Category Archives: Church crisis

A Picture worth a thousand words

1e3eb4feb04fb3074360434b2a07c2ba

http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2017/03/high-school-women-of-1958/

The title of this post might sound rather cliche, but what if I told you that the above photo is of a graduating class of high school girls taken not even sixty years ago?  Yes, these young ladies make up part of the Class of 1958 at Upper Darby High School, located near Philadelphia, PA.

A brief reflection from the original poster:

“Wow, pause for a moment and reflect on this astounding glimpse into the past. Judging by appearances, these are mature women prepared for real life, not children prepared for another phase of extended childhood.

Some of these young women are very beautiful. They have movie star looks. But notice how the ones who have humbler looks are beautified and even ennobled by their dignified dress and charming modesty. Styles of today are, in contrast, especially unkind to women not endowed with great looks. By the way, Upper Darby was not a wealthy town. These are middle-class students. Thanks, feminism! Thanks all you pink-hatted gripe artists! Thanks for destroying the beauty, purpose and nobility of femininity!

Consider further that Upper Darby is not even a religious school, but a public one, and that probably not one of these girls is above 18 or 19 years of age.  Young ladies like these could scarcely be found at Catholic high schools twenty years later.  With the exception of the beautiful traditionally-minded schools, of which there are far too few, secondary education is now specifically designed (more or less) to form revolutionaries against the quickly fading Christian West.

What happened then?  Clearly even the 1950s was not the very best of times.  We were still afflicted in lesser degrees with the errors of the Revolution, dating back to Luther, and Freemasonry had gained some considerable ground.  However, once the Church was plunged into a crisis of the greatest magnitude, its influence was greatly diminished in the world.  The world cannot fend for itself; it depends necessarily on the Church for life.  As Vatican II was “liberating” the Church, the moral chaos of the sexual, “Woodstock” revolution was beginning to wreak havoc on the world.

We no longer enable young girls to grow into true mothers.  Instead, they are taught the errors of feminism and “what it means to be free”.  They are taught to degrade true men and hold themselves as the higher authority over all.  At the time the women of yesteryear are becoming mothers, they have already known for years how to use birth control methods and crave tattoos and piercings.  They will almost undoubtedly attend “university” to become a professional woman, which is simply an oxymoron.  A woman strictly committed to the modern workforce is no woman.  This is not to say that girls in this age cannot have university training at all, as even the teacher and nurse, among others, are unfortunately now required to have all of these supposedly necessary qualifications.  We are “enlightened” after all.  However, this should be viewed simply as an exception for our age.  Not even a man should have to endure such degradation when the exact opposite should be taking place.

As for the men, they likewise have been affected by feminism in surrendering so much of their masculinity to the women.  They are hardly men anymore.  It is absolutely a complete reversal of even the most basic common sense.  Behind every man is a good woman; God has designed it this way.  She is to strengthen and make the man.  As the women go, so do the men.  If only the women so hungry for power recognized what kind of power they have been given.  This does not mean that men may make excuses like Adam, but is a recognition of the reality of life. The women largely make the society.  Although the sanctuary is revered higher than the sacristy, the latter enables most everything to take place in the former.  The same goes for the world and home.  Without the “behind the scenes” preparations of the home, the stage of the world cannot go on normally.  Such is the case with the world today.  Let us restore the Christian woman and her Christian home!

~ Steven C.

The original sources for this post are the blog post linked to above, as well as Tradition in Action.  As with many of our sources, we do not necessarily guarantee complete agreement with all positions, but simply an endorsement of the subject matter featured.  

 

Cardinal Muller’s parting letter to Bishop Fellay

IMG_0353

As a parting “gift” to the Society of St. Pius X, in a letter to Bishop Fellay, approved by Pope Francis, Cardinal Gerhard Muller, who we must recall rejects the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, demands that the Society accept the teachings of Vatican II to be “accepted” into their new church. Once again, Rome flip flops on this issue, which they have been doing well since the Society was first founded.

Is it any wonder that the Society does not accept a deal, such as a Personal Prelature, when Rome changes its position every other day in complete dishonesty? Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no, Christ said. Modernists, those posing as “conservative” or not, are hellbent on fashioning us into compromisers for their agenda. It is impossible to accept the heresies of Vatican II, a pastoral council we are not required to accept because it declared no new doctrine, and the legitimacy of the New Mass. They were unjust laws foisted upon the Church. They cannot be reconciled with the pre-counciliar Faith and therefore, they constitute a grave danger to the faithful. I only pray that Bishop Fellay continues to remain prudent and is not deceived by their cunning. God’s will be done.

Anybody with eyes to see can see that the Society has been the foundation for the flourishing and restoration of Catholic Tradition in the Church. May we only continue to bear fruit for the good of the Church.

~Damsel of the Faith

http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/3266-cardinal-mueller-s-letter-to-bishop-fellay

From http://www.medias-presse.info comes the following excerpt of a letter from Cardinal Müller to Bishop Bernard Fellay. According to http://www.medias-presse.info, Cardinal Müller’s letter was communicated to all SSPX members by the SSPX General House.

Excerpt from Cardinal Müller’s letter:

“As you know, Pope Francis has many a time manifested his benevolence towards your Priestly Society, granting, in particular, to all priest members the faculty of confessing the faithful validly and by authorizing local Ordinaries to grant licences for the celebration of the marriages of the faithful who follow the pastoral activity in your Society. Furthermore, discussions are continuing concerning questions relative to the full re-establishment of the communion of your Society with the Catholic Church.

In relation to this, with the approbation of the Sovereign Pontiff, I judged it necessary to submit to the Ordinary Session of our Congregation (which met on May 10 last) the text of the doctrinal Declaration which was transmitted to you during the meeting of June 13 2016, as the necessary condition in view of the full re-establishment of communion. Here are the unanimous decisions of all the members of our Dicastery in this regard:

1) It is necessary to require the adhesion of the members of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X to the new formula of the Professio Fidei dating from 1988 (c.f. annexe). Consequently, it is not sufficient to ask them to express the Professio Fidei of 1962.

