This thread allows visitors to this blog to ask questions that, perhaps, they cannot ask elsewhere. Be assured that we have a team of very knowledgeable bloggers who will go to all kinds of lengths to find out the answers if we don’t know them off the tops of our collective heads.
So if you have a question about Catholicism, you are welcome to click on ‘comments’ to ask for answers here. Or if you wish to make a one-off comment (politely!) this is the thread for you…
N O T I C E S . . .
Visit the Q & A (2) thread to read previous questions and comments http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/?p=1455#respond
Visit the Q & A (1) thread to read the questions and comments there… http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/?p=897#comment-9513comment-9513
To read the earlier Miscellaneous thread, visit http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/?p=767
To read the original Any Questions thread, click on the link below. http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/?p=399
If you wish to create an avatar, the little picture to go beside your username, just visit http://en.gravatar.com/ and follow the simple online instructions.
********************************************************************
Tags: catholic answers, doctrine
-
I’m transferring a beautiful link posted towards the end of the now closed to comments Q & A (2) thread – I know bloggers won’t want to miss it…
http://ingodscompany2.blogspot.com/2009/07/serial-killer-and-rosary.htmlThanks to semperfidelis for this link.
-
Well Ed, what can I say, why do I keep coming back ? How long have you got ?
I suppose the truthful answer is I really do not know, now as I have said in the past I do not think this blog and newsletter is all bad, I think at times you have some very good points to make but can become ‘entrenched’ shall we say.After perusing the blog for some time I registered in the hope that I could provide some balance to some of your arguments, especially those in the Education field as I really do think you tar us all with the same brush, and really don’t know what goes on in most of our schools.
I think in the ‘sex ed’ debate I have been slightly misrepresented as that is not what I said, my point was that in Our schools we have got a ‘relationships and moral’ education programme, at no point do we talk about sex ed (after all it’s not my job to teach children how to have sex therefore we don’t do sex ed) no doubt you will argue there is not much difference and that I am being pedantic, perhaps so but what we do is a million miles from the ‘pornography’ that is foisted upon pupils in the non-denominational sector. As you will no doubt be aware our relationships and moral education is a programme entitled Called To Love… have you ever read the whole document, if you wish I will send you a copy, and i’m sure you will be surprised but you will find in all the materials traditional Catholic teaching.
I also find it interesting that you practically state that you/ this blog is malicious, I had mostly thought misguided but who am I to argue with you. In terms of the nightclub statement I have no opinion as regards your nocturnal activities, I am sure there are no age limits in pubs or clubs. I refer however to the members of Catholic Truth (perhaps not you but some of your group) who in the past have went to the lengths of waiting in cars outside certain nightclubs in Glasgow to see which priests come out (of the nightclub I mean).
With regards to the Global Masonic conspiracy, the information can be found on the SSPX site, so it must be true. Obviously SSPX are independent witnesses with nothing to gain from this supposed conspiracy! I have heard the Masonic conspiracy of Vatican II a million times but still have to see some actual evidence of this link. Before anyone jumps in with the Bugnini theory, even the traditionalist Cardinal Oddi refuted this point.
Oh and anytime the EF is mentioned those who don’t toe the party line are reminded on the example of St Pio and others who celebrated this Mass. Since St Pio was only canonised in 2002 in a Novus Ordo celebration, and also canonised within the norms since Vatican II, does that not make his sainthood invalid, after all you argue that the current mass is Invalid?
-
Nolite Timere,
The “gay lobby” were reported – in the Catholic Times – as being delighted with the sex-education programme in Scottish Catholic schools. If you are not offended by materials used (I have copies in my Catholic Education file) then so be it. Just don’t try to pretend that Catholic schools don’t “do” sex-ed – whatever they call it. Ask mother of ten, Eileen McCloy, why she had to battle with the powers that be to have her children protected from these lessons. I know for a fact that the group of Natural Family Planners who were asked to draw up some of the lessons had their programme returned because it was not “explicit” enough.
I have never stated that the newsletter/blog is malicious. Don’t be daft.
Nor has anybody connected with us in any way, ever sat outside “certain nightclubs to see which priests come out” – which “nightclubs” are you talking about? The only place in town we’ve ever mentioned is the Polo Lounge, and we only knew about those clergy because others were shocked to see them in there. I’ve never been in it, and none of us have ever sat outside watching. Goodness, just because I like watching detective films doesn’t mean I want to be IN one. Get a grip, NT.
Conspiracy theory/Vatican II? Read “The Plot Against the Church” – you can read it online. Google.
We do NOT argue that the “current Mass” (well put – it will soon be a thing of the past) is “invalid”. There is certainly much greater danger that any given novus ordo maybe what it’s initials suggest – “no Mass” – but that is not per se the case. Go and read our various threads on the Mass and also read the Ottaviani Intervention, linked in these various threads and in the Masses section of our website for more on this.
I like you, Nolite Timere. I think you are well-intentioned. Some parents have responded to our advertisement for a meeting to enquire about home-schooling, so we plan to organise that for sometime in February. Please come along (it will probably be in the Woodside Halls in Glasgow) as I would love to meet you, but more importantly, I would love YOU to meet some parents who have lost faith in Scottish Catholic schools.
Will you think about it, at least?
-
Nolite Timere
I feel I owe you an apology. I think I’ve been too quick to react to you in the past and I’ve been too quick to judge your intentions.
I’m a Catholic teacher and remember attending an inservice on the new resource. I wasn’t a parent at the time but I was appalled at what I saw. It also presumes that the teacher delivering the lessons is sound. Sadly this is a monumental misconception. I’ve heard teachers answer questions on contraception and masturbation.
So, I hope you’ll stay with us and challenge us. Please come along to our meeting too.
-
Editor
Is the book you refer to in the above post, “The Plot Against the Church” by Maurice Pinay?
-
Regarding the written work called, ‘The Plot Against the Church,’ by Maurice Pinay, I would like to mention that great care should be taken with reading this work. It is written anonymously, and it has been used by Sedevacantists and anti-Catholics to supposedly prove that the Church is no longer the true Church, and that the post-Vll Popes are anti-Popes.
I have read it, and have reasearched a few of the sources it uses, which includes non-Catholics and anti-Catholics.
Editor, I would question the motivation of whoever it was that recommended that you read this work.
-
“With regards to the Global Masonic conspiracy, the information can be found on the SSPX site, so it must be true. Obviously SSPX are independent witnesses with nothing to gain from this supposed conspiracy! I have heard the Masonic conspiracy of Vatican II a million times but still have to see some actual evidence of this link. Before anyone jumps in with the Bugnini theory, even the traditionalist Cardinal Oddi refuted this point. ”
Hi Nolite,
The information expressed on the link comes directly from Archbishop Lefebvre. He was present to witness the betrayal. He carried a petiton to the Secretary of the Council, Bishop Felici, asking that the council condemn Communism. Archbishop Lefebvre was later told that his request “was mislaid in a drawer.”
When Archbishop Lefebvre met with Msgr. Montini, he was told, “we must stop the perpetual hostlity. We must not always condemn, always condemn! The Church is going to look like a cruel Mother!”
To the Modernists, we had to make peace with the Freemasons, peace with the Communists, and peace with the Protestants. No more condemnations, no more anathemas. Let us at last get along together.
It is clear to me that the Modernists wanted to make peace with all the enemies of the Church.It all comes down to this. Who are we going to trust, Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX, or those who have betrayed us? In the present Rome, too often, two plus two equals five. Because of this, I can’t trust them implicitly!
-
Theneva, thanks for that warning about Maurice Pinay’s work. I haven’t actually read it myself, but had it recommended to me by a trustworthy friend who said there is information in there from the Vatican archives that will not be found anywhere else. Hence, I’ve googled it and got in saved, ready to read (or perhaps not, now that I’ve read your post).
My source will see your post, so, since I’ve not read it myself, I will take your word for it and withdraw my recommendation to Nolite Timere.Nolite Timere,
I hope you read this – apologies for misleading you. When we meet in February (I hope!) I’ll apologise in person.
Miles Christi Sum,
thanks, yet again, for your very clear and helpful post. Indeed, Nolite Timere could make a start on his research by reading Letter to a Confused Catholic, by Archbishop Lefebvre – it is one of the links on our website and it might have been written yesterday, it is so fresh and accurate in its description of what is going on in the Church right now.
-
editor and Theneva
In the Appendix (page 675) of ‘The Plot Against the Church’ there is a list of Popes from Peter to the then incumbent of the Apostolic See (1967), who, it records is “Paul VI, now gloriously reigning.”
How, then, can this book possibly be considered an aide to sedevacantists? Sedevacantists use the dogma ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’ in support of their error. Does this mean we have to ignore that dogma? No, we do not discard a good work because some renegades happen to twist it to suit their schism.
I am aware that this book quotes a number of non-Catholic and anti-Catholic sources throughout, but only to show what these have said concerning their efforts to undermine the true Church. So Theneva has to give direct references in the book where these hostile sources are quoted for another reason other than to highlight there devilish agenda. I will await thos references with great interest.
‘The Plot Against the Church’ is only partially anonymous in that it is known to have been authored by a series of Traditional prelates during the early days of Vatican II. It had never been intended for public consumption, but was hastily put together using previously-unseen Vatican archive information for distribution to the Council Fathers. It was an attempt to warn the Council Fathers that a plot was afoot by the enemies of the Church to hijack Vatican II.
I have read this book several times and I know it is incredibly accurate, as well as astounding, in the revealing of information that no one but senior clerical sources could have got their hands on. It is a must read for every confused Catholic. The warning presented in this book from the early 1960s has come to pass in that the enemies of Catholicism have hijacked the Conciliar documents and used the ambiguities they planted therein to bring the Catholic religion into line with Masonic principles.
There is no denial of the legitimacy of the Pope, no any semblence of sedevacantism whatsoever to be found in this book. It is a book clearly written by men who loved both the Church and the Papacy, but who feared the worst at Vatican II and are today vindicated. If sedevacantists try now to hijack this great work for their particular ends, then that is neither the fault of the authors or of the facts they provide. As I say, I will await substantiating proof from Theneva of the accusations she lays against this book.
-
Sorry for the numerous typos in the comments above. I’m sure you’ll all manage to read it regardless.
-
Athanasius,
The book, The Plot Against the Church, does not condone Sedevacantism. Nor does it need to do so in order to show the Sedevacantist position. All it has to do is to plant doubt in the minds of Catholics regarding the state of the Church since Vll.
I am not going to get into the details of the book regarding this. Try as you might, I will keep to the bigger picture.
I do have a question, though. Do you have any indication that Archbishop Lefebvre read the book? I have never seen any indication that he did.
-
Hi Ed,
I am writing to ask if anyone knows a novena to St. Joseph the worker, and request some prayers. I am going for psychometric test as part of the final stages for a job next week.
-
Theneva
As regards your question about Archbishop Lefebvre. Does the psuedonym ‘Maurice Pinay’ give you a hint as to who one of the authors might have been?
Since you confirm that there is nothing overtly or secretly sedevacantist in this book, we may conclude that it is a perfectly good and instructive book to read. As I said before, it is not the fault of the book if people use it, as they have used a dogma of the Church, to attempt to lure people into a sedevcanatist position. Catholics shouldn’t listen to such people, they should read for themselves. I have never heard this said before about ‘The Plot Against the Church. Yours is the first mention of this book being a possible tool in the hands of unscrupulous sedevacantists. I have read the book and I find your accusation impossible to justify.
That’s why I asked that you give references to the parts you mentioned earlier about non-Catholics and anti-Catholics. You must be prepared to substantiate your statements or you will simply lose credibility. I ask for debating, not argumentive reasons. You speak of the “bigger picture,” but the bigger picture requires putting together millions of pixels in the right order. You made a statement that could put Traditional Catholics off reading this essential book, so now you must justify your statement with precise facts or we’ll just take it that this is merely your personal opinion and say no more about it.
-
Athanasius,
I have no interest in having any credibility for myself. None whatsoever. I’m only interested in the truth. Nor am I sure that my perspective is always accurate. I am wrong sometimes.
If you can show that ‘Maurice Pinay’ is, or was, Archbishop Lefebvre, then I will take that into consideration, of course. But Catholics cannot accept, as a truth, anything that is anonymous, as far as I know. It could have been written by freemasons, for all we know.
Just because a book does not overtly proclaim the Sede position does not mean that is automatically a good book to read. The Sede position is only one of many errors.
-
Savio
I have taken the following prayer from ‘The Little Crown of St. Joseph.’
Entitled: ‘A prayer for a special grace. Novena.’
Glorious descendant of the Kings of Judah! inheritor of the gifts of grace and virtue of the Patriarchs, St. Joseph, listen to my prayer. Thou art my glorious protector and shalt ever be, after Jesus and Mary, the object of my most profound veneration and utmost confidence. Thou art the most hidden, though the greatest of saints, and art the special Patron of the great servants of God. In union with all those who have ever been most devoted to thee, I now dedicate myself to thy service, beseeching thee for the sake of Jesus Christ, who vouchsafed to love and to obey thee as a son, to be my Father, and to obtain for me the filial respect, confidence and love which Jesus bore thee. O powerful Advocate of all Christians, whose intercession, as St. Theresa assures us, has never been known to fail, deign to intercede for me now, and to implore for me the favour for which I am making this Novena (Specify here).
Present me, O great Saint, to the adorable Trinity, with whom thou hast so glorious and so intimate a correspondence. Obtain that I may never efface by sin the sacred image in whose likeness I was created. Beg that our Divine Redeemer may enkindle in all hearts the fire of divine Charity, and infuse therein the virtues of His adorable Infancy, purity, simplicity, obedience and humility. Obtain for me a great devotion to thy Virgin Spouse, and protect me so powerfully during life and at death that I may live nobly and die happily with Jesus, Mary and thyself. Amen.
-
Athanasius and Theneva,
I have to say that my mind has been put at rest by Athanasius’s post. Athanasius had merely mentioned it in passing to me on one occasion and his remark about its content including information from the Vatican archives not found anywhere else, stuck in my mind. Having read his detailed post, Theneva, and your humble recognition that your opinion may be mistaken, I think it is fair to say that the book – if it sheds light on this crisis – is, indeed, worth reading.
After all, anonymity is the order of the day (as I know as editor of CT) If parish priests and curates are terrified of being known to be in contact with us, mere laity with no standing of any kind, how much more would senior prelates fear being known to have leaked key information about the goings on in high places, that led to this crisis.
So, anonymity, per se, should not worry us – as long as the content is substantially documented.
Let’s all read it and report back (? a future thread, perhaps?)
Savio, can’t think of a novena to St Joseph right now, but I note Athanasius has come to the rescue. My prayers for a successful interview. Let us know how you get on and all about it!
-
Theneva
I think, given the content of the book, we may be very assured that the Masons didn’t write it.
As for the truth of the book, you will generally find that any publication that provides names, dates, places, source material and irrefutable personal testimony, is probably true. Misleading publications never quote such in-depth verifiable information. Therefore, I think we can trust that the book was written in a spirit of truth. I have not found any of the facts I’ve checked in the past to be false.
The Plot Against the Church is a book clearly written by men who loved the Catholic Faith. They warn of a “Fifth Column” amongst the clergy which was working with Communism and Freemasonry to bring about a disaster in the Church by altering her sacred teachings and traditions at the forthcoming Council, Vatican II.
In the introductions to the book for various countries we see again and again that editors of Catholic publications reporting on the book have all believed from the outselt that it was written by very senior prelates in the Vatican (the Curia, no less) as a bullwark against the Communist and Masonic infiltrators at the Council. It’s a great book and a must read.
-
I appreciate the charitable posts by Athanasius and Editor.
Athanasius, if the book was circulated around the Church fathers during Vatican ll, then why is it that Archbishop Lefebvre makes no mention of it?
Especially since you think that he authored it. -
Editor,
I concur, that the Letter to Confused Catholics link on Catholic Truth, would be a good start.
Nolite,
Here is another Traitional link:
http://www.communigate.co.uk/ne/tradition/page8.phtml
On another note: I have never heard of the text, The Plot Against the Church. Ya’ll have peaked my interest and now I want to read it!
-
Correction: Should read — Traditional. I need to start wearing my glasses!
-
Theneva
I think the intention of the authors was to remain anonymous for obvious reasons. This is probably why Archbishop Lefebvre never mentioned the book.
-
Anthanasius,
Forgive me, but what are, in your opinion, the obvious reasons?
-
Theneva
The most obvious reasons seem to me to be the 1. the sensationalism such eminent names would provide for the press. 2. The very real threat to the lives of those who expose universal Communist/Masonic plots, or are known to be key witnesses to unGodly events, such as in the case of Roberto Calvi.
There was a big story about 20 years ago, it was in all the papers very briefly, before being completely silenced, revealing that two prelates very close to Pope John Paul II had been unmasked as KGB agents. We never did find out what happened in the case of these infiltrators, but it does add weight to the claims of ex-KGB personnel and the authors of the book in question that the Vatican has been infiltrated at the highest levels by the enemies of Our Lord. This being the suspicion, I think anyone with a modicum of common sense would want to remain anonymous.
-
Athanasius,
Yes, it does make sense that to reveal the names of communist/Masonic sympathizers could pose a danger for those who do the revealing.
But the aforementioned book places much emphasis on another supposed plot…that of the Jewish conspiracy. And yet Archbishop Lefebvre did not otherwise place such great importance or evidence on the Jewish conspiracy. Why is that?
-
Theneva
I think it was more an element within Judaism rather than the Jews in general that the book referred to. You’ll find a similar thing on the web. I think they call themselves ‘True Torah Jews’ and they claim that Zionism is a radical secular departure from the Jewish faith bent on world domination through the Israeli State.
There have certainly been many decent Rabbis in the past few decades who have come out in defence of Pius XII while other elements within Jewry have taken the revisionist side and falsely accused Pius of aiding the Nazis. There are many splinter groups within Jewry, some religious others secular and with opposing ends.
-
Theneva
I recall that the Jews in question in the book are quoted verbatum. The evidence comes from their own mouths, not like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion which the authors of ‘The Plot Against the Church’ utterly rejected as any kind of reliable source material. Once again, this rejection of said Protocols only enhances the genuine intention of the authors of TPAtC.
-
Theneva
If you do not find “The Plot Against the Church” to your liking, may I suggest “The Devil’s Final Battle,” which amply demonstrates that Vatican II fulfilled the aims of Freemasonry regarding the Church.
You should also read about Bella Dodd, the former counsel for the American Communist Party in New York, whose testimony regarding the intentions of the Communists vis-a-vis the Church were fulfilled to the letter. In case you are not familiar with the connection between Communism and Freemasonry, you can google that too.
Nolite Timere
I’m not sure why you so casually dismiss the Bugnini factor, when he was dismissed by 2 different Popes under suspicion of being a Freemason. Do you doubt that 2 different Popes had sufficient evidence with which to dismiss him?
I also suggest that you review the numerous Papal encyclicals on the subject of Freemasonry, which not only addressed their heresies and their nefarious activities, but on their power. If Freemasonry had so much power in the 18th and 19th centuries that several Popes were called to try to stem that dangerous tide, what do you suppose happened in the 20th century? Do you think they just disappeared?
Finally, I offer you the same reading suggestions that I just gave to Theneva. If you have been swayed by the prevailing public scorn of “conspiracy theories” as beneath the attention of those who are educated, it’s high time you threw your car into reverse.
-
Nolite Timere
This statement of yours also deserves a response: “I think at times you have some very good points to make but can become ‘entrenched’ shall we say.”
This sounds much like an accusation frequently leveled at the SSPX, who are described as rigid fanatics, ultra-traditionalists, even fascists – just look in the thesaurus under “intransigent” – because they refuse to accept the modernist heresies that have engulfed Rome since Vatican II.
Please explain to us how unwavering fidelity to tradition becomes an undesirable personality trait.
-
Thank you Athanasius and Ed! Let us hope and pray that I get the job.
-
Has anyone read Christopher Ferrara’s analysis of the new encyclical? I haven’t read the encyclical, but his article strikes me as excellent. I also have to wonder why it was written, since it apparently adds nothing to Ubi Arcano Dei and in fact just obscures the essential issue.
Has a Pope ever re-issued the encyclical of one of his predecessors, to remind the Catholic world of its existence, rather than issue a new one on the same subject?
-
Those who are skeptical, or worse, about the Masonic infiltration of the Church should read the May 2009 issue of The Fatima Crusader, under “Father Gruner Answers Your Questions.” Here is the link:
http://www.fatimacrusader.com/cr92/cr92pg28.pdf
Scroll down to page 30, where you will find a section called “Freemasonry, Communism and Communion in the Hand.”
-
Torkay,
Thanks for posting that VERY INFORMATIVE link! God Bless Fr. Gruner.
-
May I suggest that you all hold fire with regard to any further postings on Freemasonry etc. since I will be posting a new thread later which will reveal all – and that will be fertile ground for all further discussion and links.
I am having to attend to other things right now, but will post the new thread just as soon as I can. Watch this space (or rather, leave this space for other topics – Freemasonry etc coming to a new thread near you, soon!)
-
Editor,
I’m not really interested in posting anything about the freemasons. But I hope it’s okay to ask about Archbishop Lefebvre and his supposed authorship, in part, of the book, The Plot Against the Church.
The problem I have with this assertion by Athanasius (that the Archbishop partly authored it) is that the published writings of Archbishop Lefebvre do not accuse the Jews, in any great detail, of plotting against the Church.
If the Archbishop truly believed that the plot was mostly instigated by Jews, he would have written about it in detail in his published writings, but he does not do so, except occasionally.
-
I understand Theneva and I’m not sure that Athanasius did attribute authorship to Archbishop Lefebvre although he hinted (I think) that the Archbishop may have contributed to it. Of course you are free to discuss the matter.
The new thread will provide the first discussion of the week, so I, too, will be holding fire until midnight tomorrow, when I’ll post the promised new thread. Partly because I have been out most of the day and need to attend to various things at home, but also partly to stick to our new trial arrangement of two threads per week. Next thread due Sunday – and it will be worth waiting for, as I’m sure you will all agree!
-
Thanks, Editor.
Athanasius, could you please clarify as to whether or not you attribute the book, The Plot Against the Church, to Archbishop Lefebvre? In part or in whole?
-
Editor
I await the new thread with baited breath and held fire, esp. since it appears the title of it will be: “Editor Reveals All”!
-
Tomas de Torkay, thank you for that link to Fr Gruner. It was really a greatly informative article. I kept thinking that what we need right now is another Father Putti to leak us facts, names etc.
I agree, Tomas, roll on the new thread!
-
Theneva
The simply answer to your question is that I can’t say for certain that Archbishop Lefebvre was part author of the book. Frankly, though, I don’t really think it matters much.
-
Athanasius,
I’m relieved to see that you can’t say for certain that the Archbishop was part author of the book. In that case, you are probably right about it not really mattering much.
However, if you were certain that he did in part author the book, then it would, IMO, matter a great deal. -
Ive been following this discussion between Athanasius and Theneva and, quite frankly, I’m totally lost. What is the big deal with this book? Theneva, I’m sorry to say but if Athanasius recommends the book then that’s good enough for me.
Why would it change things if ++Lefebvre contributed to the book?
-
Petrus,
What would change, if Athanasius was certain that the Archbishop contributed to this book, is that I would then have to try to show how the Archbishop could not have contributed to the book. I’ve mentioned already that the Archbishop did not condemn, in great detail (probably not at all), the Jews as being the main instrument in persecuting the Church. The book, however, places a great emphasis on the Jews in this regard.
I don’t agree, either, that the book has been written by sound Catholic thinkers. If it had been, then it would not be lauded by Sedevacantists, as well as gnostics and white-supremacist nazis.
I can provide links to white supremacist and gnostic sites that promote the book. If the book contained only sound Catholic thinking on these subjects, then it would not appeal to these groups. For instance, while these groups admire Bp. Williamson, they do not in any way adhere to the Catholics teachings of the Church. Nor do they quote Archbishop Lefebvre in any capacity at all. Why should they? He was a sound Catholic.
