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 (3) thread to read previous questions and comments
Visit the Q & A (2) thread to read previous questions and comments
Visit the Q & A (1) thread to read the questions and comments there
Visit the earlier Miscellaneous thread
Visit the original Any Questions thread
Click here to make a prayer request
Click here for updates on Miss McMoneypenny – Betty’s - progress
********************************************************************
-
Hello everyone, I am looking for an explanation on the story of the miraculous catch of fish in St. Luke, ch. 5 verses 1 to 11. Many thanks and much appreciated!
God Bless
-
Gemma
Here’s the explanation you asked for.
When reading this Gospel passage, you’ll notice that St. Peter and his fellow fishermen had been out in their boats all night and caught nothing. Note also that there were TWO ships.
Our Lord then comes onto the scene and tells St. Peter to take his ship out again for a draught. Peter, even though he had laboured all night for nothing, obeys Our Lord’s request without question. The result is miraculous.
Now Peter’s ship is the Catholic Church and the miraculous catch of fish are all the souls that will enter into the Church and be saved.
The second ship is more of a mystery. It could represent both the Eastern and Western Catholic rites of the Church working together under Peter, or it could represent the eventual conversion of the Jewish people to Catholicism, long prophesied to happen towards the end of the world, or it could be symbolic of both.
Anyway, the point is that the Catholic Church is clearly portrayed in this Gospel story through the miraculous catch of fish. I hope this helps.
-
I would like to know what other bloggers think of this recent speech of Archbishop Nichols (link below). To me it contains a number of serious errors, not to mention much utter modernist garbage that leaves one wondering what His Grace is actually talking about. Vital imminence and a strong hint of inconoclasm were just two of the errors I picked up on.
But here’s the really worrying statement:
“God is not of any of the finite things of creation. The otherness of God lies in the fact that we cannot identify, contain, and possess God in any way.”
Is this a thrice-denial of 1. The Incarnation. 2. Grace. 3. Our Lord’s real presence in the Blessed Sacrament?
Hmm! It’s a typically Post-Conciliar – ‘clear as mud’ – statement that will require a debate as to whether or not we are to understand his words in the context of this new phenomenon called the “hermeneutic of continuity.”
Dear God, how I long for the Catholic prelates of old who taught the Faith and taught it unambiguously!
-
I have just noticed this story in the Newsflash section.
“HINSDALE, Illinois, October 23, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Dominican nun has been seen frequenting an abortion facility in Illinois recently – but not, as one might expect, to pray for an end to abortion or to counsel women seeking abortions, but to volunteer as a clinic escort.”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/oct/09102302.html
I am lost for words (doesn’t happen often).
-
Benet, that story has been on our newsflash since this morning.
http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/newsflash(1).html
If people would get into the habit of coming to the blog via the website, to check the homepage and newsflash, we could avoid all the duplication that goes on here. I am also lost for words (happens a lot)…
Sigh.
-
editor
Don’t be too harsh on Benet, he meant well. Besides, I don’t check out the newsflash or web site every time I come on to the blog, it’s unreasonable to expect that. Grumpy editor!
Ssssssssssigh.
-
Athanasius
These grumpy moods are why we should have a male editor!!!!
-
What’s unreasonable about asking you all to come to the blog via the website? I do. It seems obvious to me and I have lost count of the times some bright spark has posted a link that’s been on our newsflash for two days! OK, not so much a newsflash as part of the furniture, but you know what I mean. Also, if you don’t go via the website, you miss out on older threads being reopened because I often link back to them via the homepage article and/or newsflash. And you ought to be voting in the polls at every opportunity. For Heaven’s sake… anybody know where I can buy a book on brainwashing? Although I wonder if I really need one… What DID God give you men instead of brains?
I never go straight to the blog – ever. Get with the programme, guys. Notice, I never have this bother with the female bloggers. There’s a message in there somewhere. Take the hint, guys.
Petrus, if you think this is me being grumpy, well, how can I put it?
You ain’t seen nothing yet!
-
Editor,
Took your advice (nay, command/edict) and looked into the the complete website and noticed the following in the links page.
For your info the “Vatican Addresses” is woefully out of date, “Open letter to Confused Benedict” and “Homosexuality/Hetrosexuality….” links are broken.
There we are guys – see what you learn from entering via the website!
yours,
the groveller
-
Benedict, that looks to me like you went looking for things to criticise but I am surprised about the broken links because I was looking at them very recently and they were working. I quite often take quotes from the Open letter and I was taking information from the homosexuality links just the other day plus the Mejugorje ones and they were all working. Something must have happened.
Why don’t you email editor to tell her about the broken links? Would that not be more charitable than a public humiliation? I only mention this because I notice you are big on charity, most of the time.
-
Benedict, what are you on about? the Open Letter and the Homosexuality/hetero links are working and the Vatican addresses, it is only the names that must be different, they look like the right addresses to me and that is another site anyway (which I found very helpful by the way for the other information about writing to the Vatican) so that is not editor’s fault it is not up to her to keep their site up to date. Why don’t you email that site and tell them to give the up to date informatioh, that would be more like it.
-
rebel,
what a heap of nonsense you wrote. I actually went there as I remembered Athanasius or Petrus or someone suggested I go to the Confused Catholic link when I posted about a dilemma I was in. It was whilst there I noticed the broken link and so took time out to review the remaining and post the results in a jocular manner.
Chill out my dear. The editor is a big girl and she knows me and that I was not “humiliating” her at all.
Jeepers you even grumpier than she is!
-
rebel
I would normally agree with you but us guys have to stick together on this one, if only to share brain power!
-
Dearie me! I go off to see what Columbo is up to and come back to find my weans misbehaving. I won’t have it, I tell you… And Benedict, what do you mean, “editor is a big girl”? I’ll have you know that seldom, if ever, will you meet a slimmer or more glamorous, witty, intelligent, etc wummin than moi. So, less of the “big girl” if you please – or else broken bones will be your problem, not broken web links…
Thanks rebel for your support. This was definitely, one of those “we’ll get her” operations but you’ve scuppered it! I’ve just been and checked the links and they worked for me, too, but then, maybe us gals, having a brain each, also have the magic touch…
I had a quick skim through the Vatican addresses as well, Benedict, and, contrary to what rebel seems to think, most, if not all, of the personnel are in post. I noticed that the site was updated in April so I think it will be pretty much accurate. However, you can cross check by going to the Pro Ecclesia website – I think Daphne has most of the Vatican addresses on there as well and they have a very on-the-ball webmaster who – I have no doubt – keeps up to date with changes in the Vatican.
Although we have a terrific webmaster, he leaves me to do the day to day administration and I don’t always check out the links, I must admit so it is quite possible some of them get broken in the uploading from time to time.
Just not this time! Go, see, as our Torkay would say (where IS Torkay???)
-
Editor,
It must be your magic touch, or fear of the rolling pin, but both broken links now work for me so I am less of a “Confused Catholic” than last night.
I also took the opportunity to send an email to the website hosting the Vatican Addresses listing, and showing corrections, for inaccuracies.
-
Benedict, “magic touch” it is.
Great that you emailed the keepers of those Vatican addresses – let’s hope they take the hint.
-
Torkay reporting for duty, Editor!
Ath
“I’ll have you know that seldom, if ever, will you meet a slimmer or more glamorous, witty, intelligent, etc wummin than moi.” (sez Editor)
I seem to recall a certain Muppets character who also repeatedly referred to herself as “moi.” She might even have had a rolling pin…
-
N O T I C E . . .
Father Dunn of Sacred Heart is planning a weekly evening traditional Mass on Mondays and would like to make it available to as many people as possible. He wonders if a 6pm Mass would suit people coming straight from work or would 7pm be better.
Since he already has a 7pm Mass, I suggested that he make that the traditional Mass.
Father would like the opinions of the rest of the bloggers.
Over to you.
-
Editor
Do we know which night Father is thinking of?
-
editor
I think it would have to be at least 7pm for me since I would have a 30 mile car journey through rush hour traffic to get to Sacred Heart. Even then, I only hope I can find the time.
-
I probaby wouldn’t make it often. I struggle to get to SSPX on a Sunday!
-
For me personally, 6pm would suit because I work in Rutherglen. But 7pm would suit also, and be better for my wife because I’d have to come home to EK first.
-
Sorry, folks, I should have said “Monday” nights – thanks for that alert, Petrus. It’s a true saying, the more hurry, the less speed.
Thanks Athanasius and Grignion. That’s three of us, so far, for 7pm, when we can manage.
-
Editor
I vote for 4pm in the afternoon or 7am in the morning.
-
Petrus, watch it! The choice is either 6pm or 7pm on Monday evenings.
Father understands that we won’t all manage every week or even any week but wants to give us all the chance to say which time would suit us anyway. Be careful, because he is such an enthusiastic priest that h’e liable to offer you a 7am Mass and then where would you be (in bed, no doubt!)
-
I don’t know if too many of our bloggers could or would turn up at 7am for Mass at the Sacred Heart, but I do like that Mass before going to work idea. But probably would plump for 7pm.
-
Editor
In bed at 7am – I wish!
I’ll certainly try to come now and again (holidays etc) and will keep Father in my prayers.
Isn’t it great to have a priest who is excited about the Mass?
-
Why not a Sunday Mass or have I missed something?
-
Attention N.E. Scotland
Just received news that the next TLM in the Aberdeen diocese will be at 10:30 am on Monday 2nd November (All Souls Day) in Fochabers. Mgr McDonald will be the celebrant.
-
semperfidelis, you have, indeed, missed something. Father Dunn already has a Sunday TLM (10.15am) and has done for some time – he is now offering an additional evening TLM.
Benedict, that’s a start. What about a regular, weekly, Sunday TLM?
-
Editor,
A start? I thought you knew – the Bishop himself offered a Low Mass recently. The first Bishop since Summorum Pontificum.
-
I notice there’s no mention of this TLM on that parish website. Must be a state secret….
-
Benedict
Is that a fact? The first bishop since SP? I suppose he should be congratulated, although I think it shows how much we’ve lowered our expectations and standards.
-
Benedict, I’m not talking about an occasional Mass offered by a priest or even a bishop.
When will there be a drive to train priests so that we can have a TL Mass in EVERY parish? Don’t forget, Pope Paul VI said he only meant the novus ordo to be an option – not the “ordinary form” – your bishop should know that.
Raise your expectations, Benedict. If you have low expectations, you’ll have corresponding results. As they say, “if you keep on doing what you’re doing, you’ll keep on getting what you’re getting”
Which is, an occasional TLM at the whim of Father X, Y or Z. Not good enough.
-
Has anyone seen this:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/german-court-fines-holocaust-denying-bishop-1.928939
An outrageous disgrace. Is the State Religion of Germany Holocaustianity?
-
Petrus, that is absolutely disgraceful as you say. They have certainly made a religion out of the holocaust: as a result of the oppressive way the holocaust is manipulated and put in a category where nobody can ask questions or express any doubt about, e.g. the numbers who were killed, I have made of point of dropping the capital ‘H’ so I hope I don’t end up having to pay a fine as well! Nothing would surprise me.
-
Editor
The thing is, this is no longer about the (il)legitimacy of Bishop Williamson’s views. It’s not even about his prudence. I’m sure everything that needs to be said about these things has already been said. No, this is about the sheer hypocrisy of the New World Order that promotes Liberty, Fraternity and Equality for all – provided you toe the party line. Pure Communism.
-
Who or what has rattled Richard Dawkin’s cage?
“Turning to the motives of the poachers (viz the Roman Catholic Church), here we find cause for real encouragement. The Roman Catholic Church is fast running out of priests. In Ireland in 2007, 160 Catholic priests died, while only nine new recruits were ordained. To say the least, those figures don’t point towards sustainability. No wonder that disgusting institution, the Roman Catholic Church, is dragging its flowing skirts in the dirt and touting for business like a common pimp: “Give me your homophobes, misogynists and pederasts. Send me your bigots yearning to be free of the shackles of humanity.”
courtesy of the Holy Smoke blog…
-
It’s not a surprise. The state religion of Germany is Socialism. That tolerates no dissent from the party line ever.
-
Grignion
And to think Angela Merkel is suppose to be Right-Wing! Give me Thatcher anyday!
-
Benet,
What a detestable man Richard Dawkins is. What outright bigotry and intolerance- while going to extraordinary lengths to accuse others of the same intolerance he is spewing forth. Surely that frenied attack on Catholics has got to constitute a “hate crime?” -
One of the comments on Professor Dawkin’s article at the Washington Post is as follows:
‘d like to see the RCC apologists address the facts presented by Richard Dawkins:
- Has the RCC consistently condoned and covered up child rape by a significant proportion of its clergy ?
- Is the RCC committing genocide in Africa by claiming that condoms are not an effective prophylactic against AIDs ?
- Is the RCC a bastion of homophobic bigotry ?
- Is the RCC a patriarchal, misogynistic organization that treats women as brood mares ?
—
I have replied to this comment.
I wonder would anyone else like to comment there and defend the Church against this intemperate attack? -
Petrus,
She makes Thatcher look like a fascist. -
Petrus
What you say re the Bishop Williamson case is absolutely true. And they laugh when we tell them that the Zionist Jews are running the world!!!!
-
Benet
I have submitted my comments to the Washington Post. Dawkins is a pathetic creature.
-
Dawkins made my blood boil. Saw yours, Athanasius, short, snappy and to the point. I have submitted the following comment on the Washington Post blog which is very restrained, although he won’t realise that!
Well, well, well. The allegedly great Richard Dawkins in full fling. What a bigoted, ignorant rant. In the part of Scotland where I live, the only people heard spouting such rubbish do so very late on a Saturday night and usually have their fifteenth glass of beer in one hand and their nineteenth whisky in the other!
If Dawkins had taken five minutes to google the history of the Catholic Church, he’d know that even in places where there were no priests for decades, the Faith did not die out. Japanese Catholics had no priests for 200 years, but the Faith survived. That’s because it is of divine origin and is sustained by God. Even the (minority) of sexual perverts in the priesthood today will not kill off Catholicism any more than the minority of parents who abuse their offspring will kill off marriage.
As for the rest of Dawkins’ nonsense, it’s not worth answering, although I have to say that it amazes me that this “great scientist” (sez who?) doesn’t even seem to know that the places with the highest AIDS/HIV rates in Africa are the very same places where Catholics are in a very significant minority. Where Catholics are present in significant numbers, the HIV/AIDS incidence is negligable. What a silly man.
-
Am I being uncharitable in thinking that this attack on the Church by Professor Dawkins might be associated with the marketing of his recently published book on evolution?
This is a prime example of how the enemies of the Church use the clerical abuse scandal and the Church’s teaching on Homosexuality to condemn the Church.
In my view the answer to the question above:
Has the RCC consistently condoned and covered up child rape by a significant proportion of its clergy ?
is yes. Since any level of “child rape” by a member of the clergy or religious is a significant proportion – even if it is less than 0.1% of the clergy. How the Devil must rejoice at the evil committed by the clergy and how futilely it was covered-up.
Judex ergo cum sedebit,
quidquid latet apparebit:
nil inultum remanebit. -
Benet,
I don’t think you could argue that a “significant proportion” of the clergy have raped children, not by any means. In fact, the statistics show that less clergy have abused children than have some of their own fathers. Obviously even one priest abusing children is an outrage, and should not be covered up, but don’t fall for the propaganda either.
Remind me to learn some Gaelic – yours is impressive…
ps have just re-read your post and see you are being philosophical with percentages. What’s the ‘Gaelic’/Latin for “blooming nuisance”?
-
Cardinal Rode, Prefect of Congregation for Religious calls Vatican II the trigger for the “the greatest crisis in church history”
and then the US National Catholic Report publishes this with photos of the TLM at The Institute of Christ the King’s seminary:
“The cardinal, whose penchant for a traditional, monarchical, European styled, pre-counciliar church, is clearly evident in these photos, told John that Vatican II triggered “the greatest crisis in church history.” Our women religious have dedicated their lives to carrying out the council’s mandates of service and reform.
Looking at these photos, one is reminded that multi-culturalism is a central ingredient in our church and world today, requires understanding, patience and special tolerance. It is also true that judgment leads to judgment, and that’s why growing numbers in our communities are asking, “Who, exactly, is this man who has been commissioned to judge the souls, lives, dedication and faith of our women religious?”
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/cardinal-rod%C3%A9-photos-meditation
-
Benet
You can always count on the National Catholic Reporter to try to undermine the Church. It is the most odious of rags – right up there with The Bitter Pill.
-
Benet,
I read earlier today in another blog that Cardinal Pell is being called to the Vatican. A rumour currently being aired is that he is being made ready to head up the Congregation of Bishops.
Now with Cardinal Rode as head of Religious and Cardinal Pell of Bishops it would appear His Holiness is still on course with his Marshall Plan.
With two eminent traditionalists who quite happy advocate and participate in offering the TLM, plus of course orthodox teaching, as heads of those congregations it cannot be construed as anything other than great news.
-
Benedicte!
Yes I saw the rumour about Cardinal Pell as well. There is an interview with him here http://www.adoremus.org/0409Pell_Translation.html
“Q. Where do you think the liturgical development is heading?
A. I don’t know. I’m not a professional liturgist.”
I do not really know anything about him but hope the above reply was humourous.
-
I asked a question on another thread that has disappeared, about the westminster expenses scandal and MPs wifes working for their husbands as secretaries. I asked if it was this government who brought in the law that meant every employer has to advertise a job and can’t just pick someone. Does anybody know if this is the case? I presume the thread disappeared because nobody but me commented when I checked about 10pm but I would like to know if that is a law introduced by this government because unless it’s a recent law, isn’t it the case that the MPs are actually breaking that law by just picking their wife and not advertising? Nobody seems to be saying that, so I wonder how old the law is about advertising jobs? I’ve heard bosses saying they have to advertise all the vacancies, but maybe that is an excuse to get in an outsider. If anyone knows the answer, that would be interesting to know.
Benedict, I don’t think you could call Cardinal Pell a traditional Benedict, as he is on record saying he’s a loyal son of Vatican II.
-
We have contradiction as Christians we are taught by the church that God’s Word is Inviolate
But the church teaches in private revelation even a Direct Command from God endorsed by the church. We can take or leave.
It abdicates it’s responsibility and confuses the laity which causes division
The subject matter concerning the revelation of God’s Word (will) to St.Fuastina Divine Mercy demonstrates that the concept of a divide between Private and Public Revelation (as stated by the church) is flawed.
It permit’s the hand (will) of man to control God’s Word (Will) without taking responsibility for their actions. It pass’s the responsibility to the laity and in so doing denigrates God’s Word and undermines the authority of the apostles successors.It is written “You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve”.
Man was made for God and not God for man
Only God’s Word is Inviolate no other.GOD’S WORD (Will) ENDORSED BY THE CHURCH SUPERSEDES ANY TRADITION IN HER MAGISTERIAL OFFICE We have the promise that God’s Word will be given to his church through the Holy Spirit until the end of time. Once given and endorsed by the church it is God’s Word for all time.
The authority of the apostles and their successors.
“ Truly, I say whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.”
God’s Word (will) is life and his Word lives it did not die with the physical
death of the last apostle (they still live he is the God of the living) it continues with their successors and they carry the same authority and responsibility as the apostles to teach and discern God’s Word (will) and give it to the laity.Time is meaningless to God he is timeless.
“When The Counsellor comes whom I shall send to you from the Father he will bear witness to me and you also are witnesses, because you have been with me from the beginning“.
When they deliver you up, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say; for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour. For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
God’s Word is manifest through his lovers.
God himself still speaks to mankind through his lovers.“My Father is working still and I am working now and for ever.”
kevin
In Christ -
Benet, reading your post on Cardinal Rode, I’m not clear as to whether or not you are for or against him!
rebel, I agree that Cardinal Pell is no traditionalist – wasn’t he up to his neck in praise of the World Youth Day and I’m sure Christian Order has mentioned him in less than flattering terms.
