One of our regular bloggers, Petrus, submitted the  article below for discussion, following the news that Confirmation will be administered at the SSPX chapel in Edinburgh in the near future.  

The fact that some adults (one that I know of personally) may ask  for conditional Confirmation provides food for thought. Why would they?   Petrus explains…

Is Confirmation the most underrated Sacrament in the modern Catholic Church?

The New Rite of Confirmation differs significantly from the Traditional Rite.

In many dioceses, the age for the reception of Confirmation has been lowered and the liturgy significantly stripped of ceremony. By lowering the age and lessening the ceremonies, the importance and value of Confirmation seems to have been lost on many Catholics. It is the only Sacrament of Initiation that the Society of St. Pius X routinely offer to confer conditionally.

What does the Church teach about Confirmation and why does the Society of St. Pius X have grave concerns concerning the new rite of Confirmation?

Holy Scripture tells us that Our Lord promised that He would send the Holy Ghost, a paraclete, or “helper”, to His disciples for the purpose of strengthening them in profession of Faith. Our Lord tells His disciples, “The Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what you must say” (Luke chapter 12 verses 11-12).

In John’s Gospel chapter 14 Our Lord says, “And I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you for ever.” In the Acts of the Apostles, Philip the Deacon converted Samaria and baptised the converts. However, it was the Apostles, the first bishops of the Church, who went to administer Confirmation. It is clear that the imparting of the Holy Ghost was to be the normal part of the Christian life. Thus, we can say with confidence that Confirmation is a Sacrament of the Church, instituted by Our Lord, administered by the bishop and through which we receive the Holy Ghost. The Church teaches that Confirmation is the Sacrament by which we receive the Holy Ghost in order to make us strong and perfect Christians and soldiers of Christ. We receive the gifts of the Holy Ghost and the fruits associated with these gifts.

The ordinary minister of Confirmation is a bishop, as we can see from the Acts of the Apostles, detailed above. However, in danger of death any priest can administer the Sacrament in extremis. The bishop administers Confirmation by praying that the Holy Ghost may come down upon those being confirmed, while laying his hands on them and making the Sign of the Cross on their forehead with the oil of Chrism. The use of the oil of Chrism is extremely important. When the great flood documented in the book of Geneses subsided, the dove released by Noah returned with an olive branch, the symbol of peace and plenty. Therefore, the oil of Chrism has olive oil as its base. Olive oil has long been used as a symbol of strengthening. It is said that Roman soldiers were anointed with olive oil prior to going into battle. Olive oil strengthens our souls and prepares us for spiritual warfare. Added to this olive oil is balsam, sweet smelling fragrance. This balsam heals and preserves our souls.

The primary effect of Confirmation is an increase of the divine life of grace in the soul and a more intimate union with Christ, through reception of the Holy Ghost. The sacramental grace has a strengthening effect which we receive directly from the Holy Ghost, just like the Apostles received on Pentecost Sunday. This increases the gifts of the Holy Ghost, which we originally received at Baptism. The Holy Ghost makes us soldiers of Christ, able to defend and promote our Faith and overcome difficulties of the world, the flesh and the devil.

For the Church, Confirmation is the perpetuation of Pentecost. It is the means through which She keeps alive the power of the Holy Ghost. Why, then, has the importance of Confirmation been downgraded in the modern Church? It is interesting that St. Vincent Ferrer (1350-1419) predicted that towards the end of time Confirmation would fall into disuse and that those who were not confirmed would succumb to believing in and obeying the Antichrist.

The Rite of Confirmation changed significantly in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council. The bishops of the Society of St. Pius X now routinely offer Conditional Confirmation to those who were Confirmed in the New Rite of Confirmation. Why is there doubts regarding the validity of the New Rite? To understand this, we must consider what ensures the validity of the Sacraments. A valid Sacrament consists of valid matter and correct form. This is because a Sacrament is an outward sign (of an inward grace) – an external action. The rite consists of the performing of an action and the saying of words. Thus in Confirmation, the laying on of hands and anointing on the forehead with Chrism is the valid matter and the words spoken by the bishop while those actions are being performed make up the form.  

It must be repeated that the ordinary minister of Confirmation is the bishop and this can normally only be delegated to a priest in extraordinary circumstances, usually danger of death. Since the Second Vatican Council, parish priests routinely administer the Sacrament of Confirmation in many parishes. As I have stated above, valid matter in the case of Confirmation is the laying on of hands and the anointing with Chrism. In the Traditional Rite of Confirmation, the bishop lays his hands on each individual person being confirmed. In the modern Rite, the bishop, or more usually the priest, stands and extends his hands over all the Confirmandi. Moreover, there is no guarantee that the oil of Chrism has olive oil as its base ingredient since the use of other types of oil has been sanctioned by the Vatican. In the Traditional Rite, the correct form that ensures the validity of the Sacrament is, “I sign thee with the Sign of the Cross, and I confirm thee with the chrism of salvation in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.” In 1971, these words were changed to “Be sealed with gift of the Holy Spirit.” This change in the correct form is quite dramatic. Coupled with the routine use of priests to administer the Sacrament and doubts regarding the use of olive oil based chrism, this is surely enough to establish doubts regarding the validity of the Sacrament of Confirmation in the new rite.

