jump to navigation

Prayer For Unity of Faith in a Divided Family February 28, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, Domestic Church, General Catholic, Interior Life, sanctity, Tradition, unity, Virtue.
comments closed

Pulling some more content from Father’s Manual by Fr. A Coombs, SJ (before they went insane), a nice little prayer and devotion for families that are divided in faith.  I certainly know the pain of that situation, while my own “nuclear” family is at present and by God’s Grace at one in the Faith, none of the rest of my family is Catholic.  I know how painful that can be.  I imagine it would be even more painful to be divided on such a vital matter from one’s spouse or children.  I pray I never have to experience that myself, while I pray for forgiveness from my parents by alienating myself from their faith.  It was something I simply had to do, for many reasons, and it has changed my life, let alone making my salvation so much more possible.

That aside, I pray some who struggle in this situation find this prayer helpful (I changed the prayer to work for either spouse; it was originally intended for husbands):

Lord God, according to your holy designs you have ordained that in matrimony man and wife shall be so closely united as to become “one flesh.”  Grant now that my [spouse] and I may be closely united in all things according to your holy law.

Grant us  your abundant graces that we may enjoy the blessing of being joined by a common faith.  You know what it would mean to us if we could share completely the same religious views and convictions, if we could be united closely in the same religious practices and observances.  You know what it would mean if we could share the same belief in the sacraments and have the same understanding of them and the same love for them.

That this may be realized according to your holy ways, let me never falter in my own personal obligations and in my observances of all that is by your law of love.  Bestow, in your mercy, your bounteous graces now on my [spouse] and me so that one day, as completely united as possible in this life, we may both approach in joy your communion banquet and there receive together your blessing and your love.

———-End Quote———

 That prayer is quite a bit shorter than yesterday’s!

Father Michael Rodriguez on the divisions among traditional Catholics August 31, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, different religion, Father Rodriguez, General Catholic, Latin Mass, manhood, persecution, sanctity, Tradition, true leadership, unity, Virtue.
comments closed

I was blessed to receive the following, very supportive and edifying communique from Father Michael Rodriguez with FatherMichaelRodriguezregard to my post pertaining to CMTV last Friday. I had mentioned in Friday’s post a certain priest being “the best” I’ve ever met – well, Father Rodriguez is surely in that same category but I’m still yet to meet him face to face!  Someday I will, even if only in Heaven, should we be so blessed.

I am in full agreement with every point made below, and I thought the sentiments conveyed were of such grave import and so helpful that they should be shared.  I was elated when Father Rodriguez agreed to let me post his comments.  I pray you find them as consoling and edifying as I did (text begins immediately below, all emphasis in original, if I have any point of disagreement with Father Rodriguez, it is in his praise of the author):

Blessed be Jesus Christ and His most pure Mother!  I want to thank you for the excellent post which your wrote today, “A cry of the heart towards my friends at CMTV.”  Excellent work, TB, may God give you the graces necessary to continue along this narrow path.

I thought your words were prudent, charitable, conciliatory in the best sense, sincere, heartfelt, and TRUE.  I think it is extremely important to get the message out as often as possible that traditional Catholics should not be fighting and attacking each other.  I am convinced that such infighting does not come from God. We do not have to agree on what is the best concrete path to resolve the extremely difficult dilemma of maintaining fidelity to the perennial lex orandi, lex credendi of Holy Mother Church, while also maintaining fidelity to the Church’s Magisterium (both perennial and present), but we should respect and support the fact that many (traditional Catholics) are giving it their best effort.  There are no easy and simple answers to the Gordian knot of fidelity to the Faith vs. obedience, which is one of the things which makes the current Church crisis so nefarious.  Hopefully, one thing is clear:  the real enemy of the Church today is not the FSSP, nor the SSPX, nor the sedevacantists.  The real enemy are the modernists and heretics who have infiltrated to the highest levels of the Church, and those whose disordered passions itch for novelty after novelty, and those wolves who seek to alter the timeless worship and doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ. [One comment: I think this is the key to my point of view – there is so much chaos and confusion in the maxresdefaultChurch today.  Surely I may disagree with the decisions some folks have reached in terms of which approach to Catholicism they feel works best for them, and just as importantly, the souls in their charge, but I am loathe to castigate them strongly for reaching a different conclusion from my own.  So many of these matters are hotly debated even at the highest echelons of the Church that I think it preposterous that lay people attack each other for being of a different tribe. And I do have a strong concern that tribalism is a significant factor in all the conflict among traditional Catholics]