I think the law about advertising jobs has been on the go for a number of years, before the present government although can’t swear to it and don’t have time to research it. I don’t think it would make any difference anyway because there is clear evidence of wrong-doing – even illegal wrongdoing – among MPs and some, at least, are getting away with it. They are literally a law unto themselves, these politicians. They wouldn’t know a moral compass from a moral vacuum.
Sorry about deleting your post but that thread did not draw any interest – nobody posted a comment except your goodself, so I decided to delete it. I’d thought it would make a topical change but I was wrong. Thanks though for posting.
kevin, the Church’s position on private revelation makes perfect sense. The only difference with Fatima is this: it is the first time in history that a miracle has been foretold to take place at a specific time and place and witnessed by more than 70,000, some of them at a distance of some seventeen miles. So, it moves into a different category, given the crisis in the Church and the reason for Our Lady’s visit and message to the children. That makes Fatima a public revelation. No confusion really, for the student of private revelations. Fatima is clearly a very public revelation!
-
Benet,
As Cardinal Pell is president of the Vox Clara committee I would say his response was kind of tongue in cheek.
rebel,
For him to say anything otherwise would have been political suicide. You don’t do that if you are on the way up. In addition his actions speak louder than his words.
-
I gave my tuppence worth to the Washing Po and here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&v=oFXIALf9zDA
editor, thanks for thoughts on Fatima. At present the only “private” apparition recognised in the Catholic liturgy is Lourdes. I pray Fatima will be too, the sooner the better.
-
Benet et al, here is someone who has demolished Dawkins. He is called David Quinn, a great Catholic apologist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u23G16oOhcI
And
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1378535008901640650#
-
esdras,
Fatima is a unique revelation. It is at the heart of the current crisis. Given that the “liturgy” is also at the heart of the crisis and in no small way the cause of much of it, it is hardly surprising that there is no liturgical recognition of Fatima yet. That will come!
-
http://www.youthdefence.ie/latest-news/galway-conference-challenged-to-include-pro-life-speaker-/
“Galway Conference challenged to include pro-life speaker Oct. 30, 2009The director of the Life Institute, Dr Seán Ó Domhnaill, has challenged the Irish Centre for Human Rights in NUI Galway to include a pro-life speaker in its line up for a conference to be held next Thursday dealing with abortion. Although the conference is entitled “Global and Local Perspectives on Abortion”, it excludes the majority local pro-life perspective, and only features pro-abortion speakers. The conference is co-hosted by the Irish Family Planning Association, but the Life Institute has asked whether the centre, or the conference receives taxpayer funding.Dr Ó Domhnaill wrote:
“We note that the Irish Centre for Human Rights is hosting a conference on abortion on Thursday November 5th, but that it has entirely excluded any speaker(s) who would protect the human right-to-life of every unborn child.
Can you explain why a centre which claims to be “one of the world’s premier university-based institutions for the study and promotion of human rights” would entirely ignore the rights of the unborn child to the point where it would deny these children any representation or advocacy? It is easy to set oneself up as a human rights advocate: it is harder to actually give meaning to the term by including those members of the human family who are most vulnerable and most at risk from the abortion industry. Then again representatives of the abortion industry, who never let human rights interfere with their profit margin, are co-hosting your conference. You are also ignoring the perspective of the majority of the Irish people – the “locals” referred to in your conference title – who oppose abortion.
It is deeply ironic that your next conference, to be held 19-20 November – is entitled “Forgotten Rights, Forgotten Concepts”, since you have so clearly forgotten the first right – the right to life, from which all other rights stem.
We would like to know:
Does the Irish Centre for Human Rights receive any taxpayer funding from any State department, from NUI, or from any other source.
Who is funding this conference – Global and local perspectives on abortion – and who made the decision to exclude any pro-life speakers.
Perhaps you could, even at this late stage, show your openness to a real commitment to human rights by including a speaker who believes that all human life should be afforded protection.”http://www.nuigalway.ie/human_rights/upcomingconferences.html
Global and Local Perspectives on Abortion -
Credo
So much for “democracy.” I wonder if he’ll get a reply!
-
Credo, why not phone Father Kramer to ask if he would do what he did in Cork at the euthanasis meeting – when he and the group of laity with him, emptied the hall! It was fantastic.
Email me if you don’t have Father’s contact details. I’m sure he’d be only too willing to help.
-
I noticed with interest that the Catholic Bishops in Ireland have, on their website, guidelines for children receiving Holy Communion in the EF of the Mass together with a note of how teachers can arrange a Mass.
Anyone think the Scottish Bishops will do the same….?
-
Guardian Angel
Ever seen a blue moon?
-
Just a quick question on the wearing if poppies, should we as Catholics be publicly wearing them?
My understanding was that poppies were a symbol for all those who lost their life in the 1st and 2nd world war.
However according to their own website the poppy appeal now counts those who list lives on Iraq, Afghanistan, falklands, northern Ireland etc.
Now if it was just for world wars I wouldn’t have a problem as these brave men deserve to be remembered. However the remaining conflicts can not be counted in a similar fashion, and given the outrages that were committed by some of these soldiers against Catholic communities (falklands and n. Ire) should we reconsider buying and wearing poppies?
-
For people living in Glsagow who may be interested, Dr Peter Saunders, Director of the Care Not Killing Alliance will be giving a talk on the current moves to introduce assisted suicide and euthanasia into UK law on this coming Thursday Novenber 5th at 8pm to 9:30pm at Renfield St Stephen’s Church on Bath Street.
A colleague from work will be attending and has asked me to come along too as she knows where I stand on the subject. I haven’t decided yet if I’ll go. I’m not 100% sure if I agree with the organization- they approach the subject as a human rights issue as opposed to it being a spiritual battle. Also, it’s in a Protestant church, albeit it’s in the hall, and Care Not Killing is not a religious organization, so it’s not a service.
But I was still thinking about going along to learn more about the legal side of things, and to see if there was anything worth supporting in it.
-
Nolite Timere
It was Earl Haig who started the Poppy Fund and he was a Freemason, so you can look on this venture as one of those “humanitarian” type gestures the Freemasons are always blowing their trumpets about. I’d like to know how much money gets raised and where it goes.
We shouldn’t forget that, initially, the money raised from Poppy sales was spent on the casualties and their families of world wars I & II. A majority of these are now deceased, so they now extend their Poppy efforts to include the other conflicts you mention, which are not remotely as just as the great wars. Is it a case of keeping the cash rolling in? I wonder!
At any rate, I wouldn’t buy or wear a Poppy for the very reasons you’ve just mentioned. I would prefer to have a Mass said for the souls of those who died in the great wars. That’s much more beneficial to them than a gesture that effectively has no supernatural value.
-
Grignion
There is absolutely nothing to prevent you from attending that meeting. It’s a legal, not religious, gathering. You are quite free to attend if you wish. And who knows, maybe you can influnce some people from a Catholic perspective!
-
Theneva
I forgot to say that others may wish to buy and wear Poppies as a symbol of human remembrance. There is nothing wrong with this per se, it’s just not my way of remembering the war dead. I prefer to offer something a little more supernatural for them.
-
Editor
I saw your Newsflash link about the American bishops taking a universal stand against Obamacare-abortion……but I wonder, he said cynically, how many of said bishops voted for this barbarian? About 95%?
-
Torkay, you saw a newsflash on the day of posting – i.e. before it became an event in history? WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, I agree absolutely – a bit like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
-
http://www.galwaynews.ie/9356-controversy-over-galway-abortion-conference
“Mon 2nd November 2009
Controversy has erupted over an international conference on abortion to be held in Galway this week.NUI Galway’s Irish Centre for Human Rights and the Irish Family Planning Association will host the conference at the University on Thursday (05/11).
But the ‘Silent No More’ Awareness Campaign group, which has a base in Belfast, says a speaker with a personal perspective of the effects of abortion, should have been invited to speak at the conference.”
-
Interesting Credo – or they might invite the recently resigned leader of Planned Parenthood, who took flight from the abortion industry after viewing a prospective abortion victim video – see our newsflash.
-
Thanks Athanasius,
Only I won’t be able to attend now because I’ve now got something else on that night to do with my family. But I think I would otherwise have attended. -
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/11/03/court-says-italian-schools-should-be-crucifix-free/
5:54 November 3rd, 2009
Court says Italian schools should be crucifix-free
Post a comment
Posted by: Crispian Balmer“The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled on Tuesday that Italian schools should remove crucifixes from classroom walls, saying their presence could disturb children who were not Christians. The decision is likely to provoke a controversy in Italy, which is deeply attached to its Roman Catholic roots.”
Anyone who reads the EHCR Judgement will see that the Italian government defended the presence of the Crucifix in classrooms on “ethical grounds”. They argued the cross is not a religious symbol but an ethical one, a symbol of self-giving and peace.
I hope this causes a huge row in Italy. I hope the Vatican will respond to defend the placing of the Cross in classrooms and fight this “laique” mentality that says the State must be neutral on religious questions.
-
This just shows you how evil the European Union is.
-
Benet
The link you provided above diverts me to a Reuter’s page without a story. Could you ckeck that it’s correct?
-
Dear Athanasius,
You are right the link now does not bring up the article directly
but if you scroll down on the right hand side you’ll see
Nov 03
UPDATE: Uproar after court says no
crucifixes in Italian schools Comments (2)which I does appear to work.
-
Here is a link to the BBC Report on the ECHR’s ruling on removing
crucifixes from Italian Schools:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8340411.stm
NB: this Court is not part of the European Union (Common Market) but part of the Council of Europe – which deals with the Convention on Human Rights
-
If the Italians have some spine, they will ignore and publicly disobey this “ruling,” which is entirely illegitimate. Contest the jurisdiction of this “Court” – what are they going to do, send troops?
-
Petrus ,
Bravo, well said!
International peace means a peace between nations, not a peace after the destruction of nations, like the Buddhist peace after the destruction of personality. The golden age of the good European is like the heaven of the Christian: it is a place where people will love each other; not like the heaven of the Hindu, a place where they will be each other.
Chesterton, All Things ConsideredTomas de Torkay,
Ultimately, yes, that’s exactly what the thugs will do if cowards keep on appeasing them.
On another subject, First Things have a nice piece on Islam and the battered wife syndrome.
It’s odd that Islamic nutcases always want to get on aljazeera.net and rant about “Zionist-Crusader nations”. A bizarre concept indeed, considering how poles apart people like Abe Foxman and Bishop Williamson really are.
-
Seems the Dominicans have taken some action against the Sister who was escorting women to the abortion clinic – mentioned in a news flash article recently.
“Today, the Wisconsin-based Sinsinawa Dominican order announced that Quinn had been reprimanded for escorting patients into a Hinsdale clinic that provides abortions.
“After investigating the allegation, congregation leaders have informed Sister Donna that her actions are in violation of her profession as a Dominican religious,” Sister Patricia Mulcahey, head of the Sinsinawa Dominicans, said in a statement. “They regret that her actions have created controversy and resulted in public scandal.”
Extracted from: http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/11/nun-reprimanded-for-escorting-women-to-abortion-clinic.html
I am glad to see the Dominicans confirming that the original story was accurate. I had wondered whether it could be true.
-
Bishop Richard Malone has recently spent over half a million, not on covering paedophile clergy or reducing his carbon footprint, but on crushing the “right” to gay marriage. And he has won. Details here and elsewhere if you google for it.
Glory be to God there are some good bishops!
-
esdras
And notice the reaction of the Episcopal “bishop” to the Maine vote, in the same article. Now there’s a man who spells compassion
C R U E L T Y
-
Against my better judgment, I decided to attend a talk at a parish near my house Monday evening. Title: “Vatican II: What Did it Accomplish?”
Turns out the talk was by a crusty old Jesuit on the Seminary faculty, who decided to give us merely a cook’s tour from a liberal insider’s perspective, rather than addressing the topic. Some of what I heard:
The speaker portrayed the liberals as having “saved” the Council, when in fact it was those same liberals who hijacked it. He related an anecdote about John XXIII’s first announcement about the Council to his Cardinals in the sacristy, and how he was “hurt” that the announcement was met with stony silence – ignoring the fact that the stony silence was because those Cardinals well knew, as did Pius XII, what a disastrous idea this was. He attempted to portray Cardinal Bea as the “architect” of the Council, ignoring Bugnini’s role and sidestepping a question about Bugnini. He repeatedly spoke of Cardinal Ottaviani as though he had been the iron-fisted major obstacle to progress, when in fact he was trying to preserve the Church against harmful novelty. During his overview of peritii personalities, he ignored the fact that some of the key theologians invited by John XXIII had been blacklisted by Pius XII. He spoke favorably of a prelate who had sponsored Bernardin’s rise to prominence, as if this had been a good thing! He spoke favorably of Karl Rahner, whose “theology” has misled so many away from the faith.
Finally, in response to a questioner, he effectively equated “outside the Church there is no salvation” with Feeneyism, essentially affirmed the heresy of religious indifferentism, and demonstrated that he had no understanding of the term “pro multis” during the Consecration.
I’m not sure what religion I stumbled upon that evening, but it surely wasn’t the Catholic religion.
-
I did find out something useful at this talk, however: I asked the speaker whether the original schema that had been trashed by the liberals were still extant. He said that they were, housed in the Vatican Library, but that one would have to journey to Rome to research them. He also said that all the different versions of the schema were there: each addition/revision had been considered a different version, and is preserved as such.
So play my numbers at the Scottish lottery, Editor – I need to go to Rome! Those original schema are the real documents of Vatican II!
-
Torkay, that was great that you went along to that talk in your parish and what a great idea to ask about the original schema.
Did you manage to point out any of the facts in your 1.55.a.m post? I’m guessing not, or you’d be telling us you’re banned from attending future meetings!
Still, maybe you managed to get something across, either at the meeting or to individuals?
Signed,
Curious, Glasgow… (population rising all the time…) -
Tomas de Torkay,
Good on you. I suggest you attend everything this parish does, and ask embarrassing questions. God willing you will be a very disruptive influence.
“It is better that scandals arise than that the truth be suppressed.”
– Pope St. Gregory the Great.
================================
The Fort Hood shooting is all over the news – almost 8000 stories logged on google news. The propaganda mill is in top gear, spinning that the shooter’s religion had nothing to do with his actions. If he were any other religion I’d agree, but I have a theory as to his motives. It is Sura 9:5, the verse of the sword.It’s only going to get worse. Oremus.
-
Curious Mother Editor
Just to clarify, that wasn’t my parish. Wouldn’t touch the place with a 10-ft. pole, as they have no real Mass there.
And no, the schema question was the only one I asked. A good friend of mine, sitting next to me with his copy of Flannery and 2 typed pages of notes and questions, gave the speaker all he could handle. And it wasn’t pretty!
esdras
I did email the PP about my disappointments, but I doubt whether he will respond – though my above-mentioned friend thinks highly of him. It’s already been 2 days, and not a peep out of him.
-
Make sure your Flannery Friend gets a hold of this blog address, Torkay!
esdras, yes, I’ve noticed the low-key reporting on the shooter’s religion. There’s no mystery why the world’s “artists” refrain from “artistic expression” with key Muslim figures, like Muhammed, and stick to producing “artistic” works that portray Jesus … as “Queen of Heaven”, for example. Outrageous.
I am increasingly convinced that we need to become more and more and more and more militant. In a number of spheres.
-
God bless you all!
I just received the following in an email chain letter. I usually delete them but this one deserves an exception:
==============================
I usually disapprove of email chain letters, but for this one I’ll make an exception.German View of Islam
This is by far the best explanation of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read. His references to past history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read. The author of this email is said to be Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a well-known and well-respected psychiatrist.
A German’s View on Islam
A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. ‘Very few people were true Nazis,’ he said, ‘but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.’
We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.
The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ’silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.
The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.
And who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were ‘peace loving’?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:
Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.
Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts–the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand. So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands, world-wide, read this and think about it, and send it on – before it’s too late.
=================================Apologies for long post but I think it is worth it.
-
esdras, a very interesting post indeed. Thanks for that.
I thought, reading that “chain letter” that you will be interested in the proposed “politics” meeting scheduled provisionally for April 2010 – see the lead thread “The Gift…To See Ourselves As Others See Us” (which, by the way, I hope you all recognise as Rabbie Burns!)
Add your vote, one way or the other, esdras, to that thread, please and thank you! We want to discuss a number of issues which, in the not too far distant future, the government will punish us for raising. Latest news is that the EU plans to outlaw criticism of both Islam and homosexuality.
Get thee to that Catholic Truth meeting, esdras!
-
Last Saturday the blog site Valle Adurni posted a translation of an article concerning the curent woeful state of the Catholic Curch in France.
It is a rather long article but well worth a read. Look carefully at the statistics and you will see that the traditional orders are already a significant force.http://valleadurni.blogspot.com/2009/11/tradtional-reservoir-and-french-bishops.html
-
HELP! I recently acquired Malachi Martins’ ‘Windswept House’ from Amazon, and haven’t been able to put it down. Suddenly I was brought up short this lunchtime when I found a page missing – or rather a blank unprinted page. As I can’t bear to wait for Amazon to send me another copy, can anyone do me a huge favour and e-mail me a scanned copy of the relevant page via Editor, whose permission hasn’t been asked (shows how desperate I am).
In this paperback it is p469 that is blank. It is the opening page of ‘PART THREE, Papal Night, The Resignation Protocol’. The first words of p470, after the blank page which should be the beginning of the section, are ‘…..who came to know intimately the mounting urgency with which the Pontiff regarded the coming fallout…..’
Please!
-
Naomi
Be of stout heart! Help is at hand. Bold Tomas de Torquemada is riding to your aid aback little leprechaun with the missing words.
The blog is mightier than the blag!
-
Naomi,
Your missing words have just been forwarded to Madam Editor for onward transmission to yourself after sterling service by Tomes de Torquemada.
Enjoy.
-
Tomas and Leprechaun, many, many, many thanks for the scanned page. I will enjoy indeed.
-
LOL you two. Naomi – enjoy! I couldn’t put that book down either. Wish I could also have scanned the Third Secret and emailed it out….
lep
Shouldn’t that have been Bold Tomas de Torquemada?
-
Tomas
Or even bald as I see it. No offence meant.
When can I go home?
-
Anyone seen this?
-
lep
You forgot to send me the keystrokes for bald….
Crouchy
You seem to be getting a lot of press these days:
-
ATTENTION EVERYONE!
I have just received the following message from a friend in the USA…
Fox News is going to air a very important documentary about Barack Obama on Sunday night at 8:00 PM central / 9 PM eastern / 6 PM pacific.
Sean Hannity stated on the air that no one in the news media was willing to do this. Hannity is going back to Obama’s earlier days, showing details about his ties to radical professors, friends, spiritual advisers, etc. Hannity stated that he will show in detail the ties to Rev. Wright for 20+ yrs. and Obama’s reasons for allying with this man — not for the reasons we may have thought! He has uncovered more of Obama’s radical leaders and we will see things that no one in the mainstream media is willing to put out there.
This should be a night when you will learn more about Obama than ever before. Hannity is passionate about this program and asked that everyone please, please watch!
Fox News
Sunday night, November 22, 2009
8 PM CT; 9 PM ET; 6 PM PTPlease pass this on to everyone you know. Whether Democrat or Republican, we can all learn from this. It is critical for our country’s future, that we be armed with all the facts. In this case, ignorance is NOT bliss! Long Live Christ Our King.
END OF MESSAGESky TV Viewers will be able to see this interview on Fox News, so, once you work out the time difference (Torkay, Miles Christi Sum, where are you?) put it in your diary… A “must-see”.
semperfidelis,
I would have misssed that news about the breast cancer-abortion link, so thanks for posting that CNA news report.
-
Well Editor, guess I’ll have to wait for someone to post it on YouTube, since I don’t have a TV and I’ll be at chorale practice….
However, I do have a link to a very important document everyone should consider signing (as listed on LifeSite News update this evening):
http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/
This is addressed to all Christians, with, finally, a public recognition that we are under attack, and at war.
-
Editor,
Thank you for the update. I’ll definitly tune in. A “must see”, indeed!
Torkay,
I heard about that important ducument today on Fox news. Thanks for the link; I just signed it. God Bless those who initiated this project and God Bless America, PLEASE!