Confirmation can only be administered once. When a Society of St. Pius X bishop administers Conditional Confirmation, similar to when Conditional Baptism is administered, the words, “If you are not Confirmed…” are added to the beginning of the correct form. It is important to stress that the Society of Saint Pius X makes no definitive judgement regarding the validity of the new rite. The existence of doubt should be enough for any Catholic who has been confirmed in the New Rite to seek Conditional Confirmation from a Traditional bishop and any Catholic who has still to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation should ensure they receive it in the Traditional Rite by a Traditional bishop.

Comments invited…

Munich, Germany, Mar 24, 2015 / 02:32 am (CNA/EWTN News).- A German cardinal has publicly opposed the words of two other German bishops who have suggested that the nation’s Church can form its own policies without direction from Rome.

Cardinal Paul Josef Cordes [Ed: pictured left] published a letter earlier this month objecting to the pronouncements of prominent leaders of the Church in Germany that the nation’s bishops’ conference will pursue its own program of pastoral care for marriages and family regardless of the outcome of October’s Synod on the Family.

At a Feb. 25 press conference following the German bishops’ plenary assembly, Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Munich and Freising, who is president of the conference, stated, “We are not a branch of Rome. Each conference of bishops is responsible for pastoral care in its cultural context and must preach the Gospel in its own, original way. We cannot wait for a synod to tell us how we have to shape pastoral care for marriage and family here.”

Cardinal Marx, whom the German bishops have chosen as one of their three delegates at the upcoming Synod on the Family, added that there are “certain expectations” of Germany in helping the Church to open doors and “go down new paths,” and that “in doctrine, we also learn from life.”

He was echoed by Bishop Franz-Josef Bode of Osnabruck – a fellow synod delegate – who called the Synod on the Family a “historically important” moment and a “paradigm shift,” urging that “the reality of men and the world” be a source for theological understanding.

Cardinal Cordes – who was ordained a priest of the Archdiocese of Paderborn and is president emeritus of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum – published a strenuous objection to the media statements of his fellow German bishops in the form of a March 7 letter to the editor of Die Tagespost, a prominent German language Catholic newspaper.

“Since the words of the highest representative of Catholics in Germany have a guideline-like character, and create substantial waves in the media, it makes sense to object publicly to some of the utterances, in order to limit the confusion which they have caused,” Cardinal Cordes wrote.

The cardinal noted that the February press conference was focused on the Synod on the Family, and on particular of the proposal by Cardinal Walter Kasper – another German – to admit some among the divorced and civilly remarried to Communion.

“The problem was addressed with the beautiful words of ‘new solutions’ and ‘opening doors’,” Cardinal Cordes wrote.

He responded to Cardinal Marx’ characterization of the Church in Germany as an exemplar by saying that “if he wanted to express that Germany is example in leading the faithful to a giving oneself up to Christ, then I think the bishop is fooled by wishful thinking. The existing German ecclesial apparatus is completely unfit to work against growing secularism.”

“It was not without reason,” Cardinal Cordes wrote, that Benedict XVI strongly urged the Church in Germany to become less worldly during his 2011 visit there.

“In themes of faith, realism counts above all,” the cardinal reflected. “Therefore one has to consider the facts.” He noted that a recent survey shows that among Catholics in western Germany, only 16 percent believe God to be personal: “all other Catholics see in God a faceless providence, an anonymous fate along the lines of a primordial power. Or they simply deny his existence flat out. What do they think of when they pray the Our Father? So there is no reason to pride ourselves on our faith if we stand in comparison to other countries.”

Cardinal Cordes then commented on Cardinal Marx’ ecclesiological statements, saying his “theological blurriness makes you wonder,” adding that statements like “we are not a branch of Rome” are more suited “to the counter of a bar.”

“The head of the German bishop’s conference certainly has some competence when it comes to a second edition of the hymnal or the changing of the pilgrim route to Altötting,” Cardinal Cordes stated. “But the president argues something entirely different.”

“The president argues about the drama of the divorced and remarried! This matter reaches far beyond regional particularities of a pragmatic nature, of a given mentality and cultural background. This matter is bound to the very center of theology. In this field not even a cardinal can loosen such a complex Gordian knot in a single swordstroke. He has the sacramental theology of the Council of Trent. He has also the words of Benedict XVI, who only recently (January 21, 2012) told the Roman Rota, the ordinary court of the Apostolic See, that no-one can simply brush over binding legislation of the Church when it comes to pastoral matters. A responsible shepherd cannot be guided by a blurred ‘mercy.’ And while the president repeats that regarding the Magisterium, he wants to ‘stay within the community of the Church,’ he either ignores the limits that this Magisterium gives to pastoral care, or he is carefree in making a statement to make himself sound good.”

Cardinal Cordes lamented that in Cardinal Marx’ comments, the idea of communion – among bishops, and with the Bishop of Rome – was sorely lacking, “even though the bishops expressly promised ‘unity with the College of Bishops under the Successor of Peter’ during their episcopal consecration. The sentence: ‘We cannot wait for a synod to tell us how we have to shape pastoral care for marriage and family here’ is not imbued with a spirit of ‘Communio’.”

