White doves and Catholics

One of Archbishop Fulton Sheen's talks focused on a man who released a flock of white pigeons on an island.

A pre Vatican II pigeon

Now, anyone who has kept pigeons will know that they have one thing in common with rabbits, they reproduce at an alarmingly fast rate.

And so, according to the Archbishop,  this flock of island pigeons grew in numbers but, gradually, some less than white birds began to appear.

At first there were a few flecks of grey and then, very soon afterwards, the grey feathers began to predominate.

Six months later and the flock had reverted to the bog standard Trafalgar Square nondescript blue/grey bird.

There ends the Archbishop's tale which we shall return to.

Some two years ago our garden became a stopping off point for a pair of pure white pigeons.
They fed at our bird table and roosted in the farm buildings opposite and, before long, they had offspring and within what seemed like weeks, the offspring had offspring.

But, Archbishop Sheen was right, it was not long before the pure white strain began to be overtaken by the mottled and now we have reached tipping point as half the flock (now some 20 birds strong) are showing signs of being less than pure (white).

Archbishop Sheen was, of course, speaking in the 1970s and, even then, relatively fresh into the aftermath of Vatican II, he could see clearly what was happening to the faithful in the Church.

Gradually, the sanctity of Catholic life was being overtaken by something less pure, less immaculate.



A modern pigeon, looking unhappy and out of sorts

And now, forty years later, there is very little evidence of white plumage.

As allegories go, this one takes a lot of beating in my book.

Please note: Re my earlier post on the German bishops snubbing Pope Benedict, I have received news that this was not the case. The post has been removed as a result.

What abuses existed before Vatican II?

I promised a friend that I would write on my experiences (as a callow youth) in the years preceding the Second Vatican Council.

One question that she posed was: "There must have been abuses because the changes were accepted so quickly and readily" (my paraphrasing of her comments).

Well, I am sure there were abuses but whatever they were they were not recognised as such.

By and large, the Church in Westminster Diocese (which was the only region within my knowledge at that age) was boringly the same as it had been for many years. For centuries, in fact.

Mass was in Latin, not a Novus Ordo in sight.

We had processions back then. Many processions especially in May and June

Parishioners knew little of divorce and even less about cohabiting before marriage.

Admittedly, there were a few illegitimate children (morality tends not to fluctuate too much over the centuries).

Homosexuality was barely visible, not just in Catholic circles but in society generally.

Priests were not known as anything other than models of spiritual probity (although one or two rather nasty occurrences took place in the late 60s, especially in Chertsey, Surrey, a diversion beyond the boundaries of Westminster).

And every parish had nuns
(who looked and acted like nuns)

There was a sort of rather fierce disciplinarianism about many of the older priests and that was not altogether welcome or a good thing.

Discipline is one thing, control is another.

But, above all else, we had obedience within the ranks of the laity.

A level of compliance that would not be recognisable today.

We lived and breathed fealty to our Parish Priest, our Bishop and the Holy Father and the rupture of that loyalty may, I believe, may be the key to why the Catholic Faith changed more or less overnight from being an assured place of redemption to an uncertain retreat of those who believed in the concept of revolution.

The loyalty ruptured because of the changes that were taking place in society.

"Change is good" became a sort of silent mantra.

I recall the laity being called to a conference in Liverpool, possibly in 1962 or 1963.

There they were invited to "speak out" and give form to the concerns that they had regarding the Catholic Church.

This was heady stuff. No one had ever asked the opinion of the laity before.

In fact, the laity had never had a voice as such before. Now, suddenly, the chance arose to "out" your Parish Priest for being stern and strict.

But remember, we were still in the post war era. All of society was on the move challenging the code of conduct that existed.

The sixties was a period when the boundaries of decency were being dismantled daily.

'Lady Chatterley's Lover' was featured in the high courts and won the case against charges of obscenity in favour of freedom of speech.

Homosexuality, a criminal offence in 1960, was declared legitimate in the Sexual Offences Act of 1967.

London Theatres began to feature plays and musicals where nudity and promiscuity took centre stage, literally. A move that would have subjected them to prosecution only a few years earlier.

And the Beatles, Rolling Stones and other rock groups suddenly made anti establishment views fashionable.

Change was in the air and it infected most people.

The Catholic laity was not immune, they found their collective voice and began to think liberally (aided, by some of the clergy).

Requiem Masses began to be "joyful" occasions where the life of the deceased was celebrated and all thought of praying for the immortal soul forgotten.

My own parents, staunch Anglo Irish Catholics fell hook, line and sinker for all that was taking place.

Why?  I cannot fathom a certain answer to that one.

They certainly did not subscribe to the popular calls for change and I can only put their ready acceptance of all that the Church threw at them down to blind obedience.

In the Reformation era, Catholics in England and Wales switched their allegiance from Christ and Rome to heresy and Canterbury within a remarkably short period of time.

And, in a similar time frame in the 1960s and 70s, Catholics moved from the doctrinal certainty of the Faith to a mishmash of liturgy and an uncertain concept of Christ's truth.

I recall attending Mass while on honeymoon in Dulverton in 1972 only to hear the 'Latin' Mass sung in English in a direct translation from the pre 1962 missal.

The singing was most definitely not plainchant but Gelineau psalm style.

Back home a few weeks later and the congregation at Mass began to vote with their feet and walk out after Holy Communion. Priests would stand in the porch in an attempt to stem the exodus.

Despite the fever of change, Mass in the vernacular did not appear to be meeting with approval.

I remember one Canon exhorting his flock by saying: "It's still the same Mass, you know".

But, of course, it wasn't the same Mass and many left the Faith. Laity, priests and nuns just got up and walked away, released by a breaking of the covenant of perceived and actual truth.

Were people unhappy with Latin? I don't think so. And, certainly the modern myth that Latin was unpopular because it was "gabbled" is just that, a myth.
Priests then spoke Latin fluently; it was their second tongue and, of course, it flowed and was more voluble as a result.

I believe that the only two factors influencing the faithful were the element of obedience and that of being caught up with the desire to 'change and modernise'.

Remember, this was the era of house renovation and DIY when people of impeccable taste would panel over Georgian doors with sheets of hardboard and hack off any architectural decorations of beauty that even hinted at being old or traditional.

Brass was replaced by plastic and good taste was cast to the wind.

All had to be hidden behind a façade of wood and plaster; all had to conform to modern tastes; all character and continuity with the past had to be eradicated.

And that really is a metaphor for the changes that swept through the Church.

Ten things a priest would not do before the Second Vatican Council

The Rolheiser model is out of stock

1. Wear a moustache….why? It was considered a vanity – still is, actually.

2. Dance with a woman….parish dances were frequent before the Second Reformation…….no priest worth his salt would ever take to the dance floor.

