Rorate Caeli

In case anyone hasn't read this yet...


Read the story here.

90 comments:

NCTradCatholic said...

Ah, but he wasn't annointed with cow dung on his forehead, like another "great" prelate was, was he?

Mary said...

Prayers of Reparation

O My God, I believe, I adore, I trust, and I love you! And I beg pardon for those who do not believe, do not adore, do not trust, and do not love you.

-----------------------

O Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, I adore thee profoundly. I offer thee the most precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, present in all the tabernacles of the world, in reparation for the outrages, sacrileges and indifferences by which He is offended. By the infinite merits of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I beg of thee the conversion of poor sinners.

-------------------------
O sweetest Jesus, whose overflowing charity towards men is most ungratefully repaid by such great forgetfulness, neglect and contempt, see, prostrate before Thy altars, we strive by special honor to make amends for the wicked coldness of men and the contumely with which Thy most loving Heart is everywhere treated. At the same time, mindful of the fact that we too have sometimes not been free from unworthiness, and moved therefore with most vehement sorrow, in the first place we implore Thy mercy on us, being prepared by voluntary expiation to make amends for the sins we have ourselves committed, and also for the sins of those who wander far from the way of salvation, whether because, being obstinate in their unbelief, they refuse to follow Thee as their shepherd and leader, or because, spurning the promises of their Baptism, they have cast off the most sweet yoke of Thy law. We now endeavor to expiate all these lamentable crimes together, and it is also our purpose to make amends for each one of them severally: for the want of modesty in life and dress, for impurities, for so many snares set for the minds of the innocent, for the violation of feast days, for the horrid blasphemies against Thee and Thy saints, for the insults offered to Thy Vicar and to the priestly order, for the neglect of the Sacrament of Divine love or its profanation by horrible sacrileges, and lastly for the public sins of nations which resist the rights and the teaching authority of the Church which Thou hast instituted. Would that we could wash away these crimes with our own blood! And now, to make amends for the outrage offered to the Divine honor, we offer to Thee the same satisfaction which Thou didst once offer to Thy Father on the Cross and which Thou dost continually renew on our altars, we offer this conjoined with the expiations of the Virgin Mother and of all the Saints, and of all pious Christians, promising from our heart that so far as in us lies, with the help of Thy grace, we will make amends for our own past sins, and for the sins of others, and for the neglect of Thy boundless love, by firm faith, by a pure way of life, and by a perfect observance of the Gospel law, especially that of charity; we will also strive with all our strength to prevent injuries being offered to Thee, and gather as many as we can to become Thy followers. Receive, we beseech Thee, O most benign Jesus, by the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Reparatress, the voluntary homage of this expiation, and vouchsafe, by that great gift of final perseverance, to keep us most faithful until death in our duty and in Thy service, so that at length we may all come to that fatherland, where Thou with the Father and the Holy Ghost livest and reignest God for ever and ever. Amen.

Dr. Herbert R. said...

I find this photo scandalous. Is this ecumenism? Where is now the Gospel mission to preach the gospel and make disciples of all nations? You dont make disciples by ecumenism because gaining disciples is opposed to the concepts of ecumenism.

May the Lord save us.

Anonymous said...

At least he's not an avowed Freemasons. Then he would be serving Baal instead of Vishnu. But some say the two re related. Oh well.

Anonymous said...

Seriously...

Will Pope Benedict XVI respond publicly to the outrage in question?

His Holiness is aware that such things disturb a great portion of the Faithful.

If the Archbishop's actions can be defended in light of Holy Tradition, then His Holiness should make that case.

If the Archbishop's actions violate Holy Tradition and are unacceptable to the Holy Father, then His Holiness should make that known to the Faithful.

I would take silence from Rome as a sign of Rome's support for the Archbishop.

Again...and seriously...I'm interested as to whether anybody believes that the Holy Father will respond to the situation at hand.

Tim

Anonymous said...

What a terrible colour clash. Perhaps next time Abp Nichols visits he could stick to habitus pianus.

New Templar said...

I'm afraid the Pope will do nothing. You know he is only first among equals and doesn't really have any executive power or anything. He's just a figurehead really. I'm being flippant but it is either that or cry. It is apparent to me for a very long time that the system of discipline and order has broken down in the Church.

Anonymous said...

ALL THE HOLY MARTYRS WHO DIED FOR THEIR REFUSAL TO OFFER ANYTHING TO FALSE GODS MUST BE SEETHING WITH JUST RAGE AND REPULSION !!!

THE HINDU CHRISTIANS ARE DYING FOR THAT EVEN TODAY !!!

ST. VALENTINE, PRAY FOR US !!!

LORD, HAVE MERCY !!!!!!

Benet said...

Well done on mentioning this story.

I see the priest-bloggers in England have completely ignored it.

The good Archbishop's office removed the reference to his offering flowers "at the altar to the deities" in their press release. Are they trying to pretend he did not make this offering? If so, is that not an admission that this was a scandalous act?

I hope the Archbishop explains what he was doing and tries to repair the damage.

ben ingledew said...

"Please, please," said the high voice of a woolly lamb, who was so young that everyone was surprised he dared to speak at all.

"What is it now? said the Ape, "Be quick."

"Please," said the Lamb. "I can't understand. What have we to do with the Calormenes? We belong to Aslan. They belong to Tash. They have a god called Tash. They say he has four arms and the head of a vulture. They kill Men on his altar. I don't believe there's any such person as Tash. But if there was, how could Aslan be friends with him?"

All the animals cocked their heads sideways and all their bright eyes flashed toward the Ape. They knew it was the best question anyone had asked yet.

The Ape jumped up and spat at the Lamb.

"Baby!" he hissed. "Silly little bleater! Go home to your mother and drink milk. What do you understand of such things? But you others listen. Tash is only another name for Aslan. All that old idea of us being right and the Calormenes wrong is silly. We know better now. The Calormenes use different words but we all mean the same thing. Tash and Aslan are only two different names for you know Who. That's why there can never be any quarrel between them. Get that into your heads, you stupid brutes. Tash is Aslan: Aslan is Tash."
- "The Last Battle" C.S.Lewis

Gideon Ertner said...