-
Please forgive the typo. Correction — D-E-F-I-N-I-T-E-L-Y
-
Hello all, I was reading the thread on purgatory and came across the mention of ‘Postulant of the Third Order of Camerl’ and wondered what this is and who can be a Postulant of the Third Order of Carmel? and what a persona has do to become a Postulant of the Third Order of Carmel? So, more information on this would be helpful. Also, I have never heard of the ‘Little Office’ – I didn’t know it had anything to do with the wearing of the brown scapulor?
-
Theresa
I have just become an “Aspirant” of the Carmelite Third Order (Discalced) – not sure, but I’m assuming “Postulant” might be the same status. It is in effect a year of probation once you are accepted into the community – which is a lay community.
Don’t know which country you live in, but you might be able to find a community near you here, and make your inquiry as a visitor:
http://www.discalcedcarmelites.net/
Once you complete your year of “Aspirancy,” you are invested with the Brown Scapular of Carmel.
Also, the Little Office (of the BVM) is the Liturgy of the Hours for laity – kind of a lay Divine Office, if you will. There is no inherent connection between the Little Office and the Scapular, except for one’s devotion to Mary.
-
Editor
Who was it among the atheists who insisted that “peer review” on scientific issues was an infallible method of insuring that objectivity would prevail? Well, so much for that theory:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116657
from which, this quote:
“And, perhaps most reprehensibly,” Delingpole writes, “a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.”
Global warming? Objective science? About as true as the new springtime of Vatican II…
-
Brilliant Torkay – I think it was Haunted who wrote about peer review…
-
N O T I C E . . .
Don’t miss the video of the Miracle of the Sun, posted on our Newsflash section earlier. Then tell me you think those intelligent faces in the crowd were victims of mass hallucination! Yeah, right.
-
Regarding the Little Office – Officium Parvum BVM – this is said by Carthusians.
-
Will THIS English Bishop be reprimanded?
http://www.indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=15205
Hardly, but it’ll clear up any lingering doubts as to his heresy.
-
Archbishop Nichols’ visit to the Hindu Mandir:
“In fact it is impossible to have peace without prayer, the prayer of all, each one in his own identity and in search of the truth. The experience of prayer is a manifestation of the unity which binds us together, beyond our differences and distinctiveness. Every authentic prayer, we believe, is under the influence of the Spirit “who intercedes insistently for us…because we do not know how to pray as we ought.” Yet every person, all of us present here, is capable of prayer, that is of submitting ourselves totally to God and of recognising ourselves to be poor in front of God. Prayer is one of the means to realise the plan of God among us. It shows us that the world cannot give peace, but that peace is a gift of God and that it is necessary to entreat it as a gift by means of the prayers of all.”
link above in Cateran’s post…
-
Benet
Thanks for posting Archbishop Nichol’s words to the Hindus. There’s no point in beating about the bush, his comments are heresy pure and simple.
Hindus do not believe in the Christian God, they worship idols. Now we know what St. Paul said about these idols, i.e., that they are really demons. God help the Catholics of England with this kind of heretic prelate at the helm in such quick succession to the last disaster to hold the See of Westminster.
-
The following link is where you can purchase the latest DVD documenting the great efforts of Pope Pius XII to save the persecuted Jews during the Holocaust. It is a 30 min film containing Jewish testimony of what this Pope did for the Jewsih people. I bought a copy for a friend’s birthday and I recommend it as a must see. Great DVD!
http://www.hdhcommunications.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=2_3&products_id=244
-
Athanasius,
“Hindus do not believe in the Christian God, they worship idols.”
It would seem churlish (to some) to ponder whether +Nichols shares in that belief. Especially when noting a salient part of the article which Benet did not include in his quote above:-
“Yogvivek Swami guided the Archbishop around the Mandir complex, including the sanctum sanctorum where the Archbishop offered flowers at the altar to the deities. He then moved to the deity of Shri Nilkanth Varni (Bhagwan Swaminarayan) where he joined Yogvivek Swami in praying for world peace and harmony”
Interestingly, the Westminster diocesan website edited that portion of the report to read:
“Yogvivek Swami guided the Archbishop around the Mandir complex, including the sanctum sanctorum. He then moved to the deity of Shri Nilkanth Varni (Bhagwan Swaminarayan) where he joined Yogvivek Swami in praying for world peace and harmony”
Was the redaction an attempt to avoid a sharp rap across the knuckles from “Rome”? Judging by the recent press release from that source, the diocesan hacks needn’t have bothered:-
“Vatican City -October 16, 2009 - The Vatican Friday urged religious tolerance in a greeting for the Hindu festival of Diwali which many of the estimated one billion followers of the world’s oldest religion will celebrate on Saturday. The message titled: “Christians and Hindus: Committed to Integral Human Development,” was signed by the head of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran.
“Dear Hindu Friends…a happy Deepavali (Diwali)! Religious Festivals enable us to revitalize our relationship with God and one another,” the message began.”
-
Out of intrest, I was wondering if anyone could tell me about the history of Gregorian chants/music. Is it also true that Hildegard of Bingen has been recognized as a saint because she had 26 visions?
God Bless
-
Have you seen this story in the Herald:
About one of the deacons who’ll be ordained next year as a priest and how he thinks celibacy will end and drunkenness is okay.
-
The Derry Priest referred to in the article above is Fr Sean McKenna:
http://www.derryjournal.com/journal/EXCLUSIVE-Father-McKenna-breaks-his.5844465.jp
“Last Saturday evening, Sean McKenna received a standing ovation from his Holy Family congregation when he spoke honestly about his reasons to leave the priesthood.
“When I announced my decision to leave the priesthood, I did so because I wanted to honestly inform the people and in fulfilment of my responsibility as a priest in a very wonderful parish,” he said last night.
“On that occasion I received overwhelming and generous support, understanding and good wishes from the people present and from many others throughout the city and beyond. I greatly appreciate this”
-
As the long awaited Report in Abuse in the Dublin Diocese is expected to be published tomorrow the Christian Brothers agree to hand over millions of euro in cash and land in reparation.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/shamed-brothers-handover-8364161m-1952766.html
-
I haven’t listened to this yet, don’t even know if it’s in English, but it is a German judge saying that Bishop Williamson should not be fined under law for his comments about the Holocaust and that attempts to charge him are an infringement on freedom of speech.
-
Sorry folks, it’s an article written in German. But take it from me that this senior judge is disputing whether Bishop Williamson can be charged under the law. He says that the comments are insufficient to be a crime and that fining the bishop for them could constitute a suppression of freedom of speech.
-
An extract from the Dublin Diocese report Para: 22.8: (Page 354) on “Fr Gallagher‟s …. newer approach to the sacrament of reconciliation (confession)”..
“In December 1984, there was “general fuss and skittishness” when one of the classes in St Mary‟s were going to confession. The principal investigated the cause of this fuss and was told by the girls that Fr Gallagher kissed each of them after confession. What the girls did not tell her at that time was that during confession he used to run his hands all over their bodies inside their clothing and then kissed them all on the lips at the end of confession. The principal again spoke about the matter to Fr Gallagher who said that, if the behaviour offended the girls, he would stop. The principal,
355
incredibly, felt that perhaps Fr Gallagher‟s approach reflected the newer approach to the sacrament of reconciliation (confession) and took the matter no further. The principal told the Commission that, when she read the draft of this section of the report, she wondered how she “could have been so blind. Abuse would not have entered my mind; I could not imagine a priest doing anything like that.”End of extract…
-
Athanasius, I’d like to continue a discussion we were having earlier in the “Dundee Council” thread. To recap, you said:
[W]e are living in a time of rampant atheistic materialism which has made most people become self-indulgent and self-interested.
I contested this by pointing out that I am an atheist but am in fact very concerned about my fellow human beings, and that many other atheists feel the same way. We then had a discussion about the nature of charity, after which you said:
It was not my intention to suggest that [...] you are any more selfish than I.
If that’s the case, then how is it that atheism or materialism leads to self-indulgence? That is, if you’re a devout Catholic and I’m a materialist atheist, why are we only equally selfish if materialist atheism causes selfishness?
I don’t think that I’m any kind of exception. Based on my anecdotal experience of spending time with both atheists/agnostics and theists (both Catholics and non-Catholics), I don’t really think that either group tends to be more selfish or more altruistic. They may give different reasons for their behaviors, but the distribution of behaviors seem about the same.
Do you still argue that atheism or materialism causes self-indulgence or excessive self-interest?
-
Again and again in this Dublin report it is clear that Religious Orders and Congregations failed to let the Dublin Archdiocese know allegations against their priests. For example:
“There was totally inadequate communication between the order and the Archdiocese of Dublin about the complaint and the subsequent admissions. The order did not tell the Archdiocese about the complaint made or about Fr Klaudius‟s subsequent admissions of abuse. The Commission finds this extraordinary as the known abuse occurred mainly while he was operating under the aegis of the Archdiocese.” Page 564. Para 40.35
This raises serious questions about the independent way that Orders operate Parishes and schools in Dioceses.
Another thing that jumps out from the report is that many of those abusive priests described in the Dublin report had major drink problems.
I am also struck by the way the religious authorities took little notice of promiscuous priests.
-
Benet
While I certainly don’t doubt that there was a clerical element in Ireland, as elsewhere, involved in abuse, I have the greatest difficulty in believing that abuse was as widespread as this report suggests.
My problem with the whole business is that it operates on hearsay some 20, 30 or 40 years after the alleged abuse took place and it is based almost entirely on the testimonies of former inmates of Catholic-run reformatories and borstals who are being paid compensation for their stories.
I saw a ‘Scotsman’ newspaper report today with the pictures of four Irish prelates and the storyline “Men of God who let child abuse flourish.”
The prelates in question were Dermot Ryan who died in 1984 (the article omits to state his office in the Church), Kevin McNamara, Bishop of Kerry, died 1987, Cardinal Desmond Connell, head of the Church in Ireland till 2004, still living, and Archbishop John Charles McQuaid, died 1972.
I know little about the first three, but I do know about Archbishop McQauid. He was a saintly bishop who would never have tolerated clerical abuse. The fact that he has been named with the others adds to my suspicion that many of these accusations are cash driven.
Here are some other notable facts from the article.
1. The Gardai submitted documentation from 1995 onwards, but could not supply records from 1960 – 1980 on account of them having been mislaid or destroyed. Coincidence or convenience for the prosecution?
2. Thus far, around 7 million Euros has been paid out in compensation in Ireland. Very lucrative!
3. Only one case of false accusation of child abuse has been identified. Is this fact or fiction? How can they possibly know which cases are true and which are false when the accused are mostly deceased, records from the period lost and big compensation claims up for grabs?
4. Now this is very telling. Watch how the numbers rise as compensation comes into the equation:
Of the complaints, 3 were made in the 1960s, 11 in the 1970s, 64 in the 1980s, 135 in the 1990s and 112 in the 2000s.
I’ll tell you what I think! I think that the secular authorities in Ireland are deliberately plotting to discredit the Catholic Church with these old claims as a means of undermining the moral stance of the Church on divorce, homosexuality and, most importantly, abortion.
It reeks of the ‘Black Legend’ plot launched by Stalin against Pope Pius XII. This is the legend that this Pope did nothing for the persecuted Jews during the Holocaust. It’s Pius XII they accuse, but it’s the Church they really want to discredit. Do you see what I’m getting at.
The first story you reported on this thread about the school mistress who didn’t think there was anything wrong in the priest fondling young girls in confession, says it all. This is a clear fairly tale, too ridiculous for words, yet it is in the official documentation. Yes, there is dark work afoot here!
-
DSimon
My concession to you, e.g., that you are no more or less selfish than I, was a personal concession based on your testimony of your humanitarian works. It was not a blanket retraction of my previous claim.
Maybe I should make this a little clearer. It is not that atheists have been born any more or less inclined to selfishness than Christians, it is that Christians, by God’s grace, are more inclined to resist this human tendency than atheists.
The difference between the opposing parties is that Christians generally live by a moral code which is founded on, and directed by, the Commandments of God and the hope of a future life.
Atheists have no such moral guidance or eternal hope and so they act purely on human impulse, or rather have nothing to combat human impulse.
Consider, for example, the unparalleld greed of modern politicians and bankers, mostly atheists in practice if not in name. Consider also the wealth and oppulence of the Western world and compare it with the want and poverty in Third World countries.
Consider how materialistic Christmas has become for the majority in the past few decades.
Consider the rocketing statistics on drink and drug addiction, murders and rapes in the past few decades. Consider the rise in teenage pregnancies, not to mention abortions, over the same period. Weigh the knife and gun crimes, the robberies, the assaults, the hooligan problems in every village, town and city. These and other examples are manifest proof that society has lost its Christian moral compass and now responds only to base human instinct. This deterioration in civilisation has accelerated in direct proportion to the demise of Christianity over the past fifty years or so.
-
Athanasius, I’ve just copied your post on the Irish abuse report to a priest friend in Ireland. It is absolutely balanced and I, too, have serious doubts about the true extent of child abuse and the motives of those involved.
-
Athanasius, I dispute your claim that secularism or atheism is associated with increases in homicide, teen pregnancy, and abortion, or that Christianity is associated with decreases in those things. Please check out this study, the very first result I got just now on a Google Scholar search of “statistics murder and religiosity”:
http://www.rationalist.com.au/archive/73/p20-27_paul_ar73_web.pdf
Based upon surveys conducted by the ISSP regarding church attendance and religious belief, and data gathered by the UN and the WHO regarding health and violence, the study states that:
In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies[.]
In particular, the study goes on to point out that my country, the United States, is a major outlier in two ways: it is the wealthy country with the highest level of theism, and it is the wealthy country with the highest level of “dysfunction”, defined by the study to include:
[...]lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex-related dysfunction, and even abortion
Please note that I do not claim based on this study that religiousness causes these things. I only quote it to dispute your claim that Christianity reduces them. If you have other data that contradict this study, please provide a link.
-
Dear Athanasius,
If you have not already done so, I would suggest that you read the report.
I have read about 3/4 of the Report and I cannot agree with any of your arguments.
-
Here is an extract from Part 1 of the Dublin Report:
“1.49 Bishop O‟Mahony‟s handling of complaints and suspicions of child sexual abuse was particularly bad. He is one of the longest serving auxiliary bishops of Dublin (from 1975 to 1996). The Commission has established that he was aware of 13 priests from within the representative sample (and a number of others) against whom there had been allegations/suspicions by 1995. The full details of his involvement are detailed in the chapters on individual priests. As chancellor (he was a bishop while he was the chancellor), he dealt with one complaint and he did not inform the Archbishop about it. When he ceased to be chancellor, he failed to tell Archbishop Ryan about a number of complaints, for example, the complaint relating to Fr Vidal* on whose behalf he gave a reference to the diocese of Sacramento in California without giving details of his past history (see Chapter 15).
14
1.50 In the case of Fr Payne he allowed a psychiatric report which was clearly based on inaccurate information to be relied on by Archbishop Ryan and subsequently by Archbishop Connell (see Chapter 24).
1.51 He failed to tell either the National Rehabilitation Hospital, Archdiocesan authorities or the Gardaí that Fr Reynolds, who was chaplain to the hospital at the time, might have a problem with child sexual abuse (see Chapter 35).
Bishop Kavanagh
1.52 Bishop Kavanagh was the longest serving auxiliary bishop (from 1972 to 1998). He failed to deal properly with Fr Carney even when he had pleaded guilty to child sexual abuse. He tried to influence the Garda handling of the criminal complaints against Fr Carney. He persuaded a family to drop a complaint they had made to the Gardaí in relation to Fr .
Bishop Murray
1.53 Bishop Murray was another long serving auxiliary bishop (from 1982 to 1996). He handled a number of complaints and suspicions badly. For example, he did not deal properly with the suspicions and concerns that were expressed to him in relation to Fr Naughton (see Chapter 29). When, a short time later, factual evidence of Fr Naughton‟s abusing emerged in another parish Bishop Murray‟s failure to reinvestigate the earlier suspicions was inexcusable. Bishop Murray did, however, accept in 2002 that he had not dealt well with the situation.” -
From Part 2 of the Dublin Report (page 527)
35.56 This case was extremely badly handled by the Archdiocese. Numerous indications of serious abuse and of admissions by Fr Reynolds were ignored. The suspicions about Fr Reynolds surfaced during his time in Glendalough in 1994. Despite the fact that the parents had no desire to go to the Gardaí or to the health board, and wished the Church to deal with the matter, it was March 1996 before any interview with Fr Reynolds was conducted. He admitted to the complaints. He stated that something similar
happened in other parishes. No proper investigation was conducted into his activities in other parishes. Despite this admission he was allowed to remain on as parish priest in Glendalough until July 1997. The Commission accepts that Monsignor Stenson only became aware of the complaints in October 1995.
35.57 In the interview with Monsignor Stenson in March 1996, Fr Reynolds also admitted that his sexual orientation was towards children. A record of this interview is signed by Fr Reynolds. Again, despite this, he was given an appointment in the National Rehabilitation Hospital. This appointment gave him access to young children. Subsequently, Bishop O‟Mahony became aware that Fr Reynolds may have a problem with child sexual abuse but he does not seem to have mentioned this to anyone else in the Archdiocese or, indeed, to the hospital. This, the Commission believes, represents a major breakdown in communications among those in overall charge of the Archdiocese.” End of extract.
As can be seen here the parents trusted the Church to deal with the complaints and did not approach the Garda. The abuse inflicted by this priest included the insertion of a cruxifix into the bodies of little girls. What could be more perverse?
-
Benet
I think you misunderstand my position. I’m not saying that abuse didn’t happen or that certain prelates were not culpable for its continuation. What I am saying is that it is nowhere near the levels they’re claiming in that report. Money and the undermining of the Church is playing a large role in this controversy.
You seem to take that report as infallible. I wouldn’t trust anything these people reported.
-
DSimon
Thanks for the web link but all you have to do is look at Christian society 50 years ago and compare it with post-Chriatian society today and you have all the evidence you need. Reports can be manipulated to fit an agenda, real hard in-your-face evidence cannot. The evidence of 50 years of deterioration as mentioned earlier cannot be denied. Oh yes, and I forgot to mention a huge surge in suicides amongst the young.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/world/europe/24iht-coma.html
This should put euthanasia firmly on the back burner.
-
Dear Athanasius,
The Dublin Report looks at some 34 priests – it makes no claims or comments on cases apart from this representative sample. It does not go into the issue of extent of the abuse.
Please look at the case of Father Patrick Macguire, a Columban Father. If his Superiors in the Columban Fathers were revealed to have been part of a Masonic conspiracy to undermine the Church I might understand their actions better.
(In my view the Columbans should be making public reparations for their negligence – daily public recitation of the Seven Pentitential Psalms for a start and severe fasting.)
One might say that if the Masons had wished to devise a method to undermine the Church they could not have devised a better one than the actions of abusive priests and negligent Religious Superiors and Bishops as described in this Report.
I will not condemn the Messengers even though the Report may help their anti-Ecclesial causes.
-
Benet
“The Dublin Report looks at some 34 priests – it makes no claims or comments on cases apart from this representative sample. It does not go into the issue of extent of the abuse.”
Does this mean, then, that the media have latched on to a superficial report and sensationalised it?
What this report appears to suggest is that, yes, there was abuse and gross negligence, but the extent of it is not known. That’s not what the media is saying, surprise surprise!
Two things still trouble me about this affair. The first is that the saintly Archbishop John Charles McQuaid has been maligned. The second is that justice is never properly done where money is on offer for testimony. I will never consider this business of abuse as a serious judicial matter as long as financial compensation underlies it. There is no true and certain justice where bribery forms the basis of the prosecution case.
-
Athanasius, I can’t just take your word for it about this “real hard in-your-face evidence”, I need to see it if we’re going to discuss it. You specifically mentioned “rocketing statistics on drink and drug addiction, murders and rapes in the past few decades”, please provide something to back up this claim. I did a little cursory searching on this but can’t find the trends you’re referring to.
