Saturday 18 December 2021

ONE DAY OUR LADY OF FATIMA IS ATTACKED, NEXT DAY TORNADOES ATTACK

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address or Messenger. Significant comments on matters of faith  and morals may also be posted on this blog,





On December 9 - the day following the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception - an unidentified man vandalised a statue of Our Lady of Fatima at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington US. 

He repeatedly struck the face of the statue with a hammer, cut off the hands and carried them off. https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/dc/man-uses-hammer-to-damage-our-lady-of-fatima-statue-at-basilica-of-national-shrine/65-696f28bc-096a-46a9-8262-28426f1f42dc

The day after that, December 1o, tornadoes left a trail of devastation across six states in the US, killing at least 70 in Kentucky alone. The state's death toll was expected to reach at least 100. “This has been the most devastating tornado event in our state’s history,” Governor Andy Beshear said. “The level of devastation is unlike anything I have ever seen.”


Mayfield Kentucky


Surely no one still thinks that God punishes sin? No one in the post-Vatican II Church of the Novus Ordo Missae (New Mass) does, that's for sure. That's the NO effect, caused by the sort of catechesis in "Catholic" schools that Michael Davies of fond memory, describes. 

In 1981 he quoted Canon George Telford resigning  as Vice-Chairman and Secretary to the Catechetical Commission of the Bishops of England and Wales because "modern catechetics is theologically corrupt and spiritually bankrupt. Its strictures and innovations are irrelevant and unmeaningful for Catholic faith, and can achieve nothing but its gradual dilution."

The man was a prophet! Decades before the pretender to the papacy Jorge Mario Bergoglio arrived on the scene, the good Canon Telford stated an important technique of modern catechetics as being "Ambiguity ... if applied skillfully (as only a Jesuit knows how) it becomes possible to talk and write about essential doctrines in a manner quite unrelated, or even contradictory, to anything taught by the Church. The golden rule is to avoid all clear and explicit statements."

Anyone who's cast a glance at the bumf NO Catholics are asked to read in Synod 2021 2023 (or wait - we've been granted a reprieve, don't have to make our submissions till March, so maybe it should be Synod 2022 2024 or 5?) will recognise exactly what Canon Telford was predicting in 1977. 

But good Proddys believe God punishes sin, because they know their bible - and traditional Catholics believe God punishes sin, too because of the understanding of Scripture they gain through the texts of the Latin Mass. 
Writing of the Anglican Church in the nineteenth century, Cardinal (now St John Henry) Newman complained:

We are over-tender in dealing with sin and sinners. We are deficient in jealous custody of the revealed Truths which Christ has left us. We allow men to speak against the Church, its ordinances, or its teaching, (or vandalise her statues - ed) without remonstrating with them. We do not separate from heretics, nay, we object to the word as if uncharitable.

... There are few if any British bishops (or New Zealand's - ed) who would openly deny a dogma of the Faith, but there are also few if any British (or NZ - ed) bishops who will accept the consequences deriving from the dogmas which they do not openly deny. ... As Catholics we believe that we were created by God with an eternal destiny in heaven made possible because God the Son became incarnate and died to atone for our sins. He offers all men the graces necessary for salvation, but those graces can be culpably rejected.

Davies was writing in 1981. What would he think of the graces of the traditional Latin Mass "culpably rejected" by the man who calls himself pope, in the insultingly named Traditionis Custodes

What would Davies think of the graces of traditional church architecture culpably rejected by parishes like Our Lady of Lourdes Palmerston North, where the seating - with no kneelers - is ranged around a central table, with the crucifix metres away on the end wall and with the tabernacle out of sight, next to an exterior door with people - and the famous Palmy not balmy wind - coming and going? What would he think of Fr Joe Grayland who does not exert himself to elevate the Host and the Chalice at the Consecration but just pushes the Sacred Species away from him?

OLOL Palmy - so woke it's got chronic insomnia 


What would Michael Davies think of the graces rejected by a priest like Fr Grayland who says to a would-be communicant kneeling in front of him, ready to receive, at the end of the queue, "I can't give you Communion on the tongue, only in the hand", and instead of giving her Christ, gives her a blessing? Father Grayland is rejecting not only grace but the Source of all grace.

