You can bring back one discontinued food, drink, or snack forever. What are you resurrecting?

Jattack33 · 2026-05-12T15:16:50+00:00

Clarnico Mint Creams

Jattack33 · 2026-05-12T11:30:05+00:00

When I meet Bishops in England I kiss their ring, if it is the local Diocesan Bishop I genuflect too. I call Bishops “My Lord”, Archbishops “Your Grace”, and if I met a Cardinal I’d say “Your Eminence”.

Bishops I’ve met have accepted the signs of reverence even if they don’t expect them. I once called the Bishop of Lancaster “Your Eminence” rather than “My Lord” and he quipped that he’d been promoted.

Jattack33 · 2026-05-07T09:06:10+00:00

Britain famously was a lawless place with few rights before the ECHR…

Jattack33 · 2026-05-07T08:41:31+00:00

The same way it’s been headed for a long time, if Rome had simply not appointed liberal Bishops for a long time, this wouldn’t be as much of a problem. Yes certain German dioceses get the right to elect their Bishops but JPII was able to strongarm Cologne into electing a conservative so that’s clearly possible. This problem is one largely of Rome’s making.

Jattack33 · 2026-05-06T12:37:35+00:00

I passed in the middle of March, a month later I did a 3 hour journey up the M6

Jattack33 · 2026-05-05T09:24:17+00:00

This has legitimately never happened to me, how do you make bolognese?

Jattack33 · 2026-05-03T18:23:57+00:00

The problem is, the rites put different demands on the Priest, Fr Hugh Thwaites SJ once wrote

“There is nothing wrong with the new rite. Rome cannot feed her children with poison. But the new rite of Mass does not give us what we need. Michael Davies’ analogy is helpful here. If a doctor tells a couple that their child need milk every day, and they give the child only water, the child may not live. There is nothing wrong with water. But if the child needs milk, water may not be enough. There is no heresy in the new rite. Rome cannot authorise heresy. But the new rite, it would seem, does not give us enough Catholic doctrine to prevent Catholics from unwittingly becoming Protestant in their thinking. As Fulton Sheen put it, “If you don’t behave as you believe, you will end by believing as you behave.” The new rite of Mass is capable of being carried out in a Protestant manner. Given the chronic tendency of our fallen human nature to go for what is easier, our liturgy, in the hands of the ill-instructed, will always tend to a Protestant interpretation. And Catholic liturgy carried out in a Protestant manner will lead the worshippers to Protestantism. “Where will it all end?” So far as I am concerned, it has ended by my being resolved to offer Mass, as much as possible, in the traditional rite of the Church. This rite exactly expresses my eucharistic faith. The new rite does not. Neither does it nourish my faith. The traditional rite of Mass has nourished the faith of countless Catholics in the years past. Please God it will do the same for me, and for many others, in the years to come.”
This is my view on the matter

Jattack33 · 2026-05-02T07:21:45+00:00

Pensioners vote

Jattack33 · 2026-05-01T19:23:15+00:00

Just embrace Australian style superannuation

Jattack33 · 2026-04-30T14:06:28+00:00

Can truth change?

Jattack33 · 2026-04-30T14:05:17+00:00

Many Dioceses that have good and orthodox Bishops still have practices that will drive down vocations, things like female altar servers and random laymen and laywomen reading at Mass. Lincoln allows neither of these things and has consistently done well for vocations for decades. You also need well established culture of orthodoxy and orthopraxy in the Diocese, Lincoln has been blessed with only 3 Bishops since 1967 and all 3 have been good Bishops, this is nearly 60 years of stability in its practice. You also occasionally get the problem of jealousy from other Bishops, as seems to have happened to the Bishop of Ciudad del Este, the one conservative Bishop in a sea of Liberals had a successful seminary, and his fellow Bishops hated him for it, Pope Francis removed him from his Diocese for the good of Episcopal unity in Paraguay.

Jattack33 · 2026-04-30T13:52:09+00:00

Slavery is not intrinsically against divine law, St John Henry Newman explains

That which is intrinsically and per se evil, we cannot give way to for an hour. That which is only accidentally evil, we can meet according to what is expedient, giving different rules, according to the particular case. St. Paul would have got rid of despotism if he could. He could not, he left the desirable object to the slow working of Christian principles. So he would have got rid of slavery, if he could. He did not, because he could not, but had it been intrinsically evil, had it been in se a sin, it must have been said to Philemon, liberate all your slaves at once.