3. Commence eating without first saying Grace. In Fatima 6 weeks ago, many priests and their groups were staying in our hotel. Our priest (who holds hard to pre Vatican 2 orthodoxy) was the only one to lead us in saying Grace before (and after) meals.

4. Refuse a call to administer the Last Rites to the dying.

5. Not say the Divine Office each day – de rigueur then.

6. Wear clerical dress to a pub (it was thought then that a priest drinking alcohol in public would give rise to scandal).

7. Retire…..not absolutely certain on this one; certainly, the parishes were well supplied with priests in their eighties, as well as young curates.

8. Kiss a woman…I mean in the greeting and farewell sense that has become so much a part of British social normal behaviour. It just was not done prior to the change of Catholic life.

9. Delegate school chaplaincy to a lay man or woman.

10. Join the local ecumenical council – no point really!

Now please, I beg of you, do not rush to leave a comment stating that you knew a Fr So and So who danced the night away or kissed every woman he was introduced to.

I am sure it happened, but not often - this post is a generalisation.

But all other comments are, as usual, welcome!

What did you do in the Great Apostasy Daddy?

Well my child, I, um....I err.......prevaricated. That's it, I prevaricated!

In fact, I even got a medal for prevarication. You see when the changes began I decided that I should go along with all that was proposed, I was even one of the few who ripped out some beautiful old wooden communion rails in an undercover operation.

And then, after the first year or two I really got stuck in and stormed my parish church in an attempt to remove this bulky old marble altar. 

Along with a few other brave lads we managed to establish a foothold on the sanctuary where we placed this very plain wooden table affair in place of the old altar. 

Cor lummy, did we take some flak over that!

I think it's fair to say that when I was made up to lay reader, I felt that it was no more than my due and that really signalled our assault on the liturgy itself when we attacked Gregorian Chant and replaced it with some really crappy secular stuff........that showed 'em who was who.

I have to be honest and say that, at first, we had things easy, nothing could withstand our forces but then the civvy population began to catch on and then we had snipers and rockets coming at us from all directions. 

But we gave as good as we got and before long I was made up to special forces....yes, I became a Special Eucharistic Minister.

Of course, I couldn't tell you kids what was going on - all top secret stuff you understand? Me and your mother managed to keep all of that nasty hermeneutic of continuity stuff well away from you.

You've got a lot to thank my generation for; keeping schtum about the richness of the Latin Mass, making sure you never laid eyes on a catechism, keeping all the essential truths from you.

Blinding you to the fact that, without the true teachings of the Faith you could well end up in H**** (we don't use that word compris?).

I pride myself on being the main one in our household to forbid the 'sin' word. 

After the Great Apostasy I felt that we should be more tolerant so anything remotely resembling sin was banned and we began to put our lives back in order and living comfortably alongside Abortion, Contraception, IVF, Euthanasia, Homosexuality and all our other new allies.

It was me who told you that it was OK to miss Mass on Sundays and that, in no way was it a mortal sin to do so, or that, in all probability it would condemn you to hell that place. 

And you can also thank me for telling you that it was OK for you to shack up with your boyfriend and live as man and wife. After all, it's love really and that is what being a Catholic is all about. Love.

As long as you love things nothing else matters; there, that's my word on the matter, pass me my old magazine will you?......that's it, The Tablet, the best bit of propaganda we had in those dark days in the benches.

Is this a cupcake I see before me?

Frills and fancies - the modern cupcake

Cupcakes have become the new cake thing.
Swiss rolls are passe, jammy dodgers a thing of the past and fairy cakes are, well, let's leave that one where it is,

Everywhere you look there are cupcakes, of every colour and size.
 Small ones, giant ones, ones with fancy concoctions on top, ribbons and bows, hundreds and thousands, nuts, glace cherries, multi coloured cupcakes, cupcakes covered in sprinkles, cream, M & Ms - the list of varieties and permutations of varieties is endless.

I well recall the days of the late sixties (yawn, zzzzzz,) when cupcakes were all the same.

The cupcake of ages

The sponge was chocolate flavoured and they came with a chocolate topping thick enough to require a good pair of jaws to penetrate it.
They were solid, reliable, uniform, satisfying and delicious and you knew where you were with them.

In short, they did all that you could wish a cupcake to do for you.
And then, along came Vatican II - and it all went downhill from there on.

We were a rough old lot before Vatican II

Nostalgia is a dangerous thing; it can clog the memory cells, distorting the truth and making recollections rose tinted and false even.

So, please, keep this in mind when you watch this old, blurry clip.

Church life is just so-oo much more spiritual and reverent today and what took place 50 plus years ago is nothing more than a deceptive memory.

Or is it?

If we can move the gateposts for the Anglicans....

........then surely we can accommodate the SSPX!

Don't get me wrong (especially any members of the Ordinariate flock who may have strayed to this blog inadvertently) - I believe that the moves made by the Holy Father have been both welcome and wise and it is a matter of some considerable joy that we are now "one".

But, for heaven's sake, if we can accommodate vicars and laity from the Anglican faith, we must surely be able to reach an agreement with our own?

After all, is the Society's stance so very different from the one that many thousands of Catholics made in the wake of Vatican II?

To "leave" the modern Mass and only attend the "Mass of all Time?"

Is the Society totally divorced from the martyrs of England and Wales who gave their lives for the sake of the Latin Mass (in essence?)

It is not the SSPX that has drifted so much as the modern Church.

Just who is out of step in this picture. The officer
or the troops behind?

It is the Church that is out of step and the Holy Father is working hard to bring it into line, hampered, as always, by the Vaticanistas who have a somewhat different agenda.

While there is continuing opposition to the Latin Mass by the Bishops they appear to have no difficulty in sliding the Syro-Malabar rite under our noses, or providing Mass in Tagalog or Mandarin......so one must wonder whether their motives are for good or for evil.

I have no doubt that it's the latter.

Prayers are needed to bring this negotiation process to a clean and successful conclusion.

The Catholic Church has failed and failed badly

At least, that is the case in England and Wales. I cannot really comment on Austria, Australia, The Netherlands, Spain, France and so on, it is not on my agenda, I must be somewhat parochial in this context.

"But", you say (if you are of a liberal persuasion at any rate), "we have a vibrant, active faith in this country and I love my bishop, Bill, he's so sweet."

To which I respond:
"Look at what the Church should be, don't look at what it has become today."

"Bare ruined choirs..."

So how has it failed and who is responsible?

Here are some of the key areas in which we have taken our eye off the thurible.......

1. Education - most Catholic Schools fail totally in providing knowledge and in inspiring zeal for the teachings of the faith (see Caritas in Veritate for an up to the minute example). This has been going on for a long time now and at least two generations have been lost as a result.
 I suspect that, most of them are now beyond re-evangelisation.

