A couple of days ago, I received a letter from a reader, enclosing a letter he had received from one of these intensely irritating lay priests known popularly as “eucharistic ministers” which, of course, they are not. Their title, where they exist, is supposed to be ‘extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion’ and their usage is supposed to be absolutely minimal and only in cases of emergency. Since there have been no newsflashes that I know of, reporting churches bursting at the seams with Masses being prolonged for hours due to huge congregations receiving Communion, we do not need them in the UK at all. Indeed, when we discussed this issue on another thread, our Blogger-in-Chief, Athanasius, informed us that in the early Church only lay people who had taken vows of celibacy and poverty were allowed to touch the Blessed Sacrament.
Anyway, here’s an extract from a daft man in Leicester, writing to one of our readers who had expressed his opposition to the use of these lay people to handle the Sacred Species:
“With love and kindness the Church who is the Word of God, gives us Eucharistic Ministers (sic) who bring joy to thousands of people who would not receive Jesus because there are not enough priests to get to them all. If we reject the Church’s authority we cannot say that we have the Faith. We cannot take the bits of God that suit us, to believe in. God is Love and He is Unity. Jesus paid the same price for each person, everyone is entitled to the knowledge of the love of God. the love is shown through the Church and when we reject it we block God’s love from ourselves and others too. How can we pretend to love the Mother of the Church and refuse to co-operate with the love that is shown by the Church. We also refuse to listen to Her when She asks us to open up and put God first. We must live every moment for God, not dwell in the past. Jesus told the Jews “Your ancestors ate Manna in the desert, they are dead. I am here, the living Bread.” Jesus is living, He is always now and we should accept it and share his Holy Spirit with everyone.” End of extract.
Take note: the litmus test of the Faith now, according to this plonker, is whether or not we accept eucharistic ministers. Seems that by refusing to accept them, I am blocking God’s love for me and for others. Well, let me spell it out: I detest this innovation. I would make a spiritual Communion rather than accept the Host from any of these lay people. I cannot stand seeing these lay priests prance about the sanctuary. Can you? I wonder what on earth is keeping the Pope from putting a total ban on their use. Do you?
Check out the link at the end of this piece, which answers questions about the use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. When I attended the novus ordo Mass I avoided these people like the plague and made a point of receiving the Host only from the priest and not accepting the Chalice at all. Eventually, thank God, I found my way back to the traditional Mass so I know that the question is purely academic for me and for a lot of our bloggers. Still, it is worthwhile being informed about the limits of this alleged “ministry” because – as our reader from south of the border discovered – when the subject does arise, you can be completely misled by modern Catholics who live by the “spirit of Vatican II” rule – if it’s new, it’s ‘cool’. The recent Synod of Bishops in Rome, for example, voted two-thirds in favour of allowing women to fulfil the office of Lector. Click on this link to read the detail http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-24084
So it seems that the Vatican is hell-bent (literally) on continuing to clericalise the laity and laicise the clergy until we have caught up with the 16th century Protestant reformers.
Follow the link and then tell us what you think. Should lay people be prohibited from handling the Sacred Species? Has this novelty led to a decline in belief in the Real Presence? And, is the Catholic Church almost completely Protestantised now? http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/EMCs.htm
Tags: eucharist, extraordinary ministers of holy communion, Holy Communion, pope
-
A plonker he certainly is, and theologically illiterate into the bargain.
How can one possibly say that ‘The Church is the Word of God”? Wrong, wrong, wrong! The Word of God is the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity who becomes incarnate in Jesus Christ. (John will say at the beginning of his Gospel, ‘And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.’) The Church is certainly the Body of Christ, but she is not Christ.
At the bottom of all this ‘extraordinary minister of the Eucharist’ stuff is nothing other than episcopal and clerical indolence of the worst kind. Since ‘getting the laity involved’ became the mantra following Vatican II, those who could not be bothered really getting them involved—i.e. getting them involved according the peculiar mission of the laity, which involves time consuming spiritual and catechetical preparation—simply clericalised them, entrusting them with different chunks of what had hitherto been the priestly ministry. Even the term ‘extraordinary minister’ tells of the dishonesty that abounds among the clergy. How can a ministry be ‘extraordinary’ when its exercise has become a daily event in the vast majority of parishes in the British Isles and beyond, and in defiance of Vatican directives to boot?
The result is plain for all to see. The roles of laity and priests have been confused, with a tremendous crisis of identity affecting both parties, although the effects have been more visible and probably more devastating in priests. Priests no longer know what they are for, apart from the words of consecration at Mass and the essential parts of the other sacraments, while the laity are unable to conceive of a Christian witness beyond the narrow confines of the sanctuary.
It is time for clergy and laity to reclaim the respective peculiarities of their complementary roles. The laity have a peculiar mission which involves directing the course of human events in the direction of God. The clergy, on the other hand, render the mission of the laity possible, above all through the celebration of the sacraments and the preaching of God’s word.
-
This is very interesting because I don’t think I’ve ever been to a Mass that didn’t have eucharistic ministers.
I must say it is like there is a hierarchy of lay people, the most important, at the top, being those giving out Communion with readers being next and offertory processors after the readers and then the rest of us nobodies in the pews.
The more I read through this blog the more impossible I think it is that things will ever be put completely right. Maybe, even if the old Mass becomes more widespread, some of these changes, like eucharistic ministers will stick because so many of us have never known them not to be there, if you know what I mean.
Are there any parishes in Scotland which don’t use them, does anyone know?
-
Let us start this thread off with the reality of what Eucharistic Ministers represent in the Catholic Church. They represent Protestantism, pure and simple. These are people who clearly do not believe in the real presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. No one will ever convince me otherwise. They simply do not believe, full stop.
This was also the opinion of Fr. Malachi Martin. He could not accept that any lay person would dare to handle the sacred species if they truly understood and believed that it was the body, blood, soul and divinity of their Creator and Redeemer.
Like editor, I have found most, if not all, Eucharistic Ministers to be proud, snobbish types who love the importance of their little illicit priestly ministry. It’s the same with all these other “active” types, male altar servers aside, who prance about the sanctuary of the church feeling lofty. It’s all about social position and absolutely nothing whatever to do with piety, sanctity or any of the other reasons why people should be in church.
God have mercy on our Catholic hierarchy for introducing this Protestantism into the sanctuaries of God, and for encouraging countless profanations and sacrileges against the Blessed Sacrament.
-
Liz,
Very few as far as I know. Even when parishes are in the hands of sound priests, these have to be careful since the laity who occupy these ‘ministries’ have become very jealous of them. More than once I have been told by different priests how certain laypeople were annoyed at Father for saying Mass publicly on his day off. Why? Because that did away with the need for a lay-led Communion service which they said they actually preferred!!!
You couldn’t make this up.
-
Athanasius, as usual, is spot on.
These ‘ministries’ are dangerous not least because they engender pride which is at the root of all sin and blocks any spiritual development. Lay people should avoid them at their peril.
-
I attended a mass in Scotland recently where for communion the Priest stood at the altar looking suitably pious, watching proceedings while a Eucharistic Minister gave out the hosts, flanked by another two with chalices. No kiddin’.
-
The hierarchy aspect Liz points out is a real element in modern parishes, those who have often occupied their roles prior to the current parish priest’s arrival and whose influence over proceedings has gradually crept to the current state of affairs. It has led a friend of mine to stop attending his parish church in a small affluent village, since there has been a definite class divide between the wealthy and other parishioners.
