Jesuit Justifies Abortion — “Neither the Order Nor Rome Intervenes”

Juan  Masiá Clavel

Juan Masiá Clavel

Wow! When I saw this post on “The Eponymous Flower”, I felt a shudder run down my spine. I recognised this Spanish Jesuit immediately, although almost three decades have gone by since I saw him. I am sure that this is the same Jesuit who had come to the parish of the town where I was working in southern Spain to give a talk on this very subject of Abortion. It was shocking and completely in opposition to the Catholic Church’s teaching on the humanity of the foetus from the moment of conception! At first he waffled around this point until one of the other priests in the audience got fed up and posed the question: “When can the foetus be considered ‘human’?” Fr. Masia said he was “not sure”, and then when pressed a bit more, said something like “about a few weeks into its development”!!! Everyone was stunned; a few people walked out of the talk (and I wish I’d had the guts to do that then) but although there were some mutterings, no one really tackled this heretical unorthodox statement. I wish I could turn the clock back to that day; I would no longer be sitting in shocked silence, whilst the acceptance of murdering babies at the very start of life was condoned in a Catholic parish hall, by a Catholic priest!

(Madrid), the Spanish Jesuit  and Bioethicist Juan  Masiá Clavel has again defended the killing of unborn children. For years, Father Masiá distinguishes between “abortion and abortion” (see separate report Jesuit Justifies Abortion – And What do the Bishops and Rome do  ) “There are situations where it is irresponsible not to perform abortion,” the Jesuit wrote on New Year’s Day on his blog, which is connected with the Spanish daily El Pais. Critics accuse the Jesuits of being abortion apologists. All knew it, but no one has taken action….

Read more

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

128 Responses to Jesuit Justifies Abortion — “Neither the Order Nor Rome Intervenes”

  1. Toadspitttle says:

    People have differing ideas about things.
    And each of us considers our own ideas the only correct ones.


  2. Roger says:

    The Annuciation and Incarnation is the yardstick because it is the moment of Conception.
    Abortion is Mass murder. Abortion is pure Satanism!!
    Where do ideas come from? Whose ideas? What is the measure of Truth? The very word Gospel dispels opinions where Truth has been revealed.
    What shocks isn’t the opinions it the lack of Faith that justifies the Murder of the Innocent.


  3. GC says:

    Toad, I see your Dr Perry was in the Ethics Centre of Santa Clara Univeristy, “a Jesuit university in Silicon Valley”, no less.

    I suppose it would be too previous to say that there appears to be a pattern emerging here.


  4. Toadspitttle says:

    Good catch, GC. I missed that.
    Just wanted to find some sort of wrap on the topic.
    It takes all sorts, as we agree – but this development is somewhat startling – even to me, I must admit. Still, keeps us on our toes, don’t it?
    (I seemed to remember reading that Aquinas and Augustine – relentlessly quoted by people on other topics – whenever it suits them – had their own ideas about abortion, that’s all.)


  5. kathleen says:

    Yes, well spotted GC!

    The “it takes all sorts” from Toad gives the wrong message. There is Truth and there is Error – that’s all.

    To be honest I don’t think Fr. Masiá, using a lot of relativism in his waffling, clearly admitted that aborting babies was OK – he didn’t need to. He refused to see them as human beings (i.e. infused with an immortal soul created in God’s Image and Likeness) at the incipience of life. It was just as good as saying: “as they’re not human yet, they can be discarded”!

    Action really must be taken against this sort of disobedience in the Church IMHO.


  6. Toadspitttle says:

    “There is Truth and there is Error – that’s all.”

    Simple as that.
    And everyone knows which is which.
    Makes you wonder why there are any differences of opinion, doesn’t it?


  7. Jesuit theology has been goners for a long time! Note, Von Balthasar left the Jesuits, and was allowed to be a so-called secular priest, and thank God (and this was many years ago, in the good old 20th century!) Just who is leading this the RCC now? And is “Francis” the last pope? Any Traditional Catholics out there that might believe this? A friendly question really. I just wonder where many Traditional Catholics reside? And I am not anti-Catholic either, being born and raised Irish RC, in Dublin in the 50’s. My first degree was even a BA in Catholic Philosophy (that was many years ago now too). But, I am an Evangelical Anglican now, and for many years. 🙂


  8. kathleen says:

    Rev. Robert,

    Are you saying to be a “Traditional Catholic” is bad? And where do we “reside”? Well, everywhere – all over the world, even in the beloved homeland of my father’s ancestors, Ireland!

    Everyone should be a Traditional Catholic, for to be a non-traditionalist is to be a modernist…. and embrace many ideas that go against Our One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’s teachings and practices. Modernism is a curse that has brought endless abuses and errors infiltrating into our Church. Many good Popes in the past have warned of its dangers, but it blew in like a whirlwind after the Second Vatican Council. Many people who leave the Church and join Protestant churches (or leave the practice of religion altogether) have been tainted by this Modernism they encountered in their faith journeys.


  9. kathleen says:

    “Jesuit theology has been goners for a long time!

    I agree with that – although it makes me very sad to say so. My father and his brothers were all well educated by the Jesuits (in the days well before VII) and they were strong and faithful Catholics till the end of their lives.

    One of my uncles became a Jesuit priest who spent most of his priesthood travelling abroad either teaching or giving retreats. He never talked much about the changes after the Council, but he became rather introverted and melancholy (according to my father) in his last years. Perhaps he could not reconcile his former Jesuit training to the modernist mindset in the aftermath of the Council? I don’t know. He died very suddenly from a heart attack just after celebrating Holy Mass, and only two weeks after arriving in Australia. He was only in his sixties.

    The great Catholic author and exorcist, Malachi Martin, left the Jesuits when he realised how great was its fall into Modernism. Many other Jesuit vocations have been lost for the same reason and its consequences where worldly values are embraced. It is a tragedy for the Company of Jesus, whose founder was so adamant that orthodoxy and loyalty to the Holy Father and Catholic Church should be a fundamental charisma of the Order.


  10. @Kathleen: First, I am a conservative in both the political and biblical-theological! I left Catholicism just after Vatican II, and especially after reading the GS (Gaudium et spes), and too the NA (Nostra aetate). Note I was a so-called English Benedictine for a few years in my mid 20’s (after my first combat tour with the RMC’s, Royal Marines…being “attached” (with a few others – RMC’s – to the American Marine Force Recon, in the Nam. That was a long time ago now, 1968. I am 64). My last combat was in Gulf War I (I am a retired RMC, and was a “mustang”…enlisted to officer). I say the latter to make the point, that after Gulf War I, I went to live and teach in Israel, in the latter 90’s. I hold two theological doctorates. This was a great time and real providence for me! Since about 1993, I have been a “Biblical” and Christian Zionist (yes I fully support Modern Israel!), even as an Anglican presbyter! Aye, I am Historic Premillennial, and post-trib, on the so-called Eschatological (End-Times). And we are surely “in”, at least the beginning stages of those days! Noting the great Gentile Apostasy that surrounds us today! Note too, I am an Augustinian, as too a Neo-Calvinist theologically, at least on the Doctrines of Grace! (See the classic Thirty-Nine Articles). (My very first Catholic priest – Fr. Sweeny -, in Dublin Ireland, in the 1950’s, and early 60’s was an Catholic Augustinian, one of the Orders)… He was a great affect on me here, even as a lad!

    As too Modernism (modernity), and its son, Postmodernity, I have been fighting against this for many years myself! This has simply been the great cultural ruin of our time! With the general loss of the Judeo-Christian ethic, etc. Sadly R. Catholicism has bitten down hard here, at least for the most part. And we can see this quite profoundly in “Francis”! So its not just general Protestantism that has gone here, but quite simply the majority in the historical churches! We can even see this with the “emergent” so-called theology, with many in Evangelicalism! Note, the British so-called “Open Evangelicalism”, which has generally ruined the CoE, and other so-called Anglican groups, (as in America). Note, I live now in America, I am semi-retired, but do hospital chaplain work almost daily. My dear wife (younger than I) has chronic COPD, surely too one of the reasons we came to the US and the So. Cal to live.

    Finally, I am not anti Catholic Traditionalist per se, this of course was the Church I knew in Dublin Ireland growing up! But, of course biblically, I cannot follow now many of the Traditional Catholic doctrines, but I quite appreciate the general conservative nature here! WE have much to agree on here at least! The Trinity of God, the Hypostatic Union of Christ, of course the Virgin Birth (and I personally believe that Mary is the Theotokos (God-bearer), and Ever Virgin. And the Vicarious Atonement of Christ, HIS bodily Resurrection, Ascension and Mediatoral Work of Christ (“Christ Jesus”) on the Throne of Grace & Glory! And of course my own place (as many) in believing in the literal Second Coming of Christ, back to the place where He ascended, (Mount Olivet, Acts 1: 9-12 / Zech. 14: 1-4, etc.)