2) The new text of the doctrinal Declaration must contain a paragraph in which the signatories declare in an explicit manner their acceptance of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and those of the post-conciliar period, by granting to said doctrinal affirmations the degree of adhesion which is due to them.

3) The members of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X must recognize not only the validity, but also the legitimacy of the Rite of the Holy Mass and of the Sacraments, according to the liturgical books promulgated after the Second Vatican Council.”

http://www.medias-presse.info adds that Cardinal Müller concluded the letter saying that “during the Audience granted to the Cardinal Prefect on May 20 2017, the Sovereign Pontiff approved these decisions”. The French website also adds that in his accompanying letter to SSPX priests, Father Christian Thouvenot, Secretary General of the SSPX, recalled the words of Bishop Fellay after the meeting of the major superiors in Anzère, Switzerland, on June 28 2016:

“The Society of Saint Pius X does not seek primarily a canonical recognition, to which it has a right because it is Catholic. The solution is not simply juridical. It pertains to a doctrinal position which it is imperative to manifest […] Divine Providence will not abandon Its Church whose head is the Pope, Vicar of Jesus Christ. That is why an incontestable sign of this restoration will reside in the signified will of the Sovereign Pontiff to grant the means for re-establishing the order of the Priesthood, the Faith and Tradition – a sign which will be, furthermore, the guarantor of the necessary unity of the family of Tradition”.

 

 

God is not God without man?

Pope

http://www.romereports.com/2017/06/07/pope-at-general-audience-god-cannot-be-god-without-us

For context, the Pope said:

Dear brothers and sisters, we are never alone. We can be far, hostile; we can even say we are ‘without God.’ But Jesus Christ’s Gospel reveals to us that God cannot be without us: He will never be a God ‘without man’; it is He who cannot be without us, and this is a great mystery! God cannot be God without man: this is a great mystery!

True, God became a man and was united to our human nature by the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Jesus Christ did so out of love for our souls and to save us, not because His Divinity in the Godhead depended on us.  God is infinite perfection. He created us out of His goodness and love so that we might one day share in His eternal happiness and perfection.

The Council of Florence teaches, “the one true God, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, is the creator of all things visible and invisible, who, when He wished, out of His goodness created all creatures, spiritual as well as corporal”  ~Bull Cantate Domino

The Pope’s error was explicitly condemned by the Fourth Lateran Council and Vatican I:

This sole true God by His goodness and “omnipotent power,” not to increase His own beatitude, and not to add to, but to manifest His perfection by the blessings which He bestows on creatures, with most free volition, “immediately from the beginning of time fashioned each creature out of nothing, spiritual and corporeal, namely angelic and mundane; and then the human creation, common as it were, composed of both spirit and body [Fourth Lateran Council].

If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing, or, shall have said that God created not by a volition free of all necessity, but as necessarily as He necessarily loves Himself, or, shall have denied that the world was created to the glory of God: let him be anathema. [Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius]

This heresy to me seems to be a form of pantheism, which puts God and the world on par with each other as one. The Syllubus of Errors condemned the idea that we are all gods, subject to one another, bringing the Supreme God down to our level, dependent on us for His Divinity and Rights. Is it any wonder that Pope Leo XIII proclaimed that we need to hear more of the rights of God and not man? Alas, we all are well aware that Christ the King was dethroned from His Church, while the whims and wishes of modern man are glorified, extolled and encouraged. These words of the Pope are just yet another fruition of the Modernism that has ravaged the Church this past century.

Condemned in the Syllubus:

“There is no supreme, all-wise and all-provident Divine Being distinct from the universe; God is one with nature and therefore subject to change; He becomes God in man and the world; all things are God and have His substance; God is identical with the world, spirit with matter, necessity with freedom, truth with falsity, good with evil, justice with injustice”

If not for God, the entire world and all the souls in it would disappear instantly. It’s not vice versa. The Holy Father should go back to seminary, a Catholic one that is and learn the religion, instead of spouting off every opinion of his from his personal magisterium. May the Holy Trinity open his eyes from the Modernist poison that he has been a victim of and convert him to the Catholic Faith so that his words and guidance will save souls and be a bulwark of the truth.

~Damsel of the Faith

 

 

 

 

On the controversy surrounding Maddi Runkles and Heritage Christian Academy

Image result for maddi runkles

“On May 20, 2017 New York Times writer, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, published a feature piece entitled, Pregnant at 18. Hailed by Abortion Foes. Punished by Christian School.”  The Christian school’s crime? Not allowing a visibly pregnant and unmarried eighteen year old student, Maddi Runkles, to “walk” in her high school graduation ceremony.”

This headline has been widespread by The New York Times and the national media, but if our readers haven’t seen it yet, this is a good video explaining it from Michael Matt:

We now see groups such as Students for Life of America and Life News(not to be confused with Life Site News) siding with the media regarding this issue.  But as Remnant writer Chris Jackson asks, does anyone else see a problem with this story?

Excerpt from this excellent article(with additional commentary below):

“First, there is hardly any recognition that conceiving a child out of wedlock is a terrible tragedy, especially, as in this case, when the mother and father have no plans to marry. Here, both parties choosing to commit the sin of fornication has created a situation where the child will be most likely deprived of a father and won’t be born into a stable family unit. The situation is made more difficult by the fact that the mother is barely graduating high school and now must find a way to support herself, no doubt placing a burden on her own family to care for her child. And these are only the consequences to Miss Runkles’ immediate family and the child. Further lost in all of this, is the bad example it gives to Miss Runkles’ siblings, if she has any, her classmates, and the Christian community at large, not to mention society.

For these reasons, conceiving a child out of wedlock used to be accompanied by both the parents and the families involved feeling a natural and healthy sense of grief, guilt, and yes, shame. These are the emotions tragic situations are supposed to create.  In the past, the parents of the young woman involved would most often keep the situation discreet and private, withdrawing the girl from school and sometimes sending the girl out of town to live with relatives or to religious sisters at convents who cared for unwed mothers during pregnancy after which the girls would give the child up for adoption.