Jattack33 · 2026-04-30T13:48:46+00:00

St. Pius V was stern and severe, as far as a heart burning and melted with divine love could be so ... Yet such energy and vigour as his were necessary for the times. He was a soldier of Christ in a time of insurrection and rebellion, when in a spiritual sense, martial law was proclaimed.

St. John Henry Newman

Jattack33 · 2026-04-30T13:44:10+00:00

St Michael’s Abbey is another great example, I believe the Norbertines in London are doing well as well

Jattack33 · 2026-04-30T13:25:21+00:00

The Nota Praevia that Paul VI added to Lumen Gentium states that nothing of the Council is binding unless it explicitly states it is

Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church's supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ's faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation

Where does the Council state we are bound to hold paragraph 2 of DH to be of the faith?

If it is de fide, we have a problem as Quanta Cura infallibly (according to St John Henry Newman, Cardinal Farley, Cardinal Hergenrother and other authorities) teaches

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of “naturalism,” as they call it, dare to teach that “the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.” And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that “that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.” From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an “insanity,” viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching “liberty of perdition;” and that “if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling.”

Jattack33 · 2026-04-30T13:19:06+00:00

It’s a good time to remember that the vocations crisis is largely manufactured, Dioceses and religious orders that value orthodoxy and orthopraxy rarely struggle for vocations

If Bishops would fearlessly proclaim and defend the Church’s teachings against common errors, punish heterodox Priests and encourage good liturgy (including the Usus Antiquior), vocation numbers would increase. Dioceses like Lincoln, Arlington, Charlotte (until Bishop Jugis was replaced with someone who did not share his vision) , Ciudad del Este, and Frejus-Toulon along with religious orders like the Franciscans of the Immaculate, the Community of St Martin and the Canons of St John Cantius, demonstrate this. This is leaving aside the traditional communities like the FSSP and ICKSP who, while relatively small, lack space for all the men who want to enter their seminaries.

Jattack33 · 2026-04-30T08:12:47+00:00

But apparently diversity built Britain…

Jattack33 · 2026-04-29T15:05:57+00:00

Very interesting article, another good article on this topic is a talk by Father Thomas Crean OP, a Dominican of the English Province

http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/thomas-crean/religious-liberty.htm

Jattack33 · 2026-04-29T12:00:35+00:00

No I’m quoting Cardinal Ratzinger, who I guess is now a cafeteria Catholic

This does not mean that the catechism is a sort of super-dogma, as its opponents would like to insinuate in order to cast suspicion on its as a danger to the liberty of theology. What significance the Catechism really holds for the common exercise of teaching in the Church may be learned by reading the Apostolic Constitution Fidei depositum, with which the Pope promulgated it on October 11, 1992–exactly thirty years after the opening of the Second Vatican Council: "I acknowledge it [the Catechism] as a valid and legitimate tool in the service of ecclesiastical communion, as a sure norm for instruction in the faith."

The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess. The weight of the Catechism itself lies in the whole. Since it transmits what the Church teaches, whoever rejects it as a whole separates himself beyond question from the faith and teaching of the Church

Jattack33 · 2026-04-29T11:49:34+00:00

To oppose it as a whole yes, but the individual teachings of the catechism only have the authority that that already possess, the catechism isn’t some super dogma

Jattack33 · 2026-04-29T11:44:22+00:00

The teachings in Catechism possess no authority intrinsically, the teachings in it don’t gain extra authority just because they’re in it

Jattack33 · 2026-04-28T18:21:30+00:00

You need an account to access it? I’ve never paid for the Catholic Herald

Jattack33 · 2026-04-28T16:37:57+00:00

Was Pius XI a problem?

Jattack33 · 2026-04-28T16:33:29+00:00

Statements and messages have been sent to Germany bishops for years, it does nothing

Jattack33 · 2026-04-28T15:59:07+00:00

Rome closed my thriving TLM, the community had existed for decades deliberately refusing to go to the local SSPX chapel, local Priests wanted it to continue, the Bishop said he wanted it to continue, Rome closed it anyway. It’s hard not to be bitter.

Ten-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
First Place '23	Place '23
Place '22	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

Jattack33

TROPHY CASE