where on earth this madness will end, doesn’t one?
Anyway, let’s hope the event is a success at some level. And just to prove there’s no hard feelings – we do not hold any grudge against the Chairman’s discretion – let’s raise a glass to Cardinal Burke…
For the record, that’s blackcurrant juice in the glass…
Do you think I would be welcome at the mass if I wore my mantilla?
Dear Miles Immaculatae. May I please ask you why you use a Capital letter M for Miles but you merely call the Holy Mass “mass”.
There are many masses.
One can have a mass of flowers.
One can have a mass of people.
One can have a mass of manure.
Do I need to go on?
There is a very good reason why I use capital letters for the Holy Mass and that is because it is not just a “mass”
I assure you, my lack of capitalisation was not due to irreverence.
Anyone may attend a Mass, and you can wear what you like, within reason. Men remove hats, women don scarves or hats or wear a mantilla at traditional Masses. What you CANNOT do is approach for Holy Communion if you are living a life that is objectively a counter-witness to the Gospel – that is, if you reject Catholic dogma and are living in a sexual relationship outside traditional Catholic marriage or are otherwise a cause of grave public scandal.
Won’t Cardinal Burke require a larger church? I am not sure if his cappa magna will quite fit in Immaculate Heart!
I think you need to stop being immature and either post on the blog properly or disappear.
Petrus you sourpuss, I was being funny …
As I’ve just said on another thread , your words are not the words of a Catholic. You are referring to a Cardinal.
Comment removed. Please do not post personal information of this nature. Stick with the topic issues.
Thank you. Your sensus Fidei is right on target.
Re your last paragraph: That sounds like the chairman of the Republican party attending a Democratic function. (Oops, sorry – it’s Conservative and Labour on your side of the pond.)
As far as I can see, there is no mention of the Cardinals 2nd Sep visit on the Archdiocesan webpage. What a snub for the Cardinal.
Yet, for the same day, the Diocesan page advertises “Celebrate Scotland” an event run by the “Catholic Charismatic Renewal”.
Lively worship, good teaching and good company in a vibrant faith-filled atmosphere. Includes mime, drama and Sunday Family Mass.
Here is the events own homepage:
(Warning: the homepage features a deeply troubling picture of what appears to be priests indulging in some kind of wacky dancing)
Well, I know where I will be on 2nd Sep!
I’d rather go to the gallows than to the “Celebrate Scotland” event.
Its criminal that this is what is presented to people as the Catholic faith.
That is absolutely disgraceful, to advertise a Charismatic (i.e. Protestant) event to clash with the Pontifical High Mass of Cardinal Burke. That is shocking. Surely the Archbishop of Glasgow will attend the Mass if only because he is supposed to be good friends with Cardinal Burke?
The advert is now on the Immaculate Heart website and it still says that invites to the reception after the Mass is at the discretion of the Chairman, so I guess word hasn’t got round yet about Editor’s decision not to attend at all, LOL!
Josephine – I’d call it deliberate timing and deliberate ‘concealment’ of the Pontifical High Mass. If I could get there, I would, but sadly unable to.
Spot on editor, spot on!
In reply to your comment of 6:47 pm, think “Passion of the Church,” and “Judas Iscariot.” Louie would probably have declared him an “anti-Apostle.” Also think: we are being chastised. Severely. In the worst possible manner: with corrupt shepherds.
Louie is quite angry at God about all this, but he’d better figure out in a hurry that God is angry at us, and that’s all that matters….that is, if we are interested in pleasing Him.
Louie is “angry at God”? Not my impression by anything that I have read; I think he’s angry at the hierarchy and the laity. With good reason.
Anyhow, we’re not going to agree. God bless.
If Louie isn’t angry at God, Fr Ray Blake in England is definitely angry at Louie!
http://marymagdalen.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/francis-is-pope.html – he says Louie misquoted him.
The comments are really interesting. The consensus is to stop speculating about who is and who is not the Pope, to which I say, hear hear! It’s a pointless exercise, IMHO.
Comments are closed.