I think all traditional Catholics should  focus their energy on:  (1) doing everything possible to restore the Traditional Latin Mass, and reach out to “Novus Ordo” Catholics to help them appreciate, love, and understand better what has always been the Mass of the Catholic Church, (2) doing everything possible to restore AUTHENTIC Catholic doctrine, especially with regard to ecumenism, religious liberty, the social Kingship of Jesus Christ, collegiality, sexual morality, the nature and proper exercise of Church authority, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Priestood, the Four Last Things, the primacy of the supernatural (vs. the natural), and the primacy of the salvation of souls (vs. saving the earth, social work, ending world hunger, etc.), and to reach out to “Novus Ordo” Catholics to help them appreciate, love, and understand better what has always been the doctrine of the Church, (3) prayer and fasting, (4) promoting the true Message of Our Lady of Fatima, which includes the, as yet undone, Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the Pope in union with all the Bishops of the world.

If fellow traditional Catholics disagree on how best to carry out (1) and (2) above, then I strongly urge these Catholics to focus even more energy on (3), and then, after working with renewed energy at (1) and (2), to dedicate, if necessary, a minor amount of time and energy to discussing their respective differences with patience, charity, understanding, and trust in God’s Providence.

 

Thank you again, TB, I think you made many, many excellent points in your piece, points which are deserving of serious reflection by all those who sincerely wish to do God’s Will and serve–not themselves, not their own agendas, not their own particular “groups,” but rather–Holy Mother Church.

We are first and foremost Roman Catholics, not adherents to this or that particular “traditionalist group.”  We will do well to remember this, and to be forever grateful to God for opening our minds and hearts to the marvelous treasures of Sacred Tradition.  Fostering this gratitude will keep us humble. [OK, I’ll make one more comment. Some people have been blessed to be born into traditional Catholicism.  Most of us, however, have had to find it ourselves.  We must always remember that, a) not everyone is at our exalted level of personal perfection, and b) not everyone will necessarily arrive at the same end point we find just right for ourselves. That doesn’t mean they are less Catholic or bad people, for some, they may greatly exceed us in time (or now), for others, we trust that God knows that some other end point is best for them.]

I hope and pray that CMTV, the FSSP, and the SSPX do their utmost to adhere to points (1) and (2) above.  May God bless them all in this work.  TB, may God bless your work and efforts . . . thanks again!

Ad Iesum per Maríam,

Fr. Michael Rodríguez
Diocese of El Paso

———–End Quote————

TB = Tantumblogo, not tuberculosis.  Just so we’re clear.

Responses to Friday’s post have run the gamut from very supportive to very hostile.  Closer proximity to CMTV seems to correlate strongly with hostility, which, duh.  In which case, the post has failed, because the hope was not to stir up still more hostility but to engender a step back and reappraisal.  Judging by the responses received thus far, that seems unlikely to happen, but I will continue to pray.

Whatever failures of memory or charity I may have had in my post, focusing on those I think misses the point. The point is that a goodly number of longtime CMTV viewers, supporters, friends and allies generally share my sentiments. And if it were me, that would be a cause for worry and reexamination.  I know from seeing comments from very far afield dating back many moons that the concerns I expressed have been conveyed by many others in many other contexts.  So, I think I am far from alone.

At any rate, the core of what I was hoping to convey is really put forth much better by Father Rodriguez.  I don’t mean to re-open old wounds by this post, but to close them, and to that end I’m announcing two things:

  1. I have said my peace regarding CMTV and regard the matter as closed. I will happily broadcast any positive developments
  2. I will terminate commenting on this post if it descends into a pro/anti SSPX fracas.  

The very point of this post, and the next one, is to prevent #2 from occurring.  I was away over the weekend as is usual and comments took an unfortunate turn.  No mas.