"Will Pope Benedict XVI respond publicly to the outrage in question?"

That could backfire as it could raise questions if what he did in the Blue Mosque was substantially different. I'm not so sure it was. To any ordinary Muslim, that gesture would have seemed to suggest that the Pope had become Muslim, or at least indifferent towards his own religion.

Anonymous said...

Honestly, what do you except, when we had a Pope (John Paul II) who did the same thing numerous time.

Not only to Hindu "deities"-which implies true and actual valid gods and goddesses who actually exist-but also prayed in front of statues of the Buddha, kissed the Koran , and prayed at the Wailing Wall exactly as would a Jew.

He also visited animist (spirit and ancestor worshiper) temples and shrines in Africa in his many travels, Shinto shrines in Japan, and of course we must not forget his favorite....the Jewish synagogues.

Priests, bishops and Cardinals rabidly took up and immitated this papal action, and still do it today.

Time was when Catholic knew that these were pagan gods and goddesses that were just pieces of stone and represented nothing. We would never enter a pagan shrine, and certainly not worship the pagan deities...as Archbishop Nichols apparently did by placing flowers on their altar.

I'm not advocating the old days, when Evangelical Protestant "missionaries" would go into China, look for the nearest temple and smash the idols and other holy images to pieces by wielding clubs and baseball bats. That was equally sick.

But we should not allow for Catholic clergy, from the POPE on down, to do the type of thing John Paul II, Archbishop Nichols, and hundreds of other Catholic cardinals,bishops, and priests have done in the 23 years since John Paul II's blasphemous Assisi gathering in 1986.

I think Archbishop Nichols should quietly resign. He's just another example of the worthless Vatican II "culture" and mindset.
I hope he's ruined his chances to become a Cardinal.
A scandal in his reign already and he's been in office only about 9 months.
That's about what he can expect from these Vatican II priests!

Anonymous said...

"Seriously...

Will Pope Benedict XVI respond publicly to the outrage in question?"

Wimpy Pope Benedict? You gotta be joking!!!!

LOL!!!!

Anonymous said...

"
THE HINDU CHRISTIANS ARE DYING FOR THAT EVEN TODAY !!!

Most of these Christians being persecuted etc. are Pentecostolist Protestants...and though they profess Jesus in some way, they are entirely in error.

I would feel more sympathy if I were you, for the Catholics being persecuted....and for the Catholics of the Archdiocese of Westminster who now know they have yet another worthless Bishop.

Anonymous said...

"THE HINDU CHRISTIANS ARE DYING FOR THAT EVEN TODAY !!!


This is a contradiction in terms.
There is no such thing as "Hindu Christians". Either you are a Hindu, or a Christian (preferably Catholic), but you can't be both at the same time.

Just another mad Catholic said...

After reading this story I take back every bad word I have ever said about the SSPX.

Just another mad Catholic said...

PS Annoynomouys 7:36 I'm not even sure that Rome knows about this......yet,

servusmariaen said...

So I ask again the same question I've been wondering for most of my life: How do such men become bishops? Why do such things continue to go on? I never seem to get a clear answer. Is it because no one knows?

Anonymous said...

Following the lead of John Paul II the Great. And why not? After all, if John Paul II did similar and he is called "the great" should he not be followed?

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

Unfortunately, Pope John Paul II set the trend with this kind of sacrilege.

Paul Haley said...

My dear friends, ecumenism has taken the place of evangelization and that is the reason why we see such outrageous spectacles involving the highest levels of Holy Mother Church. It's no more make disciples of all nations but be politically-correct whatever the occasion. But, you see, offending clerics like Nichols have canonical status and faculties whereas the SSPX and many independents do not. Yes, the smoke of Satan has invaded the sanctuary and what we see is the result.

These clerics who perform such atrocities are morons for they know that they will be asked for recompense at their Judgment Day. "Vengeance is Mine sayeth the Lord" and He will extract heavy penalties from these traitors to the Gospel.

Dan Hunter said...

"I'm not advocating the old days, when Evangelical Protestant "missionaries" would go into China, look for the nearest temple and smash the idols and other holy images to pieces by wielding clubs and baseball bats. That was equally sick."

St Francis Xavier smashed idols in India.
Last time I checked he was Catholic and a canonized saint.
I would venture to surmise that his actions were not "sick", considering he is a saint and all...

Anonymous said...

"Time was when Catholic knew that these were pagan gods and goddesses that were just pieces of stone and represented nothing."

I'm sorry to say that, but you're wrong. The truth is even worse. They do represent something, or rather somebody.

"For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils" - Ps 95,5.

Oliver said...

Those people saying that the hierarchy is becoming conservative need look no further than this to see the opposite is happening. The conciliar church believes all religions are equal and conversion is no longer necessary. In fact, new dogma is being created to denounce the conversion of Jews! As Lefebvre kept saying, we have a new religion, new liturgy, new sacraments and new priesthood. And as such what are folk complaining about?

Anonymous said...

This is the nonsence that has too Stop. I think this type of churchmen that just can help them selfs to look foolish.

LeonG said...

This reminds me of John Paul II (RIP) being anointed Hindu style by a female "holy" woman in February 1986 in Delhi; same again at a Zoroastrian ritual; similarly in 1984 when he went to pay his respects to Vasana Tara, the region's high priest of Buddhism in a temple in Bangkok, Thailand. Many church hierarchs, monks and presbyters have followed suit. The interreligious politics of the modernist church dictate this form of behaviour which is certainly scandalous and propagates religious pluralism.

Cola di Cola said...

Is he a manifest sinner? Should he be barred from Communion?

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

It is amazing how so many people getting disgusted when a bishop does such things, yet these same people are hush hush when the pope is involved.

The pope is more guilty because he is the head of the Church!