    Btw too, I lived through the whole (or at least part) of the Catholic Charismatic Movement, in the UK (Britain), as a bit of the American (knowing some family members who went there in the 70’s and 80’s. My little brother, 51 was in the American USMC -8o’s-, and is now an America citizen).


  11. johnhenrycn says:

    The commenter above me is “an Evangelical Anglican, conservative, Royal Marine, Christian Zionist, Historic Premillenial post-trib Augustinian Neo-Calvinist hospital chaplain.

    …and the life of many a cocktail party, no doubt 😉


  12. I rarely drink, and then only a Fosters maybe? My little brother has the drinking problem in our Irish family (at least in this generation). 😉 But thankfully he no longer drinks at all!

    And btw, I have, and still sometimes read a bit of John Henry Newman! He was an Anglican first! 😉


  13. Roger says:

    Nice to read and digest a balance of critique and observation. For Toad the Faith is very simply very simply. Adam and Eve in an Enlightened State of knowledge and Grace knowingly did the one thing they had been told NOT to do! Sounds a familiar parently problem doesn’t it?
    They were evicted from Paradise (not note Heaven of the Beatific Vision) and landed in a place of Penance. Thats is what the Earth is. St Bernadette of the Immaculate Conception was told that she would find Happiness in the next world not this. The Sacraments are the medicine of the Soul necessary for Eternal Life in Heaven. The Eternity of Heaven or Hell thats each individuals choice in this world
    Modernism and Materialism have thrown the Yoke of Faith (the Cross) on the basis that they Understand the Meaning of Life! (Tree Of Life?) know everything and have an answer to everything!
    The priest is called OUT of the world to serve God expressly as the mediator between Man and God. The Priest and the religious are expressly NOT of this world. Rome is one step away from becoming One with the world.


  14. kathleen says:

    @ irishanglican

    Thank you very much for that long explanation, though I bashfully must admit (perhaps like JH?) that I found it a bit hard to work out what you really are – so many titles! 😉 I’m just simply a “Traditional Catholic”!
    Anyway, after a second reading, I think you have quite a lot in common with Catholicism, in spite of leaving the Faith of our Fathers. That, IMO, is a tragedy.

    I was only a little child when Vatican II was taking place, but I clearly remember the terrible aftermath…. and the deep sorrow my devout Catholic parents felt with the loss of the Tridentine Mass of the Ages, and so much beautiful, holy Catholic piety. It was a crazy period, but they stuck like rocks to their Catholic Faith, although their hearts were broken. In my home we kept many of the pious Catholic practices, even (probably) being laughed at by those who had gone along with the changes, and yet this was not easy. Banal liberalism and modernism was all around us.

    I know for a fact that my father was approached many times by old friends who had joined the SSPX, trying to get him to join as well, and I’m sure he was sorely tempted to go along to the surprisingly large following it had in my home town. Paradoxically, it was precisely that early Jesuit-training of obedience to the Holy Father (Pope Paul VI at the time) that was too strong for him to be able to do that.
    It was a truly wonderful moment when Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI made it possible for us to enjoy the sublime Tridentine Mass again. My father was no longer alive by then, but my mother was, and she (like so many others) was overjoyed.

    Perhaps (as you live in the US now) you are unaware of the current growth of traditional Catholic groups and orders here in Europe. Vocations to the priesthood and religious life are on the increase in these orders – whereas they are practically zero in Nu-Church! It’s a tough struggle all same, as we are swimming against a tide of “wolves” and anti-Catholicism in every sphere of life. Yes, as Pope Benedict XVI himself stated: we even have “wolves” inside our doors!

    Steadfastness, courage, prayer and fasting, were never so important, to fight against these evils, as they are today.


  15. And of course there is what’s called the Federal Vision in theology, that teaching and doctrine that Adam was the Federal Head of the Race, and of course he took all of us down in sin, when he sinned, i.e. original sin! But the Last Adam Christ has come to retrieve and save us! Note, I hold to what is called the Infralapsarianism position: the theological position that God’s decree to save “follows” logically (not temporarily) the decision to create and permit the fall. God will not save everybody! Even Aquinas called himself an Augustinian, and said, that in the end God would not save everyone, but surely the elect, those that believed and sought to follow Christ unto the grace and glory!


  16. Shadaan says:

    The Right to Life is the foundational freedom from which all other rights and freedoms are derived. That been said we should remember that we collectively using philosophy of politics and religion have killed millions of people rape women in the process in abortions, wars, murder and other atrocities, and we continue to do so while we talk God. We continue to say things like “that it is certainly important that this right is protected for all human beings, whether they are born or not”. In this unreasonable and cruel world of ours I believe that no one else has the right to tell a woman what she can or will do when faced with an unintended pregnancy or rape by men. Who is going to feed this child and nobody fed the millions that have been poor for eons and no one is going feed the living poor on earth? The politicians and the religious leaders talk morality and are always ready to defend their so called ethics out of human ideology when they themselves are responsible for the sufferings on earth. They continue to cause problems by dividing people, lies about God, favouring the rich and the powerful and playing appointed leaders who work for the benefit of the privileged. How can you appease anyone when you yourself are not appeased with your desires?


  17. @Kathleen: Forgive my density, I am surely an old “theolog”! And I love the Holy Scripture! And I would call myself something of a Pauline Christian, since Paul was and is of course the Apostle to the Gentiles. Yes, I am NOT anti-Catholic, I still have some extended family who are R. Catholic. But, we can all most surely see the great apostasy in the Church, and here in the churches, both Protestant and Catholic! It is my belief that humanity will not survive the 21st century! And I say this with great sadness, but also with I hope the help of God’s awareness, word and Spirit! The hour is surely VERY late! Note, such texts as Matt. 25: 1-13, with Luke 18: 7-8!

    Btw, I have read and liked Ratzinger well before he was Pope. He is without doubt the greatest theologian to sit in the so-called Chair of Peter, at least in my lifetime! But of course I don’t believe in the essence of the papacy, i.e. the whole doctrine of Infallibility! That alone to my mind resides in the Holy Scripture, and with the Holy Spirit Himself! 🙂 But let us all who truly name and love Christ Jesus, stand as close as we can against the whole wiles of ‘the world, the flesh, and the devil’!


  18. Btw, when people ask, just what are you? I say I am a Evangelical Anglican presbyter, but one who is too a Neo-Calvinist theologically! I hope that’s short enough, and understandable? 😉


  19. kathleen says:

    Well, I’m still a bit puzzled to be honest. Aren’t some of those terms contradictory?

    And after Catholic Ireland’s heroic stand against Henry VIII’s church, suffering such terrible penalties rather than give in to the Protestant reform, I find your embracing of Anglicanism as an Irishman even more puzzling. Anglicans are “crossing back over the Tiber” in droves, but you crossed over in the other direction!!

    I’m afraid I see all the dozens of Protestant leaders (for there are many more than just Henry and Calvin) from the 16th century onwards, who broke away from the Church, as heretics.

    As to your other points (comment @ 21:43) yes indeed, the Doctrine of Hell has been ignored by far too many in the Church nowadays. So many souls may have been lost due to those in authority refusing to talk about it. Hell is very real, and to deny its existence is as good as calling Our Blessed Lord a liar! He spoke many times about the possibility of losing one’s soul and ending up in Hell. It is inconceivable that He would have warned us about it so often if no one were ever to end up there. Besides, if there is no Hell, there is no Free Will; (which we all know there is of course). Those who go to Hell, go there through their own free choice.

    @ 22:09. You do not believe in infallibility? Christ gave this promise to Peter (and thus to all his followers as Vicars of Christ) that “whatever is bound on Earth will be bound of Heaven”. He assured Peter that “the gates of Hell” [error] would not prevail against His Church. This only applies to the Catholic Church’s Magisterial teaching on Doctrine and Dogma, Faith and Morals. It cannot err. Peter, and all the Popes were fallible men – many were holy, others were not – but they were all sinners. Infallibility only applies to the Pope’s teaching ex catedra.
    The Holy Spirit guides and protects the purity of the Church, now and forever. Even if the “smoke of Satan” is wafting around, doing its best to destroy it.

    It’s very late here, so I’m off to bed now – good night!


  20. @kathleen: I can see that you don’t have any real working knowledge of classic Protestantism! And the contradiction sadly appears in your ignorance here! And of course this is not the place for me to write a defense, but again, we conservative Evangelical Protestants, Bible believing, etc., should have some common ground with conservative and Traditional Catholics, at least those that truly believe that Jesus is God & Man, Incarnate, and in the divinity and deity of Christ, and His vicarious Atonement! Indeed the real enemy is not really so much each other, as a fallen and godless world, which in fact worsens almost daily!

    But indeed and truly the “smoke of Satan” is not mere words, but the grave apostasy we see in all the so-called historical churches, again both Catholic and Protestant! I know Traditional Catholics that believe perhaps? this Pope “Francis”, might be the last pope, and thus he will prove apostate! But whatever, we all must keep our Holy Bible open (and reading it with belief and holy awe), and keep our spirit clean!