-
I’ve just received the following email from jkearney, so thought you would like to share it:
SWINE FLU – PORTSMOUTH DIOCESE REACTS…
I went to Mass this morning in my parish. At the beginning the priest read out instructions from Bishop Hollis concerning protecting the weak and vulnerable during the Swine Flu` epeidmic.
The chalice would not longer be given, the community had to receive communion in the hand, and at the Sign of Peace people were just to join hands in a prayerful manner and just bow to others.
So this is how we conductedc ourselves during the Mass. On returning home I went first o http://www.indcatholicnews.com and sure enough there was the Bishop Hollis statement but he was speaking on behalf of the other Bishops of England and Wales.
I searched the blogs to find out what others thought of this but I found no mention of it in any of the leading catholic blogs. Maybe it will break tomorrow. Although the removal of the chalice and a more sombre sign of peace is welcome, I do think receiving communion in the mouth will prove difficult. Keep an eye on this!. JKearney.
End.
-
Theneva
You’re all mixed up on this. I have said to you before that a book such as this, just like an infallible dogma, can be used by unscrupulous types to promote an agenda not native to the book in question.
Anything can be twisted to suit an agenda. Take Hochhuth’s play, for example, ‘The Vicar.’ Upon that piece of nasty fiction the name of Pope Pius XII has been almost universally sullied. This shows how a piece of writing can be abused by unscrupulous people to suit their own ends.
I’m happy to say that sedevacantists and Nazi white supremicists form a very small minority of those who have read this book. The majority have read and understood it in the correct spirit.
Now I have to ask you this. Have you read the detailed evidence provided in that book? If so, then how can you take issue with it? We’re not dealing with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion here, but a book crammed full with verifiable facts and testimonies, even those of revolutionary Jews themselves.
Put aside the abuse of this book by insignificant troublesome groups and concentrate on what it is actually telling us factually. If we stick only to the facts then we can’t go wrong.
I can’t really say anymore on this subject because I think I’ve covered everything you’ve asked. Besides, it’s all too much ado about nothing really.
Are certain Jews conspiring against the Catholic Church? You seem to doubt that. In the Gospels Our Lord asked the Pharisees: “Why do you seek to kill me?” They obviously denied the accusation, yet the Gospels record that they conspired against Him and secured His crucifixion.
Now the Church says today that not all Jews then living or living now were/are partakers in that crime, but does that exclude an element now, as then, working to crucify the Mystical Body of Christ? I think the book attempts to lay out the works of that element throughout the ages.
As an aside, all Jews were and are responsible for the death of Our Lord just as all Gentiles bear the same responsibility. Why? because He died for the sins of all and in that respect no human being is exempt. The good news is that Catholic prophecy foretells the eventual conversion of the Jewish race to the Catholic Faith before the end of the world.
-
editor
jkearney’s report shows the extent of the loss of faith amongst the Catholic Hierarchy of England and Wales.
They will forbid abuses for worldly reasons, but not for divine ones. That they will not return either to Communion on the tongue shows their utter absence of trust in God.
-
Athanasius, I agree with you about the report showing the loss of faith among English bishops but wait and see, our bishops will likely do the same. I can’t believe that this crisis will last much longer, it is all so serious and you know they say God will not be mocked.
-
May I remind everyone to make every effort to attend Sacred Heart tomorrow, traditional Mass at 12 noon, because it is the last one for at least a month: Father announced last week that he is off on holiday during August.
Hope to see you all there…
-
“SWINE FLU – PORTSMOUTH DIOCESE REACTS…”
In the past, I have attended many Byzantine Divine Liturgies where the good priest has accidently touched my mouth or tongue. However, the Eucharist at a Divine Liturgy is large, rectangular and crumbly, so it is almost inconceivable that physical contact will not occur, at some point.
On the other hand, I have never had a priest touch my mouth during Communion reception at a TLM. If everyone does their part, physical contact can be avoided .
Communion in the hand, however, is more likely to produce physical contact. The EM’s would literally need to drop the Eucharist in one’s hand to avoid contact. Not to mention that most EM”S most likely do not deterge their hands before dispensing Communion.
-
Athanasius,
I do agree that writings can be twisted to suit an agenda. I’m not familiar with the play, The Vicar, but it’s not uncommon for plays, in particular, to be changed to suit an agenda.
You wrote that a book such as this, just like infallible dogma, can be used by unscrupulous types to promote an agenda not native to the book in question. While I understand what your saying here, I’d just like to point out that this book in no way is similar otherwise to infallible dogma (of the Church).
The book in question is not infallible. It contains testimony from non-Catholics and anti-Catholics, which is supposedly verifiable. But just because it can be verified that an individual actually said or wrote something, does not make it true. To claim that what they say is true is to make the same error as those liberal Catholics, such as Kung and Rahner, who also accept that the testimony of non-Catholics is true.
-
Theneva
At no time have I claimed infallibility for ‘The Plot Against the Church.’ What I have attempted to point out to you is that if sedevacantists and Feeneyites can twist the meaning of the dogma ‘Outside the Church no salvation’ to fit their argument, and if they can misquote the utterances of saints in defence of their cause, then how much more easily can they take a good book such as this and twist it’s content?
Claiming truth for the content of this book is not remotely the same as liberals like Rahner and Kung adjusting the truth to fit the liberal programme. Their successes were due precisely by obscuring the truth through ambiguity. This book speaks plainly and provides testimony that is quite verifiable for those who wish to take the time.
I really think we’ve exchanged comments long enough on this book without making much in the way of progress. My suggestion, then, is that we agree to disagree about the book in question. It was, after all, written initially for Churchmen, not lay people, and is only one of many books addressing the present crisis. So let’s end the debate here by saying simply that you don’t support it and I support it absolutely as essential reading for all concerned Catholics.
By the way, I note from Zenit today that the Russian President has introduced religious education as a choice in Russian schools. Now teachers may offer Russian Orthodoxy, Islam, Hinduism or Judaism to pupils, but not Catholicism. So much, then, for Russia having been converted and so much for there being no plot against the Church.
-
Editor,
I’m out the door for vacation. See you all on the blog when I return.
God Bless,
MCS -
Enjoy your holiday, Miles Christ Sum. Missing you already!
-
Athanasius,
I do think that progress has been in our exchanges regarding the book. It’s been established that you can’t know for certain Archbishop Lefebvre authored the book, and I’ve been able to explain somewhat why I think that he could not have authored it.I meant to respond to Torkay’s suggestion about further reading material on these issues. Though I haven’t read ‘The Devil’s Final Battle,’ I’m familiar with the story of Bella Dodd. I have a copy of a speech that she gave after she reconciled with the Church, in which she decribed the truth about communism here in the US. Scary stuff.
Normally, when a person has embraced serious error, as she had, they would be discouraged from any kind of public teaching on anything pertaining to the faith. But her confessor, Bishop Fulton Sheen, wanted her to come forward with all that she knew about the communist agenda.
When a person has embraced error, especially a serious error such as communism, they really can’t be trusted to have a correct perspective, even when they are well-intentioned in correcting their error. How much more so would this apply to non-Catholics or anti-Catholics who do not have a proper perspective to begin with. And yet to insist that what they have written is absolutely true goes against logic. We must always keep the 8th commandment in mind.
I was once an ardent supporter of conspiracy theory, and revisionism. And yes, I believed in all that claptrap about ‘The Revolutionary Jew.’ Are there Jews who are causing problems for the Church? Yes, there are. But it is not because they hate Our Lord and His Church, as the revisionists contend. It is because they are afraid of Him. And the revisionists only make this fear worse.
I’ve done extensive research on the subject of revisionism (and related subjects such as fascism) in the last few months, and what I’ve discovered about the truth of it is appalling.
Athanasius, I know that you are a good Catholic and that you would not knowingly mislead others. We traditional Catholics seem to believe that we are immune to being mislead. But Satan has found a way to mislead even those who try hard to hold to Truth.
-
Theneva
You are setting up false rules for discernment. Example:
“When a person has embraced error, especially a serious error such as communism, they really can’t be trusted to have a correct perspective, even when they are well-intentioned in correcting their error.”
First of all, your false rule, if applied, would exclude St. Augustine, for one, from writing about the faith.
Secondly, to this specific instance, Bella Dodd was intimately familiar with the plans of the Communist Party to infiltrate and change the Church. When she testified to them and reported them, her information was proved to be absolutely correct. So to say that she could not be trusted doesn’t make any sense at all. She was not speaking about matters pertaining to the faith, but about plans to destroy that faith. She was, in fact, the most reliable of informants against the Communists. How is it that you do not trust an informant whose information was proved to be true?
As for the Jews, I myself have not researched this aspect extensively, so I can’t comment on whether Freemasonry is at heart a Jewish conspiracy (though there is a prominent element of Jewish occultism in Masonic teaching). However, you contradict yourself in denying that there is a Jewish conspiracy: you agree that there are Jews “who are causing problems for the Church,” yet you state they are doing that not out of hatred, but out of fear.
The motivation for attacking the Church is not the issue: the issue is, there is an attack against the Church! An attack in which there is extensive Jewish participation – though, as I said, I am uncertain as to the extent of it.
Now what “revisionists” are you referring to?
-
Theneva
There are no non-Catholic or anti-Catholic writings in that book which are quoted as having come from converts who have “come forward” to tell of their errors, such, for example, as you mention in the case of Bella Dodd.
The non-Catholic and anti-Catholic writings quoted are there precisely to show how hostile these individuals and groups are to the Catholic Faith. So let’s be clear, The Plot Against the Church is NOT a work based on born again Catholic testimony. It is based on Vatican archive information which, as far as I can see, is irrefutable historical fact. This book is based, then, on very reliable source material which no non-Catholic or anti-Catholic had a hand in presenting.
As for Archbishop Lefebvre’s supposed part in the authoring of this book, I do not believe his not mentioning either the book or the subject matter it addresses necessarily disqualifies him from being a co-author, which is largely suspected.
Remember, the book was written by prelates for prelates. Its specific purpose was to inform the Council Fathers of the history of Communist/Freemasonic assault on the Church throughout the ages, culimnating in an organised and quite deliberate attempt to alter the Catholic Faith through the Council documents.
Jewish involvement in these assaults is relative in as much as both Communism and Freemasonry are of Jewish foundation. Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Bronstein, Eisner, Khun and a whole host of other architects of Communism were Jewish. This is beyond question. And we know that Simon Wisehaupt was one of the chief founders of Freemasonry and that this organisation uses Jewish symbolism almost exclusively in its rituals.
Both groups, Communists and Freemasons, have made absolutely no secret of their hatred for the Catholic Religion. This is a matter of record. Nor are they driven by fear, as you suggest. They are driven by a hatred of what the Catholic Church stands for and have, at different times in history, vowed to eradicate Cathoilicism from the face of the earth. Hence, knowing the truth of the matter and having stated it clearly, the Church excommunicates any Catholic who becomes a Mason or Communist.
As regards “revisionism,” I refer you back to Hochhuth’s play and a series of attacks on the good name of Pius XII by Jews on the basis of this false work. Many decent Rabbis have come forward in recent years and condemned this agenda, stating that it contradicts the testimonies of Pius’ wartime Jewish contemporaries.
It is neither antisemitic nor supremicist to speak truths which are documented in history, provided they have sufficient grounding in fact. This is what the book does. It does not, as you seem to prefer, subscribe to the myth that all members of the Jewish race are at all times above wrongdoing. This is a modern error. But nor does it proclaim that all Jews everywhere are at all times plotting against Christ’s Church. It’s a balanced work quoting what the revolutionary Jews themselves have stated and done.
Please do not allow yourself to be put off by the writings of fascists and white supremicists. These people are driven by hatred of the Jewish people and/or non-whites. Their writings are generally purile and they’ll pervert any piece of written work they think may suit their cause. This does not make the work in question necessarily false.
On the otherhand, avoid this modern perception of the Jews, quite deliberately created, as a poor innocent race with no bad elements, which is at all times persecuted by a wicked Christianity. Ok, Hitler was a monster and this race suffered particularly under him, but the Jews, like all races on earth, have good and bad amongst them.
There are upright Jews and there are conspiratorial Jews, otherwise Our Lord would not have warned His disciples: “If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also.” keep a balance, Theneva. Be as wise as a serpent and as harmless as a dove. If there are no conspiracies against the true Church of Our Lord, then there is no Satan.
-
Athanasius and Torkay,
You do not at all understand what it is that I’ve been trying to say here. I’ll assume that it’s my fault in that I’m fairly simple-minded and not good at explaining things. Therefore, it will obviously do not good to procede furthur on this subject.
Maybe someday you’ll both see that that revisionism isn’t what you think it is. Not even close. But all in good time.
-
Theneva
If you would prefer not to continue, that’s fine, but I would be interested in knowing what you mean by “revisionism,” along with specific examples.
-
Torkay
I second your request of Theneva. What exactly is “revisionism” anyway, if not a revising, or rather rewriting, of history. The Plot Against the Church stands accused of being a “revisionist” work and I would most certainly like to know how Theneva reaches her conclusion.
By the way, Theneva, you have not shown yourself to be in the least “simple minded.” I have found your statements to be perfectly clear. My difficulty is that you cannot apparently substantiate what you claim with solid evidence from the book itself.
You merely condemn the work because certain radicals are using it for an end other than that for which it was written. It’s kind of like the Jews and their so-called Christian associates in Manchester condemning the SSPX because Bishop Williamson made an ill-judged statement about the Holocaust. There was no little revisionism involved in that dirty business.
I’ll be most interested to see if the Sephardic Jewish community in New Jersey receives a similar treatment in light of the arrest of several of its Rabbis by the FBI for their involvement in everything from international money laundering to the selling of human kidneys.
Now why do I doubt that? Oh yes, probably because that community is no more guilty by association than the majority of SSPX people with Bishop Williamson’s comments.
-
Theneva
I should have completed that last paragraph by saying that this Jewish community in NJ will not be villified like the SSPX because it is not traditional Catholic. There is a different set of rules for dealing with traditional Catholics.
-
Ath
Looks like the two of us are like a dog who won’t stop worrying a bone with this one! I also meant to point out to Theneva the fallacy of dismissing a book just because it has been abused by radicals.
Theneva, do you recall what the Protestants did with Sacred Scripture?
-
Good point about the Protestants, Torkay! The reason why I want to dig deeper into Theneva’s problem with this book is that I think she may have fallen for a very great Communist lie, which is that there’s no such thing as conspiracy and all who say there are conspiracies are nuts. The facts, including Our Lord’s teaching and papal teaching, inform us that it’s nuts to deny the reality of conspiracies against the divine.
-
Ath
Right – and there’s no such thing as the Devil either.
-
Torkay
I take it Theneva doesn’t want to continue with this discussion, so all we can do is respect her wishes and hope she re-evaluates her position in light of what we’ve said in recent comments. The new thread proves the existence of a conspiracy against the Church, active within no less.
-
I was not going to comment further on this thread, but I saw that Athanasius likes the work of Fr. Stephen DeLallo, so I thought I’d post a quote from Father’s DeLallo’s other book, ‘Catholic Action for Christ Our King.’
I think that Father’s wise words pertain to the subject at hand here, but if others here disagree, that’s okay. I won’t be arguing the point. Actually, Father is speaking more in the social/political realm, it I think it carries over
to our issue here.Fr. DeLallo is one of the few Society priests left here in the US who was originally ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre. He is stationed, I believe, at the priory near Portland, OR, a few hours drive from where I live.
From ‘Catholic Action for Chirst Our King:’
“Unfortunately, those who have a naturalistic idea of Catholic Action tend to consider it mainly as a socio-political activity in the natural domain and they are convinced that the salvation of society depends essentially on them and their natural activities. One of the first signs of this error is such insistence on temporal activity to the detriment of their own spiritual duties with regard to themselves and their families. Furthermore, there is a danger of aquiring a spirit of impetuosity and impatience in regard to socio-political reform, due to a large part to an obsession with the present social and moral evils, which leads naturally to another error, that of identifying Catholic Action with social agitation and confrontation.
Many who are confused by this error are under the delusion that focusing on and broadcasting the crimes, perversions, and horrors of modern society is the necessary means to enlighten souls and make them abandon their evil lives and convert to Christ. However, in reality this is not the case. For, even though it is necessary to expose and comdemn with prudence those evils in society which pose a great danger to the salvation of souls, neverthless, true disciples of Christ do not focus on them, for a disordered fixation on evil neither spiritually nor psychlogically disposes souls to seek interior peace in the truths of the Catholic faith. Rather, it will most likely cause them to react in a negative manner, by inciting them to anger and hatred, as well as frustration and depression about the social evils they cannot prevent – all which are contrary to the attainment of virtue.
We must, therefore, use the method of Our Lord and the Church, which consists in drawing people away from their natural love of the world by the more beautiful and supernatural love – and interior peace – of Jesus Christ that they see refected in the examples of our personal lives. In this way, we will help to dispose others to seek this supernatural love of Christ rather than the natural love of worldly pleasures. We must bear witness to truth, but truth which is inflamed with charity. Only in this way do we truly refect Christ.”
-
It should be mentioned that this book by Fr. DeLallo, ‘Catholic Action for Christ Our King,’ is not widely available because it was suppresed by a former US District Superior, because it supposedly contains some definition of Catholic Action which is contrary to that of Bp. Tissier De Mallerais – at least that’s what I was told.
-
Theneva, that was a fantastic post. Thank you!
-
Theneva
nobody is suggesting that we ” focus on and broadcasting the crimes, perversions, and horrors of modern society is the necessary means to enlighten souls and make them abandon their evil lives and convert to Christ” so I’m not sure why you quote that here.
Theneva and Guardian Angel,
May I ask you how you explain the current crisis in the Church to enquirers, since you appear to renounce the notion that outside agencies are at work – perhaps this might be more appropriate to discuss on the lead thread, so reply there if you think any of this relates to Freemasonry.
http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/?p=1846#comments -
Theneva
Fr. DeLallo is a very close friend of mine, and also my family. He and I have often discussed the content of his books and I can assure you that the reference quoted is not remotely connected with those who recognise and aknowledge a Masonic influence in the Vatican. Indeed, Fr. DeLallo has himself written at length on the evils of Freemasonry in his other book.
The passage you refer to, and indeed his entire second book, aimed at combatting certain trends that had infiltrated (yes, this is what both Father and I believe) into Traditional Catholic circles. Such organisations, for example, as the TFP (Tradition, Family, Property), the St. George’s Trust and The International Third Position (ITP).
The latter organisations were generally run by such persons as Roberto Fiore, who was exiled from italy as a result of his association with a Fascist group in Italy which carried out the bombing of a train in the 1980s in which eight people died. Fiore was not himself involved in this action, but a warrant for his arrest was out in Italy and he had to flee to London where he first joined the National Front before leaving that group and becomming a Traditional Catholic (?) He and another National Front friend, Derek Holland, who also bacame a Traditional Catholic (?) proceeded with their “Christianised” (?) revolutionary work within traditional Catholic circles (mainly SSPX).
Holland wrote a book, for example, entitled ‘The Political Foot Solidier’ in which revolution against the present established order was recommended, without, however, stipulating exactly what form this revolution was to take, e.g., spiritual or paramilitary. He and his cohorts felt that Catholics should use the same dirty tricks as the Communists and Masons to regain control of worldly affairs for the Catholic religion, while declaring at the same time that Catholic governments should not be subjected to interference on the part of the clergy. Very confusing stuff!
Also, I believe it may have been the TFP which attempted to create a Catholic village in Spain, in which Catholics were to separate themselves from the sinful world around them. The project failed miserably and rightly so, for such insular behaviour is not Catholic.
These guys, and another one called John Sharpe, who was arrested by the police in the US, all enjoyed a certain support from a minority group associated with the SSPX. In particular, they enjoyed a publication of their wirtings in the Angelus magazine under Fr. Kenneth Novak’s editorship.
It was against this backdrop of infiltration that Fr. DeLallo wrote his second book. Nothing whatever to do with the present debate. It is one thing to identify Masonry as having infiltrated the Church, and to be aware of the evils of the present time, but quite another to start stirring up revolutions in the name of Catholicism. These guys got too involved in the worldly side of things, forgetting that God is ultimately in control of all.
I understand that Fiore is now back in Italy, a member of the Italian Parliament and now living the quiet life. Holland I don’t know about. He used several names when writing, but seems to have dropped off the radar. It was, I think, thatnks to Fr. DeLallo that this infiltration of Traditional Catholicism failed. He has never been accorded the thanks he truly deserves.
-
Athanasius,
Nowhere in my posts do I even remotely suggest that there are no outside agencies at work when it comes to the current crisis. I think you know this. But please tell me, What does Fr. DeLallo think of the book, The Plot Against the Church? Does he believe that it was written by Archbishop Lefebvre? Somehow I think not.
I’m thoroughly familiar with the whole Fiore/Holland/ITP situation, and I’m very much against it. I’m also very much against revisionism, which has ties to fascism ala Fiore/Holland. Our local Society chapel has an attender who helped to hide Fiore when he was on the run in England.
Father’s book does not at all mention these things outright; what he attempts to do, and does a good job of, is to show the proper method of Catholic Action. If anyone in Scotland wants a copy, I’ll be glad to purchase some and send them over.
-
Theneva
Fr. DeLallo gifted me a copy of his latest book. He also gifted me a copy of The Plot Against the Church, so you can take from that what you will.
I still think you misunderstand. The Fiore/Holland/Sharpe/ITP situation is, as is rightly pointed out, extreme. However, such extremes do not nullify proper investigation into the fundamental reasons for the present crisis in the Church, which is Communist/Freemasonic inspired and co-ordinated. As Our Lord said: “Be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves.” We must know what is at the root of the present crisis if we are to convince others to abandon liberalism in the Church.
Now you hint that you accept that are outside agencies are involved in the present crisis in the Church. But then you say that you oppose “revisionism.” What, therefore is you understanding of the word “revisionism?”
My understanding of the word is of a rewriting of history based not on established facts, but on personal agenda. The Plot Against the Church, as I have stated several times, follows the former method, not the latter.
Examples of revisionism would be Bishop Williamson’s opinion on the Holocaust or the opinions of certain Jews on Pius XII, not The Plot Against The Church which is crammed with indisputable facts and references.
-
Athanasius,
I’m surprised to hear that Father gave you a copy of the book, The Plot Against the Church. Since I will most likely be writing to father, or attending his mass in Veneta, in the next few weeks, I’ll ask him why it is that he supports the view that the Jews are behind most of the problems in the Church. Certainly there is nothing to suggest this in his book that this is the case. I would rather have it from him as to why he supports this book.
Also, you seem to believe that the infiltration by fascists such as Fiore and Holland has failed. Perhaps the Society chapels in Scotland are fascist-free, as well as anti-Semite free, and perennialist-free, but I can assure you that here in the Northwestern part of the US, as well as in England and Ireland, this is not the case. Derek holland is quite active in Ireland.
-
Theneva
The excerpt you quote from Fr. DeLallo’s book appears to be a development of the central idea of “The Soul of the Apostolate,” which is that good works which do not proceed from faith do not accrue benefits to the Catholic soul. Father seems to be extending that idea to the political realm. All well and good.
However, I’m not sure why you posted it. We are not talking about the plot against the Church (or, “The Plot Against the Church”) as a substitute for faith, only to point out the origins of the modern crisis in the Church.
If we were to become so distracted and dazzled by the Enemy and his power, we would no doubt share the same fate as the Steward of Gondor in “Lord of the Rings.” Indeed, one of the main reasons for the success of this plot is the loss of faith among the clergy, who, ignoring the warning of “Soul of the Apostolate,” have become so engaged in the world that they have forgotten about their Creator.
-
Athanasius,
I’m not sure that I can explain this very well, or that you have any intention of seriously considering anything that I say. So far, you have not done so.
I posted that quote from Father’s book to show that even though we think we are doing good in defending Truth, we can easily be mislead into worldly means of defending Truth. As you yourself said…”have become so engaged in the world that they have forgotten about their creator.”