He charged that the message sent by Cardinal Marx “seems to be the result of an ‘obedience that goes ahead’, a deeply political strategy which creates ‘facts’ in order to dominate the process of decision-making and to put pressure on their colleagues.”

“Particularly deplorable are the statements during the press conference that the ‘new solutions’ – everyone knows what is meant – can be theologically justified,” Cardinal Cordes wrote. “Does he want to say that the dogma of the inseparability of marriage becomes intolerable because of the life situations of remarried people?

Cardinal Cordes then turned to the comments made by Bishop Bode, who had cited Gaudium et spes, Vatican II’s pastoral constitution on the Church in the modern world, as a support for his conclusion that “not only does the Christian message have to find resonance with men, but also men must find resonance with us.”

Cardinal Cordes responded, saying that while Gaudium et spes does state that “nothing genuinely human fails to raise an echo in the hearts of Christ’s followers,” the fathers of Vatican II “came to the conclusion that it would be erroneous to see the ‘signs of the times’ in the life of men simply as a ‘source of faith’ … and formally excluded the embarrassing fallacy that any challenge of the Church as such would be a source of faith.”

In contrast, he noted, the Second Vatican Council’s dogmatic constitution on divine revelation, Dei verbum, “leaves no doubt that faith in the Catholic Church feeds solely from Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium.”

“Independent of this unambiguous direction, it would be paradoxical to ascribe to a small part of the Church, who live in spiritually regrettable but objectively still irregular situation, the function of a source of faith,” Cardinal Cordes noted.

He concluded, writing that “May the shepherds who gather in Rome this autumn also give guidance to  the majority of practicing members of the Church, on how to ever deepen their marriage and to root it in Jesus Christ, so they may be testimonies of God’s power in the life of man for their contemporaries.”

“May the synod fathers come to the conclusion to pronounce deep respect for those who never married a second time – who due to their faithfulness to their first marriage commitment, did not enter a second union. Those cases also exist.”

Comment:

So, what’s a German Catholic to do now?  We’ve already had one critic of an English Bishop who wrote to warn his priests not to support  Charities that are not faithful to Catholic teaching, declare on this blog that “Bishop Egan he is surely subject to the norms of the Conference of Bishops for England and Wales…” so what ARE these “norms” for bishops’ conferences?  He who shouts loudest get to boss everyone else? What then? 

The on-going scandal of Mgr Basil Loftus’ columns in both the Catholic Times and Scottish Catholic Observer is worsening. He is increasingly blatant in his attacks on Catholic Faith and Morals and is personally nasty in his remarks about orthodox prelates – Cardinal Burke is one victim. In response to readers’ concerns, we have composed an Open Letter to the two Bishops with responsibility for this priest, since they have ignored our private letters. Please click here to read this letter, and to sign.

Whether or not you disapprove of the work of Catholic Truth is irrelevant. Take this opportunity to join us in publicly defending the Faith against the increasingly ferocious attacks by Mgr Loftus in the Catholic print media.  Thank you – God bless.

Comment

Please send the link to our Open Letter far and wide.  We must do our best to gather as many signatures as possible.

Monsignor Loftus has been allowed free rein in the so called Catholic newspapers, where, if a letter of concern or criticism is published at all, he is given the right to reply, often right there on the same page, same edition, so that, instead of correcting his errors, the editor is allowing him to reinforce them by responding (with baloney) to his critics.  He uses bullying tactics (two priests threatened with legal action for their temerity in daring to criticise his writings) so it’s time the bishops – who have ignored all concerns expressed to date – were brought to account for their negligence and forced to take action without any further delay.  We will send our letter with signatures appended in due course.  Let’s make sure that there are just too many signatures for them to ignore.  Over to you!

Christopher Ferrara…

“I have said it before, and I will say it again: in the entire history of the Catholic Church there has never been a Pope like this. With Francis we seem to be nearing the end of a trajectory whose fearful arc was predicted nearly a century ago in the Third Secret of Fatima. As that centenary approaches, we can only regard the year 2017 with increasing dread, mitigated only by the hope that God will see fit to give Our Lady a miraculous victory over the madness that afflicts so much of the human element of the Church today.”   Read entire article here

Comment

We give honour to Our Lady on this Feast of Fatima, and pray especially for the Pope and Church today.  There is plenty of food for thought in the article by Christopher Ferrara – so comments welcome on that, as we exchange Feast Day greetings, in gratitude for Our Lady’s warning of the diabolical disorientation to come in our times. Without the Message of Fatima, many of us would be finding our faith sorely stretched, to the point of being intolerable,  today.

In that spirit, allow me to wish all our bloggers and readers a very Happy Feast! 

Father Linus Clovis is addressing a group of pro-lifers on May 8, 2015, meeting to discuss the crisis in the Church ahead of the forthcoming Synod on the Family.   It is refreshing to see a priest speaking out without apology, sourcing Tradition to defend his objective criticisms of the state of the Church and the Pope at this time.  Father Clovis, we are pleased to record, has been on the Catholic Truth newsletter mailing list for a number of years. We’ve never met or corresponded with him but we have made a note on our “to do” list to contact him with our congratulations on “coming out” to speak clearly in the context of “The Francis Effect” – that is, the disastrous effect on the Church of many of the current pontiff’s utterances and actions.