It is clear that there is no requirement for these extraordinary ministers at the vast majority of masses in terms of the detail set out in the attached article, which editor is an excellent summary of the intended use of these ‘ministers’. What I would be interested to see is a similar document specifically related to Scotland, perhaps Heather Priest could advise if such guidance exists?
-
I was a Eucharistic Minister (that’s what they were called then) for three years. It was not something I had ever wanted to do, but I was ‘volunteered’ along with others from the pews when the then Archbishop O’Brien called for EM’s to be established in all parishes. We were asked to help, and we responded. Far from going in for
personal pride, we were only too aware of the quite frightening responsibility, and I for one was very pleased eventually to give up. I wouldn’t want to do it again, but I would not avoid going to a lay person for Communion, although I respect the views of those who can’t bring themselves to do so.But please don’t anyone say that I and my colleagues couldn’t have believed in the Real Presence, because that is just not true.
-
Liz & Crossraguel
You hit the nail on the head. This is a deliberate attempt by the hierarchy to impress upon the faithful that the priest is in no way superior in his office to his lay ministers. It’s a deliberate obscuring of the infinite chasm that exists between the sacramental priesthood and the laity. It is the usurping of Catholic belief in the divine office of the ordained priest with the Protestant belief that he is merely a “Presider” over a community of equals. And this is why they are at the same time doing all they can to undermine belief in the real and true presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. For such Catholic belief demands a priest, while a piece of bread only requires a presider.
-
pew catholic
I am sorry but I cannot accept that you fully comprehend the doctrine of the true presence.
I was once asked to be one of these extraordinary ministers. Not only did I refuse with horror at the very suggestion that I commit sacrilege, but I tore strips of the PP and left that parish never to return. There is absolutely no way that anyone who fully realised what the Blessed Sacrament is, Who it is, and what the Church’s teaching has been on this throughout the centuries, could ever, ever dare to handle the King of kings and the Lord of lords.
That profane hands would touch the sacred species appalls me, as it should any informed Catholic. And this has nothing whatever to do with the liberal argument that Our Lord was humble and wouldn’t want all this fuss over touching his sacred body. It is to do with those who think themselves sufficiently worthy, despite their protests to the contrary, to do that which others would sacrifice their lives rather than do.
In the old rite of Mass, after consecration, even the priest has to keep his thumbs and forefingers joined together until washed clean of any particles of the Blessed Sacrament over the chalice. This is how the Church always treated the sacred species. Now any old layperson thinks, with a wee bit of protesting humility, that he/she can just go along there and handle the Blessed Sacrament willy nilly.
How many particles of the Blessed Sacrament have fallen from your fingers and those of your fellow “ministers” and been trodden underfoot? Think seriously about this, pew catholic. Once upon a time if the priest dropped the host, he had to scrub the spot where it fell three times with holy water and say prayers of reparation while he was doing it. Such proceedures were in place to highlight what Catholics believed concerning the Blessed Sacrament. How times have changed indeed. Our poor Lord is treated as a common equal instead of being adored as God.
If the queen came to visit you would you bow your head before her and address her respectfully, or would you throw your arms around her and give her a big hug? Point made, pew catholic. Our Lord is way above any earthly monarchy and we should all treat His divine presence accordingly. And that means adore, but don’t touch.
-
editor
I hope you don’t think me pedantic, but you have forgotten to put your blog clock back by 1 hour. Ok, I’m being pedantic. Just fix the clock, woman!
-
Have enjoyed reading through all these comments (except Athanasius’ cheeky remark about the blog clock. More on that in a minute).
I went online to try to find a fantastic essay I read ages ago but couldn’t find it. It was recording the fact that because the Devil worked very hard on priests (and still does, of course) there were all sorts of spiritual exercises which formed part and parcel of their training to prepare them to handle the Blessed Sacrament. I mean in terms of helping to ward off the sin of pride. These exercises included plenty of self-sacrifice, self-denial, lots of things that, as the writer pointed out, these lay people today ought to have to endure if they seriously want to guard against the kind of pride which can get into the soul of a person charged with touching the Blessed Sacrament. The numbers would soon reduce, believe me, if they had to really prepare themselves for such a hugely important task.
Anyway, I couldn’t find the article but instead came across the following quote from Pope John Paul II. Seems clear that he really was a weak character. From what he says below, he didn’t want these lay priests hanging around but did nothing to enforce the traditional discipline of the Church which would have seen off these sanctuary invaders.
Here is what Zenit reported on September 23, 2002 of the Holy Father’s concern that much of the laity have become confused in their role, and warns of the attempts to clericalize the laity: Pope John Paul II said…
“… in the years following the Council, in order to fulfill this desire, the confusion of functions in regard to the priestly ministry and role of the laity was arbitrarily extended,” he explained. Symptoms of this confusion are “the indiscriminate and common recitation of the Eucharistic Prayer,” “homilies given by lay people” and the “distribution of Communion by the laity.”
These “grave abuses often originated in doctrinal errors, especially in regard to the nature of the liturgy, of the common priesthood of Christians, of the vocation and mission of the laity, but also in regard to the ordained ministry of priests,” the Pope stressed.
The Holy Father said that one of the consequences of this phenomenon is “the lack of observance of certain ecclesiastical laws and norms, the arbitrary interpretation of the concept of ’substitution,’ the tendency to ‘clericalize’ the laity, etc.” (Pope John Paul II, September 23, 2002)
End of Zenit report.Let me also inform you all that the letter to which I refer in the blog article, was written to Tom Mahon of Chelmsford, who was unceremoniously sacked from his leadership of the lay Association of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, as reported on page 12 of the September edition, because of his privately voiced reservations about liturgical abuses including the use of extraordinary ministers, and most especially for his expressed support for Summorum Pontificum.
If you recall, the spiritual director, Father Brendan Grady, called an extraordinary meeting of the group and insisted on Tom resigning as leader. I sent Tom extra copies of the newsletter to make sure all members of the group received a copy and as a result Tom received the daft letter, from which I quoted in the blog article.
Unfortunately, the author of that patronising letter didn’t put an email address on it or I’d have tipped him off about this thread.
Blog Clock
Sorry about that. I didn’t even think about it. For technical reasons that I won’t record for posterity, I am unable to change the clock right now but will do so as soon as possible.
Preferably, though, I would like the Government to stop this stupid annoyance of clocks going back and forward. It irritates me every year. I never remember it until the last minute and only because some kind soul phones or emails to remind me (thanks again Athanasius!)
Be patient, we’ll catch up with the time in due course!
-
Lokk on the bright side, editor. You can now tell all liberals that traditional Catholics are ahead of the times, literally!!
Incidentally, I agree with you that this moving clocks back and forward every year is truly a pain in the posterity.
-
Look, not Lokk.
Get a grip Athanasius. Slow down and take the smoke out of that keyboard!!
-
Now, why didn’t I think of that – trad Catholics being ahead of the times… It maddens me when other people are quicker off the mark, funnier than me. My closest friends say I’m a really funny person but I can never understand why they don’t smile when they say that…
Oh and it’s not so much the fast typing that worries me about you, Athy, it’s the fact that you keep talking to yourself…
-
editor
Not only do I talk to myself, but I answer also. Oh yes, they’re coming to take me away Haha!!
Lying here typing on the couch, let me tell you how it all happened. I remember quite distinctly as a little baby in my father arms and him throwing me up in the air – and then going outside for a fag.
You know, I was so ugly that I was the only child in our street to have shutters on his pram. I even had to hang a pork chop around my neck to get the dog to play with me. Oh yes, it was a lonely existence. I couldn’t even open the fridge door without the fish fingers going for my throat.