Yes, we attend Mass and say our prayers, but if we enjoy, or are unduly occupied or preoccupied by even the tiniest little bit the misdeeds of others, then something is wrong.
We want to blame someone or something for all of the problems in the world and the Church. The fascist anti-Semite Aryans understand this, and therefore they can have influnce over us because of it. They are, first and foremost, liars, and yet they can appear as good because they pretend to have the best Catholic interests in mind. Catholic are so gullible in this way. They seem to think that all so-called traditional Catholics pay attention to the 8th commandment, but that isn’t the case.
-
Theneva
Our Lord repeatedly exposed the misdeeds of the Pharisees, and in public. Why? Because theirs were not the average sins of fallen human nature which should remain between the sinner and the Lord. Rather, they were sins of conspiracy to undermine Our Lord’s divine mission for souls and He rebuked them publically for their evil works.
I think The Plot Against The Church has the same purpose in that it exposes the descendance of this conspiracy to undermine Our Lord’s divine mission throughout the ages. It names the culprits and exposes the various mediums they use against the Catholic Church, such as religious heresies, Communism and Freemasonry.
To acknowledge the very real presence of the evil one in these affairs is not to enjoy or become unduly occupied with the misdeeds of others. It is to be aware of the trickery of the enemy so that we may rebuff his assaults upon the purity of the Faith.
If the Church had adopted what you suggest then she would have failed in her mission, which is to confront error with divine truth and do battle with the enemies of God. Why else is the Church on earth referred to as ‘The Church Militant?’ How can the Catholic Church be militant if she does not expose spiritual errors and their peddlers?
Have not the Popes exposed both Communism and Freemasonry as works of the Devil and forbid the children of the Church from partaking in their schemes? I urge you to read the Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on Freemasonry (Humanum Genus). This Pope makes clear what Catholics must do in light of the audacity of this sect. You will find a link by Google search to this Encyclical.
By the way, I should point out that Fr. Delallo’s book ‘The Sword of Christendom’ cites The Plot Against The Church as a ‘Book Source’ for information contained in his work.
He also cites the following works: ‘The Secret Powers Behind Revolution: Freemasonry and Judaism,’ ‘Freemasonry and the Vatican’ and ‘Judaism and the Vatican: An attempt at spiritual subversion,’ all written by author Leon Vicomte De Poncins. In addition, there is cited the book of Fr. Denis Fahey, ‘The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation’.
Now if there is one thing I do know about Fr. DeLallo it is that he would never use the work of revisionist authors, for he is in no way antiSemitic.
-
As many of us will be in the area to attend the conference in September, would any of the gentlemen see it appropriate to meet for a soirée on the Friday evening?
Perhaps Fr. Dunn or Canon Glackin would be willing to offer Mass as a one off, given that there may be a few interested parties around. We could then retire to a smoking room to put the world to rights whilst imbibing in a glass of ale or lemonade, with an option on 40 B&H for the leader of the pack. Any thoughts?
-
Crossraguel
It’s a good suggestion but I’m not exactly “in the area,” I’m about 30 miles east of it and I know you’re about the same south. Fridays are usually my busiest work days, so, much as I would enjoy such a get-together, I fear my energy levels will be fairly low and my stress levels from driving all day exceptionally high. It’s difficult to commit that far ahead, not knowing what that particular Friday holds in store workwise. It’s a good idea, though.
-
Crossraguel, I take it this is a “gender proof” invitation?
Athanasius,
Why don’t you invite Fr DeLallo to blog here? We could certainly use his help and insights. And he could plug his own books instead of leaving it to you!
-
editor
I have mentioned it to him and I know he watches the blog, so let’s wait and see.
-
Editor
Won’t Frs. Gruner and Kramer be offering a Traditional Mass as part of the conference?
-
Theneva
I believe it is our duty to defend Holy Mother Church when she is being attacked (for example, Sts. Athanasius and Iraneus) – both by drawing from the well of our interior life of faith, as well as by drawing from the Magisterium. The misdeeds of others, when they present stumbling blocks to the faithful, must not be passed over because we ourselves are not perfect.
-
Father Z is apparently not impressed with Father Kramer:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/07/quaeritur-pro-multis-and-validity/
NB: you now have to register in order to comment on his blog. Notice he does not address the question of “illicit,” only “invalid.”
-
Torkay,
According to Fr. Alphonsus Mary, former Redemptorist who nows works with the SSPX, it is a venial sin to not stand up for Holy Mother Church when she is attacked. Father said this in a mission that he preached at our Society chapel about 2-1/2 years ago. We don’t even have to go to confession if we are guilty of not standing up for the Faith. It would be a good idea to go, but it isn’t required for the salvation of our soul.So, even if A Catholic never in their entire life defended the Church, would he or she go to Hell?
Like G.K. Chesterton, I was defending Holy Mother Church even before I converted to the One True Faith two years ago, and I was defending her even before I decided to convert. The holy Society priest who is responsible for forming my faith never said that it is in any way my duty to point out the sins of others in standing up for the faith.
Question: What is the first and foremost duty of any Catholic? I’ll see if your answer lines up with what I was taught by the Society priest.
-
Torkay, those “friends” who recommend that blogger to attend the SSPX are, I suspect, our humble selves. More in the September edition!
Fr Z’s opinion on anything, is of no consequence to me. The very fact that, as Fr Z himself admits, there is such a controversy due to a change in the words of consecration should worry the socks off any Catholic, especially a priest.
Torkay, the Mass arrangements for the Conference will be announced on the day. Vee have our reasons!!
-
Theneva
It is one thing not to point out the individual sins of others (except when other souls are at risk or sacrilege is imminent), and quite another to point out general heresies and conspiracies against the Church.
I don’t mean to offend you in any way but it does seem to me that you take a similar line as the ecumenists, which is to ignore what divides us and concentrate on what unites us for charity’ sake. This is a condemned error. One is not charitable to one’s neighbour by being silent when souls are in danger.
The Popes did not hesitate to speak out against heresies and heretics with vehemence. Just review the tone of the Encyclical letters against Communism, Freemasonry and modernism. They’re full of fighting talk. This is what it means to be a part of the Church militant.
Of course we can’t hate people or seek vengeance on them, but we can and must defend the Holy Faith when it is under attack, and we must do so vigorously. The Popes did so when they raised the Crusades. Our Lord, remember, drove the money-changers from the temple, He didn’t just allow them to continue in the interests of charity for that would have been a false charity.
As regards the sin involved in not standing up for the faith, I think this could be more serious than you realise. A lot depends on how serious the threat is and how culpable the cowardice, sloth or indifference in challenging it.
There are cases recorded in the early persecutions of the Church where certain Christians burnt incense before the false Gods of the Romans rather than give up their lives for the faith. These lost the faith and never recovered it.
On the otherhand, there is St. Peter who, having thrice denied Our Lord for fear of the enemy, repented with copious tears and was required by Our Lord to make a threefold testimony of love. It is said that St. Peter wept for that sin all his life and shed so many tears that his face had become deeply furrowed. So there is sometimes great sin involved in not doing our duty as Catholics.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”, Edumund Burke.
-
Thank you for your input, Athanasius, but my questions were directed to Torkay.
-
Athanasius
How do we stand upfor the faith in this day and age? I always struggle when Church of Scotland friends tell me how wonderful their Sunday service was. Do I listen and nod politely or what? You know I wantto defend the faith but I struggle knowing what to do in these circumstances. I don’t want to be rude or hurt someone’s feelings but I don’t want to be weak either. I usually talk about how thankful i am to be Catholic and the wonder of the Mass etc but is that enough?
-
Petrus, you ask a hugely important question. We have a key responsibility to spread the Faith – that is as essential to our Baptism and Confirmation as fresh cream is to a meringue (!)
We have to use all the means, all the skills and creative manipulation of conversation that we can think of, so to do!
Perhaps the principle I’ve used when my novus ordo friends tell me how much they love the new Mass, might work with your Presbyterian friends.
I generally raise eyebrows with: “Unfortunately, (name), it doesn’t really matter how much you or I enjoy any particular Mass/service/form of worship – what matters is whether or not it is pleasing to God. The Old Testament is FULL of passages where God reveals his anger against those who offer Him false worship. Putting that together with the revelation of God’s will in the New Testament (His establsihment of One Church and the Mass) it seems that new forms of worship cannot be pleasing to God. That is, forms of “worship” that are a substitute for the ancient Mass.”
When speaking to non-Catholics on the topic, I always make a point of further raising eyebrows (if not hackles) by saying that the Protestant churches were the brainchild of dissident Catholic priests, like Martin Luther, so it gives me no pleasure at all to say that while God may well accept the prayers of individual Protestants, their worship as a “community” (in schism from His Church) is not pleasing to Him.
These words, so tenderly plucked from my Chambers’ Dictionary, have led to many a robust discussion with my modernist Catholic and Protestant relatives and friends, between whom a cigarette paper would not stand. They’re that alike in their thinking. So very sad.
Not sure if that helps but if you end up with no relatives and friends on speaking terms, we’ll rethink the strategy…
-
Theneva
Your question is a bit deceptive, for two reasons: one, the duties of a Catholic are usually not described as their “first duty,” and two, there are several different states of being Catholic which bear different duties. So here is my attempt to answer your question, you all can correct me as necessary:
-As spouses, the first and foremost duty is to love, honor and obey one another.
-As parents, the first and foremost duty is to provide for their children and raise them in the faith.
-As laity, the first and foremost duty is to believe and to keep God’s law, i.e. to learn, accept and practice the truths of the faith.
-As clergy, the first duty is to administer the sacraments as a physician of souls.
-As religious, the first duty is to follow the evangelical counsels.As to your other question – “even if A Catholic never in their entire life defended the Church, would he or she go to Hell?” – didn’t you forget that it is not up to us mortals to decide who is going to Hell?
You have also mis-phrased the entire point of this discussion in saying “The holy Society priest who is responsible for forming my faith never said that it is in any way my duty to point out the sins of others in standing up for the faith.”
We are not talking about defending the faith by pointing out the sins of others. We are talking about defending the faith by correcting the errors in catechetics and apologetics of others. For example, let’s say we criticize one of Cardinal Kasper’s statements on ecumenism. Do you think that by doing so we are pointing out his personal sins? Not hardly – and how would any of us know about any personal sins he may have committed?
-
Editor
Nice German accent – have you tried it during your robust discussions with family and friends?
Seriously though – I would be interested in hearing some of the outcomes of these “robust discussions.” That is, if you can repeat them in polite society.
-
Outcomes, Torkay? Nothing untoward ever happened. A lot of people lost touch with me, but, no, they took it all in good part at the time…
I doubt, though, if I’d try my strategy on certain non-Christians – I’m not cut out for martyrdom…
http://www.thomasmore.org/qry/page.taf?id=19 -
Editor
Were your discussions anything like this?
-
Petrus
In answer to your earlier question, I would say that if the opportunity presents itself to say something to a Protestant friend that may help them to come to a realisation of the truth (by God’s grace, of course), then say something. Otherwise, just pray for them. It is not always the best thing to rant at one’s friends about their religious affiliation. Most times our example is required more than our words. Besides, these people have an obligation to search for the truth in religion.
If they say what a wonderful Sunday service they had, you can chip in with a remark about, say, the incorruptables. That would make them think why their religion doesn’t have incorrupt saints and it may spark a conversation. Sometimes, if I feel the advice would be well received, I just tell Protestant friends outrightly that they have to be Catholic and that I tell them this without meaning them offence. So it depends on the circumstances. At all costs refrain from beginning with ‘Hell hounds and imps of Satan the lot of you!’
-
Theneva
I stand rebuked by your comments of 7.31pm. Perhaps, though, you would be good enough to address my comments to you of July 27 at 8.31pm. I would value your feedback on what I had to say.
-
Torkay,
You mentioned that the duties of Catholics are not usually described as ‘first duties,’ and yet that’s the terminology that I remember that the priest used. He said that our first duty is to love God with all of our heart, mind and soul, and also to try to get as much sanctiying grace into our souls as possible so as to merit Heaven when we die. Of course, from there, we could talk about how we can obtain sanctifying grace: chiefly by receiving Holy Communion, and the other sacraments, and by prayer and good works.Perhaps it would be right to consider as a good work to point out that a priest or bishop is involved in ecumenical activities. I don’t have a problem with that. But where do we draw the line? Do we make a career out of pointing out these things that the priests are doing, and how they are neglecting their duties? I could go back and look through this blog to find where actual sins by priests or bishops were exposed….but I’d rather not.
And what I was mostly attributing this idea of pointing out sins was to that darn book, The Plot Against the Church, and the idea that it’s okay to blame so many problems of the world and Church on the Jews. In my mind I was thinking that they are always being accused, and therefore being accused of sin. I was probably wrong to equate the two, though, in that it has caused confusion. Perhaps I should have said ‘pointing out the faults of others.’
I’m aware that it is not us mortals who decide who goes to Hell. We have been given criteria so that we can discern what sin is, and how we can avoid it. If we are pre-occupied with the ‘faults’ of others, don’t you think that it can have an effect on our state of grace? It’s so easy to fall into lack of charity when pointing out the faults of others (which I myself am often guilty of). And if we make a habit of pointing out the sins…oops, I mean faults of others, then what may we be neglecting in our spiritual or familial duties?
If there’s a way to obtain sanctifying grace by pointing out the faults (or supposed faults) or wrongdoings of the Jews, or by pointing out that priests or bishops are neglecting their duties (which they surely are), then I would like to know about it. Because, for me, pointing out the faults of others is a lot easier than prayer and penance.
Again, where do we draw the line?
-
Thanks to everyone who answered my question.
Editor, there are some friends who are open to robust discussion. I can usually be very open with them and use the approach you suggest. Most of the time I lead by example, just dropping into conversation powerful stories of the Saints. I’ve found that the story of Fatima goes down quite well with some non-Catholics.
Athanasius, I agree with you too. It can be counter-productive to go off on a rant. I’m thinking especially of my wife’s family. Their hatred of the Catholic faith is so ingrained that I would be wasting my time. The conversation is over before it begins. All we can do is to let them see how happy we are in our Faith , pray for them and plant miraculous medals in their house!!!
I wonder if bloggers could keep a non-Catholic friend of mine in their prayers. She has been a committed member of the Kirk all her life but, amazingly, claims to believe that the Catholic Church is the One, true Church. A couple of years ago she went to Rome and burst into tears in St Peter’s Basilica. She says she thinks she is too old to become Catholic and she should grow where
she’s planted. A new ministeress has taken over at her church and my friend is very unhappy.I’ve given her a miraculous medal and a Catholic Prayer Book. She knows I’m praying for her conversion and I think she is too. Please pray for her.
-
Can I ask bloggers what they think of George Orwell’s books ‘Animal Farm’ and ‘1984′? They’re books that I think I should have read, but since they deal with Communism I thought I should check them out first. Thanks.
-
Theneva
I don’t think there’s an easy answer as to where we “draw the line,” but I’ll give it a try. When the Church is under attack, or failing in its mission because of internal corruption, I think it is our duty to refute the attack and expose the corruption – but not on a personal level, as a personal condemnation. Just to re-assert the truth as taught by the Magisterium.
Where this gets tricky is when homosexual clergy are exposed because they have made their behavior public – i.e. they have made it known that they are practicing homosexuals. In that case, their personal sins are harming the Church, so a defense of the Church involves removing them from ministry and influence over Catholics….because their PERSONAL life is a source of corruption.
However, what if their sexual behavior is not known, but they are just advocating for the homosexual agenda? In that case, you would correct their heretical advocacy without reference to their personal lives.
Of course, most of the time, with homosexuals, their advocacy is a pretty reliable clue as to their private behavior. But if their private behavior is not known and not a source of scandal, you can’t address it.
As to the Jews and their role in the plot against the Church, this has been brought to light because of the very surprising extent to which ethnic Jews and Zionists (but as far as I know, not religious Jews, but I could be wrong about that) have been involved in these nefarious activities. And there is the strong element of Jewish occultism in Freemasonry.
So I think it is our duty to expose these nefarious activities as “Jewish” if their distorted version of Judaism is the common motivation and link. Even when that is so, however, we are not exposing their personal sins, since we probably don’t know anything about them. We are only exposing the damage they have done or are trying to do to the Church.
If all of that is as clear as mud, then I’m going to have to ask Editor and Athanasius and others to help me out.
-
Theneva
Regarding the phrasing “first and foremost” duty, there was no such terminology in the CCC, or in “The Catechism Explained,” or in the Baltimore Catechism. Those sources merely refer to “duties.” However, in the Catholic Encyclopedia, under “Duties and Rights of the Laity,” I found this:
“The first duty of a Christian is to believe; the first obligation imparted to the laity is, therefore, to learn the truths of faith and of religion, at first by means of the catechism and religious instruction, and later by being present at sermons, missions, or retreats. If they are thus obliged to learn, they have the right to be instructed and consequently to require their priests to give them and their children Christian teaching in the ordinary way.”
-
Petrus
That must be extremely difficult to encounter such hostility among your in-laws, esp. for your wife. I’ll not only pray for your friend who thinks she’s too old to convert, but for your family as well.
And I now have this funny mental picture of you tiptoe-ing around your wife’s family’s house, dropping Miraculous Medals into flower pots.
-
Petrus
Think of “1984″ as an accurate description of life under the New World Order, and “Animal Farm” as essentially an elaboration of the little fable at the heart of “Pinocchio.” Remember what happens to the street urchins on Pleasure Island? They are urged to indulge their basest instincts to their heart’s content, until, as a result, they transform into donkeys and are shipped off to a life of hard labor in the salt mines.
If you will recall that article posted by Editor on The Frankfort School, you will rightly conclude that the Communists/Marxists have taken Western Civilization to Pleasure Island, in order to transform us into economic and spiritual slaves.
-
Thanks, Torkay, for both your posts.
-
Tam,
Personally I think the decadence of the Western World was, and still is, being brought about by Capitalism which encourages man’s basest sins of greed and envy to name but two. Commies just latched onto it only 100+ years ago.
-
Petrus, may I point out that I was not advocating “ranting” at your non-Catholic friends. I told you the substance of what I say (in the appropriate context, goes with out saying – or so I thought – and in the manner best suited to the occasion and the friends. That I rather took for granted.)
I have relatives who are Protestants with whom I have never discussed the subject, so “ranting” is the last thing I would advocate.
-
Benedict, I don’t think there is much difference between capitalism and communism in the way you mention above. I think they are two sides of the same coin, politicians exploiting people for their own ends.
-
rebel
Well spoken and oh so true!
-
rebel,
My point exactly. I only point out the histerical date line.
-
N O T I C E . . .
‘Morning Extra’ will be discussing the invitation to deface the Bible at the GLBT exhibition in Glasgow http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8171452.stm
‘Morning Extra’ is broadcast on Radio Scotland right after the 9.a.m. news.
Note: a Christian umbrella group called CARE organised the protest outside the museum is the city centre. Had I known about it, I would have advertised it and tried my best to attend and encourage others. Apparently the protest group was made up mostly of Catholics, so that is of interest in itself.
Anyway, tune in to Radio Scotland around 9.10a.m. if you’d like to hear the discussion. If you miss the original broadcast, there is usually a “listen again” facility on the Radio Scotland website where you can hear the programme for up to a week.
-
ANNOUNCEMENT
If anyone is going to Fatima in the next few weeks and would like to attend a Traditional Latin Mass, the following info is provided courtesy of the SSPX:
From July 15 2009 until August 25 , Sunday Mass is offered by an SSPX priest either at 11:30 am or at 6:00pm. The priory is on the Rua da Immaculada Conceiçao 8 Bairro Moita Redonda 2945-651 Fatima.
It is located to the northwest of the basilica between the convent of Poor Clares and the Santa Lucia chapel. It is difficult to find, you may have to ask for an access plan. To check the Mass times, phone: +351 21 814 35 91. This is the number of the priory in Lisbon, the only place where there is a resident priest. I don’t know whether anyone there speaks English, maybe some French and some English. -
Ben, rebel and Petrus
On the subject of the seeds of corruption already latent within capitalism, you might find Archbishop Fulton Sheen’s “Communism and the Conscience of the West” highly relevant. You may have to visit a second-hand bookstore or the library to find it, though.
-
Torkay,
I’ve only just now managed to watch the video you posted with a view to discovering whether my arguments with modern and non-Catholics are like those on the video. Apart from the very end, they’ve sometimes been just like that! Still as you will agree, that was a robust discussion, not a rant! For those of you who missed it, here’s the link again. It is really hilarious, so take a look.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEhF-7suDsM&feature=related -
That was a really good laugh, the video posted by Tomas/Torkay and it was good to see what editor looks like!
-
Editor
At the risk of becoming too preoccupied with America, what do you think of a thread about the USCCB’s Catholic Charities being in support of ObamaCare (otherwise known as AbortionCare)? Not to mention various other liberal religious and clergy casting their lot with this evil.
-
Torkay, I’m about to disappear (only temporarily!) but just briefly, I’m afraid I’ve noticed that – for the most part – threads which are about anything except the Mass, do not seem to attract the same interest.
So, while I am more than willing to post such a thread – if you could send a short article/link – I wouldn’t hold my breath for a terrific discussion. The last thread we had on Obama drew only about a half dozen comments. -
All,
There is a good interview with +Fellay on Rorate Caeli which indicates that the pre-talk phase is ongoing and the good Bishop has chosen his team for the talks now likely to commence in the Autumn.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/07/fellay-speaks-talks-begin-in-autumn-of.html
-
Torkay, may I suggest that you post your lifesitenews link about Obama to the America – Land of the Free? thread because that is still live and I think it fits in perfectly with that topic.
http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/?p=1869#commentsBenedict thank you for posting the link to the interview with Bp Fellay – I extracted this response to a question about compromise/Vatican II:
“We will not make any compromise on the Council. I have no intention of making a compromise. The truth does not tolerate compromise. We do not want a compromise, we want clarity regarding the Council.”
I will re-open the SSPX thread on the topic of the interview – the Rome/SSPX talks – in case others wish to comment, since the Q & A thread gets filled up to its 500 limit in no time.
To comment on the Bp Fellay interview, click on the link below.
http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/?p=1607#comments -
Athanasius,
Our paths crossed this afternoon, it appears we had mutual duties to undertake. Given that we were necessarily otherwise occupied, the opportunity did not arise for me to speak with you, so good day to you from this distance.
I’m not sure you’d have been aware of Jacinta’s illness at that point, I will keep you and editor in my prayers too, given your close friendship.
-
Crossraguel
I didn’t see you and I’m sorry I missed the opportunity for a chat. Never mind, we’ll catch up next time.
I wasn’t aware of Betty’s condition until early evening and I can tell you that little else has been on my mind ever since. She is such a dear lady. I thank you very much for your prayers. It’s very kind of you. God bless you.
-
Crossraguel
I really wonder about my mind at times! I did know about Betty’s (Jacinta’s)illness earlier in the day because I said a prayer for her. I really don’t know what made me think I hadn’t found out till later in the evening. I think it’s time I got some sleep! Once again, thank you.
-
No probs Athanasius, it wasn’t opportune under the circumstances for us to speak and I can think of little better setting for such important prayer than before Our Blessed Lord.
I know you’ve joked about having a split personality before, I reckon there was an even money chance I’d have addressed you as Athanasius.
-
Athanasius and Crossraguel,
you’re driving me crazy! Where were you and what were you doing that you couldn’t speak. I DEMAND to know!
Torkay, sorry I didn’t finish that story about my meeting with the archbishop, but least said, etc. nudge, nudge, wink, wink, just between you and me…
-
Come on Columbo, the clues are in the text!
I’ll let you stew and Athanasius can come clean later on.
-
Crossraguel
No, I want her to stew in her curiosity!! Go on wummin, stew!
-
Clues, you say, Crossraguel? Let me check again….
Ah!
Confession?
About time, is all I can say!
-
editor
It’s good for the soul, you know!
-
Athanasius,
So they tell me…
-
editor
So who tells you? The priests of portsmouth, per chance? Or should that be Plymouth?