    Yours dear lady,

    In Christ,


  21. Toadspitttle says:

    As long as Irishanglican ( lovely name!) fails to realise that everything Catholic – and only Catholic – is right and true, and everything unCatholic is wrong and false, we will get no sleep round here.
    Not that we want any.


  22. kathleen says:

    @ irishanglican
    In fact I know a lot about Protestants – they are all around in every shape and size, splitting up into ever more groups and churches. I have Protestant friends (not of your “brand” though 😉 ) and they, and all the rest, consider themselves “classic Protestants”, just like you. Yet they have conflicting beliefs within their unifying Christian identity.

    However, I do agree with you that we (Catholics) do still have more in common with some of these multiple Christian brethren of ours than others. It’s this “common ground” you say we share, from: “…those that truly believe that Jesus is God & Man, Incarnate, and in the divinity and deity of Christ, and His vicarious Atonement! Indeed the real enemy is not really so much each other, as a fallen and godless world, which in fact worsens almost daily!”

    The “smoke of Satan” I was referring to has nothing to do with Protestant churches (classic or otherwise) but with the godless culture we are living in nowadays that wants to crush us. It also refers to those “Catholics”, who refuse to leave the Church, but are trying to destroy her from within. These are the dangerous enemies of the Faith.


  23. @TS & kathleen: Yes, I know I am on Traditional Catholic ground here, and thank you to let this old Irishman, (now more a Anglo-Irish btw) living in America. And again my criticism of Catholicism certainly does not come from some place of modernity & postmodernity! My conservatism comes from my own family history, which my father, great-uncles, uncles and even a few aunts gave in WW II in the British military! (RIP all now! A few of my aunts were nurses.) One of my older cousins was killed at Anzio (he was in the so-called American-Canadian “Devils Brigade”)…he went all the way to Canada from Ireland to England, then to train in America (Montana). To die in Italy! (RIP)

    “Toad”, note I was Anglo-Catholic for a while, when I first went to Anglicanism. But that was years ago now, it was not long before I became a “classic” Anglican Reformed, through my further study of Holy Scripture! (Btw, I did my D. Phil. on Luther’s Ontology of the Cross, back in the mid 90s. And note, there are not a few Catholic theolog’s, that have now found Luther also. And they are not liberals either!. Note too, the great onetime friendship between Von. B and Karl Barth!). Though as I have written elsewhere, I almost went to Orthodoxy (the EO), some years past, but the loss of the doctrine of Imputation there, kept me Reformed. Though I am somewhat close to the EO on the Trinity of God (no “filioque” for me!), and their Christology! There is much to value in Orthodoxy! (Note the First few Ecumenical Councils, came off their ground and history, 325, etc.)

    Btw, Kathleen, it was Pope Paul VI who first used the term, the “smoke of Satan”, and he was talking about that “smoke” right in the midst of the Catholic Church itself! Indeed Satan has been quite alive and well on planet earth, and though now quite defeated by Christ spiritually at Calvary, his ticket has not been completely punched (Rom. 16: 20), he is allowed by God to walk about and is still the “god” of this age and world, (1 Cor. 4: 4). But he is already completely defeated, in the great Name and Person of Jesus! (Heb. 13: 20-21)


  24. Toadspitttle says:

    I remember Brendan Behan’s description of an Anglo-Catholic as “…a Protestant on a horse.”

    …And your comments, mounted or otherwise, are most welcome.
    To Toad, at least.
    Bit of light relief, really.


  25. Yes, the Anglo-Catholic as Anglo-Catholicism, has been called many things! But indeed “Protestant” still rides! 😉 Did I hear via-media? Catholic & Protestant! This is always part of the Anglo-Catholic definition itself! 🙂 I would agree, but with “catholic” and “protestant”, or better “Reformed”! Certainly the capital in “Reformed” means protestant to me! But I know some Anglo-Catholics, and even a few R. Catholics, who claim to be Augustinian!


  26. Frere Rabit says:

    Just popped in to wish a belated Happy New Year to all. One look at the above exchange tells me all I need to know. Life is too short for complex contrariwise muddled verbiage dressed up as discussion. Get a grip…


  27. Truth can only exist in freedom and exchange, i.e. dialogue, allowing one to think, search and believe. THIS IS the “grip”!


  28. johnhenrycn says:

    Don’t mind our rabbity colleague, Rev. He’s got a thorn in his paw that’s been festering for years.


  29. Roger says:

    Quite fascinating. Fr Robert, Anglicanism has the Crown as its Head; this distinguishes it from Lutherism. There are two foundations to both the Christian and the Jewish. The Bible and Sacred Tradition. Luther and the Anglicans severed from the Roman Church after 1500 years of Tradition. They were born at a specific point in History and whatever Tradition they have is 500 years old. Their Bible excludes certain books. The precise argument at this time is that Rome is cutting itself off NOT from Tridentine (thats too simple!) but actually from sacred Tradition. That is the actual schism between those throwing off the yoke of tradition as outdated, and those clinging to both the Bible and the Faith Of Our Fathers. Modernism is the Deification to Material Science. Science proves therefore the Faith must be changed for the Truth of proven Science. The Church that retains Christ’s promise must retain the Bible and sacred traditions handed by Him to His Apostles. Can a Pope be judged? Yes He can because His Authority must come from these two sources which lead like a rosary bead to Christ. If a Pope severs this link to the Bible and Sacred Tradition he would simply be in the same position as Lucifer, an Angel of Light turned into Satan. The fathers of the Church saw Wormwood as precisely that, a Fallen Pope. We never blindly follow, neither do we abandon. You have actually walked away.

    [Moderator comments: spelling and punctuation corrected for you Roger.]


  30. Thanks JH, I know its hard for some people to allow freedom & conscience, even when we don’t agree. I can remember growing up in the 50’s, and we Irish Catholics thought that certainly only “Catholics” were going to heaven (not Jews or Protestants), of course with a long trip to purgatory for most of us! Also, a one time Catholic like me, that leaves the fold is always considered apostate by some Traditionalists, I know that! But we are always bound too by conscience, and mine is toward the Holy Scripture! Now I find it strange that so many so-called Catholics are really liberals! At least many I have met, especially since I have been in America, though there are many Catholic liberals too in Ireland. Just a note, but I have found the English so-called Catholics to be more conservative now.

    Btw, but what do Catholic Traditionalists here believe about the Ordinariate’s? Pro or con?


  31. PS..Of course I was speaking of the English Brit Catholics!


  32. johnhenrycn says:

    You seem like an interesting, provocative and engaging fellow. Can’t quite decide how to address you, though. I’m afraid “Fr” is a bridge too far, but “Rev” seems a bit supercilious when used by a Catholic speaking to a minister of the Anglican (harrumph) persuasion. Whatever, fresh meat is always welcome.


  33. @Roger: Interesting! But Satan or Lucifer, is not in some dualism with God, to use Luther’s term, Satan is GOD’s satan, he can only do what God allows him, for God is always Sovereign over all of His creation, man and the fallen angels! And I have only walked away from Rome and the papacy, never the true Church which is always Christ Himself! And I do see true believers in both Rome and Protestantism. But yes, my authority is foremost the Holy Scripture, but sola Scriptura, or Scripture alone, does not reject tradition in tot or total, but any Christian tradition must be subordinate to the Holy and Scared Scripture! Tradition if historical and pressed by Scripture can be a useful guide, as were the trinitarian and christological statements of Nicaea, Constantinople, Chalcedon, etc. So the Reformers and the Protestant orthodox hold to the historical Church Catholic also, just not the Church of Rome alone or the papacy!


  34. @JH: Since I am semi-retired, but still do hospital chaplain work almost daily, I use the term “Father”, but of course I see it as does Paul, as a “pastoral” title, noting 1 Cor. 4: 15, a great Pauline verse btw! But, heck just call me Robert, most that just cannot use either Father or Reverend on the blogs do. But I don’t use Bob or Bobby, my wife calls me Robby, and other close friends call me Rob.


  35. johnhenrycn says:

    Well my brother was named Robert, too; so it’s a name I’ve always loved.


  36. johnhenrycn says:

    Now, just reverse the comma and the semi-colon in my reply, and add one comma to it, and Bob’s your uncle. Or Bobby.


  37. Brother Burrito says:

    I fixed it for you, JH.

    Have you seen our latest post on blog stats? You get an honourable mention.


  38. There’s been some great “Robert’s”! For me, I liked the movie, British and Italian, Jesus of Nazareth, and Robert Powell played Jesus, (1977) great movie! Perhaps my favorite Jesus movie! I also like poetry, Robert Burns, and the later American nature poet Robert Frost. And of course the American Southern Civil War General Robert E. Lee! I love history btw, both British and American!


  39. johnhenrycn says:

    6 sentences. 5 exclamation marks. And now we know you like Jesus movies, Robert Burns’s poetry and the Confederacy. Must be an Irish thing, wearing your heart on your sleeve.