2. Adoption - where is the Crusade of Rescue today?
It is now a rather strange sort of mix of psycho/social mechanisms offering, on the one hand, psychotherapeutic counselling in schools and, on the other, an Adoption and Aftercare service that now no longer offers adoption.
Lewis Carroll is alive and well and living in St Charles Square!
Kowtowing to the impositions of homosexual legislation has lost the Church a valuable role in essential pastoral care.

3. Homosexual "marriage" - "a weak clergy lacking in grace" was how St Thomas More described the bishops and priests in the sixteenth century and the same could be said today with regard to their lack of enthusiasm (with one or two notable exceptions) in showing positive disapproval of moves to place homosexual unions on the same level as marriage between a man and a woman.
The scandal of the Soho Masses continues despite the fact that it isolates those afflicted with homosexual tendencies and keeps them compartmentalised away from "normal" Catholic congregations.
We don't have Masses dedicated to followers of fraud or bank robbery, so why should we ring fence Masses for homosexuals?

4. Admissions procedures for seminaries: we do know, do we not, that those charged with interviewing prospective seminarians operate a policy of refusing any young man with traditional tendencies?
If you want to join a seminary, hide your Rosary, burn your LMS membership card and tell the panel that you want to be a priest because you have a social conscience and climate change is something that we, as Catholics, do not address with enough conviction.

Never, ever, say the "L" word.
The very mention of the word "Latin" is enough to have you out of the door before you can say 'Novus Ordo'.

5. Faith and Morals - these have become dirty words, almost as bad as mentioning 'sin'. There is no longer any clarity with regard to Church Doctrine, we are fed a milk sop diet that leads to statements such as "Who knows what's down the road?" (to which the answer, is of course, "Hell").

6. Ignoring the Holy Father - it did not take the Bishops very long, in the aftermath of Vatican II, to adopt a unilateral declaration of independence. UDI has meant that instead of one Pope we now have a multitude of mini Popes who pay a passing lip service to Rome but then do precisely as they wish.

7. The blinkered laity - how quickly we scrambled onto the liberal cart and tripped over our guitars in the rush to 'modernise' a faith that has proved itself capable of sensible organic progression over the course of its history. It began with parish commissariats aka parish councils, then it spread to lay readers (and even lay preachers back in the sixties) and before long we had women sashaying across the sanctuary, bare headed and mini skirted.

Extraordinary Ministers morphed into "Eucharistic Ministers" and now we have them dishing out blessings. The congregations forgot about the Real Presence in the tabernacle (it does not take long to lose one's faith compass, see how quickly we became Protestant back in Henry VIII's time), in recent years genuflections were replaced by a cursory bow and, in the 'absence' of Christ, people began to chat - at the tops of their voices. "You see", they appear to be saying - "We are on such good terms with God He has become part of the furniture, we don't need all that holy Joe stuff".

I could go on, this list is not exhaustive.

But who is to blame? And what is the point in allocating blame?

Well there is a collective blame inasmuch that many sold out at the beginning and others have since joined the slide; clergy, nuns, lay men and women.

And now I have come to the conclusion that we have two churches, two faiths and I have nothing whatsoever in common with one of them, the Nuchurch lobby. They have no loyalty to Rome and, hence no loyalty to Christ. They might espouse a loyalty but it is meaningless because they do nothing other than play the role of the Pharisee, criticizing all that is holy and devout while beating their breasts and informing on any priest brave enough to wish to celebrate the Latin Mass.

The great majority of Catholics have forgotten the basic tenets of the faith. To them, the Latin Mass is a throwback to a darker time when the parish priest was likely to challenge them if they dressed inappropriately at Mass or expressed views in direct opposition to Catholic teaching.
They do not like discipline or rules; those infringe their personal beliefs. They are guided by a conscience that no longer has the required knowledge to make an informed decision, in short, they can barely be described as 'Catholic'.

Now compare the Church in England and Wales with a commercial organisation, such as Proctor and Gamble, the detergent manufacturers, or Tescos, Sainsburys and Asda.
 If, some 40 years ago they had seen a slump in their profits and a drifting away of customers what would they have done?

Well, a number of things but the point is, they would not have sat on their hands warbling "who knows what's down the road?"

They would have taken action. They would not have allowed themselves to be left with empty shelves and no products to go on them.
They would have ensured that they recruited the right staff and given them firm support and guidance.

This is something that the Church has not done.

It allowed the grossly awful "Weaving the Web" religious education series to continue ad nauseum in the Catholic Secondary School sector, it turned a blind eye to teaching on birth control and IVF, and it debased the liturgy to such a degree that you wonder at times if you are at a Catholic Mass or a New Age beanfeast.

It has done nothing with the rich inheritance left to it by the Son of God.

And, sadly, it is still at it. turning away young men from seminaries because of their adherence to orthodoxy, persecuting good priests who wish to offer the EF Mass occasionally and refusing to infuse order and integrity into the clergy who, by and large, run their parishes as it pleases them.

It is, of course, easy to blame the bishops but the laity must also shoulder the burden. I find it strange that many parishes can be governed by parishioners rather than by the Parish Priest. All too often it is the parish council that dictates the terms for parish and spiritual activity and the priest appears powerless to intervene.

If there is to be a programme of re-evangelisation later this year, as stipulated by the Holy Father, it should have the parishioners as the prime focus, not those who have "drifted", they should be the second wave.

Bring back genuflecting, dress codes, reception by mouth. Keep the churches open by day.

Dispense with Extraordinary Ministers, lay readers and the kiss of peace and demand silence before and after Mass.

That would be a start. In fact it would be a brilliant start.

But who will stand up to be counted?

Plan A is the Catholic Church - Plan B....there is no Plan B!

The old apologetics case that states: "If you have twenty faiths all proclaiming the truth but all different in their doctrines then either only one can be right or they all can be wrong. There is no other conclusion" is one that I can readily identify with.

But it does mean that, Protestants, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and fur lined ocean going Seventh Day Adventists and others are on the wrong bus.
There is not a Plan B, only the Catholic Church.

I will leave on one side the concept of people of other faiths gaining an eternal reward; I am sure it does occur, through the redemptive qualities of Holy Mother Church but, if it was me, I would not leave anything to chance; I would want to be within the fold of 'the one true Church'.

In many ways, Plan A was much simpler before Vatican II (and I use the Council in this instance as a punctuation mark in the history of the Church in the twentieth century).

We were all Catholics in 1961. We all believed the same truths, it was all so very black and white. We did not say things like: "My conscience guides me not the Church" or, "I think the Pope is wrong in this instance".

We were all Catholics then, sturdy and well rounded

Photo: Art & Interiors


We all abstained from meat on Fridays and, in England and Wales at any rate, we were recognised as being Catholics because our stance placed us at odds with secular life. We did not join in with office gossip and blue film groups; we declined social invitations on a Sunday in order that we could attend Holy Mass, we asked for time off from work on Holy Days of Obligation and we would consult our parish priest before attending a wedding or funeral in a non Catholic church.