This is often sneered at by moderns who accuse these parents of abandoning or punishing their daughters. In reality, the parents were attempting to save their daughters from the public humiliation, disapprobation, and hardship that would ensue if she were to continue at school or in the community obviously pregnant and unmarried.  The other option, of course, was a quick marriage between the mother and father as soon as the pregnancy was discovered if that was, in fact, feasible.

Of course there never was or will be a perfect solution to such a situation as the situation is in and of itself, a tragic consequence of sin. But this is a fact that has apparently been lost on many in the pro-life movement, as well meaning as they are. For example, Kristan Hawkins, the Students for Life president, said “She [Miss Runkles] made the courageous decision to choose life, and she definitely should not be shamed.”

But is the school really choosing to “shame” Miss Runkles for choosing not to slaughter her unborn child by not allowing her to walk in a graduation ceremony? The notion is absurd.

The article goes on to say, “The anti-abortion group, which took her to a recent rally in Washington, argues that she should be lauded, not punished, for her decision to keep her baby.”

Yet, the pro-life group confuses the issue. The decision not to let Miss Runkles walk had absolutely nothing to do with her decision not to get an abortion.  It seems like some pro-life groups are so obsessed with the good end of preventing abortions that they will use any means necessary to accomplish the goal, even if that means lauding and holding up as a hero, a poor teenage girl who is in a very tragic situation due to her own choices. Does it not show to what level we have sunk as a society when one is honored as a celebrity for conceiving a child in sin as long as they refrain from murdering it?

Is this the bar we want to set?

But besides all of this, I found one thing most interesting and it is something I have seen discussed almost nowhere amongst the many stories out there including the comment boxes. Notice that the narrative is that an evil Christian school “shamed” Miss Runkles for getting pregnant out of wedlock.

Instead, why aren’t we asking Miss Runkles herself, or her family, why they are apparently not feeling any shame about their daughter being in her current situation? Why would Christian parents insist that their visibly pregnant daughter proudly walk across a stage at a Christian school drawing attention to the fact she is pregnant out of wedlock? Why would Miss Runkles want to do this? Why would Christian parents go to the left wing media and press to publicize the fact that their daughter conceived illegitimately to the entire world in order to “shame” her high school?

In a saner time, you could not have paid parents of an unmarried and visibly pregnant teenager to have their daughter walk across a stage in front of her classmates, much less publicize the affair to the media.. That is because the young girls in this situation, and their parents, used to have a healthy and completely natural sense of shame. They didn’t need a school to impose it upon them. They already felt it deeply.

Parents also used to have a healthy sense of discretion about so sensitive a matter and would try to minimize any scandal that might ensue over the affair. And so they would not even so much as asked the school if their daughter could make a spectacle of herself by walking at graduation as the entire notion would have been absurd and damaging not only to the child and family, but to the community at large. Ironically, if schools in those days had forced unwed and visibly pregnant teenagers to walk in high school graduating ceremonies they would have been rightly accused of shaming these poor girls and the practice would have caused a just uproar.

But in our day and age, there is no sense of shame. Far from it. Instead, a poor girl who conceived a child out of wedlock is not encouraged to keep a low profile, but instead encouraged by a pro-life group and her parents to proudly demand that her school celebrate this tragedy.  Why? Because she could have legally murdered the child, but chose not to. This is the very definition of shameless.

As evangelical Christians, the Runkles are no doubt familiar with the Bible, especially the Gospels. In the Gospel of Matthew we see how St. Joseph treated what he believed to be a similarly tragic situation, before he was enlightened by an angel.

When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost. Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately.

Notice that St. Joseph, far from publicizing the event and daring anyone to “shame” himself or Mary, wisely chose not to make the matter public and instead kept the matter as private as possible out of love for Mary. This is the path of virtue and charity we have so far strayed from. As the Haydock Commentary confirms:

Joseph her husband, knowing her strict virtue, was surprised at this her pregnancy, but “being a just man,” and not willing to expose her, by denouncing her, or giving her a bill of divorce, he had a mind to dismiss her privately, committing the cause to God. Let us learn from Joseph to be ever tender of our neighbor’s reputation, and never to entertain any injurious thoughts, or any suspicions to his prejudice.

Yet in today’s world we are so proud that even St. Joseph’s response of dismissing her privately would be seen as “shaming.”  The only answer the enemies of the Faith give is to flaunt the sin and tragedy and demand that society being accepting of it and celebrate it. And sadly at least one pro-life organization as well as most conservative news media have swallowed this poisoned premise in order to allegedly influence mothers not to kill their children.

However, promoting the pro-life cause by normalizing illegitimacy is like cutting off ones nose to spite ones face. Normalizing illegitimacy encourages more illegitimacy and thus a higher chance the final “choice” will be abortion and not life.

As the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

[W]here the parents [of illegitimate children] fall but slightly in social esteem the public regard for chastity is deplorably lax..[T]he presence of illegitimacy in a community always tends to weaken the popular appreciation of chastity, and the popular disapproval of its violation. “

 

If I might add a point to Mr. Jackson’s article, let us also remember how God treats one who has fallen into sin, but has asked for forgiveness.  When the sin is confessed, Our Lord is overjoyed to pardon the sinner and forget the sin as only He can.  However, we often still owe a remaining “debt” to Him, especially in regard to grievous sins.  This temporal punishment is a consequence of the sinful action, even if the sin itself has been forgiven.  This is why we are obliged to do penance and, if necessary, be purified in Purgatory.  God is both infinitely merciful and just.