Thanks to Gloria TV for help in making this video available on our blog – and for their outstanding work in the Catholic media during the current crisis in the Church. . .

This thread is to pay tribute to the Sacred Heart of Jesus as we enter the month of June, so feel free to post your favourite hymns, including YouTube videos of any hymns to the Sacred Heart that you can find, prayers, devotions and stories, as well as any prayer intentions.   Enjoy!

Obviously, it is wrong to use an employer’s time to evangelise (or do anything else that is unrelated to the job  – that’s stealing) but what about breaks, lunchtime etc?  Is it OK to discuss religion, hopefully bring colleagues to at least think about the Faith? Or is it a case of “not the time or the place” ?  On a more sinister note, is it too risky to evangelise in the workplace? The point is made near the end of the short video that these cases of perceived inappropriate remarks by one employee to another, could easily be settled by a conversation with the employer – as any boss with even a modicum of management skill would know by instinct. So, what do you think – is a call to the boss’s office for a conversation about the complaint preferable to an appearance in court?

Comments invited…

The first Islamic decapitation on western European soil since the times of the Battle of Vienna (1683) took place on June 26,2015, while the “champion” of the West, Barack Obama, was triumphantly celebrating the legalization of homosexual “marriages” imposed on all the States of the Union by the U.S. Supreme Court.  

Exactly twenty years before, on June 21, 1995, the Islamic Mosque in Rome was officially inaugurated – the biggest in Europe, presented as a centre for ecumenical dialogue and religious peace. The only voice of protest heard in Italy at that time was the one of the Lepanto Cultural Centre, which promoted a Rosary of reparation in the church of St. Luigi Gonzaga, right next to the mosque, defining the construction of the Islamic centre in the heart of Rome as “a symbolic act of unspeakable gravity. Rome is the centre of the Catholic Faith: Islam at its very roots, denies the fundamental truths of our faith and intends to implant its dominion on the ruins that was once western Christian Civilization.”     

During that same period, between 1992 and 1995, the ethnic and religious war was going on in Bosnia, the first “mediatic-war” of modern times, but also the most distorted by the media. The politically correct version of the conflict, presented the image of a prevalently Muslim government, but in actual fact – multicultural, besieged by radical nationalists, the Croatians and Serbians, determined to annihilate the Muslims in Bosnia. The truth ignored was that Bosnia was al-Qa’ida’s first global Jihad front and the first international event from which Islam gained enormous benefits.  

John R. Schindler, an American analyst who spent almost a decade in the Balcan area, did a penetrating analysis on that war (Unholy Terror: Bosnia, Al-Qa’ida, and the Rise of Global Jihad, Zenith Press, St Paul, Minnesota 2007), which on many points coincided with those of Alexandre Del Valle, the geopolitical scholar, (Guerres contre l’Europe, Edition des Syrtes, Paris 2000). It was in Bosnia during the 1990s, that al-Qaeda, became the multinational of the Jihad under the leadership of Osama Bin Laden and his mujaheddin. Saudi Arabia, which had given thirty-five million dollars for the construction of the Mosque in Rome, spent hundreds in financing the fighters of Islamic guerilla warfare, encouraging young Muslims from all over the world to engage in the holy war in Europe. The first act of independent Bosnia, which remained mainly a Christian country, was its adhesion to the Organization of The Islamic Conference, that had assembled 57 Islamic countries, united in their aim of propagating the sharī’a all over the world.  

Since then, it has appeared clear that Islam has been moving along two strategic lines. The « sweet » line, aimed at the Islamisation of society through the network of mosques, which constitute centres of politcal and religious propaganda – but also military recruitment – like the one in Milan, in Viale Jenner, which served as the operative base for men, money and arms to arrive in Bosnia. The expression of this «Gramscian » expansion is the Muslim Brotherhood, founded by Hasan al-Banna in 1928, a movement, as Magdi Allam refers, that « promoted the Islamisation of society starting from the base, through the control of mosques, Islamic cultural centres, Koranic schools, charitable entities and financial institutes.» (Kamikaze made in Europe, Mondadori, Milano 2005, p. 22).  

Alongside this “sweet” strategic line we find, not in opposition, the “Leninist” line of radical Islam which wants to achieve world supremacy through the instruments of war and terrorism. In recent years this hard line has seen the passage from al-Qa’ida to Isis, an Islamic State which extends from the Aleppo peripheries in Syria to those of Baghdad in Iraq, and has as its declared goal, the reconstruction of that universal Caliphate which as the foremost scholar of Islam, Bat Ye’Or, has made clear since the 1990s, is not the dream of the fundamentalists, but the objective of every true Muslim.  

Islam’s diverse strategic lines are today converging into the very same global plan of conquest. During his act of establishing the Jihadist Caliphate, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi in a sermon from the Mosque in Mosul, July 4th 2014, called on all Muslims to join him: if they do so – he promised – Islam will arrive even in Rome and will dominate the world. In the video diffused by Isis the black flag of the Caliphate is seen waving on top of the Vatican, the Coliseum is in flames and a sea of blood is submerging it. Lastly, the statement from the Libyan caliphate: “we are south of Rome”, while Abu Muhammed al Adnani, spokesman for the Iraqi Islamic State and Greater Syria, states: “We will occupy your Rome, we will smash your crosses to pieces, we will reduce your women to slavery.”  