More specifically, I think you need to show evidence linking lack of religiousness to violence or teen pregnancy. If you were to provide evidence only showing that these things have risen overall in world in the last 50 years, that still wouldn’t tell us very much about what caused the change.
Also, I’m unclear on how the report I cited would have been “manipulated to fit an agenda”. The data are very straightforward to me: countries where people say they are less religious are countries where homicide and teen pregnancy are lower, and countries where people say they are more religious (including the wealthy United States) are countries where homicide and teen pregnancy are higher. Furthermore, even within the United States, those parts of the country where religiousness is lower are the parts where homicide and teen pregnancy are lower.
If you distrust the agencies that collected the data, or don’t think the data was collected properly, or you have a problem with the methods of analysis described in the report, or you think the people responsible for the report are dishonest, please explain.
-
DSimon,
To argue that the people of the secular USA are “religious” is a joke. Admittedly, there are a lot of people who claim to be “religious” in the US, but that possibly stems from President Eisenhower’s exhortation: “everyone should have a faith, no matter what it is…” Being “religious” is a social thing in the US. It’s part of the middle class package. Good job, nice house, 2.5 kids and, oh, going to church on Sundays… Nothing more, nothing less. That is NOT being “religious”.
The fact is that even many Catholics in the USA do not live by the teachings of the Church – far from it. They divorce, remarry, abort, contracept etc like everyone else. Not surprising, then, with their moral compass broken in two if not smashed to smithereens, that they may engage in criminality.
But in order for your theory to work, you’d need to find a truly Catholic community or nation where the crime rate was high.
I can tell you right now, to save you searching, DSimon, that nobody who lives by the teachings of the Catholic Church will ever live a life of crime. That is a FACT!
-
Here is one of the parts of the Dublin Report dealing with Archbishop McQuaid:
Dublin ReportPart 2: page: 178
Stella Maris Football Club
12.5 The first allegation about Fr McNamee arose in January 1960, when a former altar boy, on the advice of a priest in Rathfarnham, spoke to a priest in relation to Fr McNamee‟s behaviour. The former altar boy informed the priest that he had heard from two former members of a football club with which Fr McNamee was associated, Stella Maris, that Fr McNamee had acted in an inappropriate manner when the boys had showered after returning from a trip to the seaside. The former altar boy also stated that he had witnessed Fr McNamee bathing with naked adolescent boys and placing the boys on his shoulders.
12.6 These matters were investigated by the auxiliary bishop, Bishop Dunne. Fr McNamee denied the allegations and stated that he had merely permitted the boys to use the showers after returning from the seaside. Bishop Dunne believed Fr McNamee‟s version of events, as did Archbishop
178
McQuaid when it was reported to him. The Archbishop noted that “as he is a worthy priest I agree that we could not refuse to accept his word”.“12.43 Archbishop McQuaid‟s view, in the early 1960s, that he could not refuse to accept the denials of such a worthy priest (Fr McNameee ordained 1942) was sadly misguided. If action had been taken then, the abuse of a large number of boys could have been prevented.”
Is that a fair conclusion?
If he had investigated the complaint, perhaps interviewed the priest to whom the boy had made the initial complaint and the boys, and found it to be true would he have punished the priest?
-
Benet
As regards this one case naming Archbishop McQuaid, it was 49 years ago and the man accused of negligence is long dead. How are we ever to get the real truth of this matter now? Remember, this accusation is surfacing 49 years, almost half a century, after the event. It just doesn’t impress me and I certainly cannot answer questions about the case on the late Archbishop’s behalf.
Besides that, it is the Catholic way not to raise allegations against the deceased which are controversial. The reason, clearly, is that they cannot answer for themselves and so to accuse them is unjust. Catholics are not even permitted to raise in public or private the genuine past sins of deceased people for reasons of charity.
And here’s another matter that’s getting right up my nose. Why are prelates in the Church apologising on behalf of the Church for supposed sins that the Church was party to. Whatever sins are committed by individuals, lay people, priests, bishops, Cardinals, or even Popes, are their personal sins, they have nothing whatever to do with the Church.
When these public apologies are made by Popes and high prelates, they only succeed in giving the general perception that the Church was somehow a partner in crime. This is manifestly false and it’s about time these gutless prelates said so. They’re so busy trying to please the press and the world instead of stating clearly that individual sins have nothing whatever to do with the Church.
-
DSimon
Here is just one link of many I found on the Internet showing a catastrophic statistical decline in family values over the past four decades.
http://home.att.net/~r.s.mccain/family.html
There are numerous other such sites revealing authoritative stats on murder, suicide, overall crime, etc. Just ask your granny or some other senior citizen how they feel things have changed in the past 40 or 50 years and they’ll answer better than any stats count could. It is a nonsense to assert that immorality and crimes are higher in religious areas than in non religious ones. It is even more of a nonsense to compare small secular countries with one the size of the U.S.
The clear and unambiguous statistical evidence, not to mention my own eyewitness testimony, is that the deChristianising of the world these past four decades has led to an unprecedented deterioration in every society.
-
But in order for your theory to work, you’d need to find a truly Catholic community or nation where the crime rate was high.
Editor: With respect, I think you’ve misunderstood my point. It is not necessary for me to find a high-crime-rate Catholic community to defend my argument, because my argument is not that Catholicism causes a high crime rate. I merely argue that it is NOT the case that atheism causes a high crime rate, in opposition to Athanasius’s original argument that it does.
To argue that the people of the secular USA are “religious” is a joke.
Even if the people of the USA are not as religious as they claim to be, I think it’s still fair to say that they are more religious than people who claim to not be religious. That’s all I need in order to use the USA as evidence for my argument.
Here is just one link of many I found on the Internet showing a catastrophic statistical decline in family values over the past four decades.
Athanasius: The linked article is about the average age of marriage increasing, number of people in pre-marital sexual relationships, and the birth rate decreasing. None of your original metrics (homicide, teen pregnancy, abortion) are directly cited; there is a brief mention of “outcry over the ‘teen pregnancy crisis’ “, but with no numbers quoted or sources cited.
I would prefer if we stuck to the metrics you suggested in the first place.
I do not agree with the use of the metrics suggested in this article as measures of societal health, and there’s not much point in us getting into a side argument about them when we already have plenty of metrics we both agree upon: crime, violence, suicide, teen pregnancy, abortion rates.
There are numerous other such sites revealing authoritative stats on murder, suicide, overall crime, etc.
I did a quick search, and didn’t find anything contradicting the first study I cited. If you have found stats which contradict that report, please provide a link.
Just ask your granny or some other senior citizen how they feel things have changed in the past 40 or 50 years and they’ll answer better than any stats count could.
This is a highly subjective and bias-prone source of data. Memory is not very reliable, especially going back such a great length of time, and especially when asking for memories of childhood. We don’t really expect children or teenagers to be impartial observers of society’s problems; their parents will, if they’re competent, be working very hard to protect their children from such problems.
Furthermore, depending on who you ask, you can get many different contradictory results. For example, if I asked my mother (who is old enough to be a “senior citizen”, since I was born fairly late in her life) about this, I’m positive based on the stories she’s told me in the past that she’d claim things have gotten better over the past 50 years. Do you want me to ask her your question the next time I call her up, and report her answer?
(Unfortunately, I cannot ask my grandmother as you suggest, as they both passed away years ago.)
It is even more of a nonsense to compare small secular countries with one the size of the U.S.
The reason I brought up the US is that it is one of the most theistic of the wealthy countries. For this reason, it’s useful to compare it to countries such as Norway and Denmark which are also wealthy, but which are not as theistic. Even if it is as editor claims and Americans are not as theistic as they say, they certainly would still be more theistic than people who state that they do not believe in God.
I don’t understand why the size of the countries makes this comparison invalid. If your claim that atheism leads to crime is true, then why do these small secular countries have so little crime?
-
DSimon
Against your imagined religious U.S. I offer the atheistic soviet empire and ask which you would consider to be the less criminal.
Anyway, here are some links for you.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/totalstab.htm
http://www.parliament.uk/COMMONS/lib/research/rp99/rp99-056.pdf Look at the graph on page 9 on this link.
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf Check out page 6 (crime) on this link.
http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/09/29/sweden-crime-trend-1950-2005-robbery-burglary/
http://law.jrank.org/pages/2159/Statistics-Historical-Trends-in-Western-Society-post-World-War-II-crime-wave.html This one makes an interesting mention of Finland. By the way, did you know that Finland has one of the highest suicide rates in the world per capita, and in all age ranges?
Be prepared to be shocked by what you read. All figures prove what I have said, e.g., that crime has dramatically risen in proportion to the Christianity fading.
-
Athanasius, thanks very much for providing all these links. I will check out the information in them and compose a response later. This is a busy week for me, so it may take me a few days.
-
The comment section on the Pope’s outreach to Anglicans is closed but I wonder what list members think of Fr. Peter Scott’s analysis. His answer to the question “Can one be now Anglican and Catholic at the same time?” was posted this morning on RomanCatholics yahoogroup and was picked up this afternoon on AngelQueen.
Question: Can one be now Anglican and Catholic at the same time?
Answer: The November 4 Apostolic Constitution of Pope Benedict XVI opened up a new path for Anglicans “to be received into full Catholic communion individually as well as corporately” (Anglicanorum coetibus). It is a revolutionary new approach to the problem of “separated brethren”, and one which some have called the Church’s boldest move since the reformation.
The novelty here is that Anglicans are being treated in the same way as the schismatic Eastern Orthodox when they return to the true Church. They will be allowed to retain their Anglican identity at the same time as becoming Catholic. They will be canonically and liturgically distinct from the rest of the Catholic Church, and will consequently be allowed their own parishes, bishops, married priests, liturgical and spiritual customs. This is normal for the Eastern rite Christians who return from schism to the bosom of the Church, for their liturgy, spirituality and traditions are ancient, just as those of the Latin rite. Moreover, they are essentially schismatics, not heretics, the few heresies being of recent origin and easy to correct (such as the denial of Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility).
Is this a just and correct analogy? A careful examination shows a multitude of differences:
1) There is first of all the motivation. The majority of those who request to enter into the Catholic Church have already separated themselves from the Anglican “Communion”, such as it is. They have done so not so much because of their rejection of Anglicanism itself, but because of the new orientation of the Anglican church since 1991, that has opened the priesthood and episcopate to women and active homosexuals, and blessed same sex unions, all of which are manifestly opposed to the Bible, foundation principle of Protestantism.
2) The second major difference is that Anglicanism has invalid orders and consequently no other sacraments than baptism and matrimony, unlike the Orthodox who have all seven valid sacraments.
3) A third difference is that Anglicanism is from its very origin entirely heretical and protestant. From the time of Thomas Cranmer down, all the Anglican divines embraces the theories of Luther and the other Protestant reformers. Anglicanism truly is a form of Protestantism, which is why intercommunnion with all protestant sects has always been accepted. If it is true that the Oxford movement in the mid 19th century, brought a return towards a more traditional form of spirituality, worship and piety, this was not a rekindling of interest in Catholic aspects of Anglicanism, for these never existed. It was a discovery of some of the treasures of the Catholic Church. However, these high church Anglicans, as they became called, did not follow Cardinal Newman’s conversion of 1845, but chose to stay Anglican. High Church Anglicans then did not have the courage to convert to the true Church, just as now.
4) A fourth difference and consequence of the fact that Anglicanism is a protestant sect, is that it has no doctrinal authority or unity. There are as many different brands of Anglicanism as there are Anglicans. It is this broad latitude that they like, so that each one can chose his religious practice for himself.
5) A fifth difference is that Anglicanism does not have the spiritual and monastic Tradition of the Eastern rites. It was the founder of Anglicanism, Henry VIII, who was responsible for the destruction of 1,000 monasteries in England. If in the past century some little effort has been made to form some religious communities, it is only by the rubbing off of some Catholic spirituality, not because it is an Anglican tradition.
6) A sixth difference is that there is in Anglicanism no liturgical uniformity. The entirely protestant prayer books of 1549 and 1661 pretended to give such uniformity, but they have been supplanted in recent years, and the high church Anglicans have in large part rejected or adapted them, following a variety of combinations between the new Anglican liturgy, and certain borrowed uses such as resurrecting the old Sarum rite in use in England before the Reformation, or the Tridentine rite in English, or the New Mass. There is no such thing as an Anglican liturgical Tradition, if it not be the 1661 prayer book.
Why, then, would the Pope be so determined to treat them in the same way as the Eastern Orthodox? He gives the explanation very clearly in this very Apostolic Constitution; namely the new definition of the Church of Christ given by Vatican II. It is said to “subsists in” the Catholic Church, rather than to be identical to it. It is for this reason that divisions among the baptized are to be considered as divisions within the Church, and are considered to harm the mark of unity that characteristizes the true Church. Hence it is that Benedict XVI states in Anglicanorum coetibus that “every division among the baptized in Jesus Christ wounds that which the Church is and that for which the Church exists”. Hence it is that unity amongst the baptized is an absolute to be sought after at any cost, so much so that it is now “unity in diversity“ that is the goal to be sought after. Traditional Catholic teaching makes the Faith, worship and sacraments the absolute, that determine the unity of the true and Catholic Church, as can be seen from the definition of the Church in the catechism. The separation of heretics and schismatics, as deplorable and sad as it might be, in no way harms the Faith, worship, sacraments and hierarchical authority because the Church of Christ is identical to the Roman and Catholic Church.
The consequences of this urgent need for a false unity with little real foundation cannot be acceptable to the Catholic mind. Hence are some of them:
Ÿ There is to be no conversion properly speaking, with abjuration of heresy, public profession of the Catholic Faith and absolution from the censure of excommunication. It is simply stated that the lay faithful “originally part of the Anglican Communion, who wish to enter the Personal Ordinariate, must manifest this desire in writing.” (IX) There is no admission of fault in being outside the one true Church, nor request to be admitted into the one true Church.
Ÿ There is no profession of Faith in any of the articles of Faith that have been denied by the Anglican church for 450 years. All that is required is the implicit acceptance of this statement: “The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the authoritative expression of the Catholic Faith professed by members of the Ordinariate”(I, §5) . This 1993 Vatican II catechism is quite ambiguous, especially on points of doctrine in which protestants disagree with the Catholic Church, and the implicit acceptance of this statement is something quite different than the oath condemning all the protestant heresies found in the Tridentine Profession of Faith of Pius IV.
Ÿ Anglicans are allowed to retain their Anglican liturgical books and prayers, their Anglican spirituality and pastoral customs: “The ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See, so as to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church” (III). The small proviso of approval by the Holy See does not take away from the profoundly novel character of this provision that considers anti-Catholic Protestantism and liturgy to be a tradition that is to be maintained within the Catholic Church. The document goes on to state that all of this is a “precious gift” and “a treasure to be shared”. What an insult to Catholics such as St. Thomas More, St. John Fisher and St. Edmund Campion who gave their lives rather than become Anglican, and to true converts such as Cardinal Newman, who willingly, but necessarily, abandoned the invalid, heretical protestant Anglican ceremonies to become true Catholics.
Ÿ Married priests are to continue to be a way of life in this ordinariate, as in the Anglican church. Married ministers who enter the Ordinariate can be ordained, and future priests who are already married can be ordained. This is a very effective way of undermining the treasure of clerical celibacy, one of the great outward signs of the Church’s holiness. If married bishops cannot be accepted, such men can become priests with jurisdiction of an Ordinary all the same (Cf. Note published by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith on October 20), thus getting around the “problem“ of clerical celibacy that these Anglicans are not willing to embrace.
The tragedy of all this is that these Anglicans will be considered as Catholics and as Anglicans at the same time, thus blurring greatly the distinction between truth and error, Faith and infidelity, submission and independence. Cardinal Levada himself admits this, when he describes the tenuous and vague basis of this unity: “They have declared that they share the common Catholic Faith as it is expressed in the catechism of the Catholic Church and accept the Petrine ministry as something Christ willed for the Church. (What does that mean? Papal infallibility? Real power of government, or just a place of honor?) For them, the time has come to express this implicit unity in the visible form of full communion.” (Ib. in zenit.org).
If we must certainly fear that this acceptance confuse Catholics and only confirm these Anglicans even more in their false principles and traditions, we must nevertheless pray that they eventually truly convert to the full and entire practice of the Catholic Faith, outside of which there is no salvation.
-
Adrianne
I agree completely with Fr. Scott. I have said from the start that these Anglicans are converting more for moral reasons than faith reasons and it should not be allowed.
Pope Benedict XVI is definitely trying to establish ‘unity in diversity’ in the Church. It is an erroneous programme based on erroneous principles.
-
The next time I get the “obedience” argument flung at me I’m going to freak. We don’t follow the same religion as these people.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/
http://www.rcdiocese-calgary.ab.ca/
This from a country where a bishop is awaiting trial for having indecent images of children on his laptop.
-
Adrianne, thanks for posting that statement from Fr Scott – a brilliant piece.
I agree entirely Grignion – what a nerve from, as you say, a land where a bishop is charged with having indecent images of children on his computer. You truly could not make this stuff up.
-
Editor
Did you know there is actually a newer variant of “pray, pay and obey” in effect since Vatican II”
“Pray, pay and be gay.”
-
Adrianne,
your Fr Scott post above is too good to be omitted from the Anglican thread so I have reopened it and would be grateful if you would repost it there. http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/?p=2579
We’ll leave it here, as well, but it would be a pity of browsers missed that excellent commentary from Fr Scott.
Torkay – you are VERY naughty indeed but I did laugh at your VII variant of “pray, pay and obey” (should that not be on the Dundee/laity thread, though? Doubly naughty, Torkay…)
-
Editor – sorry about my misplaced naughtiness. I had the wrong tab open in my browser (is that as good an excuse as “my dog ate it?”).
-
Editor, I have posted Fr. Peter Scott’s excellent piece under the original thread, as you directed. I think it is imperative that as many Catholics as possible read it and then pass it on! We need to keep our heads while all about us are losing theirs (with apology to Rudyard Kipling for taking liberties with his poetry—but it just seems so apt these days!).
-
Grignion,
noticed on your flu link the emergency measures include – eucharistic ministers should wash hands before Mass. Great! when the emergency measures expire, are they able to start distribution with unwashed hands again?
Sigh…
-
That problem would be eliminated of they just got rid of Eucharistic ministers. But I suppose that’s a step too far!
-
(Warning: This is a very very long comment. Buckle your seatbelts, it’s time for a road trip.)
Let me start out by summarizing the data Athanasius linked.
The per-100,000 homicide rate of the United States was at 4.6 in 1950, held at around there until about 1960, where it started rising, and peaked at 10.2 in 1980. It then began falling and was down to 5.6 in 2005.
The per-100,000 robbery rate in Sweden was nearly 0 in 1950, and has been rising steadily since then to about 100 as of 2005. The per-100,000 burglary rate also started at around 0 in 1950, rose to a peak of around 1900 in 1975, held there until 1990, and began falling there to end up around 1250 as of 2005.
The “Historical Trends in Western Society” article shows that around many other parts of the world over the same time period, similar increases in the rates of various crimes were observed. The article concludes that this is largely due to “expressionism” which it defines as an increase in the trust of one’s basic intuitions. However, unlike the rest of the article, this statement is not cited back to any other source nor is any evidence presented to support it.
Athanasius suggested that I check out the graph on page 9 of the rp99-056 PDF. It shows the homicide rate in England & Wales staying steady from 1945 to 1965, then beginning a gradual rise to its 1997 level, which is nearly double that of 50 years earlier. However, I also was very interested in the “International Comparisons” section of that report on page 28, which compares homicide rates among different countries in the mid 90’s. More on that later.
Finally, the rp99-111 PDF shows a change in per-100,000 homicide rate from 9.6 in 1900 to 14.1 in 1997. There’s also a really dramatic graph showing a change in the overall per-100,000 crime rate from around 2 in 1900 to around 90 in 2000. However, I don’t see much value in that data, since the report points out that the amount of unreported crime has dropped significantly over the past century, and also since the number and variety of potential crimes has changed quite a lot over that time (i.e. highway speeding, copyright violations, spraypaint vandalism, etc.)
