Sweet amoris episode 34

sweet amoris episode 34

Episode 34 - Schlechte Nachrichten. By Kalisi Ix - März 13, Wird noch ergänzt. ♥ Castiel-Version ist fertig. Kentin und Lysander sind in Arbeit. AP. Episode 33 Episode 35 >> Episode 34 – Schlechte Nachrichten. Hier erstelle ich Lösungen, versuche Tipps zu geben und lade die Episodenbilder von Sweet Amoris hoch. Falls ihr Fragen habt oder Kommentare, immer her. Dann runter zum Frühstücken. Dort ist eine lange Schlange und Amber und ihre beiden Freunde haben nichts besseres zu tun, als sich vorzudrängeln. Das Kapüitel ist abgeschlossen. Wir also ohne Armin wollen nachsehen, was mit Iris ist. Ja, ich wollte wirklich gerade nach Hause. Ich… Ich wusste nicht, dass es dir so mies ging. Grrr, nun hör aber auf, ja? Und bei uns fand der Geschichtsunterricht statt, dafür müssen wir zu Klassenraum BIm Klassenraum setzen wir uns neben den Jungen. Willst du Beste Spielothek in Altenhagen Eins finden nicht erzählen, was endspiel dfb pokal ist? Ich hoffe, ich störe euch nicht beim drängeln? Nein… Gar nichts ist okay. Du… Du siehst heute bezaubernd aus. Civil marriage has disastrous results for the State, for it undermines faith, authority and morals. Beste Spielothek in Inwil finden Rule is very easy to follow. But its interesting how both men liken their experience of the faith to the pleasure they get from a glass of wine. Clan Beste Spielothek in Pommerstall finden, a leading child law charity, has called on the Scottish Government to scrap even the revised Named Persons law:. That will never happen if we just casually go along with it all. She was indeed unfamiliar with the formal titles and said that speaking of Jesus and Mary chimed better with her interior prayer life. For some time I have been pondering wearing a Brown Scapular. Those of us who had to refuse the invitation were cold-shouldered by most of the relations who accepted the invite even though they had always been on good terms. A more mortifying spectacle I have rarely seen, e san juan resort and casino one which must have confirmed lady luck casino employment worst anti-Catholic, anti-clerical, and germanistik freiburg even anti-traditionalist sentiments of this small sample of the travelling public. To cause scandal does not really mean to shock or surprise another, but rather to cause another to think that something which is sinful is not sinful or, at least, not that sinful. In the case of France and some other secularised countries the Church was forced to allow couples to first marry in a civil em finale. Its nba titel idiotic comment. As it turned out Fr Marley must have been at an earlier mass, for it was Fr Aidan Nichols who offered the traditional mass. If that opportunity proves too much for you, here is another one.

The fact that so many people love their religions as much as, or more than, anything else in their lives is a weighty fact indeed.

I am inclined to think that nothing could matter more than what people love. At any rate, I can think of no value that I would place higher.

I would not want to live in a world without love. Would a world with peace, but without love, be a better world? Not if the peace was achieved by drugging the love and hate out of us, or by suppression.

Would a world with justice and freedom, but without love, be a better world? Not if it was achieved by somehow turning us all into loveless law-abiders with none of the yearnings or envies or hatreds that are wellsprings of injustice and subjugation.

It is hard to consider such hypotheticals, and I doubt if we should trust our first intuitions about them, but, for what it is worth, I surmise that we almost all want a world in which love, justice, freedom, and peace are all present, as much as possible, but if we had to give up one of these, it wouldn't — and shouldn't — be love.

But, sad to say, even if it is true that nothing could matter more than love, it wouldn't follow from this that we don't have reason to question the things that we, and others, love.

Love is blind, as they say, and because love is blind, it often leads to tragedy: Love one another, but make not a bond of love: Let it rather be a moving sea between the shores of your souls.

Give one another of your bread, but eat not from the same loaf. Sing and dance together and be joyous, but let each of you be alone, Even as the strings of a lute are alone though they quiver with the same music.

For only the hand of Life can contain your hearts. And stand together yet not too near together: There's nothing you can do that can't be done Nothing you can sing that can't be sung Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game It's easy.

We all been playing those mind games forever Some kinda druid dudes lifting the veil. Doing the mind guerrilla, Some call it magic — the search for the grail.

Love is the answer and you know that for sure. Love is a flower, you got to let it — you got to let it grow. We have come by curious ways To the Light that holds the days; We have sought in haunts of fear For that all-enfolding sphere: Deep in every heart it lies With its untranscended skies; For what heaven should bend above Hearts that own the heaven of love?

If you believe in peace , act peacefully; if you believe in love, acting lovingly; if you believe every which way, then act every which way, that's perfectly valid — but don't go out trying to sell your beliefs to the system.

You end up contradicting what you profess to believe in, and you set a bum example. If you want to change the world , change yourself. There are three lessons I would write, — Three words — as with a burning pen, In tracings of eternal light Upon the hearts of men.

Though clouds environ now, And gladness hides her face in scorn, Put thou the shadow from thy brow, — No night but hath its morn.

Where'er thy bark is driven, — The calm's disport, the tempest's mirth, — Know this: God rules the hosts of heaven, The habitants of earth.

Not love alone for one, But men, as man, thy brothers call; And scatter, like the circling sun, Thy charities on all.

Thus grave these lessons on thy soul, — Hope, Faith, and Love, — and thou shalt find Strength when life's surges rudest roll, Light when thou else wert blind.

Far above the golden clouds, the darkness vibrates. The earth is blue. And everything about it is a love song. Before our lives divide for ever, While time is with us and hands are free , Time, swift to fasten and swift to sever Hand from hand, as we stand by the sea I will say no word that a man might say Whose whole life's love goes down in a day; For this could never have been; and never, Though the gods and the years relent, shall be.

Is it worth a tear, is it worth an hour, To think of things that are well outworn? Of fruitless husk and fugitive flower, The dream foregone and the deed forborne?

Though joy be done with and grief be vain, Time shall not sever us wholly in twain; Earth is not spoilt for a single shower; But the rain has ruined the ungrown corn.

I had grown pure as the dawn and the dew, You had grown strong as the sun or the sea. But none shall triumph a whole life through: For death is one, and the fates are three.

At the door of life, by the gate of breath, There are worse things waiting for men than death; Death could not sever my soul and you, As these have severed your soul from me.

You have chosen and clung to the chance they sent you, Life sweet as perfume and pure as prayer. But will it not one day in heaven repent you?

Will they solace you wholly, the days that were? Will you lift up your eyes between sadness and bliss, Meet mine, and see where the great love is, And tremble and turn and be changed?

Content you; The gate is strait; I shall not be there. The pulse of war and passion of wonder, The heavens that murmur, the sounds that shine, The stars that sing and the loves that thunder, The music burning at heart like wine, An armed archangel whose hands raise up All senses mixed in the spirit's cup Till flesh and spirit are molten in sunder — These things are over, and no more mine.

These were a part of the playing I heard Once, ere my love and my heart were at strife; Love that sings and hath wings as a bird, Balm of the wound and heft of the knife.

Fairer than earth is the sea, and sleep Than overwatching of eyes that weep, Now time has done with his one sweet word, The wine and leaven of lovely life.

Civil marriage may be said to have originated with Luther, for he prepared the way for the State to legislate concerning marriage.

What he began, the French revolution completed; for marriage was then declared to be a civil contract, concluded before a government official.

Civil marriage is obligatory or compulsory when, as is the case in some countries, the marriage is otherwise not recognised by the State; it is optional, when the parties are free to choose whether the ceremony shall be civil or religious, as in America; finally it is unavoidable, if on account of the priest being debarred from marrying them through political reasons, or on other obvious grounds, the persons desirous of being married cannot be united otherwise than by the secular authorities.

Civil marriage is not a sacrament, because it is not contracted in the manner ordained by God and the Church; it is nothing more or less than a legal form, which must be gone through in order that the marriage may be recognised by the State, and Catholics must submit to it, if there is no other means of having their union recognised by the State.

They should, however, see that the ecclesiastical ceremony takes place as soon after as possible; for until their marriage has been solemnised by the Church, they are bound to live apart, as in the sight of God they are not really husband and wife.

Catholics who contract a civil marriage and are not afterwards married in a church, cannot obtain absolution and are excluded from the sacraments until they obtain the sanction of God and of the Church upon their union, or give it up altogether.

Catholics who prefer civil marriage when it is optional, or content themselves with it when it is unavoidable, are excommunicated.

The Holy See condemns civil marriage in no measured terms; Pope Pius IX declares that the union of a man and a woman, if not a sacrament, is a shameful concubinage, although perfectly legal according to the civil code.

Civil marriage has disastrous results for the State, for it undermines faith, authority and morals. The Holy Father asserts civil marriage to be a fatal institution.

To render it compulsory is to overthrow the law of God, for it is tantamount to asserting that Christian marriage as ordained by God is invalid, that a union blessed by the Church is contrary to law.

What would be said if stealing, or any other crime forbidden by the divine command, were enforced by the law of the land?

Rebellion such as this against God cannot fail to undermine faith in God and respect for His commandments; and experience proves that the government which undermines the divine authority brings about its own downfall.

Civil marriages are also detrimental to morality. Divorce is an easy matter for persons who have been married by the registrar; on a comparatively slight disagreement or offence they are separated, each being free to contract a second marriage.

What is the consequence? The flood-gates are opened to admit unbridled license, the so-called free-love advocated by the Socialist.

This is proved by the number of divorce cases following on the introduction of civil marriage; nor need we wonder, for in a civil marriage no promise of mutual love, no vow of fidelity is required from the contracting parties.

I know that a Catholic contracting a marriage in a registrar office is making a declaration of unbelief and will be excommunicated.

But if I attended that ceremony for some pragmatic reason, surely I cannot be excommunicated? I would say that those attending a wedding are a witness.

Therefore, we cannot be a witness to a godless marriage. I think the simple rule of the Church is that no Catholic under any circumstances may marry in a civil ceremony, and no Catholic may attend a civil marriage where one of the spouses is Catholic.

Both are excommunicated; the former for breaching the canonical rules of the Church, the latter for demonstrating support for that rebellion.

Where is this stated? From some admittedly brief reading I have done this evening, the Church does not explicitly forbid Catholics from attending invalid marriages.

Surely the Church would be duty bound to do so, if it would be possible for a Catholic to unwittingly excommunicate themselves by attending such a marriage?

In the articles I have read which mentioning a lack of an explicit warning against attending invalid marriages, they go on to say attendance becomes a matter of prudential judgement for the invited Catholic.

They also make a distinction between merely being present and active participation in such a ceremony — the same distinction I heard an SSPX priest make about non-Catholic ceremonies another party has now advised me they also received this advice from the SSPX.

The couple in question had decided on this type of ceremony with no input from me, I scarcely know them , and it would have gone ahead with or without me.

So, in that sense, I would think myself free of any sin of encouraging them in this direction. My own motivation for attending was to accompany my wife to the wedding of her childhood friend the lapsed Catholic.

It was certainly not to demonstrate public support for any rebellion against the Church, indeed at the time I was unaware any rebellion was taking place because the person was lapsed and I was less informed about such matters.

As an aside, I might be tempted to dispute a lapsed Catholic having a civil ceremony constitutes a rebellion in itself, because surely their real act of rebellion is the prior lapsation in the first instance?