 

Bishop Athanasius Schneider on the SSPX: “no weighty reasons to deny…..canonical recognition” August 10, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in episcopate, General Catholic, Latin Mass, manhood, Papa, persecution, religious, scandals, SSPX, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, unity, Virtue.
comments closed

Rorate Caeli has an excerpt of an interview of Bishop Athanasius Schneider gave with a Spanish site on the status of the SSPX.  +Schneider has been assigned a formal role by the Vatican in visiting two SSPX seminaries.  Some highly relevant and interesting statements below, I add comments, emphasis from Rorate:

Mons. Schneider: The Holy See asked me to visit the two [seminaries] of the SSPX in order to conduct a discussion on a specific theological topic with a group of theologians of the SSPX and with His Excellency Bishop Fellay. For me this fact shows that for the Holy See the SSSPX is not a negligible ecclesiastical reality and that it has to be taken seriously. I am keeping a good impression of my visits. I could observe a sound theological, spiritual and human reality in the two [seminaries]. The “sentire cum ecclesia” of the SSPX is shown by the fact that I was received as an envoy of the Holy See with true respect and with cordiality. Furthermore, I was glad to see in both places in the entrance area a photo of Pope Francis, the reigning Pontiff. In the sacristies there were plates with the name of Pope Francis and the local diocesan bishop. I was moved to assist the traditional chant for the Pope (“Oremus pro pontifice nostro Francisco…”) during the solemn exposition of the Blessed Sacrament.
 
To my knowledge there are no weighty reasons in order to deny the clergy and faithful of the SSPX the official canonical recognition, meanwhile they should be accepted as they are. This was indeed Archbishop Lefebvre’s petition to the Holy See: “Accept us as we are”. [Interesting.  There have always been prelates favorably disposed to the SSPX.  Cardinal Stickler was one particularly notable example.  There have been, and are, others.  Their viewpoint, however, is not shared by many other bishops, some of which view the Society as more alien, and with more hostility, than the most extreme sect or foreign religion.  My own personal viewpoint aligns, in a hopeful sense, with that of Bishop Schneider.]
 
I think the issue of Vatican II should not be taken as the “conditio sine qua non”, since it was an assembly with primarily [or was it entirely?] pastoral aims and characteristics. A part of the conciliar statements reflects only its time and possesses a temporary value, as disciplinary and pastoral documents do. [Brilliant. And very important] When we look in a two millennia old perspective of the Church, we can state, that there is on both sides (Holy See and the SSPX) an over-evaluation and over-estimation of a pastoral reality in the Church, which is Vatican II.  [Bishop Schneider is saying both the Vatican and SSPX have blown VII out of proportion.  I both agree and disagree. I think eventually, the only way to “move beyond” VII is to basically ignore all its novel parts and get back to the traditional practice of the Faith.  But those novel parts have been so damaging and have affected the understanding and practice of the Faith in such a severe, revolutionary way, that doing so will prove extremely difficult.  That’s because for a sizable portion of those who claim the name Catholic, including the large majority of bishops and priests, VII created in their minds a “new church” very different from, and hostile towards, the “old” one. Yes this cohort is dying off very gradually, but not fast enough, and there are not nearly enough of those with a proper, or at least better, understanding of the reality of the Church to replace them/turn the tide.  But incorporating the SSPX back into the regular life of the Church would help enormously to that end – while also being a high risk move.]
When the SSPX believes, worship and conducts a moral [life] as it was demanded and recognized by the Supreme Magisterium and was observed universally in the Church during a centuries long period [one might say “always”]  and when the SSPX recognizes the legitimacy of the Pope and the diocesan bishops and prays for them publicly and recognizes also the validity of the sacraments according to the editio typica of the new liturgical books, this should suffice for a canonical recognition of the SSPX on behalf of the Holy See.  Otherwise the often repeated pastoral and ecumenical openness in the Church of our days will manifestly lose its credibility and the history will one day reproach to the ecclesiastical authorities of our days that they have “laid on the brothers greater burden than required” (cf. Acts 15:28), which is contrary to the pastoral method of the Apostles.
Well now……..that’s quite a conclusion.  Do you agree, that the current status of the SSPX suffices for recognition of full canonical regularity without a requirement to sign any “preambles” or any other changes or actions on the part of the SSPX?
If that were to be the case, it would have enormous precedent, essentially “cementing” +Schneider’s belief regarding VII into formal policy; that that Council was a pastoral one whose day is largely past, requiring no particular “assent” to its proscriptions and claims apart from normal assent of Faith given to all the already established Doctrine of the Faith (since VII settled no new Dogma).  It is an approach to Vatican II I would most certainly welcome, but I don’t think it has a snowball’s chance in a blast furnace of being instituted at any point in the foreseeable future, because the progressives would lose their minds and many would likely leap into open schism (which, frankly, already exists, but the Vatican has proven for 50+ years horrified of allowing that schism to be formalized by concrete departure from the Church – to the total detriment of souls).
We have been told by some of the more militant opponents of the SSPX that they are so far outside the realm of the Church that any one who indicates otherwise is at best suspect, if not fallen into grievous error themselves.  Will all mention of Bishop Schneider now disappear from certain websites, as have others who hold “wrong” opinions on the Society?