We were not saints; we drank too much, fought occasionally and frequently lived the high life but always within certain parameters.

But....we all had the imprint of Catholicism writ large on our foreheads.

Of course, this is an idealistic picture. It cannot surely all have been like this? But, that is what I remember, I am sure that there are holes to be picked in my recollections but, by and large, I am not very far from the truth.

Photo: Zazzle

Yesterday I bumped into an old colleague, also a Catholic but very much in the modernist wing of the faith. He told me of several Catholic acquaintances who had 'left the Church' to become Protestants. He did not rise to my lighthearted crack "But I thought you were already Protestant" but the meeting did leave me with a feeling that all could not be right with the faith when people migrate so readily. It was a small sample, I agree, but it would have been unheard of 50 years ago.

What has changed? What has altered the thought processes of so many good people? Why have so many gone in search of a non existent Plan B?

There are many answers and many reasons for the change but the overriding one has to be a disregard for authority.
Discipline has become a dirty word - but that is what we had pre Vatican II.

Of course, opponents of traditional Catholicism will call it oppression and blind obedience but it was not. We had our route map and, by and large we stuck with it.

Admittedly, there was the syndrome of young people who fell away from the faith at the age of 18 or 20 but part of the pattern was that they returned stronger and more self assured within a very few years.

What I am really saying, in a roundabout sort of way, is that a collective spirit was good then but does not exist now.

We have fragmented and the major element has departed far from the truths, far from what the Holy Father wishes.

It is vital that a knowledge of Catholic life before the 1960s is maintained. That spirit that we had then was far from perfect but it was much, much better than the one we have today.

Those left wing liberal and modernist Catholics who continue to disregard the example and guidance of the Holy Father are just as bad as those few within the SSPX who veer too far to the nutty right.

The reform of the reform is under way albeit slowly but it will be truly be a great day when we can all say once more: "I am a Catholic" without any prefixes whatsoever.

"Dear Bishop...."

May 1989 and I respond to my Bishop's uncharitable letter to my wife and myself.

Meanwhile, abuses at the school continue, school Masses use flowerpot type vessels instead of proper chalices and ciboria and a visiting priest, saying Mass for the children stops halfway through the elevation to ask: "Does anyone know the Test score?"

You really could not make it up and our world becomes more and more Lewis Carroll and less and less orthodox Catholic.

We were saved by a wonderful priest, Father Peter Lessiter, who then operated a "flying pastor" service to traditional Catholic families throughout the length and breadth of the land. He came, on average, every five or six weeks and stayed for two or three days, celebrating Mass, catechizing the children and hearing confessions.

In between visits we said a "dry" Mass on a Sunday a la recusant style.
Father Lessiter advised me to record every event that occurred as, in his words: "We are seeing Church history before our eyes and it's important to retain a record for future generations".

So now I can refer to fat files of press cuttings and letters to all and sundry - here is my letter in response to the Bishop's warning shot. I was, perhaps, a little brasher in those days but, on re-reading the letter, I don't think that I would change anything.

"Dear Bishop....................,

I was extremely disturbed and angry to receive such a letter from you.

I have written to you several times in the past enumerating the various abuses that take place at Masses in your Diocese and you have never responded.

Because of the continuation of such abuses that deny the primary sacrificial nature of the Mass my wife and I have made the decision to return to the "Mass of all Time".

I find it rather bizarre to be accused of alignment with Protestantism as a result. Were, then, my parents heretics?

The Society (SSPX) is not a sect as you well know and if I seek justification for our actions in the modern Church I would quote to you Code 844 of Canon Law:-

"Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ's faithful for whom it is physically impossible to approach a Catholic Minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic Ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid"

Our preference is, of course, to receive the Sacraments from a Catholic priest so we shall continue in our intentions.

We too, shall pray for you and the Church".

I believe that the new Code of Canon Law 844 was a sop to the ecumenical movement that flourished at that time with shared services being quite common but, on this occasion, it ricocheted back into the court of the liberals.

Oh, really Bishop?

Some 11 months after the SSPX Bishops had been excommunicated (let's call it that), we withdrew our children from their convent school preparations for Confession and First Holy Communion (our son and eldest daughter were, I think, in line for Confirmation classes).


We withdrew them because they were still colouring in drawings of Zacharias up a tree and, frankly, we were bored with it all.
So much mush, so little red meat.


I met with the nun who was Headteacher and explained our position; we had, I stated, moved to the traditional Church, the one that I had been brought up in. I followed through in writing so that there would be no misunderstandings.


No comment was forthcoming until, a few days later, a letter, landed on the doormat.


It was from our Bishop and he was not best pleased.


This is what he said:

Dear Mr Collins,

A copy of your letter to Sister ________ has been forwarded to me.
Because of the seriousness of the matter it was right that I've had the copy (sic).

Priests or Bishops belonging to the Society of St Pius X make up part of the group which the Holy Father with great sadness was forced to declare schismatics and formally excommunicated. (The level of English is not good)
In linking up with them, far from returning to the traditional Catholic faith in which you were brought up, you are rejecting that faith. You are entering a situation which aligns you with the Protestants and other dissident groups over the centuries who have rejected the primacy and authority of the Roman Pontiff. 
Traditional Catholic teaching tells us that knowingly to join such a sect is to commit grave sin.

Traditional Catholic teaching also says that to hand over children to be formed by members of a schismatic or heretical group is to be guilty of mortal sin of the most serious kind.

As your Bishop, appointed to proclaim, defend and safeguard Catholic teaching as handed on within the Catholic Church, and in filial union with and obedience to the Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, it is my duty to point out plainly the reality of what you are doing and its serious consequences both now and for eternity.

It is a matter of great sadness and distress that yet another schism should happen in our time.

It is a matter of alarm to learn that this latest group to leave the unity of the Catholic Faith should be seeking to spread its disaffection within our diocese, with great harm to souls.

I appeal to you before it is too late, for the sake of your own eternal salvation and that of your children, to draw back from what you are doing.

Assuring you of my prayers at this time,

Yours in Christ

Now I had previously sent this Bishop numerous letters pointing out abuses (serious ones) within the parish and school and never received a reply.


The line "Traditional Catholic teaching also says that to hand over children to be formed by members of a schismatic or heretical group..." is particularly poignant as my wife and I had previously fought a running battle with the PP, Headteacher AND the Bishop, regarding the school allowing a group of American Baptists to evangelise the children for one whole day; without our approval or knowledge.


I do not publish this correspondence with any sense of bitterness. I just find it so absorbing that the grinding wheels of the Second Vatican Council have been put back on the right track and that the restoration of the liturgy is well under way.


I shall post my letter of reply quoting Code 844 of Canon Law tomorrow.

The terrible damage done by V2

The aftermath of V2 - a world in ruins!