Okay, that gets the boring part out of the way.
Now let me start out my analysis by quoting myself from an earlier comment:
[...] I think you need to show evidence linking lack of religiousness to violence or teen pregnancy. If you were to provide evidence only showing that these things have risen overall in world in the last 50 years, that still wouldn’t tell us very much about what caused the change.
I stand by this statement. Merely showing that societal dysfunction metrics have risen over the past 50 years does not establish a cause. Many many significant and influential things have happened all over the world in the past 50 years. The increase in the number of people who are openly atheistic is just one.
The only evidence-based way I can think of to show a link between atheism and societal problems would be to look at several different populations and compare those which are more atheistic against those which are less. Analysis of any single population is not sufficient to show that atheism causes anything.
Athanasius brings up a good example of this principle with the Soviet Union. The SU certainly committed a large number of atrocities in the name of its political ideology, an ideology which included state-mandated atheism. However, in order to show that atheism contributed to the SU’s problems, you would need to compare it with another similar country which was not atheistic.
As I understand it the Communist Soviet Union was created in a period of extreme social turmoil, at the dramatic end of an entire political system and its replacement by several revolutions in quick succession into an entirely different one. I don’t think it’s a stretch to consider this, independent of any other cultural changes, a serious potential source of social problems.
Compounding this was the fact that the political system in the SU was extremely dogmatic and powerful, and did not tolerate any discourse or disagreement. The one-party system reigned, and attempts by member nations or individuals to re-assert individual political control were suppressed by military force. Checks and balances were non-existent. I think that vigorous debate is a sign of a healthy society; suppression of independent ideas could very plausibly cause major social and political problems.
These problems are very clearly not distinguishing characteristics of atheism. Atheists today are typically independent-thinking sorts, who support the free exchange of ideas. It’s a common saying that trying to get atheists to group together and act en masse is like trying to herd cats.
I do NOT suggest that atheists are necessarily all so non-authoritarian. Atheists can support open discussion and freedom of speech (as for example I am), or they can be rigidly and fanatically against it (as the leaders of the Soviet Union were). Atheism alone does not imply either stance; instead, you have to look at other factors in the personality of the person and the culture they live in.
To show that atheism leads to immorality, you will need to do more than provide individual examples of atheists being immoral. You have to have a large representative group of atheists and a large representative group of theists and compare them.
(Okay, everybody, hold on, we’re nearly at the conclusion).
I do not think the data you linked to supports the claim that atheism causes crime. It does indeed show that many types of crime have risen in the past 50 years, but not in any way that seems to me to have any correlation with atheism. Look at page 28 of the RP99-056 PDF, which compares the homicide rates of various countries. The 5 countries with the lowest homicide rates are Norway, Japan, Eire (Ireland), Switzerland, and Portugal. The 5 countries with the highest rates are the Czech Republic, Hungary, the USA, Russia, and South Africa.
The page at http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html shows a list of the percentage of self-identified non-believers in numerous countries around the world as of 2005. Of the low-homicide-rate countries, Norway has 31-72%, Japan has 64-65%, Ireland is not listed, Switzerland has 17-27%, and Portugal has 4-9%. Of the high-homicide-rate countries, Hungary has 32-46%, the USA has 3-9%, Russia has 24-48%, South Africa is not listed, and the Czech Republic has 54-61%.
In other words, both groups are all over the place. The low-homicide-rate countries range from lowest at Portugal’s low of 4% up to Japan’s high of 65% (I don’t consider Norway’s 72%, since its range of 31-72% is ridiculously large). The high-homicide-rate countries range from USA’s low of 3% up to Czech republic’s high of 61%.
I don’t see anything here that supports your claim that atheism leads to crime. My very first initial guess would be that the low-homicide-rate countries are the ones with stricter gun laws, and high-homicide-rate countries are the ones with the biggest economic problems. It would be very interesting to look into it more, but I think I’ve spent enough time for tonight on the Internet.
-
A slight addendum; I don’t claim that my “top 5 vs. top 5″ comparison method above has any real statistical validity. It’s just a cursory examination of the data looking for an obvious trend. I did it in order to provide a simple double-check to the analysis done by the report I linked earlier, which did a much more thorough and statistically robust analysis and which also did not find a positive correlation between atheism and crime.
-
DSimon
With the greatest respect, I got halfway through your first set of comments, to the part where you deny the proof in front of your own eyes, the proof you said I couldn’t provide, and I stopped reading. It is clear that you are not prepared to accept the evidence gathered by these independent sources which shows clearly that crime and immorality have risen sharply in direct proportion to a decrease in Christianity.
I really don’t see any point in prolonging this exchange. Best thing is for you to hange on to your rose-tinted glasses and I’ll hange on to my Catholic Faith, with a firm grip!! It has been yet another interesting exchange. Take care!
-
By the way, don’t have a clue where the “e” in “hang” came from!!!!
-
Athanasius, correlation is not the same as causation. Merely showing that crime rose and Christianity declined during the same time period is not proof that the latter caused the former.
In any case, I appreciate your civility and your willingness to discuss this topic with me. I look forward to our next conversation, whenever that may be.
-
DSimon
Likewise. Take care.
-
A little birdie tells me that the Catholic Church in England and Wales will make an announcement at 12 Noon today. As it’s still under embargo I can’t say any more until after that. But what follows from it should be interesting….!
-
And here it is…
-
Guardian Angel,
And there was I thinking that Archbishop Vincent Nicholls was going to announce an instruction for the re-installation of Altar Rails up and down the country to facilitate kneeling whilst receiving Holy Communion on the tongue.
Oh well, dream on, Leprechaun.
-
LOL
If he did it would go some way to stop the disgraceful abuse of the Host recently highlighted by a blogger on here.
Of course the real question is who will get Southwark? Any thoughts?
-
Readers who are interested in the USA or in geo-politics should check this out:
1 of 6 – Obama & Friends: History of RadicalismYou might want to record it quick before Youtube delete it! There is a free youtube recorder at http://www.downloadhelper.net/
-
“Who’ll get Soutwark”, you ask, Guardian Angel?
Well, the ways things are going, I’d say the local Imam is in with a chance!
-
On a lighter note…..
A few days ago I decided I’d had enough of the priest-merry-go-round at my parish, where we never get the same priest 2 weeks in a row and where one of them thinks the traditional Mass is a voice recital, so I decided to check in with our local SSPX parish, where I hadn’t been in 2 years.
What a wonderful and heartwarming surprise! First of all, they had a beautiful new reredos, and new statues. The next thing I noticed was that there wasn’t merely a group of servers, but a whole choir of them – 11 in all. And the Church was full – not of older folks like me (as the liberals are wont to claim, indulging in some sort of mere nostalgia), but almost entirely of young families. The place was packed with children and infants!
I think I may have to join this parish….I felt like I had come home….one thing I’ve never seen before though: right before and after the last Gospel, one of the servers (who may have been the MC), kept clapping his hands sharply at certain intervals. At first I thought someone had dropped something up there, but then he repeated it about 3 times.
Does anyone know why he did this? (I’m sure he wasn’t applauding my singing)
-
Torkay
I’m at a loss with the hand clapping thing, but you get yourself down to that church every week from now on. Your soul will be safer (and happier) there! Good for you!
-
Torkay, he wasn’t applauding your singing – just celebrating your arrival!
Please ask about the hand-clapping – I’ve never heard of that before – and let us know next week! Then we can all say, together now, 1,2,3…. WOW!
-
Editor
You post about the Imam getting Southwark really made me smile! Thank you!
-
Torkay – I have known bossy MCs to give fairly obtrusive commands to their serving team, and with 10 of them under him, he would have had quite a job of it. Perhaps a sharp hand-clap, though hardly comme il faut, was the only way he could reach some small acolyte on the other side of the sanctuary who was up to something he shouldn’t have been – young servers being occasionally prone to mischief or skittishness, I fear. Just a suggestion re an odd occurrence. While on the subject, it isn’t just servers who get it from the MC. I know of one priest who never forgave an MC who shouted very audibly “Ad sedes, ad sedes” at him when he hadn’t got himself fast enough over to be seated.
-
Guardian Angel, I’m glad I made you smile. My family often says things like “you make me laugh…” so I seem to have that effect on folk!
Naomi, sounds like a possible explanation. Not one I like, though. People who won’t have noticed the silly altar boy, will be nonplussed and distracted by the hand-clapping.
Anyway, about to close this thread down but will re-open it next Friday so that Torkay can confirm or deny your explanation…
-
Torkay,
By the time that I read your wondefful news, the thread had already closed. So, a belated bravo in finding a new SSPX parish chapel/home!!
-
Thanks Miley. I’ll see if I can find out the reason for the hand-clapping. Could it be he was trying to turn the lights on and off?
-
Torkay
He didn’t by any chance announce: ‘Heeeeeeere’s Torkay’ when he clapped? Just wondered!!
-
Ath
He would have had to announce that in Latin!
-
Torkay
I had forgotten about “the clapper”. What fun it is to reminisce.
-
UK REQUIRES BACKGROUND CHECK FOR HOMESCHOOLERS
http://www.hslda.org/hs/international/UnitedKingdom/200912100.asp
The globalists are furthering their agenda to control every aspect of our lives.
-
We had a very interesting sermon today about Elias and St. John the Baptist, who, though he was not Elias himself, appeared in the spirit of Elias.
But I wondered about this: did St. John the Baptist know Our Lord before he baptized Him (i.e. had they met privately)? If not, how did he know Our Lord was present among them, but not yet known? And if not, again, did he recognize Him at the baptism simply because God opened his eyes?
Anything in the Apocryphal literature about this? Or is this just an example of inappropriate curiosity?
-
Torkay
It certainly seems from the Scriptural texts that St. John recognised Our Lord by divine grace. But he was Our Lord’s blood cousin also, so there is ample room for belief that he knew Our Lord in His hidden live in Nazareth long before either public ministry began. Now stop being nosey, prying into the private lives of Our Lord and St. John!!
-
Ath
I forgot that they were actually kin! OK, no more peeping theologian….
-
Torkay
Just as well you said “peeping theologian” instead of an abreviated version of you Christian username. I don’t think ‘peeping Tom’ would have gone down very well! Mind You, ‘peeping Torkay’ has a ring to it, don’t you think?
-
folks,
Have not seen this posted here yet but Blessed Pius XII was declared Venerable today by His Holiness Benedict XVI.
As Tam might say – Way To Go your Holiness!
I’ll send the full list to the Editor by email
-
Ben
I see that you have been studying American colloquialisms. Don’t forget the all-important “WOW”!!! (Editor’s favorite)
-
Editor, Athanasius and Miley will be pleased to note that I went to Mass again at St. Pius X parish this morning, as well as Confession. No MC clapping during Mass today, though the choir of servers expanded to 14! Now if only I could understand the priest, whose heavy French accent is almost as difficult to decipher as Glaswegian……
One other new thing today though: when the priest dismissed me in Confession, he asked me to pray for him! No priest has ever asked that of me.
-
This country has gone to the dogs. This makes me so angry…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/8423265.stm
The woman who made the complaint should be ashamed of herself – as should the local authority for acting on it in the way they have.
-
Guardian Angel,
it seems odd that this teacher should give this “testimony”/offer of prayer, to this pupil knowing that her friend, the nurse, had been suspended from her job for the same thing.
Of course it is shocking that there is clearly censorship of Christianity in the workplace now (not Islam where you can dress as you wish and they put prayer rooms aside for you – check any hospital or airport for examples) but I am rather surprised that she was unguarded, given the circumstances.
Given her friend’s experience, you’d think she might have asked parental permission to talk about her experiences of answered prayer. No?
Torkay,
I don’t think it’s unusual for priests to ask penitents to pray for them, on dismissal: if they asked me on arrival, I’d be more worried, thinking my reputation had gone before me!
-
Guardian Angel
I agree with you! This is how Nazism started with the Jews and it is also how Christians were, and are, treated in Communist countries. This country is in big trouble and the sooner people wake up to the fact that they’re now living under a dictatorship the better. New Labour (and the other main political parties in Britain) are nothing more or less than Communists by any other name.
-
Editor
I can see a priest making that request upon your arrival, if he got a glimpse of your rolling pin!
Ath
I’ve often wondered why 95% of American Jews vote liberal. Why don’t they realize that socialism and Nazism are the same thing?
-
Torkay
Exactly! The hints are in the common use of the word “Socialist,” the attraction to eugenics and the despotic nature of their rule. Some people just never learn!
-
Ath
You would think 6 million casualties would drive the lesson home rather quickly……even I would learn my lesson after that!
-
Torkay
I’m delighted that you assisted at another SSPX Mass. You are very fortunate to have a chapel in close proximity. Many of us are hours away from SSPX chapels. Great name for the chapel, too!
-
SSPX update
(aka the traditional adventures of Torkay)
It seems there is something new just about every week at St. Pius X. This morning for High Mass we had (a) three priests, all clad in beautiful golden vestments, two of them serving as deacon and subdeacon, I think (I wouldn’t know a deacon or a subdeacon from a British soccer club), until Holy Communion, when one of them assisted with distribution; (b) a ceremony in-between the sermon and the Credo, in which, it appeared, 6 new servers were installed (correct word?), each receiving, at the end of the ceremony, the red braided cord to go around his neck; (c) another clap – -just one – as all 18 servers stood in the aisle ready for the recessional. It became obvious that this gesture was to coordinate their bowing…not, as previously speculated, to turn the lights on and off…..
I’m beginning to wonder if this parish is one of the major SSPX chapels in the country….I’ve never before seen such solemn beauty and reverence during Mass. It was almost as if the entire congregation gasped in spiritual delight and joy at the Elevation.
And the children! Hardly an old fogey anywhere in the Church! (unless you count me, which I know Editor would do).
-
As the New Year will be upon us when next our little blog opens, may I take this opportunity to wish everyone a most holy, blessed and Happy New Year!
-
Torkay! Give us a chance to get over Christmas! I would promise a Happy New Year thread but seeing the way the Christmas thread has gone, maybe not! A very happy new year to you, anyway!
Your description of the SSPX Mass is beautiful. Thanks for that.
-
Editor
Are you saying we need an octave of relief after the Octave of Christmas? A Feast of the Holy Antacids?
(Speaking of octave, I wonder whether the musical arts stole their definition – a tone on the eighth degree from a given tone, and/or the interval encompassed by those degrees – from the Church?)
-
Stop the presses, Editor, and answer me this regarding today’s Feast:
Why wasn’t baby John the Baptist slaughtered by Herod? He was only 6 months older than Jesus, right? Did his family not live in the Bethlehem district? Or is this just a Scriptural omission?
-
Tomas de Torkay:
Wasn’t it so that Salome could get her dad to cut his head off later on?
-
leprechaun
Only in the opera…..
-
. . and in St. Mark Chapter 6 verse 28, too, as well?
-
Torkay, not having looked into the matter of St John the Baptist escaping King Herod’s slaughter, and speaking purely off the top of my head, I would presume that since his mission was to be the pre-curser to the Messiah, he escaped the slaughter through the protection of Divine Providence. Quite likely that others escaped too – parents would know about the threat and take steps to protect their babies. Would be interesting to investigate although I believe the first non-biblical source on this is around 4th century but this is all off the top of my head, remember. Am prepared to stand corrected!
-
Editor (and leprechaun)
I just wondered why Sacred Scripture makes such a point of St. John’s conception, leaping in the womb, etc., but fails to mention how it was that he escaped the slaughter. We can deduce that he obviously escaped, given that his mission was fulfilled; we know WHY he escaped (Divine Providence), but not HOW. Presumably his parents were visited by the same angel that came calling to St. Joseph. Either that, or his family was not under Herod’s jurisdiction.
Perhaps just a bit of excessive curiosity on my part…..piqued by the tragic tale of the Holy Innocents…..
-
I’ve decided to begin the New Year with another obscure question:
Jesus’ “sixth word” on the cross was “It is finished,” by which I presume He meant that His mission was completed and He was now free to breathe His last as the God-man.
If His mission was completed at that Word, that is, His blood had already been shed for our salvation, then what was the point of the soldier piercing Him with a lance, to shed even more blood (and water)?
-
Well Ludolph the Carthusian commenting on the piercing quotes St Augustine (Tract 120 in Joan.) saying that fulfilment of the prophesy of Zacharias:
“They will look upon the one they have pierced” St John 19:37
reinforces the truth of the Incarnation, for the Christ could not have suffered such treatment if he had not already possessed a real body.
Vita Christi – None of the Passion (Part II, Chapter 64)
-
An interesting essay on the Medieval Church by a guy from Calvin College!
-
Torkay,
To add to Benet’s post (which I meant to do half an hour ago but got sidetracked – sorry for delay) the background to the lance piercing is very interesting. Origen, early Church Father, said that it was the Romans’ custom was to leave the crucified person on the cross to rot but if the the relatives wanted to take down the body and bury it then the deceased was first pierced by the executioners.
References to the symbolism of the blood and water – water representing Baptism and blood representing the Eucharist – are found in the preaching of great saints like St John Chrysostom, which is also interesting.
Sorry for not responding more quickly – I have to admit I tend to forget about the Q & A thread, mea culpa!
-
Benet and Editor
Thanks for trying, but I’m more looking for a metaphysical reason…I think…let me think about it a little more and see if I can re-phrase the question.
BTW, isn’t it ironic that it was a Roman soldier who inflicted the final cruelty on Our Lord, when His Church was destined to make Rome its seat?
-
Benet
A very interesting essay! I notice the author could not go as far as to admit that Luther’s “reform” was actually a rebellion against Church authority and a theological revolution (after all, he is a Calvinist apparently), but at least he dispensed with the myth that the Reformation was about the sale of indulgences.
-
Torkay,
You accusing Benet and me of being “trying”? Watch it!
Listen, once I’ve looked up “metaphysical”, I’ll be back with that answer!
-
New film documentary on Archbishop Lefebvre. The trailer in French may be difficult to understand, but the footage is beautiful.
http://www.lefebvrethemovie.org/
Prayer for the canonization of Archbishop Lefebvre:
O Jesus, Eternal High Priest, who deigned to elevate Thy faithful servant Marcel Lefebvre to the episcopal dignity and to grant him the grace of being a fearless defender of the Holy Mass, of the Catholic Priesthood, of Thy Holy Church, and of the Holy See, of being a courageous apostle of Thy Kingdom on earth, of being a devoted servant of Thy Holy Mother, and of being a shining example of charity, of humility, and of all virtues; bestow upon us now, by his merits, the graces we beseech of Thee, so that, assured of his powerful intercession to Thee, we may one day see him elevated to the glory of the altar. Amen.
(Prayer of the Society of St. Pius X)
Archbishop Lefebvre, pray for us.
-
OK Ed, here’s another obscure question (actually, 2):
1. Why did Jesus tell His Mother at Cana that ‘My hour is not yet come” when She asked Him to do something about the wine running out? Didn’t His public ministry begin with His baptism in the Jordan only 3 days earlier?
2. Why did He call Mary “woman”? That to me evokes shades of Eve, i.e. the woman who was a source of temptation.
-
I’m continuing a discussion here I was having with Isaac in the book list thread.
Isaac said:
[I]s your chief objection to dogma the existence of dogma itself (i.e. a definitive statement that never needs revision), or is it to a particular dogma (e.g. God is a Trinity), or to both?
Okay, I suppose now is as good a time as any to jabber at length about my ideas on evidence-based reasoning.
I do accept some statements as axiomatic. That is, I assume their truth or falseness and can’t think of any evidence that would make me change my mind about them. Here’s a couple of examples:
* I assume that unfalsifiable notions are false. For example, I assume that Last Thursdayism (the hypothetical belief that the world was instantaneously created last Thursday with all our memories of prior events created in a moment) is not true. There could never be any evidence for or against Last Thursdayism, and so there is no way to tell whether or not it is true. So, there’s no point in worrying about it.
* I assume that what my senses perceive has something to do with an objective reality, and that we’re not all trapped in a perfectly designed version of The Matrix or something like that. (This is sometimes called the “brains in jars” scenario.)