19th century Catechism on the Church as the One True Church July 30, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, General Catholic, history, Interior Life, reading, sanctity, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, unity, Virtue.
comments closed

More great commentary from the The Catechism Explained by Spirago-Clarke, circa 1880.  There is a ton of great content on the nature of the Church – the One, True Church – and on the grave reality of being outside the Church.  You may note a very much different approach to some of the topics below compared to what is frequently taught in the Church today.  In fact, there is what I take to be a clear condemnation of the post-conciliar “aggiornamento” in the text below.

For now, various excerpts from pp. 242-244, “The True Church:” (my emphasis and comments)

“When,” says St. Cyprian, “the devil saw that the worship of idols was abolished, and the heathen temples emptied, he bethought him of a new poison, and led men into error under cover of the Christian religion, the poison of false doctrine and pride, through which more than two hundred churches [St. Cyprian died in the 3rd century, and already there were hundreds of false sects?] have started u in opposition to the true Church founded by Jesus Christ.”

The True Church is one which is most persecuted by the world, and which has received God’s seal in the form of miracles.

Christ spoke often to His disciples of these persecutions: “The servant is not greater than his Master. If they have persecuted Me, they will also persecute you” (Jn xv:20).  “They will deliver you up in councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues……..you shall be hated by all men for My name’s sake” (Mt x:17-22).  “Yea, the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you, will think that he doth a service to God” (Jn xvi:2).  “Because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you” (Jn xv:19).  Never in the history of the Catholic Church has it been free form persecution.  Whatever be the differences between the sects they unite against the Church…….The present day is not wanting in examples in the sufferings inflicted on religious communities, in the interference of the secular governments in things spiritual, in the opposition made to processions and meetings and other devout practices.  Can any Church be the true Church which does not oppose the spirit of the world? [From whence did that smoke of satan manage to penetrate into the Church?  Perhaps from some window opened in 1958?] Then too it is only in the Catholic Church that we have miracles……….We know that God would work miracles only in confirmation of the truth.

The true Church is that one in which the successor of St. Peter is to be found.

The Church rests on a rock and that rock is Peter (Mt xxviii:20)……..”Where Peter is, there is the Church” says St. Ambrose.

The true Church is known by the following four marks: she is One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic.

The true Church is One. She has at all times and in all places the same doctrine, the same means of Grace, and only one Head. [And yet we are told by Fr. Rosica, Cardinal Kasper, and many others, that doctrine can and indeed must change.  They tell us it will change first through their plans to change practice (which is asinine, practice cannot be separated from belief/doctrine), and then, once virtually everyone is converted to the new doctrine/practice, doctrine may be formally “changed.”  Of course in doing so, they are setting up a false, heretical sect.]

Truth can only be one; hence the teaching of the Church cannot change.  Christ wished His Church to be one; for that He prayed at the Last Supper (Jn xvii:20); “There shall be one fold and one shepherd” (Jn x:16); He appointed one Head for the whole Church (Jn xxi:17).  The Catholic Church is One: her Catechisms the world over teach precisely the same doctrine. Everywhere the Holy Sacrifice is offered, and the Sacraments given in the same way; the same ceremonies and feasts are observed all over the world  [Can this be said anymore, of the post-conciliar rites, or of what is taught?  Vernacular has gravely wounded the unity of the Church]…….Nor can heresy destroy this unity, for the heretic who refuses to submit is no longer a member of the Church. None need accuse the Church of want of progress because it holds fast by its old established doctrines; there is no true progress is giving up the truth and adopting error.  The truth cannot change; hence Bossuet might well say: “Protestantism, thou art changeable, therefore thou canst not be the truth!”  [Would that this were still adhered to!  Do these few sentences not express the anguish so many of us feel at what passes for doctrine in so many quarters of the Church today!  Is this not the very definition of the crisis?  Does this not speak of a different and hostile religion being promoted within the bosom of the Church, something unprecedented in its scope and prevalence since at least the Arian heresy?!?  Yes of course doctrine has not officially changed, but there have been few times in the Church’s history when more with great positions of authority within her have declared that they believe doctrine should  or “must” change]