-
Editor
“Torkay, sorry I didn’t finish that story about my meeting with the archbishop, but least said, etc. nudge, nudge, wink, wink, just between you and me…”
I’m afraid you lost me (or maybe it was vice-versa)! What meeting with the archbishop?
Signed,
Asleep at the Wheel, and No Wonder I Prefer Public Transport -
Athanasius, most definitely NOT the clergy of Portsmouth or Plymouth!
Torkay,
Back to sleep!
-
Dear editor,
Concerning Roberto Fiore, Derek Holland, and John Sharpe.
I’m rather surprised, and disappointed, that you would allow lies and calumnies to be spread via your blog. Surely you could have checked with the appropriate SSPX authorities in Britain, Ireland, Italy and Menzingen before allowing comments that do the work of the enemy in defaming and destroying the good characters of Catholic laymen amongst fellow Catholics?
Or does the Eighth Commandment not apply here?
To read such lying defamation makes my Sassenach half ashamed of my Scots half, which is saying something!
-
Pilgrimage of Grace,
welcome to our blog and thank you for your first post which, however, I’m afraid I don’t follow.
I don’t remember mentioning any of the men you name – nor do I recall anyone else doing so.
So, why don’t you remind me about the alleged calumnies to which you refer? Tell me on which thread they appeared, who calumniated etc etc.
Even Columbo gets a few clues to get him started!
A renewed welcome to our blog – interesting username – do, keep blogging.
-
Thank you for your kind welcome, editor.
The posts in question are to be found on this very thread from Athanasius on July 27th, 2009, at 1:15pm down to Theneva on July 27th, 2009, at 4:03pm.
-
Pilgrimage of Grace,
May I suggest that you put on the record here, whatever evidence you have to contradict Athanasius’s statements. That is in the nature of blogging, so please feel free to put any information on this thread which you have to prove Athanasius wrong.
Many thanks.
-
Pilgrimage of Grace
Welcome to the blog.
I am quite prepared to exchange public correspondence here about the aforementioned persons, but first I would ask that you be specific in telling me what calumnies I have uttered against Roberto Fiore, Derek Holland or John Sharpe. I can assure you that I have a lengthy list of facts that I will produce here if you so wish.
Incidentally, I was not aware that the SSPX hierarchy was in any way supportive of these individuals. Would you be good enough to name those who are and I will check this out. Thanks.
Once again, welcome to the Catholic Truth blog.
-
Thank you for your welcome, Athanasius.
I will get back to it later this evening or tomorrow, whenever time permits.
In the meantime, as I am aware of your identity and believe that I know the identity of ‘Theneva’ as well, it is only appropriate under the circumstances that I let you know who you are communicating with.
My name is Michael Fishwick and the men who have been calumniated are friends of mine; two of them long-standing friends of over quarter of a century. If you want a reference for me feel free to phone St. George’s House. They know of me.
This campaign of calumny that you have been encouraged to pay credence to has been going on for a number of years now within the circles of Catholic tradition and culminated last year in a number of heated internet exchanges between myself and various instigators of the campaign living in the USA. In fact they spent rather a lot of time sending dossier after dossier containing all their ridiculous accusations to Menzingen.
None of it was exactly news as these men have been well known to a great number of priests and faithful within SSPX for decades. Nevertheless, Menzingen did carry out its required examination of the accusations, and of the men in question, resulting in it being made known to the calumniators in no uncertain terms that they were to cease their malicious campaign.
Who could you contact?
You could contact Bishop Fellay or any of the other bishops. No doubt they are all aware of what you would be asking about.
You could contact Bishop Fellay’s Second Assistant, Fr. Nely, whom, before his current position was District Superior of Italy, and, no doubt, knows of Fiore.
You could contact the current DS of Italy whom, I expect, also knows of him.
You could contact the British DS, Fr. Morgan, whom, no doubt, knows of both Holland and Fiore from the decades that they spent living in England.
You could contact the Irish DS, Fr Angles, whom, no doubt, knows of Holland.
You could contact the current DS of the USA, whom is newly appointed and probably knows nothing or little about it, or the previous DS, Fr. Fullerton, whom, no doubt, knows of Sharpe and a great deal about it.
I will come back to the false accusations and inaccuracies contained in the posts when time permits.
Thank you again for your welcome.
-
Pilgrimage of Grace
First of all I would like to thank you for the honesty of revealing your identity in this case. Since the matter is obviously a serious and controversial one, it says much for your character that you are prepared to reveal your name in the interests of justice and transparency.
I know Fr. Nely fairly well, so it will not be too difficult for me to get an assessment of Bishop Fellay’s overall take on this controversy. He, after all, is the Superior General.
Just to be going on with, however, are you saying that Roberto Fiore was not affiliated with the group responsible for the 1980s Bologna bombing in which some 250 people died? And are you denying that his ‘St. George’s Trust was not suspended by the Inland Revenue here in Britain pending investigation into tax irregularities?
I would also be interested to know what your point of view is on his and Derek Holland’s early association with the National Front and their reported trips to Islamic militia training grounds in the Middle East.
Furthermore, if you could shed some light on Roberto Fiore’s rise from London cab driver to wealthy property owner, and his reported financing of John Sharpe’s Legion of St. Louis and IHS Press.
I will not go on and on, but the following link should give both you and other bloggers an idea of where I’m coming from: http://fringewatcher.blogspot.com/search/label/Derek%20Holland
Incidentally, is it not the case that The Angelus Magazine has removed articles associated with these guys in the aftermath of the Bishop Williamson affair? If so, then it would seem to suggest that Bishop Fellay is not quite as favourable towards them and their ideas as you believe.
-
A CORRECTION
The Bologna bombing of 1980 cost 85 lives, not 250 as I stated above. Roberto Fiore was NOT directly involved in that attrocity but was a member of the organisation that carried it out.
-
I’m totally lost!
-
Me, too, Petrus. Utterly.
-
Well folks, allow me to explain as best I can.
It has been said that certain individuals, the above mentioned, infiltrated the SSPX in the 1980s in order to use traditional Catholicism as a vehicle for spreading a revolutionary form of Catholic Action that is not in line with what the Popes have taught.
These men have questionable pasts. Roberto Fiori with the group in Italy that was responsible for the Bologna bombing in 1980, after which he fled to Britain. And Derek Holland, once pictured with Colonel Gadaffi and said to have trained with Islamic fighters in the Middle East.
Both men are former collegues of Nick Griffin (of BNP fame). They were original members of the National Front, Holland was Chairman (I believe). When that organisation split in 1989, the pair formed an organisation called ITP (International Third Position).
This “Position” apparently is neither Capitalism or Communism, but Distributism, which they claim is that of Hillaire Belloc. They claim to be opposed to both Capitalism and Communism, yet they use both in their tactics. Fiori is said to have made his wealth charging rather large rents from foreign students living in his various properties in London. So much for opposing Capitalism.
Holland wrote a book called “The Political Soldier” in which many radical, nay revolutionary, ideas are put forward in the name of Catholic Action. He has written a number of books and addressed a number of Fascist (neo-Nazi) rallies. He also writes under different names. Not something the Catholic would do.
Both Fiori and Holland have made failed attempts to start Catholic villages in Spain and France. This insular idea is neither Catholic nor apostolic. Nor is it charitable to those without the Faith.
Fiori returned to Italy some years ago and is not a politician in the Italian Parliament. He also took over the seat of Mussolini’s son or daughter (I can’t remember which) in the European Parliament. The ‘fringewatcher’ link above gives a fuller picture of these men than I can do here. Bear in mind that the author of the fringewatcher blog was once a member of the ITP and so he knows these guys and there agenda very well.
Pilgrimage of Grace
I have done some checking and I can assure you that no superior of the SSPX, from Bishop Fellay down, has ever endorsed the works or writings of Fiori, Holland or Sharpe.
The SSPX is a spiritual, not revolutionary, institute and so the burden of proof, I believe, is on you to quote statements from the writings of any bishop or priest/superior of the SSPX defending the agenda of these men. I do not believe there are any such statements.
I urge all viewing these comments to familiarise themselves with what fringewatcher has to say. There are simply too many revolutionary statements to copy here. It is absolutely certain that Bishop Fellay and the SSPX is not, and would not, be party to such a perverse doctrine disguised behind Traditional Catholicism. Here is a taster. http://fringewatcher.blogspot.com/search/label/Roberto%20Fiore
-
I’ve received the following email from a group of American Catholics:
Send your instant e-protest to keep Madonna’s blasphemy from showing in Catholic Poland on the day of Our Lady’s Assumption.
August 6, 2009
Dear PatriciaYou are requested to join several groups in Poland who are protesting the pop singer Madonna’s blasphemous show “sweet and sticky”… – which is scheduled for August 15, the feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary – because some of the advertisements read:
“There’s no room for two queens in this country!”
As Catholics, you and I cannot accept such an insult to Our Lady and the Catholic faith! No matter where in the world it is.
Send a protest message via email NOW to the Minister of the Interior of Poland at:
Simply click on his email above.
The honor of Our Lady is precious and cannot be brushed aside. Thank God! – the protest of several Catholic lay groups in Poland is picking up momentum.
And if hundreds of thousands of Americans join them, the protest may become so huge that the authorities in Poland will enforce the country’s anti-blasphemy laws, and cancel the blasphemous show. How wonderful that would be! (Ed: add to that a volume of emails from Scotland!)
For love of Our Blessed Mother, please pray this happens.
So please send your e-protest message today to the Polish Minister of the Interior at the above email address. Thank you! END.
Here’s the text of my email, addressed For The Urgent Attention Of The Minister Of The Interior
Dear Sir,
I write to express my deep concern that a Catholic country such a Poland – hugely respected around the world – is permitting the performance of the blasphemous Madonna show “Sweet and Sticky”.
That this crude and vulgar woman has chosen to use the title ‘Madonna’ to promote her vulgarity is bad enough; she must not be allowed to further publicly insult and humiliate Our Lady, least of all in a noted Catholic country.
Please enforce your blasphemy laws to prevent this terrible insult to Our Lady. It can do nothing but harm to your nation and its people. God will not be mocked and He will not permit such an insult to his holy Mother to go unpunished. The advertisements for this performance read “There is no room for two queens in this country” - You must prove this to be true. There is room for only the Queen of Heaven and this silly pop star must get that message loud and clear.
Thank you in anticipation of prompt action in this matter. END
-
Athanasius,
If you know Fr. Nely surely it would have been better to ask him about these grave accusations before piling on more of the same nonsense?
I have never heard the grave lies about Sharpe being arrested by the police or Holland undergoing military training in the Middle East before. These particular defamations are new to my knowledge and to that of the men in question.
I would be grateful if you would relate from whom or where you were told these particular lies and what it is that Sharpe is accused of being arrested for?
I would also appreciate that you no longer attempt to move the goalposts. The issue at hand is the grave calumnies that you and others have made against these men, not whether someone does or does not agree with their political ideas. That is irrelevant to the present discussion although if you are game it could form the basis of another discussion after the very serious lies and the less serious inaccuracies in your posts have been dealt with.
In the meantime I would appreciate it if you would speak to Fr. Nely concerning these grave accusations and the campaign against these men before posting more on the subject.
That will also enable me to deal, this evening, with what has been posted so far without being overwhelmed by the posting of more and more accusations and side issues. One thing at a time please.
Thank you.
-
Editor
Apparently “Madonna’s” fortunes are already declining:
http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSTRE5761UP20090807
(I sent an email as requested)
-
editor
My email is on its way.
-
When will we ever hear such a sermon at a NO Mass??
-
Pilgrimage of Grace
You are absolutely correct. John Sharpe was NOT arrested, he was relieved of his naval duties in 2007 pending accusations of antisemitism. Nor was Derek Holland officially declared to have visited Islamic fundamentalist training camps. He was pictured with Gadaffi and has often referred to militant Islam in a positive sense.
My profound apologies are offered to you and to both men for a poor intepretation of events in these cases. Nevertheless, they are both clearly bringing themselves and traditional Catholicism into disrepute by their words and actions. They are revolutionary, no question about it. The web link above says all that needs saying on that front.
Now you promise to respond later to my previous comments, so it seems opportune to remind you of one central point of proof you must provide.
You must show me anything in writing to prove that the bishops or district superiors of the SSPX uphold the doctrines of these men, Fiori included. It is not for me to find prove that they do not, which I already know, but for you to support your claim that they do. You made the claim, you supply the evidence.
One glance at the web link provided shows clearly that the SSPX would never supprot such a group of individuals. The SSPX is not a revolutionary group.
-
Editor, what do you think about the idea of posting a good sermon every day to help us poor NO -bound Catholics?? Or talks by Archbishop Fulton Sheen or the like. We could take turns.
-
Semperfidelis,
Good link but I have two observations.
1) Why does the opening remarks restrict the invitation to
“All priests of the SSPX…..” Surely it should be to ALL priests.
2) I noticed Father still wearing his maniple during the sermon. My understanding is that this should be removed prior to and reworn afterwards.
-
Benedict, maybe the author doesn’t feel that he can speak for all priests. Yes, I agree, the message should be for all priests.
What’s a maniple and where is he wearing it? Anyway, does it matter whatever/wherever it is?
-
semperfidelis, since Guardian Angel has already requested a thread for prayer-requests, we’ll design that to cover all sorts of spiritual matters, sermons included. I simply do not have time to search out daily sermons etc but the thread will be there for anyone who can provide them.
Please note, though, they would be sermons from the likes of Bishop Fulton Sheen and Cardinal Newman, or other recognised holy priests. Modern drivel, no thanks.
I’ll be posting the new thread when I get time, as soon as possible. Please be patient. Not sure if that will be easy for you, Nurse Semperfidelis…
-
As an NQT about to take up a teaching post with a P2 infant class in a denominational school, I wondered if any of the bloggers could recommend any texts or resources which would enhance the RE programme. (I have a fabulous HT who will allow me to deviate from Alive-O!) I am particularly interested in fostering a love of the Rosary, Our Lady of Fatima and the life of the Saints, while remembering that many of the children will sadly have little previous knowledge and of course are at a tender age! Most resources I have been offered are aimed at much older children. Thank you in advance for any advice you may have.
-
Annie,
Here is a WONDERFUL childrens book on Our Lady of Fatima. If the children are too young to read, you could read it to them.
http://www.angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/8277/the-shepherds-of-fatima
-
-
annie, welcome to our blog. Thank you for your first post and for reassuring us that there is at least one headteacher and NQT committed to passing on the Faith out there – I presume, in Scotland? It is absolutely wonderful that you want to foster a love of the Rosary and Our Lady of Fatima. You can be absolutely certain, annie, that your work will be blessed and hugely successful. God bless you. If you want things like Miraculous Medals to give out to the children, let me know and we can arrange that for you – as you know they love stories, so the story of Fatima, the story of Our Lady giving the Rosary to St Dominic, the story of each Mystery (which, in my experience, they love to learn by heart, especially if their knowledge is tested in a class game) and the story of the Miraculous Medal – all of that they absolutely love and what a solid grounding for their devotional life as young Catholics! Brilliant.
I know there are excellent American and Australian teaching programmes/resources available but their titles escape me right now (one is, We Belong to the Lord – Australian) so I suggest you email Daphne McLeod, Chairman of Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice (a former Head of an infant school) at proecclesia@hotmail.com – she will be delighted to help you: she will tell you the names of the various programmes and how to obtain them.
There are also first class resources (for all subjects) available from the Seton Homeschooling people – linked on our website but posted here for ease of reference – http://www.setonhome.org/ – which, had I known about them when I was teaching, I’d have purchased myself for use in the classroom. Seton actually does what the rest of the so-called Catholic educationalists talk about: they inject Catholicism throughout every subject – brilliantly. So, e.g. in English grammar, at least a couple of the sentences (say, to be punctuated) will be about saints or some other aspect of the Faith. A superb programme.
Your Headteacher may wish to purchase a set of the Seton materials – cheap at triple the price, believe me. One of our bloggers who homeschools her children, will be bringing along her box of Seton resources to the meeting for interested parents and teachers which we have agreed to host in February – if it comes to pass. If the meeting does go ahead, you’d be more than welcome to come along to see the materials and share ideas for teaching strategies.This link leads to some free downloads available on the Pro Ecclesia website – talks which you might find useful for your own background knowledge. http://www.proecclesia.com/page_free%20talks.htm because the more confident you are in yourself and your own knowledge and understanding of the Faith, the better your teaching will be, obviously.
A renewed welcome, annie. Thank you for contacting us and please do keep blogging!
-
Athanasius,
In reply to your previous post, I am not in the slightest bit interested whether you, Joe Bloggs or anyone else personally sympathises with the political views of the men concerned. The Church provides the moral and doctrinal guidance for laymen to act upon in the social sphere in the attempt to defend and rebuild Christendom. The beliefs and actions of the men in question are not condemned by the Church or by Menzingen. Simple as that. Why would they be when Archbishop Lefebvre, himself, was greatly sympathetic towards the struggle of Action Francaise, made pilgrimages of respect to the tomb of Marachel Petain and spoke well of Vichy France, and encouraged his fellow Frenchmen to support the Front National?
Elsewhere you mention the ITP which, by the way, was dissolved nearly ten years ago: The well-respected and greatly-loved Fr. Michael Crowdy, RIP, was its chaplain in this country. He supported its various central projects and was a close friend of Fiore and Holland. Do you condemn Fr. Crowdy as well?
For those who have any interest, one way or the other, Fiore’s politics can be easily followed via the website of his political movement at http://www.forzanuova.org/ . For those who don’t read Italian the pages can be translated by google or another online translation facility.
Holland and Sharpe’s activity can be followed via the website of their Publishing House at http://www.ihspress.com/
Now, to the lies that you are promoting.
1) You assert that: “You must show me anything in writing to prove that the bishops or district superiors of the SSPX uphold the doctrines of these men, Fiori included. It is not for me to find prove that they do not, which I already know, but for you to support your claim that they do. You made the claim, you supply the evidence.”
I have made no such claim. That is also a lie. As for the rest, see the first two paragraphs of this post.
2) You assert that: “… Roberto Fiore, who was exiled from italy as a result of his association with a Fascist group in Italy which carried out the bombing of a train in the 1980’s…” “… Roberto Fiore was NOT directly involved in that attrocity but was a member of the organisation that carried it out.” “Roberto Fiori with the group in Italy that was responsible for the Bologna bombing in 1980…”
These are extremely serious and grave lies. Fiore was not in any way associated with the people convicted for facilitating and carrying out that atrocity, except in respect that he was one of their acknowledged enemies. Fiore has never been accused by the Italian judiciary of being a member or sympathiser of the group. As a teenager he was a leader of a completely different group; a group that engaged in politics, not terrorism. In fact the leader of the terrorist group known as NAR, who was convicted for the atrocity at Bologna, admitted in court that Fiore was an enemy and that he had sought to have Fiore killed.
Below, is an exert from a text interviewing Fiore that was published online at Catholic discussion forums, Ignis Ardens, Angelqueen and Fisheaters, when such accusations came up at different times last year. I am surprised that you would not be aware of it, Athanasius, having, as you claim, such “a lengthy list of facts.” I am especially surprised considering that the very accusation that you make against Fiore in regard to the horrific Bologna massacre is legally actionable.
“Since the Bologna Massacre is the root of most of the lies against Roberto Fiore, it has been thought useful for him to provide to researchers the following Question & Answer format reply so that people can see just how malicious has been this story.
1. Were you ever accused by a court of being a member or even a leader of NAR?
RF: Never.
2. Were you ever found guilty by any court of being a member or leader of NAR?
RF: Never.
3. Was Terza Posizione (Roberto’s organization in the late 1970’s) ever a part of NAR?
RF: No.
4. Did TP ever work with NAR?
RF: No.
5. What was NAR?
RF: NAR was a name used by different people at different times who were engaged in terrorism or armed struggle. However, at the beginning of 1980, the name, NAR, began to be used publicly by Valerio Fioravanti, who was later convicted by the courts of being one of those responsible for the Bologna massacre, along with Francesca Mambro. From that point onwards, the NAR name effectively “belonged” to Fioravanti and his gang. Furthermore, it needs to be remembered that it was made explicit both at the trial of Fioravanti for the massacre, and during my trial in abstentia, that Fioravanti was one of my declared enemies and that he had sought to have me killed.
6. Did it have leaders? If so, who were they?
RF: Principally Fioravanti, but there were others.
7. Were you ever accused by an Italian, or foreign, court of being involved in the Bologna Bombing?
RF: No.
8. Were you ever found guilty of being involved in the Bologna Bombing?
RF: No.
9. If you were not accused or found guilty, why is your name regularly mentioned in this connection?
RF: To understand this, you must first understand a little of the background history. The Bologna massacre took place on August 2nd, 1980. An arrest warrant was issued against me on September 23rd, 1980. I was one of many nationalists and anti-communists for whom warrants were issued. Hundreds of nationalists were arrested in this sweep; many of them spent years in prison, and most were found in the end to have been innocent of the various charges laid against them.
Obviously, I went into hiding immediately when the sweep began, and since I was not captured the trial took place in my absence. At the beginning of 1981, the Italian Military Secret Service (SISMI) began to put out so-called information that I had been involved in the attempted bombing of a train in January 1981 – the Milan/Taranto Express. There were found to be many similarities between the bombing in Bologna and the attempted bombing of the Express.
It later came out in the courts – all the documentation is in the Italian legal archives – that the “evidence” put forward against me had been fabricated. The determining trial relating to me and my alleged participation in the Bologna affair, concluded on July 11th, 1988 at the Court of Assizes in Bologna. Licio Gelli, the Grand Master of the P2 Pazienza Lodge, and the two leaders of SISMI, Musumeci and Belmonte, were found guilty of calumny and the fabrication of evidence against both myself and a number of others. I was actually awarded a small sum of money by way of damages in order to demonstrate that I was, in fact, an “offended party” in the whole matter relating to Bologna.
It is worth bearing in mind that all three men were sentenced to nine years imprisonment for their crimes.
10. Were Valerio Fioravanti or Francesca Mambro ever members of Terza Posizione?
RF: No.
11. Given that you were exonerated in respect of the Bologna massacre, did you take any legal steps against newspapers that stated you were involved? If so, when did you undertake these actions?
RF: Well, I began them shortly after I was declared an “offended party”. So, I suppose we are talking about the end of 1988 or early 1989. The first one would have taken place in Italy, though I did sue a number of papers in England too with the passing of time.
12. Between then and now, how many papers have you sued in respect of the Bologna massacre?
RF: I don’t have a precise figure to hand but it is certainly around 70.
13. Seventy (70)!
RF: Yes.
14. How can it have been so high?
RF. Partly because of the stupidity of some writers, partly because articles were syndicated; and partly because the phraseology changed with time, and thus necessitated clarification. So, I would be “personally responsible” then I would be “involved”, “implicated in”, “associated with”, “linked to” and so on. Each term was shown to be equivalent and thus any kind of accusation – however carefully framed – relating to the Bologna massacre is untrue and therefore legally actionable.
15. Of the seventy cases that you have pursued, how many of them have you won?
RF: All of them without exception.”
I should stress, Athanasius (and editor), that more newspapers, journals and individuals have paid the price for repeating these lies since the above text was first issued. It is an ongoing process with plenty more legal actions in the pipe-line that keeps Fiore’s lawyers in Italy, Britain, and now also the USA where he is currently pursuing a defamation action against the SPLC, very busy.
Roberto is not yet aware of the actionable lies made against him here by yourself, and allowed to remain by editor, so I would strongly recommend removing the whole section of calumnies from this blog.
3) You ask the question: “And are you denying that his ‘St. George’s Trust was not suspended by the Inland Revenue here in Britain pending investigation into tax irregularities?”
Yes, I deny it. Whoever repeats it is responsible for spreading yet another lie.
4) You assert that: “… Derek Holland, once pictured with Colonel Gadaffi and said to have trained with Islamic fighters in the Middle East.” “Nor was Derek Holland officially declared to have visited Islamic fundamentalist training camps. He was pictured with Gadaffi and has often referred to militant Islam in a positive sense.”