I have to assume these things are true because otherwise, it’s not possible to figure anything out. Since evidence is all we have for figuring the universe out (this is not an axiom, by the way, but a definition; I define “evidence” as information which can be used to figure something out about the universe), we have to assume that we have access to at least a minimum quality of evidence. By “quality of evidence” I refer to how much the evidence is an accurate representation of objective reality.
If it’s impossible for us to figure anything out by gathering evidence, we may as well all just stay in bed all day. However, I don’t want to do that, so I assume that the universe is at least partially figure-out-able.
However, I don’t assume that these assumptions are beyond question. If someone presents a novel new argument about these assumptions, I’m willing to reconsider them. So, no, I’m not 100% certain about anything; I admit that I could be wrong about anything. However, my level of confidence about the above statements is so high that I currently consider them true for all practical purposes.
All these axiomatic assumptions are about having at least a minimal ability to gather evidence about the world around us. Beyond that, it’s a bad idea to make any assumptions; beliefs should be based upon evidence, and adjusted as necessary when new evidence arises or old evidence must be re-evaluated.
In other words, assume as little as possible, but no less.
So, here’s the sequence for evidence-based belief.
1. Assume only those things that I must assume so that I can gather quality evidence
2. Gather evidence
3. Set my beliefs based on the quality evidence I findIt is on these grounds that I disagree with the adoption of Catholic dogma as axiomatic, because to my understanding none of that dogma has to be accepted to begin gathering and evaluating evidence. That is, you seem to be arguing that (for example) God’s existence needs to be at #1 in the sequence, but I argue that it belongs at #3 instead.
Also, a word to preempt possible arguments about atheism itself being an assumption of non-existence: I do not believe in God, but it is not the case that I believe it is impossible that God exists. It’s just that I have not found any quality evidence supporting a belief in God, and so I provisionally go with the simplest model that accounts for the facts (what scientists call “the null hypothesis”).
-
DSimon,
I think you should have just continued on the book thread because that post is relevant to your discussion on banned books. So, if you don’t mind, would you copy and paste it on the other thread and if you, Isaac, would just hold off until that happens! I’ll then delete this part of my post.
I came in to briefly tell Torkay that this time I see his question but am engaged right now (wedding in June!) and I WILL respond asap, not like last time! Hang on, Torkay, I’ll be back later.
-
Complete aside: here’s a photo of himself at La Salette in October, 2008:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3066/2990061138_cb718d9843_o.jpg
-
Isaac, is that you? You handome devil!
-
Still no time, but I’ll respond briefly to this point:
“It is on these grounds that I disagree with the adoption of Catholic dogma as axiomatic, because to my understanding none of that dogma has to be accepted to begin gathering and evaluating evidence.”
I suspect that’s a reply to my previous comment that went something like “dogma — call it an axiom if you like.” If so, then let me add: my point was not that a dogma and an axiom are identicial, but that for purposes of our discussion they shared this atttribute in common: they serve as reliable starting points for subsequent considerations and gathering of evidence.
The Catholic view is that:
* our senses are reasonably reliables tools for assessing the universe;
* the mind is able to make reasonably accurate determinations about what the senses present;
* the mind is also capable of penetrating beyond merely what the senses present to recognize and comprehend the nature of reality itself.Dogma is not contrary to reason; rather, it aids reason by giving us additional information about the nature of reality that we could not arrived at by our own unaided thought processes (e.g. God is a Trinity). Rather than throwing us to the wild, God has given us help and aids — and being God, Who can neither deceive nor be deceived, His help is certain and true and cannot be improved upon.
We accept matters on the testimony of reliable authority all the time — for example, I have no skill at wiring circuitry, but that doesn’t give me pause when flipping on the light switch. Similarly, because God is a reliable authority, I have no difficulty accepting what He reveals to me (i.e. as dogma) about the nature of reality.
-
Isaac, I think you will find it much more difficult to conduct your discussion on this thread, intended for one-off topics, questions and answers etc. Up to you, but, as I suggested above, you should copy and paste your posts back onto the Books thread because your discussion is closely enough related to that thread to merit inclusion there. Over to you.
-
Torkay,
‘The Hour’ refers to the Passion and Death of Our Lord, as you know. In his Life of Christ, Bishop Fulton Sheen explains the exchange between Our Lord and His mother at Cana, beautifully – sometimes I’ll quote exactly but for speed, sometimes I’ll use my own words. Here’s Bishop Fulton Sheen:
“(Our Lady’s request for more wine) was never a personal request. She was already a mediatrix for all who were seeking the fullness of joy. She has never been just a spectator but a full participant willingly involving herself in the needs of others… She used the special power which she had as a mother over her Son, a power generated by mutual love. He answered her with apparent hesitation: “your concern, mother, is not mine. My hour has not yet come” (John 2:4”
Whenever Jesus referred to his Hour, he referred to his Passion and Death and so at Cana. At the moment He showed His divinity, his Hour – his suffering – would begin. Those who were suspicious of Him now and who disliked Him, but they would vent their hatred in full force once His divinity was confirmed. Bishop Sheen:
“There were, in His life, two occasions when His human nature seemed to show an unwillingness to take on His burden of suffering. In the Garden, He asked His Father if it be possible to take away the chalice of woe. But He immediately afterward acquiesced in His Father’s will: “Not My will, but Thine be done”. The same apparent reluctance was also manifested in the face of the will of His mother. Cana was a rehearsal for Golgotha. He was not questioning the wisdom of beginning His Public Life and going to death at this particular point in time; it was rather a question of submitting His reluctant human nature to obedience to the Cross. There is a striking parallel between His Father’s bidding Him to His public death and His mother’s bidding Him to his public life. Obedience triumphed in both cases; at Cana, the water was changed into wine; at Calvary, the wine was changed into blood.“
About calling His mother “woman” – from now on, Our Lady was not just the mother of Jesus but the universal mother, the new Eve. That is the significance of that title. The OT peoples would see the significance for when God reprimanded Satan after the fall, He said he would put enmity between him and “the woman”.
Torkay, the entire chapter on this: “The Beginning of ‘The Hour’ is beautiful and I’ve tried to find it online to save typing it all, but can’t find a link. I LOVE Fulton Sheen’s Life of Christ and I recommend it heartily. You would love it. It is a treasure trove of insight.
There is even a chapter on the piercing with the lance that you were asking about above. Fulton Sheen writes:
“The Divine Miser had hoarded up a few precious drops of His Blood to pour forth after He gave up His spirit, to show that His love was stronger than death. Blood and water came forth: Blood, the price of Redemption and the symbol of the Eucharist; water, the symbol of re-generation and baptism. St John, who witnessed the scene of the soldier piercing the Heart of Christ, wrote about it later: This is he who came with water and blood: Jesus Christ. He came, not by water alone, but by water and blood”. (1 John 5:6).
Hope this all helps – but if not, let me know and I’ll try again. I am, as you know, very trying indeed!
-
Editor
Many thanks for that post. I confess, though, that I find Bishop Sheen’s explanation at least partially far-fetched, for the following reasons:
-Surely Jesus knew fairly well, if not precisely, when His “hour” would come, i.e. 3 years’ hence. I’m not stuck on the definition of “the hour,” I just find it hard to grasp that He would deny the water/wine request because He did not want His Divinity to be revealed too soon. The same could be said about any of His subsequent miracles – not to mention His teachings – could it not?
-Sure He also knew and understood that His baptism, 3 days earlier, was the beginning of His public ministry, and that therefore the time had now come to reveal Himself? St. John the Baptist says as much, doesn’t he?
-It’s hard for me to buy the statement that Mary’s request for wine was not a personal request, but an archetypal request. The miracle may indeed be rich in symbolism invested in it by our hindsight, but the circumstances at the wedding were relatively simple: we need more wine, please oblige.
-”Cana was a rehearsal for Golgotha.” Now that really puts stretch marks on my wrinkled brow! But the sentence following second seems more reasonable:
There is a striking parallel between His Father’s bidding Him to His public death and His mother’s bidding Him to his public life.
I can understand Sheen central explanation, I suppose, that attempts to explain His reluctance – maybe I just don’t understand the reluctance.
more later…..
-
Torkay,
I am astonished at your post about Bishop Sheen’s explanation of the Cana miracle. It is irrelevant that Christ’s baptism/public ministry has just begun. “The Hour” is to come at the end of His ministry – that is the key point that the bishop is making. Maybe if you read the whole chapter and not my synopsis, you would find it more helpful . I think Bishop Sheen’s explanation makes perfect theological sense. It is the explanation I grew up with, but had never read it so succinctly put, until I read Sheen.
Can you say what YOU think is the meaning/significance of this event – aside from the traditional explanation given by Bishop Sheen, there are not a lot of options unless you think Our Lord was being rude to His mother (which is what the Protestants think – they often cite Christ’s apparent rebuke to His mother as evidence that we Catholics make too much of her).
-
Editor
Honestly, I don’t know what to make of this passage, neither why Jesus suddenly calls his mother “woman,” nor why He balks at performing the miracle – or should I say, the reason He gives for balking. One gets the impression that Mary’s request took Him completely off guard….but I don’t see how that could be possible either!
Guess I’ll have to read the whole Sheen chapter, since the excerpts just don’t make any sense to me. His “hour” is nowhere near; I don’t see how performing this miracle contributes to His suffering; and I don’t see how this request suddenly makes Mary into an archetype.
What WOULD make sense would be something like this: Jesus considered it inappropriate to perform the miracle because it was strictly for someone’s personal, social benefit – not for their salvation or healing, nor for any demonstration of the Kingdom of God. If that were true, his rebuke (well, it sounds to me like a rebuke) of Mary also makes sense: “In other words, Mother, you should know better than to make such a request of me. This is not the nature of my mission.”
It kind of reminds me of the other time He dismissed the concerns of His Mother: the finding in the Temple. “Didn’t you know I must be about my Father’s business?”
Anyway, be assured I have no plans of giving up my day job to become a theologian…..
-
Torkay,
Bishop Fulton Sheen says that it is quite possible that the reason they ran out of wine, was because there may have been an influx of guests, who were actually followers of Christ. And the miracle was not about “socialising” – but about Our Lady seeing the needs of others. You must read the whole chapter, Torkay. Soon. Then, if you grovel, I might forgive you!
Bishop Sheen’s explanation makes total theological sense and it is, in fact, the correct, standard exegesis of that passage. Christ would never rebuke His Mother, never “dismiss her concerns” (in the incident in the temple, Jesus was merely expressing surprise that his mother, who knew Who He was, from the Annunciation, did not realise He would be doing the Father’s work – there was no rebuke, no dismissal).
And, as I’ve already said, it is quite clear that by using the word “Woman” he is signalling the new Eve. I am amazed that you can’t see that, Torkay, so, I do agree with you…
Don’t give up your day job!
-
Editor
I have just thought, is it possible that use of “woman” is a reference to Mary’s role in defeating the devil, as described in Genesis 3:15
“I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.”
Knowing that a key teaching in this gospel passage is the role of Our Lady, could Our Lord be identifying Her as the ‘woman’ who will crush the head of the serpent?
-
Editor
I’ve just noticed that you have already said what I have said above. Sorry!
I recomment the works of Bishop Fulton Sheen and I’m reading his “Three To Get Married” just now.
-
Editor
How could Christ have any followers – let alone a wine-depleting throng of them – a mere 3 days into His ministry, aside from his disciples, who were already present – since He had yet to go public? It maketh not sense to a thick-headed lad from da Bronx. Who, aside from the Twelve and His parents, knew who He was? A handful of St. John the Baptist’s disciples?
I maintain that Our Lord’s words to his Mother appear unusually stern. But His use of the word “woman” does appear to have archetypal reference to Eve, and to Mary’s role in our salvation.
I also came across a statement somewhere that this miracle prefigured the Institution of the Holy Eucharist. But again, only partially true: transfiguration changes the substance, not the appearance. This miracle changes both.
I look forward to reading the entire chapter to get relief from my abject confusion, as well as to groveling……..
BTW, I was hoping for a sermon on this text this morning, but instead we got a sermon on laying the correct foundation for marriage and the correct and appropriate reception of communion at the rail. Sigh.
-
PS – I also disagree that the context wasn’t social. This is a wedding; the hosts would have been quite embarrassed had the wine run out. Jesus’ miracle spares them the social embarrassment – an act completely uncharacteristic of his other miracles, which spares us damnation, drives out demons, heals sickness, raises people from the dead……
Now, where is that “Life of Christ”?
-
Torkay
Our SSPX preached on this today. he said that “woman” was a perfectly normal way for a son to address his Mother.
By the way, how’s the Third Order coming along, Br Tomas?
-
Petrus
Thanks, I was wondering about that cultural/linguistic idiosyncrasy also. What do you think about the nature of Jesus’ statement to Mary? Do you think it is surprisingly stern, or am I out on this limb all by my lonesome?
The OCDS is OK, but honestly I wish I could find an SSPX Carmelite Third Order. My community uses the “reformed” Liturgy of the Hours (which bears the name of Bugnini in the front: get thee behind me, Satan!), celebrates the Novus Ordo at retreats, and its membership observes some of the ridiculous habits of the NO, like holding hands during the Pater Noster.
I am about to request to join the SSPX parish I’ve been attending since December; hopefully they will have a trail of breadcrumbs I can follow to a more traditional Carmelite Order.
Did you mention somewhere that you belong to a Third Order?
-
BTW Editor, another thought on my post of 5:05: presumably the miracle was not performed at the wedding itself, but at the feast right after the wedding (I’m just guessing at that, not knowing how Jewish weddings proceed). If that is the case, it makes this even more of a social occasion.
Now, you may continue sawing away near the trunk of that limb I’m standing on…..
-
Torkay
to be honest, no, I don’t find the words of Our Lord stern. I always think of The Prophet Elias seeing the cloud in the shape of a foot when he prayed for rain. He recognised the foot as the foot of the “woman” who would crush the head of the serpent. The use of this word should, I think, provoke a similar recognition.
I’m just about to be received into the Noviciate of the Third Order of Carmel which is under the direction of the SSPX, please God. I’d definitely ask an SSPX priest if there is a chaplain in the USA. I know there are tertiaries in Australia so I wouldn’t be surprised. Let me know how you get on.
I’m slightly confused at this sentence from your post above:
“I am about to request to join the SSPX parish I’ve been attending since December”
What do you mean by this. I’ve been attending a chapel of the SSPX for almost a year and I’ve never heard of the need to “request to join”.
-
In haste, Torkay…
1) read the Douay Rheims note on the “harsh” words of Jesus. You will find that very clear.
2) I didn’t say the “context” for the miracle wasn’t social – obviously a wedding is a social occasion – but that the REASON for the miracle (or one of the reasons) was Our Lady’s concern for the needs of the guests (and yes, the embarrassment of the hosts, no doubt).
3) that is the first recorded occasion when Our Lord addressed His mother as “woman” and it is indisputably linked to the fact that she, at that moment playing a significant role in the journey towards “The Hour”, is being announced, so to speak, as the new Eve.
Now, I need to go and find an electric saw – this one isn’t working!
-
Petrus
Does your Third Order have a website?
As for joining the parish, I assumed I would have to register or something.
-
Torkay
Here is the US contact information. Let us know if you make contact. I have not been able to do so.
Dear Madam,
Thank you for your e-mail and inquiry, and that is correct. Our designated chaplain is Fr. Gregory Post (who was once a Carmelite himself), and you may contact him at:
Queen of Angels Church
4100 Highway 3
Dickinson, TX 77539-5165
281-337-2508 telGod bless.
In Christo et Maria,
Louis J. Tofari
General Secretary
& WebmasterDear Sir:
It is my understanding that the SSPX has a Carmelite secular third order. If this is correct, could you please provide me with the affiliated contact information?
In Christo,
********* -
Ed
The Douay Rheims is the same as in my Missal: “Woman, what is that to Me and to thee? My hour is not yet come.”
Now keep that saw going while I think out loud about this. There are 2 things going on in that statement: 1. Jesus appears to be reluctant to perform the miracle; 2. His reason for that reluctance appears to be that He thinks it is not yet time for Him to perform miracles.
As to the first point, reluctance, my reaction is that He thinks this is somehow inappropriate to His mission. “What is that to Me and to thee” strikes me as a way of saying “This does not fit our mission on earth.” Key word being “our” – which fits his use of the word “woman.” I’ve already given my reasons above why this miracle might be inappropriate to His mission.
As to the second point, the wrong timing of Mary’s request, I can make no sense of it. Obviously, His hour is nowhere near, but 3 years’ hence, so to say that in this case, “hour” is a reference to His Passion makes no sense to me. If, on the other hand, “hour” refers to the beginning of His public ministry, which is but 3 days old, that doesn’t make any sense either: He knows the ministry has begun, a ministry which will include the performing of miracles to demonstrate His divinity. And finally, if “hour” does indeed refer to His Passion, which is relatively far off, then why is that a reason not to perform the miracle, and why does He go ahead and do it anyway?
Ach du lieber! I’m at my wit’s end – assuming I have any wits. Maybe you should just saw off my head, instead of the limb I’m standing on.
-
Miley
Many thanks for that name and address. I’m going to ask the PP at St. Pius X about it.
-
Torkay
You don’t have to register so don’t worry about that.
-
This makes grim reading.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8464453.stm
O Lord, send us another St. Pius X!
-
Torkay, don’t have time to read your entire post but I said read the Douay Rheims NOTE (at the foot of the page) not the verse.
Will check out the rest later but on skimming it, you really are misunderstanding. Whether it makes sense to you or not, when Jesus refers to his “Hour” He is referring to His Passion. That is it, Torkay. End of.
-
All,
============ Advance notification =============
Rev Mr Simon Harkins from Edinburgh will be ordained a priest on 27th May 2010 at the FSSP Seminary of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Denton, Nebraska.
On Saturday 5th June at St Mary’s Cathedral Edinburgh the Rev. Harkins will offer his First Mass in the Traditional Rite in his home town. His Eminence Patrick Cardinal O’Brien will be in attendance. A number of priests and fellow seminarians are expected.
This will be the first time a Scottish priest formed exclusively at a traditional seminary will offer his First Mass in Scotland in over 40 years. He will become the sixth British priest of the FSSP with two further seminarians in formation and one aspirant commencing this Autumn.
A warm welcome is extended to everyone so please put that date in your calendar now.
My personal wish is that the talks between the SSPX and the Vatican are satisfactorily concluded so that they too may participate at this wonderul occasion.
Please pray for him and ALL seminarians being formed that they may be true to the Catholic Faith, wise pastors and loving servants of Our Lord.
-
Benedict,
I doubt there is the remotest chance of the SSPX talks getting finished in less than a couple of years, although it would be great if they did.
God bless the FSSP AND the SSPX! The burning difference between them I think is really that the SSPX thinks traditional life is impossible under a hierarchy who are utterly determined to exterminate traditional liturgy. Obviously the FSSP disagree. Life for them can’t be easy, but they seem to have squeezed out of their ranks the few who wanted Bugnini Masses. At least I haven’t heard of them doing mod liturgy for quite a while.
Interesting post on http://www.summorumpontificum.net/:
Hermeneutic of Fatima:
If you were the pope, in the twilight of your career, a true son of VII, yet you could see the severe problems that have wracked the Church since VII, what would you do? If you had a deep seated fear that the Church would continue its moral decline if nothing is done, what would you do? If you truly believed the actions of the Vatican regarding Fatima were, at the time, honest and forthright, but now you had a real doubt that all was not as it seemed then, what would you do?
You would look at the most important aspects of the Message of Fatima that may not have been addressed, and you would systematically work to undo the damage.
1) Restore the TLM.
2) Propose a reconsideration and reinterpretation of VII.
3) Figure out a way to bring Russia back into the fold.
How?
1) Summorum Pontificum
2) Lift the SSPX excommunications, and task them with addressing the problems of VII. Put them directly in contact with the CDF. Let the tail (the SSPX) wag the dog (CDF.) Then let the CDF wag the Church.
3) Make real moves towards reuniting Eastern Orthodoxy, and use the Grace of that unity to fight the errors of post-Christian western decay.