  40. Yes, I am an Irishman, and too an Anglo-Irish guy, since I am a retired RMC, and officer and a gentleman! But, I am a “Mustang”, enlisted to officer. (Btw, still about 150-155 lbs, at 5″ 11). As the American Marines say, lean & mean! 😉 Yes, a bit of pride runs in this old Irish family! And btw too, I am a first-born son! My father was a very tough act to follow, both a former Spit pilot in the RAF, WW II. And in college (after the war) a British bit actor. He also owned together (with a friend) and they both flew their P-51 Mustang in air races as a hobby. He retired as a scientist and physicist. Died at 88, RIP! I miss this old man! And yes, I am something of my father’s son. I have not even mentioned my mothers beauty (inside and out)! (RIP) too.


  41. johnhenrycn says:

    I believe every word you say. Especially the bit about your father, the bit actor.

    But really, I believe every word you say about your family and wish you the joy of them.


  42. I have a few pic’s of both my father (at the telescope) and my mother on my profile! The younger female pic’s are my wife.


  43. Toadspitttle says:

    Toad, who has been reading Unamuno, (possibly too much) recently – has come up with a ‘theological’ notion; God’s ultimate triumph over Satan will be to deny him rulership of Hell.

    Hmm. Contingent on their joint existence, of course.


  44. kathleen says:

    @ Robert (as you liked to be called), it is interesting hearing all about you and your family, but I would like to get back to your earlier comment yesterday:

    “And I have only walked away from Rome and the papacy, never the true Church which is always Christ Himself!”

    Forgive me for being blunt, but that is incorrect!
    How can the Church (Teaching Body on Earth carrying on Christ’s Mission) be Christ (Son of God) Himself?
    Christ built His Church, saying to Peter: “Thou art Peter [meaning “rock”] and upon this rock I will build My Church….” (The Popes are the successors of Peter, as I know you are well aware.) To use a well-known metaphor: Christ is the “Bridegroom”; the Church is the “Bride of Christ”. Certainly they are united; but they are not the same.

    St. Augustine, on that post on CP&S the other day, advises: “Let us love the Lord our God, let us love His Church; love Him as a Father, and Her as a Mother.”

    You have walked away from Mother Church Robert – let’s be frank.
    And in doing so you have embraced different parts of Protestant churches, perhaps to justify the numerous names you give your current beliefs.
    Though that is not to say that much of what you say (re Satan, liberalism among many Catholics in the Church today, etc.) is not absolutely correct.

    So… did the holy martyrs die in vain? Rather than renounce their Faith in the One True Church, they preferred to undergo the most agonising tortures, and sacrifice their very lives, than to commit apostasy.

    To say you left the Church because of the many liberals and errors (sins) you encountered, is paramount to abandoning your ship in a storm to the elements, instead of trying to steer her through the waves. Certainly there are enemies within the gates at present – the “smoke of Satan” as we were saying – but that is no excuse to wash one’s hands of the problems and look elsewhere. St. Catherine of Siena went in person to confront the Pope about the problems of her day in the Church! We can hardly do that, but we can stay and fight these errors by giving strong testimonies of our faith in our daily lives. Enormous amounts of good are done by ordinary people living their lives in faithful obedience to the teachings of Christ in His Church.


  45. Toadspitttle says:

    “Christ built His Church, saying to Peter: “Thou art Peter [meaning “rock”] and upon this rock I will build My Church….” “

    Glad you mentioned that, Kathleen – because I’ve recently been wondering – how do any of us know Christ said that?
    Who heard him? Who reported it to us?
    (Yet another comment. D’oh!)


  46. @kathleen: I have answered your last post, and I hope you moderate it?


  47. @Gertrude: A-okay, command received! But, true faith is not buried, or afraid to speak, even when we are in the darkness, and let me tell you, the West is surely in the gravest hour and darkness I have seen in my 64 years! And this quite includes Roman Catholicism! I shall remove! 🙂


  48. johnhenrycn says:


  49. johnhenrycn says:

    …you’re probably good at knitting a sweater by the fireside, but Robert, you must settle down.


  50. kathleen says:

    Toad @ 10:38 yesterday

    It was most probably an eye-witness account from St. Matthew the Apostle and Evangelist.


  51. Toadspittle says:

    …You mean we don’t know?
    Isn’t the entire Catholic Church and the papacy predicated on those few words?


  52. @Toad: Let’s see, I was asked nicely, but tersely, by Gertrude to hit the road, this is not my blog interest according to her! And I don’t “knit”, nor play games on the blog, as you mate! I wonder if you will see 64? And “kathleen” did not moderate what I wrote about towards Matt. 16:16-17? So it seems you people (Traditional Catholics here at least) are the one’s quite afraid, and need to “settle down” and listen and dialogue! Respect must be given, if one wants to receive it back. Note again, I lived and taught in Israel in the latter 90’s, I had/have of course many Jewish friends, and even a few Muslims ones there!


  53. Toadspittle says:

    I must say Gertrude was right, Robert. Not because of your opinions (which, in my opinion, which are no bizarre than most religious ones) but because you are a boring old windbag..
    (…In my opinion. I might be wrong, of course.)

    Will I see 64? Not again, I hope.
    And if you wonder if I want to receive… “any respect back,” the answer is no.


  54. Toadspittle says:

    I fear we are at cross purposes, GC.

    I’m prepared to accept, more or less, that if Christ said, “Thou art Peter, and on this rock…” etc. – then we might well assume the papacy has an historical basis, metaphysically at least.

    That is not the point.

    What I’m questioning is how we know Christ ever said it in the first place. Maybe someone – maybe Matthew, thinks Kathleen, (only thinks mind you!) heard Christ say it. Maybe others heard Jesus say it as well. But there is no evidence of that, apparently.
    So – how do we know Matthew (or whoever it was) didn’t simply make it up? People do make things up, for all sorts of reasons.
    I do myself.

    As you can see, I’m not, for a moment, saying that it was made up.
    Just that we don’t know. And to proceed with an entire religion on such a tenuous basis – seems, to me at least – a trifle unwise.

    Ironically, unless I’ve got this wrong somehow, nobody in The Dreaded Media would touch such a flimsy story – based on one single, unverified, source of information – with a big long stick.
    Maybe JH can offer some thoughts on how a similar situation might fly in a court case?


  55. @Toad: One wonders just what YOU do believe? And just what IS your authority, if any? Btw, “boring old wind-bag” seems to cover your own use on this blog! Btw too, I hate punks, especially old ones! Aye just the old RMC in me! 😉

    And, at least GC is after some apologetic! And the only “court” that matters is the great Judgment-Seat (“Bema”) of God! And HE will base this upon His “Word & Spirit”! (John 4: 23-24 ; chapter 5: 39-47!)…note verse 43! I wonder if you have a clue to who and what that man and his “name” is? …”if another comes in his own name, him you will receive!

    One thing about blogs like this, it helps press-out who and who are not Christ’s, i.e. true Christians!


  56. kathleen says:

    Toad @ 15:07.
    Of course we know!
    (You have an annoying habit of reading things into my words that were not there.)

    Our whole Faith – even that of the Protestants (who came along much more recently) – is based on the testimony of the Apostles. These men were firsthand witnesses of the words, miracles, Passion, Death and Resurrection of Christ. Not for an instant did they doubt the Divinity of Christ. Would you just look at how they lived after they had been strengthened by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost! They give a staggering amount of testimony in their preaching, travels, virtues and martyrdom to what they had “seen and heard”. The evidence is overpowering… but it would be good if you could take a good look into the links GC has given you. How can any sane logical person deny this overwhelming evidence?


  57. kathleen says:

    @ irishanglican

    It would be good to know what your aim is here on our Catholic blog. Protestants protest, and you are doing a good job of that.
    We have been amazingly respectful, tolerant and welcoming, but you seem to be determined to undermine our Faith and our Church. (The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church through which comes our salvation, FYI.)
    Are you suffering from some sort of guilty conscience for having abandoned what you probably know in your heart of hearts is The Church founded by Christ? I’m afraid I have begun to think that.

    I have given you loads of my time, replying to nearly all your points and Protestant arguments, but that last one you mention (full of inaccuracies and twisted meanings) was just too jumbled and not worth the trouble. That was why we did not let it through Moderation.

    If you want to talk about traditional Christian values – many of which we share with you – that’s fine; or discuss the mutual problems (e.g. liberalism, secularism etc.) that we – Christians – are all suffering from, that’s fine too. But to come in here to try to bash the things we hold in high regard (e.g. the papacy), is rude and insensitive of you.

    One thing about blogs like this, it helps press-out who and who are not Christ’s, i.e. true Christians!”
    Yes, indeed.


  58. Toadspittle says:

    “…boring old wind-bag” seems to cover your (Toad’s) own use on this blog!”
    No disputing that, Robert. It was remiss of me to not to mention it myself.
    But it doesn’t let you off the hook.
    What do I believe? …That all things metaphysical need to be treated with the greatest possible scepticism.