Anonymous said...

"St Francis Xavier smashed idols in India.
Last time I checked he was Catholic and a canonized saint.
I would venture to surmise that his actions were not "sick", considering he is a saint and all..."


No, his gestures were not sick, because he was a saint, and a holy and devout man who did much good for the people of India and Japan....bringing them the light of the True Faith in the Catholic Church, and not just the teachings and beliefs of another "dime-a-dozen" fundamentalist Protestant sect/cult/community.

Old time Catholic Missionary priests and nuns were very holy people.

The Protestant "misionaries" if you can clal them that...are just fanatics.

Anonymous said...

St Francis Xavier smashed idols in India.
Last time I checked he was Catholic and a canonized saint.


St. Valentine was martyred because she smashed a Roman idol. Intentionally. And she is venerated as a saint.

And she wasn't the only one. I can't imagine what can be wrong with smashing idols.

It is moral good. Just like we use exorcised salt and oil, there can be items with devil attached to them. Pagan idols are one of them. How can be no devil where people commit idolatry, one of the worst sins, directly against the most important commandment?

If you don't believe me go look for stories of travellers (real travellers, not "tourists" who sightsee hotels and beaches only), what strange things they witness in pagan temples, like asking the pagan priest "Can we take pictures?" - he says "If god allows" - and suddenly cameras don't work. It happens in contemporary India.

Now imagine that you smash the idol and the Hindu kill you for that. Will you be venerated as a saint for that, like St. Valentine? No, now you will be condemned or ignored at best...

So don't tell me that the Church has not changed. But has God changed? I doubt it.

Raskolnikov said...

We're doomed.

Anonymous said...

Oh Lord rise up in your anger!

lexetlibertas said...

"St Francis Xavier smashed idols in India. Last time I checked he was Catholic and a canonized saint.
I would venture to surmise that his actions were not "sick", considering he is a saint and all..."

We need to stop treating our saints the way all too many Catholics treat their Popes -- as if they can do no wrong.

The saints were products of their times and their biases and prejudices--just as, to be fair, we ourselves are of our own.

I do not believe it to be prudent to do violence to that which others hold sacred, especially ancient religious traditions which, however imperfectly, are manifestations of man's search for meaning, and for communion with the Good/True/Beautiful, i.e., communion with God.

The medieval Church was wrong on this one. Absent an explicit command from God to the contrary, we are NOT permitted to coerce people to accept the true religion, nor to impede their private religious practice. Where public displays of false religion about (e.g., pagan monuments and Temples), SURELY they can, and SHOULD, be allowed to remain,at the very least for their artistic value, as well as a reminder of our historic roots as a civilization.

Please folks, we're not Muslims! Our approach to foreign, even pagan, cultures should be humanistic, sympathetic, and transformative, not destructive or iconoclastic!

Jay said...

It puzzles me, why on earth he visited Hindu temple?? And why, why, why he was 'anointed' on his venerable forehead?? To be in compliance with Dignitatis Humanae? Who cares...

Dan Hunter said...

Anon:

St Valentine was an awesome saint, but I believe HE was not a SHE.

I think he was also a bishop.

Paul Haley said...

I believe Pope Benedict XVI is the Vicar of Christ and legitimate successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles. Does that mean that I agree with everything His Holiness does, or better still, does not do, i.e., in the withholding of faculties for the SSPX and other traditional priests professing loyalty to him? Of course not.

But, in this case it is imperative in my view that he announces publicly that in showing respect for other religions he is in no way disavowing the Catholic religion as the one, true path to eternal salvation. He must reaffirm the fact that the Catholic Church is the One, True Church outside of which there is no salvation.

Further, he must state unequivocally that in showing respect for the religious sensitivities of others neither he nor any official of the Catholic Church is denying the central role of the Catholic Church in the economy of salvation, that is, other religions do not possess the charism of Truth given by Christ to His Church.

If His Holiness does not do this, he will cause me to have serious doubts about his having been validly elected to the See of St. Peter. After all, we have had impostors claiming the Throne of St. Peter before. In the USA alone, I think, there are about 5 such claimants. The 64 billion dollar question then becomes: "Is Pope Ratzinger" one of these?" Methinks not, but I could be wrong.

In the final analysis Catholics must ask themselves this question: "How many of the saintly pre-vatican II popes would have allowed themselves to be placed in the position of even seeming to validate other religions or having the mark of false deities placed on their foreheads? Methinks not many if any.

J.G. Rathkaj said...

Interestingly it was said in (neo?)conservative circles that the new hierarch in Westminster is one of their own and rather "orthodox", and even contracted pick and choose traditionalists throw a tantrum for some days on their various blogs when Nichols put on at his installation something else than the now more common polyester blankets (that and some more or less good music and decorum seems reasons enough for them to claim him for their branch and make him ironclad in their limited mental horizon). But informed catholics in England could expect that the new hierarch, who allowed mohammedans to use a chapel in his dioces for commemoration of the birth of their founder Mahomet, is not an awful lot better than his ultraliberal predecessor:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/9155321/Celebration_of_the_birth_of_Mohammed_held_in_chapel_of_Birmingham_Catholic_college/

Jay said...

And what about First Commandment? What about wrath of God, He is jelous God...It is very sad day and news.

lexetlibertas said...

1) Valentine was a man, a priest in fact.

2) I do recall, actually, that there were Church councils which forbade the veneration of those who were "martyred" after they instigated violence, such as gratuitous destruction of another man's idols or the vandalizing of pagan temples. CERTAINLY in a non-Catholic state, Christians have NO RIGHT whatsoever to perform such actions.

3) Many of the martyrs, even those eventually canonized, did things which were morally ambiguous, but the Church venerates them in spite of it: NO SAINT IS PERFECT, FOLKS! The many "holy suicides" come to mind, martyrs who killed themselves (e.g., throwing themselves into fires) rather than sacrifice to idols or renounce Christ. Yes, their "suicides" were objectively immoral, but they acted under duress and were well-intentioned, so the Church overlooked it.