Having thought about it, I cannot see any significant harm arising from my presence; on the contrary, to not attend would have had the result of humiliating my wife by making her go alone and possibly field awkward questions as to my whereabouts.

Possibly relations with my in-laws who also attended would have been damaged also — due to my treatment of their daughter, not the couple having the ceremony.

This was only a few years after my own return to the novus ordo Church. Prior to the Church, we all had to troop into the town hall around the corner where the couple were first civilly married, in accordance with French law which I understand the Church accepts even if grudgingly.

So I have actually attended four civil marriages. How could it be that the Church says it is acceptable to attend a civil marriage in that case, yet to do so in another environment merits excommunication?

Is this not a confusing situation like the one Amoris Laetitia has given rise to, with something being OK in one nation and wrong in another? The French situation was made absurd by the fact that both parties there were lapsed Catholics, and the Catholic element mainly included to satisfy the irish parents — practicing Catholics — of the groom.

Were we all excommunicated? What about the priest who conducted the ceremony? I have always known the Church takes marriage seriously, but if I have learned anything in all this discussion, it would seem to be that the Church ought to be more explicit in its guidance regarding the great plurality of types of wedding ceremony which take place today.

I can remember the scandal when I was growing up over the then Lord Advocate a free presbyterian being panned by his protestant sect for the crime of attending the funeral of his Catholic friend.

I remember that people of all stripes regarded the treatment he received as being unreasonable and lacking in charity. Surely we can have a firm and uncompromising faith and still mix with others, while being guarded against indifference and sufficiently prudent in word and deed so as not to undermine or deny any aspect of out faith?

I am genuinely struggling to frame that as a grave sin — though I can see it would be, if there had been any intention to publicly deny Church teaching or make a false equivalence with sacramental marriage.

Sorry for such a long-winded post, but my possible excommunication is obviously a serious matter! I would be grateful for your thoughts.

I am grateful you have highlighted this matter to me as something requiring more thought than I perhaps previously realised. Of course ever sinner always rushes to make excuses for themselves and absolve themselves from guilt — but with my arguments above I am trying to be reasonable and logical, not avoid responsibility.

I will take the advice of a priest s on this matter and should they consider my attendance at these wedding s problematic then I will do whatever is required to put things right.

I think it is always objectively sinful for a Catholic to attend a civil ceremony when one of the spouses is Catholic.

The regulation of Marriage is judicial and determined by Canon Law. To have a civil ceremony is a formal act of disobedience.

To attend such a wedding ceremony would be approving this disobedience by witnessing it. However, I would question how culpable you were. Like myself you had a non-existent Catholic education.

For this act to be mortally sinful it would require you to have full knowledge. I have to say that I would never, ever attend a civil marriage ceremony involving a Catholic, no matter who that was, be it my sister, best friend or work colleague.

I have not been able to follow this discussion closely, but have skimmed some of the comment and since I do, personally, find it difficult to believe that someone is automatically excommunicated for attending a civil wedding, I decided to write to a very trusted traditional priest — not SSPX but thoroughly traditional and completely PRO-SSPX.

I know this priest is always extremely busy, so he may take a while to respond, but he will answer — hopefully some time today when I will post his reply here.

As it happens, that response of mine that you copied to the priest only applies in cases where Catholics are marrying in civil ceremonies.

I decided to write to a very trusted traditional priest………when he replies, I will post his response here.

Athanasius has provided much useful info and food for though, though it would be useful to hear a priests comments also.

All this is showing me the meltdown of the modern Church is even worse than I thought, because Catholics will be excommunicating themselves left, right and center in their ignorance!

I think it has to be clarified that the Church forbids Catholics from attending non-Catholic ceremonies where Catholics contract marriages outside the Church.

If one of the spouses is Catholic then they are automatically excommunicated along with any Catholic who lends public support to this breach of canonical law by their presence at it.

This has always been the teaching of the Church. It matters little if other invited guests know attending Catholics or not since it is the infidelity to God and the Church that incurs the penalty.

Now I understand the very difficult situations people can find themselves in when it comes to lapsed Catholic family or friends inviting them to attend their non-Catholic weddings.

It can be very hard to say no given the consequences that may ensue. This, I think, should answer your question about countries such as France in which Catholics must first marry in a civil ceremony.

That ceremony is accepted grudgingly by the Church, but only on the understanding that the Catholic couple will immediately seek to have the Church solemnise the bond and raise it to a Sacrament.

If they fail to do this then their marriage is invalid before God and they are excommunicated. Now obviously what applies to Catholics who marry in a civil ceremony also applies to Catholics who approve their rebellious action by their presence.

Of course ignorance of Church teaching will have an impact on any canonical penalty. But is it possible to admit the possibility of ignorance in the face of centuries of Church teaching?

Therefore it is much more likely that Catholics who marry outside the Church, as well as Catholics who attend such ceremonies, whether in an active or passive manner, are not free from the guilt of at least neglecting their duty to know the teaching of the Church in such matters.

With respect, I think you miss the point. This is not about what you or I feel we can or cannot robustly withstand.

The real issue here, and the Church makes this perfectly clear, is one of fidelity to Christ and His Church, especially when it costs us. I most certainly would never attend such a ceremony, no matter what it cost me in terms of human wrath, and I think you know that I am no Wee Free in my general outlook.

In this regard, you write: That will never happen if we just casually go along with it all. The example you raise about the Lord Advocate is a different matter.

He was slated by fellow Wee Frees for daring to attend the Catholic funeral of his friend. Catholics are permitted to attend Protestant funerals out of respect, though not allowed to participate in any religious ceremonies.

The difference between the two is quite obvious. We are even allowed to attend marriages of two non-Catholics, again without participating.

But never are we allowed to attend the marriage of a Catholic outside the Church. This is a different ball game. Given the confusion in the Church today and the poor formation many of us had growing up in this apostate age, it is quite possible that you did not realise the gravity of what you were doing and therefore did not incur any guilt or penalty.

Mortal sin is never contracted accidentally, we have to know that we do is gravely worng and give full ascent to the grave sin.

Where this culpability is absent there is no sin. God is not a monster. What we all have to do in such serious matters is genuinely search our conscience to ensure that we are absolutely blameless.

If we do that and find that we are blameless by reason of ignorance then there can be no guilt. I suppose no Catholic who has since returned to Tradition, however, could escape guilt in the future.

We are all much more learned in the Faith than perhaps a few years ago and so now we have to stand up and be counted. You thought your post was long winded and now I have outdone you!!

Hope this helps clarify things. As usual, many typos and forgot to remove the bold brackets in part of the text. I think, though, that the SSPX priest who gave this permission was wrong.

Catholics are never allowed to support other Catholics in their breaching of canonical law as far as I know, not even when it involves family.

Thank you for your very detailed explanations above, much appreciated. I have some questions to aid my understanding I am not trying find loopholes:.

And this applies to even people who have lapsed and do not consider themselves Catholic in any way? I think it would be accurate to describe the individual we are concerned with in these terms.

There is compulsion in the Catholic faith? Is a persons presence necessarily indicative of support? I have always understood Catholics in that sense as practicing Catholics.

Surely someone who has already abandoned the Church would pay no heed to its requirements about marriage. Ironically, when lapsed Catholics suddenly come back seeking a Church wedding, I have tended to regard that as very superficial and more a desire for a nice venue and veneer of tradition, than a sign of them seeking Our Lord.

If, before, I had to guess, i would probably have concluded the Church would have had more of a problem with attendance at a protestant wedding than a civil one.

Both are non-Catholic but one adds heresy to the mix. I am genuinely shocked to learn that it is problematic for a Catholic to attend the civil wedding of a baptised person who chooses for whatever reason not to practice the Catholic faith.

I think part of this is related to how I understand what a lapsed Catholic is. It is certainly not true that I was aware that attending such a marriage was wrong and then made a conscious decision to do so anyway.

When much younger, I had sometimes heard tales from many years past of folk from various backgrounds threatening not to attend this or that, but I always understood it more as tribalism or bloody-mindedness.

Certainly no-one mentioned God or canon law. Thank you for your responses — this has been an enlightening if worrying! I have managed to prove this by having my first question in the post above in italics!

Further to your most recent post, I found this on the New Theological Movement site, written by a priest:. However, those who have been baptized Catholic or who have been received into the Church are bound to follow canonical form.

Even if a person has since left the practice of the faith and no longer considers himself to be Catholic, according to Church law, he is bound by the law of the Catholic Church from the moment he has once become Catholic either by baptism or by conversion.

This means that one who has been Catholic must be married in a manner recognized by the Catholic Church. Usually, this entails being married before a Catholic priest or deacon, in a Catholic Church — however, the Bishop can permit for a protestant minister or any other person to witness the marriage.

What is truly at stake is the question of scandal, and of encouraging another in objective sin. We need not make a judgment upon the soul of the Catholic who is attempting the invalid marriage, but we must rather stand back and make an objective consideration of the matter.

Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them: Among the ways in which we may be guilty of cooperating in sin, the Church lists praising or approving sin.

This is the objective effect of being present at a wedding — we are there to show support to the two individuals, not just in a general way, but specifically as they are wed.

Hence, even if we were to approach the couple ahead of time and tell them that we do not approve of their invalid attempt at marriage, presence at the ceremony itself communicates support and approval of the event.

It is part of the very nature of the act of being present at a wedding — it shows support and praise for the attempt at marriage. To cause scandal does not really mean to shock or surprise another, but rather to cause another to think that something which is sinful is not sinful or, at least, not that sinful.

This is precisely what happens when we attend the invalid marriage of a Catholic. Not only do we praise and show approval for the sinful act of the persons contracting the marriage, but by attending the wedding service we lead others into the false opinion that the invalid marriage is acceptable.

From all that has been said, it should be clear that a Catholic ought not to give a wedding gift or card in praise of an invalid marriage. Furthermore, a Catholic should not attend the reception afterwards — the couple is entering into manifest grave sin, what is there to celebrate?

Petrus has presented a very clear and concise post that I believe addresses many of your queries. Two essential points we have to bear in mind.

The first is that a Catholic can never rid himself of his membership of the Church. He may apostatise and refuse any longer to identify as Catholic, but the supernatural reality is that he is baptised into the Catholic Church and his soul bears that Catholic character forever.

He does not thereby cease to be a priest because the priestly character is forever imprinted on his soul. The second point is that Protestant marriage is superior to civil marriage because the former is sacramental and the latter secular.

There are two sacraments of the seven that can be administered by lay people, one is baptism, the other is holy matrimony.

What this means is that the Protestants, when they left the true Church, were able to keep the validity of these two sacraments, assuming of course that proper matter, form and intention are maintained.

I speak here of validity not of legitimacy, which is another issue. The same holds true in the case of a civil marriage between two non-Catholics, even though the marriage will not be sacramental and therefore a mere human contract that is not recognised by God as a true marriage.

In the case of France and some other secularised countries the Church was forced to allow couples to first marry in a civil ceremony.

The couples themselves had no choice in the matter. However, Catholic couples are always obliged immediately to have their marriage raised to a sacrament by the Church before they live together.

But this only explains some cases. In other cases Catholics who have married outside the Church by choice can eventually give in to conscience, realising the sin they have committed.

They then ask to have their marriage solemnised by the Church, which, assuming that everything is in order, the Church readily grants.

It may well be that they simply repent of their sin and want to make things right, although I guess there will be some who just use the Church for other reasons.

These types, however, still have their judgment to face since God is not mocked. This latter is tantamount to sacrilege as it rejects the sacramental nature of marriage established by God Himself.