Yes, we are certainly happy that Miss Runkles has chosen not to abort and that there will be a new life to grace the Earth, but consequences must still exist for the action done.  It is unfortunate that some groups calling themselves “pro-life” are siding with the vile, anti-Catholic media on this issue, but there has been a creeping compromise in the Pro-Life movement for a long time.  For example, the common Protestant acceptance of contraception is now prevalent in a large number of groups.  This is why we published a post against the contraceptive mentality, which readers may find here: https://damselofthefaith.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/being-truly-pro-life-a-rebuttal-against-the-contraceptive-mentality/

Other groups will go even further and declare themselves secular.  While their fight against abortion might be praiseworthy in many respects, how can one win his battle if he does not recognize the One who is the Truth?  The same goes for this new emerging group of “pro-life feminists”(!), an oxymoron.  It can be very dangerous to only partially affirm the truth, even out of an apparent “prudence”.  This is why, with a few noble exceptions, those who will most earnestly fight for Life will be found in the traditional Catholic communities.

~ Steven C.

Source:   http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/3211-the-death-of-shame-pro-life-group-celebrates-illegitimacy

The trampling of Our Lord on the floors of our churches- the result of Communion in the Hand

communion hand

http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/communion_in_the_hand/is_communion_in_the_hand_a_sacrilege.pdf

This title picture will certainly move the souls of good Catholics very deeply.  It is with great difficulty that I even type these words having to look at this picture.  But as graphic as this representation is, it is the reality in so many of our Catholic churches today.  For this is the result of the placing of Our Lord’s Precious Body into the hands of the faithful.

The purpose of this post is not to discuss the history of the condemnation of Communion in the Hand in the Church, as I believe Michael Davies has already done an admirable job of it.  For those who would like more information, you might read his study: http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/communion_in_the_hand/communion_in_the_hand_and_other_similiar_frauds-michael_davies.pdf

Suffice to say, even Pope John Paul II repeatedly spoke strongly against this abuse in the early days of his pontificate:

Dominicae Cenae (Feb. 1980): “To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained.”

Inaestimabile Donum (April, 1980): “It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.”

Unfortunately, this Pope decided to give in to the disobedient modernist clerics who had already begun to spread this practice after Vatican II.  As a result, we have countless Masses said each day where this abuse takes place.  This practice is even accepted in some diocesan Latin Masses and is one of the reasons priests of the SSPX and like-minded Orders must caution the faithful regarding these Masses, as discussed in a recent post.

There have been many studies examining the impact of placing a Host on the hand of a person.  Do all of the particles making up the appearance of the Host transfer successfully to the person’s mouth?  Remember, each particle is the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

In my opinion, there is no study more revealing than the one performed by Charles St-George of Wheaton, Kansas in 2002.  It needs no introduction from me, as Mr. St-George provides a perfectly competent one in his letter to Pope John Paul II:

 

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR FORGIVENESS OF SINS AND LIFTING OF EXCOMMUNICATION VERY SPECIALLY RESERVED TO HIS HOLINESS

His Holiness, Pope John Paul II Citta Del Vaticano, Roma, Italia

Pope John Paul II,

I, Charles Andre St-George, accuse myself of committing and participating in grievous and numerous outrages against the Most Blessed Sacrament from about 1980 to 1991. Please hear my plea and grant my requests.

First, I have only recently learned according to The Roman Catechism, p.233 “that in this Sacrament are contained not only the true body of Christ and all the constituents of a true body, such as bones and sinews, but also Christ, whole and entire” and further that, page 239 “the body of our Lord is contained whole and entire under the least particle of the bread.”

Second, I have only recently learned that according to The Catholic Concise Encyclopedia, p.153 “Excommunication is imposed according to the reservation as follows: (a) Acts reserved to the Holy See in a very special manner are: throwing away, taking or retaining for evil purposes the consecrated species;….”

I confess that I have thrown away or caused to be thrown away approximately 60,000 consecrated hosts from 1980 to 1991 and that I caused many of these hosts to be repeatedly trampled underfoot or otherwise desecrated. These grave sins were not motivated by formal hatred of God, but from a motive more banal–I did not care. This is what I did: I was an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist and I sometimes received our Lord in the hand instead of on the tongue, as well. As most communicants wanted to receive in the hand, I would gently place the Host in their palm. As proven in my attached scientific analysis conducted with the aid of my teenage son, Joseph, when one receives communion in the hand there are, on average, about four visible particles detaching from that same host. For this trial, I bought from Catholic Supply of St. Louis, Missouri, hosts advertised as: “We are pleased to offer by far the best altar bread. All of our breads have a carefully molded sealed edge which prevents crumbs.” We used the “best” and the test result was an average of 3.68 crumbs per communion.

I believe I may have distributed perhaps 15,000 hosts to communicants. It is reasonable to assume that this generated about 60,000 visible, though tiny particles. When I would receive communion in the hand, I would check my palm and sometimes find one or two or even more fragments of the sacred species. While I tried to immediately consume these by attracting them with the tip of my right index finger, I am confident that not all particles were always safely consumed. As Eucharistic Minister, in many thousands of Hosts placed in palms, I never once observed anyone else examining their palm or fingertips to see if there were any particles remaining.

So, what happened to these 60,000 particles containing our Lord and God of which I bear responsibility? Quite simply, they would eventually detach from the palms and fingertips of these communicants as they changed position to folded hands and the particles would drop to the floor, or be brushed against their clothing and detach, or find their way to destinations unknown. Most should be assumed to have dropped to the floor while still in the church. The above doctrine states that these particles were the fulness of Jesus our God just as surely as the large host which the priest consecrates for his own consumption! Like myself, any Catholics who have gone to Mass at a church where there has been communion in the hand encounter a veritable minefield where they have mindlessly, repeatedly set their heels against the Holy Face of Jesus Christ Himself! The thought of this horrifies me now. Some, myself included, simply did not care to know what they were doing. Still, does not Our Lord withdraw Himself in anguish from such as do these things and care not? What must the Holy Virgin think of this treatment of her crucified Son?.