4) St Augustine also suggested that such suicides PERHAPS were by God having directly inspired said saints to do so. I see no reason to assume that, but that's one theory.

5) I repeat: THE SAINTS WERE NOT SINLESS, and are NOT emulatable in everything they ever did. Our guides are the Holy Scriptures, our informed reason, and the defined doctrine of the Church. The examples of the saints, theological speculation, former ecclesiastical legislation, etc all have their place when considering these things, but they are not definitive.

And as I've noted before, we should be sensitive to the fact that we, too, have our biases which Catholics 500 years from now probably will not share.

Jay said...

"Baby!" he hissed. "Silly little bleater! Go home to your mother and drink milk. What do you understand of such things? But you others listen. Tash is only another name for Aslan. All that old idea of us being right and the Calormenes wrong is silly. We know better now. The Calormenes use different words but we all mean the same thing. Tash and Aslan are only two different names for you know Who. That's why there can never be any quarrel between them. Get that into your heads, you stupid brutes. Tash is Aslan: Aslan is Tash."
- "The Last Battle" C.S.Lewis

Well, now we know the origin of ecumenism...(I am being sarcastic)

Anonymous said...

St. Valentina, virgin. When she was brought to an altar to offer sacrifice, she overturned it with her feet. She was terribly tortured and, being cast into the fire together with another virgin, her companion, hastened to her heavenly Spouse.

Oh, nobody told her that she's a crypto-Muslim, and she should do the offering for the sake of prudency, beauty and historical value of this ancient tradition. What a stupid, narrow-minded woman indeed.

The Church should apologize all pagans for her outrageous deed. Fortunately bishop Nichols is aware of that and he invited pagans to desecrate a church in his diocese.

Oh, how the Church erred for all those years! Oh, how enlightened we are now! Blessed is Krishna and the New Springtime. Age of Aquarius, come!

Anonymous said...

Brother Anthony nailedit.

They used to burn people at the stake for less.

Also, this used to be a sin against the First Commandment which has been conveniently eliminated in post-VII examination of consciences.

Delphina

Anonymous said...

Bernardo Gui, pray for us!

Angelo said...

Benet said...

"I see the priest-bloggers in England have completely ignored it."

Worth repeating again, Benet:

I see the priest-bloggers in England have completely ignored it.

Including the one on this side.

Daniel said...

If I may chime in regarding the thoughts of lexetlibertas....

It is certainly true to say that all the Saints were not perfect, even though many well-intentioned Catholics would like to believe that. One only needs to review the workings of the old Vatican offices which investigated the lives of proposed Saints to see that they were fully aware of all the pluses and minuses in the candidate's life which were meticulously scrutinized before they could ever begin the steps to Sainthood (I say "old" Vatican offices because even the Sainthood process has apparently been corrupted by the modernists in Rome in recent years). To put it simply, they weren't canonized for their mistakes; they were canonized for their holiness and heroic virtue.

That being said, I would like to respectfully mention to lexetlibertas that he is doing precisely what he is accusing others of: seeing the past with the prejudices of today. His views of what the Saints of the past should or should not have done are colored by his personal opinions rather than an understanding of history. And I say this not to condemn the man. I say it because I've "been there, done that" myself.

Again with the respect due to lexetlibertas I would like to recommend to him several books, books which are designed to remove the scales from one's eyes and to bring alive the panorama of the past. I could name two dozen right now, but I will confine myself to a few which, I know, he will find edifying, enlightening and, I dare say, entertaining. I believe he will, by enjoying these excellent works, see why they didn't call the 13th "the greatest of centuries" for nothing. And if nothing else these books will put to rest, hopefully once and for all, the silly myths about medieval life that have been rammed down our throats for four hundred years and counting.

These books are brilliant and worth reading: ISABELLA OF SPAIN by William Thomas Walsh, EUROPE AND THE FAITH by Hilaire Belloc, VILLON by D.B. Wyndham-Lewis, PHILIP II by William Thomas Walsh, THE EVERLASTING MAN by Chesterton, THE THIRTEENTH, GREATEST OF CENTURIES by James Walsh, Guizot's HISTORY OF FRANCE and, Belloc once again, THE PATH TO ROME.

Lexetlibertas says our guide should be "Holy Scripture" (true - but only as interpreted by the Church unchangingly through twenty centuries), "the defined doctrines of the Church" (true again) and also "informed reason" (yes, indeed, which is why I recommend those books to begin the informing process). Where I think you are wrong, your admitted "humanistic" outlook on historical matters, can be somewhat modified by a reading of these excellent, thoroughly Catholic works.

These books will bring vividly to life what the Catholic Church IS, and always was. They will start you on a voyage of discovery that will delight and even startle you. I envy you that first journey because I remember so happily my own.

Anonymous said...

"It is amazing how so many people getting disgusted when a bishop does such things, yet these same people are hush hush when the pope is involved.

The pope is more guilty because he is the head of the Church!"

How very true! Musch of what John Paul II did during his reign was a disgrace and an afront to God and betrayal of the Catholic Faith, and yet it was always the same chorus of approval:
John Paul II and the 1986 inter-religious circus in Assisi:

"yes Holy Father...whatever you say, Holy Father"



John Paul II and his appologizing for everything:

"yes Holy Father...whatever you say, Holy Father"

John Paul II visiting and praying in Synagogues, Mosques, Shinto Shrines, Buddhist Temples, the Wailing Wall, Hindu shrines...

"yes Holy Father...whatever you say, Holy Father"

John Paul II ignoring the liturgical and other problems in the Church to concentrate on ecumenism, dialog, his trips, or WYD:
"yes Holy Father...whatever you say, Holy Father"

No wonder the Church is one huge mess today.

As long as it's according to the John Paul II model, it will always be : "yes Holy Father...whatever you say, Holy Father"

But if a Pope were to distance himself from, or actually repudiate any or all of the above and actually stand up for Catholic Faith and tradition...all hell would break loose.