Then mother started to wrap my school lunch in a road map, I felt so isolated. And you wonder why I talk to myself? Well, there it is. You now know the inner Athanasius. Now where did I put my yashmak?
-
Athy, you are a complete scream! That was one hilarious post. God bless you.
I’ve just posted another thread – don’t get mad – I just couldn’t resist it. The latest Zenit reports arrived just as I was about to shut up shop for the night but I couldn’t believe my eyes and just had to post that thread on Vatican II.
Anyway, thanks for the fun – just when I was thinking that it was a while since you’d entertained us with a Rab C Nesbitt act, you gave us your best yet Athy!
Now go and read the latest thread article – that’ll soon wipe the smile off your face!
-
Editor
While you are setting clocks back, don’t forget your biological clock…
I’m hoping you might forgive me for calling your attention to a post on Father Z’s blog, but here is one about your Cardinal O’Brien’s love letter to Gordon Brown:
-
Editor and Athanasius, thank you very much for the humour this early morning. As for the clock falling back one hour in October, then springing forward in March, if both of you were as ancient as me, you would remember around 1967/68, the government decided to do away with it.
A big hoohah arose up from the general population and the process got started up again. So there!Anyway thank you Heather priest and Athanasius for your most timely posts on this thread. That Eucharistic minsters or extraordinary ministers [whichever name takes your fancy], is definitely arises post Vatican II, and often sacrilege is the result. I did hear a story a few years back of a female extraordinary minister, who carried [either one or more Hosts in her shopping bag], presumably she was to visit one more elderly or sick persons at home or hospital. Whilst carrying this precious Host in her bag she did some personal shopping for herself and her family. Need I say more.
One other thing, about ten or twelve years ago my job prevented me getting to the Traditional Mass on Sunday morning. I found myself what I thought would be a corner out of the way at my local parish. Having my TM missal with me was reading through the Mass, when this lady approached to shake hands during the NOM, I politely asked if it we could rather give our attention to the Blessed Sacrament on the Altar. She was annoyed and returned when Mass ended to tell me I was mentally ill and needed help. She moved away quickly and left without an answer, leaving me the recourse of prayer on her behalf.
-
Since Pope Benedict XVI’s Motu Propio (Athanasius, editor have I got it right). I would suggest that Pope Benedict publicly say the Traditional Mass in person and in Rome. How far would this lead the Hierarchy throughout the world and what would be their reaction?
-
gloria
The Pope knows only too well what the reaction of many in the hierarchy would be if he celebrated a Tridentine Mass. SCHISM! That’s principally why he doesn’t dare.
-
I went to a traditional Latin Mass last Sunday and was greeted warmly by someone I last saw over 20 years ago. He told me he had been instrumental in getting this Mass offered on a regular basis. I asked him if he still went to Novus Ordo Masses. Response: “Oh, yes”. I asked him if he was still an extraordinary minister. Response: “Oh yes – I do the chalice (sic)”. That meant he would already have received Holy Communion at his “home” parish earlier in the day – and yet he had bounced up out of his pew on the front row and been the first to receive Our Lord for a second time on the same Sunday.
If I may re-iterate a conversation with him of 20 years ago on this subject, he told me at that time that “he felt privileged to have been asked to be an extraordinary minister. He was proud of the fact and he was going to carry on no matter what I tried to tell him”.
There was clearly no point in continuing the re-acquaintance, and I watched him stride back to his car with the purposefulness of someone feeling fully justified and proud of himself.“There’s none so blind . . . . “
-
Are you quite sure, Athanasius, that schism would be the result if Pope Benedict XVI were to celebrate a Tridentine Mass?
Do you mean that the Modernists would become schismatic?
What size of Mass stipend would we need to offer his Holiness, do you think . . . ?
Any one up for passing round the hat? (I have a suitable one to my hand).
-
leprechaun
I think we have witnessed sufficient disobedience from some bishops to the Pope’s motu proprio to conclude that they may rebel further if pushed.
To be honest some of them are already schismatic in their mentality anyway, so I don’t think the next step would be too hard for them to take. Rather than a publicised formal walk out on the Church, though, I think they would just point blankly refuse to assist this Pope in all future Church matters, thereby rendering his Pontificate fairly impotent. That’s what they do. If the Pope says or does something they don’t like, they just get their own back on him through their Bishops’ Conferences.
As regards a stipend for the Pope to say a Tridentine Mass I’m afraid he gets a tenner like every other priest, unless you know where these “little people” keep their stash of gold. What is it called again, a “crock”, is that the right name? By the way, I love the picture!!
-
the convert
You would have been wasting your breath with that guy who is traditional one minute and ultra-liberal the next. I wonder what makes these people tick and what they truly believe, if anything? The mind truly boggles.
-
Can anyone advise me where I can find the definitive article on what these guys (and gals) can do?
Whilst on my annual retreat a couple of weeks ago I enjoyed the presence of an old friend who came for a weekend retreat. He being one of these extraordinary eucharistic thingys was naturally a target for me to discuss the rights (are there?) and wrongs (all) of their role.
One of my questions was did he not think it blasphemous to cleanse the vessels after communion and was this not a sacred duty which could only be performed by an ordained priest as the particles remaining in the vessels are still the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. His response was that it was deemed part of his duties to perform this act in accordance to the Bishop’s direction.
Needless to say the discussion was lively and we failed to reach an agreement before the bell rang for None. However I was unable to land the knock-out punch as I could not quote from the relevant document which defines their roles. Anyone know where I should look?
-
Benedict, I completely agree and was pretty much asking the same in my earlier post; can we get our hands on authoritative literature to land that knockout blow?
This is what frustrates me often with such matters, making good argument without having unequivocal documentation to give an unquestionable victory.
-
Benedict,
If you look in “Instruction On Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priests” issued to all bishops by Pope John-Paul II on 15th August 1997 and binding on all countries in the world, you will find the role of extraordinary ministers spelled out in some detail.
The Bishops in England & Wales decided it did not apply to them (see Athanasius’ note of 29th Oct at 6.00pm) which is why their activities were not curtailed as J-PII wished.
You can obtain a copy from Daphne McLeod at:
Pro Ecclesia Et Pontifice
4 Fife Way
Great Bookham
Surrey KT23 3PH. Tel: 01372 454 160Please enclose a stamped self-addressed A4 envelope and she will let you have a free copy by return. Daphne has paid for a quantity of these booklets to be produced, and she sent one to each of the priests in the UK, so do not let any of them tell you that they have never heard of the instruction to cease using extraordinary ministers.
-
Crossraguel,
Ditto. (You posted yours whilst I was typing mine).
-
Benedict and Crossraguel, (and anyone else interested in a good read),
Because you are such good chaps, and probably thirsty for the answers immediately, try this from the horse’s mouth:
Sorry – I should have thought of this avenue first.
-
the convert
Thank you very much indeed for the information. I have just telephoned Ms McLeod and she was most helpful and confirmed she does still have copies so will be sending a sae tomorrow.
-
Excellent, the convert. Article 8 tells us exactly what we want to know. Thank you.
-
leprechaun, welcome to our humble blog! And congratulations on being the first (apart from our webmaster on my unsolicited behalf) to conquer the Mystery of the Personalised Avatar! I say “unsolicited” for myself because he was supposed to be working on finding out how to tell the rest of these blighters, I mean bloggers, how to create a personalised avatar. I had no intention of being personal.
Anyway, great first posts from, presumably, another Irishman. We have our very own Credo, who contributes well and regularly to our discussions.