Yes, the VII German rockets caused immense damage to the structure of society falling on the cities of Great Britain in the last months of the Second World War. Legend has it that I was born in the middle of a V2 raid, my poor mother unable to take to the air raid shelter in the garden stayed in the house.

And then I had to suffer another V2 later in my life!





A criticism of the English and Welsh Bishops, from an unexpected quarter

The year is 1985, the publication is a small magazine for priests called 'Vox Sacerdotalis - but can you guess the identity of this person who levels some good critical remarks to their Lordships? He or she is obviously a staunch Catholic who dislikes the liberal trappings of guitar Masses and the like. How have their views changes some 25 plus years later? It is a good article, and it paints an interesting picture of the state of the Church in England and Wales in 1985.
Have you guessed who the author is yet?
No? Well read the article in extract form, sorry it is so long, and make an educated guess, the answer will be revealed in tomorrow's post!
My thanks to Mrs Linen who kindly transcribed it for me.

"The Pope has called a special Synod of the Bishops of the Catholic Church in November.  The idea is to review progress since the Second Vatican Council in the mid -1960’s.

Here in Britain the latest statistics from the Catholic Education Council give a picture of what is happening.  Meanwhile the Bishops of England and Wales have sent their own submission to Rome in preparation for this event.  It makes extraordinary reading.

The Bishops claim to have “carried out consultation among Catholic people” in preparing for the Synod.  This is a peculiar assertion, since they contacted only a tiny selection of Catholic organisations, and although it is true that in theory any Catholic was able to make his or her own comments to their lordships, this was certainly not widely publicised despite the fact that there is a ‘Catholic Media Office’ which might have been asked to undertake the project.

The episcopal submission says that “the renewal of the liturgy has played a large part in helping to achieve a deeper appreciation of the Church as People of God … the word of God has been more thoroughly heard as the source of enlightenment and animation of the community of believers …”.

But whoever is getting the “deeper appreciation of the Church as people of God” it isn’t the majority of the people themselves.  They’re staying at home.  This is revealed in the Catholic Education Council figures:  Mass attendance as 2,114,219 in 1966, dropping to 1,570,230 in 1982 and 1,512,552 in 1984.

That is a drop of 30 thousand per year, at a time when the official Catholic population was steadily rising.  If the drop continues at this rate, there will be no Catholics attending Mass in Britain in 45 years time.

What about baptisms?  For these figures, it is useful to consult the Catholic Directories published annually.  Infant baptisms fell from 137,673 in 1964 to 71,887 in 1981, while the nominal Catholic population rose from 3,827,000 to 4,220,262.

Catholic marriages are down, too.  In 1964 there were 45,592 but in 1982 there were 27,774.

Is it a case of quality rather than quantity?  In the case of priests, it had better be.  In 1984 just 92 were ordained, and 152 died.  The lack of priests is going to present a crisis in the not-too-distant future.

Above all, the Catholic Church in Britain seems to have been unable to hold its young people – they are lapsing annually in their hundreds and thousands from the practise of their faith and are not returning.

The reasons for people absenting themselves from hearing God’s word or partaking of His Sacraments are probably very wide-ranging, but the present liturgy, which the Bishops claim has helped so many to a deeper appreciation of the whole subject, must be examined as a major factor.

As one Catholic lay movement has put it, in a report of its own to the Synod, “Every conceivable kind of experimental liturgy has at one time or another been foisted upon the unfortunate laity in the name of the Second Vatican Council.  In the process, the deeply reverent and spiritual atmosphere that had traditionally been associated with the celebration of the liturgy has been lessened and often enough completely lost”.

“There is no doubt that this has been a contributory factor in the decline of Mass attendance.  Much of the new liturgical celebration has been tasteless, ugly, badly performed and irrelevant …. Instead of using the words and rituals provided by the Church at the Second Vatican Council and having the humility to do so in a liturgical celebration hallowed by tradition and the authority of the Church, many clerics prefer their own way. To the laity, who have to listen and receive these things, it looks like pride and self-glorification.  The young are not deceived and soon look elsewhere for spiritual, liturgical and religious fulfilment”.

The Bishops assert that more and more lay people are gaining from involvement in the life of the Church.  But of whom are they talking?  Presumably not of the people who no longer go to Mass, the children who remain unbaptised, the young who marry outside the Church.  They seem to be referring to that tiny minority of people who sit on the new Episcopal commissions and committees, the heavy (and expensive!) structure of bureaucracy with which the Church in England and Wales is encumbered.

........The falling Mass attendance figures are the key to the tragedy.  As a prominent Catholic layman and political commentator, B.A. Santamaria, said in The Tablet  recently after listing the statistics of the decline:  “If these facts are false, let them be shown to be so.  It they are true, for God’s sake let us not conclude our assessment with the monumental absurdity that, in proportion as Catholics vote with their feet and empty once-full churches, the Holy Ghost is ‘renewing’ what is visibly ceasing to exist.”

The episcopal submission ends with the startling assertion that the overall picture seems to be one of welcoming and acceptance of the decrees of the Second Vatican Council among Catholic people in Britain.  But how many Catholics here have actually read them, or know what they say?  The evidence would appear to be that Catholics who truly know and love their faith, and are prepared to make it an active force in their lives, are a diminishing number in Britain today.

Meanwhile every kind of crazy cult, from Rastafarianism to the occult, is gaining adherents, thousands of unborn children a year are destroyed by legal abortion, the divorce figures rise, violent crime increases, Christianity no longer has a central place in the curriculum of our state schools, and many young people – Catholics among them – get involved with drugs, cohabit rather than marry, and view the Church as irrelevant to their lives.

The picture in Britain is emphatically not one of renewal but of weakness, decay and decline.  Bureaucracy, humbug and doctrinal compromise have got to be swept away if any progress is to be made.  Fortunately, the man in charge in Rome is a Pole whose view of the Church is one tinted with an ability to detect all three.

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF PRIESTS

This year the conference spent more time than usual listening to prepared speeches.  They were entertained by among others, Mgr. Bruce Kent, whose speech was utterly predictable; and by Fr. Austin Smith C.P., who for some time has been working in Toxteth.  Just like many priests who work in Latin America, the latter has espoused liberation theology and besides calling for more help for the deprived people (I nearly said depraved), he called for a renewed Church, less clericalism, born again from the grass roots of basic communities, totally dedicated to the poor and oppressed.

The third main speech from Bishop Kelly of Salford was far better.  Eighteen resolutions were voted on.  The theme was ‘Violence’.  The conference looked to have voted both ways on Military Chaplaincies.  One resolution called for the continued recognition of the right of men and women in the Armed Forces to pastoral care and affirmed the Chaplain’s role in seeking to preach the gospel and celebrate the sacraments with them.  With that there can be no dissent I would think (except that 5 abstained and 2 voted against.)  The next resolution said “We ask our Bishops conference to re-examine the conditions of service of our military chaplains”.  I thought at first this was saying, “let us not have any” but it transpires that what the members were getting at is the fact that full time chaplains have the status of officers, wear uniforms and are paid for by that awful body, the Ministry of Defence.  The members were looking to some sort of unranked chaplaincy arrangement.