    “How can any sane logical person deny this overwhelming evidence?”
    Well Kathleen, at least two thirds of the people currently alive on earth do just that.
    They may all be wrong, of course. But the evidence in question seems to be all hearsay.
    But, yes, I’m sure the disciples of Christ honestly believed.
    So do Mormons and Muslims and Astrologers and Seventh Day Adventists (whatever they are) and practitioners of Voodoo …And so did sun worshippers and whoever built Stonehenge.

    Can all non-believers in Catholicism be insane and illogical? Possibly. A great many clearly are, it seems to me. But what do I know?


  59. kathleen says:

    “Can all non-believers in Catholicism be insane and illogical?”

    No, of course not Toad. (Although some might be! 😉 ) The majority just simply do not know Christ or His Teachings. Others have been given a distorted picture of Christ and/or the True Catholic Church; a sad fact.

    Our Blessed Lord’s last words to His followers before His Ascension into Heaven were to, “Go and teach ALL nations, baptising them in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”
    That is why we have a sacred duty – I’d even go so far as to say an obligation – to do all in our power to first be true Christian witnesses in our daily lives, and secondly, to spread the Good News to others.

    May God bless and guide all missionaries – those ‘at home’ and those in foreign lands.


  60. @katheen: YOU dear one were the one that first jumped the broom on the 1-10-14 0:28! And then when I wrote my own piece back on Matt. 16:15-18, you didn’t even moderate it? So I don’t quite understand your being so remiss and upset? I asked some challenging questions, which I have not really heard an answer too! (Perhaps you read some pieces of my own blog, which you directly didn’t mention? I don’t hold back there! But I am always quite theological.) And this Mr. “Toadspittle”, is the one in fact that appears to not believe! Btw the idiocy of the name, surely gives away the mentality of man here! Not to mention again, that he writes, sounds, and reasons like someone who most certainly does not believe, nor understand faith at all, Catholic or otherwise! Faith is not evidence, and sometimes evidence can be used to underscore faith, but not always! In theology, I myself do not subscribe to so-called Evidential apologetics (in the main), no I would be more inclined to what is called the Presuppositional approach to the authority of Holy Scripture! And btw, I bet our friend GC could gave a better definition of what I myself believe (to degree) since he appears to know some history, doctrine and theology! But who knows?
    Closing, I am most surely an Christian pastor-teacher, Anglican priest/presbyter (of course a historical Evangelical and too an Augustinian and neo-Calvinist! Noting the Thirty-Nine Articles), so my concern is for the welfare of human souls! And I am quite convinced the RCC is moving towards apostasy, this new pope “Francis” is an obvious dead give-away towards this, sadly! Note I say sadly, and I mean that sincerely! I quite remember the time when Catholicism was orthodox, at least on the person and divinity of Christ, and even somewhat believed that the Death of Christ was a fully salvific reality! But the Jesuit gospel only gives lip service here, it is quite simply a social so-called gospel now, and again I say this sadly! But apostasy is just that, an abandoning of what is, and now leaving the historical faith, for whatever, in this case simply liberalism and modernity and postmodernity! Why do Catholics think so many people are going to the SSPX? They have had enough of this compromised and liberal ideology!


  61. johnhenrycn says:

    “And this Mr. “Toadspittle”, is the one in fact that appears to not believe! Btw the idiocy of the name, surely gives away the mentality of man here!”

    True. But I think he’s been ‘grandfathered’ and so allowances are made. You, on the other hand:

    ” Mr. Pecksniff was in the frequent habit of using any word that occurred to him as having a
    good sound, and rounding a sentence well, without much care for its meaning. And he did this
    so boldly, and in such an imposing manner, that he would sometimes stagger the wisest people
    with his eloquence, and make them gasp…Mr. Pecksniff delivered such moral reflections and consolation as might have converted a Heathen, especially if he had an imperfect acquaintance with English…His rhetoric was often reinforced by extra-linguistic markers, most especially, capital letters and exclamation marks, widely dispersed throughout his substantives…”

    Adapted from Charles Dickens Making Fun Of Idiolects in Martin Chuzzlewit
    Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 18 (2005): 261-273
    Adolfo Luis Soto Vázquez, University of Coruña


  62. johnhenrycn says:

    Can someone take pity on a working man and clean up the bad line breaks in the quotation 😉


  63. johnhenrycn says:

    btw too, Robert, the word idiolect is non-perjorative. It refers to linguistic morphology and to hallmarks thereof, not to intelligence.


  64. @JC: I am an old “theolog” (theologian type, my word), and I hold both the D. Phil. and the Th.D. So its Bible and Theology for me mate! I don’t often fly my flags here (on the blog), but I have done my later life’s work here! And again. living and teaching in Israel was surely a great providence for me! We might still be there had my wife’s chronic COPD not gotten worse! Note, I am just an old “Biblicist” also! Yep, the Bible is pretty literal for me, though biblical genre is always needed. But I am a real conservative, both politically and theologically! So if ya really want to go for it, this is my area! Btw, I know old Joseph Fitzmyer , S.J. (scripture scholar, in his 90s’s now) and nothing like the Jesuits today!)


  65. johnhenrycn says:

    No worries. It was a mere Freudian slip on your part, referring to me as “JC”.

    But no, you do “often fly [your] flags here” – so much so that I know more about you after two weeks than I’ve learned about Brother Burrito after 5 years. All I know about him is that he puts people to sleep. But God bless you and the missus, and I will say a prayer for her health at Mass tomorrow morning.


  66. JH: No secrets with the Irish! We go full tilt! 😉 I think I buried old “Toad”? You can only kid with me, once you have given me some respect! And he jumped the gun with me!

    Yeah, I met Fitzmyer at a lecture years back on a visit to Wash. D.C. (2001? I made a visit here just a year or so after we left Israel.) Note my little brother 51 lives in the US also. He is a US citizen now. He was in the US Marines in the 80’s.


  67. GC says:

    JH, you’ll have to go and wake kathleen or Brother B (or one or two of the others) up to have your comment retouched.

    Much as I desire to rescue again from your discomfort, I am unable to do anything on other authors’ stuff.


  68. johnhenrycn says:

    Thanks for the info on your brother, Robert. So relieved to know he’s “a US citizen now.” My sister gets her Green Card in a couple of months and too she lives in DC. I’ll let you and everyone here know when it comes through.


  69. JH: My bother lives in the So Cal, with his two grown daughters. My wife and I live not too far from them also. We have a nice condo! I did not mention that my two sons were both born in my 40s! Aye, a late bloomer! My oldest, 24 teaches military history at a private military college in greater London, and takes care of our other house there too. (I have a few tons of books there, btw lol)

    Long day, some of which was at the hospital for a wee bit. I’m off…


  70. johnhenrycn says:

    Serendipity! Almost everyone here remembers another Evangelical Christian in “Sooooooo Cal” by the name of Brother Bosco, aka bozoboy. He’s a contributor on an Anglican blog that you might wish to visit. Brother Bosco and you have a lot in common, I think. Any chance you’re related? Your brother perchance?


  71. Toadspittle says:

    Well, I did my best with Robert. Or worst, depending.
    Wonderful bit of Boz, JH.

    Pecksniffery in ‘The So Cal.’
    Made my day.

    “I think I buried old “Toad”?”
    No, but Old Toad is considering burying himself, at this rate.
    But no. Must be steadfast.

    “The majority just simply do not know Christ or His Teachings.”
    Painfully true, Kathleen. But whose fault is that?
    Theirs? Ours? God’s? Chance? Geography?
    As a boy, I was told…Oh, never mind. It was years ago.
    Before Limbo was just a dance.


  72. Roger says:

    Thank you Moderator btw! .
    Father Robert hasn’t actually dealt with the the point being made. Anglican by definition means Sacred Tradition up to what, 1534, with the Crown as its Head. Luther is in a similar position.
    The Bible? Yes absolutely BUT the Acts are part of the Bible are they NOT? The Acts are enshrining the Priestly functions and rites which as Jews the Apostles continued but know below the sacraments taught and instituted by Our Lord. In the Acts is St Peter’s Supremacy and St Paul express refers to Holy Papal correction.
    Father Robert, the Bible you are talking of was Canonically defined by the Popes and the Church since the Jews expressly do not accept the New testament. The fallacy of both Luther and Anglicanism is the very Bible that is put forward and rightly defended exists because of the Catholic Church and the Papacy. No Papacy NO GOSPELS. More, the sacraments which are the Life of Grace and are Christ are more important. Can a Deaf , Dumb, Blind illiterate who has never read the Bible be a Catholic and be saved? These sacraments have been passed from Christ to His Apostles. Apostolic Succession is enshrined in Scared Tradition.
    Toad correctly points out that the Papacy requires acceptance of a private revelation after the resurrection. The same holds true for the whole Bible of course.
    Father Robert . Names and naming is an astonishing theme that runs through Creation between the Creator and the Created. Lucifer becomes Satan. Satan chose to become Satan! FREE WILL is enshrined in God’s Holy Law. God Loves His Lucifer; sadly Lucifer in Free Will Hates God. What is Hell? Well its the place furthest away from God. Hell is chosen Freely by Lucifer, the Demons and Man. God has given Man FREE WILL to choose Heaven of Hell.
    Father Robert, Peace And Goodness to you and my prayers.