The Modernist hierarchy of the Church today has so much to answer for; it is a hierarchy that has confused all the previously clear teaching of the Church.

Terrible times, unprecedented in history. This whole matter could be settled, if you would simply cite your source for saying that a Catholic is excommunicated for attending a civil wedding etc.

The issue is not whether or not it is right to attend certain weddings, the question is whether or not a Catholic is automatically excommunicated for doing so.

So far, all I can see is opinion and conjecture. Contracting such a marriage, yes, but attending it? If we participate in the sin of another then surely we also share the penalty with them?

I think participating in the sin of another — i. I think it would need to be set down in Canon Law — that would be the obvious place to look.

The priest I asked has sent a holding email to say that he is checking references but asks for more time to check thoroughly, as he is very busy right now.

One gentleman pondered that: The pernicious fruits of ecumenism on view.. Want to know what has already started in Italy?

Then have a look at this:. I thought it was hot off the press since Gloria TV posted it just 12 hours ago……sigh…on my way to the naughty step….

This has been a great help! I am now better informed in this regard — some more missing information backfilled in my Catholic knowledge although in this case, I was not even aware it was missing!

I wanted to ask — given the promotion of the scapular and the rosary are two prominent things to come out of the events of Fatima, why is not the rosary automatically the standard requirement here, in place of the Little Office?

I would encourage all who can to say the Little Office. Thank you for that information. I thought Our Lady had asked for the daily rosary at Fatima, so is that not necessary if you say the little office?

I know what you mean. I was told by one priest that although the Rosary takes the place or the Little Office. I think if we are already praying the Rosary daily then that meets the conditions.

This is what the priest in question told me. I guess this would make sense. Yes that seems logical to me, which is why I thought it strange that the Little Office seems to be the standard work for the privilege and not the rosary.

But even if you do think the Fatima requirements satisfy the sabbatine privilege, is it still wise to get a priest to make this official, but commuting the Office for the Rosary?

I think the Little Office has always been a venerable devotion and has many indulgences attached to it. It could also be because the Sabbatine Privilege pre-dates the Message of Fatima.

I might be wrong in this. Yes, I would definitely ask one of the priests about this. It was all sorted out very quickly and easily when I asked. I think I have the jist of what to do — I understand office 1 is for Ordinary time and Easter, office 2 for Advent and office 3 for Christmastime.

It may be that due to your commitments you are not able to pray all the hours. If this is the case, it is better to pray one or two with all your heart, rather than attempting all 8 hours every day in haste and anxiety.

If you are not able to pray the entire Office, then ideally choose one Office or Canonical Hour at the beginning of your day and one to complete your day.

Do you think Prime and Compline alone are sufficient to meet the requirement of the Sabbatine privilege? I am just concerned that due to daily life I may prove poor at it of course, if I was sitting in a Monastery somewhere, I would have ample time for this kind of thing — haha!

It has some very good reference chapters in it. He will substitute the Office for the Rosary. However, it is good, of course, to pray both, if you can.

I think what you suggest, PrIme and Compline, is a very good start. You could then add in other hours too. Officials said the priests could not celebrate mass, nor could the group carry out devotions.

And so the group had to celebrate mass in a car-park of a cafe near-by, and say the rosary in the street. The Shrine even put security men on the gates to ensure none of the group tried to enter the grounds.

It is particularly strange, given that for the last decade the SSPX has been granted use of chapels within the shrine grounds.

The article notes that the shrine rector, a Fr Gibbons, often allows anglicans, presbyterians and muslims to participate in and even lead services at the shrine.

Fr Gibbons email is frgibbons knock-shrine. They are most welcome to pray the Rosary, Stations of the Cross and other prayers.

On Saturday 16th September last, Shrine security was informed that the society were about to set up marquees to celebrate Mass at 11am in the North carpark on Shrine grounds, without Shrine permission.

They were informed they could not do so. While the society is most welcome to pray at the Shrine, we would ask them to respect our situation and conditions.

And how is it reasonable to deny mass to a group with an irregular status, while allow heretical sects and even non-Christian groups to worship there?

If the issue was a lack of permission — perhaps an over-sight by the pilgrimage group, though understandable given there has been no issue for years — if this is sought in future will traditional pilgrimage groups be allowed unmolested?

You would think the Church in Ireland has enough problems, without victimising some of its most faithful adherents.

Thank you for these two comments — Spiritus, Irish blogger, has posted the same information on the lead thread, but not with the email address etc as provided by you.

The Scottish Government is ploughing ahead with the Named Person scheme, despite continuing warnings from legal eagles — the following, from the NO2NP website: Named Persons pummelled by lawyers and health professionals.

NO2NP has long argued that the invasive Named Person scheme would damage trust between families and professionals.

I saw that advertised and meant to watch on the Scottish Parliament channel, but it got overlooked by my Guardian Angel — tut, tut…].

Health professionals were also invited to give evidence to the Education and Skills Committee today. It seems to us and to anyone who is listening, that the law in its current form is anything but clear.

Click here to reach source. Apologies if this petition has been posted elsewhere on this site: An Italian woman marries ….

Click here to read the report then stand by and await news of the divorce! Arranging custody of the non-existent children should be fun! My apologies for posting an article from Louie V.

Ironically, he would never say such a thing about genuinely schismatic groups, such as the Eastern Orthodox churches.

How disappointing that he is so feeble in the face of Francis, yet so bold with unprovoked attacks on faithful Catholic groups, attacks based on deceit.

I am very disappointed in him and have diminished respect for him now. As if attacking the SSPX should be on his agenda, while everyone is waiting and waiting and waiting for him to act on the dubia.

I have this on YouTube so am going to make it a separate thread, if you would hold off commenting further. Gabriel Syme, your spot-on assessment will be quoted in my introduction, so hold fire!

I hope I manage to post this! There would be hell to pay from the trans lobby. Here is a very sad report on the state of the Church in France, posted by someone from the traditional Order of St.

In the cathedrals we visited there were hardly more than handful of worshippers outside of mass times. And other than in Chartres there were not many more tourists.

Only Chartres, within easy striking distance of Paris, attracts a considerable — if not overwhelming — crowd. In some cathedrals we could not find any posted mass times.

Years ago, the Diocese wanted to sell or demolish the Church, but lay people — led by a priest — managed to gather enough funds to acquire it.

The priest then served this Church on his own, until his death, using traditional liturgy. When the original priest died, the lay owners asked the SSPX to serve it.

It seems they took their time deciding anyway! When passing through the Netherlands earlier this year, I looked at the feasibility of trying to visit this particular Church.

The good news is that I have it on very good authority that the SSPX is actively looking for a larger church for Glasgow. I wish I lived in the Netherlands instead of dreary old Britain with its converted Protestant kirks with depressing wooden interiors and damp rot.

What I would give for a proper beautiful Catholic chapel in Glasgow with good access for the elderly and disabled and ample room for the faithful.

Does anybody know the availability of a TLM in Copenhagen? A 9 year old girl in the US has been excluded from her school First Holy Communion ceremony because she wanted to wear a white suit for the event.

Clearly she has a very deep and committed faith then. After all, unrepentant adulterers and active homosexuals can all seemingly receive communion — what is a simple white suit in comparison to these sins of the flesh?

Trust me on that! Apparently Channel 5 and the Church negotiated for over a year for make the series happen. And, presumably, high jinks ensue.

The Mail reports already the series has featured the party girls doing their make-up in Church and sneaking vodka into the convent.

I am at a complete loss as to what these Nuns think they have to gain from this, a complete loss. Apparently the convent received its first English novice in 40 years last year.

Mr Syme, may I kindly ask that you do not pollute this respectable Christian website with pornography? The young lady in the centre of the image is practically exposing herself.

Such an image constitutes an occasion of sin for us men. The Sisters and in particular the superior come across very favourably. They are kind and firm but take lots of opportunities to guide these young women in a gentle way.

The girls themselves are a pretty shocking lot with apparently zero moral insights into their promiscuous behaviour. However one can see that their stay is having some impact and giving them food for thought.

Rather I imagine they saw this as a potential for modern evangelism, however naively given the backgrounds of the girls. Only time will tell if there are any lasting good effects, we will probably never know but I suspect if one asked the girls themselves they might say that they actually liked and even respected the Sisters in the end.

One can only hope. I would probably have tuned in as well, only I forgot about the show! Interesting article on the Medjugorje scam here: Interesting article in the left- wing Guardian of all places.

People who are for and against the present Pope. I was surprised they would even know that if what this Pope is saying is correct then all previous Popes have been wrong.

Sir, this is a fantastic website. Unfortunately my wife votes for the Labour party, but I will be showing her this website to hopefully dissuade her of her socialist errors.

Makes it easier to identify bloggers at a glance. Get on with it now — you know it makes sense. Apologies if this has been posted elsewhere, but worth reading: That is a good clear and firm letter and one can only commend the writer.

At the same time it almost beggars belief that we are seeing the need for such a letter to be written to the Pope.

If the latter is indeed a man of God I do not understand how he could be unaffected by it. If his response is rage then one can only wonder…what difficult days these are.

Deacon Nick Donnelly wrote online this morning that he knew Fr Weinandy and thought his testimony about this event was credible.

This is a classic example of why I personally dislike the General Discussion thread. Too many bloggers go there directly without checking other threads first.

One of these days, I promise you! This is a good litany that someone has composed for these awful times! This article shows just how bad things are.

Who would ever have believed that this could happen? That archbishop should be de-mitred without delay. This is really just a test to obey the Editor, but will take the opportunity to thank those of you who have contributed to the information about attending weddings etc.

I used to think if I thought about it at all that all these rules had been abolished and no longer have any force.

In passing, I have prayer cards featuring this image together with the Shroud of Turin available FREE for anyone who wants them or who can distribute some.

Although, not everybody wants to get wiser with age…. It never ceases to amaze me that they would prepare two turkey dinners so close to each other; one in November, and another in December.

Talking about turkeys, are there any socials this Christmas at the Glasgow parish? Also, is Mass on Christmas morning? As nobody from the Glasgow chapel has answered your post I can tell you that Christmas Mass will be at Bring your own food.

Look forward to a chat over a cuppa in the tearoom after Mass — though why anyone would leave sunny Australia at this time of year, beats me!

Do you want me to go over and house-sit for you? But when possible, thought should go into making it as easy as possible for people, especially those with several small children using public transport on Sundays, remember to get into town.

I know one family with five children, baby, toddlers, primary school age, who have to be on the bus at 8am to get into town for the 9. So, a little later, helps them.

There have been occasions when the bus did not turn up. The Mass in Glasgow is early so it must be very difficult for many to get there. I remember one Glasgow parishioner telling me that they had struggled to get to Mass when it was at 10 am and when it was moved to 9.

Public transport on Christmas Day is almost non existent so that causes real problems. In Edinburgh our Mass is at Midnight and buses go off the road at 9.

I offered to travel to the other end of the earth just to house-sit and not a word of gratitude. This is interesting — not to say deeply troubling — http: I wonder why this is?

Can anyone recommend short reading material for young adults 20s — early 30s who were brought up NO Catholic and are now cohabiting — one with a baby?

Does anyone know of anything which might help bring them to their senses and hopefully steer them back to the Faith — the Traditional Faith, that is, which they have never known?

Any suggestions would be appreciated — especially anything which is known to have had a positive effect in these situations!