This may be the interpretive key to truly understanding the “Marshall Plan” of Pope Benedict XVI.
Sounds good to me – certainly the Orthodox deplore Bugnini’s liturgy, so bring back the old one can’t hurt our chances of winning their hearts.
Time will tell if I and others are seeing the Pope through rose-tinted glasses or not.
-
esdras
I don’t believe points 1, 2 or 3 are addressed by Fatima at all. Even “bringing Russia back into the fold” is tangential, in my opinion, as the main urgent point is to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart, in order to save the world (and the Church) from Russia’s errors.
If the idea here is to portray Pope Benedict as trying to obey the commands of Fatima through the back door, as it were, then that is pretty much as unsatisfactory and unacceptable as just putting Fatima on the shelf, or burying it altogether. There is no back door!
Also, consecrating Russia has nothing to do with “winning their hearts.” You are looking at the problem from the perspective of human respect, not from Divine requests.
Besides, this whole quote sounds like a bunch of baloney that Father Z came up with (speaking of rose-tinted glasses). So, sorry, I’d have to disagree that this sounds good. It’s taking the hermeneutic of continuity completely in a humanist direction.
-
Ben
That is “extraordinary” news about Father Harkin. May God protect him from this useless schismatic heretic of a Cardinal.
And does this mean that there will now be a regular Traditional Mass offered by the Fraternity in Edinburgh?
-
esdras,
I know of at least one FSSP priest who says the novus ordo. By splitting from the SSPX they’ve weakened the fightback. I prefer to “no surrender” of the SSPX and it is thanks to them – warts and all, for they’re not perfect – that the restoration is underway.
Your theory is interesting, but not factual. The reason why the Pope has reinstated the TLM (Summorum Pontificum) and lifted the excommunications, is that those were the conditions laid down by Bishop Fellay before the SSPX would enter into any further talks.
And please don’t make excuses for the Popes who have persistently and – apparently – wilfully disobeyed Our Lady. There is NO excuse – they’ve all seen the Third Secret. It is beyond belief that they would have the temerity to defy her stated instructions to consecrate Russia and instead, put their faith in human plans. How dare they!
And we are reaping the whirlwind. Seen any world peace recently?
Torkay, there is, already, an FSSP priest in Edinburgh so there is a Sunday TLM in addition to the SSPX Masses in that city. However, since we’ve reported on the involvement of a known homosexual couple who provide the music and are heavily involved in the liturgy, we don’t advertise that Mass. It was advertised on our website even after we’d carried the report, until an Edinburgh man emailed me to rightly point out that it was incongruous of me to continue to publicise that Mass given the involvement of the homosexual couple and, allegedly, a rise of young “gay” men attending there. I’ve not been able to confirm this latter claim, so I emphasise that it is, at time of this writing, an unconfirmed report.
-
Editor,
Now I understand Petrus’s post late last year, the penny is dropping. So, you were intending to publish another round of inuendo. Why did you not come straight (no pun intended) to me rather than through A.T. – I have no problem asking someone direct “Hey you, Jimmy, are you a XXXX?” Editor removed offensive language Only you will have to ask your source who he/she thinks they might be and point them out to me on Sunday. I don’t want to ask the wrong men, they might hit me with their handbags.
Oh, the men you appear to cite as a “couple” are not heavily involved in the liturgy – how can any layman be, rather they are only heavily involved in the music, editor removed inappropriate remark (Oh wicked naughty Benedict – editor agrees with this self-observation!)
-
More on the Ven Pope Pius XII – from the Israeli newspaper Haretz:
“On April 4, 1933, Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, the Vatican secretary of state, instructed the papal nuncio in Germany to see what he could do to oppose the Nazis’ anti-Semitic policies.
On behalf of Pope Pius XI, Cardinal Pacelli drafted an encyclical, entitled “Mit brennender Sorge” (“With Burning Anxiety”), that condemned Nazi doctrines and persecution of the Catholic Church. The encyclical was smuggled into Germany and read from Catholic pulpits on March 21, 1937.
Although many Vatican critics today dismiss the encyclical as a light slap on the wrist, the Germans saw it as a security threat. For example, on March 26, 1937, Hans Dieckhoff, an official in the German foreign ministry, wrote that the “encyclical contains attacks of the severest nature upon the German government, calls upon Catholic citizens to rebel against the authority of the state, and therefore signifies an attempt to endanger internal peace.”
-
editor,
I have just been reading Damien Thompson’s blog and I think you might have missed the discussion called Bad Vibes about the Pope’s visit to Scotland and it is mostly about Catholic Truth. I had a quick look down the threads on this blog but can’t see any mention of it. I was amazed to see what a hard time Petrus was getting having to defend Catholic Truth. I was really especially amazed to read this sentence from one of his comments and wondered if you can explain it. Here is what Petrus wrote:
“Let me tell you something, before Bishop Tartaglia was bishop he had plenty of contact with the editor of Catholic Truth – and he wasn’t writing to her to complain about CT. I could say more, but I won’t! Go and ask the bishop about that one.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100022101/bad-vibes-about-the-popes-trip-to-scotland/What does Petrus know that the rest of us don’t, editor?
-
Rebel,
I don’t know anything that other people don’t. That piece of information was either posted by the editor on this blog or reported in the newsletter as part of the editorial. I have no idea what the correspondance was about, I only know that it happened.
By the way, I corrected a factual error about Catholic Truth, ie. They are not sedevacantists. You’ll see that I got a hard time for defending Catholic Tradition.
-
Petrus,
I did read that you defended Catholic Truth, the sedevacantist stuff and also some other times you defended it very well but, to be honest, I also got the impression sometimes that you were trying to kind of distance yourself from CT. You were having a hot time of it, though, so I understand why you would do that. They are a really horrible bunch of people. I hope you are not going to blog with them again, but stay here with us! We appreciate you, they don’t.
Editor,
I meant to say in my first post with the link, that I think the bloggers at Damien Thompson’s blog are a really nasty bunch. They really hate Catholic Truth and I wish you’d gone on there and posted. You’d have wiped the floor with them.
One of them actually said the Catholic Truth website is “vicious”. How can a lovely website, with a picture of the crucifixion and the Mass in pictures be vicious?! They really showed their true colours on that thread. Just about every comment was to do with Catholic Truth and just about every one was nasty.
I hardly ever visit that blog and won’t bother any more, because they’re really nasty. Loads of them are preaching that you should be charitable
but they are being anything but charitable when talking about you! -
I forgot to say, Editor, that some of those bloggers attacking Catholic Truth were priests. I was appalled. One of them had blogged here (Pasletanus, I think it is spelt) and he says on the Thompson blog that he stopped because we were all awful (sort of thing) but I remember that he came off worst in the debates, he just couldn’t come up with the answers, so I think that is why they hate CT so much. They know CT is right and they’re wrong.
-
Rebel
Thanks for your kind words. No, I won’t be blogging at DT’s blog again. In fact, I spent more time on that blog than I should have. I just found it difficult to let them have the last word.
As for distancing myself from Catholic Truth, I thought it be best to emphasise that I’m not part of the CT Newsletter Team and do not represent them.
-
“some of those bloggers attacking Catholic Truth were priests. I was appalled. One of them had blogged here (Pasletanus, I think it is spelt) and he says on the Thompson blog that he stopped because we were all awful (sort of thing”
That is the same priest that asked if I was from Salem. Insinuating that I was a witch. One has to ask her/his self- What kind of man of God would ever say something like that. It’s very sad.
-
rebel,
This information could, justifiably, have been posted on the “Scots Bishops apathetic” thread, since it relates to that, but since there are several comments here already, we’ll leave it as it is. Allow me, though, to take this opportunity to remind everyone to check, first, if there is a fairly recent topic thread that fits your question or comment before using this thread which tends to fill up very quickly.
I’ve read quite a few of the Damien Thompson comments but not all of them and, I must say, it makes astonishing reading. I’d forgotten just how much Catholic Truth is hated and I don’t just mean our newsletter.
Miles Christi Sum, I had forgotten that Pasletanus had more or less called you a witch; you say this is sad – I say “abominable”.
Can you imagine the outcry if I asked if any Scottish Bishop hailed from Salem? The hypocrisy is truly something to behold. To answer your question, though, Miles Christi Sum NO man of God would ever say something like that. He’s probably a very popular “man of the people” of course (aren’t they all?) but a “man of God”? I doubt it.And as for the one and only example of Catholic Truth being “vicious” that they could come up with – page 13 of the current, January edition – a derisory choice. So, a tabloid newspaper would fail to publish a scandal (of quite some proportions, let me tell you) because they felt sorry for the terrified culprit, in the hope that he would now mend his ways? If that is the best they can come up with to justify the description of us as “vicious” then there’s no case to answer. And, no, I didn’t need to consult a lawyer to reach that (painfully obvious) conclusion.
Frankly, just looking at some of their usernames (Scotspape springs to mind – “papist” having been used as an offensive description for Catholics since the time of the Reformation, so an authentic Catholic just wouldn’t recognise it, let alone use it to describe themselves) is offputting enough, before reading the hate-filled posts.
I agree that Petrus made a good attempt at defending us (after, understandably, trying to distance himself from us, as rebel noted) and for defending his own religious journey as well. They are very unpleasant characters, who thought nothing of savaging Petrus in public. I’m glad he has no plans to join in their non-discussions again – they are, truly, as rebel says, a very nasty bunch of folk.
Indeed, it is to your credit that you managed to remain civil and polite, under attack, Petrus and sincere thanks for your words of support for Catholic Truth.
I’ll finish reading that thread when I work up the energy – I found it very hard to read, not because they were attacking Catholic Truth but because of the loss of Catholic sense and general Catholicity that their comments betrayed.
-
Isaac, because the book thread is getting a little old and because I haven’t seen any more posts from you there, I’d like to respond to you here.
The Catholic view is that:
* our senses are reasonably reliables tools for assessing the universe;
* the mind is able to make reasonably accurate determinations about what the senses present;I agree that this should be axiomatically accepted; our senses are our only way of gathering external information about the universe, and so if they were not at least somewhat reliable we would be unable to do anything.
However, I think care must be taken about how much we trust our senses. There are many ways for our senses and our minds to be deceived (confirmation bias, the unreliability of memory, optical illusions, misdirection, etc. etc.), and must compensate for that by verifying what we experience as much as it’s practical to do so.
* the mind is also capable of penetrating beyond merely what the senses present to recognize and comprehend the nature of reality itself.
I strongly disagree. You’re proposing a mechanism here that has nothing to do with all the other ways we learn about reality. Therefore, it’s unverifiable: how do you know whether any particular instance of this “direct penetration” has given you mistaken information? We don’t give this much trust to any of our other senses.
Dogma is not contrary to reason; rather, it aids reason by giving us additional information about the nature of reality that we could not arrived at by our own unaided thought processes (e.g. God is a Trinity). Rather than throwing us to the wild, God has given us help and aids — and being God, Who can neither deceive nor be deceived, His help is certain and true and cannot be improved upon.
But, it is itself part of this dogma that God (a) exists, (b) is able to deliver information to you, and (c) cannot deceive you. It’s circular logic to assume the things you’re trying to prove.
I can’t fault you for being inconsistent; you started out by saying that you were going to assume that dogma was true, and you’ve done just that. However, circular logic is invalid, so your assertion that “Dogma is not contrary to reason” doesn’t hold.
We accept matters on the testimony of reliable authority all the time — for example, I have no skill at wiring circuitry, but that doesn’t give me pause when flipping on the light switch. Similarly, because God is a reliable authority, I have no difficulty accepting what He reveals to me (i.e. as dogma) about the nature of reality.
You’re not applying the same standard to both situations. You would probably say that there is no evidence that could convince you that God is non-existent or unreliable. However, the effectiveness of any particular electrician can be verified; if the electrician you hire cannot get your house’s current to work, you would probably get someone else.
To make this match the approach you are using to handle dogma, you’d have to assert that your electrician is unquestionably competent and reliable, regardless of whether or not any appliance you plug into the wall actually turns on.
To use a slightly different analogy, electricity is something that you could learn about. You could test that knowledge by trying out the wiring schemes you learned and seeing if they worked. In contrast, dogma is not testable, and therefore there is no way of finding out if it is actually true.
-
“Miles Christi Sum, I had forgotten that Pasletanus had more or less called you a witch; you say this is sad – I say “abominable”. Can you imagine the outcry if I asked if any Scottish Bishop hailed from Salem? The hypocrisy is truly something to behold. To answer your question, though, Miles Christi Sum NO man of God would ever say something like that. He’s probably a very popular “man of the people” of course (aren’t they all?) but a “man of God”? I doubt it.?”
Editor
You summed it up beautifully!
Petrus
As Editor has stated, thank you for standing up for Catholic Truth.
-
MCS and Editor
Thanks for your kind words. There’s a misconception on the DT blog that everyone who blogs here represents Catholic Truth. That was what I was trying to get across to them. Can you imagine conceit or cathedralman being the mouthpiece of CT? Editor, I’ve not sent you into some sort of allergic reaction, have I?
Editor
“Indeed, it is to your credit that you managed to remain civil and polite, under attack”
A miracle, more like.
-
I am studying about the design of the Earth and I wondered if someone could explain to me, in the Bible, about Job 28:5.
God Bless
-
We had our monthly Carmelite meeting this afternoon, and the person who gave the lesson, on St. Therese the Little Flower, had a perspective which to me was rather strange.
He said that he thought St. Therese was originally responsible for the radical VII change in the Church’s approach from “justice” (i.e. strict observance of Church rules, like Lenten fasting) to “mercy” (i.e. the spirit of said observance, the relaxing of the rules, John XXIII’s “aggiornamento,” etc.). He thinks this because St. T. herself did not do very much of the typical mortification and penance as was characteristic in the convent: she chose other means.
I don’t know enough about St. T’s theology to contest this (the French Church was apparently still plagued with Jansenism when she was alive), but it appears to me that this is a complete distortion of St. T’s approach to faith. Anyone care to comment?
-
Gemma,
You get some tough homework, don’t you?! The Book of Job is named after the holy man thought to have written it, Job. In Chapter 28, Job is reflecting on the way human beings can work to learn and discover things to do with the earth, but real wisdom and knowledge about the things that really matter, comes from God alone.
The first part of verse 5 “The land, out of which bread grew in its place (hath been overturned with fire”) is interpreted simply as meaning that the corn of which bread is made (particularly wheat) rises up out of the earth and when ground into flour, makes fine bread which makes us strong. We can learn to use the earth to grow corn to feed ourselves with bread.
The next part of the verse: “… under (the earth) has been overturned with fire” might refer to coal, which is fuel for fire. In the earth mines for gold and silver, iron and brass, are also found, and they can be dug out and taken for firing in various ways – coal to heat homes, other precious metals to make different objects to use and to sell etc.
Really, this verse has to be taken in the context of the whole passage/chapter and, at its simplest level, it just means that we, human beings, can work the earth and make it do different things for us; we can learn to grow things in the earth or to mine precious metals from it, but only God can teach us lasting knowledge and wisdom.
This verse can be linked with other Old Testament passages and some scripture scholars see lots of symbolism in it, e.g. they link it to Sodom & Gomorrah, cities that were destroyed by fire and brimstone because of the particularly sinful lives of the people there, but I doubt if you’ll be expected to know any more than the basic meaning for your RE lesson!
Hope this helps, Gemma – let me know if it is not clear enough.
Torkay,
You are absolutely right – what you heard at your Carmelite 3rd Order meeting was a total distortion. St Therese most certainly DID “do” (a lot of) the typical mortification and penance which is characteristic of a Carmelite convent. Indeed, after her death, when, from reading her journal of a soul, her superiors realised how much she had suffered from the cold, suffering from insufficient bedding, for example, it became part of the rule that Sisters were not permitted to do that – they had to go to their superior if they felt the cold at night, to be given more blankets.
She also made a point of singling out a Sister to whom she would not be naturally attracted, to spend recreation time with her, as a form of penance. When Therese died, that Sister was heard to express surprise that the saint seemed to have a special liking for her, sought her out and was always so nice to her – that was mortification of the Carmelite kind and Sr Therese practised it to an heroic degree.
She was very mortified, throughout her religious life, even to the point where, when she could scarcely walk without feeling terrible pain, she said she offered every step for some poor missionary far away, who was walking to spread the Faith, perhaps dispirited and struggling with spiritual desolation. She had a lively spirit of faith – offering up sufferings and inconveniences for the sake of winning grace for souls.
So, you can contest that baseless assertion about St Therese with every confidence, Torkay.
-
Editor
Thank you, I suspected as much. This event reinforced my determination to find a traditional Third Order Carmel as soon as possible. In the meantime, I am following St. Thomas a Kempis’ advice, to accept these opinions even though I know they are not right (which is a tough nut for me to crack).
-
Torkay
Yes, get yourself out of there pronto. I’m sure the Traditional Carmelite’s have a thriving community in the USA. There are about 30 in the UK. I’m being clothed with the habit in a few weeks time, mid-February, actually.
-
Petrus: congratulations! I hope you will write some reflections here after that blessed event.
-
If anyone can answer this question, I’ll send them a box of chocolates. Or, you can share Editor’s chocolates, if she hasn’t already eaten them all….
I use a spice at home which contains a mixture of thyme, sage, marjoram and rosemary. This evening whilst taking a deep whiff of said spice, I realized it smells just like the incense they use at our seminary.
So, sports fans, which of those spices is in the incense?
-
I’m going to guess this one, Torkay, because I can’t resist receiving another box of chocolates from you, albeit virtual reality via email chocolates…
Is it a combination of thyme, rosemary, sage and marjoram?
-
Read about Pete’s birthday at http://mapskeysclocks.blogspot.com/2010/01/petes-birthday.html
This is something from the office today; video by yours truly.
-
Isaac, poor old Pete! I’ve just seen the video but would have liked to have seen some audience reaction as well.
Plus, I left a comment over there at your blog, to ask if Pete has Scottish blood in his veins, from somewhere in his dark distant past, or is it just that bagpipes, per se, are embarrassing?
If so, don’t tell us. Lie. Just this once, lie…
-
Editor
I love those educated guesses….
-
Well, then, Torkay, see if you can guess who has just been the first culprit to go into moderation under the recently stated (of the patently obvious) rules of blogging on this Catholic site?
Here’s a clue: if he’d behaved himself, the “Welcome back” headline would have been a piece of alliteration genius… (fill in the missing username…)
The Return of ***
This is my way of taking revenge on you for making me sit (and fail) the Columbo quiz!
Of course, you’ll need to email your answer to me, because if you post the correct name, it’ll go straight into moderation as well!
-
More from Professor Dawkins:
Where was God in Noah’s flood? He was systematically drowning the entire world, animal as well as human, as punishment for “sin”. Where was God when Sodom and Gomorrah were consumed with fire and brimstone? He was deliberately barbecuing the citizenry, lock, stock and barrel, as punishment for “sin”.
“Oh but that’s the Old Testament. No one believes those stories literally any more. The New Testament is all about love.” Dear modern, enlightened, theologically sophisticated, gentle Christian, you cannot be serious. Your entire religion is founded on an obsession with “sin”, with punishment and with atonement. Where do you find the effrontery to condemn Pat Robertson, you who have signed up to the odious doctrine that the central purpose of Jesus’s incarnation was to have himself tortured as a scapegoat for the “sins” of all mankind, past, present and future, beginning with the “sin” of Adam, who (as any modern theologian well knows) never even existed?”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7007065.ece
-
Benet,
Thanks for posting that link to the latest anti-Christian rant from Richard Dawkins. That man really does have a troubled soul. How I would love to have a private conversation with him – just an hour – to see if I can work out what’s bothering him…
Oh yes, that’ll be it. He knows perfectly well, deep down, that God exists and that the Catholic Church (usually his main target) is what it claims to be – God’s chosen instrument of salvation.
It’s clear, though (and in this he does have a point) that our Pope, bishops and priests, are shying away from reminding the world of a couple of facts:
1) that disorder entered into the perfectly created world after the Fall of our first parents – hence the earthquakes…
2) that God is unchanging and unchangeable, and therefore, if God punished his wilfully sinning people in ancient times, there’s no sound theological basis for arguing that he no longer does so.