  73. @JH: My younger brother is quite a Christian of his own, he too left Catholicism years ago! He says I helped in that! He likes John MacArthur (has many of his sermons, and even video/dvd’s, and uses MacArthur’s Study Bible! (I have my own copy too!) As such my brother tends towards being a Reformed Baptist. So neither of us are like old “bozoboy”! Btw, just a point I am sure my brother would not mind if I tooted his horn some, but he has two major school (martial arts) Black Belts. And is an instructor there. One more than his big brother! (My little brother has about 20 pounds on me, all muscle!) So tread lightly with the jokes!… I am kidding of course! (My turn!) 😉


  74. johnhenrycn says:

    There is at least one Reformed Baptisty (I think) type contributor over at the Anglican blog I mention above. Geoffrey Sales by name. Not a bad blog, all things considered. Check it out.


  75. @Rodger: I hope this gets moderated? My answer to Matt. 16: 15-17, did NOT! So I am not going too heavy here! Quickly, the Anglican Communion of course is actually an English Reformed history, and we could not speak soundly without of course mentioning the Archbishop Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556) first, Father of the Prayer Book, and of course Martyr! Then of course the list gets longer, John Jewel, first Anglican apologist ; Richard Hooker, first definitive Anglican perhaps ; Lancelot Andrewes, John Donne, etc., etc. And of course the list of the Anglican Puritans!

    Now, as to Holy Scripture, here we must first exegete, before we make theology! And the Book of Acts is quite a history, but also a Book itself that is a transition book, i.e. from the Old Covenant ground to the New Covenant! THIS, is quite lost today with too many so-called theolog’s! Both Protestant and Catholic! Here the ancient church begins, on Jewish ground.. and moves and finally ends on Gentile ground! And in this we loose the greatness of Peter’s authority and use (save later his Two Letters), to that of Paul, the great Apostle to the Gentiles. Even the old English Catholic Robert Sencourt admits this (to degree). See his old book, Saint Paul, Envoy Of Grace, (1948) (I have the first edition). And then the whole reality of Galatians chapter 2, verses 11 through 14, where St. Paul must oppose St. Peter, who drew back and separated himself, eating only with the Jewish Christians. Paul quite correctly saw that Peter’s behavior threated the gospel of justification by faith alone because it implied that all Christians had to “live like Jews” (verse 14) in order to be justified before God. Later of course (Acts 15), the whole of the Jewish kosher and dietary laws, with circumcision were rejected, as under the Law rather than NT Gospel! Simply a quite profound mistake if Peter were in any way “Infallible” in faith and morals!

    This is quick, but again who knows if it will be moderated?

    [The Moderator – Consider yourself moderated; next time please try to write full sentences and avoid jargon – respect your audience]


  76. kathleen says:

    @ irishanglican

    Yesterday you asked: “Why do Catholics think so many people are going to the SSPX? They have had enough of this compromised and liberal ideology!”

    That is certainly true. The trouble is – and in spite of my very strong sympathies with their stance, owing to these problems in the Church – they are not fully in communion with the papacy. That, for most of us, is what holds us back, and why we have not gone over to join them. (Perhaps you saw my conversation with “Catholic Cat” on the “Join the Rosary” post?)
    However, they still hold to all the fundamental Catholic Teachings on Doctrine and Dogma, Faith and Morals*, so they are not Protestant. They simply refuse to accept the Pastoral Council of VII. If (and when) they are reunited to Mother Church, they will bring so much that is good and traditional and pious back with them.

    (*Wish I could say the same for those Catholics that are in the Church, but disobey her sacred teachings!)

    My younger brother is quite a Christian of his own, he too left Catholicism years ago! He says I helped in that!”

    The part in bold says it all.

    And in helping him in this, instead of being deeply regretful, you sound proud of the fact!!!
    What use are all those muscles you boast about if you have put your soul, and his, in jeopardy?


  77. @JH: I have read and chatted some with Jessica Hof, on some other blogs. She is Anglo-Catholic, and too a Brit! Fine writer also! Btw, no one has answered my questions about what Catholics think about the “Ordinaraite” (An Anglican Patrimony, in the Roman Catholic Latin Church)…They are fully Roman Catholics now! Note, here in the So Cal. there is a group that meets near me, called Blessed John Henry Newman! I am of course not in league here, but I am not completely negative! Of course my view of the Church is both Visible and Invisible, ‘In Christ’! Of course the real Christians, and divine “elect” are known only to God! But to degree, by their fruits you shall know them! Are there any Augustinian Catholics here?


  78. @kathleen: WE will have to what and see who is IN heaven, and who is not, won’t we? to see who is even close to being correct! But yes, I am a convinced Protestant Anglican! I value some of being raised early Irish Catholic, but again I simply don’t believe in the doctrine of the Papacy! Just like old Martin Luther and John Calvin, who were too both raised Roman Catholic!


  79. Btw, I never said the SSPX were “Protestant”! But they are certainly NOT liberal Catholics, like this new Jesuit pope “Francis”! There is simply no way people, Catholic or otherwise can convince me that he is a true Catholic Christian!


  80. The Raven says:

    Well, Robert, we can talk about the Anglican divines all we like (and, having read them in my youth, I aver that there is much to like in Andrewes, Hooker, Donne, Browne et al), but the plain fact is that there is much to be careful of in their writings: too much was based in the errors propounded by the heresiarch Cranmer.

    I think that I speak for all of the contributors (DV): we’re all keen on the Ordinariate, we are happy to see good orthodox people reconciled to Holy Church and glad of their patrimony. I personally hope that we can look forward to a critical edition of the Anglican divines, so that we can enjoy their language and insight into the holy mysteries while being adverted to their errors.

    I find myself wholly unconvinced by the fantasy ecclesiology of an “invisible church”: there is the Church, founded by Our Lord and then there are those who act in the name of Our Lord (and, indeed, may do some good in doing so), but they are not following His Church (cf Mark 9:37).


  81. @Raven: Well there will always be the so-called High Church verses Low Church people in the Anglican Communion. And not all High Church Anglicans want to go to Rome either. And I am with Cranmer, with the Thirty-Nine Articles, a basic Low Church guy myself!

    Thank God the Anglican Church Society will never change the 1662 Book of Common Prayer! And there are both High and Low Churchman here always with the 1662. Even though I am Low Church, I consider myself to be an Anglican Churchman, all the way. Which always first includes the Nicene Creed, Athanasius’s Creed, and the Apostles Creed! (Article VIII. Of the Three Creeds)

    Concerning the Invisible nature of the Church, I will just quote John Paul II… “The mystery of the Church”, its “invisible dimension “, is “larger than the structure and organization of the Church”, which are “at the service of the mystery.”


  82. PS…This comes from John Paul II’s Theology of the Body!


  83. Btw, for those that care, see Diarmsid MacCulloch’s grand bio of Thomas Cranmer, A Life, (692 pages, Yale University Press, 1996)…And you guessed it, I have a first edition! (With dust-jacket)

    I am an old reader and bookman! I have thousands! 😉


  84. johnhenrycn says:

    …and btw: assuming you care, Robert, I have two first edition (first printing) copies of This Is The Mass, as celebrated by Bishop (as he then was) Fulton Sheen, with dust jackets in far better shape than the one shown in the link.

    Oh, and have I told you about my first (book) edition copy of Apologia Pro Vita Sua, which has no dust jacket, alas, having been published in 1864? Or about my first edition of Fr Adrian Fortesque’s 1918 magnum opus, The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described?

    I’m and old reader and too have thousands.
    Hope my Sheen link works, but it’s a very long one and may not.


  85. Toadspittle says:

    This ‘thread’ now brings forcefully to mind two hackneyed expressions:

    1: Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
    2: Two bald men fighting over a comb.

    Only clichés really ‘fit the bill’ here.


  86. johnhenrycn says:

    I’m an old reader and too have thousands. Mea culpa.


  87. johnhenrycn says:

    Toad, as you can see from his avatar, Robert is not bald; nor am I. We know Frere Rabit is bald, and too I think you may be; but if the toupée fits, please feel free to wear it.


  88. OORAH, JH rock on! My father (RIP) died at 88 with a quite full head of hair! Both my brother and I have been blessed here! Btw, a few of my favorite little books: one is, The Cloud Of Unknowing, with the Introduction by the great Ms. (actually Mrs) Evelyn Underhill, London, John M. Watkins, 1934), signed by her. And my copy of George MacDonald, Anthology, With an Introduction by C. S. Lewis, The University Press Glasgow for Geffrey Bles Ltd First 1946, signed by Lewis. I actually have a few other Lewis books that are signed by him.