These are yet more lies. Holland has never even met Colonel Gadaffi, never mind having being pictured with him. He went on a short fact-finding trip to Libya in the aftermath of the horrific US bombing of that country as did many other political figures and journalists.
You attempt to correct yourself, Athanasius, and then claim that he was never “officially declared to have visited Islamic fundamentalist training camps.” Not “officially” implies ‘unofficially’. It is still a lie. Where does this grave lie originate from, Athanasius? From yourself, or are you ignorantly repeating what has been told to you? If so, who told the lie to you?
Furthermore, where has Holland “often referred to militant Islam in a positive sense”? It is yet another lie. Please provide in-context quotations for what you claim.
5) You correct one of your previous lies, thus: “You are absolutely correct. John Sharpe was NOT arrested, he was relieved of his naval duties in 2007 pending accusations of antisemitism.”
So, after being caught out defaming Sharpe’s character with your original lie, you change tactics slightly to one of detraction. The accusation of anti-semitism, as you well know, was made by the SPLC who also make the same charge against SSPX, Catholic Family News, The Remnant (who you write for), so on and so forth. The lie is made against Catholic tradition in general, not merely John Sharpe. Can it be inferred from this that you now take the side of the enemies of Catholicism against Catholic tradition?
If not, why did you neglect to explain in your correction exactly who made this ridiculous charge against John Sharpe to the US Navy, and dismiss the accusation, rather than leaving the impression to readers that he is somehow guilty of it?
There are many more lies and inaccuracies contained in your posts. In fact everything that you have written in regard to Fiore, Holland and Sharpe is full to the brim with lies. Unfortunately I am too weary and this is all I have time to write about these very serious and grave calumnies this evening (actually one o’clock in the morning).
I assume that you have now made the ‘effort’ to pick up the phone and speak with Fr. Nely about these grave accusations? If not, why not? You have had over a day to do so.
-
Thank you, Mile Christi Sum, for responding to my post, the books suggested are exactly what I am looking for. I see they are available on American websites. Now that I have some titles to look for I will have a search to see if they are also available closer to home, as I live in Scotland. I am most grateful to you. And thank you too, Editor, for your advice and for such a warm welcome to your site. I will certainly check out the resources and the web-sites you have suggested for use in the classroom and for my own personal/professional development. The ‘Seton’ materials could be just the thing I need to enhance the RE programme. Thank you so much.
-
A pleasure, annie. I forgot to say that one of our regular bloggers – introibo – is an NQT. He’s on holiday now but when he returns, I’m sure he will be interested in your post.
-
Semperfidelis,
Archbishop Fulton Sheen taped 50 talks on “Ye shall know the Truth” and these are all available for free download in .mpg formnat should you wish to put them on an iPod from the link below:
http://www.proecclesia.com/page_free%20talks.htm
There are also talks by many other orthodox speakers on the same link if you wish to browse through the 175 or so entries. You will need a broadband connection due to the size of the files. The talks are all free to download but must not be altered and must not be recorded for commercial sale.
This suggestion might not quite meet your “sermon a day” request but it is not a million miles away.
God bless.
-
I’ve been head down all day finishing the September edition (again!) but received this by email a few minutes ago and thought I ought to post it hot off the press…
Inter-faith ecumaniacs, eat your hearts out…
-
To return to more of the falsehoods, inaccuracies and misconceptions remaining in the posts of Athanasius and Theneva:
Athanasius wrote that: “Fiore was not himself involved in this action, but a warrant for his arrest was out in Italy and he had to flee to London where he first joined the National Front before leaving that group and becomming a Traditional Catholic (?) He and another National Front friend, Derek Holland, who also bacame a Traditional Catholic (?) proceeded with their “Christianised” (?) revolutionary work within traditional Catholic circles (mainly SSPX).”
The Truth: Fiore was never a member of the National Front. He was not a practising Catholic when, at the age of 22 or 23 years old, he arrived in England, associating, like most people, the Catholic religion with the rank liberalism expressed by post-Conciliar churchmen and laity. Holland has always been a practising Catholic and comes from a family that have always been opposed to post-Conciliar changes. After meeting and becoming friends with Holland, Fiore became aware of the conflict between the Catholic Church and Modernism, began to study the traditional teaching of the Church and returned to the practice of the Faith.
Athanasisus wrote that: “Holland wrote a book, for example, entitled ‘The Political Foot Solidier’ in which revolution against the present established order was recommended, without, however, stipulating exactly what form this revolution was to take, e.g., spiritual or paramilitary. He and his cohorts felt that Catholics should use the same dirty tricks as the Communists and Masons to regain control of worldly affairs for the Catholic religion, while declaring at the same time that Catholic governments should not be subjected to interference on the part of the clergy. Very confusing stuff!”
The Truth: It is confusing because it is a pack of lies. In 1984 Holland began to issue a series of pamphlets entitled ‘The Political Soldier’ as the first step in an educational process aimed at forming young political activists of the National Front, generally uneducated and undisciplined products of the modern world, into people who would attempt to start leading some semblance of moral and disciplined lives. The pamphlets constituted a step-by-step process that was hoped would culminate in opening up materialists, agnostics, and atheists to the recognition of the superiority of the spiritual over the material. Later stages of this educational process were designed to draw such people towards a sympathy for Catholicism and possible conversion.
That which Athanasius falsely claims has absolutely no basis to what is actually written in the pamphlets. They say absolutely nothing about Catholic governments and clerical interference, as Athanasius claims they do. They do not propose that Catholics, or anyone else, “should use the same dirty tricks as the Communists and Masons to regain control of worldly affairs for the Catholic religion.” Nor do the pamphlets promote “paramilitary” activities or such like as Athanasius claims. Quite the opposite, in fact. Terrorism is strongly condemned in the pamphlets.
Theneva wrote that: “Our local Society chapel has an attender who helped to hide Fiore when he was on the run in England.”
The Truth: Fiore didn’t have to “hide” whilst living in England. He lived in England for twenty years, very openly, building up a successful business. Who is the person who claims such nonsense?
Athanasius wrote that: “Fiori is said to have made his wealth charging rather large rents from foreign students living in his various properties in London. So much for opposing Capitalism.”
The Truth: Fiore, and some Italian friends, built up a successful business called ‘Meeting Point’ by providing European language students flocking to London with accomodation. In the beginning they worked with existing landlords in order to place students and were eventually able to lease from their owners large empty Edwardian properties in central London on long-term contracts. These properties were renovated and turned into self-contained and shared student accomodation. The rents charged to students were in the low to medium range for similar accomodation. I even lived in one myself for seven years before getting married.
Employees of Meeting Point were given the opportunity to go into partnership themselves as new buildings came along, on a co-operative basis, and placement offices throughout Italy and other countries in Europe were run either as private businesses by the people setting them up or in business partnership with Meeting Point.
Athanasius wrote that: “Holland wrote a book called “The Political Soldier” in which many radical, nay revolutionary, ideas are put forward in the name of Catholic Action. He has written a number of books and addressed a number of Fascist (neo-Nazi) rallies. He also writes under different names. Not something the Catholic would do.”
The Truth: See above concerning the pamphlets entitled ‘the Political Soldier’. Nothing in them was “put forward in the name of Catholic Action” as Athanasius claims. They were not pamphlets addressed to Catholics but to young nationalists, typical products of modern society who were also often culturally hostile to Catholicism, whose degenerate moral behaviour was in dire need of correction.
Holland has never addressed any “neo-Nazi” rallies and has always been well-known for being staunchly opposed to Nazism.
Holland has used the English spelling of his name whilst living in England. He has used the Irish spelling since returning to Ireland.
Athanasius wrote that: “The ‘fringewatcher’ link above gives a fuller picture of these men than I can do here. Bear in mind that the author of the fringewatcher blog was once a member of the ITP and so he knows these guys and there agenda very well.”
The Truth: The blog linked to was originally produced by an American by the name of Matthew Anger who had associated with the ITP. He was not “a member” of the ITP as there was no membership structure. The ITP was a loose association of political, social, and cultural organisations, business enterprises, and individuals, based around agreement with the ITP’s ‘Declaration of Principles’ and who were willing to co-operate with each other in an effort to defend and rebuild Christian civilisation.
Strangely enough, Mr. Anger neglects to mention that it was his contact with ITP, and certain people who were members of the National Front before that, that introduced him to, and influenced him towards, the Faith in the first place.
For whatever reasons Mr. Anger, over a period of years, turned against his former political acquaintances, and then also against the SSPX, resulting in the extremely malicious, poisonous, and calumnious blog that Athanasius links to. As far as I am aware Mr. Anger decided to disassociate himself from his blog several years ago and its operation was taken over by his “partner-in-crime”, Mr. Christopher Blosser, who is an ecumenical Conciliarist who promotes mixed-marriages amongst other things. Mr. Blosser is himself married to a Jewess and runs something known under the name of ‘Catholic Friends of Israel’.
I believe that some serious public apologies are due from you to Fiore, Holland and Sharpe, Athanasius, as well as a trip to the confessional.
Have you phoned Fr. Nely yet?
-
Pilgrimage of Grace
I intend to answer your very lengthy comments one at a time. I’ll quote your statement, then give answer.
1. “Athanasius, In reply to your previous post, I am not in the slightest bit interested whether you, Joe Bloggs or anyone else personally sympathises with the political views of the men concerned.”
That’s fine, my friend, I never asked for your opinion. For the record, though, I utterly oppose what these people stand for.
1a. “The Church provides the moral and doctrinal guidance for laymen to act upon in the social sphere in the attempt to defend and rebuild Christendom.”
I refer you once again to Matthew Anger’s ‘Fringe watch’ website where it can very easily be seen that these men merely use the above as a vehicle for a revolutionary doctrine – See Holland’s ‘The Political Soldier.’ Here is one quote from Fringe Watch:
‘Mr. Holland’s idea of “spiritual struggle” is reminiscent of the Marxist inspired Liberation Theology phenomenon of the 1970s—a fuzzy pseudo-mysticism. The quasi-religious themes are distinctly reminiscent of the immanentist millenarian creeds discussed by conservative philosopher Eric Voegelin, which place the eschatological struggle for good and evil here on earth (in that respect being akin to Communism). “To the Political Soldier,” says Holland, “it must be said: we stand before the Apocalypse! Gird yourself and prepare for battle!” The materialists and relativists, the tyrants of the modern world, fear Death because for them Death is the End. But for us, revolutionary warriors, Death is not the End, but the Beginning. It is the doorway through which the Political Soldier alone can pass, for it leads to the world of the Elect – of those who fought on the Way of Truth, who sacrificed and struggled, and who merited their Just Reward.’
Does this sound like the words of a man who embraces and preaches with fidelity the Church’s Social Teaching? I don’t think so. And let us not forget that Matthew Anger was once a member of the ITP and so knows Holland, Sharpe and Fiori (and their true agenda) very well.
2. “The beliefs and actions of the men in question are not condemned by the Church or by Menzingen. Simple as that.”
No, it is not as simple as that. You entered this blog with a direct insinuation that Bishop Fellay, together with the other bishops of the SSPX and several named District Superiors, had examined so-called false claims against the distributive doctrines of Sharpe, Holland and Fiori and had dismissed them out of hand. I challenged you to provide written proof for such a claim and your response has been to alter your statement to say merely that the beliefs and actions of the men in question are not condemned by the Church or by Menzingen.
In the first place the Church has not considered the writings or actions of any of these men, so this tells us nothing, although I am certain that the interpretation put on such writings and actions would be condemned in light of the Church’s true social doctrine.
What I mean by this is that the Church claims the conversion of nations first to Catholicism, then the implementation of the principles for a proper social structure. The ITP, on the otherhand, wants to implement the principles for the social structure without first introducing the Catholic spirituality required to establish and maintain them. Hence, it seeks to establish a social order following not from conversion to the true faith, but on social revolution using methods similar to those of the Communists.
As for the SSPX. I have said already that it could in no way adopt the principles espoused by the aforementioned because they are revolutionary and the SSPX is not. I challenge you to provide a link to any official SSPX publication where the specific writings of any of these men can be found.
Furthermore, the distributive movement espoused by Holland, Sharpe and Fiori has for its founding father in England a man by the name of Eric Gill (1882 – 1940) who was a renowned artist and print maker. He was also an incestuous pedophile who painted erotic blasphemous images of saints having sexual intercourse, not to mention his erotic Christ image. Here is a link on him. http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/j005htGill_Distributism_Odou.htm
This information is in the public domain and is important from the point of view of establishing the reliability of the distributist doctrine. Chesterton and Belloc both based their distributive principles on Gill’s, but I doubt they knew of the private life of the man when they did. I have no intention of declaring against Gill’s immortal soul since it is known that he converted to Catholicism, though continued in his immoral lifestyle. God alone is his judge. My aim is to show what manner of man then formed and championed the modern distributive movement in England. I wonder! Was Gill at the time an instrument of God?
3. “Why would they be when Archbishop Lefebvre, himself, was greatly sympathetic towards the struggle of Action Francaise, made pilgrimages of respect to the tomb of Marachel Petain and spoke well of Vichy France, and encouraged his fellow Frenchmen to support the Front National?”
Your statement here follows on from quote no 3 above but is not remotely connected with the distributive movement presently under discussion. We all know that any person or organisation opposed to liberalism is more or less condemned by today’s liberal powers. This is certainly the case as regards Archbishop Lefebvre, Action Francaise, Vichy France and the so-called National Front. But what does any of this have to do with the distributive doctrines of Holland, Sharpe and Fiori. I fear you digress.
4. “Elsewhere you mention the ITP which, by the way, was dissolved nearly ten years ago: The well-respected and greatly-loved Fr. Michael Crowdy, RIP, was its chaplain in this country. He supported its various central projects and was a close friend of Fiore and Holland. Do you condemn Fr. Crowdy as well?”
The ITP may be said to have been dissolved in name but it continues in spirit under the title of ‘Distributism.’ Its architects, namely Derek Holland, John Sharpe and Roberto Fiori remain interlinked with each other, two of whom go all the way back to mutual affiliation with Britain’s National Front movement and association with Nick Griffin, who I believe was also once a member of the ITP.
As for the late Fr. Michael Crowdy, I know nothing of him other than that he was a traditional Catholic priest who ministered in France, Italy and, latterly England. I take your word for it that he was well-loved and respected by those who knew him. I have absolutely no reason to doubt the good will of this holy priest (RIP). He was not, however, infallible!
5. Your litany of denials by Roberto Fiori of involvement with the group (NAR), which was responsible for the Bologna bombing of 1980, is too lengthy to copy again in this post. So I ask one thing of you, which is that you present links to public records that state Roberto Fiori’s vindication by the courts, and I ask for links to any of the public records of litigation cases Roberto Fiori is claimed to have won against 70 newspapers and others. He seems to have missed this one. http://www.antifa.org.uk/nucleus3.32/nucleus332/index.php?itemid=132
In the meantime, I attach this other link for other bloggers that they may judge matters for themselves. It’s a little better than your link to Fiori’s political Party in that it is already translated into English. Here it is: http://www.ecopolis.org/nazirock-what-about-neo-fascist-italian-coalition/
7. “3) You ask the question: “And are you denying that his ‘St. George’s Trust was not suspended by the Inland Revenue here in Britain pending investigation into tax irregularities?”
Yes, I deny it. Whoever repeats it is responsible for spreading yet another lie.”The following link is my response. It seems Mr. Fiori hasn’t managed to successfully sue this outlet either, unless you can state otherwise. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4064888,00.html
Incidentally, readers are asked to ignore the claims in this article that Fiori’s Fascism includes opposition to Zionism and homosexuality, for all Catholics must oppose these. This does not undermine the other issues which this report touches on.
8. “4) You assert that: “… Derek Holland, once pictured with Colonel Gadaffi and said to have trained with Islamic fighters in the Middle East.” “Nor was Derek Holland officially declared to have visited Islamic fundamentalist training camps. He was pictured with Gadaffi and has often referred to militant Islam in a positive sense.”
These are yet more lies. Holland has never even met Colonel Gadaffi, never mind having being pictured with him.”The only picture I have been able to find on the net is one of Nick Griffin and Derek Holland on a trip to Libya in the 1980s. The trip was financed by the Libyan leadership and the two in question are pictured standing under a huge banner of Gadaffi. Here’s the link: http://alassmithandgraham.blogspot.com/
Griffin, at that time, and presumably Holland also, since he was also National Front, supported the Libyan regime as well as that of Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini. I am, however, perfectly sure that I have seen a picture of Holland with Gadaffi. I will continue to search this out. No matter, though, he was welcomed into the country of a terrorist-supporting leader.
9. “He went on a short fact-finding trip to Libya in the aftermath of the horrific US bombing of that country as did many other political figures and journalists.”
Oh yes! And what facts was he there to find? Was it to find facts to condemn the US for the bombing of Libya, a bombing which even Archbishop Lefebvre accepted as necessary. Pray tell!
10. “Furthermore, where has Holland “often referred to militant Islam in a positive sense”? It is yet another lie. Please provide in-context quotations for what you claim.”
Ok, here it is from the preface of Holland’s ‘Political Soldier.’ “[W]hat is needed above all else is a fundamental shift in attitude towards struggle, towards life, towards destiny; that there cannot be, and will not be, any serious change in the overall direction taken by the countries of Europe until the New Man, like a giant on the horizon, capable of moulding and inspiring a New Social Order…
… Europe does not have a monopoly on Political Soldiers and all peoples and cultures have the potential to produce this type of man, each fitted to his peculiar circumstances. Take for example the Islamic Revolutionary Guards in the Iran of the Mullahs…. Their belief in their Cause is so strong that they will run through minefields unarmed to attack enemy positions…. This power drove the Yankee war machine out of the Lebanon – whilst U.S. troops were fighting for job security, a wage packet and a pension, their opponents in the Revolutionary Guards were fighting for an Ideal, an independent Iranian Iran.
It is the task of the Political Soldier to promote the Will to live by revealing the true nature of life – as opposed to the materialist nightmare of this century which is mistakenly taken to be “life” – and by living this life. In order to do this the Political Soldier must undergo a Spiritual Revolution, an inner revolution which guides, directs and pervades his life.”
It is fairly well established that Holland bases his ideas on the Pantheistic and Fascist writings of Julius Evola, who writes:
‘[P]rimordial Tradition can be applied to all or nearly all existing religions if you do not focus on the dogmas, but rather on the way the fighting spirit is to be embodied. Christian chivalry does not differ much from the Jihad fighters or the Samurai, outside of the large distinctions in their religious mythology’ (“Tradition, Religion, and Modern Europe: Synthesis Interviews Martin Schwarz,” Synthesis, 2001).
11. “5) You correct one of your previous lies, thus: “You are absolutely correct. John Sharpe was NOT arrested, he was relieved of his naval duties in 2007 pending accusations of antisemitism.”
So, after being caught out defaming Sharpe’s character with your original lie, you change tactics slightly to one of detraction. The accusation of anti-semitism, as you well know, was made by the SPLC who also make the same charge against SSPX, Catholic Family News, The Remnant (who you write for), so on and so forth. The lie is made against Catholic tradition in general, not merely John Sharpe. Can it be inferred from this that you now take the side of the enemies of Catholicism against Catholic tradition?
If not, why did you neglect to explain in your correction exactly who made this ridiculous charge against John Sharpe to the US Navy, and dismiss the accusation, rather than leaving the impression to readers that he is somehow guilty of it?”I agree that the organisation which made this accusation is generally hostile to traditional Catholicism. This does not mean, however, that everything it says and writes should be ignored. It means that all said and written should be examined in the light of fact and disputed in necessary.
It is a fact that John Sharpe is architect of two web-based sites. One is IHS Press, the other is the Legion of St. Louis. Here are some excerpts from ‘Fringe Watcher’ in the matter:
‘Naval officer accused of activity in hate groups Richmond Times Dispatch March 11, 2007.’
On IHS Press / Legion of St. Louis’ political extremism
Possession of Belloc and Chesterton hardly counts as incriminating evidence. On the other hand, the Legion of St. Louis’ distribution of Michael Hoffmann’s Judaism’s Strange Gods, Prainaitis’ The Talmud Unmasked and Henry Ford’s The International Jew is a tad more disconcerting.Likewise, it is curious why a website that was, according to Sharpe, “inactive since 2002″, would remain online and active in 2007. One would think if you’re distancing yourself from politically extremist and compromising ties one might take it offline, rather than renew the domain name and pay for the hosting.
While IHS Press has sought to present itself as a “Catholic publisher”, Sharpe certainly hasn’t explained to anybody’s satisfaction how his friend and co-founder of IHS Press Derek Holland was a featured speaker at a nationalist convention of the German NPD, or more recently, IHS Press’ prominent booth at a white nationalist convention in 2006? Question: Why would a Catholic publisher even seek to peddle his wares to this crowd? Evangelization?!?
Is the U.S. Navy’s Investigation Warranted? Consider some excerpts from one of many articles recently published on Neoconned’s website:
‘Iraq now is occupied and we feel that Iraqis have the legitimate right to resist the occupation. The Baath Party is the leader of the Resistance that will liberate it from the Anglo-Saxon Zionist occupation.
We feel that the liberation of Iraq will be achieved very soon and a very progressive leadership will be born that will lead the Arabs to liberate historic Palestine. As a result Arab Unity will be closer to being realized.
Yes indeed we support Saddam Hussein because he is the legitimate President. He is a prisoner of war and those who are living in four square miles – the so-called “Green Zone” – are both traitors and illegitimate because they are the puppets and agents of the occupiers. In no way do they represent the people of Iraq or our ambitions…
Saddam Hussein represents the hope for freedom, unity and liberation. He is a firm believer in the liberation of Palestine, and, therefore, he deserves our support. [...] My opinion is very clear: the Resistance is legitimate and those who are part of the occupational political process are traitors and enemies of the Iraqi people. They should be treated as such.’
And:
‘Source: (An Interview with Ibrahim Ebeid Neo-Conned Blog. IHS Press. May 6, 2006.’
“Now, there is a line between “principled religious opposition” to the war in Iraq — of which one can point to many examples, even good Catholics who contributed to the Neo-Conned volumes themselves — and another to publish and promote propaganda clearly advocating the murder of U.S. forces abroad and members of the Iraqi government.
That this interview was published on a radical website run by Lieutenant Commander of the United States Navy — who may very well be called into military service — should give one pause.
While FringeWatch’s original dispute centered on the extremist ties of the founders of IHS Press, it is my opinion that Sharpe’s involvement in this project merits the concern of the U.S. Navy.”
Now, Pilgrimage of Grace, I’m sure you will readily admit that when one puts oneself on public record with this kind of stuff then one can fully expect to be called to account for it. It is not the Catholic way to form websites to ‘expose’ the machinations, real or imagined, of Jewish individuals or groups.
We Catholics are spiritual, not vengeful. We try to save our souls and those of others and leave the intrigue to God who knows the hearts and secret actions of all.
This post is already the lengthiest I have ever made, so what the heck! Here’s a senior SSPX priest’s view of the doctrines of Sharpe, Holland and Fiori, architects of the ITP, now called by its original name – ‘Distributism.’
“A Catholic Perspective of Distributism“The term distributism, according to the explanation given by certain Catholic lay writers, such as G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc, seems to refer to the socio-economic conditions of the wide distribution of property and wealth among citizens in the Catholic societies of the Middle Ages. However, it must be emphasized that these conditions had a supernatural cause, that is, they were the direct result of the practice of the Catholic Faith among the citizens, especially the supernatural virtues of social justice and charity.
2. Since supernatural grace is necessary to heal the wounds in human nature caused by original sin, both in the individual and social order, it is clear that the economic system in Catholic societies of the Middle Ages could not have been the result of some well organized natural economic movement, but rather was itself the result of the supernatural life of divine grace practiced by the citizens of Catholic society. To say otherwise would be to attribute the work of establishing Catholic economic order to the works and efforts of nature rather than grace, which would be the error of naturalism and pelagianism.