Of course, we are then into the whole “mystery of iniquity” scenario, innocents as well as the guilty, are punished.
Odd, isn’t it, that Richard Dawkins et al won’t oppose divorce and remarriage despite the fact that innocent little children are thus punished. I’m thinking of a friend of mine whose husband abandoned her for another (very unattractive) woman, leaving her four year old toddler without a father. No raging rants about that injustice and others like it.
If, as Scripture reveals, God has sometimes punished His people as recorded in the OT, then, clearly, theologically, He may still do so today – because God does not change. Even our secular media gurus describe, as events of “biblical proportions”, the Haiti earthquake(s), Katrina Hurricane, tsunami – all of these have been thus described on our TV news.
Catholic preachers – these days – won’t allow for the possibility that this is the case (we could see the reluctance to draw any such conclusion on The Big Freeze thread) and so, much as I hate to have to say it, I do believe that Dawkins has a point.
Christians are, when it comes to this subject, more than a little anxious to avoid seeming “extremist” or “fundamentalist” and thus, as Dawkins points out, they stand charged (and found guilty) of being inconsistent. We must stop trying to present God as a kind of perfect human being and remember that His ways are not our ways….His ways are “inscrutable”. They cannot be explained by saying silly things like no nice person/God would do these bad things – life is like a tapestry and we’ll only see the full picture the right way up, in the next life.
-
Re: poor Pete — here in the States, bagpipes are actually something on the exotic side. Everyone is familiar with them, but probably over half the 80 or so people in the office had proibably never seen a real set of pipes played before. It was novel.
As for why bagpipes were chosen: I imagine the combination of memorable novelty and sheer noise.
Audience reaction: quite a few of us were there with digital devices in hand taking photos and video. Laughter and clapping were common too.
-
An article against evolution by John Campbell
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2010-01310-John-Campbell-Evolution.htm —-
“There has been all along a classic line of European authorities against Evolution, instancing Lord Kelvin and Sir Ambrose Philips, Vialleton, Lemoine and Thomas in France, plus eminent Italian authorities — and this to name but a few. It is probably true that, owing to the great suppression in the modern media, that most ordinary men have not heard of such authorities, but the librarians and faculty members of these seats of learning are not ordinary men, and it is difficult to conceive of them being unaware of the published works of these scientists, particularly those of Paris publication.
The truth of the matter seems to be in the warnings of St Pius X in his encyclical, Pascendi Dominici Gregis of the persistent infiltrations of the Modernists towards seizing the keys of power within the Church. As St Pius X declared, “They seize upon professorships in the seminaries and universities, and gradually make them chairs of pestilence.” No warning could be more explicit.
One can only conclude that, since the days of St Pius X the seizure of the seminaries has continued with increased pertinacity; so that today we are witnesses of an unprecedented take-over. And please, remember that it was this same Pope who penetratingly pointed out, regarding the Modernists: “In this way they pass to what is practically their principal doctrine, namely, evolution.”
Indeed, such is the state of affairs that one encounters young clerics who have never heard of the deliberate forgeries of Evolution (with the possible exception of Piltdown), this to their great embarrassment when shown the proofs. Thus, the great take-over seems to amount to no less than a suppression of quite commonly known facts, so as not to disturb the bases of such theologies as those of Teilhard de Chardin and his followers. The seminaries remain steeped in darkest Darwinist ignorance.”
-
Benet, many thanks for posting the John Campbell article and link – really excellent. To the quotes you have cited from the piece, I would add this one:
“Clearly, that which is urgently required is for the evolutionist professors to be challenged — Have you any clear evidence that this Evolution, on which you base your theology, is attested in the nature of things? And they should be required to answer those eminent authorities who declare that Evolution is contrary to the facts of their respective sciences.”
In a nutshell, that is what is, most certainly, urgently required.
-
Today’s gospel was about the cockles oversown amongst the wheat and how these would be separated at the harvest. This parable was related to bad people (cockles), good people (wheat) and the last judgement.
I got confused at this point as I thought the judgement we faced on the day of our death was the one that sent some people to hell, some to purgatory and a fortunate minority to heaven – so what judging is there to do at the final judgement? Are any of the earlier decisions rescinded or recast?
Would someone would clarify this for me please?If it is to be Tomas de Torkay, could he do it before he goes herb sniffing again please?
If only Athenasius were here – he would answer my question I am sure.
-
Good question, tirocinium. If you follow St. Matthew’s gospel ch.13 through beyond the end of that parable, you will find that Our Lord expands on what he meant, from which it seems that at the hour of the end of the world, all living people will be judged simultaneously (as opposed to individuals being judged one by one as they die), and that this is the final judgement. There is not a second judgement of those who have already been judged.
I dare say that if I have given you an incorrect answer, I shall swiftly be removed to the doghouse.
-
All,
Some very disturbing news from Mexico, something we must pray is from a “lunatic fringe” of those who pupport to be supporters of the SSPX. I hope Bishop Fellay calls this priest to visit his office without delay, and not for a cup of tea either!
http://catholicchampion.blogspot.com/2010/01/sspx-group-in-mexico-attacks-fssp.html
-
Benedict,
I read that Mexican article very quickly but as far as I could see, apart from sending emails, there was no SSPX priest involved in the protest – just laymen.
Of course it was a very bad thing to do – a daft thing to do, really. However, compare it with the sacrileges and the insults to our Blessed Lord the world over in modernist parishes galore, and we get some perspective.
I dislike the way the critics of the SSPX grab every opportunity to rub in the “anomalous situation” – I get the feeling that there are an awful lot of folk who do NOT want to see the SSPX regularized. I detected some of that in the article, although perhaps I’ve picked that up wrongly, in my haste. I’m about to post a new thread, which, given this Mexican event, I think you’ll find very interesting indeed, Benedict.
the convert,
We are judged at the moment of our death and assigned to our eternal destination. Then, at the Final Judgment, we get to see the consequences of our actions – good and bad. That is when everything is laid bare, for, literally, all the world to see. So, you are absolutely correct; it is not a second judgment – just a much more public one!
-
Ben
I saw that story on Father Zzzzzzzzzzzz’s blog, and it smelled more than a little fishy to me – not to mention Father Zzzzzzzzz’s odious righteous pontifications inserted into the article. I also notice there has been no follow-up statement from Bishop Fellay or anyone else in the Society hierarchy.
If you come across any new developments in this case, I would be very interested in reading about them.
-
I’ve been keeping a close eye on the Ad Limina visit and according to inside information the Pope appears ‘content’ with the stewardship of the Church in Scotland. Here’s a few snippets from the Pope’s address to the Scottish Bishops:
On Ecumenism: “The Church in your country, like many in Northern Europe, has suffered the tragedy of division. It is sobering to recall the great rupture with Scotland’s Catholic past that occurred four hundred and fifty years ago. I give thanks to God for the progress that has been made in healing the wounds that were the legacy of that period, especially the sectarianism that has continued to rear its head even in recent times. Through your participation in Action of Churches Together in Scotland, see that the work of rebuilding unity among the followers of Christ is carried forward with constancy and commitment. While resisting any pressure to dilute the Christian message, set your sights on the goal of full, visible unity, for nothing less can respond to the will of Christ.”
On the Role of Priests: “It is a happy coincidence that the Year for Priests, which the whole Church is currently celebrating, marks the four hundredth anniversary of the priestly ordination of the great Scottish martyr Saint John Ogilvie. Rightly venerated as a faithful servant of the Gospel, he was truly outstanding in his dedication to a difficult and dangerous pastoral ministry, to the point of laying down his life. Hold him up as an example for your priests today. I am glad to know of the emphasis you place on continuing formation for your clergy, especially through the initiative “Priests for Scotland”. The witness of priests who are genuinely committed to prayer and joyful in their ministry bears fruit not only in the spiritual lives of the faithful, but also in new vocations. Remember, though, that your commendable initiatives to promote vocations must be accompanied by sustained catechesis among the faithful about the true meaning of priesthood.”
On Catholic Schools: “You can be proud of the contribution made by Scotland’s Catholic schools in overcoming sectarianism and building good relations between communities. Faith schools are a powerful force for social cohesion, and when the occasion arises, you do well to underline this point. As you encourage Catholic teachers in their work, place special emphasis on the quality and depth of religious education, so as to prepare an articulate and well-informed Catholic laity, able and willing to carry out its mission “by engaging in temporal affairs and by ordering them according to the plan of God” (Christifideles Laici, 15). A strong Catholic presence in the media, local and national politics, the judiciary, the professions and the universities can only serve to enrich Scotland’s national life, as people of faith bear witness to the truth, especially when that truth is called into question.”
On the Role of the Laity: “Hand in hand with a proper appreciation of the priest’s role is a correct understanding of the specific vocation of the laity. Sometimes a tendency to confuse lay apostolate with lay ministry has led to an inward-looking concept of their ecclesial role. Yet the Second Vatican Council’s vision is that wherever the lay faithful live out their baptismal vocation – in the family, at home, at work – they are actively participating in the Church’s mission to sanctify the world.”
Equally I hear that the English Bishops were ‘delighted’ with their visit as was the Holy Father.
So what does it all mean I wonder??
-
Guardian Angel
Quite simply, it means we have a Modernist Pope: traditional one minute and liberal the next. We’ll need to wait a little bit longer for our truly Catholic pope’.
-
Question: given the 5 essential elements of a good confession (prayer first, examination of conscience, confession of sins, act of contrition & penance) do not all take place in the confessional, is there an issue with validity where the priest leaves the act of contrition to be said along with penance?
Context: on an unscheduled stop in Glasgow this morning I took the opportunity to go to St. Aloysius (first time there, usually go to the cathedral if in the area, though we are all aware of the ‘restoration’ work which renders it closed at present) and for the first time in sacramental confession, excluding ’services of reconciliation’ which I have endured once or twice in the past, the priest gave absolution leaving the act of contrition to be said with the penance.
Is this common?
-
Crossraguel
That has happened to me in St Aloysius. I don’t think it invalidates the Confession, but I don’t know. Personally, I’ve stopped going to Novus Ordo priests for Confession because I’m not willing to take a risk with validity.
-
Crossraguel
The confessions is valid.
Contrition is a re-requisit before you you enter the confessional. The recitation of the ‘Act of Contrition’ can be done either inside the confessional (as I prefer) or outside, but is not essential to the validity.
Canons 987 and 988 are relevant:
Can. 987 In order that the faithful may receive the saving remedy of the sacrament of penance, they must be so disposed that, repudiating the sins they have committed and having the purpose of amending their lives, they turn back to God.
Can. 988 §1 The faithful are bound to confess, in kind and in number, all grave sins committed after baptism, of which after careful examination of conscience they are aware, which have nor yet been directly pardoned by the keys of the Church, and which have not been confessed in an individual confession.
§2 The faithful are recommended to confess also venial sins.What is esentail is true contrition, resolve to ammend for the future and absolution (which I notice wasn’t on your list.)
Hope this helps.
-
Guardian Angel
Thanks for that information.
Personally, and I stress that word, I wouldn’t go to a Novus Ordo ordained priest for Confession. I’m not advising anyone else to think like I do and I’m not passing any judgement on those who do go to such priests for Confession. I read a story of a Modern(ist) bishop who said in an interview that sometimes he had the intention of ordaining men sacrificing priests and sometimes he didn’t. Surely this raises questions over the validity of those ordinations? I think that’s why the SSPX offer to conditionally-ordain priests; validity is uncertain.
I’ve also read that the New Rite of Ordination of priests in Latin is almost identical to the Traditional Rite. Even in english, the Rite still offers certainty. However, there are still some question marks over the Rite for the Consecration of Bishops because it is a departure from the approved and received rites of the Church.
I’m not one who feels comfortable with grey areas – I like black and white. I lneed absolute certainty and I’m afraid there’s only one place to find that certainty these days. As I said before, these are only my personal thoughts.
Thanks again, Guardian Angel. Very helpful.
-
I recently came across the sad story of St. Williams Community Home, Middlesborough – reported in Nov 2009 – has anyone else heard or read about this?
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/4721369.Church_diocese_ruled_as_liable_for_abuse_payouts/
“A CATHOLIC diocese faces an £8m compensation bill after a judge ruled it liable for running a former children’s home at the centre of an abuse scandal spanning 30 years.
There are 142 alleged victims of sexual and physical abuse from St William’s Community Home, in Market Weighton, near York, who could now seek damages from the Middlesbrough Diocese… etc ad nauseam”
-
My wife and I were just reading about child vaccinations and were shocked to discover that some vaccinations, including the MMR, are derived from aborted fetal tissue. Unbelievable. It places us in a terrible position. I wonder how many other parents are aware of this…? We also got a hard time from the health visitor for refusing the Swine Flu injections. How can Catholic Parents stick together and support each other in these matters?
I know Bernadette and Majella will be interested in this and I hope others will respond too.
-
Petrus
I am interested in the case of the bishop you mention. Who was he? Sounds very odd that he would sometimes have the intention of ordaining and other times not. And I’m not sure what you mean by the SSPX conditionally ordaining priests. Can you maybe direct me to where I can read up on these two issues?
Your subsequent post however is much more alarming. I had no idea about fetal tissue being used. Where did you read this?
-
Guardian Angel
I’ll get back to you on all these issues in about an hour.
-
Guardian Angel
The following link is very interesting, as is the book “Priest, Where Is Thy Mass? Mass, Where Is Thy Priest?”
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/conditional_ordination.pdf
Regarding the bishop who said that he didn’t always have the intention to ordain sacrificing priests, I can’t remember where I read that or who told me. I really should make note of these details.
-
Now, this vaccination business. It’s truly shocking isn’t it? This link is helpful:
http://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/
And this:
-
Petrus,
I am utterly shocked beyond words! Do you have a link or article or something about the MMR issue – This is unbelievable. I really want to know more about that and have some hard evidence. I am lost for words on this.
Regarding the Swine Flu – I have just recently received a letter for Wishaw (NHS) requesting my son attend an appointment at my local GP surgery to receive the swine flu jab. I called the GP and decline – they said they would forward on my decline to the NHS department in Wishaw who is dealing with it – I don’t know if I will hear anything else.
My friend is a nurse in the NHS Stobhill and she said the statistics in Stobhill are going down for swine flu patients since the winter – she puts it down the the really cold temperatures saying that because of the below freezing temperatures we are experiencing, she thinks the temperature is killing the germs including the swine flu germs. Could be very true – It shows you God works in mysterious ways – Thats God letting us know whose in control – certainly not those climate change fanatics and those in higher authorities who are supposed to be ‘looking after our well-fare’
Keep me informed about anything you hear on these two issues – I think it is horrifying.
-
Petrus,
Thank you for your comment, maybe that is something one or more priests does at St. Aloysius then.
I am interested to note your personal preference on confession; hitherto all Catholics of traditional persuasion I have been aware of have recognised this sacrament as one which could be reasonably accommodated by diocesean priests regardless of their approach to Mass, at least where no modern deviations from form are present i.e. outwith a confessional, face to face etc.
Without seeking to enter into a debate on the subject, many faithful who do not attend the NOM will only go to diocesean priests for confession, due to concern over the faculties of society priests. I can see that line of argument being logical, notwithstanding refutation on the basis of crisis, therefore as I say I note with interest the position you stress is personal.
Guardian Angel,
Thank you for your response and for providing the appropriate Canon Law quotations. I appreciate your assurance that validity is not affected where the essential element is present regardless of when this is done.
It is natural enough given the present liturgical backdrop to question why this is the first time in over 20 years of sacramental confession that this priest juggled things about, especially given that only turnaround time was obvious as a motive. As well to ask the question I suppose.
The 5 essential elements are listed in the CTS Simple Prayer Book (pg 24) and I had just put them in as headings. The act of contrition (element 4) actually states: “Make our act of contrition with heartfelt sorrow and a ‘firm purpose of amendment’, being determined that we will avoid the occasions of sin.” Sorry that was not clear from my post, also the list seems to be from the penitent perspective so absolution is not included, since this comes through the priest.
-
Bernadette
Like you, I was totally shocked. I spoke to someone on the phone about it and they said the very first rubella vaccine was made from aborted fetus tissue. I’m not too sure about subsequent vaccinations. What is clear is that we must be very, very careful about what we allow our children to have.
http://www.immunize.org/concerns/vaticandocument.htm
Regarding the Swine Flu vaccine, we were offered it for our oldest son and we declined. We then had a visit from the Health Visitor who tried to convince us that we should have it. It really angers me the way they use patronising scare tactics. For example, my wife was told, “you know young children can die from this?” To be honest, we are thinking of declining Health Visitor visits from now on. It’s either vaccinations or contraception they have on their agenda and I’m going to end up tossing one of them out of my house.
I’ll keep looking for more vaccination information and post anything I find. I really cannot wait to get our homeschooling group up and running because we can then get support from each other in this battle.
-
Crossraguel
I can also understand why some traditional Catholics question the whole “faculties” thing. I think once you accept that these are not normal times (anything but) and remember that there is a terrible crisis, you begin to ask yourself what would please God more: a priest with faculties who is an innovator (and potential heretic); or a priest with no faculties who would rather die than compromise the Faith.
Anyway, as I said, I don’t like grey areas. I prefer the black and white. Certainly as long as the correct words of absolution are used then the validity SHOULD be assured. For me, SHOULD, is not good enough. You were right to ask about this though.
-
Petrus and Crossraquel
Regarding the question of Confession with diocesan priests vs. SSPX priests, didn’t we have an article here about the theological differences between the traditional absolution and the NO absolution? Wasn’t that a Daniel Graham piece?
BTW, this question of faculties fails to take into account the diocesan priest’s understanding of sin and penance. In my experience, an NO diocesan priest is all too likely to dismiss or soft-pedal sin, and instead tell you how much God loves you. That’s not worth much to my soul, if anything.
-
Torkay
I agree completely!
-
Torquemada,
We indeed had a newsletter article by Mr Graham on the sacrament, however it’d be fairer to say it looked at the language used and left the theological conclusions for us to draw, straightforward though most of them were in terms of ‘progress’ in the Church direction.
I’ve encountered my share of priests with questionable approaches to confession in recent years, including questioning whether sins I was confessing were actually sinful. But I persist and receive absolution, therefore where the form is appropriate and not tinkered with for the sake of wanton modernism/speed (as I feared may be the case in the example cited) I’m not sure there’s a major concern. Are you (and Petrus) proposing there may be doubt over absolution with priests of a modern bent where the correct current form is followed?
If so, where does this uncertainty arise, in their intention or actual words? The latter which at least we can notice and challenge or respond to by going elsewhere to make sure. Surely this is different from the consecration, or are the same considerations at play?
-
Crossraguel
The essential words are “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father….” As long as these words are pronounced then the sacrament should be valid.
My concern is the New Rite of Ordination. The Latin New Rite is certainly valid, but there are some doubts over the validity of the vernacular translation. For example, the Latin states, “Confer the dignity of the priesthood” whereas the english read, “Give the dignity of the presbyterate”. I’m not happy with doubts when it comes to the validity of ordination, not happy at all. For that reason, I choose to attend Mass and all other Sacraments administered by traditional priests. I’m not taking any chances. It’s taken me a while to get to this stage, but I couldn’t bring myself to go to a Novus Ordo priest, no matter how traditionally minded he is, for any of the Sacraments.
-
It really angers me the way they use patronising scare tactics.
Vaccines are demonstrably safe, and vaccination is a very moral choice in that it protects both the vaccinated person and contributes to group immunity.
Would it also be “scare tactics” if a doctor told you that you needed to take antibiotics to stop an infection that would otherwise kill you? Vaccines, like antibiotics, are a decades-mature medical technology that have led to immense improvements in quality of life; there is absolutely no good reason to abandon them and return to the days of widespread measles infections.
The current pseudoscientific vaccine scare has led to an increase in disease, suffering, and death. For example, measles has recently seen a major upsurge due to parents following anti-vaccination propaganda.
-
429 comments