The same objective has been proclaimed for more than ten years by the main exponent of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Imam, Yusuf al Qaradawi; in a fatwa promulgated on February 27th 2005, he declared that “in the end, Islam will rule and will be lord over the entire world. One of the signs of its victory is that Rome will be conquered, Europe will be occupied, Christians will be defeated and Muslims will increase and become a force that will control the entire European continent.”  

Yusuf Qaradawi (who, after having led the Egyptian “Arab springtime” was condemned to death in absentia by the Supreme Court of Cairo, on June 16th of this year) is the President of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, their headquarters being in Dublin, and a point of theological reference to Islamic organizations with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. His ideas diffused through the satellite channel Al Jazeera, influence a large part of contemporary Islam. For the Muslim Brotherhood, as it is for ISIS, the final objective is not Paris or New York, but the city of Rome, center of the only religion, which Islam, since its very birth, has wanted to annihilate. The real enemy is not the United States or the State of Israel, which did not even exist when Islam arrived at the Gates of Vienna in 1683, but the Catholic Church and Christian civilization, to which Muhammad’s religion is a diabolical parody .  

Yet, the words used by St. Pius V and Blessed Innocent XI to incite the Holy War that held back the conquering march of Islam at Lepanto and Vienna are not resounding in Rome today. Moreover, if Pope Francis shares the words of the English Prime Minister, David Cameron, according to whom the attacks of June 26th were not in the name of Islam – since Islam is a religion of peace – the battle, on a purely human level, we can say – is lost.  

The West’s response to the actions and war proclamations of Islam would seem to be summed up in the hashtag LoveWins, with which the homosexualist lobby flooded Facebook and Twitter. The inversion of values that this message expresses is destined to turn what it asserts upside down: this is no victory, but slavery, the destiny of a world which repudiates its faith and turns the principles of the natural order upside down.  

And yet nothing is irreversible in history. Another hashtag would be worth diffusion on the social network – a silent, but overpowering maxim: in hoc Signo vinces, the insignia impressed on Constantine’s banner at Saxa Rubra containing the history of future generations when men correspond to Divine Grace. Help from Heaven is never lacking when men of good will fight so that the Cross of Christ triumphs and reigns in souls and the whole of society. Are there still such men in the West?  Source

Comments invited…  

Comment

Increasingly, we see the legalisation of  immorality.  People of good will who believe they are doing the right thing, in the name of Christ, refuse to co-operate with bad laws. Two examples spring to mind: the Irish bakers who refused to take an order for a cake for a same-sex wedding, and the two Glasgow midwives who would not facilitate abortions.   Does St Thomas More offer any insight to us on the matter of how to treat of bad laws – and if so, what lesson? Would he have advised the bakers to take the cake order?  Would he have urged the two midwives to facilitate the abortions?  Or are the words of St Thomas More in the famous “Devil” speech ambiguous? 

The idea for this thread came following a number of conversations and observations about people, including Catholics, who appear to change their minds about a particular immorality once it become law. Are they following the example of St Thomas More, by taking a “high” view of the law of the land?  Or would St Thomas More recoil to think that he could be represented as a supporter of man-made laws which contradict the law of God? 

 August Newsletter online early – click on image above to read…

note: this post published on 21 July (not 19th as per sidebar)

Comment:

For years, the Scots faithful have been told that the Church is thriving in the aftermath of the Vatican II “renewal”. 

Clearly, that has not been true at any point post-Vatican II.  Throughout this alleged “springtime” in the Church the  Bishops failed, by every objective measure, to deliver a healthy, faith-filled Church.  That’s their job. To teach and promote the Catholic religion, which means, in turn, quelling dissent and correcting error.  They refused, consistently, to do so and now they are forced to admit their failure.  Having closed our seminaries, one and all, having overseen clergy being “educated” by heretics galore, both during seminary training and through continuing “in-service” events, they are now having to recruit priests from “wherever” – to quote the Archbishop of Glasgow, Philip Tartaglia – to replace those who have married wives, bought oxen, you name it.

But, will he?  Recruit priests from “wherever”, I mean.  You kidding?  There will be no “traditional” priests recruited by him or any other Scots Bishop.  They’d sooner we attended a Protestant church than an SSPX chapel.  Hence, it’s unlikely that the challenge issued on page 20 of the August newsletter will be taken up – can’t see the Archbishop of Glasgow handing over one of his churches earmarked for merger, closure or demolition to the Society of St Pius X, can you?  Better to stick with the “missionaries” from far flung parts like India – at least they’re from the Vatican II sector and will engage only in the “new evangelisation” – that is, “evangelisation”  in the name of  the ever elusive new “springtime”, in pursuit of the non-existent “renewal”.