3. Currently in Traditional Catholic circles, the use of the term distributism as a movement of Catholic economic action seems to be an erroneous idea, because the very word “distributism” insinuates some kind of movement in the economic domain of actually distributing, or rather re-distributing, the current property and wealth of citizens in modern society so that it be shared more fairly among all citizens. But this implies that the civil authority, through economic legislation, can arrogate to itself the power to determine, limit and reduce the ownership and use of the private property of citizens (i.e., wealthy citizens) in order to re-distribute it “more fairly” to the less fortunate in society. But this is contrary to Catholic teaching. For outside the implementation of the principles of Catholic justice in economic legislation, there does not exist any kind of economic movement for the redistribution of existing wealth and property in a non-Christian society or nation, unless one were to admit the false principles of Socialism and Communism.
4. In Christian societies of the middle Ages, the general social conditions favoring a wide distribution of property and wealth were assured by the principles of Catholic justice in economic legislation and practice. But the more equitable distribution of wealth among the poor and less fortunate was not accomplished simply by socio-economic legislation, but rather by wealthy people actually practicing the supernatural virtues of justice and fairness in their business dealings, and by their practice of charity, almsgiving and the spirit of poverty or material detachment, being motivated by the supernatural desire of heaven. Thus, it was the Catholic Faith in action that produced the economic system of the Middle Ages.
5. It is contrary to the doctrine of Catholic political action to promote any kind of politico-economic movement—as Socialists and Communists do—that would arrogate to itself the authority to re-distribute “more equitably” the property and wealth of citizens in modern society in order to make it conform to the socio-economic conditions of the Middles Ages. Rather, the practice of the Catholic religion must be re-established in modern society in order to heal and restore true Christian social order, both in the political and economic domains. Without this supernatural foundation, no true restoration will be possible.
6. Even though the term “distributism” can be understood as a socio-economic condition existing in Catholic societies of the Middle Ages, nevertheless it cannot be understood or promoted in the form of an natural economic movement, because:
a. The fundamental cause of modern economic abuses is not an economic one, but rather a religious one, i.e., the Calvinist work ethic, and the protestant denial of the organic organization of society by which all men are part of one larger family, and should therefore work together in harmony for the common good. Thus, the fundamental “movement” to solve modern-day economic abuses is a supernatural one, that is, the conversion of citizens to the Catholic Faith and to the supernatural life of sanctifying grace, with the practice of the supernatural virtues of social justice and charity among all men in society, who see themselves not as members of a collective, but as members of a living social family.
b. The idea of distributism as an economic movement is the basis for Socialism, Communism, and even naturalist Utopianism, which claim that the first solution to social problems is the reform of the economic system. Such movements deny the need of a supernatural foundation for the reform of the social order. Furthermore, Socialism and Communism deny the natural right to the ownership and use of private property.
7. The promotion of a “living off the land” movement will not inspire or convert wealthy and worldly businessmen to reduce or give up their possessions and worldliness pleasure and give to the poor. It is only the promise of some far greater happiness that will do this, i.e., the promise of eternal happiness and the supernatural vision of God in heaven. The supernatural life of sanctifying grace and the practice of supernatural virtue, especially the spirit of poverty, social justice and charity towards the poor, are the means to obtain this promise of heaven. Supernatural, not natural, motives are the necessary means to inspire the rich and powerful of the world to reform their business methods, and to adopt the Christian principles of justice and equity in public legislation for the reform of the economic system.
8. Besides, the naturally good example of “living off the land” cannot dispose worldly people and pagans to turn to the supernatural life of grace. To say so would be to fall into pelagianism, which taught that natural goodness and natural good works could dispose and prepare man to the reception of divine grace. St. Augustine of Hippo especially fought against this heresy—which originated in England—and defended the necessity of divine grace to elevate and heal wounded human nature and human society.
9. St. Ignatius of Loyola, in his meditation on the “Two Standards,” explains to us the steps Christ has directed us follow in order to help all men in society: “First, by encouraging them to embrace the most perfect spiritual poverty, and even actual poverty if it be God’s will; secondly, to encourage them to desire insults and contempt, for from these first two things comes humility. So there are three steps: the first: poverty as opposed to riches; the second: scorn or contempt as opposed to worldly honor; and the third: humility as opposed to pride.” But the promoters of the distributist movement tend work to accomplish the opposite, for they tend to foment anger and discontent with the temporal conditions of modern society, thus fomenting a spirit of revolution against modern authority in the pursuit of wealth and material goods.
10. Thus, those who arrogate to themselves the position of leaders or directors in Catholic social action should be the first to practice not only the spirit of poverty, but even real poverty, by generously giving to the poor and needy, yet without imposing the same obligation of charity on their fellow Catholics, i.e., by trying to impose a guilt trip on other Catholics who don’t imitate them.
11. Staunch promoters of the distributist movement claim that it is not possible to work within the present economic system or to reform modern businesses and corporations. Rather, they believe that there must be a separate movement back to the land, with the hope of establishing small catholic villages whose members should adhere to the economic system of distributism and abstain from modern practices of banking and credit as far as possible. (It should be noted that individual people may choose to live off the land or completely abstain from the modern economic system of banking and credit if they want, for there’s no sin in these things. However, this “anti-economy reaction” is not Catholic political action; nor can this “reaction” be imposed on others in the name of Catholic action).
12. This idea of economic action—or more correctly, anti-economy reaction—cannot be called Catholic political action. For by definition, Catholic political action “refers to the temporal actions of the Catholic laity in the work of establishing the reign of Christian social principles in the State and social legislation, thus extending the social reign of Christ.” Thus, true Catholic political action works for the implementation of Catholic principles of justice and virtue within the legislation of the existing socio-economic order. Distributists, however, seek to bypass law and order, desiring rather to promote a direct confrontation between their economic system and the modern economic system, which in practice encourages confrontation between the rich and the poor and between the employer and the employees, and foments discontent and disordered anger in the people with regard to their economic condition. However, this method of socio-economic confrontation is a communist tactic, for it logically foments political unrest, subversion and revolution against modern social order and authority.
13. The socio-economic conditions of the Catholic Middle Ages took centuries to establish while people and nations were converting to the Catholic Religion. Distributists, on the other hand, believe that their economic movement can accomplish the same conditions in just a few decades! Certain distributists, or “Third Positionists”, such as the promoters of the ideology of the so-called “International Third Position”, even predict that distributism will be established by the 21st century. Thus, in Point 9 of the ITP list of objectives, we read: “Given the total failure of Socialism, with its unnatural bureaucracy and inefficiency, and given the exploitation and gross inequality that result from Capitalism’s so-called “Free Market”, it is evident that Distributism is going to be the socio-economic creed of the twenty-first century.” This objective will be attained by the implementation of the ITP’s 10th Point, which is “national revolution worldwide.” (These points are taken from the actual handbook of the International Third Position).
14. Liberation Theology, and the purely natural work of “the soup kitchen” for the poor and needy, neglect—or at least make secondary—the work of conversion to the faith and the life of grace. True corporal works of mercy should be founded on the spiritual works of mercy, not only in view of healing and converting the souls of men to the supernatural order, but also for the sake of helping the poor to learn how to improve their own condition, and to accept patiently their present poverty for the sake of Christ and heaven. The distributist method of fomenting discontent and anger among the poor and the working class is a revolutionary tactic.
We cannot return to the social conditions of the Middle Ages. Rather, we should work to implement in modern society the Catholic principles of social justice and charity which helped establish the wonderful order and harmony in the Catholic nations of the Middle Ages. For example, it is often not possible to have the same kind of distribution of wealth, land ownership or business ownership as in the Middle Ages. However, the more equitable distribution of wealth and property can still be accomplished according to Catholic principles in modern society in different ways, e.g., employees can be made part owners of businesses and large companies (e.g., by becoming shareholders); quarterly profits can be proportionately distributed among the employees in the form of a quarterly bonus, the percentage depending upon a person’s position in the company or business; companies can share the expense with employees in providing monthly health benefits, etc.” -
Pilgrimage of Grace
I have just responded at great length to your earlier post today, only to find that you have made another lengthy post at 7.33 pm.
I really think I have given bloggers all they need to investigate the matter. If not, then your ridiculous claim that Fiori was never involved with the National Front should set them straight in the matter.
This blog is really concerned more with spiritual matters than natural ones, so you will excuse me if I refuse further discussion in these matters that have absolutely nothing to do with the supernatural Catholic Faith. No point in uselessly batting comments back and forth and wasting each other’s time. I believe the case is proved, end of subject.
-
Athanasius
Don’t you find yourself yawning when bloggers come away with things like ‘actionable’ ?
-
Annie,
You’re very welcome. Prayerful Best Wishes in your endeavor!
-
Pilgrimage of Grace
Here are some links associating Roberto Fiori with the National Front.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Fiore
http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/the-real-bnp/Profile-of-Nick-Griffin.php
-
Petrus
It seems to me that “actionable” is normally brought into any exchange of comments by the one who is running short of a defence. The fact is that I have merely taken what is in the public domain and re-produced it here.
What I have written has many sources to substantiate it, unless one be of a paranoid disposition and think that all public outlets are out to get one! It is the very public revolutionary words and actions of these men that has brought them to the attention of others. If they were quiet guys intent merely on Catholic devotions and the teaching of the Church, then no one would have heard of them let alone tak exception to what they write.
When people try to integrate traditional Catholicism with extremist political groups, then Catholics as well as every other right thinking person should stand up and declare foul play. The Catholic Faith is not worldly and extremist, it is supernatural and peaceful.
-
I have to confess complete ignorance of the characters under the Athanasius/Pilgrimage of Grace microscope. However, detecting a mystery here, I’ve started to read through the posts. See you all in 2050!
I am following the arguments and the links. Not yet finished but I have to show a certain bias towards Athanasius at this stage, if only because of the following quote from his most recent post:
“…the Church claims the conversion of nations first to Catholicism, then the implementation of the principles for a proper social structure. The ITP, on the otherhand, wants to implement the principles for the social structure without first introducing the Catholic spirituality required to establish and maintain them. Hence, it seeks to establish a social order following not from conversion to the true faith, but on social revolution using methods similar to those of the Communists.”
There can be no other way, but fidelity to Catholic Social Teaching – i.e. the Social Kingship of Christ – so if these men have taken the Liberation Theology route or one close to it, they’re clearly on the wrong path.
That, Pilgrimage of Grace, is my early conclusion. Will return to this later. Be patient with me – I’m a slow reader at the best of times and these posts ain’t the Beano!
But, please, forget “actionable”. That really gets my goat. I have had a suit hanging in my wardrobe for years in the expectation that some of the bullies who keep threatening to take me to court will do so. To date, nothing. There’s a judge out there somewhere, who keeps getting his hopes raised only to be dashed.
Don’t try that line, POG – you really will annoy me and that is not a clever thing to do. Not during a recession.
-
The convert, thank you.
-
I see some parallels between this discussion and the ill-fated Our Lady of America thread, in that there appears to be an underlying dispute between two polarised positions which has found its way onto this blog, albeit that one of the contributors this time is our own most respected regulars.
What is less clear is how relevant this discussion is to the faith in general, given that, as I understand it, this group does not purport to be of Catholic theology. The OLoA dispute was more appropriate to our themes of discussion, but became mired in dispute hence its demise; this has been similarly polarised though with more historical political content.
I have gained nothing in terms of the faith from having read the increasingly turgid exchanges here and do question much of the assumptions upon which both parties base their arguments, therefore propose that either a line be drawn or, having disclosed identities anyway, a private email exchange proceed, with us left to address more relevant concerns such as the subject introduced by annie.
-
Crossraguel, with respect, it is not for you to decide to draw a line under any discussion on the grounds that you don’t see any connection with the Faith. You give no specific argument – for example, you say you question “much of the assumptions uupon which both parties base their arguments” but do not specify to which assumptions you refer.
I’m surprised that you think Catholic Social Teaching and the distortion thereof, is not connected to the Faith, but it takes all sorts.
I’ve found the links provided by Athanasius to be very informative – although it will take me a while to finish perusing them. I believe it is important to be informed on all fronts, Crossraguel – I’m surprised you appear not to be of the same opinion.
-
editor,
With equal respect, I am not drawing a line under the discussion, merely proposing that its proponents do so. They are perfectly entitled to take no heed of my contribution and carry on regardless.
In my humble opinion there is significantly more history and politics in this topic than doctrine or social taching, so much so that as I say I truly believe I have learned nothing from it.
Not to worry though, I have lots of options as to what to read with my finite amount of time, and should this discussion continue I have freedom not to read it, so no harm to anyone.
-
PoG says: “The Truth: Fiore was never a member of the National Front. He was not a practising Catholic when, at the age of 22 or 23 years old, he arrived in England, associating, like most people, the Catholic religion with the rank liberalism expressed by post-Conciliar churchmen and laity. Holland has always been a practising Catholic and comes from a family that have always been opposed to post-Conciliar changes. After meeting and becoming friends with Holland, Fiore became aware of the conflict between the Catholic Church and Modernism, began to study the traditional teaching of the Church and returned to the practice of the Faith.”
I would be interested to know how Mr. Fiori’s practice of the Catholic Faith is reconcilable with the following report from ‘Fringe Watcher’.
“Some solid proof of this is from a report by an Italian site that describes a 2006 Nazi rock-fest in Italy, attended by Fiore, which featured openly pro-Hitler displays.
During that event, called “Campo d’Azione 2006″, souvenir stands sold badges showing the face of Hitler to be sewn onto sweaters as well as books denying the existence of the Holocaust, like the one written by Carlo Mattogno and entitled “Auschwitz: fine di una leggenda” (Auschwitz, the end of a legend). Until very late at night, in the large hangar that during the day was animated by speeches and discussions, we assisted to a very disquieting show featuring several rock bands frantically acclaimed by a crowd performing the nazi-fascist stiff-arm salute and sporting a huge banner, printed for the occasion and stating in large capital letters: “MORE NAZISM FOR US ALL”.
But this is nothing new, since Fiore’s political beliefs have been an open book for years. Fringe Watch has discussed his activities on a number of occasions:
PoG says: “The Truth: It is confusing because it is a pack of lies. In 1984 Holland began to issue a series of pamphlets entitled ‘The Political Soldier’ as the first step in an educational process aimed at forming young political activists of the National Front, generally uneducated and undisciplined products of the modern world, into people who would attempt to start leading some semblance of moral and disciplined lives. The pamphlets constituted a step-by-step process that was hoped would culminate in opening up materialists, agnostics, and atheists to the recognition of the superiority of the spiritual over the material. Later stages of this educational process were designed to draw such people towards a sympathy for Catholicism and possible conversion.”
Here’s what ‘Fringe Watcher has to say about that argument:
“In the early 1980s a radical nationalist journal called Rising was published by Third Positionists associated with the British National Front. Though authored anonymously, it was heavily promoted (and likely written) by Roberto Fiore and Derek Holland. It drew its inspiration from the Italian radical nationalism of Terza Posizione which, in turn, was influenced by the esoteric fascism of Julius Evola and the neo-pagan philosophy of Oswald Spengler. It involves a gnostic belief in a “higher spiritual tradition” which underlays all religions, from which radical nationalists try to derive a “moral” justification for their apocalyptic fantasies.
A re-issue of Rising is now sold by the International Third Position (ITP) and its offshoots (PoliticalSoldier.net and the England First movement). The ideas expressed in the series were also the direct inspiration for Derek Holland’s Political Soldier, which is considered the handbook of the Third Position movement. What is overlooked is that even as Holland and Fiore targeted “traditional Catholics” with their brand of neo-fascism, they continued to endorse views that these normal Catholics would find repugnant. It is also noteworthy that the ITP’s Legionary Press shares the same address as the St. George Educational Trust—Forest House, Liss Forest, Hampshire, GU33 7DD, England. The St. George Trust is a sister organization to the Legion of St. Louis.
Excerpts from Rising: A Booklet for the Political Soldier (collected essays, nos. 1-5, published 1981-2, reprinted by the Legionary Press, 1998):
Our revulsion at the sight of mixed race couples is an indication of an instinctive “racial awareness.” We must be careful, however, not to let this question go only so far as our initial physical revulsion. [We must have] a racial doctrine based upon spiritual and political thinking… (p. 8).
It is clear that Spengler’s philosophy of history is immensely valuable to the ideological pillars of Nationalism, for it becomes obvious that a peaceful and harmonious world is contingent on recognizing that the human species is divided into a variety of widely differing and contradictory Cultures—frank and sincere acceptance of these differences necessarily leads to understanding and mutual, cultural respect: the highest form of Nationalism involves reciprocal, cultural respect (p.40).
As Julius Evola makes clear in The Aryan Doctrine of Fight and Victory…. It is the power of ideas, essentially spiritual, that motivate the finest peoples’ to build…. the militancy of Islam contributed greatly to the seventh century Arab civilization…. Spirituality can take on diverse forms as pantheistic ancient Greece demonstrates (p. 51).
At a higher level than the cultural, the spiritual is by definition something which does not die or pass away. It is something divine that is to be found in Man. It is something hidden, which must be rediscovered and purified, and which once rediscovered cannot be destroyed…. According to all traditions—Roman paganism, Christianity, Islam—this spirit is eternal…. Each race has a way through religion, tradition and customs to rediscover its roots and its spirit. If these paths are mixed, confusion ensues; the search for the Way becomes difficult if not impossible, and men are lost… (p. 61).
The struggle which engages us is a total struggle…. No quarter may be given, no quarter will be given…. Even if the Army of Political Soldiers that fights a rearguard defence of Britain and of Europe were to be reduced to but one National Revolutionary, yet would we live, for each and every Political Soldier embodies a Spiritual Ideal that defies the agents of Death to the point of Death (p. 62).”
PoG says: “…Nor do the pamphlets promote “paramilitary” activities or such like as Athanasius claims. Quite the opposite, in fact. Terrorism is strongly condemned in the pamphlets.”
Fringe Watcher answers: “…Mr. Sharpe operates in the realm of surrealism. He should quit while he’s behind. As for advocating violence, the ITP was tied to political violence in Italy and was a staunch advocate of anti-Israeli violence. Third Positionists like Derek Holland supported Ayatollah Khomeni’s Iran and Gaddafi’s Libya in the 1980s, and Iraq during the First Gulf War – all promoters of international terrorism. So John’s memory is as faulty as it is non-committal.”
This link is also revealing, especially when one looks at its list on the right side of the page to other Third Positionist groups. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Soldier
PoG says: “Athanasius wrote that: “Fiori is said to have made his wealth charging rather large rents from foreign students living in his various properties in London. So much for opposing Capitalism.”
The Truth: Fiore, and some Italian friends, built up a successful business called ‘Meeting Point’ by providing European language students flocking to London with accomodation. In the beginning they worked with existing landlords in order to place students and were eventually able to lease from their owners large empty Edwardian properties in central London on long-term contracts. These properties were renovated and turned into self-contained and shared student accomodation. The rents charged to students were in the low to medium range for similar accomodation. I even lived in one myself for seven years before getting married.
Employees of Meeting Point were given the opportunity to go into partnership themselves as new buildings came along, on a co-operative basis, and placement offices throughout Italy and other countries in Europe were run either as private businesses by the people setting them up or in business partnership with Meeting Point.
Here is a link to an opposing view: http://www.325collective.com/anti-fascist_easylondon.html
PoG says: “Holland has never addressed any “neo-Nazi” rallies and has always been well-known for being staunchly opposed to Nazism.
Holland has used the English spelling of his name whilst living in England. He has used the Irish spelling since returning to Ireland.”
Fringe Watcher says: “As Chairman of the NF, and later the ITP’s chief ideologue, Holland exerted a decisive influence. He authored The Political Soldier, which is the Koran of militant nationalists throughout Europe. In many places it invokes the imagery of Muslism fanatics as nationalist “martyrs.” He has been a supporter of radical Arab regimes, visiting Libya in 1988 and Iraq in 1990 (photo and information on the Libyan trip is available online).
Given these credentials it is hardly surprising that Holland should back the Neo-Conned anti-war series as a director of IHS Press. Some people may be misled by the fact that Holland now operates under his Irish Gaelic name, Deric O’Huallachain (having relocated to Ireland from the UK a few years ago). However, earlier copies of the Virginia SCC certificate for IHS Press shows it as Derek Holland.
From the moment that IHS Press was established in 2001, people expressed concern, but were reassured (as was this writer) that Holland had put his extremism “behind him.” Apparently that didn’t stop him from being guest speaker at the February 2002 racial nationalist Nationaldemokratisk Ungdom (NDU) in Sweden. In March of that year the German neo-nazi Deutsche Stimme (German Voice) featured his essay, “Theory and Strategy: The Path of the Political Soldier.” An overnight transition from political radicalism to religious orthodoxy seems improbable. And his activities in Ireland have covered as recently as 2005 in the Brandsma Review.”
Wikipedia reports that: “Holland also writes under the pen names Harry Worthington, Rory O’Connor, D. Liam O’Huallachain, Derek O’Huallachain, and Deric O’Huallachain.”
PoG says: “Athanasius wrote that: “The ‘fringewatcher’ link above gives a fuller picture of these men than I can do here. Bear in mind that the author of the fringewatcher blog was once a member of the ITP and so he knows these guys and there agenda very well.”
The Truth: The blog linked to was originally produced by an American by the name of Matthew Anger who had associated with the ITP. He was not “a member” of the ITP as there was no membership structure. The ITP was a loose association of political, social, and cultural organisations, business enterprises, and individuals, based around agreement with the ITP’s ‘Declaration of Principles’ and who were willing to co-operate with each other in an effort to defend and rebuild Christian civilisation.”
Strangely enough, Mr. Anger neglects to mention that it was his contact with ITP, and certain people who were members of the National Front before that, that introduced him to, and influenced him towards, the Faith in the first place.
For whatever reasons Mr. Anger, over a period of years, turned against his former political acquaintances, and then also against the SSPX, resulting in the extremely malicious, poisonous, and calumnious blog that Athanasius links to.”
First of all I do not agree with everything Matt Anger writes on Fringe Watcher. We are poles apart on certain issues pertaining to a required conversion of the Jews to Catholicsm and the efforts of some revolutionary Jews against the Holy Catholic Religion throughout history.
I do not know Matt Anger personally, nor am I aware of any anti-SSPX stance on his part.
If his comments are, as you state, “malicious, Poisonous and calumnious” then point out exactly where they are so and advise the man to withdraw such remarks or face the courts. Don’t moan about these perceived injustices to me because I don’t know what you’re talking about. Confront the source. I take from his blog whatever I think he catalogues with facts. I have not found anything I’ve used here from his blog to be mailcious, poisonous or calumnious.
PoG says: “As far as I am aware Mr. Anger decided to disassociate himself from his blog several years ago and its operation was taken over by his “partner-in-crime”, Mr. Christopher Blosser, who is an ecumenical Conciliarist who promotes mixed-marriages amongst other things. Mr. Blosser is himself married to a Jewess and runs something known under the name of ‘Catholic Friends of Israel’.”
Observe the date recorded from this entry of Matt Anger on the Fringe Watcher: “Thursday, April 03, 2008
Summary of Derek Holland Interview
The following is a response by Matt Anger, creator of Fringe Watch. Mr. Anger is a former acquaintance of Derek Holland, the European nationalist writer and intellectual, who has just been interviewed on the subject of the Middle East by Judith Sharpe of the “In the Spirit of Chartres” (ISOC) committee (see previous post).”
By the way, PoG, what is your problem with this Mr. Blosser being married to a Jewess? The Church has always frowned on mixed marriages from the supernatural point of view, e.g., the preservation of the Catholic Faith in the Catholic spouse and any offspring. She has never objected on racial grounds. I take it you’re not objecting to Mr. Blosser’s wife on racial grounds?
-
Crossraguel
I do sympathise to an extend with your take on my exchanges with Pilgrimage of Grace. This is a subject that really does nothing to promote the Catholic Faith and the practice of virtue.