Let's hope for THAT day.

Biggus Headdus said...

Delphina said:

Also, this used to be a sin against the First Commandment which has been conveniently eliminated in post-VII examination of consciences.



The first and greatest commandment is the one that satan has most effectively abolished in the crazed, ecumaniacal, minds of the hierarchy.

I often wonder out loud to my wife if it's even possible for anyone to commit a sin against the first commandment these days?

Why is it that the Catholic Church seems to be the biggest perpetrator of this ecumenical farse?

Anonymous said...

We can thank John Paul II who started all of this in Assissi.

Anonymous said...

Regarding violence suffered by Catholics in India, I am afraid the Church hierarchy are at least partly to blame. Priest-as-social-worker types have been fomenting unrest among Catholics of the lowest castes for the usual reasons, and the higher caste Hindus have reacted predictably (even if unjustly) to this attack on the traditional social order. A year or two ago I called my family's attention to this circumstance, when I saw a news report praising two Indian priests who were in the USA for what as I recall was a refresher course in social activism and community organizing. Their photos showed them in typical neo-Jesuit-style business-casual garb, with no visual hint of their priesthood. I don't think they had fallen into Liberation Theology, merely the usual liberalism which infests the "Conciliar Church" (Cardinal Benelli's term.) The hierarchy tend to ignore the scriptural admonitions to "servants" (slaves), that they should be subject to their masters, even harsh ones. Louis

Anonymous said...

People! People! The good Archbishop is only following in the footsteps of the Supreme Pontiff, Pope John Paul II, "the Great," who is on the fast track to sainthood. Let's not paint ourselves into an unfortunate corner but rather scamper to rationalize such far sighted gestures of those who are true visionaries.

Anonymous said...

St. Catherine of ALexandrea pray for us.

"Lord open this Bishop's eyes to the truth or close them". Cardinal Bea

Gideon Ertner said...

"Most of these Christians being persecuted etc. are Pentecostolist Protestants...and though they profess Jesus in some way, they are entirely in error."

First of all they can't be "entirely in error" if they "profess Jesus in some way."

And anyways, you are completely ignorant of what happened in Orissa last year (and many times before). There were indeed several Catholic churches that were destroyed, religious sisters were gang-raped, and at least one Catholic priest and a sister was murdered.

Anon @11:42 was right: the Archbishop has been p*ssing on their graves.

Knight of Malta said...

Our present Pope wrote this:

"Regarding the future, it seems likely that, in global terms, the influence of the Church over the world will constantly diminish. The numeric triumph of Catholicism over other religions, which today can still be admitted, probably will not continue...

*In this state of things, one should no longer be concerned with the salvation of 'the others,'* who for some time now have become 'our brothers.' Above all, the central question is to have an intuition of the Church's position and mission in History under a positive new point-of-view. This new point-of-view should allow one to believe in the universal offer of the grace of salvation as well as the essential part that the Church plays in this. Therefore, in this sense the problem changed.

What concerns us is no longer how 'the others' will be saved."

(Joseph Ratzinger, "Necessita della missione della Chiesa nel mondo," in La Fine della Chiesa come Societa Perfetta, Verona: Mondatori, 1968, pp 69-70).

I am fairly certain that our Holy Father has changed his view since these dreadful words were written, but it shows just how infected minds were at the time by the Spirit of Vatican II.

Martyrs bled and died advancing Salvation. It is hubris in the extreme to say that salvation is now "universal," and we can now, in a sense, rest on our Laurels--that notion is blasphemy. Christ died a real, horrific, death some 2,000 years ago. And His Sacrifice is still offered in an unbloody manner even today in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for sinners. Whoever says that all are now saved is himself jeopardizing his immortal soul, whether he be a Pope, Bishop, Priest, layman, etc. Our job is to convert the unconverted. Priests spread over the New World and offered the Traditional Latin Mass in fields and huts to the native people, and largely converted them (today 90%) of Native Americans are Catholic. These Priests didn't have the Vatican II, novus disordo mentality that, well, shucks, everything is hunky dory now, so we can relax and blog now! We are so disordered religiously right now that we consider our disorientation order. Vatican II-speak is so entrenched that it has become a sort of pseudo-tradition, wherein 1960 years of Catholic tradition is brushed-aside in favor of a new model--a modernistic model.

I pray to God that SSPX is reinserted into the lifeblood of the Church, and that Fellay may be our next Pope.

I also pray for the eventual Canonization of Archbishop Lefebvre.

John (Ad Orientem) said...

I'm afraid the Pope will do nothing. You know he is only first among equals and doesn't really have any executive power or anything. He's just a figurehead really.

I think you are confusing the breakdown in discipline with a break down in the sensus fidei. The Pope can be useful for certain really serious issues, but the question is why doesn't the local synod call the Archbishop on the carpet for this? I think a significant part of the problem is that your church has become such a top down body that everyone is afraid to take a bathroom break without checking with Rome first. The problem is not a lack of action from Rome. It is the profound silence from the bishops in the UK.

We have no Pope. But I can assure you that whatever problems we have (and we have many); any Orthodox bishop who did such a thing would have been deposed by now.

Under the mercy,
John

Anonymous said...

Knight of Malta:

Has Pope Benedict XVI ever issued a retraction?

Delphina

Anonymous said...

The timing of this is most peculiar. We are in the process of welcoming Traditional Anglicans in the Church and then they get to see something like this spectacle ? Am I reading too much into this ?

Charity must be maximized. By this I mean charity toward whatever Traditional Catholic organization you recognize, not people who promote spectacles such as this.

Anonymous said...

"the question is why doesn't the local synod call the Archbishop on the carpet for this?"

-probably because they've done worse during their time?

Jordanes said...

Also, this used to be a sin against the First Commandment which has been conveniently eliminated in post-VII examination of consciences.

It's there in the examination of consciences distributed in my parish.