    Just a note, but I am a student of Christian Mysticism, I have many books here, from Evelyn Underhill, to a copy of William Ralph Inge, D.D. and his Bampton Lectures , 1899, ‘Christian Mysticism’. Note Underhill’s friendship and even direction (for five years before his death) to Baron von Hugel! Of course he was a Roman Catholic.

    I also have a collection of very old copies (18th -19th century) of the Book of Common Prayer! Some were copies of some well known in the time, Anglican clergyman. I have one from Henry Chadwick, Regius Professor Emeritus of Divinity at Cambridge. He died last year as I remember? I was lucky to get it!

    Another one of my favorite books too, is by the first non-Anglican to chair in Cambridge, his book: The Apostolic Preaching and its Development, by C.H. Dodd! (1936) This book is simply a theological and historical classic! It even has a chart in the back on the Kerygma in the Book of Acts, to the Kerygma in St. Paul’s Letters.

    Yes, rock on them books! 😉


  89. Btw, my favorite copy on the work of John Henry Newman, is ‘Newman the Theologian’, by J.H. Walgrave, O.P. (Geoffrey Chapman, London 1960) This Dominican was born in Belgium. Yes I have my share of books on and about Newman! And some of the older book s are simply better than many today! We must remember Newman had a long religious history, from a light evangelical to an High Church Anglican, to a Roman Catholic!


  90. johnhenrycn says:

    Yes, Blessed John Henry Newman’s journey was arduous. Reminds me of the New York Yankees manager, Yogi Berra, who once said: “When you come to a fork in the road, take it!” But we – you, me, Toad, Frere Rabit, GC, The Raven, et al…we all yearn for the same destination, no?

    The journey for some of us (blush) may turn out to be longer than for others.


  91. johnhenrycn says:

    Well, I sincerely apologise for cluttering up this thread with a totally irrelevant video (^). The one I had in mind, by the same artist, is this one. Which reminds me, God bless you, Teresa:


  92. Toadspittle says:

    After I ‘commented’ at 01.10 today, I realised it was open to misconstruction. The ‘two men’ in question were intended to represent Catholicism and Protestantism – not JH and Robert.
    (It took strangely long to evoke poor old C.S.Lewis,* didn’t it. Inevitable, though.)

    * The man who, amazingly, inconceivably, some might say (and they frequently do) – refused to become a Catholic, despite the ‘overwhelming evidence.’ What hope for the rest of us?
    Very little.


  93. johnhenrycn says:

    It’s hard, when you’re born blind, to see The Way (h/t Golden):


  94. AS to old C.S. (Jacks) Lewis, he was of course born in Belfast, Ireland. And baptized into the Church of Ireland, of course Protestant. And both he and his brother Warren (“Warnie”) used to go back to Ireland, and home (“Little Lea”) quite often in their adult life. Later Warnie used to go to Ireland for days and weeks of drinking, and Jack would have to go back and retrieve him. Though the home was sold when their father died (1929). Warnie, sadly was an acute alcoholic, having too been in WW I, and too being a retired Army officer. They lived in England in the so-called “Kilns”, what they named their home, about only three miles from the center of Oxford. C.S. Lewis btw, always considered himself closer to being a Welshman, due to his great-grandfather being a framer there. Though he regarded Ulster as his homeland really! I have said all this to make the point, that C.S. Lewis always considered himself a Protestant! And though he was somewhat Anglo-Catholic, he was never really cut in that whole mold! Note his closest pastoral friend and Anglican rector, was the great Austin Farrer! A member of the “Oxford Christians,” Farrer conversed often with Lewis about religion and the intellectual life! Farrer has been called “the one true genius of the Church of England in the 20th century.” Though he died rather young, at 64, in 1968. Again the point being that both Lewis and Farrer, were “Anglicans” through and though, and both so-called English! (Lewis being quite Anglo-Irish, if we must press his Irish birth)


  95. Btw, there is both the pop-culture C.S. Lewis, and then the real Lewis! I can remember hearing C.S. Lewis on the BBC Radio. We sometimes went to England during Easter week. I think I heard him in the late 50’s on the radio? My one Irish great-gram was a Protestant, or really “fundamentalist” Christian (so-called PB, or Plymouth Brethren). Aye she had a great affect on me, even as a Catholic! She gave me my first KJV Bible, at about 7 or 8 years old. And then not long after she gave me my “first” Scofield Bible! Which I still have, an Oxford genuine black leather. Much later (years later) I bought my own… Which in fact I wore-out! But I have a Large Print leather one.. (black) these days. 😉 I am one of those that has bought almost every known Study Bible, known to man! And as I have said, I read my Bible daily, and too my Greek NT every A. M.! (The Anglican rector – priest/presbyter, promises to read his Greek NT at ordination!) I have sought to do this quite literally over the many years!


  96. Note, I have not always been Pre-Millennial, as of course an Anglican, but since about 1993 I have! Of course the Scofield is hardly infallible, but the general dispensational difference between the Church and literal or National Israel, is certain to my mind! (1 Cor. 10: 32)


  97. Finally, for those that care? There is a very nice new bio (2013) out by the Anglican Alister McGrath: C.S. Lewis, Eccentric Genius, Reluctant Prophet, (Tyndale House), I have mine!


  98. johnhenrycn says:

    Wifey and I used to call her Dad (RIP) the “Big I Am”, but Robert, he would’ve surrendered his title in shock and awe in the face of the veritable blizzard of autobiographical detail you provide.


  99. @JH: You need to add some detail here? Not sure I follow?


  100. @JH: Indeed I come from the generation of Irish and British people that pressed themselves for God and Country, i.e. WW II! That was their norm! And I have but sought to follow their direction, but surely theirs was after grace & glory! Yes, our Irish and British pride runs deep in our family! Sadly, their generation is almost gone, at least mine “are” gone!

    My father (as a scientist) got to meet the American Astronaut, Neil Armstrong when they were both older, and of course my father was somewhat older than he. Since Armstrong was a Navy pilot and aviator, in the Korean War, all they did was talk about flying and airplanes! True story! So yes, following my family was a tough road, but a real one! And I still feel it! 🙂


  101. Btw, I call this generation both hedonist and narcissist! And both my sons were born in my 40’s! They are good basically young men, but I know their generation is going to be much harder in ways than mine! Man-up, is not going to be easy! And it never has been!


  102. johnhenrycn says:

    What a coincidence. My late uncle once played golf with Neil Armstrong, who told him this story:

    Back in the late 40s, when he was in university, Armstrong’s roommate was a guy named Manny Klein. After they graduated, Manny got married, and Armstrong was Best Man at his wedding. On his wedding night, Manny asked his bride to perform a certain type of service for him, but being a well brought up Jewish girl, she refused, saying: “Manny, man will have to walk on the Moon before I ever do THAT sort of thing!”

    Fast forward 20 years to when Armstrong was the first man to set foot on the lunar surface. According to what he told my uncle, the first words he spoke when he did so were:
    “That’s one small step for man, and one giant step for Manny Klein.”

    The time delay before his message reached Earth, gave NASA Houston Control a heads-up as to what he’d said and a chance to hastily edit his words before releasing them to the world.


  103. Toadspittle says:

    …With a little friendly encouragement from JH, Robert may well be persuaded to let slip some fascinating autobiographical details.
    Toad’s role as CP&S Bloviator-in-Chief is seriously under the cosh.
    Thank God.
    (whatever that means).


  104. Yes, sadly now the Western Icons are rock stars, and rappers! But neat story! Btw, my Father simply hated to lose to me at golf! I chased that old man’s image for many years when I was young! And I guess in some ways, I still am!


  105. Btw, I did not marry until I was 38! But that’s all I’m going to say there! And as I mentioned I was a English Benedictine for a few years in my mid 20’s. I still read some Bernard of Clairvaux at times! I even still have a large bio type book (774 pages)…Life And Teaching of St. Bernard, by Ailbe J. Luddy, O.Cist., (Dublin: M.H. Gill & Son, LTD., 1950). I have many of my books listed on my computer, with the help of my son’s (some years back).


  106. Toadspittle says:

    Robert, I don’t know a kindlier way to put this – but you appear to be an egomaniac.


  107. johnhenrycn says:

    Bibliomaniac and mythomaniac also come to mind; but Robbie has a certain eldritch charm that amuses me.