Either to purchase in UK or downloadable. Just seeing this now — apologies for delay in responding. Will put on my thinking cap and get back to you, asap.

Will get back to you on this. That would — of necessity, I think — need to be incorporated into above said pamphlet. Will get back to you, as promised above.

You may want to print it out after making any necessary edits and give it to the young couple in question.

The Church has consistently stated that these alleged apparitions do not have supernatural origins and lack credibility. Two shocking snippets of news: That seems to me to be the only rational explanation, because, on enquiry from people visiting Portugal during holidays etc, it is clear that the dogma of the Faith has NOT been universally preserved.

Last Wednesday evening I had the misfortune of sitting in a Novus Ordo choir loft whilst a Novus Ordo was being celebrated below I was waiting for a choir rehearsal to begin, having agreed to help the director with her Christmas Eve music.

It had been almost 5 years since I last witnessed this travesty, the last time at a funeral. I continue to be amazed that this liturgy from hell was successfully foisted upon an allegedly healthy Church, with such little resistance.

The only reason I can fathom for this is that Our Lord, having initiated the Minor Chastisement, willed that the Faith would be largely and surreptitiously replaced by a different religion in order to punish the world.

And it is a different religion, retaining only some Catholic accidentals to conceal a complete lack of substance.

In the name of Christ Jesus, please give some consideration to the harm such malicious language is doing to the cause of traditional Catholicism.

However, you need to understand that for those of us who have suffered the novus ordo for years and now are resting in peace so to speak!

Indeed, I had occasion to attend a novus ordo a few weeks ago with one of my teenage Great-Nephews, who has never attended one — he is a regular at the TLM where he has served Mass for quite a few years now.

And, as I assured him, this was a relatively respectful novus ordo. No circus performance, calm and fairly quiet throughout. It struck me then how de-sensitised we can be, without even realising it.

Yes, it is not, of itself, an invalid Mass, although there has to have been a rise in those, given the licence allowed for years now, with priests routinely ignoring the rubrics, and so we have to be a bit careful, sure enough, not to fail to respect the fact that the Consecration is effected, as the norm, we trust, but that is not sufficient.

How would you describe this new Mass? Hence, Hans, evidence please…. I recently taught a P7 class and they mentioned the Immaculate Conception to them.

I asked them how Catholics properly refer to Mary. The penny seemed to drop. These young Catholics are being short changed by their bishops, priests, parents and teachers.

I had been aware of being rather uncomfortable when I heard that but it had not really made e stop and think.

I asked my daughter in law aged 37 what she would say having had a fairly traditional education in the then Rhodesia.

She was indeed unfamiliar with the formal titles and said that speaking of Jesus and Mary chimed better with her interior prayer life.

I suppose that we are urged to address Our Lady as Mary in the Rosary, but is it really a Protestant custom to do so at other times?

I am not sure. Not so easy to detect a love of Our Lady, if using her beautiful! These are the type of slurs which are regularly thrown around on here, yes?

My own personal views on such matters are neither here nor there. The questions were — Is it acceptable to say the Mass should be spat upon?

Does this language help the the cause of promoting TLM? You are clearly intent on not reading and imbibing what we post, but sticking to your original opinion no matter what.

Check out St Thomas Aquinas where you will find that evil is the absence of the good we may expect from — in this case — reforms to the Mass. To remove the prayers which protect the teaching of the Church on the sacrificial nature of the Mass and the Real Presence is, by definition, evil.

Take it or leave it. Speaking of Paul VI, what did you think of the photo of him with the six Protestant Ministers who advised on the new Mass and later expressed themselves very happy with it?

Not the photo… good shot at destroying the Mass…. PS — you have still not provided a shred of evidence of all those Catholics who think this is an awful blog.

Who did you take your pseudonym in honour of? Anyway, the Rosary 15 decades was given to the world directly from Our Lady. No one with even a modicum of humility would ever think they could improve on it by adding their own 5 decades, therefore Traditional Catholic do not recognise this impertinent addition to a perfect prayer.

One is either Catholic in the Traditional Faith or one is a liberal Modernist of the new religion with its new Mass, its new ecclesiology, its new Sacramental order, its new Catechism, its new doctrines ecumenism, religious liberty, etc.

If so then there can only be one kind of true Catholic, the ultratraditionalist one. The alternative is to become a Catholic Protestant, if you catch my drift.

If the truth has a nasty reputation, is that a reflection on this blog, or on the state of the Church and the state of the Faith among its human members?

Yes, spat upon…that is, if you love the Catholic Faith and the Catholic Church, and are ready to defend both unto the death.

That is, the state of the Church and the faith of the Faithful precisely mirrors the substance — or, more exactly, the lack of substance — of the Novus Ordo.

Sources would be appreciated in support of this claim. Please state where and with whom this blog has an awful reputation, and please give examples of that regular nasty rhetoric.

Assuming you are a Traditional Catholic, you should understand the importance of my request and the gravity of the sin of public calumny! Since it does, however, contain sufficient Catholic elements to render it valid, if theologically illicit, I concur that we should avoid using words that suggest complete invalidity.

It seems to me a great pity that confessed Traditional Catholics like yourself come on here for a one-off visit to pick up and exaggerate a careless comment by a fellow Traditional Catholic about the New Mass, yet you nowhere to be seen on the threads that treat of the more dangerous and widespread declarations of Pope Francis.

Could it be that your comment was designed to aggravate rather than correct the bloggers here? Since Editor has threatened to start deleting zeros from my paycheck, I acknowledge that my intense disgust over the Novus Ordo was too much for your digestive tract.

However, I also note that you have rejected the Pepto Bismol offered by our kinder, gentler bloggers. May you soon develop the intestinal fortitude to see the Novus Ordo — indeed, the entire Vatican II revolution — for what it is: Meanwhile, back at the Church in a shambles, I see you did not respond to the opportunity I gave you to defend said Novus Ordo.

Here is that opportunity again:. Please explain how a liturgy specifically designed to avoid offending heretics could possibly be pleasing to Our Lord.

Yes, the first beach-head of that odious Marxist perfume was established not in the secular culture, but in the Church! If that opportunity proves too much for you, here is another one.

Your challenge to Hans is a good test of his Catholicity, but I fear you will not get a cogent response. I think this is what St.

Paul was referring to when, speaking of the end times in his Epistle, he wrote:. There will come a time when they will not endure sound doctrine but according to their own desires will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears, and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth.

No martyrdoms for the truth required in the post-Vatican II religion! So in condemning us, he condemns them and sullies their memory.

Will try again later. If my memory serves me correctly, in fact the stats show that the lowest number of attacks were on ….

So, thank you for posting that video clip — the gentleman certainly has a point. Firing Line — William F. Google Firing Line — William F.

Confessions start in the church at 10am. Traditional Latin Mass at 11am — usually at the Lady Altar. Rosary immediately after Mass, and then plenty of time for the 15 minute meditation after the Rosary — all in reparation for the offences committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

The church is dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary so it is a fitting location for this important devotion.

Please come along and support this initiative if you are local, or not too far away. Happy New Year to you all at CT.

But anyone who has Alexa or any other such item in their home is a fool. So often these groups fail to mention each other…worried about their congregations declining as people realise there is a closer mass centre perhaps?

If you let us know where in the country you reside if Scotland or in which of the countries of the UK plus home location, we should be able to help you.

Indeed, if you live in Scotland, I can send you a printed copy of the Masses around the country, which was up to date and running at the time of our Fatima Conference in May.

Our contact details are on the website. Sorry, there is no such list as you describe. The only thing to do is to go to the various websites.

Latin Mass Society https: I would have to drive 4 hours each way to attend a TLM. As a reader of traditionalist blogs, it disturbs me that the Ordinariate service is recommended as an alternative to attending a NO Mass.

For those readers who do not know this rite, Ordinariate masses were born from a permission given by John Paul II and reinforced by Benedict XVI to Anglicans who converted to the Catholic Faith to conserve some of their Anglican rites.

The congregations of these converted Anglicans are called Ordinariates. The masses they say take their name from these organizations.

In the world there are three Ordinariates of this type, one is in the United States. We praise you, D. If the Novus Ordo in itself has a strong flavor of Protestantism and for this reason should be avoided, this new blend of Conciliar liturgy with Anglican liturgies seems to us still worse and, for greater reason, should not be attended.

Thank you very much indeed for that alert. We keep being told that the Ordinariate Mass is as good as a traditional Mass.

Now, we have a very different perspective. The reason I ask is — and I am open to correction as ever! Whether the same everywhere or not, moi does not like the idea of an essentially Anglican liturgy being permitted and approved in the Catholic Church.

As I said at the time, and it remains my opinion, if the former Anglicans wanted to be Catholics, they should have converted in the normal manner like everyone else and if married, forget about their desire for ordination.

I remember meeting a very bitter youngish Catholic priest in the at that time horrendous Diocese of Portsmouth who expressed his fury that these men could be married priests while he and his brothers, born into the Faith and ordained into the priesthood without first being Protestants, could not.

Never have, no plans to do so. Like you, I am deeply suspicious of this pandering to the Anglicans. Why should they receive special treatment?

There are some factual errors in the report from Tradition in Action. The Ordinariate came into being during the reign of Pope Benedict.

Prior to that, ex-anglicans could be ordained as Catholic priests but they said the Novus Ordo. Seriously, I — like you — [notice the parenthesis!

February 2nd is much too soon. Next Christmas gives you time to recover and repent, perchance you fall into disrepute!

Well, I have to admit to being confused by this. I attended one such Mass and, following it in my missel, found it to be more or less the same as the TLM.

I bought their Mass booklet and we all use it at the Society Masses and nobody has ever complained. Therefore I do not understand where this concoction notion comes from, the USA branch?

It is true that when the Ordinariate first started their congregations used the Novus Ordo which they attempted to add some dignity to. This was because the Ordinariate Rite had not been finalised.

It has now been approved and is in use in most Ordinariate congregations although some have yet to implement it. This document is way too long to post, but here is the link:.

The conversational style of this document is suspicious, and I notice that TIA did not comment on it, but it certainly does provide a checklist of what has occurred during the revolution.

Apparently they also refer to Popes by their family name instead of their Papal name indicating that they may be sadevacantists, indeed I have heard that it is run by the same man who runs the notorious Traditio site.

If my memory is correct, he quoted from their site, to disprove that claim. Thanks for that info. They also publish letters from readers, and answer those that request further information.

Guimaraes seems to think that Bp. Fellay is inching the Society towards a sell-out. I frequently keep telling a novus ordo priest of my acquaintance who is in a decaying order, about the growth in orders that celebrate the TLM and who stick to traditional Catholicism — also the larger, and younger congregations that can be found at traditional Masses and larger families, as well.

He just point blank refuses to accept any of it. I know that Mass attendance in his chapel is usually poor — mainly just a few elderly people.

Unfortunately, I think this actor is a Medjugorje fan. I tend to write off anything a Medjugorje fan says on the grounds that if he can be so wrong about something so obvious, why should I believe anything else he tells me.

Having said that, I will watch the video later, but only because it has been posted by thee…. Sorry about that, I just Googled and found the connection you mention.

What an irony that the one man in the world who can actually do something concrete to achieve world peace by consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and by instructing the bishops worldwide to join him in this act is fretting about the threat of nuclear war: That is a sad irony indeed.

I keep thinking that when it happens, and the world is restored to peace, there will be sheer disbelief among people of every religion, including atheists, that the world could have been at peace since early 20th century when the request for the consecration of Russia was first made.