A renewed welcome, leprechaun (hope you will slip up one day and tell us which part of Ireland you are from) – and keep blogging!
-
the convert, I have a supply of the documents you mention (article 8 it is, in the Instruction on Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priests) which we send out free of charge, no sae required.
We once offered a free copy in the newsletter, to every reader.
Not even ONE person sent for a copy. Apathy, apathy, thy name is Scotland. Mind you, no-one from anywhere else sent for one either.
Anyway, I still have some left so if anyone wants a free copy, just email your postal details. As it happens, I have a copy ready to send to the daft author of that ridiculous letter to Tom Mahon that forms the focal point of this thread article. I’ve written, in capital letters on the front page, ARTICLE 8, PAGES 17/18 to make sure he doesn’t miss it but, frankly, even it it carried a personalised message from the Pope, with his signature on every page, it wouldn’t make a blind bit of difference.
That’s where the pride shows. The devil has got to them and they enjoy playing the role of priest. And they’ve no intention of giving it up.
-
Editor, just read your offer. Trust you understand I shall still go to Daphne for my copy.
-
Editor I should be glad to receive a copy of article 8 if you have one available for me, had not seen your earlier publication of the details. Always good to be armed with solid justification when entering into arguments against what is currently the norm.
-
Of course, Benedict. You go to Daphne for your copy. Just don’t expect to understand it as well as if you had got it from me. That’s all. And don’t come crying to me if it goes astray in the post. This is a one-off offer and if you decline, well, on your own head be it. One of these days, Benedict, the desert will seem unspeakably attractive to you and you will want to move there permanently. But don’t think that will mean you’ve got rid of me, no. I haven’t collected all these pairs of sandals, in all sorts of styles and different colours, for nothing. So, by all means, you stick with Daphne. I’ve got you sussed out now, Benedict. We’re finished!
Crossraguel, faithful soul, you can rest easy in the knowledge that your copy of the Vatican Instruction will be winging its way to you just as soon as you email me your postal address.
The Catholic Truth copy will bring you clarity of understanding and a zeal to implement its Instructions without delay. You have sound judgement, Crossraguel and you are a faithful soul. Consider yourself Favourite Blogger of the Week, Crossraguel (and that’s just the start…)
-
Torquemada, I am going to pass over, very quickly, your reminder of my biological clock ticking away. The fact is, I have no idea where it is, so least said, soonest mended…
Thanks for posting the Fr Z link. The Cardinal has been all over our TV news screens this evening defending his reference to the Nazis. One clip showed him giving the sign of peace, i.e. shaking hands with the laity in the front row, having abandoned the altar and sanctuary – wonderful example of fidelity to Vatican instructions to the bunch of priests around the altar – they never miss a good photo-opportunity.
I attended the SPUC conference on Saturday last and heard his talk first-hand. He was at pains to emphasise that he is not a “one-issue” man – i.e. he’s not just interested in abortion.
A thread on the Cardinal’s “prolife” agenda is on the cards. Just watch this space – or rather the front page!
-
Thanks editor, I had expected you had my address but remember now your promise to leave no trace of any correspondence in case the feds bust your door down, I’ll email it back to you.
You flatter with your comments, shame I’ve just corrected you on the other thread, I seem to have a dreadful habit of winding you up just when we were getting along so well…
-
Editor, can I also have a copy of article 8? Daphne was out when I phoned…..
Crossmaguel, I’d hate to be given an award, any award by “her up stairs” so watch your back!
Hi Benedict, any news, old pal, on the Aberdeen front? Any idea why the Bishop is away for so long, I mean, how long is this synod?
-
Crossraguel and semperfidelis, your copies of the Vatican Instruction are in the post now. See if Daphne can beat that, Benedict. Let’s know when yours arrives – Crossraguel and semperfidelis will have read it, visited their PP to demand an end to extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion and written to thank the Pope before you can say “where’s my copy of the Vatican Instruction on the laity?”
semperfidelis, you needlessly delay the long awaited occasion when you, too, will be Favourite Blogger of the Week as opposed to your current status as… well, let’s not go there. Try being nice to me for a change – you never know, you might just like it and I can stop spending my every waking hour trying to think of suitable-for-the-editor-of-Catholic-Truth public put-downs to apply to you, in all charity and solely for the good of your eternal salvation.
Crossragual, I see you have confessed, with contrite heart, to correcting me on another thread. I’ll now go to check that out before deciding on a penance and whether or not you should be absolved. Wait there…
-
Absolved, Crossraguel. Absolved!
I’ve just read your comment on the other thread and since your correction was on a detail of football, which I have to admit shows your knowledge and my ignorance, I have to say, let’s leave the matter there, Crossraguel. You’re still Favourite Blogger of the Week so far. Far from YOU having to do penance, I’ve given myself 5 lines (well, it was a first offence…)
Celtic Vs Kilmarnock, not Rangers
Celtic Vs Kilmarnock, not Rangers
Celtic Vs Kilmarnock, not Rangers
Celtic Vs Kilmarnock, not Rangers
Celtic Vs Kilmarnock, not Rangers -
Benedict
Now that you will soon have – or may indeed already have – the proper ammunition to deliver the knockout punch, allow me to advise you of the proper punch to deliver, combining both boxing and Catholic terminology:
A Right Cross
-
It is worse than we thought! Having been an extraordinary minister is now a prerequisite for attending a course on evangelisation – see below:
“A new course designed to equip lay people to become confident evangelisers has been launched by the Diocese of East Anglia.
The Learning Together Programme aims to help Catholics deepen and strengthen their knowledge of the Faith so that they can begin to confidently share it. The topics covered include: Pentecost, New Testament, Moral Theology and Interfaith.All course attendees also have to complete a practical module such as serving as an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion and children’s liturgy leader.
More than a hundred people so far have gained certificates for participating in four or more sessions in six different venues around the Diocese. Course graduate, James Dujardin, from St Luke’s Church, Peterborough, said: ‘I feel so much more confident in my Catholic Faith. I’d recommend the course to anyone.’”
Perhaps Mistress Editor might send one of those marked-up and fleet-footed “Instructions on Certain Questions . . . . ” booklets to James Dujardin at St.Luke’s Church, 26 Benyon Grove, Orton Malborne, Peterborough PE2 5XS for his edification?
-
the convert, this is appalling, given that (although they shouldn’t be used at all) the theory is that only lay people with a clear devotion to the Blessed Sacrament (how would they know that???) should be ASKED by a priest to be extraordinary ministers. It was not to become a “ministry”.
Out of hand, the whole business. My own unnerving wit has just struck me as I note the irony in that last sentence! Is there no end to my linguistic talent, semperfidelis, notwithstanding the odd typo (oops, sorry, typos now a banned topic!)
-
the convert, will post a copy of the Vatican Instruction to one James Dujardin asap. Although why Daphne McLeod isn’t being given the privilege is beyond me… Or maybe you don’t have the same enthusiasm for a life-to-come in the Algerian desert, the convert?
-
An almost terrifying thought strikes me as I notice there is total silence from Benedict in the Daphne Vs Patricia War…
does he think I’m being serious?
-
Look on the bright side, Editor and the convert – at least they are not apologizing for being “triumphalist”! Although I notice the suspicious use of the word “share” rather than “convert,” which makes me wonder if this evangelizing will be modeled after Oprah Winfrey.
-
Torky
Oprah Winfrey probably wrote the instruction manual for them!!
-
Torky, why do you Americans spell everything with only one “l” (travelling, modelling etc). I keep wanting to ‘correct’ it.