So, should the Scots faithful receive an apology from the Bishops who have misled us for so many years now? Surely, the Bishops should apologise for turning truth on its head by telling us that the dramatic lapsation from the Faith, the abandonment of priestly and religious vocations,  the closure of churches, the heretical meetings permitted in parishes, the false teaching given in schools and pulpits, and all the other scandals are nothing to worry about;  surely they should apologise for peddling the falsehood that these signs of decay are,  in fact, signs that the Holy Spirit is leading us forward into a Church where the laity is more active – by which they really mean lay people, especially women, could, and should, run around the sanctuary playing at being priests. We are, surely, due a very loud and sincere apology for the falsehood that these signs of decay are the work of the Holy Spirit? No? Well what about an apology for insulting our intelligence, because those of us who don’t fit the description “useful idiots” know perfectly well that the Holy Spirit could not possibly be responsible for the decadent state of the  Catholic Church in Scotland (or anywhere else) today. 

A sincere (public) apology to God and to the faithful for all of the above, and more;  an equally sincere and public expression of repentance for neglectfully allowing the Church of Christ to fall into decay; a firm determination to restore the Catholic religion in all its traditional glory – now there’s a recipe for a “new springtime”… Which, if any, of the Scots Bishops might be up to that challenge?  

The four CATHOLIC WOMEN OF THE YEAR for 2015 have now been chosen.

In a tradition dating back over 40 years, Catholic women are chosen from among nominations sent in from across England and Wales. The choice is made by secret ballot by a committee made up of representatives of various Catholic groups and organisations. The aim is to honour the “unsung heroines” of the Church and to celebrate the service they give.

I found these videos on the website of The Remnant earlier today.  In the above video, Michael Voris of Church Militant TV rightly exposes the fact that the popular “Amazing Grace” should not be sung in Catholic churches as routinely happens these days, but now he faces a dilemma since it’s been sung within the Vatican walls – in the presence of Pope Francis himself: he who, according to Mr Voris, is above and beyond all criticism.  Watch the performance below – and weep to see princes of the Church behaving like Pentecostal Protestants and a pope apparently moved to tears by a  Protestant “hymn” packed with heresy.  And – as a side issue, because who, really, gives a toss – ask yourself what it will take to get Michael Voris to waken up and admit that the problem within the Church today – the problem – is Papa Francis.

I have to admit that I’ve never liked “Amazing Grace” –  tuneless, heretical  and singularly uninspiring. Why any priest would choose it over the many beautiful traditional Catholic hymns available, beats me. If you can think of a reason, spill. Ditto if you can think of a reason why the Pope (any pope) would permit Protestant heresy to be said, read or sung, in his presence, with his approval, and the obvious approval of the swaying, with-it/cool cardinals within the Vatican walls.

Or perhaps you are one of those who sang along innocently, not realising that it is a Protestant song containing heresy? I’ve met people in that category and I couldn’t even swear on oath that I’ve never sung it myself in years gone by, although I can definitely swear, hand on heart and a stack of bibles, that I’ve never liked it.  There is so much confusion in the Church today and so little sound teaching in pulpits and schools, that there are undoubtedly innocent members of congregations who will have joined in the singing, without realising that they were “praising God” with heresy.  And now we’ll even find some who will say “Well, if it’s good enough for the Pope, it’s good enough for me” (with the sub-text, “and it should be good enough for God!”)

Truly, you couldn’t make it up. Anyway, read the Remnant article on the subject here and then share your thoughts (politely!)

In 2004, 75% of Kentucky voters passed a State Constitutional Amendment restricting marriage to one man and one woman. On Thursday, Sept. 3, County Clerk Kim Davis was sent to jail by U.S. District Judge David Bunning because she refuses to issue “gay marriage” licenses, a decision which she says is rooted in her strong Christian faith.

County Clerk Kim Davis turns down homosexual couple seeking marriage license. From NY Times video. Watch the video here.

The judge told her that she’ll stay in jail until she’s willing to change her mind — and go against her conscience and faith. He said that he’d review the situation in a week. The judge said that he jailed her because fining her  “would not bring about the desired result of compliance”.

There are approximately 125 county officials throughout Kentucky who can issue “gay marriage” licenses. But the judge was adamant that every county official must be forced to do it and that religious freedom cannot be allowed, despite the First Amendment. “The idea of natural law superseding this court’s authority would be a dangerous precedent indeed,” he said.

The now-infamous mug shot of Kim Davis taken as she was brought into jail. Is this our fate? Source Comment: Please sign this petition in support of Kim Davis…

If there’s something of interest in the news that’s not covered in one of the topic threads, or you have a question to ask, a comment you’d like to  make about anything under the sun, more or less, this is the thread for you. However, please check first, to ensure that you haven’t missed a topic thread or another thread where it would be appropriate to post your comment.  Readers have occasionally gone straight to the General Discussion thread to post news that is already the topic of a thread or to ask a question that is already being discussed elsewhere. So, do your Sherlock Holmes before posting here, please and thank you!

Feel free, also, to share your favourite spiritual reading books, prayers and devotions. Whatever.   Enjoy!

To read General Discussion Thread (1) click here (2) click here (3) click here  (4) click here (5) click here (6) click here (7) click here (8) click here   

The British government is planning to force all priests, rabbis, imams and other religious figures to enrol on a “national register of faith leaders” in a scheme branded “truly sinister” by Christian campaigners.

The Sunday Telegraph claims the scheme appears in a leaked draft of the government’s new counter-terror proposal. It says that state bureaucrats will “require all faiths to maintain a national register of faith leaders” and that the government will “set out the minimum level of training and checks” registered faith leaders must have.