Not for me, but for the love you bear the Virgin Mother of God, I beg from Your Holiness two things: First, please lift this very specially reserved excommunication, forgiving these most grievous sins, committed without even caring, against Our Lord’s very Person. Second, please mail to me directly your personally signed written blessing stating specifically that Your Holiness blesses me for now seeking all sacraments and worship of God for myself and my family (I have seven children) at the only churches and chapels in my country where communion in the hand has never been offered at any Mass, the only churches and chapels where there is a moral certainty that there are not thousands of Sacred particles on the floors, the only chapels and churches where my family is truly free not to trample upon our God–to these only, the churches and chapels of the Society of St. Pius X where communion in the hand is still condemned as stated in the old Roman Catechism and amongst which it has never been tolerated; Deo Gratias. Difficulties notwithstanding, as this is a matter touching upon God Himself, it is prayed that Your Holiness will hear us.

With Thanks to Our One, True God–Jesus the Christ and the One who conceived Him and was Herself Immaculately conceived by this same True God, now True Man,

Charles St-George, men’s barber by trade

 

Mr. St-George explains study:

This day a brief scientific trial was undertaken to verifiably ascertain how many, if any, consecrated particles of the Sacred Species are typically broken away from the hosts, and subsequently thrown-away, desecrated and abused specifically as a consequence of the practice of communion-in-the-hand in the Catholic Church in the United States today.

My teen-aged son, Joseph, was my aide in this study, acting the part of the communicant while I acted the part of the Eucharistic Minister. For the purposes of this trial, I purchased from Catholic Supply of St. Louis, MO, a box of 1000 1 1 /8″ diameter white altar breads, item No.57212, advertised on their web-site http://www.catholicsupply.com/churchs/wine.html as follows: “We are pleased to offer by far the best altar bread. All of our breads have a carefully molded sealed edge which prevents crumbs.”–The questioned truthfulness of that critical conclusion, naively believed by many, is one reason why we decided upon this trial.

For this trial, Joseph and I prepared by carefully washing our hands and fingers and drying same with lintless towels. We then examined our fingertips and Joseph’s left palm which would each contact the host to be assured they contained no foreign matter which could be mistaken for a bread particle. I determined we would look for particles after each and every individual “communion” in three areas–my fingertips, Joseph’s palm and Joseph’s fingertips. I further determined that we would count the results from 25 “communions” and record how many particles were found and where. We would only count “naked-eye visible” particles we could both see.

The contents of one packet of altar breads was carefully emptied into a small plastic cup. Recalling my training as a Eucharistic Minister (may God forgive me), I would gently take up a host between my right index finger and thumb and place this host in Joseph’s left palm with only sufficient firmness to assure it would be transferred. Joseph commented that eucharistic ministers at Masses he attended were less gentle in transferring the Host to his palm. He would then take the host between his right index finger and thumb and place it on his tongue without touching his fingers to his tongue. Joseph would then keep his right index finger against his thumb and hold his left palm upward while we both inspected: first, my right index finger, then my right thumb, then his left palm, then his right index finger, and finally his right thumb for any particles of bread fractured from the host and adhering to us as a result of this multiple manipulation and touching. We would carefully scrape away any particles found before the next “communion” with the blade of a sharp knife to be assured of not counting any particles twice.

What were our trial findings? Were there any particles of bread fractured from these 25 hosts taken one at a time from a cup and placed in Joseph’s palm and taken from his palm and transferred to his mouth? We were both disturbed at how many particles: From the 25 “communions,” we found a grand total of 92 individual, naked-eye visible particles which averages to 3.68 particles per “communion.” The largest of these particles measured 60 thousandths of an inch long, or 1.5 mm. The 6X enlarged photo (previous page) shows 10 of the actual particles we found, counted and saved. As detailed in the below statistical information, we counted 27 particles from my fingertips, 47 particles from Joseph’s palm and another 18 particles from Joseph’s fingertips. Only one “communion”, No.22 in the series, was free of any visible particles. On the other hand, the highest particle count of seven resulted from “communions” Nos. 6, 15 and 16. It is hoped that this trial will work to the honor of Our Lord and aid those who still care for Him.

Now bearing this mind, let us read Rome’s response:

Dear Sir,

On behalf of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, I would like to thank you for your letter dated April 17th, for the enclosed offering and materials concerning the Holy Eucharist.

Answers to questions you have raised are contained in documents approved by the Pope: Rituale Romanum, De Sacra Comunione et de cultu Misterii Eucharistici extra Missam, Praenotanda 21 and Congregatio de Cultu Divino et Disiplina Sacramentorum, Instructio varietates legittimae, Nos.31, 54, 62. They allow reception of Holy Communion while standing and in the hand. It is not an error provided that one’s attitude is one of respect while meeting God Who is coming. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says about the subject: “To prepare for worthy reception of this sacrament, the faithful should observe the fast required in their Church. Bodily demeanor (gestures, clothing) ought to convey the respect, solemnity, and joy of this moment when Christ becomes our guest” (Catechism of Catholic Church, art.1387). The practical application of those instructions is up to the giver who is obliged to make sure that the faithful are both conscious of what they receive in the Eucharist and that they express their respect for Christ present in the form of bread.

The palm is not any less respectable a part of the human body than the tongue. Christ accepted bread “fruit of the earth and human labor” as material for the Eucharist. During the Last Supper he did not give consecrated pieces to the mouth of his disciples but he “broke it and gave it” knowing that it is not possible to avoid destruction of some particles of consecrated bread in which He is present. Accordingly, church regulations say that both the priest offering communion and the recipient are responsible only for the particles which are visible without the use of optical instruments. To make it easier in practice, the western Church developed through the ages a tradition of passing communion directly on the tongue of the believer. There is, though, no reason to stick stubbornly to that traditional form of receiving communion. It would be more appropriate to be concerned about respecting the Eucharist by every day adoration, frequent participation in Holy Communion, by helping others to receive it in a dignifi ed manner etc. Desecration is committed only by consciously and willingly “–throwing away, taking or retaining for evil purposes the consecrated species.”

Accordingly, there is no need to take part in the Eucharist celebrated by members of the Society of St. Pius X, which is not in unity with the Catholic Church. Furthermore, it would be highly inappropriate to do so.