It was a traditional Latin Massgoer who today declared that without a doubt there was a connection between the vandalism of Our Lady's statue at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, the day after her feast, and the tornadoes that blasted the US southern states the day after that. 

I have heard various Protestant preachers suggest that sin somehow demands that God directly punish us, but that Jesus took our place and absorbed the punishment for us.  This is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.  In the Catechism, we read that ‘. . . punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin’ (1472).  When we freely choose to sin, we take upon ourselves the consequences of sin, which we often refer to as punishment.  In essence, we punish ourselves when we sin, not God. What a comfort and consolation to be deeply convicted of this truth: God does not punish us for our sins - Father Tim McCauley.  https://catholicexchange.com/does-god-punish-us-for-our-sins

We note that Father Sumich of the traditional Latin Mass order, the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter, led a Rosary procession with the statue of Our Lady of Fatima in Mt Albert, Auckland, this very evening. As a notice advertising the procession stated: "Public Prayers are needed in desperate times".


For the mystery of iniquity already worketh: only he that now holdeth do hold, until he be taken out of the way. And then that wicked one shall be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming.

 

Holy Mass at the FSSP Auckland 


12 comments:

  1. Janis Blair:
    That's a ridiculous conclusion. Why worship idols anyway?

    I say:
    Oh dear. The statue is not an idol, and is not worshipped. It is a symbol of Catholic veneration for the Mother of God especially under her title "Our Lady of Fatima" and the attack on it was sinful. Because God is Justice, sin inevitably brings consequences and such a deliberate offence against His Mother brings dire consequences.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Paul Young:
    And the point is ...?

    Paddy McCloskey:
    Not sure what the connection is here.
    So god (sic) killed 70 innocent people because a man broke a statue?

    I say:
    Paul and Paddy, I guess you have to read the blog post to understand that the attack on that statue, which is a symbol of Catholic veneration of the Mother of God -especially under her title "Our Lady of Fatima" - was a sin. Because God is Justice, sin inevitably brings consequences and such an offence against His Mother brings dire consequences. God didn't kill 70 innocent people. No one is innocent, and we all suffer for sins, our own sins and others'. This life is nothing but preparation for eternal life and God Who is Justice and Love has awarded those 70 people the eternal life in heaven or hell which they merited in this life.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, indeed God does punish., but the idea that God does not punish directly is refuted by the Bible.

    vengeance is MINE and I WILL repay

    Deuteronomy 32:3 also quoted in Romans 12:19 and Hebrews 10:30.

    it is the nature of the carnal mind, regardless of its denomination affiliation, to view the characer of God as either love or wrath, and to deny outright or water down as I see done in this post, the trait oposte to the one said person has selectged.

    I denied the love and the Sovereign is persuading me one on one to acknoledge and repent of it

    others deny the wrath and castrate the Omnipotens into a teddy vear.

    or say that the punishment is embedded in the sin.

    but this will not do. the verse above is very explicit.

    He does punish directly ie punishment rather than logical consequences of thesin. It fudges theissue to fudge these two things,
    An example was when one of the Herods was eaten by worms and died suddenly after refusing to reject the praise of a crowd Acts 12:23.

    it makes no difference that an angel did it, as when destroying Sodom and Gomorrah. It was punishment not mere consequence

    If you can't believe thasuch a God loves then you and I who think the same have a problem.

    Our problem, not God nor scripture's

    ReplyDelete
  4. Phil Uden:
    Julia did you mean to say "Mother of God"? Or was that typo. God has no Mother, a being that always was, and is out side of time has no concept of mother or father. That is a very human view

    I say:
    Phil, Jesus was human. And He was God. And He had a Mother. Go figure.

    David Barnes:
    Julia, 'Veneration' is Roman Catholic code for worship

    I say:
    David, that may be the Protestant interpretation of 'veneration'. But Protestantism is heresy.


    Glenn Jackman:
    Mary was not the mother of God, she was not the Mother of The Father, nor the Mother of the Holy Spirit. The Lord Jesus was tripartite: Spirit, Soul and Body, Mary contributed nothing to His Spirit, contributed little to His Soul (because He was the Eternal Word of God), but Mary was a chosen vessel who contributed the flesh. As the Lord Jesus said: John 6:63 ESV
    It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
    As the Bible makes clear Mary was a very honourable woman, no more.