My sense is that it's not that the First Commandment has been eliminated from post-Vatican II examination of consciences, but that the examination of conscience has been eliminated.

Jordanes said...

I just can't fathom how Catholics justify this kind of participation in idolatrous rites to themselves. Treating a pagan Hindu with respect is one thing, but its another thing altogether to offer flowers to false gods. How does an archbishop not know the difference?

NCTradCatholic said...

Knight of Malta said:
"I am fairly certain that our Holy Father has changed his view since these dreadful words were written..."

Are ya sure about that, Knight??

Mar said...

Perhaps Archbishop Vincent Nichols is just returning the compliment for the Hindu ritual performed at Fatima in 2004.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g08htHindusAtFatima_Vennari.html

Quote: The newscast then shows the Hindus bringing flowers to the statue of Our Lady inside the Capelinha, the little chapel built over the spot where Our Lady of Fatima appeared. The Hindu priest stands at the Catholic altar and recites a Hindu prayer. Meanwhile, the SIC announcer says, “This is a unique moment in the history of the Sanctuary and of devotion itself. The Hindu priest, the Shastri, recites at the altar the Shanti Pa, the prayer for peace.”

Anonymous said...

Knight,

90% of Native Americans are Catholic? Where in the world did you get that statistic?

John L said...

4 The king ordered Hilkiah the high priest, the priests next in rank and the doorkeepers to remove from the temple of the LORD all the articles made for Baal and Asherah and all the starry hosts. He burned them outside Jerusalem in the fields of the Kidron Valley and took the ashes to Bethel. 5 He did away with the pagan priests appointed by the kings of Judah to burn incense on the high places of the towns of Judah and on those around Jerusalem—those who burned incense to Baal, to the sun and moon, to the constellations and to all the starry hosts. 6 He took the Asherah pole from the temple of the LORD to the Kidron Valley outside Jerusalem and burned it there. He ground it to powder and scattered the dust over the graves of the common people. 7 He also tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes, which were in the temple of the LORD and where women did weaving for Asherah.



10 He desecrated Topheth, which was in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, so no one could use it to sacrifice his son or daughter in [b] the fire to Molech. 11 He removed from the entrance to the temple of the LORD the horses that the kings of Judah had dedicated to the sun. They were in the court near the room of an official named Nathan-Melech. Josiah then burned the chariots dedicated to the sun.

12 He pulled down the altars the kings of Judah had erected on the roof near the upper room of Ahaz, and the altars Manasseh had built in the two courts of the temple of the LORD. He removed them from there, smashed them to pieces and threw the rubble into the Kidron Valley. 13 The king also desecrated the high places that were east of Jerusalem on the south of the Hill of Corruption—the ones Solomon king of Israel had built for Ashtoreth the vile goddess of the Sidonians, for Chemosh the vile god of Moab, and for Molech [c] the detestable god of the people of Ammon. 14 Josiah smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles and covered the sites with human bones.

15 Even the altar at Bethel, the high place made by Jeroboam son of Nebat, who had caused Israel to sin—even that altar and high place he demolished. He burned the high place and ground it to powder, and burned the Asherah pole also. 16 Then Josiah looked around, and when he saw the tombs that were there on the hillside, he had the bones removed from them and burned on the altar to defile it, in accordance with the word of the LORD proclaimed by the man of God who foretold these things.

1
19 Just as he had done at Bethel, Josiah removed and defiled all the shrines at the high places that the kings of Israel had built in the towns of Samaria that had provoked the LORD to anger. 20 Josiah slaughtered all the priests of those high places on the altars and burned human bones on them. Then he went back to Jerusalem.

(2 Kings 23)

LeonG said...

"How does an archbishop not know the difference?"
Even more infinitesimally so, how does a pope not know the difference? The archives of the post-conciliar papacies are documented with similar un-Catholic behaviours committed in the name of ecumenism and interreligious "dialogue". To deny they have done so would be effectively claiming that popes can do as they please but not archbishops.

Anonymous said...

The Archbishop of Westminister is hedging his bets just in case the Hindus have more of the truth than we have. And why not ??????

Jamie

Anonymous said...

"First of all they can't be "entirely in error" if they "profess Jesus in some way."


Whoever wants to be saved should above all cling to the catholic faith."

Whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally. [...]

Athanasian Creed

Anonymous said...

I think Traditional Catholics in England should begin a huge campaign to have Nichols resign.

Anonymous said...

I know this guy has only been in office afew months,
but he should either submit his resignation, or be fired by the Pope. Either one.

And replace him with a traditional Catholic....even if you have to go to Poland or Italy or Germany or Mexico to find one.

IN the middle Ages, Italians, Germans, French and even Greeks were appointed to important dioceses outside their own countries. The earliest Archbishops of Canturbury came from Italy, and what is now France.

No reason why it still can't be done today.

Anonymous said...

I think what is being missed here, or at least avoided in mention, is the fact that the martyrs people here are speaking of, the past popes, the saints, etc, who would never display behavior such as + Nichols has is the obvious...the saints of old, the past popes, the martyrs, priests, nuns, actually BELIEVED in the Catholic Faith. Many (I won't say all) of today's bishops, popes, nuns, priests, don't believe in the Catholic Faith, at least they don't believe it is the only Faith. And yet they keep their "day jobs." Why? I surmise it is because they are very well taken care of, particularly the bishops. And who is taking care of them? We are. We support them. They live a comfortable life mocking the faith on the backs of the faithFUL.

Anonymous said...

From Joseph Ratzinger, 1968:

"Regarding the future, it seems likely that, in global terms, the influence of the Church over the world will constantly diminish.

"The numeric triumph of Catholicism over other religions, which today can still be admitted, probably will not continue..."

Knight of Malta stated:

"I am fairly certain that our Holy Father has changed his view since these dreadful words were written..."

I doubt that His Holiness has changed his view as far as the collapse of Catholicism is concerned.

His Holiness, in "Salt of the Earth," repeated his belief that the Church had fallen into a downward spiral.