I will not list all the resolutions.  Most of them I would have voted against or abstained.  For one or two, however, I would probably have lost my temper and shouted out “shame” at their being passed if I had been present.  Thus the following come in that category.

“On the occasion of an interchurch marriage, if the non-Catholic party expresses true faith in the eucharist and wishes to communicate with his/her partner, this should be allowed and welcomed”.  However this failed with 42 for and 22 against with 8 abstentions.

“As Clergy we lament our ignorance of the violence of Northern Ireland (what ignorance? We see it every night on screen!) and the injustices underlying it, in particular the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act”.  What about the daily horrors perpetrated by the I.R.A.???

“That this conference should place on record its concern over the exercise of authority of any level in the Church which submits members or sections of God’s people to moral or psychological violence.  In particular we uphold the right of theologians to legitimate enquiry and speculation which should be encouraged as essential to the life of the Church”.

”We fully endorse the vision of the Church as expressed in the submission to the synod secretariat containing as it does, a clear indication of the priorities for the local Church”.  The previous issue of Vox dealt with this submission.  Only 6 abstained on the vote.

Much of the remainder of the conference wasted its time by dealing with issues like unemployment and social deprivation.  When will they deal with prayer, lapsation, the Devil and other topics truly suited to an assembly of priests?  Regrettably a picture published in the Catholic papers of the entire assembly revealed that most of the august gathering had discarded clerical collars and/or clerical dress at least for the conference.

LITTLE GEMS

Education.  “Church schools should certainly stop playing the numbers game by claiming that so many have taken first communion, or so many practice their religion on Sundays.  This tells us nothing about how many religiously mature people we are helping to produce later in life, whether as mature Christians or mature Atheists.  When teaching atheists, one’s aim is not to convert them but to produce serious reflective atheists who have a sensitive appreciation to Christianity and religions generally (the sort of appreciation no doubt that will dispatch you quickly to the Gulag in Russia!).  After all, as Gerald Priestland has reminded us, to be an atheist you have to know a lot about religion”.

From a Review of Gabriel Moran’s ‘Religious Education Development’ (Chapman 1984).  Well there is another book to avoid.  See the review of Fr. Purnell’s book for similar ideas.

Youth Masses from the publishers blurb for ‘Masses with young People’ by Fr. Donal Neary SJ.

“These Masses were composed for use with groups of young people from the age of about 14 years upwards and they take into account the normal level of religious and liturgical experience and difficulties for this group … the themes of the Masses are Easter, Compassion, Heart for Justice, Friendship, Risk/Courage, Trust, Flowers and Weeds, The Cross, Jesus the Revolutionary, Exam Time, Christmas, Self Image, Vocation, God, Hope, Suffering, Forgiveness, The Breaking of Bread, The Good Samaritan, Choosing a Career”.  Well liturgical books are really on the way out in the Church of the future !!!

Radio Mass “If there is one sound which brings on in me a strong urge to switch off, it is that of guitar and recorder music in Church services.  I have nothing against guitars and recorders as such, but when they announce themselves in Church as they did in last Sunday’s Mass on Radio 4’s Morning Service, I feel that what follows will make me feel the reverse of uplifted.  Now this sort of prejudice ought to be resisted.  With this in mind I stuck out the broadcast from Our Lady of Lourdes Church to discover only once again that where guitar and recorder music is found in church, so are cheap and tinny hymn tunes, reedy singing from a congregation patently uneasy with syncopation and a general air of matinees about the whole business guaranteed to bring on nausea.  In future I shall know better than to doubt my own worse fears.”  Gillian Reynolds in ‘Sunday Telegraph’ September 1985."

It surely can't be Damian T as he was still in the 4th form then, mmm, maybe William Oddie?.......or maybe not!

Something happened in the late sixties........

........Catholics started disappearing. Mass attendances dipped, Baptisms, Weddings and even Funerals were down, Priests and religious departed in droves, Vocations to the priesthood went out the window and Nuns....where did they go to?
The head count of Catholics worldwide took a nosedive. What was going on?
Why was this haemorrhaging taking place? Things had been looking so good....what could possibly be causing this?

The decline in priestly vocations is perhaps the most dramatic example of just how far we fell, in England and Wales - and are still falling although there is some evidence of a revival of sorts (while, on the other hand, Ushaw is closed).

The following chart shows the decline of vocations only from 1982 to 2009. It would be interesting to see a chart showing numbers of priests who left the church from 1969-1980

                  

"The Church has been dressed in a boiler suit"

A post by Laurence England 'Priests threaten mass exodus over new translation' and a subsequent comment asking why, at the time of Vatican II and the changes, priests did not speak out, has prompted me to publish this post on Fr Oswald Baker whose famous words form the headline to this piece.
Fr Baker of Downham Market as he became known, was not one to let a Bishop dictate something to him which he knew to be inherently wrong.
He dug his heels in and "took over" his own parish and English Catholic Church history was made.
Here is an account extracted from an article in 2004 in The Daily Catholic. I am uncertain as to the provenance of this organisation, that is, I do not know whether it is mainstream church, SSPX or SV. But the account is an interesting one and it illustrates just what a Traditional priest was up against then (and now).

Very tragically, Fr Baker ended up as a Sede Vacantist not recognising the Pope. That is a warning to the SSPX....survival away from Rome can only be achieved within a short time frame. After a period of separation the rot sets in and permanent refusal to recognise reasonable requests ends in a move into the Protestant camp. Pray for Fr Baker's soul and for Bishop Fellay in his dealings with Rome.