The true Church is holy;, i.e., it has the means and the endeavor to lead all men to holiness.

Christ founded the Church for the very purpose of making men holy.  The Catholic Church is holy.  All its teaching is lofty and pure; the great principle underlying its commands are self-denial and the love of one’s neighbor; all its sacraments and especially Penance and the Holy Eucharist are great aids to the sanctification of mankind, and the complete following out of the evangelical counsels can lead man to the highest point of perfection………...The misdeeds of some members, or abuses occurring within the Church are due not to the Church, but to the perversity of men.  Even among the Apostles there was a traitor, and Christ compared some members of the Church to weeds and worthless fish.  Can any Church be holy which adopts Luther’s teaching that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, and good works unnecessary? Or Calvin’s doctrine that some men are predestined by God to hell fire?  Or any church which, on its own confession, owns that none of its members have been saints and their sanctity confirmed by miracle?

The true Church is universal or Catholic, she is empowered to receive men into her bosom in all places and all times.

Christ died for all men, and on ascending into Heaven gave His Apostles the mission to teach all the nations of the earth till the end of time (Mt xxviii:20).  Hence His Church was meant to be for all nations, and this is confirmed by the miracle of tongues on the first Pentecost.  The Catholic Church is universal; her teaching applies to all people……..At present the Catholic Church is alone spread out over the entire world.  “Heretics are everywhere,” said St. Augustine, “but no particular heresy is everywhere.”……..Can, then, any church which depends entirely on the government, as, for instance, the Russian Church, or the Anglican, which is wholly national in England, be the true Church?  Or can one which has no real success among the heathen have a claim to truth?

The true Church is Apostolic, she comes down from the time of the Apostles, her teaching is always what it was in the time of the Apostles, and her ministers are legitimate successors of the Apostles.   

“That is the true Church,” says St. Jerome,” which was founded by the Apostles and endures unto the present day.”  The Catholic Church is Apostolic; it has lasted 2000 years, Luther himself confessed that it was the oldest.  The teaching of the oldest  of the Fathers agrees perfectly with our Catechism, and our services are substantially the same as those of the first ages. [I would say, regarding this 19th century Catechism, that is true, though I think the 1990 Catechism may be more problematic in that regard, introducing some post-conciliar concepts or understandings which are difficult to reconcile with the clarity expressed, for instance, in this post.]

….It is remarkable that men of the greatest learning and virtue have, even in the face of great sacrifices, entered the Catholic Church, while those who have deserted it have generally shown by their lives what they really were.  We have reason to rejoice in our religion that it offers us such special consolation in trouble and at the hour of death.

————-End Quote————-

It should be noted that no Catechism, even that released with Vatican approval as with the case of the 1990/97 Catechism, is an authoritative doctrinal source in its own right. They are simply vehicles to convey the understanding of Doctrine of its authors, which are hopefully experts and fully faithful to the Truth Christ has revealed through His Church.  Whether that is the case in all instances with the 1990 Catechism, produced under the direction of the problematic Cardinal Schoenborn, or not, is open to argument.  But I can say that Catechisms like the Spirago-Clarke, the Penny Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, the earliest versions of the Baltimore Catechism, etc., were all unanimous in their presentations of the Faith.  Which, of course…….go figure.

Modernism, rationalism, liberalism, et. al., began to badly infect Catholic literature around 1900.  It infected biblical scholarship first, which is why good priests will often recommend not using a study bible produced after 1800 (Haydock – about 1805).  Later, supposed compendiums of Doctrine became infected.  Some see elements of modernism in the 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia.  Now, it’s very difficult to find wholly reliable sources on Doctrine produced since 1950 or a few years later.