    It's a matter of fact. Mary gave birth to the Son of God. Satan hates Mary because in time she will crush him under her heel - and he enlists Protestants in his age-old war against Mary.

    ReplyDelete
  5. David Page:
    Veneration: 1) To regard with reverential respect or with admiring deference. 2) To honour (an icon, a relic, etc.) With a ritual act of devotion. That to me, speaks of idolatry.

    I say:
    Well, it would. You're a Protestant and thus, a heretic.

    David Page:
    Actually Julia I'm a Messianic Jewish Believer in Yeshua Messiah, Jesus Christ the Messiah. The Lord God of Israel. Oh and by the way that definition comes from the Mirium- Webster dictionary not me.

    I say:
    As I said: a heretic.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Phil Uden:
    Julia du Fresne by what definition? You need to expand

    I say:
    As defined by successive popes, infallibly.



    David Barnes:
    Phil, never argue with a Roman Catholic; they reject the Gospel in favor of polytheism.

    I say:
    Polytheism? Pardon me?

    David Barnes:
    Heretic:religion: one who differs in opinion from. established religious dogma.
    Especially: a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who refuses to acknowledge or accept a revealed truth.
    I believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Who or what do you believe?

    I say: I believe in One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and in all her revealed truths and dogmas.
    Phil Uden:

    ReplyDelete

  7. Julia, so it wasn't a typo?
    "While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
    Matthew 12:46‭, ‬48‭-‬50 ESV
    I rest my case.... The word has spoken... Not me

    Philip Creed:
    Near the cross of Jesus stood His mother, his mother's sister Mary, who was the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw His mother and the disciple whom He loved standing beside her, He said to His mother "Woman here is your Son", Then He said to the disciple "There is your mother." And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home. John 19:25-27
    Jesus said that Mary was His mother, and He also said "I am who am" which the Jews found blasphemous. He was saying that He was God. Mary was thus the mother of God, who is three persons in one.
    Philip Creed:
    People will vandalise statues just as they vandalise churches. People will burn statues just as they burn churches, because they do not believe that statues should be worshipped, and they do not believe God should be worshipped. People who hate God hate His mother, and so they try to destroy whatever represents that person, in the case a simple statue made out of whatever. People who really hate God will try to destroy the temple of the Holy spirit which is the believer. Jesus prophesied that people would destroy the Jewish Temple, not leaving one stone upon another, but He also prophesised that they would try to destroy Him, the living temple, but that He would be raised up to new life. And they did, they crucified Him, and they destroyed the Temple in 70 A.D. However He was raised up to new life, but the temple was not. The stones are dead, but the spirit indeed gives life.
    Jesus was not tripartite : Spirit, Soul and Body, as the Holy Bible states that He was one with His Father. Jesus said he who was seen me has seen the Father. Jesus was not separated into Spirit, soul and body. His resurrection was really physical, not just spiritual. Recall John 20:27-28 when doubting Thomas placed his finger on Jesus hands and his hand in Jesus side, where the soldier's lance had pierced Him.


    ReplyDelete
  8. Phil Uden:
    Philip, so you believe Jesus was separate from God? "Modalism is probably the most common theological error concerning the nature of God. It is a denial of the Trinity. Modalism states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes or forms. Thus, God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times." Carm.org
    I think you may have missed my point entirely, What I'm saying is "God" has no earthly mother, to say otherwise is to miss the point of God entirely. If however I am conversing with someone who does not believe in the Trinity, I can understand the distinction error
    Home
    CARM.ORG

    Philip Creed:
    No, Jesus was not separate from God, He was one of the three persons of the Trinity. Jesus was separated from His Father only after He died on the cross as He went to the place known as Hades because He took upon Himself all the sins of the world. Mary was the mother of Jesus and the mother of God, as Jesus indicated as His last words on the cross in John 19:25-27. How could she not be otherwise? You may say God has no mother, but Jesus did not say this did He?
    We may say that God has no mother, because He existed from all eternity. Scripture however makes it clear that Jesus did say that anyone who does the will of the Father was his mother and his brother and his sister. Therefore we who do His will are all his mothers and His brothers. As was quoted earlier in Matthew 12:46-48, this must b e true. But does this mean that God has many mothers? No of course not, it is a figure of speech which Jesus used to show that He considered His disciples to be His brothers and His mothers.
    I think you are right when you say that God has no earthly mother, because His mother is no longer on earth. She is in heaven, as she was assumed into Heaven where she is now with her son, the eternal Word, the logos.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Phil Uden:
    Philip, so you believe Jesus was separate from God? "Modalism is probably the most common theological error concerning the nature of God. It is a denial of the Trinity. Modalism states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes or forms. Thus, God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times." Carm.org
    I think you may have missed my point entirely, What I'm saying is "God" has no earthly mother, to say otherwise is to miss the point of God entirely. If however I am conversing with someone who does not believe in the Trinity, I can understand the distinction error
    Home
    CARM.ORG