"Father Oswald Charles Baker was born on the first day of Our Lady's month of May in 1915, two years before the Blessed Mother of God would appear at Fatima. His birth was in the Angel Hotel at Clowne, Derbyshire, where his father was the landlord. In his youth the family moved to Great Yarmouth, where he attended the grammar school and, as reports confirm, soon lost his provincial accent. Finding himself drawn to religious life, he enrolled in the Campion House in Middlesex, operated by the Jesuits. From there he advanced to a prestigious Jesuit Seminary in France to become "a gentleman of St. Sulpice." However, the Jesuits were already into the politically correct mode back in 1938 when young Mr. Baker was asked to leave the seminary because he had published an article that suggested the Treaty of Versailles had been "too severe on Germany to be the basis of a lasting peace." As we can see from history, he was right. It would not be the last time he was right. By his own admission he wrote, "I was always a rebel."     Returning back to England, he tried to enter a Jesuit British Seminary but they had been forewarned that Oswald was one who would foment rebellion. Little did they realize the real rebels had already infiltrated the Church and were circulating errors that would have their explosion in the sixties. Rebuffed by the Society, Baker sought to earn a living selling books in Glasgow, Scotland when a Dominican he had met, after telling the priest more about his life and vocation, suggested that he become a friar.     Just as the corruption had already seeped into the Jesuit Order, so also the Order of Preachers. Oswald didn't last long with the white-robed Dominicans. Eventually, through the providence of God, he was introduced to a secular priest at Hyde Park. The priest recommended he enter the local Oscott Seminary in Birmingham, England. That worked to perfection and he was ordained in 1942 with war against the Axis in full throttle.     Throughout the next seven years he served as a curate at parishes in Luton, High Wycombe, and then Wyndham in Norfolk. In 1949 his bishop assigned him to the Church of St. Dominic at Downham Market in Norfolk where he was named pastor. There he remained for 26 years     Always a stickler for Catholic doctrine in being applicable to all things, he railed against the media's manipulation, bad grammar and even worse, bad theology and false reporting such as in 1953 when he took The Daily Telegraph to task for attacking His Holiness Pope Pius XII over contraception and other accusations. The mud-slinging against Pius had already begun and would continue over the next 50 years as the modern church would opt to dialogue incessantly rather than defend defiantly. That was what Fr. Oswald Baker was committed to: defending the Faith and the True Popes with every fiber of his being. He was loyal and dedicated and for this he ran into trouble with the apostate bishop of Northhampton Charles Grant.     After refusing from the get-go to abandon the rubrics of the True Mass, and having had enough of the New Order claptrap following Vatican II which he had been most leery of from the beginning and had held off saying the new abominations established by Anibale Bugnini and approved by a man who violently violated his papal vow not to change one iota of the constituted evangelic traditions, Father finally said: "Enough!" Rather, it was Grant who said "enough, this bloke Baker is prohibiting us from totally de-Catholicizing the populace by clinging to the zany idea that a Papal decree in 1570 takes precedence over whatever we decide today. Blimey, we must do something to discredit this chap." Just as the Newchurch of Vatican II has done to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngo-Dinh-Thuc, and Father Nicholas Gruner to name a few, so also Grant set out to make an example of Father Oswald Baker. The Northhampton prelate not only badmouthed Baker, but twice ordered him to cease and desist what he had said for over 30 years - the Apostolic Mass of Sts. Peter and Paul - the Mass of All Ages - the infrangible Traditional Latin Mass codified infallibly by Pope Saint Pius V in 1570 in his landmark infallible Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum. When Fr. Oswald didn't blink, Grant went into a rage and commandeered Father's parish, sending in a New Order presbyter. But Fr. Oswald resisted, and the one sent by Grant had to offer the Novus Ordo in the local town hall. The people's attendance spoke volumes as to which they chose. Only a few attended Grant's "Mass" while even more flocked to Fr. Oswald Baker's Tridentine Mass at St. Dominic's. To show their support for Father and the True Mass, the faithful formed the "1570 Society" helping to raise money for Father to continue his resistance to the rebellion of Vatican II. Father Baker stated that if it was a war they wanted, then war it would be for "the new Mass is a sacrilegious parody of the true Mass: it is sinful to take part in it." He was echoing what Father James F. Wathen, a charter inductee into the Tower of Trent Hall of Honor last year, had written five years earlier in his irrefutable impacting work The Great Sacrilege     Because of the slander campaign launched by Grant, The Daily Telegraph assigned a reporter to attend Fr. Oswald's Masses and record any comments that might be used against him. Fr. Oswald was up to the ruse and felt if they want to hear something that should raff their knickers, he'd give it to them. He was quoted referring to the holy and mystical St. John of the Cross who as most remember, was incarcerated by his superiors because he sought to stand by tradition. Fr. pointed out that he was exonerated and went on to become Vicar General of Andalusia. Looking at the reporter, Fr. Oswald emphasized to the delight of his congregation that "There is something about them, these priests who gain a misleading reputation for disobedience. These bishops. They will have their little joke."     But it was never truly a laughing matter to Fr. Oswald that so many were being deceived and ruining the True Mass - "the cherished Mystery of the Latin Mass" which he called "probably the most beautiful product of our civilization."     In the last Mass he officially celebrated before being sanctioned and cast to the catacombs to suffer as the holy Doctor of the Church St. John of the Cross did, Father in part stated from the pulpit the treasure of the Mother Tongue:     "The gifts of God to man are in a world which is often careless and irreverent. One of God's institutions which is lamentably possible to desacralize and impoverish is our liturgy, our Mass. We have heard much in recent times about the advantages claimed for Mass in the vernacular, the language of the people. In judging this matter, we shall be wise to bear in mind the disadvantages, and to see the matter in the perspective of history.     "The language of the people in the liturgy has a centuries-long history. Few would claim that where it has been tried, it has intensified religious fervor, increased holiness, led to a deeper religious enlightenment or strengthened the bond of unity or charity among the faithful. A liturgy in the vernacular has rarely filled a church. The opposite is true of the liturgy celebrated in Latin. It is expedient to recall the advantages of Latin. It is probably true that the most beautiful product of our civilization is the Latin Mass. It is certainly true that all the saints of all intellectual levels drew from the cherished mystery of the Latin Mass the wisdom, humility, charity, piety and spirit of sacrifice that elevated and strengthened them. When it is said that, with the ousting of Latin, something has gone, that something can be given a multiple definition - an exquisite elegance and dignity and pathos, a fervent devotion unmixed with ostentation, a centuries-old absolute sacredness, the clear margin between the sacred and the profane. A sacred language indissolubly linked with the Church's sacred music, Gregorian Melody, unfailingly inspires reverence, without sentimentality, and to attempt any vernacular substitute is to attempt the inadequate. It is to take the queenly mantle of the Church and to put the Church in overalls. The very soul of the Church is in her sacred music, in her sacred language.     "As Our Lord used beautiful parables to veil His precious truths, so Latin keeps a decent and beautiful veil over what is enacted by the priest at the altar. To read the Epistle and Gospel in English is to lift that veil somewhat, without yet casting it aside, bringing everything down to the level of the commonplace, exposing all to the general gaze. The truth about the Canon of the Mass, whose English version has been so hotly disputed, is that it most probably just cannot be satisfactorily translated out of Latin into any other language suitable for public recitation aloud. Does that really worry anybody? The Latin Mass has always been loved as it is, without question available in English if wanted, in bi-lingual missals, or if they prefer, those at Mass have always been free to pray their own prayers.     "Centuries of Latin has not, that anyone knows, alienated any soul, or caused charity to grow cold in any. The Church has kept the Catholics of the world united by the use of a single language, and if that bond goes, not only unity, but much else besides is immediately imperiled."     Despite his being banned from St. Dominic's, his parishioners bought him a house to serve as his Traditional Chapel, enabling him to continue the resistance by providing an oasis in the desert of desertion of the True Faith. Soon the fame of his loyalty to the Traditional Latin Mass and staunch resistance to the "abomination of desolation" introduced by Paul VI and continued erringly under John Paul II soon spread across Britain and to the European mainland; so much so that word reached Archbishop Lefebvre in Econe, Switzerland who decided to send some of his young priests to England to take up the same cause as Fr. Baker. Father Oswald was receptive to this but began to grow suspicious when he realized that the Archbishop was giving too much credit to what he called heretical non-Catholic popes. For Fr. Oswald made it known that one should adhere to another holy Doctor of the Church's teaching - Saint Robert Cardinal Bellarmine whose 5th Opinion in his landmark De Romano Pontifice stated that "a heretical pope automatically loses his office." Needless to say he was labeled a sedevacantist by the Society and others and this caused a split in his congregation because of the misunderstanding by so many as to what the situation really was - it was a time of epikea - emergency - in the Church and supplied jurisdiction had trumped ordinary jurisdiction for with the new rites of sacraments introduced by Paul VI, their validity was greatly, if not fully, called into question.     In 1984 when asked by a reporter about John Paul II, Fr. Oswald asserted that "he was no more Catholic than Ian Paisley - and no more a pope than Billy Graham." As we can see by the late Pole's heretical actions over his "pontificate", Fr. Baker was right on both accounts. Father was favorable towards another Archbishop, Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngo-Dinh-Thuc, pointing out that "He was formerly Archbishop of Hanoi. In 1970, at the age of 73, he resigned, over Paul VI's rapprochement with Communism. The rest of the family was martyred in Communist Vietnam (his brother president of the Republic of Vietnam was assassinated in November of 1973.] The Archbishop has three doctorates, in philosophy, theology, and canon law. He was previously a seminary rector, and the founder of Vietnam's principal university. He rejects the Conciliar Church, which emerged from Vatican II, as a heretical sect, and therefore its hierarchy as apostates from the Catholic Church." As one commentator pointed out, Baker believed Thuc did the right thing in "logically and fearlessly rejecting John Paul II as no pope" and concluding that the Apostolic See was vacant. Father noted that the archbishop considered ordinations and Episcopal consecrations in the Novus Ordo as "doubtfully valid." Thus, Fr. Baker validated as necessary Thuc's consecration of bishops from many countries to ensure the continued Apostolic Succession. What impressed Fr. Oswald was that Thuc made a dignified and open declaration of his convictions.     And convictions are what sustained Fr. Oswald as the slander and backbiting continued into the nineties where less than two dozen remained faithful. It is interesting to note that when a certain Hollywood actor by the name of Mel Gibson, long before he ever began his masterpiece project The Passion of The Christ, bought a home nearby and began attending Fr. Baker's Masses on Sunday, attendance increased dramatically. Sad that it took a personality to attract them back, when all along they had the greatest Personality Who ever lived present Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity at each and every Holy Mass and in the Tabernacle. This is one of the problems in the Traditional movement that the personalities and viewpoints of certain priests are weighed more than the very fact that he is merely an alter Christus whose personality and charm or personal opinions should never get in the way or persuade one from not attending the True Mass as decreed infallibly by Pope St. Pius V to be said "in perpetuity."     In 1997, crippled by spinal problems, he left his home parish to accommodate his handicapped status elsewhere. Yet, despite the tremendous pain, he continued to do what he was ordained to do: Say the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. As opinionated as Fr. Oswald Baker was throughout his life, he never let it come between his duty as a shepherd to his flock in striving for 62 years as "a priest forever according to the Order of Melchisedech" to provide the necessary nourishment of the True Mass. According to the London Telegraph on the day of his death at the age of 87, his final words were "I am ready to die." And to which when he did pass from this earth shortly after, we can only pray Our Lord welcomed him to the Heavenly kingdom with the words each and everyone of us long to hear: "Well, done, good and faithful servant."