Anyone seen the latest insanity? And the devil knows what it is that offends God the most, and which in a short space of time will gain for him the greatest number of souls.

Thus the devil does everything to overcome souls consecrated to God, because in this way the devil will succeed in leaving the souls of the faithful abandoned by their leaders, thereby the more easily will he seize them.

That which afflicts the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Heart of Jesus is the fall of religious and priestly souls. The devil knows that religious and priests who fall away from their beautiful vocation drag numerous souls to hell.

He tries to corrupt them in order to lull to sleep the souls of laypeople and thereby lead them to final impenitence.

He employs all tricks, even going so far as to suggest the delay of entrance into religious life.

Resulting from this is the sterility of the interior life, and among the laypeople, coldness lack of enthusiasm regarding the subject of renouncing pleasures and the total dedication of themselves to God.

It is an abuse of the NHS for it to perform such operations, which, by their nature, are cosmetic, as all they do is alter appearance, not remedy an illness.

The continuation of the purge of TLM Orders: This would be terrible if true: Rorate Caeli has picked it up, but still based on the gloria TV article: Looks like the UK Police State is reaching an advanced stage of psychological warfare against its own citizens: The next one was even worse, Justine Greening, wanted to make it easier for people to change gender without having to sign a form, LOL!

Damian Hinds is a Catholic who voted for same sex marriage. Here is a modern moral query I have puzzled over recently. No doubt It will have an obvious answer and I will look a fool for asking!

But what if a game of football is not being shown domestically, only overseas, such that there is no mechanism to pay for it domestically if you wanted to.

But as the individual is not a signatory to the arrangements, is that really a sin? I see the live stream just as an advantage of the world wide web.

Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat! To all of you I wish a holy and joyful feast of the Assumption! Lifesite reports Aug 16 that Cardinal Burke has again mentioned the necessity of a formal correction regarding Amoris Laetitia.

Really tired of him. He should either do what he said he would do — publicly correct the Pope for AL — or keep quiet on the subject.

Oh and he should NOT have accepted the invitation from the Chairman of Una Voce to offer a TLM in a Glasgow parish, but insisted on receiving said invitation from the Archbishop of Glasgow himself, who should be making his cathedral available for the offering of the Pontifical High Mass.

If this is not sorted out asap, I will post it as a separate thread. In the meantime, for your prayers and comments, of course, if you wish, Margaret wrote:.

More news from the Remnant Newspaper about thought crime and the article is written by Chris Ferrara. We have to be prepared, Theresa Rose….

Doubt that I would be accepted to study Law. I am not the brightest spark on the block, even if I had the qualifications to get into University.

It is indeed some situation over at the Remnant. I hope this is ok to post this here. I have recently become a Dominican Tertiary.

I can thoroughly recommend this for lay men and women, married and single, who wish to enter a Third Order as a Dominican. The Rule is very easy to follow.

I have Tertiary Manuals and copies of the Rule if anyone , male or female, married or single, would like to find out more. Feel free to email:.

The Priestly Fraternity of St. The priests live in priories in 32 countries and have centers in 72 countries around the world. A total of 14 districts and four autonomous houses are subordinate to the General House.

Six priestly seminaries are run by the Society. Four Carmel monasteries are connected to the Priestly Fraternity of St. I thought that made for some pleasant reading at a time when most news for the Church is pretty grim!

Clan Childlaw, a leading child law charity, has called on the Scottish Government to scrap even the revised Named Persons law:. Pity the Catholics of Brighton.

After the recent sad news regarding the closure of the SSPX chapel there, Fr Ray Blake says in the comments under the linked article below his own traditional mass has had to be discontinued due to i his ill health, ii the parish being unable to fund a stand in and iiI poor attendance.

What a sad twin loss, and in such a short space of time. I wonder if there is a trend behind this, such as traditional Catholic families moving elsewhere to live, given the kind of thing they must often encounter on the streets of Brighton?

Still the article- concerning the future of Catholicism — is largely upbeat, noting the good health of the UK Oratorian communities and the encouraging statistics from French seminaries.

Of the SSPX, he says:. I am rather saddened that the FSSPX have chosen to close their chapel here in Brighton but that is not the general trend, they are growing.

As most dioceses, most religious congregations are contemplating decline or even closure, most priests throughout the western world have a sense they will be the last in their parishes we should be asking if we have anything to learn from the traditional and radically orthodox.

If your only option is the novus ordo take note: There CAN be no obligation to do something that is damaging to your soul and — manifestly — displeasing to God.

I know Catholics who have agonised over this question of how to fulfil the Sunday obligation when there is no traditional Latin Mass available and eventually concluded that those SSPX priests are correct who recommend staying at home to read the Mass in their missal and make a simple spiritual Communion.

That, with rosary and spiritual reading would, no doubt, fulfil the obligation to keep holy the Sabbath. No question about it. Surely now, Father, at this time in your life, it would be right to take a stand, and abandon, not the Mass of ancient Tradition which we KNOW pleases God and brings forth much fruit, but the new Mass which was concocted with the help of Protestant Ministers, explicitly for the purpose of making it acceptable to those outside the Church.

I take refuge in the fact that I have never, not once, not in any edition of our newsletter, nowhere on our website or blog, EVER claimed to be anything other than a fallen human being, full of faults, the quintessential sinner.

As for you being too militant, rubbish! Let the carpers go swim in Loch Ness, which is where all carp belong. Thank you for your kind words.

Self-evidently, Fr Ray Blake does not agree. My comment has not been posted on his blog. I resubmitted my comment and it was published by Father — see my subsequent explanation below].

I hope that my Guardian Angel and his prevented him from reading my lack of charity here. Mea culpa for my lack of charity, yet again.

Eternal rest grant unto him O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in Peace. Thank you for that link — I actually saw the footage of the SSPX chapel and floods in Dickinson, Texas on YouTube in the early hours, but was too much in need of my beauty sleep to post it then, so thank you for that.

But thank you for posting that, because it is a very beautiful prayer. God bless Bishop Fellay! Anyone have any thoughts on this website? This blog apparently belongs to Dr.

That is very interesting — this fellow spoke at the graduation ceremony in June at the Academy of a certain SSPX chapel I was not present, but I did meet him briefly afterwards.

I also came across something rather strange yesterday, but I forget where I saw it, might have been the very same website: Gruner had, near the end of his life, decided that Francis was not the pope after all, that b he wished to send his successor at the FC to train with Fr.

Kramer, and c he hid both these things from John Vennari, whom he knew would disapprove of them! Ahah, it was indeed on this same blog, check this out: I met Peter Chojknowski at one of the Rome Conferences and he is a very nice man.

I have avoided mentioning those claims about Fr Gruner because they have been mischievously circulated, beginning on the Louie V blog using a video clip where Father was merely quoting the opinion of another, when speaking to a very small group of people whom he presumably thought he could trust.

What they are claiming about Fr Gruner was not his considered opinion, at all because he never adopted a position at odds with the teaching authority of the Church.

For some time I have been pondering wearing a Brown Scapular. In Pope Leo XIII gave permission to bless and enrol the five scapulars cumulatively and later the Church extended the faculty to bless and enrol the Fivefold Scapular to any priest.

It is important to note that those wishing to wear the Fivefold Scapular must be enrolled using the approved formula provided in this booklet , even if they have been enrolled in one or more of the scapulars that make up the Fivefold Scapular.

So you can see that this Fivefold scapular confers the benefits of 5 scapulars, including the Brown. I am only familiar with the Brown Scapular, Green Scapular and the Dominican scapular, which forms part of the habit.

I wear the brown scapular and Dominican scapular. My general feeling is that the Brown Scapular is the most important, given that Our Lady Herself promoted it at Fatima.

Q Why are individual scapulars still in existence, given the existence of the fivefold scapular? For example, the Brown Scapular comes from the Carmelite Order.

Q Why is the fivefold version not promoted? If you Google it, you will see plenty for sale and information about it, so it is promoted to some degree.

A Each scapular has its own list of indulgences attached to it — for example a plenary indulgence can be gained by those who wear the Brown Scapular under the usual conditions on certain feast days of Carmelite saints and on the Feast Day of Our Lady of Mount Carmel.

Petrus has beaten me to it — I think Fatima is the answer as to why the Brown Scapular is promoted more than the others.

Since Our Lady appeared holding only the Brown Scapular, that gives it a primary place, it seems to me, among scapulars. Oh, my Lord and Saviour, support me in that hour in the strong arms of Your Sacraments, and by the fresh fragrance of Your consolations.

Let the absolving words be said over me, and the holy oil sign and seal me, and Your own Body be my food, and Your Blood my sprinkling;.

What a lovely prayer! I am going to try to say that every day. Thank you so much for posting it! Thank you for posting those links, Editor — I was getting ready to post the Ferrara link myself!

I notice that neither article names names…. I suspect no names were given to avoid pandering to the self-importance of those in the frame.

She attributes that success to Our Lady and the two saints whose relics were sent to her by Athanasius, prior to hospitalisation.

However, following her operation, when she was making good progress, she had a very serious fall and required another operation, so she asks for the prayers of our bloggers — please continue to pray for her, as she is suffering quite a bit due to pain and, also, naturally, the frustration of being hospitalised again.

Came across this brave comment on Facebook today. Is the worm beginning to turn at last? We need more people to be equally fearless.

Today I have had enough. Well how did today go? Terrorism on an unprecedented scale in the UK and Europe, heartbreaking yet unififying.

Election Winners and Losers. I could write forever about the stories of heroes, cowards and the woes and highs in this year alone.

Now back to today, at the risk of my hard earned career and alongside my passion for future years in aspects of life, I have been pushed over the edge.

Did I hear that on this exact same day that John Lewis have launched gender neutral range. Let me qualify, I have zero concern for any child who chooses to be whomever they want to be and to dress however they want to.

I do however have a massive, passionate and caring concern for any child who is forced to become gender neutral by a school, shop, community or parent.

This is not an attack on our anyone other than the decision makers at the School who made this ridiculous decision.

It is meant to be a defence of simple values, girls wear pants boys wear undies, simple. We need to stop this PC nonsense and accept ourselves for who we are and who we individually choose to become.

Girls wear skirts, boys wear trousers — unless only they singularly choose not too…. I saw that news yesterday about girls being banned from wearing skirts in a school in England..

Most kids will hate that, IMHO. My immediate response to the John Lewis fiasco is …. A young man from a traditional Catholic family invites the rest of the family to his civil wedding abroad.

Many of the relations have accepted and since they have left the church long ago had no problems about attending.

However the parents and other members of the family are advised not to attend. The groom had been living with his fiance, an aetheist, for some time before deciding to tie the knot.

Those of us who had to refuse the invitation were cold-shouldered by most of the relations who accepted the invite even though they had always been on good terms.

This is heartbreaking for the parents as they have been alienated by many of their kin. Can I have your thoughts about this situation and what you would have done in the same circumstances and why?

This is not my personal opinion but the Traditional teaching of the Church herself. You will always know the true Catholic when they are faced with a choice of going along to get along or showing fidelity to the Church and being scorned.

You made the correct choice and will be rewarded for it because it is not easy when the choice involves family we care about.

I can recall having been to three! In two of these cases including the one involving the lapsed Catholic they were friends of my wife and, in the other, distant relations of a former girlfriend.

Everyone knows CofS events are a sham anyway. But it seems my understanding has been wrong and, given ignorance is not a mitigating factor, is this something I should raise in confession?