But I won’t!
-
By the way, here is the link to the Vatican Instruction for those of you who want to check out Article 8 right here and now. Requested hard copies are already in the post, Daphne McLeod eat your heart out!
-
Of course – as I meant to point out earlier – the 1997 Vatican Instruction prohibiting extraordinary ministers was soon followed by another document which effectively institutionalises them. For yet more evidence for diabolical disorientation, read Redemptionis Sacramentum as well. This is what the Vatican/Pope does: issues one clear rule then immediately issues a loophole to get round that same rule.
-
editor,
sorry to disillusion you but I’m in bed with a bug courtesy of the desert (two docs visits today and blood tests etc. tomorrow). You don’t get rid of me so easily even though I agree with the catholicteuchter’ last comments on the other thread.
Daphne you rock!
Patricia you…HmmmmSemperfidelis, I wll return home on Saturday, all being well, and will get an update then. Synod has just finished so be another week or two before the Bishop gets his feet under the table again. For your info there will be a Low Mass on Sunday for All Souls at a highland chapel not too far from a certain location offered by a stalwart priest and another of your aquaintence! I hope to attend.
-
Editor,
Just noticed that the reason you may be quicker in delivering the goods is that your clock is still on summer time. Come on even you admit you are in the autumnal years. Yes, the clock is ticking even for you, but now is the time when you can regain another hour of what remains.
-
semperfidelis, are you being paid to time priests and bishops? First of all it was catholicus presbyterus who was castigated for having a long lunch. Now Bishop Moran’s trip to Rome is being timed to the last second.
Give these poor clerics a break, wummin! Bad enough that I’m on their backs all the time without you joining in!
-
Sorry to note your illness Benedict but glad to know you’ve not deserted us… (get it? Desert? Deserted?????)
I think you’ll find that the blog clock is now restored to the correct time. I’m still not able to find my biological clock but will keep looking…
-
Benedict
The bishops, while they were in Rome, have voted two thirds in favour of women lectors. Do you think Bishop Moran will have had a hand in this? I’ll tell you what, they can’t have much to do when they can just abandon their dioceses for weeks at a time.
-
Meanwhile, the extraordinary ministers continue to administer at the ordinary form of the Mass, whilst the extraordinary form of the Mass is very short of ordinary ministers (ordained priests) – where shall we end up? How extraordinary!
Who is on tiller duty in this thread, may one ask? Only asking . . .
-
Oh, and “Thank you, leprechaun” for the hints on how to display avatars. Mine says “Conversion of Saul” – not that it has anything to do with extraordinary ministers.
-
Athanasius,
He was there as the representative of the Scottish Hierarchy; chosen and called just as he undoubtedly was when he was ordained a priest. I do know he has Canon Mann (he of [in]famous repute) and the redoubtable Aberdeen version of Miss Moneypenny (cross her at your peril!) who man the helm in his absence.
As to whether he has a hand in the decisions; well of course, his very attendance ensures that.
-
the convert
I’m glad you told me that your avatar represents the conversion of St. Paul. I really and truly thought it was a scene from Star Wars. I’m not joking. I just assumed it was Luke Skywalker with his light sabre. Honestly! Of course I hadn’t read the words underneath that say ‘Conversion of Saul.’ Sorry about that.
-
Thanks Benedict. You have just restored my depression about Bishop Moran. So you can now expect some female lectors at your Latin Mass.
-
Athanasius,
Always feel restored when you are working for Our Lord. Oh, and it is most certainly not “my” Latin Mass; I assume you are attempting a moment of levity in your otherwise depressing response.
-
Editor the Vatican instruction booklet was waiting for me coming in from work today. Many thanks for the prompt delivery, it should be most useful in challenging modernists.
Thought I had a letter from my gran there, must be the teacher handwriting!
-
Yep! No retirement for the traditional Catholic, Benedict. I know it’s not your Latin Mass. This was just a phrase I used to refer to the Latin Mass you folks up there in the clouds are hoping to get from Bishop Moran before he retires.
Tell me Benedict, did you work on the documents of Vatican II in a previous life? I only ask because of the talent you clearly have to make the words of others mean something completely different to what was intended.
-
Game, set and MATCH, Athanasius. If bloggers were paid for their contributions, you’d be due a rise!
Crossraguel, is this the thanks I get for racing off to post your Vatican document (albeit with the ulterior motive of beating Daphne McLeod to the draw) – you thank me by mistaking me for your granny?
You have a good weekend, pal. I’m off to see if my head will fit in the oven…
-
Er, Benedict, have you, I wonder, hope you don’t mind me asking, have YOU received YOUR copy of the Vatican Instruction (you know, the one Daphne McLeod was to post off to you??????????????????????????????)
Only asking…
-
Athanasius,
You are getting so hot now; I’ll soon have to declare myself! I know we’re far to the north of you Low-landers, however even we High-landers cannot reach the clouds but remain firmly with our feet on the ground.
I can only assume since you infer we will never get a Latin Mass you will not be coming this Sunday for our Low Mass of All Souls?
-
Now now editor, you know I am ill and therefore not in a position to post any letters to any-one, far less receive them (even if I was able I’m not home in Scotland either to check my mail). Preening your feathers, or slicking down your fur, is most unbecoming in public especially from such a genteel old soul as yourself.
Only saying…..
-
Sorry editor, was an honest observation – probably should have kept it to myself. Come on, there’ve been worse comparisions flying round, I didn’t even rise to Torquemada’s bait yesterday, referring to you as indefatigable again.
Seriously though, many thanks, it is most interesting and useful to have such an authoritative document in hand.
Now for my lines:
Must not compare editor to gran or Saddam
Must not compare editor to gran or Saddam
Must not compare editor to gran or Saddam -
Crossraguel
Saddam should be read backwards. Oh dear! Now I’ll have lines to write and a heck of a lot more than three.
-
Benedict! Unwell? I’d no idea. Then that will explain your wee scrap on the other thread with Athy. I’ve posted a couple of love letters to you there so look after yourself, get well and then come back to us! Love your avatar.
Crossraguel, I’ll settle for comparison with your granny rather than Saddam, thank you very much!
Athanasius, are u making a remark about my sanity? Saddam spelt backwards… Lines? Yeah, dream on…
-
Not to mention spelling Mugabe (another example) backwards – E ba gum!
Now he really is an extra ordinary Minister. -
Looks like Suita shana has started an anagram game.
-
leprechaun
Good one about Mugabe. I like that.
Now Oracles Rugs, would you not agree that it was rather Clean her up who started this anagram business with his Mugabe pun? Or is that Bag Emu? Anyway, we really don’t want to encourage Speedier Films, Heater Hipster, Ed Riot, Torch Event or any of the rest of our Berg Logs to get hooked on this business. I mean, what idiot would want to spend his time making A Rags Man from people’s names!! You’ll never catch A Sauna This getting involved with such triviality.
-
Now I don’t know whether to welcome a new blogger (Garcus Loser) to the blog or to tell Crossraguel to behave himself (again!)
Who’d be the (unpaid) editor of an international (non-glossy) magazine with a top intellectual band of bloggers on the side, so to speak?
leprechaun, loved the “…really is an extra ordinary Minister” – clever!
-
You ken well I can take a telling editor, and am willing to take responsibility for my wayward tendencies. That is why I have no hesitation in naming Sin a stauha as the cause of this diversion from the topic matter, whatever that was. Call me sleekit, conniving or ratbag, but one seems to find oneself in the position of being victim of such diversionary tactics, and the only respectable solution is to blame someone else!