I would like to encourage you to remain in the love of the Eucharistic Christ, to adore and respect the Eucharist, but without being too scrupulous. I would like also to assure you that the Holy Father prays for you and asks for God’s grace for you.

Respectfully,

Monsigniore Pedro Lopez Quintana

ASSESSOR

 

Kyrie Eleison!

Steven C.

SSPX Marriages and the Society’s relations with Rome

8c559-fellay-ready

http://sspx.org/en/interview-bishop-fellay-april-2017

In Bishop Bernard Fellays’s latest interview, he gives us some insight into the Pope’s recognition of SSPX Marriages, as well as a general overview of the current Society relations with Rome. As always, a must read. The transcript follows.

~Damsel of the Faith

SSPX USA: Your Excellency, thank you very much for taking the time out of your very busy schedule to meet with us. If you don’t mind, we have a few questions that have been in the news recently that we hoped you might shed some light on.

Bishop Fellay: With pleasure.

The State of Marriages in the SSPX

SSPX USA: The latest news from Rome, first of all, regarding the Society concerns provisions for our marriages. What does that mean for the Society and how will it affect us practically?

Bishop Fellay: It’s a broad question. May I recall the background a bit? The background is that, for years, a kind of jurisprudence has been established by the official Church, by Rome, which claims that our marriages would be invalid. Of course, we have enough elements in Canon Law to prove that is not the case. But nevertheless, people who want to break – if I may say so — their marriage have an easy door with this stipulation.

And so for years I’ve tried to see with Rome what can be done to block this unjust, unreal situation. Finally, after different ideas throughout the years – it’s almost 10 years that I have been discussing this – and it’s certainly an initiative of the Holy Father – came the idea of telling the bishops: why not recognize this situation as Catholic and hence give the delegation? That’s really the background.

Now, as with many documents, you have to read between the lines. I think the aim is in the second paragraph which says to the bishops: the priests of the Society, though the Church labels them as irregular, are capable of receiving the delegation necessary to bless or to receive the consent of the marriage. So I think, it has to be read as a new step towards the Society, in fact; not at all a step of trying to get the Society” in the pockets”; how do you say? No, on the contrary, to recognize that what we do is Catholic and telling the bishops: “You can give the delegation even to these priests.”

And what is very interesting also: it is stated that they speak about our marriages. And they say in that case, even if diocesan priests would be delegated for receiving the consent, nevertheless the Mass itself would be celebrated by a priest of the Society. So the fact that there is a clear statement that the priest will celebrate the Mass from the Society is once again a new step in the right direction, saying that these priests not only can but will say the Mass. And obviously in the right manner, so without any irregularity.

So you have somewhere a certain contradiction in the text. It is obvious. It has to be understood in such a way that, first, Rome wants to state that we, in their eyes, are not yet completely in canonical order. So they want to make that statement. But despite that: “Treat them normally as if there would be no disorder.” That’s the interesting thing.

Certainly, you can have different ways to look at this text; you can have a positive or a pessimistic way. But, looking at the Holy Father, looking at how Pope Francis deals with us, for a certain time, it is very clear that it is a benevolent step against us; not a trap, not a bad, hidden trick, or catch. No: it is a will that we are treated correctly at all levels.
SSPX USA: Your Excellency, you spoke of possible contradictions in the text or even different ways of reading between the lines. Some of the faithful who attend Society Masses have perhaps read a different interpretation, expecting to now accept priests from the diocese to receive their vows. And some of them seem uncomfortable with the idea of a diocesan priest, for instance, coming to a SSPX chapel to receive their vows. What would you say to those who expect or think this provision of Rome is simply another obstacle for the faithful to get married by priests of the Society?

Bishop Fellay: I think when we go into the practical situation, it is difficult to see beforehand. We will try to deal with the bishops; we will try to get the best out of the text. We already have examples right now of bishops, especially in Argentina, which is the country of the Pope, where the bishop has simply given the delegation to our priests. Period. And we expect that that will be the general situation. So, the correct interpretation of the text.

This does not exclude a situation where, let’s say, a bishop will be stubborn and so on and will insist on imposing a priest. Then we will have to look into the concrete situation. Definitely, as it is a marriage of our faithful, they have a say. And that’s why I read in this way the text which speaks of “in an impossibility of Plan A, go to Plan B”, which is give directly the delegation to the priests of the Society.

So, if there are cases where we feel uncomfortable, we have to say it. And it’s even in the text. Probably we will have here and there some difficulties, but they are not without a solution.

SSPX USA: Since the document mentions the possibility of local ordinaries giving delegation directly to the Society, and you’ve mentioned possible examples that exist already, how will the priests of the Society go about trying to obtain that delegation? Is it up to individual priests, local priors, District Superiors, the General House? Is there any light you can shed on how, practically, that will play out?

Bishop Fellay: We will indicate to the different Districts the path, the way of handling that case. You may have different situations. In general, as I say, we will try not to handle this case-by-case, but to get to general policies with the bishops. And this would mean that there would be a contact with the Superior of the District.

SSPX USA: Speaking of general policies, in the document that was released from the General House, there was an indication that guidelines would be drawn up for the whole Society. Is it premature to comment on those guidelines or have discussions already occurred regarding those?

Bishop Fellay: I think it’s too early. We have also to see how this text from Rome will be received locally. And we don’t yet have all the answers. But you can easily imagine that, with such a text, most of the bishops don’t bother as it is an opening towards us. And they will just grant it.
SSPX USA: How would we deal with the question of marriage in places where, for instance, the bishops do not want to collaborate? Is there a risk of having certain countries or dioceses where bishops grant delegation and others don’t?

Bishop Fellay: Strictly speaking, we could expect that. It’s possible, let’s say, that bishops would go against the disposition of the Pope. We know that. And I don’t fear that because we come back to the present situation, foreseen by Canon Law, which says that, if there is a grave difficulty, or in Latin, grave incommodum, the two future spouses can proceed. And they must have, for that situation, witnesses, and if a priest is available, the priest.
SSPX USA: So in the event a local bishop would be opposed, is there some recourse to Rome to protect us or is that not in the case?