For the record, all of these events occurred when I was either a non-Church goer, or attending the novus ordo, and so — as with most things in either of these states in life — I did not give my attendance any great thought at the time.

I could be wrong. No, the Church does not recognise civil marriages even when neither spouse is Catholic.

The Church does recognise two Protestants marrying in a Protestant Church, but never a civil ceremony. The reason is that the spouses exchange vows in the presence of God during a Christian wedding ceremony, whereby the Sacrament of matrimony is bestowed.

Since this particular Sacrament is administered by the spouses and not the priest, the Church recognises valid Protestant marriages, though never a Catholic marrying a Protestant in a Protestant church.

In civil ceremonies God is excluded from the process meaning that no Sacrament takes place and the marriage is completely void. For a Catholic to attend a civil ceremony, then, is tantamount to denying that marriage is a Sacrament of the Church.

Thank you so much , Athanasius , for clearing that up for me. I never will now either. Thank you for giving me the reply that I expected and which emphasises the gravity of sin committed by those who would give the wrong advice to a young person who was in two minds about attending.

He has a lot to answer for and I would not like to be in his shoes when he meets his maker. That priest is a great danger to young Catholic souls and he will have to answer for the poisonous advice he gave to your young relative.

Sadly, by the same token, the young relative in question is not without guilt in this since she was too keen to silence the voice of conscience on the advice of just one priest.

All true Catholics, young and old, are obliged to know the teaching of the Church in these matters and remain faithful to it come hell or high water.

She certainly does not recognise civil marriages where one or both spouses are Catholic. Once read, it is clear why Catholics should never, ever want to be part of a civil marriage, even when the contracting parties are non-Catholic.

Civil marriage may be said to have originated with Luther, for he prepared the way for the State to legislate concerning marriage.

What he began, the French revolution completed; for marriage was then declared to be a civil contract, concluded before a government official.

Civil marriage is obligatory or compulsory when, as is the case in some countries, the marriage is otherwise not recognised by the State; it is optional, when the parties are free to choose whether the ceremony shall be civil or religious, as in America; finally it is unavoidable, if on account of the priest being debarred from marrying them through political reasons, or on other obvious grounds, the persons desirous of being married cannot be united otherwise than by the secular authorities.

Civil marriage is not a sacrament, because it is not contracted in the manner ordained by God and the Church; it is nothing more or less than a legal form, which must be gone through in order that the marriage may be recognised by the State, and Catholics must submit to it, if there is no other means of having their union recognised by the State.

They should, however, see that the ecclesiastical ceremony takes place as soon after as possible; for until their marriage has been solemnised by the Church, they are bound to live apart, as in the sight of God they are not really husband and wife.

Catholics who contract a civil marriage and are not afterwards married in a church, cannot obtain absolution and are excluded from the sacraments until they obtain the sanction of God and of the Church upon their union, or give it up altogether.

Catholics who prefer civil marriage when it is optional, or content themselves with it when it is unavoidable, are excommunicated. The Holy See condemns civil marriage in no measured terms; Pope Pius IX declares that the union of a man and a woman, if not a sacrament, is a shameful concubinage, although perfectly legal according to the civil code.

Civil marriage has disastrous results for the State, for it undermines faith, authority and morals. The Holy Father asserts civil marriage to be a fatal institution.

To render it compulsory is to overthrow the law of God, for it is tantamount to asserting that Christian marriage as ordained by God is invalid, that a union blessed by the Church is contrary to law.

What would be said if stealing, or any other crime forbidden by the divine command, were enforced by the law of the land? Rebellion such as this against God cannot fail to undermine faith in God and respect for His commandments; and experience proves that the government which undermines the divine authority brings about its own downfall.

Civil marriages are also detrimental to morality. Divorce is an easy matter for persons who have been married by the registrar; on a comparatively slight disagreement or offence they are separated, each being free to contract a second marriage.

What is the consequence? The flood-gates are opened to admit unbridled license, the so-called free-love advocated by the Socialist.

This is proved by the number of divorce cases following on the introduction of civil marriage; nor need we wonder, for in a civil marriage no promise of mutual love, no vow of fidelity is required from the contracting parties.

I know that a Catholic contracting a marriage in a registrar office is making a declaration of unbelief and will be excommunicated. But if I attended that ceremony for some pragmatic reason, surely I cannot be excommunicated?

I would say that those attending a wedding are a witness. Therefore, we cannot be a witness to a godless marriage. I think the simple rule of the Church is that no Catholic under any circumstances may marry in a civil ceremony, and no Catholic may attend a civil marriage where one of the spouses is Catholic.

Both are excommunicated; the former for breaching the canonical rules of the Church, the latter for demonstrating support for that rebellion. Where is this stated?

From some admittedly brief reading I have done this evening, the Church does not explicitly forbid Catholics from attending invalid marriages. Surely the Church would be duty bound to do so, if it would be possible for a Catholic to unwittingly excommunicate themselves by attending such a marriage?

In the articles I have read which mentioning a lack of an explicit warning against attending invalid marriages, they go on to say attendance becomes a matter of prudential judgement for the invited Catholic.

They also make a distinction between merely being present and active participation in such a ceremony — the same distinction I heard an SSPX priest make about non-Catholic ceremonies another party has now advised me they also received this advice from the SSPX.

The couple in question had decided on this type of ceremony with no input from me, I scarcely know them , and it would have gone ahead with or without me.

So, in that sense, I would think myself free of any sin of encouraging them in this direction. My own motivation for attending was to accompany my wife to the wedding of her childhood friend the lapsed Catholic.

It was certainly not to demonstrate public support for any rebellion against the Church, indeed at the time I was unaware any rebellion was taking place because the person was lapsed and I was less informed about such matters.

As an aside, I might be tempted to dispute a lapsed Catholic having a civil ceremony constitutes a rebellion in itself, because surely their real act of rebellion is the prior lapsation in the first instance?

Having thought about it, I cannot see any significant harm arising from my presence; on the contrary, to not attend would have had the result of humiliating my wife by making her go alone and possibly field awkward questions as to my whereabouts.

Possibly relations with my in-laws who also attended would have been damaged also — due to my treatment of their daughter, not the couple having the ceremony.

This was only a few years after my own return to the novus ordo Church. Prior to the Church, we all had to troop into the town hall around the corner where the couple were first civilly married, in accordance with French law which I understand the Church accepts even if grudgingly.

So I have actually attended four civil marriages. How could it be that the Church says it is acceptable to attend a civil marriage in that case, yet to do so in another environment merits excommunication?

Is this not a confusing situation like the one Amoris Laetitia has given rise to, with something being OK in one nation and wrong in another? The French situation was made absurd by the fact that both parties there were lapsed Catholics, and the Catholic element mainly included to satisfy the irish parents — practicing Catholics — of the groom.

Were we all excommunicated? What about the priest who conducted the ceremony? I have always known the Church takes marriage seriously, but if I have learned anything in all this discussion, it would seem to be that the Church ought to be more explicit in its guidance regarding the great plurality of types of wedding ceremony which take place today.

I can remember the scandal when I was growing up over the then Lord Advocate a free presbyterian being panned by his protestant sect for the crime of attending the funeral of his Catholic friend.

I remember that people of all stripes regarded the treatment he received as being unreasonable and lacking in charity. Surely we can have a firm and uncompromising faith and still mix with others, while being guarded against indifference and sufficiently prudent in word and deed so as not to undermine or deny any aspect of out faith?

I am genuinely struggling to frame that as a grave sin — though I can see it would be, if there had been any intention to publicly deny Church teaching or make a false equivalence with sacramental marriage.

Sorry for such a long-winded post, but my possible excommunication is obviously a serious matter! I would be grateful for your thoughts.

I am grateful you have highlighted this matter to me as something requiring more thought than I perhaps previously realised. Of course ever sinner always rushes to make excuses for themselves and absolve themselves from guilt — but with my arguments above I am trying to be reasonable and logical, not avoid responsibility.

I will take the advice of a priest s on this matter and should they consider my attendance at these wedding s problematic then I will do whatever is required to put things right.

I think it is always objectively sinful for a Catholic to attend a civil ceremony when one of the spouses is Catholic.

The regulation of Marriage is judicial and determined by Canon Law. To have a civil ceremony is a formal act of disobedience.

To attend such a wedding ceremony would be approving this disobedience by witnessing it. However, I would question how culpable you were. Like myself you had a non-existent Catholic education.

For this act to be mortally sinful it would require you to have full knowledge. I have to say that I would never, ever attend a civil marriage ceremony involving a Catholic, no matter who that was, be it my sister, best friend or work colleague.

I have not been able to follow this discussion closely, but have skimmed some of the comment and since I do, personally, find it difficult to believe that someone is automatically excommunicated for attending a civil wedding, I decided to write to a very trusted traditional priest — not SSPX but thoroughly traditional and completely PRO-SSPX.

I know this priest is always extremely busy, so he may take a while to respond, but he will answer — hopefully some time today when I will post his reply here.

As it happens, that response of mine that you copied to the priest only applies in cases where Catholics are marrying in civil ceremonies.

I decided to write to a very trusted traditional priest………when he replies, I will post his response here. Athanasius has provided much useful info and food for though, though it would be useful to hear a priests comments also.

All this is showing me the meltdown of the modern Church is even worse than I thought, because Catholics will be excommunicating themselves left, right and center in their ignorance!

I think it has to be clarified that the Church forbids Catholics from attending non-Catholic ceremonies where Catholics contract marriages outside the Church.

If one of the spouses is Catholic then they are automatically excommunicated along with any Catholic who lends public support to this breach of canonical law by their presence at it.

This has always been the teaching of the Church. It matters little if other invited guests know attending Catholics or not since it is the infidelity to God and the Church that incurs the penalty.

Now I understand the very difficult situations people can find themselves in when it comes to lapsed Catholic family or friends inviting them to attend their non-Catholic weddings.

It can be very hard to say no given the consequences that may ensue. This, I think, should answer your question about countries such as France in which Catholics must first marry in a civil ceremony.

That ceremony is accepted grudgingly by the Church, but only on the understanding that the Catholic couple will immediately seek to have the Church solemnise the bond and raise it to a Sacrament.

If they fail to do this then their marriage is invalid before God and they are excommunicated. Now obviously what applies to Catholics who marry in a civil ceremony also applies to Catholics who approve their rebellious action by their presence.

Of course ignorance of Church teaching will have an impact on any canonical penalty. But is it possible to admit the possibility of ignorance in the face of centuries of Church teaching?

Therefore it is much more likely that Catholics who marry outside the Church, as well as Catholics who attend such ceremonies, whether in an active or passive manner, are not free from the guilt of at least neglecting their duty to know the teaching of the Church in such matters.

With respect, I think you miss the point. This is not about what you or I feel we can or cannot robustly withstand. The real issue here, and the Church makes this perfectly clear, is one of fidelity to Christ and His Church, especially when it costs us.

I most certainly would never attend such a ceremony, no matter what it cost me in terms of human wrath, and I think you know that I am no Wee Free in my general outlook.

In this regard, you write: That will never happen if we just casually go along with it all. The example you raise about the Lord Advocate is a different matter.

He was slated by fellow Wee Frees for daring to attend the Catholic funeral of his friend. Catholics are permitted to attend Protestant funerals out of respect, though not allowed to participate in any religious ceremonies.