-
Forgiven, Crossraguel, thanks to your honesty! Forgiven!
-
Yes, I forgive you too.
-
Must have been a cracking sermon on forgiveness at SSPX today!
-
It was a good sermon – chilling might well describe it. Just as well I was well wrapped up in my Lacrosse Rug, eh, crossraguel?
When the week-end has passed, can we get back to some serious blogging, or maybe even reading the November news letter, which ought to be a cracker after all the protestations we have had from Mistress Editor about us disturbing her when she was writing it? I cannot wait to set eyes on it. Nor can semperfidelis, no doubt.
-
the convert
Do we have to get all serious again after the weekend? I was just beginning to get shot of my frown lines. Oh well, back to having a face like a bag of spanners.
-
By the way, where’s Torky? Do you think he’s out campaigning for Obama?
-
Athanasius,
What CAN you be talking about? If I thought Torky was out there campaigning for Obama and his abortion up to 36 weeks Freedom of Choice Bill, I would personally apply 100% torque to his neck!!
-
the convert
I know, I know! It was only a wee joke, although probably not such a good one considering the maliciousness of Obama. I sincerely hope that man doesn’t get elected. Instead of “God bless America”, they should be saying “God spare America” from this guy.
-
the convert – I have this minute posted the November edition. I hope it lives up to your expectations. Tell me if it does. If it doesn’t, say nothing!
-
So what is so special about the convert that he gets individual notification of the posting of the new issue? What about the rest of us hobgoblins?
I have just had a look at it and it looks just as punchy as ever. Following the brilliant September edition was always going to need divine inspiration, but you seem not to have lost your touch. As my father-in-law used to say “keep to your knitting and you’ll soon be at the heel”.
Well done, ma’am.
-
Madam Editor,
I may be being extraordinarily dense – it’s being away from the cut and thrust of this blog for so long – but I’ve just read Redemptionis Sacramentum paras. 154-160 and they seem pretty watertight to me: e.g.
para. 158 “Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged. This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason”
and
para. 160 “Let the diocesan Bishop give renewed consideration to the practice in recent years regarding this matter, and if circumstances call for it, let him correct it or define it more precisely. Where such extraordinary ministers are appointed in a widespread manner out of true necessity, the diocesan Bishop should issue special norms by which he determines the manner in which this function is to be carried out in accordance with the law, bearing in mind the tradition of the Church.”
Unless the diocesan Bishop is in out-and-out rebellion, or particularly thick, para. 160 should give him a clear steer on what he must do. Oops, I forgot, we’re discussing the English and Scottish episcopal experience …
-
Londiniensis, I think you will find that I said somewhere up there that, although the 1997 Vatican Instruction prohibits the habitual use of these lay people to give out Communion, Redemptionis Sacramentum institutionalises them. I made the point that this is what is happening all the time. In “paragraph 1″ The Vatican issues a clear prohibition and then in “paragraph 2″ the Vatican publishes a loophole. I said that. You have just saved me the trouble of proving it! Only one more thing I would say on this topic: I wish they would blankety blank allow ME to write “paragraph 3″. It would NOT be polite!
leprechaun, the convert had shown sufficient enthusiasm for the November edition, anticipating it like the faithful reader he is, that I thought it only fair to let him know it was online. You chose the right username, all right, with those green eyes!
-
Forgot to say, Londiniensis, that in all of these loophole paragraphs we read about the Bishop having discretion with the proviso that he ought to bear in mind the tradition of the Church.
This is clear evidence of the Pope’s failure to face up to the fact that the bishops are the problem. If they had a mind to the tradition of the Church, there wouldn’t be an extraordinary minister in sight – north OR south of the Scottish border.
Listen, Londiniensis; cancel your copy of the Beano. You’ve already got plenty of fun reading there with the likes of Redemptionis Sacramentum on your bookshelf!
Luv ‘n’ stuff…
-
Also forgot to say, Londiniensis, that I wouldn’t say you are being “extraordinarily” dense. You’re much too humble…
Not at all (or as leprechaun would say, at all at all). Not “extraordinarily” dense. No, Londiniensis. Not “extraordinarily”…
-
editor
If we judge by the spirit of Summorum Pontificum then you have just really insulted Londiniensis. The “ordinary” form is much more reprehensible than the “extraordinary.” Ok, I’ll just shut up and mind my own business. No need to write it for all the world to see.
-
Funny that: Extraodrinary ministers – Bad, Extraordinary Form – Good. How extraordinary!
-
Apologies for the extraordinary typing error.
-
Or, as Humpty Dumpty would have said on behalf of Lewis Carroll: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less” – so there!
-
Londiniensis, “Extraordinary Form” NOT GOOD!
We, at Catholic Truth, do not recognise the terms “ordinary” and “extraordinary” forms as currently used to describe the new and old rites of Mass.
The new Mass is new and “new” is a novel notion in the Church. Traditional is the hallmark of Catholicism. What is Traditional is authentically Catholic. Everything else is counterfeit.
So, wrong again Londiniensis but keep going. There’s some improvement already and if you keep working hard, you’ll get there! 7/10 and a B for effort.
Luv n stuff.
-
As I understand, we both want the same outcome – the healing of the Church, bishops truly in communion with the See of Peter, the lex orandi and lex credendi in conformity and continuity with age old tradition. There are two reasons why I prefer to wage the fight from within the Church and in full obedience to the Vicar of Christ: (1) Virtue. It is the right thing to do. To step outside would be to admit that the Holy Ghost has abandoned the Church, which I cannot do. Remember that the Church that Thomas More died for was – in many of its human elements – corrupt, venal and worldly. It was – in its human elements – far more advanced down the diabolical path than the Church of AD 2008. Yet men like Fisher and More willingly gave their lives for it. (2) Pragmatism. Almost all “reform movements” outside the Church eventually wither into heretical sects, and the longer they clamour for reform from without, the more they become part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Change is coming – look at the disambiguation in the CDF’s Dominus Iesus (August 2000) and Responses to Some Questions (June 2007), look at Summorum Pontificum, the “Bendictine” altar arrangement, encouragement of Communion on the tongue, look at new episcopal and Curial appointments. Change is coming, but slowly and painfully, and it needs all the supporters loyally inside the Church that it can muster.
So I’ll carry on, just don’t bash me too hard. Pray for me and I’ll pray for you, as my old confessor used to say, and pray for the Church.
-
Londiniensis, your last post, 2.10pm has lost me. WHO is “outside the Church” on this blog?
Oh and your old confessor was certainly “muddled” if he told you to pray for the Church. The Church – being one with Christ – is holy and it is indefectable. Only the people within the Church need to be prayed for, including the Pope, bishops, clergy and religious. Oh and throw in a word for the editor and team at Catholic Truth as well, would you…
-
My old confessor used to say “pray for me and I’ll pray for you”. I added the “and pray for the Church”. I thought that was clear from what I wrote.
If the Church is, as you say (and as I believe) holy and indefectible, then how can she have taken a diabolical turn? (BXVII thread)
I was using shorthand by not adding the Pope, bishops, clergy and religious, but then surely the Holy Father was using the same shorthand when earlier this year he designated May 24th as a day of prayer for the Church in China.
And we do pray for the Church. At every Mass, in the Roman Canon, the celebrant says: “Te igitur, clementissime Pater …. ”
“We come to you, Father, with praise and thanksgiving, through Jesus Christ your Son. Through him we ask you to accept and bless these gifts we offer you in sacrifice. We offer them for your holy catholic Church, watch over it, Lord, and guide it; grant it peace and unity throughout the world. We offer them for N. our Pope, for N. our bishop, and for all who hold and teach the catholic faith that comes to us from the apostles.”