Bishop Fellay: I would say it’s not necessary, but we probably will look into the question. And we may speak with Rome about it: would it be just to establish in such cases another policy, if I may say? When I spoke to the Pope about the present situation of bishops refusing, he said: “But I can give it!”It was really interesting. Let’s say, as an ultimate recourse, we know that, on the side of the Pope, there is a readiness.
SSPX USA: This may seem like a practical question in light of the recent document, but where will these marriages from here on be registered? Will they simply be in the priories and chapels of the Society or in the local diocesan parishes or somewhere else?

Bishop Fellay: If we follow the indication of the text itself, I think that the correct interpretation is that we continue our registration and we send the notification to the diocese.
SSPX USA: Also, from the perspective of those who wish to be married, do you anticipate a kind of “test” for the spouses we have prepared for marriage? Would it not be strange for a priest who had no role in the training of the spouses to witness their vows and even have no idea whether they are properly prepared?

Bishop Fellay: Once again, I think the text foresees that we prepare, we make the tests, and the local priest is only there for the ceremony, like putting the stamp on a reality which is all ours.

A Step Forward With Rome

SSPX USA: You answered this a bit earlier, but perhaps you could expound on it. You seem to interpret this either as a step towards regularization or at least of good will from Rome rather than interpreting these gestures as a kind of trap to keep us from doing the work that we’ve already been doing. Can you comment any further on that dichotomy?

Bishop Fellay: Yes, no problem. I think that this is not the first step which goes in that direction. I said that I’ve been discussing about this question for 10 years already. I speak about other problems which would request an intervention of Rome, of the highest authority; Catholic acts which we establish and that would be recognized by Rome. And I see that this is happening at diverse levels. The more we go, the more intense this is the common practice.

Which means that, even though there are certain claims about us being irregular, more and more we are treated as if things would be just normal. In recent years, everybody has heard about the power of hearing confessions worldwide, everywhere. And being not only valid, but licit; that is, everybody can, without trouble of conscience, come to the priests of the Society. That’s an example.

Another example is ordinations. Last year, I received a letter from Rome telling me: “You can freely ordain your priests without the permission of the local ordinary.” So if I can freely ordain, that means that the ordination is recognized by the Church, not just as valid but in order. If I can freely do it, it’s clear that this is just already recognized and accepted. So this is one more step in this acceptance that we are “normal Catholics” despite this underlying sense that we are still not completely in order. More and more, this is going on and it’s not the first step. Frankly, I don’t see there any will to interfere or take over, but simply the recognition that what we do is Catholic.
SSPX USA: To switch topics a little bit, though I suppose it’s indirectly related, there’s a little more than a year until the next General Chapter of the Society. Can you say anything about what preparations are underway and what that means for the Society; or is it perhaps too early?

Bishop Fellay: No, I don’t think it’s too early. We can really talk about it. This Chapter is the one which will happen, provided everything goes forward or is still the way they are now. In any case, even if we are recognized before, it would imply a General Chapter according to our internal policies. So if it happens before, or at that time, in any case, it is the occasion for us to look into our faithfulness to our statutes, how accurate we accomplish them, what the failures are, what are the points are that need improvement, what the new questions are, and new problems. I guess that, with this new possible recognition by Rome, this will, when it happens, raise quite a number of new questions, of new situations. We certainly already reflect on them now, but we’ll have to put them into guidelines or policies for the whole Society. In any case, I think it will be an important Chapter and we are preparing, definitely. One year is not too long before to prepare it.

The Current State of the SSPX

SSPX USA: Perhaps speaking even more generally, can you say how and where is the Society growing most around the world? Are there places in particular that perhaps strike you as unique or particularly impressive?

Bishop Fellay: What I see, in general, is a more or less constant growth, not too spectacular. Here and then, a group would just join us as a group, but that is really rare. It’s more or less individuals who come, who join, one family here or there. But this is universal in all the countries where we are settled; in all six continents you find that. Some places know greater or more intense growth: countries like the United States and some places in Africa have that, yes. But there are variations from one country to the other. So I cannot say for sure that for 10 years you really have one which is increasing more than another. The whole Society is still growing and I say, the more we grow, the more we have a problem of not having enough priests to cope with all the needs.
SSPX USA: Speaking of priests, what is the trend of priests coming from either dioceses or religious congregations, perhaps showing interest in the Society? Has it increased or decreased since Pope Francis? Maybe you can speak to their motives and why they choose the Society out of a number of options.

Bishop Fellay: Yes, it seems to me that there’s not much change before and after the election of Pope Francis. I think it is deeper trend than just one person being in charge. There are priests, indeed, who approach us. They approach us to become a member but many of them don’t necessarily want to become a member. But they want to be friends, they want to learn from us: the sacred liturgy, on one hand, but more the doctrine.

Once I was in front of a group of priest friends in Italy—it was about two years ago—and I asked them, about 30 priests: What do you expect from us? And I was almost certain that they would say, “Well, teach us how to say the Mass.” That was not the answer. The answer is: the doctrine. That’s what they expect. And it’s deeper, of course: without doctrine, which explains the Mass, the Mass may be beautiful and so on, but what makes it solid is the doctrine which is expressed, which is coming out of the Mass. And if you have a good and solid knowledge of this theology, it makes the liturgy even more necessary, I may say.

And that’s what you see a little bit everywhere. I see priests who approach us, but not just for the Mass: for much more! They want to learn Tradition. Many of them, when they discover the Mass, are frustrated. They feel cheated. And they say: “These are treasurers, our treasures, and they were hidden from us!” But they don’t remember that level of frustration; they really enjoy Tradition deeply and they want to live it.

Response to the Current Crises

SSPX USA: Your Excellency, speaking of another more universal question, Amoris Laetitia has generated a tremendous amount of confusion and controversy since it was released last year. On the one hand, one could say it’s encouraging to see some wake up to the crisis in the Church; on the the other hand, the pastoral results of that document are really devastating. There are even some who claim the Society has been too soft in their critique of Amoris Laetitia. What are your thoughts about this document and the controversy it’s engendered?