The plans mark a new level of state intervention in religion and are likely to fuel fears that Christians with traditional beliefs are being slowly criminalised.

All faith leaders who wish to work with the public sector, including schools, universities and hospitals, will have to sign up to the register and undergo government vetting. Given that many priests, imams, rabbis and other figures often have some dealings with the public sector, the register will likely cover the great majority.

The plan has been condemned by the Christian Institute, who said it was “sinister” and “more in keeping with China or North Korea” than a democratic Western society.

A spokesman told Breitbart London: “If the reports are accurate, what the Government is proposing turns the clock back on religious freedom more than 300 years. Not since the days of the notorious Test and Corporation Acts have we seen such a concerted attempt by a British Government to restrict religious practice. We don’t want to go back to those darker days of religious intolerance.”

He added that the proposals would mean a Christian minister would not be allowed to visit a member of his congregation in hospital, nor address a university Christian Union, without having been on a government-approved training scheme.

“It marks a deeply concerning attempt by the State to interfere with religious practice.

“The Government are proposing an Orwellian watch list of Reverends and Rabbis, who are to be told which state values they must espouse before being allowed to speak about their religion.”

There are already fears that the government’s plans to tackle Islamist fundamentalism could lead to traditional Christians being branded “extremists”.

The Durham Free School, a Christian faith school in north east England, was forced to close this year after inspectors branded children “bigots” for not knowing what a Muslim was. The inspection report concluded: “Leaders are failing to prepare students for life in modern Britain. Some students hold discriminatory views of other people who have different faiths, values or beliefs from themselves.”

Breitbart London reported last month that Welsh Minister for Education Huw Lewis wanted to remove Christianity from the country’s state schools. He told the Welsh Assembly: “My contention would be that we rename the [religious education] curriculum and transform it into the religion, philosophy and ethics element of the curriculum – where there is an explicit commitment to allowing children to ponder ideas around ethics and citizenship and what it means to be a citizen of a free country.”

Chris McGovern, chairman of the Campaign for Real Education told Breitbart London last month that such a move would be a big mistake: “The British government has a new agenda called ‘British values.’ Nicky Morgan [MP and Secretary of State for Education] has changed the rules on this, and one of the values schools are now obliged to promote is the doctrine of tolerance for all ideas, and accepting the point of view of anyone you might disagree with.

“This sounds very persuasive, but it is a form of value relativism. Teacher are discussing extremist values on a level plain field with what you might call more reasonable points of view.

“I’ve seen it myself in schools. It is dangerous; it offers children no real moral guidance and can actually serve promote the extremism and lack of community cohesion which the government wants to tackle in the first place.” Source

Comment

Blogger Prognosticum suggested that this topic deserves a thread of its own.  On the face of it, it does, indeed, seem like a sinister move – potentially a serious threat to religious freedom. Or is this scare-mongering? Is it only to be expected, given the rise of the radicalisation of young Muslims, that the Government would decide that the time has come to monitor all religious leaders? It’s only  “national security” at work, we’ve nothing to fear, surely? Why all the cynical faces?  

One of our Glasgow readers, George (his real name!) sent me a copy of a letter he had submitted to the Daily Mail, in response to their article Oh hell – it’s the least that we deserve, by Jonathan Brocklebank, September, 11, 2015.

The article is a commentary on a YouGov poll which “shows significantly more guilty consciences in Scotland than anywhere else in the UK, with 14 per cent admitting their sins merit damnation.” Only “10 per cent of people in the rest of the UK think Satan’s furnaces should await them in the afterlife.”  [Ed: and before our English readers jump to the wrong conclusion – this has nothing to do with the independence referendum :grin: ]

I’ve been unable to find a link to the article online (not having a Facebook , Google or Twitter account) but the reader who sent me his unpublished letter also enclosed a copy of the article, so here are a few quotes from it.  You can study the YouGov poll here

The YouGov survey revealed that: “…despite Scots’ dimmer view of their own moral virtue, they are less afraid of death than those in the rest of Britain. They are also less likely to believe in the afterlife…”  The survey asked: ‘If there were a heaven and a hell, which would you end up in?” The article continues:  “Among Scots, 48 per cent believed they would pass through the Pearly Gates – in line with the UK average.  The proportion willing to admit they deserved the other place was surprisingly high – a finding which one minister said might be explained by Scots’ cultural Calvinism placing greater weight on sin.” [Ed: Well, it sure ain’t because they’re hearing  thunderous sermons on Hell  in Catholic parishes. ]

Below is our reader’s letter to the Daily Mail:  he is disappointed it was not selected for publication, so it will be pleasing to be able to let him know that we published it here and discussed the very good points contained therein…

George’s Letter to the Daily Mail…

Dear Sir,

I found the results of the YouGov survey on “would you end up in Heaven or Hell?” fascinating and most revealing.

As it happens, I had been reading about the forthcoming centenary of the apparitions, in 1917, at Fatima where Lucy, one of the three seers, when asked this same question later in life said: “Taking into account the behaviour of mankind, only a small part of the human race will be saved.”