-
Londiniensis, of course we pray that the Church (that is the members of the Church) will be blessed and grace-filled. I thought that was clear from my previous post. That doesn’t mean that the Church is not holy and indefectable.
As to how the Church in her hierarchy and clergy could take that diabolical disorientation to which you refer – you’d need to ask Our Lady of Fatima. I can only speculate, based partly on Pope Paul VI’s remark that “somehow, from somewhere the smoke of Satan has entered the Temple of God”.
Still, despite that diabolical disorientation, the gift of papal infallibility remains intact and none of the errors – such as ecumenism, a pure heresy -have been made binding on the faithful: although the recent popes have come close, that specific papal grace has prevented them making that heresy binding.
-
Londiniensis
The diabolical disorientation affects men in the Church, not the Church as a divine institution. Hence, as editor rightly points out, papal infallibility has never been used to make any of the modern heresies binding on the faithful, even though the greater majority go along with them or simply refuse to challenge them in the false belief that to do so would be to offend against virtue.
This so often claimed determination to stay and fight within the modern setup is really just a red herring. The only way to fight modernism in the Church is head on and without compromise. Anything else is lukewarmness or just downright cowardice. Harsh words, but they come from one who stayed within the modern setup for twenty years and was not able to change a thing. When my chance came to return to tradition with the SSPX you had better believe that I grasped it with both hands and without the slightest doubt that I was upholding virtue, not offending against it.
-
Athanasius, please do not add to the confusion in which Londiniensis finds himself. By “returning to tradition”, you did not leave the Church.
The SSPX are inside, not outside the Church. Londoniensis, it seems to me, is determined to give the impession (without saying it outright because he knows blankety blank well that it is not true) that the SSPX are in schism.You, like me, returned to the Traditional Mass before it became re-fashionable to do so. That’s all. You’re still inside the Church, if outside the diocesan “structures” – as was your namesake, the saint of the same name, before his unjust excommunication was lifted.
There, Londiniensis, that’s a way out for you – you do mean “outside the diocesan structures” when you speak of those “outside” – is that it?
-
Londiniensis
Regarding the diabolical disorientation, have you ever read Fr. Malachi Martin’s “Windswept House”? Specifically, his description of certain events which occurred on the night of June 29, 1963?
-
Torky,
No I have not read it. Please don’t be so cryptic. As you are seemingly refering to something that happened on the night before Pope Paul VI’s coronation, please enlighten me.
-
Londiniensis,
Just had to come back after reading your recent postings on this thread, the excitement was too much for me!. Well said my man. More power to your keyboard; way to go bro. Your post on the 5th Nov 2:10pm was pure fireworks, especially concerning Pragmatism which is spot on.
-
In a word – extraordinary.
-
So you think, Benedict, that Our Lord was wrong not to be pragmatic when – to cite but one example from the many where he rejects pragmatism – some of his followers could not accept the Doctrine on the Eucharist? (John 6) Should he have called them back and tried to do a deal, which is what pragmatists DO?
I knew the excitement would be too much for you in the end, Benedict. It was only a case of when, not if.
Welcome back – stick with us, old boy, and you won’t go too much further wrong than you already are!!
-
Londiniensis
Father Martin describes a satanic enthronement ritual that took place that evening, simultaneously at the Vatican (with several prelates participating by phone) and Charleston, South Carolina, where the actual ritual took place. (Charleston is a focal point of Illuminati activity)
He then claimed elsewhere that this was not fiction and that Paul Vi and his successors knew about it.
In my opinion, this event, if indeed real, would be the heart and cause of the “diabolical disorientation.” You would think that either the Holy Father or a Cardinal would have by now conducted an exorcism to undo this, but I suppose we ordinary plonkers are not privy to such information.
-
Londiniensis
Forgot to add that Martin claims the satanists knew their hour had come because the new Pope had taken the name “Paul,” which, according to Martin, was a highly favorable omen to them.
-
Torky,
Utter bilge. Do you really believe that truly evil men prance around in tights sacrificing to Satan? The ones who do that are pathetic loons like Crowley. No, the truly evil men have sold their souls to power, or nationalism, or celebrity, or money, and sit behind desks making decisions that cause degradation and misery and enslavement and pollution and death. I suspect that Martin had been reading too much Dennis Wheatley. Either that, or he’d been at the cooking sherry. Glad to see though that Charleston, South Carolina is a focal point of something.
If you want to read good supernatural fantasy, try Charles Williams.
Benedict,
Thanks for the kind words, but verb. sap.: On this blog I’m probably a dangerous friend to have around.
-
Perhaps so Londiniensis, but to date I must say you have not disappointed me. Your last post above mirrors my take on the subject. The evil one knows exactly who to choose and ensures they reach positions of real earthly power where they are best suited to do his bidding.
The only prancing around I have seen was when I lived in Africa and juju men cast spells on individuals with, admittedly, astonishing effect – but only on the ignorant tribesmen in their pagan belief.
Men in tights? isn’t that a comedy film?
-
Londiniensis & Benedict
I am sorry to intervene in your mutual admiration of each other, but I cannot see you both in error, applauding each other for it, and say nothing.
I truly wish you guys would grow your wisdom teeth. I suppose you both think that Leo XIII was at the cooking sherry when he reported that he had witnessed Satan appear before Our Lord in the tabernacle claiming that he would destroy the Church within 100 years? That’s why Leo instituted the recitation of part of the exorcism prayer to St. Michael at the end of every low Mass.
You guys fool yourselves if you think that Satan remains hidden at all times, working only through the senses of men. He loves to ape God and for this he needs worship, real worship in a black mockery of the Holy Mass. Just look at the incredible increase in demonic worship these past four decades and you’ll understand that many people are making a clear choice to serve Satan and adore him.
Fr. Malachi Martin was an exorcist and as such was privy to much information that is generally unknown. The demons, he said, would often boast during exorcisms. They triumphantly boasted of their conquests in the Church because their pride could not resist. This is how Fr. Martin got so much information. Anyone who knew him will attest to his absolutely unquestionable character.
Pope Benedict XVI is aware of just how great a problem demonic possession has become and he has ordered an immediate increase of exorcist priests in the Church as a result.
Now consider the case of Archbishop Milingo. Here was an Archbishop who was very pro-Fatima, who seemed in every way to be stable and traditional Archbishop. Then one day he gets himself involved in some unauthorised exorcisms and before we can say God bless us he has left the Church, married a woman in the Moonie sect and now has children by her. Very odd, eh?
Make no mistake, the devil wants his black worship. He wants his disciples to worship him with ritual. It goes on all over the place, so why not inside the Vatican itself? Fr. Martin spoke of prelates he knew to be possessed. Is it impossible, then, for, say, a Cardinal to have the audacity to carry out an enthronement of Satan via a telephone link in the Vatican. By the way, Charleston is the Rome of the Freemasonic order. It sits on the 33 parallel and the head of Masonic order has his seat there. He calls himself the Supreme Pontifex. Now if that isn’t Satanic, then I don’t know what is.
-
Athanasius,
Now let’s see: on the one hand Scripture, Tradition, the teaching of the Church, the example of the Saints, sound theology, clear thinking; on the other hand conspiracy theories, a morbid fascination with the short-lived 18th century Illuminati, “secret” knowledge, a laicised priest and – what was it, ah yes – best-selling fantasy fiction. Yes, it’s a tough one.