On March 10, 2009, Pope Benedict XVI declared the following:

"In our days, when in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer has fuel..."

Josef Ratzinger (His Holiness) continues to hold fast to his belief that the Church remains in a shocking state of collapse.

In 1968, Joseph Ratzinger recognized that the Church's numerical membership and influence had entered into a state of collapse.

In 2009, when Archbishops present themselves as excited proponents of the Hindu religion, but refuse to promote the TLM (their own ancient rite) with similiar vigor, there is little wonder as to why the Church is mired in a shocking state of collapse.

Tim

Anonymous said...

Most Dear Holy Father,

I implore you as a faithful son to act decisively and with clarity to defend the Holy Name of Jesus.

An example must be made of this idolatrous cleric. Please defrock him now and threaten him with excommunication if he does not renounce all allegiance to false gods and publicly recant his error in favor of the One and Only, Triune God of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and Him alone. For there is no other name, in Heaven, or on earth or under the earth, by which we can be saved. And it is only by Jesus that any man can get to the Father in Heaven.

Please also preach more on the duty of all Catholics to uphold all the Commandments, of which the very first one we owe our jealous God, is to worship no other god before Him.

Our Lady of Fatima pray for us.
Most Sacred Heart of Jesus have mercy on us.

Sincerely in Christ,

J. Di Bernardino
Ontario, Canada

Jordanes said...

Whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally.

While that is true, nevertheless it is also true that if one professes Jesus in some way, one is thus not "entirely" in error.

Paul Haley said...

Anonymous (26 November, 2009 12:47) said...

I know this guy has only been in office a few months,
but he should either submit his resignation, or be fired by the Pope. Either one.


And replace him with a traditional Catholic....even if you have to go to Poland or Italy or Germany or Mexico to find one.

Tut, Tut, no need for that. There is a bishop currently in Jolly Ol' England who I believe is willing and able to reform that diocese in a heartbeat. And, he's currently without assignment, too. Of course it would take, ahem, testosterone the likes of King Kong to grant this bishop and his fellows canonical status and faculties but that also could be done in a heartbeat. Just think of the wailing and gnashing of teeth this would engender in those liberal, modernist entities throughout the world.

I know, wake up from my dream and confront reality sez you. Reality, eh, is that what you call it? I call it a diabolical disorientation.

Anonymous said...

Anon 04:51 I would not be at all surprised if 90% of Native Americans are today Catholics. Read "The Life of Fr. De Smet", and you will see how anxious they were to receive the True Faith and what exemplary Catholics they were. They would beg him to say "the big prayer" for them (the Mass). Most of the Native Americans exterminated by the protestant leaders of the U.S. died Catholic, thank God! The blood of the 8 North American Martyrs was not spilt in vain. Alleluia!

Gideon Ertner said...

I feel like I've come to the point where I really can't be much bothered with this sort of thing anymore. I've become quite numb. It's terrible but it's where we are. God help us.

What I don't get is why people lose confidence in the Church because of this. "Bishop does useless things!!!" shock horror. And in other news, "Cats eat fish!!!"

How many Bishops in the Renaissance era were just gluttonous princes with hordes of mistresses who were in it for the money? Sure, they didn't attack the faith directly but their lifestyle still did enormous damage to the image of the Church. Yet the Church never lost her faith and she recovered marvellously - though it took a painful revolt and a couple hundred years to get the train up and running again.

I fear that some of the people on this blog believe that the Church must be a Church of the pure and are willing to turn elsewhere than Rome to find such a thing. I understand them in part because what is happening at the moment is truly awful. But the Church is not the Church if it does not have Peter at its head - warts, crooked limbs, open sores and all.

Anonymous said...

Anon 19:29,

The USCCB's statistics on their website state that about 20% of full blood Native Americans are Catholic. If you add in the other 1.6 million people who claim Native American ancestory it knocks that number down to about 5%

Jordanes said...

Apparently some commenters here have the gravely mistaken idea that Native Americans only live in the United States. In fact the vast majority of Native Americans live outside the U.S. -- in South America, Mexico, Central America, and Canada. Note that the original commenter who said 90% of Native Americans were converted to Catholicism referred to "the New World," not "the United States," so citing USCCB statistics is of no help. I can't vouch for the 90% statistic mentioned above, but that sounds about right, when we look at the history of Catholic missionary activity south of the Rio Grande, where most Native Americans live.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes, thanks for clarifying that Knight was speaking of all New World natives. All have been given the opportunity to accept the True Faith and if they do not hold It, the fault must lie with themselves. Still, when one considers the sacrifices made to bring them the Faith, to have lost the Pearl of Great Price is a crying shame. One thing is for sure, the 8 North American Martyrs did not believe that the Indians could be saved just by being ignorant Natives. Water Baptism and explicit knowledge of certain Truths were (and are still) necessary for Salvation.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes:

I have in my hand "Outlines of the Catholic Faith" published by The Leaflet Missal Company, copyright 2000. It does not appear in this booklet, nor does it appear in any post-Vatican II prayer book I possess.

Please let me know what the book is in your parish that has it. (Aren't you an SSPX person anyway? If so, it would make sense that they would have a book that contains this sin against the 1st Commandment.)

Delphina

Anonymous said...

"We have no Pope. But I can assure you that whatever problems we have (and we have many); any Orthodox bishop who did such a thing would have been deposed by now."

Performing puja is presently a little premature for Orthodox bishops but when Patriarch Parthenios of Alexandria called Mohammed "an apostle of God", when Patriarch Bartholomeos routinely gives Korans out as presents to Muslim dignitaries and just attended a prayer service at a NYC synagogue, when the printing house of the Moscow Patriarchate actually published Korans for Russian Muslims, etc. etc. etc. there are indeed predictable half-hearted protests from a few monastries and even occasionally Orthodox bishops which no doubt assuage their consciences but things go right back to the same old same old. Syncretistic Ecumenism is the problem and until this is addressed stay tuned for many more repeat performances.