More on that in a minute, God willing.  I think this Spirago-Clarke Catechism very good, though I do think they might get a bit squishy regarding Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.  More on that on Monday, God willing.

Fr. Nicholson: Pope Francis ushering in an era of upheaval, could lead to a new rash of priest sex abuse (fixed) March 30, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, catachesis, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, persecution, priests, scandals, secularism, Society, SOD, the struggle for the Church, unity.
comments closed

Yowzer.  That’s a pretty hot take, but I think as he goes through the argument, he’s got a pretty good point.  He ties in the doctrinal chaos and exaggerated expectations for massive change in the Church that existed in the late 50s and early 60s – when the priest boy rape became epidemic – with similar expectations today.  He forecasts a similar explosion in sex abuse cases if the doctrinal chaos reigning over the past two years, and the concomitant build up in expectations for change in the Church’s immutable Dogmas, will lead to a similar epidemic.

I don’t agree with everything said below, and I’ve certainly disagreed with some of Fr. Nicholson’s takes in the past, but I think he makes an interesting point that is worthy of consideration.  I’m glad he did note that while Pope Saint John Paul II and Pope will probably never be a Saint  Benedict XVI did help re-establish some greater doctrinal certainty, at least in the Petrine office, they certainly didn’t fully restore the doctrinal integrity that has existed in happier days in the Church’s existence:

Sorry, coded the video wrong!

I do like his summation, that in these times faithful Catholics must unite to support and defend each other and the sacred deposit of the Faith handed onto us, whether that means helping out those being persecuted monetarily or through moral support, calling out doctrinal error, supporting faithful bishops and priests, and the like.  That is certainly a key point with me.  I do find a bit of irony in this, however, given the source, and what he has said in some other videos.  But I’ll just scoot right past that and echo the call for all faithful Catholics of good will to desist from the circular firing squad, turn around, and direct our fire at the encroaching enemies of the Faith who surround us.

It’s always been something of a point of fascination to me, how a Church that was by so many measures robust and doctrinally cohesive in the 50s timeframe was at the same time so ripe for revolution.  I do think those of us who did not live through it can never quite imagine what a tumultuous, even earth-shattering time the 60s was.  Outside the Church or within, so many things, from TV to jet travel to new music to fashion to advertising to what name you, everything changed radically over that period. People became convinced that mankind really was entering some new technological golden age and that all the old rules, the societal compact, if you will, of all preceding times, could simply be chucked with abandon.  That thinking, almost a virus in its effects, certainly penetrated the Church and caused largely unexpected upheaval.  At the same time, we also know that by the mid-50s there were many modernists inside the Church who were stealthily, and as the decade went on, more and more openly working towards a revolution. By 1958 they were simply looking for an advantageous opportunity to strike, and Vatican II gave them that opportunity.  I think the two events, an ambitious, united, and strongly networked modernist cabal, and a society expecting flying cars, all manner of wonder drugs (medicinal and otherwise) and round-trip tickets to Mars within a few years produced a perfect storm that struck a Church perhaps somewhat complacent and a bit full of itself.  The result was a veritable French Revolution, which nobody really expected or saw coming, either, by the way.

As for our current revolution, times are different.  We have direct evidence of the disaster that will follow in the wake of doctrinal uncertainty and expectations-building.  But I don’t know if that will be enough to deter the aged modernists in their ambitions to show themselves right, lo after all these years, that the revolution of the 60s was an inevitable organic event that simply had to happen, and not a top-down betrayal by elites who foisted a hostile and competing construct on the 2000 year old institution Christ founded.  I think the rampant perversion and gross immorality Fr. Nicholson laments answers that question irrefutably, but intellectual pride is, as the Angelic Doctor said, the most difficult form of pride to overcome.  And few men in their 70s or 80s are very open to a total reversal from a lifetime of belief, no matter how destructive and contrary they can be shown to be.

As a final aside, and a recommendation to you, I picked up this video on Bones’ site.  He has a post where you can sign your name to indicate your support for the nearly 500 English priests who reject the attempts to change sacred belief regarding marriage, divorce, the Blessed Sacrament…….you know what I mean.  The whole modernist Kasperite gambit.  I signed.  You can find my name, Fredo Corleone, bottom of Lake Tahoe, NV.