    Philip Creed:
    No, Jesus was not separate from God, He was one of the three persons of the Trinity. Jesus was separated from His Father only after He died on the cross as He went to the place known as Hades because He took upon Himself all the sins of the world. Mary was the mother of Jesus and the mother of God, as Jesus indicated as His last words on the cross in John 19:25-27. How could she not be otherwise? You may say God has no mother, but Jesus did not say this did He?
    We may say that God has no mother, because He existed from all eternity. Scripture however makes it clear that Jesus did say that anyone who does the will of the Father was his mother and his brother and his sister. Therefore we who do His will are all his mothers and His brothers. As was quoted earlier in Matthew 12:46-48, this must b e true. But does this mean that God has many mothers? No of course not, it is a figure of speech which Jesus used to show that He considered His disciples to be His brothers and His mothers.
    I think you are right when you say that God has no earthly mother, because His mother is no longer on earth. She is in heaven, as she was assumed into Heaven where she is now with her son, the eternal Word, the logos.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ray McKendry:
    Philip, so is the mother of God theory an argument from silence?
    How can Mary be addressed as though we had access to her or needed to have access to her if she has not died for the people like Jesus did for His people? Mary is dead to this world now and alive in heaven only through faith in her son the Lord Jesus Christ.

    I say:
    Ray, Mary did die for the people like Jesus did. Their Hearts were as one and she suffered with Him intimately, sharing all His torments.

    David Page:
    Philip, I honor Mary as the mother of Jesus and I take her word very seriously and am obedient to it. Her last recorded words were: "This is Jesus, do whatever he tells you."

    Ray McKendry:
    David Page Sorry I laffed. The scripture is right and good and true but using it as the answer is quite amusing! aye?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Philip Creed:
    Although Mary did not die for our since, she cooperated in the plan of salvation which God had for us all for all eternity, since He created Adam and Eve and knew of the fall. Many who pray to her have devout faith in Our Lord, and because on Earth, Mary was able to ask her Son, Jesus, to perform miracles, such as the wedding feast at Cana, so in Heaven, she is able to ask Him to spare us from His wrath which we may deserve at the Day of Judgement.
    We believe in the intercession of the saints, so praying to Our Lady and giving thanks to her for Jesus is perfectly scriptural. It is no different to the praise of her kinswoman Elizabeth who praised the Lord in Her, when Mary travelled to the hill country of Judea to meet Elizabeth.
    So is Ray McKendry a scoffer at the faith of those who trust in the Lord? Why the smile at the comments made earlier? Jesus plainly said this is your mother, meaning that the disciples of His were to see Her as their mother, and His mother. How can you say this is a theory from silence? Don't you believe in the truth of the Holy Scriptures? Didn't St Paul state in his letter to the Corinthians that all scripture is inspired by God and is useful for preaching, teaching and correcting?
    Clearly you do not really believe in the Word of God if you state that the answer to questions of faith is amusing because it comes from the scriptures?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ray McKendry:
    Philip, you said "so in Heaven, she (Mary) is able to ask Him to spare us from His wrath which we may deserve at the Day of Judgement." Who is dishonouring Scripture now?

    Phil Uden:
    Philip, it states in the bible that we are saved by Jesus alone... Where does Mary come into it... That's terrifying

    I say:
    Phil, she comes into it at the Annunciation. You know, "the Angel of the Lord declared unto Mary" and so on and so forth. You should realise that our Lord and His Mother are one in mind and heart. That's hardly 'terrifying'. It's beautiful.

    Johanna Whittaker
    Natural events have their own timetable.
    God uses most anything to get our attention - and to worship Him and Him alone. ��

    ReplyDelete