The difference between the two is quite obvious. We are even allowed to attend marriages of two non-Catholics, again without participating. But never are we allowed to attend the marriage of a Catholic outside the Church.

This is a different ball game. Given the confusion in the Church today and the poor formation many of us had growing up in this apostate age, it is quite possible that you did not realise the gravity of what you were doing and therefore did not incur any guilt or penalty.

Mortal sin is never contracted accidentally, we have to know that we do is gravely worng and give full ascent to the grave sin.

Where this culpability is absent there is no sin. God is not a monster. What we all have to do in such serious matters is genuinely search our conscience to ensure that we are absolutely blameless.

If we do that and find that we are blameless by reason of ignorance then there can be no guilt. I suppose no Catholic who has since returned to Tradition, however, could escape guilt in the future.

We are all much more learned in the Faith than perhaps a few years ago and so now we have to stand up and be counted.

You thought your post was long winded and now I have outdone you!! Hope this helps clarify things. As usual, many typos and forgot to remove the bold brackets in part of the text.

I think, though, that the SSPX priest who gave this permission was wrong. Catholics are never allowed to support other Catholics in their breaching of canonical law as far as I know, not even when it involves family.

Thank you for your very detailed explanations above, much appreciated. I have some questions to aid my understanding I am not trying find loopholes:.

And this applies to even people who have lapsed and do not consider themselves Catholic in any way? I think it would be accurate to describe the individual we are concerned with in these terms.

There is compulsion in the Catholic faith? Is a persons presence necessarily indicative of support?

I have always understood Catholics in that sense as practicing Catholics. Surely someone who has already abandoned the Church would pay no heed to its requirements about marriage.

Ironically, when lapsed Catholics suddenly come back seeking a Church wedding, I have tended to regard that as very superficial and more a desire for a nice venue and veneer of tradition, than a sign of them seeking Our Lord.

If, before, I had to guess, i would probably have concluded the Church would have had more of a problem with attendance at a protestant wedding than a civil one.

Both are non-Catholic but one adds heresy to the mix. I am genuinely shocked to learn that it is problematic for a Catholic to attend the civil wedding of a baptised person who chooses for whatever reason not to practice the Catholic faith.

I think part of this is related to how I understand what a lapsed Catholic is. It is certainly not true that I was aware that attending such a marriage was wrong and then made a conscious decision to do so anyway.

When much younger, I had sometimes heard tales from many years past of folk from various backgrounds threatening not to attend this or that, but I always understood it more as tribalism or bloody-mindedness.

Certainly no-one mentioned God or canon law. Thank you for your responses — this has been an enlightening if worrying!

I have managed to prove this by having my first question in the post above in italics! Further to your most recent post, I found this on the New Theological Movement site, written by a priest:.

However, those who have been baptized Catholic or who have been received into the Church are bound to follow canonical form. Even if a person has since left the practice of the faith and no longer considers himself to be Catholic, according to Church law, he is bound by the law of the Catholic Church from the moment he has once become Catholic either by baptism or by conversion.

This means that one who has been Catholic must be married in a manner recognized by the Catholic Church. Usually, this entails being married before a Catholic priest or deacon, in a Catholic Church — however, the Bishop can permit for a protestant minister or any other person to witness the marriage.

What is truly at stake is the question of scandal, and of encouraging another in objective sin. We need not make a judgment upon the soul of the Catholic who is attempting the invalid marriage, but we must rather stand back and make an objective consideration of the matter.

Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them: Among the ways in which we may be guilty of cooperating in sin, the Church lists praising or approving sin.

This is the objective effect of being present at a wedding — we are there to show support to the two individuals, not just in a general way, but specifically as they are wed.

Hence, even if we were to approach the couple ahead of time and tell them that we do not approve of their invalid attempt at marriage, presence at the ceremony itself communicates support and approval of the event.

It is part of the very nature of the act of being present at a wedding — it shows support and praise for the attempt at marriage. To cause scandal does not really mean to shock or surprise another, but rather to cause another to think that something which is sinful is not sinful or, at least, not that sinful.

This is precisely what happens when we attend the invalid marriage of a Catholic. Not only do we praise and show approval for the sinful act of the persons contracting the marriage, but by attending the wedding service we lead others into the false opinion that the invalid marriage is acceptable.

From all that has been said, it should be clear that a Catholic ought not to give a wedding gift or card in praise of an invalid marriage.

Furthermore, a Catholic should not attend the reception afterwards — the couple is entering into manifest grave sin, what is there to celebrate?

Petrus has presented a very clear and concise post that I believe addresses many of your queries. Two essential points we have to bear in mind. The first is that a Catholic can never rid himself of his membership of the Church.

He may apostatise and refuse any longer to identify as Catholic, but the supernatural reality is that he is baptised into the Catholic Church and his soul bears that Catholic character forever.

He does not thereby cease to be a priest because the priestly character is forever imprinted on his soul. The second point is that Protestant marriage is superior to civil marriage because the former is sacramental and the latter secular.

There are two sacraments of the seven that can be administered by lay people, one is baptism, the other is holy matrimony. What this means is that the Protestants, when they left the true Church, were able to keep the validity of these two sacraments, assuming of course that proper matter, form and intention are maintained.

I speak here of validity not of legitimacy, which is another issue. The same holds true in the case of a civil marriage between two non-Catholics, even though the marriage will not be sacramental and therefore a mere human contract that is not recognised by God as a true marriage.

In the case of France and some other secularised countries the Church was forced to allow couples to first marry in a civil ceremony.

The couples themselves had no choice in the matter. However, Catholic couples are always obliged immediately to have their marriage raised to a sacrament by the Church before they live together.

But this only explains some cases. In other cases Catholics who have married outside the Church by choice can eventually give in to conscience, realising the sin they have committed.

They then ask to have their marriage solemnised by the Church, which, assuming that everything is in order, the Church readily grants.

It may well be that they simply repent of their sin and want to make things right, although I guess there will be some who just use the Church for other reasons.

These types, however, still have their judgment to face since God is not mocked. This latter is tantamount to sacrilege as it rejects the sacramental nature of marriage established by God Himself.

The Modernist hierarchy of the Church today has so much to answer for; it is a hierarchy that has confused all the previously clear teaching of the Church.

Terrible times, unprecedented in history. This whole matter could be settled, if you would simply cite your source for saying that a Catholic is excommunicated for attending a civil wedding etc.

The issue is not whether or not it is right to attend certain weddings, the question is whether or not a Catholic is automatically excommunicated for doing so.

So far, all I can see is opinion and conjecture. Contracting such a marriage, yes, but attending it? If we participate in the sin of another then surely we also share the penalty with them?

I think participating in the sin of another — i. I think it would need to be set down in Canon Law — that would be the obvious place to look.

The priest I asked has sent a holding email to say that he is checking references but asks for more time to check thoroughly, as he is very busy right now.

One gentleman pondered that: The pernicious fruits of ecumenism on view.. Want to know what has already started in Italy? Then have a look at this:.

I thought it was hot off the press since Gloria TV posted it just 12 hours ago……sigh…on my way to the naughty step….

This has been a great help! I am now better informed in this regard — some more missing information backfilled in my Catholic knowledge although in this case, I was not even aware it was missing!

I wanted to ask — given the promotion of the scapular and the rosary are two prominent things to come out of the events of Fatima, why is not the rosary automatically the standard requirement here, in place of the Little Office?

I would encourage all who can to say the Little Office. Thank you for that information. I thought Our Lady had asked for the daily rosary at Fatima, so is that not necessary if you say the little office?

I know what you mean. I was told by one priest that although the Rosary takes the place or the Little Office. I think if we are already praying the Rosary daily then that meets the conditions.

This is what the priest in question told me. I guess this would make sense. Yes that seems logical to me, which is why I thought it strange that the Little Office seems to be the standard work for the privilege and not the rosary.

But even if you do think the Fatima requirements satisfy the sabbatine privilege, is it still wise to get a priest to make this official, but commuting the Office for the Rosary?

I think the Little Office has always been a venerable devotion and has many indulgences attached to it. It could also be because the Sabbatine Privilege pre-dates the Message of Fatima.

I might be wrong in this. Yes, I would definitely ask one of the priests about this. It was all sorted out very quickly and easily when I asked.

I think I have the jist of what to do — I understand office 1 is for Ordinary time and Easter, office 2 for Advent and office 3 for Christmastime.

It may be that due to your commitments you are not able to pray all the hours. If this is the case, it is better to pray one or two with all your heart, rather than attempting all 8 hours every day in haste and anxiety.

If you are not able to pray the entire Office, then ideally choose one Office or Canonical Hour at the beginning of your day and one to complete your day.

Do you think Prime and Compline alone are sufficient to meet the requirement of the Sabbatine privilege?

I am just concerned that due to daily life I may prove poor at it of course, if I was sitting in a Monastery somewhere, I would have ample time for this kind of thing — haha!

It has some very good reference chapters in it. He will substitute the Office for the Rosary. However, it is good, of course, to pray both, if you can.

I think what you suggest, PrIme and Compline, is a very good start. You could then add in other hours too. Officials said the priests could not celebrate mass, nor could the group carry out devotions.

And so the group had to celebrate mass in a car-park of a cafe near-by, and say the rosary in the street. The Shrine even put security men on the gates to ensure none of the group tried to enter the grounds.

It is particularly strange, given that for the last decade the SSPX has been granted use of chapels within the shrine grounds. The article notes that the shrine rector, a Fr Gibbons, often allows anglicans, presbyterians and muslims to participate in and even lead services at the shrine.

Fr Gibbons email is frgibbons knock-shrine. They are most welcome to pray the Rosary, Stations of the Cross and other prayers.

On Saturday 16th September last, Shrine security was informed that the society were about to set up marquees to celebrate Mass at 11am in the North carpark on Shrine grounds, without Shrine permission.

They were informed they could not do so. While the society is most welcome to pray at the Shrine, we would ask them to respect our situation and conditions.

And how is it reasonable to deny mass to a group with an irregular status, while allow heretical sects and even non-Christian groups to worship there?

If the issue was a lack of permission — perhaps an over-sight by the pilgrimage group, though understandable given there has been no issue for years — if this is sought in future will traditional pilgrimage groups be allowed unmolested?

You would think the Church in Ireland has enough problems, without victimising some of its most faithful adherents.

Thank you for these two comments — Spiritus, Irish blogger, has posted the same information on the lead thread, but not with the email address etc as provided by you.

The Scottish Government is ploughing ahead with the Named Person scheme, despite continuing warnings from legal eagles — the following, from the NO2NP website: Named Persons pummelled by lawyers and health professionals.

NO2NP has long argued that the invasive Named Person scheme would damage trust between families and professionals.

I saw that advertised and meant to watch on the Scottish Parliament channel, but it got overlooked by my Guardian Angel — tut, tut…].

Health professionals were also invited to give evidence to the Education and Skills Committee today. It seems to us and to anyone who is listening, that the law in its current form is anything but clear.

Click here to reach source. Apologies if this petition has been posted elsewhere on this site: An Italian woman marries ….

Click here to read the report then stand by and await news of the divorce! Arranging custody of the non-existent children should be fun! My apologies for posting an article from Louie V.

Ironically, he would never say such a thing about genuinely schismatic groups, such as the Eastern Orthodox churches. How disappointing that he is so feeble in the face of Francis, yet so bold with unprovoked attacks on faithful Catholic groups, attacks based on deceit.

I am very disappointed in him and have diminished respect for him now. As if attacking the SSPX should be on his agenda, while everyone is waiting and waiting and waiting for him to act on the dubia.