  108. Roger says:

    Father Robert.
    The Papacy is called the Eighth Sacrament and is given by Our Lord,
    The Papacy was given to St Peter St John 21 15-17.
    Note The Miraculous Draught of Fishes and the Resurrected Christ.
    The Reason why it is NOT Matthew is because the Church is the Mystical Body Of Christ. But what Body? The Answer is the Resurrected Body of Christ! The Importance should not be losted because the Church under St Peter has the sacramental link into the Triumphant Resurrected Christ. Because we communion with His Resurrected Body and Blood (His Triumphant Body and Blood) we will live forever.
    Our Lord didn’t replace the Mosaic Temple and High Priests until after the Passion. You cite Matthew but don’t explain why Our Lord remained under the Old dispensation including High Priests! Until the Passion Our Lord chose St Peter but didn’t not give Him the Sacrament or Authority until after the Birth Of The Church (The Passion).
    The Early Church suffered by its Association in Romes mind with a rebellious Jewish Nation. True the Church over 2000 years has had to learn from the Holy Ghost BUT the Jews had forms similar to the sacraments BUT these were symbolic lacking the Divinity supplied by Our Lord.
    Crammer WAS under the Authority of the Crown. The Anglican Church Authority is from Defender Of The faith a title given to Henry by the Ppe


  109. Roger says:

    Lucifer was a leader of the Fallen Angels. Man is as Our Lord said Like the Angels. Not enough thought is given to Possession and what this means. St John 13 verses 27 and 30 has Judas leaving the Cenacle “Satan entered into him.” and that “And it was night.” Satan has a mystical body and the Death Of The Soul is where there is NO Light!
    Hell is as far as possible from Heaven and is Eternal. What is the Judgment of the Soul? Well its doing what Judas did rejecting Christ and His Authority and His Kingdom and this can only leave Lucifer’s Kingdom, Hell.
    Henry Eighth did not Reform any Church. He seized the Land the buildings and destroyed the Church. Heaven speaks through Prophets and Elizabeth Barton (Maid Of Kent) personally spoke to Henry. Barton was executed without a Trial.
    The New Testament? Well it was the Papacy that collated and declared these canonical. Recognising the New Testament (Gospels) is recognition of the Papacy. That is successors of St Peter.
    Henry the Eighth denied Our Lord with His Divorce. Actually Crammer cites the Old Dispensation and Authority that was superceded by Our Lord when He made Marriage a Sacrament. Henry’s Divorce rejects Christ’s Authority. So if Henry was outside of the Church (rejected the Authority of Christ) then he cannot be a Reformer but is actually a Destroyer. Married Luther is in the same status. Not a Reformer.


  110. @Toad and JH: Well mates, when you guys get to the ad hominem, then we are quite done! I quite think you both are simply overmatched biblically and theologically, the ad hom usually comes when one cannot make a serious biblical & theological defense! And of course neither of you have even begun here! Kathleen appears to be the only one even close to having her head screwed on in any faithful manner, but she is stuck in the mess of Vatican II, and this new pope!

    @Roger: YOUR defense is simply toward Roman Dogma, and not even in accord with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, (1994, 1997).

    So I will truly withdraw and leave you all to your new Roman Pontiff!

    It was fun while it lasted, but I am done! 😉


  111. johnhenrycn says:

    Well, Robert, you did admit to bibliomania. My mythomania remark was just a jokey add-on. Much like when you called Kathleen ignorant – also said in jest no doubt. Anyway, it’s been fun corresponding with you. Goodbye. Mind the gap at the White Cliffs.


  112. @JH: I called myself a “Biblicist”, big difference than being a “bibliomania”, which in reality is a made up word! But “Biblicist” or “Biblicism” is in the dictionary! Again as a “theolog” or theologian, I live closely to real theological definitions! But it quite appears that you guys on this blog do not! Very sad, and indeed “ignorant”! I am not playing games myself, for the true Church is in the throws of life and death!

    This will be my last! I have a blog of my own, I can be connected there, if you care?


  113. johnhenrycn says:

    Robert, I thought were going. You mind me of Frere Rabit. Always falling on his sword only to tell us a few threads later that it was a fake sword. Anyway, a Biblicist (from biblicism) is a person who interprets the Bible literally, not a person who owns “thousands” of books like you do. And yes, bibliomania and bibliomaniac are real words. You may not find them in your Funk & Wagnalls (“a family of English-language dictionaries noted for their emphasis on ease of use and current usage”), but they are to be found in the OED.


  114. kathleen says:

    Roger @ 23:44 yesterday

    That was an amazingly perspective and logically truthful comment of yours.
    It puts a cap on the enormous and extensive amount of Protestant propaganda we have been subjected to on this thread. (Plus almost a whole autobiography – phew! 😉 )

    Toad @ 18:27 yesterday – 😆


  115. kathleen says:

    Would just like to add one more point pertaining to the original subject of this post – the Jesuits.

    In spite of saying I agree with irishanglican at the beginning of the discussion that “Jesuit theology has been goners for a long time!” – and I admit I do, it must be said that this should not imply that each and every Jesuit is a modernist. That would be untruthful.
    There are still learned, devout Jesuits who are faithful sons of the Church in every field, and in every country, especially in the so-called Third World. Perhaps it is because the Jesuits’ “theology” is known to have been tainted by many facets of Modernism though, that when one comes across such good Catholic insights and teaching from a Jesuit (e.g., Fr. Mitch Pacwa on EWTN, or Fr. S.K. Samir on the post we published this morning) it comes as a pleasant surprise.


  116. GC says:

    And yet, kathleen, I would have liked very much to hear about Fr IrishAnglican’s views on the “social gospel” of the Jesuits and their “parallel universe”. He has very definite views on that as you might be surprised to lear (??). It and similar things have been enormously influential in our Church and I think that is what distinguishes us more tradtional Catholics from the nuns who are “passionate about justice” and then get “on-a-bus”.

    I only refrained from asking him here because of the great respect and gratitiude many English would feel towards the Jesuits because of the many Jesuit martyrs in 16th and 17th century England.


  117. Toadspittle says:

    “Jesuit Justifies Abortion” indeed, Kathleen.

    Now Robert has gone bobbing off; a Toad ‘parable,’ regarding abortion.
    Burro likes my parables, anyway.)

    A lady is driving in a strange town, She makes a turn, and two hundred yards later, she realises she is going the wrong way up a one way street. What can she do?
    Keep on? Illegal and dangerous.
    Reverse out? Illegal and dangerous.
    U-turn? Illegal and dangerous.

    End of parable.
    This situation has happened to me at least once.
    Anyone else?


  118. kathleen says:

    Yes GC, it cannot be denied that the Jesuits, sucked into this lie we call “Modernism” (although heresy and error are in no way “modern” of course) have caused a vast amount of damage to the faith of millions of unsuspecting souls. It has been a catastrophe that Fr. Malachi Martin, more than any other of the orthodox Jesuits who fought against the wrong turn the Society of Jesus was taking in the mid 20th century, denounced and lamented about over and again. He, a true son of St. Ignatius of Loyola, was vilified and falsely accused of misdeeds (from those that wanted to discredit him) right until his untimely death caused by the injuries sustained from that sinister invisible hand that “pushed” him down the stairs! (You probably know about this.)
    Yes, Malachi Martin S.J., the exorcist; a great Irishman and a courageous Catholic priest till his dying day.

    Thank you for your sensitivity in not saying anything that might be hurtful to those who love and cherish the memory of so many holy Jesuit martyrs at the time of the English De… er, Reformation. I wish I could be more like you and less impulsive in my remarks sometimes. 😉

    P.S. Any idea what our old Toad is on about?


  119. kathleen says:


    How about, getting out of the car and walking?

    There is NEVER a good enough reason for aborting (killing) a baby, no matter how difficult or tragic the circumstances of the mother might be. Just look at how many women who decided against abortion at the last minute, now rejoice at this decision. I don´t know of a single case of where this decision was regretted.

    On the other hand, there are millions of profoundly depressed, guilty, even suicidal women who aborted the babies in their wombs. I know some personally, and I can assure you, their regret and sorrow is heart-breaking to witness.


  120. GC says:

    P.S. Any idea what our old Toad is on about?

    I’m working on it, kathleen. Maybe a good sleep presently will help me solve this enigma.

    At the moment, his “parable” has put me in “literal” mode, as I found myself in the very position Toad described in the city of Malacca, two hours’ drive from here and one of the cities where St Francis Xavier, Apostle to the East. dwelt.

    After visiting his temporary grave in the now ruined Jesuit church of Our Lady on the Hill I did in fact find myself driving the wrong way up a very narrow one way street in the old town.The locals must be used to it, as they very nicely let me execute a 3 point (or 4 or 5, I forget now) U-turn to drive back to the very same church for further veneration of the grave.


  121. Toadspittle says:

    …Just park the car by the kerb and walk away from it.
    Blindingly obvious, of course – but it didn’t occur to me.
    Foolish old Toad.
    I know I don’t really have to spell my ‘parable’ out, but – since you seem puzzled – it points out that we can blunder into situations in life where every conceivable outcome is no good.
    …And so we then are obliged to select the least worst. Abortion is always wrong.
    As is adultery, lying and cheating. But is it less worse to lie than to abort?

    “Just look at how many women who decided against abortion at the last minute, now rejoice at this decision. I don´t know of a single case of where this decision was regretted.”

    …How about children and abortion?
    But we’ve been down this one-way street before.
    To no avail.


  122. kathleen says:

    How could I have forgotten to mention the saintly Fr. Hugh Thwaites S.J., a truly outstanding British Jesuit who influenced so many on their journey to Christ? He died at 95, less than two years ago, and already his case is up for beatification.

    Here is one of his talks to be found on YouTube:


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s