Now can we lay a few ghosts from the past?

There are a couple of myths floating around out there that have no substance in truth and I would like to do my bit to put them to rest, permanently!

The first is one from my own side of the tennis court, that of believing that everything in the Faith was rosy up until Vatican II. Not so. It was, in my view, quite a bit better than the state of play today but there were abuses of several kinds in existence. Priestly authority could, at times be overpowering to the point of being obnoxious and domineering. There were, so we believe, sexual scandals, but these were largely hushed up (and that was not necessarily a bad thing; we need to keep a perspective on each case and, if a priest runs off with a female parishioner, it is not always appropriate to make public comment).
There was also a rather subservient attitude on behalf of the laity. One did not question a decision made by a priest, less still a Bishop. If you wanted to make public your faith and stand on a box at Speaker's Corner on a Sunday, you had to first complete a course in catechetics run by the CTS (or was it the CEG?). Without that imprimatur no one would even think of doing such a thing. But, by and large, there was nothing there that could not be fixed by a few ecclesiastical tweaks.

My second 'ghost' is from the left hand side of the court. The constant accusation that priests 'gabbled' the latin. My parish was in Hounslow, basically at one end of the main Heathrow Airport runway; as a result, we had a constant stream of itinerant priests staying for a few days before moving on. I lived less than 150 yeard from the church and so, as an altar server, I was on call for one or two masses each day, funerals, weddings, receiving coffins into the church the night before, bar mitzvhas well, no, not those actually but you get the picture. Never once did I experience a priest gabbling  latin at Mass. I must have served hundreds of Masses. My explanation for the belief ? The fact that non latin speakers get confused when they hear the language spoken fluently.
I have the same problem on holiday in France or Japan or wherever. They all speak so damn fast, they sound as if they are gabbling their language! After a week I begin to develop an 'ear' for what is being said and the process of being able to begin to separate the individual words starts to take place.
It is true that some priests celebrated Mass rather rapidly but I do recall a discussion with Fr Richard Sutherland (RIP) in the course of which he told me that there was a set time period for a Low Mass. I cannot now remember what that time period was but I believe it was between 20 and 30 minutes. That's OK for a Low Mass mid week with only a handful of communicants, it can be done reverently and without rushing the latin. It might run to 40 minutes if it was a Sunday. And it must be remembered that those were the days when priests had, seemingly, huge calls on their time. They made house visits, very often, not just once a year. Many priests did not drive and so travelled around their patch on a bicycle. They also made their presence felt in the parish school, often on a daily basis and, of course, there was Mass every day and rosary most evenings. They worked very hard at pastoral and spiritual matters in those days and I am sure many do the same today.

And, finally, this last thought which few seem to consider. Up until 1970 or so, we were all Traditional Catholics.
That's right, you heard me correctly, we were

                                        ALL TRADITIONAL CATHOLICS!

You know what? It wasn't all that bad, in fact, it was quite enjoyable!