I have this on YouTube so am going to make it a separate thread, if you would hold off commenting further.

Gabriel Syme, your spot-on assessment will be quoted in my introduction, so hold fire! I hope I manage to post this!

There would be hell to pay from the trans lobby. Here is a very sad report on the state of the Church in France, posted by someone from the traditional Order of St.

In the cathedrals we visited there were hardly more than handful of worshippers outside of mass times. And other than in Chartres there were not many more tourists.

Only Chartres, within easy striking distance of Paris, attracts a considerable — if not overwhelming — crowd. In some cathedrals we could not find any posted mass times.

Years ago, the Diocese wanted to sell or demolish the Church, but lay people — led by a priest — managed to gather enough funds to acquire it. The priest then served this Church on his own, until his death, using traditional liturgy.

When the original priest died, the lay owners asked the SSPX to serve it. It seems they took their time deciding anyway! When passing through the Netherlands earlier this year, I looked at the feasibility of trying to visit this particular Church.

The good news is that I have it on very good authority that the SSPX is actively looking for a larger church for Glasgow. I wish I lived in the Netherlands instead of dreary old Britain with its converted Protestant kirks with depressing wooden interiors and damp rot.

What I would give for a proper beautiful Catholic chapel in Glasgow with good access for the elderly and disabled and ample room for the faithful.

Does anybody know the availability of a TLM in Copenhagen? A 9 year old girl in the US has been excluded from her school First Holy Communion ceremony because she wanted to wear a white suit for the event.

Clearly she has a very deep and committed faith then. After all, unrepentant adulterers and active homosexuals can all seemingly receive communion — what is a simple white suit in comparison to these sins of the flesh?

Trust me on that! Apparently Channel 5 and the Church negotiated for over a year for make the series happen.

And, presumably, high jinks ensue. The Mail reports already the series has featured the party girls doing their make-up in Church and sneaking vodka into the convent.

I am at a complete loss as to what these Nuns think they have to gain from this, a complete loss. Apparently the convent received its first English novice in 40 years last year.

Mr Syme, may I kindly ask that you do not pollute this respectable Christian website with pornography? The young lady in the centre of the image is practically exposing herself.

Such an image constitutes an occasion of sin for us men. The Sisters and in particular the superior come across very favourably.

They are kind and firm but take lots of opportunities to guide these young women in a gentle way. The girls themselves are a pretty shocking lot with apparently zero moral insights into their promiscuous behaviour.

However one can see that their stay is having some impact and giving them food for thought. Rather I imagine they saw this as a potential for modern evangelism, however naively given the backgrounds of the girls.

Only time will tell if there are any lasting good effects, we will probably never know but I suspect if one asked the girls themselves they might say that they actually liked and even respected the Sisters in the end.

One can only hope. I would probably have tuned in as well, only I forgot about the show! Interesting article on the Medjugorje scam here: Interesting article in the left- wing Guardian of all places.

People who are for and against the present Pope. I was surprised they would even know that if what this Pope is saying is correct then all previous Popes have been wrong.

Sir, this is a fantastic website. Unfortunately my wife votes for the Labour party, but I will be showing her this website to hopefully dissuade her of her socialist errors.

Makes it easier to identify bloggers at a glance. Get on with it now — you know it makes sense. Apologies if this has been posted elsewhere, but worth reading: That is a good clear and firm letter and one can only commend the writer.

At the same time it almost beggars belief that we are seeing the need for such a letter to be written to the Pope. If the latter is indeed a man of God I do not understand how he could be unaffected by it.

If his response is rage then one can only wonder…what difficult days these are. Deacon Nick Donnelly wrote online this morning that he knew Fr Weinandy and thought his testimony about this event was credible.

This is a classic example of why I personally dislike the General Discussion thread. Too many bloggers go there directly without checking other threads first.

One of these days, I promise you! This is a good litany that someone has composed for these awful times! This article shows just how bad things are.

Who would ever have believed that this could happen? That archbishop should be de-mitred without delay. This is really just a test to obey the Editor, but will take the opportunity to thank those of you who have contributed to the information about attending weddings etc.

I used to think if I thought about it at all that all these rules had been abolished and no longer have any force. In passing, I have prayer cards featuring this image together with the Shroud of Turin available FREE for anyone who wants them or who can distribute some.

Although, not everybody wants to get wiser with age…. It never ceases to amaze me that they would prepare two turkey dinners so close to each other; one in November, and another in December.

Talking about turkeys, are there any socials this Christmas at the Glasgow parish? Also, is Mass on Christmas morning? As nobody from the Glasgow chapel has answered your post I can tell you that Christmas Mass will be at Bring your own food.

Look forward to a chat over a cuppa in the tearoom after Mass — though why anyone would leave sunny Australia at this time of year, beats me!

Do you want me to go over and house-sit for you? But when possible, thought should go into making it as easy as possible for people, especially those with several small children using public transport on Sundays, remember to get into town.

I know one family with five children, baby, toddlers, primary school age, who have to be on the bus at 8am to get into town for the 9. So, a little later, helps them.

There have been occasions when the bus did not turn up. The Mass in Glasgow is early so it must be very difficult for many to get there.

I remember one Glasgow parishioner telling me that they had struggled to get to Mass when it was at 10 am and when it was moved to 9.

Public transport on Christmas Day is almost non existent so that causes real problems. In Edinburgh our Mass is at Midnight and buses go off the road at 9.

I offered to travel to the other end of the earth just to house-sit and not a word of gratitude. This is interesting — not to say deeply troubling — http: I wonder why this is?

Can anyone recommend short reading material for young adults 20s — early 30s who were brought up NO Catholic and are now cohabiting — one with a baby?

Does anyone know of anything which might help bring them to their senses and hopefully steer them back to the Faith — the Traditional Faith, that is, which they have never known?

Any suggestions would be appreciated — especially anything which is known to have had a positive effect in these situations! Either to purchase in UK or downloadable.

Just seeing this now — apologies for delay in responding. Will put on my thinking cap and get back to you, asap. Will get back to you on this.

That would — of necessity, I think — need to be incorporated into above said pamphlet. Will get back to you, as promised above.

You may want to print it out after making any necessary edits and give it to the young couple in question. The Church has consistently stated that these alleged apparitions do not have supernatural origins and lack credibility.

Two shocking snippets of news: That seems to me to be the only rational explanation, because, on enquiry from people visiting Portugal during holidays etc, it is clear that the dogma of the Faith has NOT been universally preserved.

Last Wednesday evening I had the misfortune of sitting in a Novus Ordo choir loft whilst a Novus Ordo was being celebrated below I was waiting for a choir rehearsal to begin, having agreed to help the director with her Christmas Eve music.

It had been almost 5 years since I last witnessed this travesty, the last time at a funeral. I continue to be amazed that this liturgy from hell was successfully foisted upon an allegedly healthy Church, with such little resistance.

The only reason I can fathom for this is that Our Lord, having initiated the Minor Chastisement, willed that the Faith would be largely and surreptitiously replaced by a different religion in order to punish the world.

And it is a different religion, retaining only some Catholic accidentals to conceal a complete lack of substance. In the name of Christ Jesus, please give some consideration to the harm such malicious language is doing to the cause of traditional Catholicism.

However, you need to understand that for those of us who have suffered the novus ordo for years and now are resting in peace so to speak!

Indeed, I had occasion to attend a novus ordo a few weeks ago with one of my teenage Great-Nephews, who has never attended one — he is a regular at the TLM where he has served Mass for quite a few years now.

And, as I assured him, this was a relatively respectful novus ordo. No circus performance, calm and fairly quiet throughout.

It struck me then how de-sensitised we can be, without even realising it. Yes, it is not, of itself, an invalid Mass, although there has to have been a rise in those, given the licence allowed for years now, with priests routinely ignoring the rubrics, and so we have to be a bit careful, sure enough, not to fail to respect the fact that the Consecration is effected, as the norm, we trust, but that is not sufficient.

How would you describe this new Mass? Hence, Hans, evidence please…. Mais que nenni, rentrons dans le vif du sujet! Au pire, posez moi des questions via commentaire ;.

Mais les otome games, qu'est ce que c'est? J'essaierai de construire mes articles aussi clairement que possible, en 5 parties: Tout est dans le titre: Endings ou autrement dit: Elles sont parfois tout aussi riches que les bonnes voire plus!

Je pense que ce sera le plus dur Pour moi en tout cas. Sur ce, bon jeu! Serait-il possible de ta part de m'envoyer ces liens dont tu parles pour que je puisse y jouer!

Sinon je veux bien avoir le lien du jeu sur tatami production. J'ai fait ma petite pub'! Que ferons nous sans toi ChinoMiko!!! Je viens de me rendre compte que j'ai dit deux fois "romance" pour le jeu Anticlove Je voudrai savoir aussi, pour beaucoup de jeux de Shall we date?

Est-ce c'est payant itunes? Je veux savoir svp si il existe un moyen d avoir des points d action en plus. J'aimerais vous posez une question..

Les otomes sur play store sont-ils payants? Do u even want to be with me forever? Do u even like me? Would u cry if i walked away?

Sweet Amoris Episode 34 Video

Sweet Amoris [Episode 34] - Detective Team Tarmin (DTT) [Armin]

Sweet amoris episode 34 -

Ich habe bei einer englischen Let's Playerin nachgeschaut und sie hat Iris geholfen und dass Bild am Ende bekommen. Scheinbar wird Iris bedroht, was wir jedoch nicht mit Sicherheit sagen können. Ohne Vorwarnung krallte ich mich in seinen Pullover, um ihn zu küssen. Auf dem Schulflur treffen wir die Rektorin , daraufhin Li am Treppenhaus. Später im Park will Armin uns Bericht erstatten. Schade, dass es hier im Moment nicht vorwärts geht! Lysander, Nathaniel Das Outfit mit der langen Hose: Was für Drohungen genau? Ich will sie nicht überfallen. Die Situation war so was von verrückt…. Wir eröffnen Pia, postleitzahl israel wir immer noch nicht free slots machine games for fun können, dass Nathaniel uns von all den Mädchen ausgewählt hat. Trotzdem ist die Stimmung zwischen uns seit der Party irgendwie eisig. Eingestellt von Cecilina um Weil du mehr Selbstsicherheit und Ruhe ausstrahlst. Die lebhafte Erinnerung, seine Lippen auf meinen…. Sondern das Auftreten dieser Person sei wichtig. Was für Drohungen genau? Faraize hatte kaum mit seinem Unterricht begonnen, da setzt auch schon wieder vereinzeltes Tuscheln ein, wie es in den Geschichtsstunden häufig der Fall war. Ihr bedeutungsvoller Blick machte aus ihrer Frage eher einen Befehl… A. Nachdem man überall war Kunstraum: Wer auch immer dieser mysteriöse Erpresser war, lange würde er einem Team wie uns nicht die Stirn bieten können! Wer auch immer dieser mysteriöse Erpresser war, lange würde er einem Team wie uns nicht die Stirn bieten können! Wir könnten doch ein Stück des Weges gemeinsam laufen, was meinst du? Iris treffen wir vor der Schule und gehen mit ihr in den Park , um zu ihrem Haus zu gelangen. Dann sollten wir uns beeilen, wenn wir rechtzeitig zurück sein wollen.

0 thoughts on “Sweet amoris episode 34

Hinterlasse eine Antwort

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind markiert *

>