I had to address it, though, if only to alert other Catholics to the dangers posed by pseudo-intellectuals who, in the almost complete absence of guidance from Rome these days, are projecting their own ideas into previous papal teaching and leading other Catholics up the garden path.
The overwhelming priority for all Catholics today is to keep the Faith sanctify their souls with, prayer, penance, spiritual reading the practice of virtue.
Sadly, though, there are those who wish to digress from this priority into all manner of political and financial priorities of their own. They are taken up with worldly revolutions instead of interior ones. It’s what I call the black side of traditional Catholicism, e.g., that these intellectuals have involved themselves and others in controversial political movements that do nothing to promote the eternal salvation of souls.
I have truly come to detest contemporary Catholic intellectualism within traditional lay circles, with all its self-proclaimed theologians, philosophers and other prospective ‘Church Fathers.’ The same goes on in the opposite extreme with the modernist equivalent. The sooner the Popes return to their proper role of upholding truth and condemning error the better, for then these armchair revolutionaries will be firmly put in their place and the faithful will once more have peace of soul, not to mention mind.
-
Athanasius,
Sean Romer here, writing State-side. Regarding your request for information about Fiore’s association with a terrorist group, see this news site: http://www.onlyinitaly.com/mainarchives/030308.htm
The relevant portion is that Fiore was brought before Bow Street court, but the authorities in Rome failed to secure his extradition. In Rome he was cleared of involvement in the bombing, but he was convicted in absentia of subversive association and jailed for nine years, reduced to five-and-a-half on appeal. The jail term was eventually “timed out” under Italy’s statute of limitation laws, and Fiore was able to return to his homeland in April 1999.
Here’s a little more information about Mr. Fishwick: he and I went round on the Ignis Ardens forum a few years back where he let us know that he was an organizer for National Front for 10 years before becoming a founder member of the ITP with Fiore, Holland, et al. I exchanged messages with him in an effort to learn his identity (he was less forthcoming on that subject back in those days); for a while I thought he might have been Holland, then I thought he might have been a chap named Collin Todd, but his true identity finally came out, after which I bowed out of that forum.
Mr. Fishwick didn’t mention the names of the individuals who were told by Bp. Fellay “in no uncertain terms that they were to cease their malicious campaign,” but I do own up to being one of the fellows who took the advice of an SSPX priest to write to inform Menzingen of the subversive factions you’ve named who were trying to ingratiate themselves in SSPX circles. For my efforts I received this rebuke from Bp. Fellay:
From: Mgr Bernard Fellay
To: Sean Romer
Date: Jan 16, 2006Dear M Romer,
Thank you for your letters.
I will read them carefully. My attention has already been alerted on the problem you mention. It also probably will take some time till the correct solution will be taken, but the matter will be dealt with.
Thanking you for you prayers, I assure you of mine and send you my blessing
+Bernard Fellay
=======
Aside: I’ll send you a copy of the letter I sent Bp. Fellay if you like; it could use an update with more current information, but it is still accurate as far as it goes up to October 2002.
-
Isaac
Welcome to our blog and thank you for that precious information.
As regards Bp. Fellay, I think he was of the impression that those who wrote warning him of infiltration into the SSPX were nuts. My guess is that His Excellency thinks differently now in light of the Bishop Williamson furore.
I actually heard, although I can’t confirm this, that Bp. Fellay had ordered a silencing of distributive doctrine from within the SSPX. Maybe that’s why Fr. Peter Scott and Fr. Kenneth Novak (editor of The Angelus Magazine) were moved.
At any rate, if Bp. Fellay has thought it all rot in the past then he should now seriously consider the merits of the written dossiers presented to him. It stands to reason that the SSPX was always going to become a target for those with extreme views, I number sedevacantists amongst them. He has to be very vigilent in order that no perversion of Catholic doctrine creeps in.
This is the problem with the ITP and their distributist principles, they mix Catholic truths with revolutionary error and the poor faithful get led astray. It only takes one rotten apple, as they say.
Well thanks again, and let’s hope Mr. Fishwick, Roberto Fiori, Derek Holland and John Sharpe do a little reflecting on the doctrine they spread. I truly hope that God grants them the grace to re-route their energies into a more supernatural approach to the practice of the Catholic Faith. In the meantime, all traditional Catholics should avoid their distributive tenets as one would avoid the plague.
-
Isaac
I forgot to say that I would certainly like to have a copy of your letter to Bishop Fellay. Editor will supply you with my email address. If I publish it here, Lord knows what cranks might start filling my inbox!
-
Incidentally, I was not meaning the bloggers here when I referred to cranks filling my inbox. I meant some amongst those who watch but never comment.
-
Isaac, welcome to our humble blog and thank you for that first, very interesting, post.
I will certainly send you Athanasius’s email address as he instructs.
A renewed welcome, Isaac, and do, please keep blogging.
-
Athansius wrote, “This is the problem with the ITP and their distributist principles, they mix Catholic truths with revolutionary error and the poor faithful get led astray…”
That’s about the sum of it in my view. For my part I rather wish they would run a successful distributist commune somewhere (anywhere?): then they would be isolated and quarantined and the rest of us could move on to something else. So it goes.
-
Isaac
If enough traditional Catholic voices are raised against their errors, especially priestly ones, then we might just get our wish.
-
Anyone familiar with POG’s predictable debate tricks from other forums (he’s very prolific) knows that he uses the “calumny, lies, detraction…get thee to a confessional!” weapon against any Catholic who dares question his and his comrades’ revolutionary agenda. While it is not an intellectually respectable approach to discussion, two can play that game.
POG, you claim that the SSPX approves of your nonCatholic revolutionary views. Where’s the proof? Otherwise, stop with the lies and calumny! I am sure the SSPX has an actionable case against one who makes such malicious claims!
On the other hand, since leaving his position as District Superior of the US, Fr. Peter Scott, SSPX, has publicly denounced Distributism, John Sharpe, Derek Holland, and the ITP (or whatever name it morphed in to). For example, in November, 2007, he wrote the following answer to an inquiry regarding Distributism. He gave permission to have his answer made public:
Holy Cross Seminary
Fathers of the Society of Saint Pius XJ.M.J.
November 21, 2007Dear [Name expunged]:
I thank you for the e-mail message that you sent through [name expunged]. It was good to hear from you. Thank you also for the kind words about the Seminary newsletter.
I do indeed have some very firm opinions on the question of Distributism, that unfortunately not all our priests share. I see in it a grave danger of naturalism, a gross exaggeration of the good natural desire to return to the land, an application out of context of the writings of the Popes on Corporatism, an attempt to masquerade as Catholic Action what is really just an economic endeavor on the natural level.
We all agree that it is desireable to live on the land, and that the discripline and hard word that goes along with this, is good formation for children, and keeps all of our feet on the ground. We do precisely this here at Holy Cross Seminary. However, it is a denial of the relaity of modern economics and a silly dream to think that the majority of persons can return to the land for a living. It is also undesirable that traditional Catholics should isolate themselves from the rest of the community, is opposed to the true apostolic spirit, and is the opposite of Catholic Action, which has as its goal to penetrate society with the Church’s social principles.
Much more could be said. Suffice it to say for now that I did write a Question and Answer for the Angelus on the subject a couple of years ago, that has never been printed. It was very mild. I enclose a copy. I am also enclosing a copy of a 2002 article from Latin Mass Magazine by a John Clark, along with a follow up article. He touches on the principle issues, and although we may not necessarily agree with everything (he does not seem to admit the dangers of capitalism), he certainly does effectively refute the arguments of the Distributists.
This whole dispute erupted on account of the manipulation of a certain John Sharpe, of the ITP, along with Derek Holland. John Sharpe also opened a book publishing company in Virginia, entitled IHS. He is a dangerous man, since he presents his theories as being Catholic Action, when they are not. He was clearly condemned by Fr. Ringrose in 2001, and I banned his articles from the Angelus in my time. The dispute has been further advanced by propaganda in favor of Dorothy Day, Peter Maurin and the CWM centered in New York. Their whole spirit bordered on Socialism and was very dangerous, and so it is sad to hear of certain traditional Catholics recommending it as Catholic Action. If you are interested, I can look up further articles on that question.
The book that I strongly recommend for you to read is Catholic Action, by Father Stephen DeLallo, one of our own priests. It is available from Lepanto Press (Our Lady of Victory), and should be in the Immaculata Bookstore (I hope). It discusses these issues. However, Father DeLallo is presently revising it for a re-edition, with further clarification concerning Distributism.
Feel free to communicate this information to whomever you chose. Please be assured of my prayers fo you all and God bless.
Yours faithfully in Christ the King,
Father Peter R. Scott
-
Adrianne
Thank you so much for publishing this letter of Fr. Scott. It is crystal clear to the ITP people from this letter that the SSPX does not support its erroneous doctrines.
I wish to use this opportunity to express my heartfelt apology to Fr. Scott, whom I had previously associated with the supporters of these people. I truly regret that hasty and ill-founded inclusion of his name as one of their supporters.
Once again thank you, Adrianne, for giving us this valuable letter. May God bless you.
-
I am happy to make it available to you and to this forum, Athanasius. You have done an exemplary job of refuting Fishwick’s accusations and misstatements. It is not surprising that he tries to whitewash the ITPs nefarious activities since he was one of the early members (the Third Position being Distributism—against Capitalism and Communism). He teamed up with revolutionaries Roberto Fiore and Derek Holland to form the radical organization that has the overthrow of economic systems as one of its ten tenets:
“10. NATIONAL REVOLUTION WORLDWIDE.
It is because the Third Position seeks to build a New Social Order that it recognizes that all peoples and cultures, who adhere to the basic tenets of the Third Position, must work together closely in an air of mutual trust and support. Since the victory of a National Revolution in one part of the world is a victory for all Third Positionists, it follows that each affiliated member must be prepared to give moral, financial or technical assistance, where possible, should a revolutionary situation emerge in any given country. …”I encourage you to watch the following YouTube video that eerily describes the roots of what Fiore, Fishwick, and Holland falsely peddle as “Catholic Action” to unsuspecting Catholics worldwide. While there is certainly a need for spiritual discussions, a strong and vocal Church Militant is required to sound the alarm and educate fellow Catholics to the danger of Gnosticism masquarading as traditional Catholicism.
-
There is currently much interest in the Tuesday evening Holy Hours, and to whose intentions each of them should be devoted.
Could somebody enlighten me please on these two seemingly conflicting aspects: Should we obediently accept the will of God when illness strikes and let events take their course, or should we storm heaven with our prayers for a restoration to health? Ought we to accept what is happening to a loved one, or should we put up a fight?
I hope to be able to draw comfort from your answers.
Thank you and God bless.
-
I was tempted to post a new thread when I saw this link but since the POG Vs Athanasius Debate seems to be at an end (thanks to The Return of Adrianne and newcomer, Isaac) I’ll post it here instead.
http://www.christian.org.uk/news/20090806/glasgow-taxpayers-fund-transsexual-jesus-play/
-
tirocinium, welcome to our blog (not sure if you’ve been here before?)
Your question is an excellent one. There can be only one answer to it. In all things we must be resigned to the will of God in our lives.
All of our prayers for our gravely ill blogger were, at their foundation, a prayer for the grace and strength to accept God’s will.
It is, however, perfectly legitimate to beseech God to spare the life of a loved one. Our prayer is double-edged really; we beg God, if it is pleasing to Him to grant our wishes that our friend or relative be restored to good health, but always we acknowledge His wisdom, we know that He loves our friend/relative even more than we do, and so He knows what is ultimately best.
The key, tirocinium, is our readiness, no matter how hard it is, to accept that God knows best. Like a child within a family who badgers parents to get his own way but, in the end, acknowledges that he must accept the parental ruling. That is a simple analogy but it, I hope, helps to underline the fact that we must love and obey God whatever the outcome of our prayer, knowing that our prayer is answered, although perhaps not with the outcome we’d choose for ourselves.
No doubt other bloggers will offer more – and better – insights into the Catholic attitude to prayer/illness etc but this is the best I can do so early in the day!
A renewed welcome (though I can’t help thinking you’ve been here before,some time ago) and do, keep blogging.
-
Editor
I think you are spot on. It’s essential to keep in mind that God always answers our prayers. It’s maybe not always the answer we want, but He always provides the answer that we need.
I always think that prayers for healing are multi-dimensional – physical and spiritual. The healing provided could be the strength to recover or the strength to die a happy death – final perseverance. The healing could be provided for the family and friends of the sick person – that they become resigned to the will of God and be given the strength to accept the consequences.
I agree with the editor – this is a fantastic question. I hope my contribution helps.
-
tirocinium
I also think editor has answered this timely question very well. All I would add is this: The Gospels are packed with accounts of people with sick relatives and friends approaching Our Lord begging a miracle of physical recovery.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, as editor says. Nor is there anything wrong with taking every available medical step (within moral boundaries) to help our loved ones. As a saint once said, regarding all things in life, “If, having prayed and having exhausted every human means to remove a particular cross, you find yourself still with that cross, then you must accept it as the will of God.” So we can pray and we can take all human steps, but ultimately we resign ourselves to God’s will.
In cases of bereavement, such as my own family have suffered, there is a divine comfort imparted that cannot be understood or explained. It does not remove the pain of grief as such, but it mitigates that pain with hope. Our Lady, Mother of Sorrows, is particularly active in assisting those who grieve.
I truly pity those who lose loved ones but have no belief in God and thus no divine hope through the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. If they only understood the shortness of life, the length of eternity and the ressurection of the body promised by Our Lord.
-
Adrianne
Thank you for your kind words and support in this matter of the ITP. I thank Isaac also for his contribution. Together you have shown this organisation, in whatever form it takes, to be insidious to the Catholic Faith.
-
Luke 22:42 “Father, if thou wilt, remove this chalice from me: but yet not my will, but thine be done.”
Our Lord had two natures, human and Divine. His lower human nature was in turmoil at the trial He was about to undergo, and so He asked that the trial be removed. Yet He submitted his lower nature to the higher, and resigned Himself to undergoing the ordeal if it would work to God’s greater glory.
By making His request for deliverance conditional, our Lord set the example for us. We are flesh and blood, and we can and in fact should ask God to spare our weak flesh lest we fall into presumption or despair. At the same time we ask that if God still permits the trial in spite of our petition, He give us the wherewithal to endure it, including the grace of resignation — and even courage, if we have the mettle to be brave.
Ad majorem Dei gloriam.
-
A beautiful post, Isaac – very enlightening. And I take it your avatar is THE Isaac, in person?
Thanks for adding excellent insights, too, Athanasius and Petrus – I am sure that tirocinium has been helped by these posts.
-
tirocinium,
WOW! Editor, Petrus and Athanasius have given you some great advice.
When you speak of loved one, if that encompasses children, then I would articulate this:
As a mother, I can guarantee, that if any of my children ever became seriously ill, I could NEVER just pray “Thy will be done, Lord.” I would give my life for my children, for they are the greatest gift from God. And, I would literally be on my hands and knees BEGGING, CRYING, AND SCREAMING for divine intervention!
I think as a parent, this is completely normal human behavior. God, who loves us more than we love our own children, and Mary, who is the model Mother, surely would understand such a desolate situation.
-
@editor: Thank you. And yes, I broke with protocol and put a thumbnail of myself. The photo was taken last October at Sainte Chapelle in Paris.
@Miles Christi Sum: You’re spot on. We try end our prayer with “Thy will be done;” it’s rare to begin that way. And you’re right that Our Lady of Sorrows understands our desolation.
-
A warm welcome aboard, Isaac!
I’m delighted that you are blogging with us!
-
Thank you all for those very comforting responses. I am prepared to accept God’s will in terms of what becomes of my wife but I didn’t want to give her up just yet without a fight.
A new avenue of help opened up this morning and we must now explore it.
Thank you again and God bless you.
-
tirocinium
Why don’t you post a request for rosaries on the ‘Please pray for’ thread. I’m sure many would be happy to offer prayers for your wife. I certainly would.
-
Me too!
-
Could I make a wee suggestion here to all bloggers? It is that we refrain from using the ‘+’ sign as a replacement for the titles of bishops and archbishops of the Church, whether they be modernist or SSPX.
I do not think there is anything to be gained from depriving prelates, of whatever persuasion, of their valid and due titles. My belief is that writing +Lefebvre, +Conti etc., is displeasing to Our Lord because it shows disrespect to the sacred office held by the person.
I know we all get angry with the mess in the Church under modernist prelates, and that modernists act likewise from anger against those who defend tradtion, but that cannot surely pass as an excuse for disrespect. Just thought I’d make the suggestion.
-
I love this account:
http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Calendar/08-13.html
-
Athanasius
I don’t think that this is showing disrespect. The bishops themselves sign their names +Joseph, +Keith, etc.
Your moderatedly
Wiggy
-
Wiggy
Traditionally, the bishops always signed their names thus, but it was never the custom for inferiors to refer to them in this way.
I think this is just typical of the times in which we live, that priests and prelates of the Church are addressed either by first name, as in the case of the ordinary clergy, or +surname, in the case of bishops. It undermines the respect due not so much to the individual as to the sacred office he holds.
-
Athanasius, I really do not think it is at all disrespectful to use the episcopal sign instead of the title ‘Bishop’, ‘Archbishop’ or ‘Cardinal’ in written debate when the obvious intention is merely to cut down on unnecessary repetition. I have done it myself and, believe me, if the bishops had half the respect for their office that I do, we wouldn’t be in this crisis.
Let’s not start a massive discussion about another very secondary matter. It is NOT a secondary matter to disrespect the the priesthood and episcopal office. That is very seriously wrong. But it is OTT to read disrespect into using a perfectly legitimate abbreviation. A bit like saying we shouldn’t use “Dr” in case it offends the medics. Let’s not add unnecessary rules and regulations, let’s not make it up as we go along. All of the above, of course, I say (how can I put it…) with respect, Ath!
As I say, if + Keith Patrick O’Brien and his brother bishops had half the respect for their episcopal office that I have, there would be no crisis in the Church.
-
editor
I merely made a suggestion in a matter that is quite important to me. I’ll tell you what, I’ll give them their titles and everyone else can use what they think appropriate (respectfully of course!)
I just detest the downgrading (albeit subtle) of the protocols once demanded in a more Christian era. I accept that neither you nor anyone else intends any disrespect (I’m certain of that), but this modern adaptation doesn’t sit well with my conscience and so I’ll stick with the old way of addressing prelates. We shall agree to disagree.
-
I side with Athanasius on this one. We shall soon be at the time for Xmas cards. Point made?
Abbreviations are all very well in the short term. -
Athanasius, that is EXACTLY right – you do what your conscience dictates and I’ll be the resident liberal on this one!
Leprechaun love your joke (“short term) but using the + to designate bishops is not comparable to using the abbreviation “Xmas.” Not an appropriate analogy. “Xmas” takes the “Christ” out of Christmas. The little + IS the episcopal sign.
-
Athanasius,
It was I who started this shorthand style in using + many months ago. We discussed it then and as the editor states, it was generally thought not to be disrespectful. Quite frankly when one looks at some of the comments made about our prelates this must rate as far, far, more respectful, warranted or not.
However in the spirit of collegiality and being the resident an all round “modernist” here (what that has to do with the discussion is moot, but I thought I’d throw it in), I shall wherever possible return to the full title or, if permitted, and in addition use another nomenclature such as H.E.
-
I’m with Athanasius et al on this one.
-
Listen, to save building up a million posts saying “I’m with Athanasius”, “I’m for Apollo” etc. would you just all do whatever you choose? Write the full title, write an abbreviation, write the episcopal sign + and if you feel any disrespect for the office of the priesthood, or for the episcopal office, confess it with the rest of your sins, next time you go to the Sacrament of Penance.
Just – please – don’t waste any more space on this. The Q & A thread reaches its 500 limit in no time. Move on, folks.
-
Apollo, editor? Where on earth did that come from? Mind you, I quite like being equated with apollo!!! Yes, ok, we’ll move on.
-
Athanasius
I take your point about the bishops. It’s just that when they send me Christmas (not Xmas!) cards at Yuletide, that is how they sign them: +Keith, +Mario, etc.
Yours respectfully
Wiggy
-
Athanasius, what are you LIKE? Have you forgotten 1 Corinthians 3:4 ” Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I am of Cephas; and I of Christ. … “
I was digging at dear, sweet (as Torkay would say) semper (infidels), sowing seeds of division – see her last post, above which may well be her last post (here) below if she doesn’t get with the (editor’s) programme.
Benedict, if I had know that the episcopal sign was invented by you, I’d have promoted you a long time ago. Actually, I don’t think I use it that often but – hey, what am I doing, breaking the rules again. Moving on…
Isaac, I forgot to say that I think it is a great idea to post a small photo of yourself as your avatar. I did the same…
Oooooooh! Cathedralman – hark at youoooooooo! Christmas cards from the bishops, is it? WOW! Put in a word for me, won’t you? What I couldn’t do with a Christmas card from a bishop!
-
Editor
I’ll take my Episcopal Christmas cards along to the conference to show you them. It’s quite a collection. You’ll be soooo jealous!
Yours proudly
Wiggy
-
Editor
Even I recognised your reference to Corinthians. Ath, get to the bottom of the class!
Yours smugly
Wiggy
-
Cat-hed-ral-man
Yes, they always sign like that because it’s their prerogative as bishops. Underlings like us, though, always addressed them with a title as befits their status. Now I had better shut up or +editor will be down on me with an excommunication from the blog. You see how she has already threatened to excommunicate poor semperfidelis?
I see another great Western Schism arising over this with my degreeless self pontificating from one side and she who must be obeyed from the other. Only joking now, +editor, only joking!
++++Ath
-
Athanasius
I agree that the editor is getting above her station. How dare she threaten poor semper? She has obviously forgotten he working class roots, and is getting above herself. She’ll be banning people next!
Moi, agreeing with Ath? Pass the smelling salts!
Yours astoundedly
- Wiggy
-
Athanasius,
Mindful that Madame Editor wants to see an end of this issue, perhaps you could derive some quiet satisfaction, and at the same time satisfy her wishes, by referring to +Whatsizname until he gets his role straightened out?
Anyway, the 500 limit on the Q&A thread is demonstrably insufficient in the circumstances. You cannot have too much of a good thing – or is that Gluttony?
-
Note to technophiles:
Italicization only works on alpha characters and not on “+” signs as I have just demonstrated. Think about it.
-
leprechaun
I don’t know who this fella ‘Gluttony’ is, but I agree entirely with everything you say.
By the way, the tax man is always telling me that I cannot have too much of a good thing. In fact, he tells me that I cannot have even a wee taste of the good things. Hence, I live life with champaign tastes and lemonade money!
-
Just wondering: if bishops get a “+,” then shouldn’t the laity get a “-”?
Yours,
-Tomas -
Editor,
It is the + you have to bear without being – about it. + is = to the ∑ of both parts, respect or disrespect, without being / (divisive) to anyone but to + to your problems ony makes them > so let’s make < of it & say no more.
I'll better sign off now.
-
Editor, it might now be open season for grouse but it’s not for me! Oh, the power of being high heidion of a blog…..
+ or – sempy.
-
Trokay
I’m sorry to say, but I beat you to the “-” idea, but as I’m still on the naughty step for my previous convictions, my wit and repartee did not come through when it should have done.
Shame, isn’t it?
But as they say, “Great minds think alike”.
Yours in the holding cell
—Wiggy
-
…and following the logic of + or -, perhaps prelates who are known members of the Lavender Mafia should get a “~”…
OK, back to business. The shadow of the rolling pin has just fallen over my sunny disposition.
-
Good banter, folks, I like it! Very witty, Torkay!
-
Athanasius, you’d have had a better chance of getting away with your cheek if you’d addressed me as “dear sweet +editor”
If you’re going to crawl, craaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawl properly!
Yours on the Cathedralman Christmas Card List… (well, Wiggy, it’s the best I can do after a hectic day out in the pouring rain!)
By the way, you should be feeling VERY pleased with yourself, Cathedralman – your posts go into moderation – Benedict’s + = – post above went into the SP*M box! Talk about oneupmanship! Takes social climbing to a whole new level!