This seems to agree with many of the saints who answered “that most people will end up in Hell.”  Indeed, Jesus Himself said in the Gospels that “few” are saved and enter by what He called “the narrow gate.”

All this runs counter to the YouGov results, e.g. 52% of Londoners believed they were “heaven bound”. As for views on “fearing death” when only 16% of those surveyed said that “death scared them” we know that St Paul said that we all should approach death and the final judgment with “fear and trembling.”

All this “doom” seems to be at loggerheads with comments from the majority of the clergy over the last half-century, saying that “most, if not all of us will go to Heaven.” Seldom a mention of Hell.

Could they be guilty of  genuine heresy?  Perhaps another YouGov poll is needed. 

Yours etc.

Comments invited

On the eve of the Synod on the Family  

On the eve of the Second Session of the Synod on the Family, which will take place in Rome from October 4-25, the petitions, books, colloquiums and articles criticizing the “progressive” proposals of Cardinal Walter Kasper are multiplying—a very fortunate development. Widely different sorts of information are relayed in bulk on the Internet, and documents of uneven value are offered wholesale. The exhaustive treatment of the topics is claimed as a proof of impartiality, but often it serves only to overwhelm the reader.

Given this incessant stream, it is difficult to tell what is truly worth paying attention to. For this reason DICI is now dedicating to the Synod a special column that will feature factual information and essential documents, with commentary explaining whether or not they contribute to the defense of Catholic doctrine and morals about marriage and the family.

As Father Christian Bouchacourt, Superior of the District of France of the Society of Saint Pius X, very correctly remarked in his September 17 communiqué: “The guidelines of the first session, statements by some participants and the preparatory document for this second session cause us to fear great danger for the Church.” In such a serious hour, it is understandable that we do not want to “surf” the Internet about the Synod—from one scoop to the latest buzz!—but rather to distinguish what is Catholic from what is not.    Father Alain Lorans

 Source  and click here to read Cardinal Burke on impossibility of changing Church teaching on marriage. And here to read the Cardinal’s advice on what to do if the synod takes a “strange” (i.e. a “wrong”) turning.

Comment

We’re a bit early – we had been planning to launch a “Synod Special” thread on 1st October, but since the DICI column looks good, we decided to go ahead and launch now, instead. As well as keeping an eye on the Dici column, then,  feel free to post any articles, videos etc of interest which may help to cast light on what we might expect during the Synod – or as a result of it.  Anyone who feels moved to post appropriate prayers etc. or to suggest any fasts that don’t include giving up chocolate and cream cakes, go ahead!

Comment:

This thread is to pay tribute to Our Lady in the special Month of her Holy Rosary.  As ever, feel free to comment, post stories of any favours received through the Rosary that you know of personally, your favourite hymns – lyrics and videos  – I couldn’t find the hymn O Queen of the Holy Rosary except in its American version, so if anyone can find the tune we sing in our neck of the woods on YouTube, please post it here.  This is also the month of the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima (October 13th) so Fatima will, no doubt, feature large in this thread. Let’s pray especially this month for the Synod on the Family which will take place 4-25th… O Queen of the Most Holy Rosary, pray for us!

October, 2015

Dear Faithful,

We have once again arrived at this special time of the year devoted by Holy Mother Church to the holy souls in purgatory. During November the Church asks us to redouble our prayers and sacrifices for the remission of debt incurred by the faithful departed whose sins have already been pardoned.

In order to assist in providing relief to the suffering souls, the Regina Coeli House, headquarters of the Society of St. Pius X in the United States, is accepting names of the deceased. We will place these names on our chapel’s altar to be remembered at the commemoratio pro defunctis of every Mass offered during the month of November. You may submit names of the faithful departed to us either on the enclosed card or by emailing them to holysouls@sspx.org.

No stipend is required for this act of charity, but if you would like to offer a gift to the Regina Coeli House, you may do so, either by mail or by visiting www.sspx.org. The priests and brothers at the Regina Coeli House also remember each day the generous benefactors of the Society of St. Pius X at the community rosary.

I urge you take advantage of this important opportunity to relieve the poor souls in purgatory, particularly in this time of crisis when prayers for the deceased have greatly diminished in number and in fervor. I therefore encourage you to pray earnestly for the dead during the month of November. By visiting a cemetery and praying even mentally each day from November 1st to the 8th, one may also gain a plenary indulgence for the faithful departed. Please click here for specific instructions on how to obtain indulgences.

Finally, I challenge each of you to begin now inviting your friends and family members to participate in this noble effort. Many thanks in advance for your generosity on behalf of the holy souls in purgatory as well as any contribution you make to the Regina Coeli House. May Our Lord bless you abundantly for your efforts.

In Christo et Maria,

Fr. Jurgen Wegner
United States District Superior

Source

Comment

As we approach the month of the Holy Souls, it might be helpful to refresh our commitment to praying for our loved ones, family and friends, who have gone before us and who may be among the suffering Holy Souls in Purgatory.   Please post any stories about the Holy Souls, prayers, novenas, hymns – especially if you can find They Are Waiting For Our Petitions, one of my favourites hymns for the Holy Souls, on YouTube – I couldn’t locate it on a very quick search just now, so if A.N. Other can find it, that would be wonderful! 

Eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon them, may they rest in peace….