Jordanes said...

I have in my hand "Outlines of the Catholic Faith" published by The Leaflet Missal Company, copyright 2000. It does not appear in this booklet, nor does it appear in any post-Vatican II prayer book I possess.

I should have expressed myself more accurately and clearly. I didn't mean to say or imply that the First Commandment isn't missing from post-Vatican II examinations of conscience. Knowing the grave state of affairs in the Church today, with widespread disregard, ignorance, or rejection of Catholic faith and discipline, sadly I wouldn't find that in any way unlikely or uncommon. My sense, however, is that it's even more common for the examination of conscience to have fallen into disuse altogether.

Please let me know what the book is in your parish that has it.

The books and pamphlets that my parish distributes are:

"The Catholic Devotional," published in 2000 by Apostolic Publishing Company of Oakdale, Minnesota.

"Collection of Catholic Prayers," compiled in 1997 by Father James Kruse

"Examination of Conscience," imprimatur April 1996 by Rev. Msgr. John B. Szymansky, vicar general of the Diocese of Metuchen, distributed by the Blue Army of Fatima.

The second and third are the ones my wife uses. I use the one in my pre-Vatican II 1961 St. Pius X Missal. But each of the three above include the First Commandment in the examination of conscience. In particular, Father Kruse's "Short Examination of Conscience" says:

"Did I fail to love God by not praying? Have I skipped prayer because of laziness when I could pray if only I had loved Him a little more? Did I receive Communion in a state of mortal sin? Do I seriously engage superstition or horoscopes?"

Under the First Commandment, the Blue Army examination of conscience says, "Do I give God time every day in prayer? Do I seek to love him with my whole heart? Have I been involved with superstitious practices, or have I been involved with the occult? Do I seek to surrender myself to God's Word as taught by the Church? Have I ever received Communion in a state of mortal sin? Have I ever deliberately told a lie in confession, or have I ever withheld a mortal sin from the priest in confession?"

These are post-Vatican II examinations of conscience, though I think they may be derived from or based on pre-Vatican II publications. I note that they do not specifically mention the sin of worshipping idols or false gods, though perhaps that might be implicit in the reference to superstition and the occult, since idolatry does implicate one in worship of demons.

(Aren't you an SSPX person anyway? If so, it would make sense that they would have a book that contains this sin against the 1st Commandment.)

No, I am not an adherent of the SSPX, though I sympathise with their concerns.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes:

Thank you for your thorough answer.

In "My Prayer Book" compiled by Fr. Lasance (which belonged to my late Mother, God rest her soul), it states, under the heading "Examination on the Ten Commandments of God", under the First Commandment: "Have you gone to places of worship belonging to other denominations?"

Here's a good one for the Third Commandment: (Have you) talked, gazed, or laughed in the church?"

Delphina

Jordanes said...

"Have you gone to places of worship belonging to other denominations?"

I can see why that one would be omitted in more recent examinations of conscience. At the very least there can be occasions when it is okay for a Catholic to attend a non-Catholic wedding or funeral. However, regular attendance at the worship services of Protestants and Orthdox -- especially in place of Sunday Mass -- cannot be justified. I think I've seen examinations of conscience that invite us to ask ourselves if we have missed Sunday Mass for no good reason.

Here's a good one for the Third Commandment: (Have you) talked, gazed, or laughed in the church?"

That one definitely ought to be included. There are quite a few people at our parish who would benefit from that point of self-examination.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes,

I have to respectfully disagree with you. Native Americans and Latinos/Hispanics are 2 entirely different ethic groups, both of which are statistically recorded by the USCCB, one under Native Americans the other under Hispanic Affairs. When a poster is talking about the North American Marytrs they are talking about the United States, afterall, Auriesville is in New York, USA. Therefore I still contend roughly 5% of Native Americans (non-hispanic) are Catholic. 35% of all Hispanics in the United States are Catholic. 91% of the population in Mexico is Catholic. Perhaps the original poster was talking about Mexico only. I live in the state with the highest population of Native Americans and I assure you, 90% are not attending a Catholic Church.

Jordanes said...

For comparison, here is what the examination of conscience from my 1961 Missal says under the First Commandment:

"Have I wilfully doubted or denied my holy religion? Have I taken part in services other than those of my religion? Have I consulted fortune tellers, or read forbidden books, or despaired of God's mercy? Have I neglected to worship God with prayer and the Mass?"

Jordanes said...

Thanks for being respectful in your disagreement, Anonymous, but there's no doubt you are mistaken. Knight of Malta said, "Priests spread over the New World and offered the Traditional Latin Mass in fields and huts to the native people, and largely converted them (today 90%) of Native Americans are Catholic." He clearly was not talking only about the United States, but the entirety of North AND South America, and most Native Americans (whether Hispanicised or not) live in part of the the New World outside the boundaries of the U.S.

The main reason most Native Americans in the U.S. weren't converted is because the U.S. was established by Protestants, who also acquired control over portions of the Americas that formerly were more easily accessible to Catholic missionary work. We see something similar (though not at all to the same extent as in the U.S.) in the non-Catholic parts of Canada. Where Catholicism was dominant, however, the aboriginal peoples of the Americas were converted to Catholicism.

Anonymous said...

In the land that Our Lady of Carmel first appeared to St. Simon Stock...

what an abomination...

"And Elias coming to all the people, said: How long do you halt between two sides? if the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people did not answer him a word."

At least we know where the good archbishop stands when it comes to the pagan gods.

Anonymous said...

One thing I like about Russian Orthodox Archbishop Hilarion of Volokolamsk is that he is from my generation. Not the 60's 70's generation which most of the problems in todays' churches are spawning from. I wonder if the Roman Catholic Church has any young Archbishops like the Archbishop Hilarion. Or do you have to be over 60.

Anonymous said...

Scandal!

Let's pray for the poor bishop's soul.

Viator Catholicus said...

I'm sure that so-called evangelicals in the Anglican Communion had a field day with this incident.