By the way Balham is the home of Peter Sellers’ infamous “Gateway to the South”. It sits on the 51st parallel and Londiniensis has his seat there. He sometimes calls himself the Deputy Vice-Pomfret of the Titicacan legation. Now if that isn’t Goonish, then I don’t know what is.
-
Londiniensis, the devil must be rubbing hs hands with glee at your posts, also Benedict’s.
Unhappily for me, I’ve had some personal experience of demons and it was not in the form of a man in a suit behind a fancy desk.
I would not wish the experience on my worst enemy but, honestly, guys, I urge you to re-read the post Athanasius posted up there at 12.53.am and to take it very seriously indeed.
You are denying the existence of Satan as a being by speaking about people who are filled with evil. Two different things.
Both of them exist, of course. But I get the feeling that you two are denying the existence of the Devil.
-
I forgot to say, Londiniensis that your mention of Crowley suggests you don’t know that he was a real Satanist and if he wrote about men prancing around in tights, that’s because he probably witnessed it, I’d have thought. Have never read one of his books, but most writers base their work on personal experience and he won’t be an exception, given that the subject is not one that many other people (we hope!) would have experience of so where else would he do his research?
-
Seeing the turn this thread has taken, I thought some of you (Londiniensis and Benedict, I’m looking straight at thee and thou) might find it useful to take a wee look at the older thread entitled The Devil – True or False
http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/?p=290Because, gentlemen, in my humble opinion, I think Epiphany has a point!
-
Epiphany has made several very good points, editor.
Londiniensis
For your information Fr. Malachi Martin was not a “laicised” priest. He was a priest dispensed from the Jesuit order and later assigned as an exorcist in New York by the Vatican. He was a priest in “good standing” right up to his death and although much of his written work was written in novel form, he declared with sound mind and with great personal experience that his novels cloaked a good deal of truth within their pages.
So it is not sufficient for you to rubbish the name of Fr. Malachi Martin in order to win on you point of view. Nor is it right that you should mock the very real existence of a demonic Freemasonic hierarchy which has its seat on the 33rd parallel in the US.
Remember the words of Our Lady of LaSalette concerning the assaults of evil upon the Church and the personal possession of souls by demons:
“One day these things will all be revealed through a thorough examination of the LUCIFERIAN archives of Freemasonry.”
-
Londiniensis
A few observations on your post of 1:57:
1. Should I conclude from this that you don’t believe in conspiracies? Conspiracy theories are, after all, based on the fact that many historical events were indeed the result of conspiracies. If you are interested in what Alice von Hildebrandt had to say on this subject, let me know and I’ll try to find her comments.
2. Should I also conclude that you don’t believe in secret societies? Do you deny the existence of the Freemasons and their many related cults?
3. If you acknowledge, on the other hand, that secret societies do exist, then doesn’t it seem logical that said societies would act conspiratorially, since they operate in secret?
4. You have added the image of men “prancing around in tights” in order to justify your dismissal of Malachi Martin’s story. Nowhere did I state that the prelates who participated in this Satanic ritual were prancing around in tights. Frankly, that is highly disingenuous of you, and it is also a liberal trick worthy of Ronnie Convery.
5. You seem not to be aware of the history of the Illuminati, since you dismiss them as “short-lived.” The Illuminati were indeed outlawed by the Elector of Bavaria in 1782-83, after one of their messengers was struck by lightning while delivering some of their papers by horseback. The papers fell into the hands of the authorities, who were appropriately horrified at the contents therein. However, the Illuminati did not disband, but only concealed themselves in the Masonic lodges, from whence they continued to operate. Their stated goals were embodied in the Reign of Terror, the Ten Points of Karl Marx (who repeated them word for word), and the Bolshevik Revolution.
6. As for how evil operates, the point has been made in numerous other places, esp. Scripture, that regarding this phenomenon, we are only incidentally dealing with men, but primarily with “principalities and powers.” Have you ever contemplated how “principalities and powers” exert their influence over men? Do you think it is through such frivolities as the Wicked Witch of the West flying overhead while issuing a black cloud from her broom? (I know, you didn’t say that, but that reflects your attitude) No, it is through invocation, which is effected by ritual. Ritual such as described by Father Martin.
7. Father Malachi Martin was not a laicized priest. He remained a priest in good standing, and an exorcist, throughout his life.
8. In your second post to Athanasius of 5:46, you falsely oppose “clear thinking” and conspiracy theories. In doing so you also deny once again that a conspiracy could have taken place or could have had any effect, esp. a destructive effect, on “Scripture, Tradition, the teaching of the Church, the example of the Saints, sound theology, clear thinking…” It is not a conspiracy theory which opposes the Church, but those who have originated the conspiracy.But here’s a general question for you: why is it so impossible for you (and Benedict, apparently) to believe that Satanists infiltrated the Church?
-
Athanasius
Sorry, I see you have beat me to the punch regarding Father Malachi’s standing!
-
Torky, Athanasius,
Please do me the courtesy of assuming that I check my facts before posting. Fr Malachi Martin WAS a laicised priest. My source for this is Fr Malachi Martin himself speaking in an interview on 11 July 1997. The YouTube reference is http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Uaht7adzu60 and the reference starts after 1 minute 20 seconds.
-
I now belatedly do you the courtesy of having checked your facts on Fr. Malachi Martin’s laicisation, Londiniensis. Quite right, he was “laicised” but not with the result of becoming a “layman”. I mistook laicisation as meaning the same as becoming a layman, if not in soul then at least by the manner of no longer living the priestly life.
What a pity you used the term “laicised” in your earlier derogatory post on Fr. Malachi Martin as if to insinuate that he was just a “layman” without acquinting us with all the other facts from that youtube link in which Fr. Martin expressly declares that Pope Paul VI made special arrangements for him to continue as a priest in good standing.
Strange that Paul VI should go to such lengths to accommodate Fr. Malachi Martin, don’t you think? It suggests that Fr. Martin and this Pope shared some vitally important information about that “smoke of Satan” that Paul VI claimed had entered the Church, especially since Fr. Martin was thereafter appointed as an exorcist with Papal authority, then senior exorcist.
You will also have noted in that interview with Art Bell what he said about the number of demonic possessions in the north eastern corner of the US alone having increased in recent years by 800%, and his assurance that demonic covens had equally rocketed out of all proportion.
Maybe you should have informed us of these statistics. But, then, that would not have sat well with your virtual denial of outright demonic possession of a growing number of individuals.
I thank you for this link, Londiniensis, for its educational value. I advise all other bloggers on here to listen to it and then decide if Fr. Martin was, as you claim, a victim of “reading too much Dennis Wheatley”, or a priest who had been at the “cooking sherry.” I can’t imagine Satan disagreeing with your conclusion.
-
So, to clarify, Athanasius and Londiniensis, by “laicisation” in Fr Malachi Martin’s case, you simply mean he was dispensed from living as a member of the Jesuit Order, but remained a priest in good standing…
Odd to use the term “laicisation” – allows the Church’s enemies to mislead the ignorant into believing Fr Martin abandoned his priestly ministry. Better to distinguish between such a situation and the more usual use of the term to refer to a priest who has been returned to the lay state, albeit that he will always be a priest, the character of priestly ordination being an indelible mark on the soul. “A priest forever, like Melchisedeck of old…”
I wonder why they use the same term for both entirely different circumstances?
-
Excellent question, Editor. Perhaps Heather Priest can answer that one?
Comments are now closed.
123 comments