-
Wigster
I cede the “-” to you, > or <, as Molto Benedict might say. As you can see, the benefits of behaving oneself on this blog are quite tangible. As are the consequences of misbehaving. Uh-oh, is that a trumpet I hear?
-
I was reading the Catholic Herald this afternoon and Fr Tim Finegan has a column. He was writing about whether it is right not to go to Communion every now and then to show reverence. He said not to do that, and the column was quite good except he then said if you miss Mass for several weeks, you should go to confession before communicating again.
I thought it was a mortal sin to deliberately miss Mass even once?
-
rebel, it sure is a mortal sin to deliberately miss Mass even once. See Catechism of the Catholic Church, para 2042, which refers both to Sundays and holydays of obligation plus paragraph 2181 “Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin”
I’m kind of surprised that Fr Finegan would play down this obligation, he having an “orthodox” if not quite “traditional” following. It may be a slip of the keyboard, but it is this sort of drip drip effect that has weakened the Faith in so many souls. Very disappointing.
-
rebel
Is there a link to that article? I’m surprised that Fr Finegan made such an egregious slip, since he is always touted as being big buds with Father Z – i.e. pillars of orthodoxy.
-
Torkay, I’ve had a quick look at the Catholic Herald online but can’t see any article by Father Tim Finegan. I then checked their letters page but that doesn’t seem to have been updated this week. Still showing last week’s letters.
I must confess to getting the hard copy Catholic Herald but didn’t know Fr Finegan had a column, so I will take a look, tomorrow now, to see precisely what he said.
Torkay, were you impressed with my “it sure is (a mortal sin)”? Do you see how I am very gradually acquiring an American accent? My vocab is now extending outwards from the initial “WOW” to “it sure is”…
I’m SO excited! Can’t wait to ditch my Glasgow accent completely! You can see the logic can’t you (Cathedralman sure will…) I won’t have to keep finding out the current population of Glasgow if folk think I’m American. My cunning plan will work, you’ll see…
-
WHO ARE WE GOING TO TRUST- THE CONCILIAR MODERNISTS , OR THE TRADITIONALISTS — I CONCUR WITH ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE’S ASSERTION THAT THE NEW MASS CANNOT BE THE OBJECT OF AN OBLIGATION.
May I assist at a sacrilegious Mass which is nevertheless valid, in the absence of any other, in order to satisfy my Sunday obligation?
The answer is simple: these Masses cannot be the object of an obligation; we must moreover apply to them the rules of moral theology and canon law as regards the participation or the attendance at an action which endangers the faith or may be sacrilegious.
The New Mass, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, is subject to the same reservations since it is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith.
I owe it to truth to say and affirm without fear of error that the Mass codified by St. Pius V–and not invented by him, as some often say–express clearly these three realities: sacrifice, Real Presence, and the priesthood of the clergy. It takes into account also, as the Council of Trent has pointed out, the nature of mankind which needs outside help to raise itself to meditation upon divine things. The established customs have not been made at random, they cannot be overthrown or abruptly abolished with impunity. How many of the faithful, how many young priests, how many bishops, have lost the faith since the introduction of these reforms! One cannot thwart nature and faith without their taking their revenge.
— His Grace, Archbishop Lefebvre, An Open Letter to Confused Catholics.
-
From the above post, I do not believe that it is a mortal sin to miss the Novus Ordo Missae!
-
Miles Christi Sum
That is a post to be treasured! I’m tempted to ask how can anyone be faithful to a liturgy which destroys their faith – but I’m sure Benedict and the Wigster would jump all over that conundrum as the essence of schism.
But wouldn’t it be like taking a daily vitamin that you didn’t know was laced with arsenic, thinking you were doing something good for your health?
Editor
A word of advice before you start parading your American accent around: in my humble opinion, the most distinguished American accent is the New York accent. So, youse is gonna haveta start tawkin’ like dis, see? Just think Edward G. Robinson + Bugs Bunny.
Meanwhile, I’d be happy to start an accent exchange program with you, so I can start sounding like a Glaswegian. Should I practice with YouTube videos of Rab Nesbitt?
-
Miles Christi Sum, I take your point. However, my point (and I presume rebel’s) was merely that the CCC continues to teach that it is a mortal sin to miss Sunday Mass – I made no reference to NO Mass. Clearly, if one believes it is offensive to God to attend a NO Mass, then one must obey one’s conscience. Absolutely. That doesn’t change the objective teaching of the Church which is what Fr Finegan should be repeating, not making it up as he goes along.
I hope this clarifies my meaning.
-
Torkay,
Exactly! Most of those who attend the NO are oblivious to the poison existing beyond the candy coating. A wise priest once said ” If we don’t research the history of our faith, we will all become traitors.”
Editor,
Thank you! It does clarify your meaning.
If I were a priest (that can never happen), I would state that it is a mortal sin to miss Mass and then I would give the distinctions between the TLM and the NOM.
I would then explain that not attending Mass can only be a mortal sin if one does not have a good reason. Further, If the Church does not offer a TLM where we reside, then that is a very good reason to not attend Sunday Mass.
-
The sin is in the knowledge. If those who don’t know how dangerous the NO Mass is deliberately miss it without good reason, then they are guilty of mortal sin because they wilfully missed Mass.
If those who know the danger of the NO Mass, however, miss it deliberately for reasons of protecting their Faith, then it is not a mortal sin. Those who do miss the NO for the right reasons are obliged to seek out a TLM Mass if at all possible. If these Masses are not available to the faithful, then the responsibility falls on the bishops. They have now had sufficient time to make arrangements in accordance with Summorum Pontificum.
-
That makes sense to me, Athanasius.
Does anyone agree with this article? It states that it can be an objective mortal sin to assist at the Novus Ordo, if one is aware of the dangers.
From the Angelus , September 2002
-
Tam,
MCS is entitled to hold any view he wishes, be they heretical or otherwise, because that is what they are – his views. The FACT is that the NO is valid and licit. The FACT is that it is still an obligation to attend Sunday Mass irrespective whether it is EF or NO and a mortal sin is incurred to purposely miss either form of the Roman Rite Mass on a Sunday.
-
Benedict– my darling,
If you had been paying attention, you would have discovered by now, that I am a she, not a he!
Secondly, I was only concuring with Archbishop Lefebvre. I presume that you think he is heretical also.
Is validity your only prerequisite for attending a Mass? If so, why not attend a Black Mass? A valid Mass can still very well be sacreligious.
-
Miles Christi Sum
Agreed! Benedict presumes two things: first, that the NO Mass is validly celebrated, at least most of the time, and secondly, that the NO Mass is licit.
In answer to his first presumption, it is becoming less and less certain as to how many of these NO Masses are actually valid. The more time passes, the less the grasp amongst priests of the Church’s three requirements for validity, namely, matter form and intention.
We need only guage the explanation offered by many priests concerning the nature of the Mass to understand how critical the situation has become. The sacrificial nature of the Mass has now gone completely from their understanding. It is now merely the celebratory aspect they speak of, just like the Protestants.
So, do the greater majority of priests approach the altar today (or table in this case) believing that the Church intends them to offer the sacrifice of Christ using a correct formula of matter, form and intention, or do they believe that they approach to celebrate a spiritual meal? It’s a good question and one which can be answered fairly easily merely by what goes on in the average parish church at the NO Mass.
As for Benedict’s second presumption, e.g., that the NO Mass is licit. He can never justify this claim on the basis that if the Pope says it’s licit, then it’s licit. Licitness, or absence thereof, neither validates nor invalidates the rite by itself, and so the indefectibility of the Church is not affected.
Licitness is a matter of Canon Law and Canon Law is based on traditional teaching and practice, which the NO Mass has no generational link with. The NO, no matter how they try to dress it up and present it, is a fabricated liturgy, a complete break, words of concecration excepted, with the centuries old liturgy of the Church.
Now, unless we accept that a Pope, or series of Popes, is given the power from God to dismiss the centuries old liturgy of the Church and insist on a hastily-fabricated replacement that suits their ecumenical slant on the Faith, even in the face of Protestant involvement in its construction and the subsequent damage this has caused these past forty years to the priesthood in particular, and the Faith in general, then we must conclude that the NO Mass is illicit.
For those of us who accept that Popes are not impeccable, a little more proof than just blind obedience to the Pope is required to show that the NO Mass is licit in the eyes of God.
It is not given even to Popes to invent new doctrine. Theirs is the duty to preserve that which has been handed down, not to subvert it in line with their own inclinations.
Where is the generational link between the New and Old Masses? Let all who claim licitness for the NO put the facts for the defence before us. Blind obedience is no kind of argument, unless we Catholics are slaves to the whims of Popes instead of free children of the Church.
-
Athanasius,
Very good! Thanks!
Benedict,
From the “Mass of All Times” , By Archbishop Lefebvre
1. If the New Mass is valid, may one participate in it?
Answer from the future Saint, Archbishop Lefebvre —Let us be rid once and for all of this absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid we should attend it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to attend the Masses of schismatics and heretics even if they are valid. Even if the Mass is valid, even if it is not sacrilegious, and even if it is said in Latin, it was reformed to Protestant ecumenical principles. It gradually protestantizes Catholics. It has lost its mystical and supernatural, its royal and hierarchical, character. It no longer has its dogmatic character, which was expressive of our Catholic faith. The only attitude of fidelity to the Church and Catholic doctrine for our salvation, is a categorical refusal to accept this reformation.
-
“The Mass of All times” – The last words of the Archbishop
-
Dear Catholic Truth bloggers,
I am a Catholic convert who is fairly new to Tradition. There are a couple of questions I have regarding the sacraments, and I am wondering if you all could advise me.
I live in an area where only a Novus Ordo parish is available. Even if I could travel for several hours (which I cannot, due to illness,) I still have absolutely no access to the Traditional Mass. I cannot move to a Mass location, because as a disabled lady, I live with my (non-traditional) family and am dependent on them. My questions are these:
1.) Under these circumstances, should I be “holding my nose” and attending my local NO mass? Or should I absolutely stay away, even though it means no Holy Communion for the foreseeable future?
2.) What about going to confession? I only have access to NO priests, and the updated “sacrament of reconciliation”. Should I make my confession to these priests, or must I make an act of perfect cotrition and wait for access to a traditional priest? ( knowing that there is a possibility that I may never meet such a priest in my lifetime, unless Our Lady obtains such a grace for me…)
Please help… I am very isolated here, and need good advice from Catholics who are committed to Tradition. I have been reading a few of the threads on this site, and you all seem to be just the type of good Catholics I’ve been looking for. Thanks!
-
After reviewing the posts in this thread just before mine, I think I may already have the answer to question #1! But I would be grateful for any advice regarding both questions anyway…
-
Maria Theresa, welcome to our blog and thank you for your excellent questions.
The first thing I would do, to satisfy my conscience that I have made all possible efforts, is to ask my priest if he would offer the TLM in light of the Pope’s Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum.
I must begin by stressing that I would never take it upon myself to advise anyone not to attend the NO Mass. Knowing its history and so on, I attend it only when it is unavoidable and I receive Communion only if I am permitted to kneel with support (e.g. front pew) and receive on the tongue. Otherwise, I would abstain.
The key thing is your own conscience: e.g. I know people who attend the TLM but will still attend the NO if they cannot get to the TLM for any reason. I know others who cannot, in conscience, participate in a NO under any circumstances (except for funerals and weddings and even then, would not receive Communion).
Some people (and I remember one of the SSPX priests here saying this was his own position for a time) take their missal along to the NO and try to follow it, while others pray the rosary to get through it.
The key about conscience is that it must dictate before you are required to obey. If your conscience is uneasy but you are not sure what is right or wrong, you are free to do as you think fit. If your conscience tells you “God will be offended if I do this or that” then you must obey it. That is really the function of conscience – to ensure that we do not offend God. Once you are clear in your mind that God will be offended if YOU attend the NO Mass (which is subtly different from whether the NO Mass itself, objectively, offends Him – which, I believe it must, being such a grave departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass) then you would, indeed, desist from attending.
That is the best I can say at the moment about the Mass.
Confession is a different matter. The new rite of Confession (subject of a column in our forthcoming September edition, you’ll be interested to know) contains the key words of absolution that make the Sacrament effective, so you can confess to any diocesan priest – that is not a problem. You’ll find that they may tell you that you’ve not committed any sins and that you’ve nothing to worry about, you’re really a saint… so listen not to such advice but be assured that you will have been absolved, as long as you hear those key words “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost/Spirit”.
A renewed welcome, Maria Theresa – keep blogging!
-
Editor,
That is great advice!
Maria Theresa,
Welcome! What a BEAUTIFUL Catholic name you have! I agree with Editor. Each circumstance is unique and we must each act as we deem necessary for our own individual salvation. I empathize with your desolate situation!
Another solution would be to contact an SSPX priest by phone and ask his advice. I also reside many hours away from a TLM. I interact by phone and mail with a wonderful SSPX priest. His advice has been valuable beyond estimation.
-
Maria Theresa,
I just noticed your beautiful avatar. Is it Our Lady of Mt. Carmel?
-
I’m sitting here listening to a Carmelite retreat talk, the subject being, at this point on the recording, evil. Here’s my question:
Man has a fallen nature, having been deceived by the wiles of the devil, but God has a plan of redemption through which man might overcome his fall.
If Lucifer and his angels are also fallen, why didn’t God also have a plan of redemption for them?
-
Torkay
The simple answer to your question is that the angels, unlike men, were created pure spirits with intelligence far in excess of ours. An angel can sum up a situation instantly, such is his intellect, so that when he makes a decision, the Church teaches, he cannot change it. His decision is fixed.
Because the angels were created with a far greater intellect and virtue than us, they could/can see more clearly the designs of God. Hence, they have no fallen human nature or dullness of intellect to blame for their disobedience. Lucifer was the highest, brightest angel in heaven. So gifted was he that pride took root in him and he believed himself to be greater than God, His creator.
It is said that when the angels were first created by God, they were not granted immediately to see Him. They first had to pass a test, which was the revelation to their intellect that God would take the form of a mere man from a woman, a virgin, in order to redeem mankind.
Lucifer, in his pride, refused to accept that he would have to bow down before a mere mortal, the Blessed Virgin, and from this arose his rebellious “non serviam” (I will not serve). He convinced a good many other angels to join with him in this revolt against God and a battle ensued in heaven, the result of which was Lucifer and his followers being cast out of paradise by St. Michael and the loyal angels. The name ‘Michael’ means ‘who is like unto God.’
At any rate, Lucifer and his legions failed the test and were banished to eternal damnation. They simply could not reverse their decision because the decision of an angel is fixed immediately and is irreversible.
It is said that the saints fill the places vacated by the fallen angels. God created so many angels that they are without number. Even the fallen angels are beyond counting. Hope this helps.
-
Maria Theresa
You ask some very interesting questions which I believe Miles Christi Sum and editor have answered fairly well.
I really sympathise with your situation. It is quite disgraceful that souls are left abandoned by the Church because of bad bishops who refuse to cater for the needs of their souls.
I would say, like editor, that if your conscience truly troubles you about missing Mass, then go along to the NO and say your rosary. Some NO priests are more orthodox than others, so it really depends on your parish priest as to whether or not you will be permitted to receive holy communion kneeling and on the tongue. I would never receive standing and in the hand. If he refuses you, then just offer a spiritual communion.
This spiritual communion, before Our Lord, will count as a communion of martyrdom much more precious in His sight than so many indifferent sacramental communions. So there’s much merit to be won here from your suffering.
Personally, I wouldn’t go near a NO Mass other than for reasons of respect at funerals, weddings, etc., and even then I would never participate in it. I do accept, though, that the consciences of others may not permit them to miss Mass under any circumstances, so the rule I would follow is go and offer a rosary.
You will probably be aware of the true story of a village in Japan that was deprived of a priest for either 100 or 200 years, and yet all kept the Faith by reciting daily the holy rosary. This gives hope to people isolated from the true Mass today.
As regards confession, again editor is correct. As long as the priest offers the words of absolution, then you may be assured that your sins are forgiven sacramentally. Just be careful about the spiritual advice, or lack thereof, of the priest who hears your confession.
May I ask what country you live in? If it’s Scotland, then maybe something can be arranged with the SSPX which has just opened a new priory here. Anyway, we are all here to support you in your dilemma and you may be assured of our prayers for you. We may laso be able to help by putting you in touch, at least through email or by phone, with a traditional priest. He can certainly advise and support you in this difficult situation.
In the meantime, thanks for coming here and raising these issues. Please keep blogging with us.
-
Thanks Ath – that is very helpful!
-
Athanasius,
Your reply to Maria was very POWERFUL for all of us who unfortunately don’t have access to a weekly TLM. — Thanks!
I echo your sentiments- I too, won’t go near a NO except for special occasions.
-
Could someone explain to me why the various schemas discussed at the Second Vatican Council found such widespread support?
It seems that from a simple piece of kite-flying by an almost unknown African bishop, to the effect that he could win many converts to the Church if only the liturgy could be in the vernacular, there arose overwhelming support leading many other “chancers” to climb aboard the bandwagon. The result was that the wish for change spread to many other aspects of Church conduct, with the ultimate result that we see today.
But why and how?
What led to the undercurrent of dissatisfaction whose lid suddenly blew off? Where was the weight of Tradition that should have snuffed out these Modernist ideas, this urge for reform and for the casting out of all that had been held sacrosanct for two thousand years? How did it come to pass that there was a rebellion on such a wide scale?
How was the belief that the Catholic Church was the only Church overthrown in favour of the idea that all followers of Christ have the same chance of eternal life as do baptised Catholics? Whence came this support for false ecumenism, and for all the other factors which have so seriously wounded the Church Our Lord founded?
-
tirocinium
The simple answer to your question is that an African bishop just didn’t appear flying his kyte on liturgical change. It was a well organised business. The African bishop would have been part of a liberal group of “experts” (periti) who would have had a prior discussion about what was to be introduced and who was to introduce it.
These experts represented a good many senior prelates and so they were able to convince them of the logic of what they were doing. In addition to this, there were many prelates at the Council who were long imbued with the errors of modernism but had kept their heads down until a Pope came to the seat of Peter who shared their error.
One such person, for example, was Fr. Augustine Bea, later Cardinal and Superior General of the Jesuits. He had been Pius XII Confessor and had always shown himself to be orthodox during the reign of that Pope. When Pius died, however, he swung the opposite way and showed his true clours as a modernist.
My advice to you is to buy the book ‘The rhine flows into the Tiber,’ by Fr. Ralph Wiltgen. It is the most revealing book I’ve ever read about how the enemies of tradition operated during the Council. It will answer all your questions.
-
Here’s a wonderful interview linked on The Remnant’s site, with Mons. Domenico Bartolucci on the liturgical reforms and the reform of the reform:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/08/bombshell-of-interview-mons-domenico.html
-
tirocinium
Vatican II and the current crisis:
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/index.htm
-
Athanasius,
Thank you for your prompt response. I am in fact reading “The Rhine Flows into the Tiber” having seen it recommended on the blog earlier, and have just come to the end of the description of Part I. It is what I have read so far that prompted me to pose my question, as the impression I was left with at this point is that there was widespread pressure for reform that was just awaiting a catalyst to make it explode. It was the absence of a “put-down” on the part of the Traditionalists that bothered me.
However, I will read further, and perhaps all will become clear later.Miles Christi Sum,
Thank you very much for the link you have just posted. I have viewed the video “What we have lost . . .” and was quite amazed at how bad things have got in America. I cannot say the same is true in the UK to the same extent (apparently not at all in Liverpool. if Naomi is reading this), and I shall explore the remainder of the content of that site as time allows – I commend it to all bloggers here as definitely meriting a visit and close perusal.
And now back to the reading . . .
-
The Empire Strikes Back:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/08/archd-of-westminster-checks-the-bitter-pill/
-
Thank-you for the sound advice, everyone; you have helped me greatly.
BTW, Athanasius, I live in Western Canada.
-
Editor
I notice Londiniensis makes regular posts on Father Z – has he indicated why he never returned to this blog? Does he prefer posting to probing discussion?
-
Can I ask if any bloggers have read Joseph Ratzinger’s “The Spirit of the Liturgy”? I read a review of it and it says it’s an excellent piece. Any thoughts?
-
Torkay
Londiniensis posts on a number of blogs. He came here for a while until he discovered that he was not going to convince us to become compromise Catholics.
At least the man had the decency to leave rather than keep coming back to agitate. This tells me that, wrong as he was in his opinions, he was genuinely convinced of them and was not merely coming here to cause trouble.
-
Petrus
I haven’t read anything on ‘The Spirit of the Liturgy.’ Could you send me a link to that review?
-
Torkay and Athanasius – I had completely forgotten about Londiniensis. My memory is getting worse by the minute. Honestly, if the Pope blogged here for a month and then disappeared, I wouldn’t notice!!
-
Athanasius
Will send the review to you.
I’ve got another question. What is the Church teaching on the souls of aborted/stillborn babies? Following on from that, what are we to make of Limbo?
-
When I read the following article, my first thought was “Why is it always Anglicans who make these kinds of statements? Where are the Catholic Bishops? Are they SO terrified of controversy?”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6104407/Bishop-of-Rochester-Church-of-England-must-do-more-to-counter-twin-threats-of-secularism-and-radical-Islam.html -
Petrus, the subject of Limbo/ miscarriages etc., was dealt with very thoroughly on a previous thread but I don’t know which one. I got great consolation from it at the time as I had a miscarraige. There must be a way of searching the blog for any previous thread but I don’t know how to to it!
-
Ed, I wish Dr Nazir-Ali would convert to Catholicism. We could use him.
-
Am I not right in thinking that Pope Benedict XVI made a pronouncement recently regarding ‘limbo’, and said that it does not, did not and could not exist?
-
pacelli, what do you think about the Pope’s desire to see belief in Limbo “dropped”? Does it make theological sense to you?
-
pacelli
Limbo remains a greatly contested doctrine in the Church. There has never been an official declaration binding on the Church from one camp or the other.
Pope Benedict XVI is merely the latest to declare his private opinion in the matter of Limbo, as have many Popes before him. While his views are shared by other theologians in the Vatican, this latest announcement nevertheless amounts to little more than personal opinion on a subject which is not fixed in certainty either way.
The early fathers of the Church unanimously believed that children who died without baptism would go straight to heaven by the mercy and merits of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Then came St. Augustine who argued that without formal baptism these infants would go to hell, where they would suffer the ‘pain of loss,’ e.g., they would be denied the beatific vision. Jansenists and Puritans were later to take up this same belief.
It casts no bad light on St. Augustine that he believed this, since he, like all the saintly theologians, was not infallible and he was entitled to draw conclusions from what was, and remains, an open question of doctrine.
This is what we see also in St. Thomas Aquinas, who came down against belief in the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady. Clearly St. Thomas was wrong and the Church went on to define this truth as a dogma of Faith, which he would have been the first to accept, but the question was then open and up for discussion and St. Thomas came to the wrong conclusion.
Anyway, St. Thomas Aquinas opposed the conclusion of St. Augustine on Limbo. He argued that Limbo must exist as a place of natural happiness for those infants who, through no fault of their own, died in original sin.
He based this, quite rightly, on a distinction between original sin and actual sin. St. Augustine had argued that since the original sin had not been wiped away with baptism, infants would suffer only the pain of loss in hell and not the pain sense for sins wilfully committed, since there clearly were none.
Contrary to this, St. Thomas claimed that since the pain of loss is the worst of the pains in hell (because it is supernatural), then neither would God inflict this on infants who had no control over their inheritance of a supernatural stain of sin and who died without any hope of being justified from it. He pointed to Our Lord’s special love for children in the Gospels, considered the absence of actual sin, and concluded that it was impossible that God could send these souls to the hell of the damned. This having been said, St. Thomas also concluded that since it is impossible for sin to enter heaven in any form, then God must have made provision for these unbaptised souls elsewhere.
And so just as Limbus Patrum (Li
500 comments