Bishop Fellay: At the time, I wrote to Pope Francis, and we prepared a text to wake up the cardinals, a letter from our three bishops. But, I will not say “unfortunately”–that would not be the right word—but four cardinals took the initiative just before we were about to send the letter. That’s why there was not much noise about it because it was already done. So our letter just remains in a drawer.

In fact, we are certainly doing all that we can with those who raise their voice. I think it is important that people notice that we are no longer the only ones who complain, who denounce, who attack poor situations which are harming souls. It could be one of the reasons why, here and there, I would not talk immediately, letting their voice appear and not mixing mine with theirs. Because usually when we do that, they are disqualified because this tendency of disqualifying us in the modern Church is still very present. And so, letting their voice be heard, for the whole Church, is probably better. And everybody anyway knows what we think and what our positions are. It has not changed and everybody knows that.

So while, and as long as there are voices in the Church who talk in the right direction, to say that one day or another, I would have spoken more softly, does not change anything in the big picture, in the big fight which is still there. That’s very, very clear. And it absolutely does not mean that we would, by politics, in order not to jeopardize a possible agreement—which is not the correct word—or canonical recognition, lower our voice is simply not true. If someone would be careful and look at all I write and say, they would say that I just continue. We are still the same.

And I insist in Rome to say we are like this and we are not going to change. We may be a little bit less controversial in attacking the persons. But our reason would not be just a personal gain. What we look for is the most efficient way to have a benefice for the whole Church. Sometimes you gain more by giving a simple argument than by barking it. You have to look at the cases. We are still in a fight, we know that, and it’s definitely not over. It’s not just for the pleasure of fighting, but we belong to the militant Church.
SSPX USA: Perhaps in conclusion, a simpler question: you’re here in St. Mary’s, KS, for confirmations. St. Mary’s is obviously the Society’s biggest parish and school in America. What are your impressions or thoughts you might share on St. Mary’s?

Bishop Fellay: I admire the work of Divine Providence in this place which was sanctified just before us by the Jesuits. It was the scholasticate of the Jesuits. In the church, which is no longer there, which was burnt, we know that over 1,000 priests have been ordained. We know it’s not only a very holy place, but a very priestly place. And as the first scope of the Society is the priesthood, it’s a good reminder.

And I may say certainly we are harvesting. We are trying to sow the seed but we are more harvesting from the work of previous good workers in the field of the Lord. We certainly admire and thank God for these beautiful fruits of the traditional attitude, which was everywhere before.

 

Cardinal Burke calls for Consecration of Russia to Immaculate Heart

Image result for cardinal burke

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-cardinal-burke-calls-for-consecration-of-russia-to-immaculate-hear

As a speaker at the Rome Life Forum yesterday, Cardinal Raymond Burke called for the Pope and Bishops to consecrate Russia to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart as was requested at Fatima.  “He[the Cardinal] expressed agreement with one of the foremost Fatima scholars, Frère Michel de la Sainte Trinité, who said that the promised triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary undoubtedly refers firstly to ‘the victory of the Faith, which will put an end to the time of apostasy, and the great shortcomings of the Church’s pastors.'”  The Cardinal also pointed out that other attempts, such as John Paul II’s consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart, however well-intentioned, did not fulfill the conditions laid out by Heaven.

Despite the Cardinal’s apparent hesitation to recognize the errors of Vatican II and the conciliar Popes for what they are, we must commend these remarkable efforts and statements in favor of Tradition and the message of Fatima.  For several decades, it was the perseverance of Fr. Nicholas Gruner, the Society of St. Pius X, and other “radical Traditionalists” that kept the truth regarding the message of Fatima alive.  These truths we have always prayed to hear from the Church authorities, but seldom, if ever, have.

However, this good Cardinal has done his duty and taken the message of Fatima firmly into the ‘mainstream’ and hopefully into the minds and hearts of many more Catholics. Certainly it is a great occasion for jubilation, but let us only continue fighting with a greater fervor and strength for the coming of the Great Restoration!

On a natural level, does the Consecration of Russia seem imminent?  Unfortunately, it appears the contrary is true.  An excerpt from this week’s Pastor’s Corner commentary from sspx.org:

“The occasion of the anniversary would have been providential for the long expected consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, but this was not to be. No mention was even made of the need to increase devotion to Our Lady, especially that of the first five Saturdays. The Fatima message, with the three secrets, containing warnings of punishment and threats of death is not pleasing to modern ears. Yet, the Pope himself laments the war stricken world around us and the loss of the sense of the sacred.

Our Lady’s words always connect the punishments with the crime of individuals and nations, and the solution to these threats is first and foremost spiritual: the return to God, to penance, prayer, and the sacraments. However, such names as sin, punishment, and penance have no room in the modern ecclesiastical jargon, where the leitmotiv is simply peace, joy, union in whatever religious feeling one may experience, and so forth. Too many hierarchs in the Church seem to think that if the Blessed Virgin were to visit them today she would have to be “more sophisticated” or “with the times.”

As Roberto de Mattei concludes in his assessment of the Pope’s visit:

We need to acknowledge that the message of Fatima reinterpreted according to Pope Francis’ sociological categories has little to do with the prophetic announcement of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which Our Lady proclaimed to the world one hundred years ago.”

Nevertheless, let us continue to pray for the Consecration to be performed very soon, for all is in God’s hands!  And may we continue to promote and be faithful to this great grace given to us from Heaven!

The six means of Our Lady of Fatima for the faithful to bring about the Restoration:

  1. Pray the Rosary each day
  2. Wear the Brown Scapular;
  3. Make sacrifices for the sake of saving sinners;
  4. Make reparation for offenses to her Immaculate Heart by means of the First Saturday devotion; and
  5. Convert our own lives ever more to Christ.
  6. Lastly, she asks the Roman Pontiff, in union with all the Bishops of the world, to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart.

~ Steven C., “Knight of Tradition”