Modernist Tactics and the "Pastoral" lie to changing practice

Here's just a quick exchange I had on Facebook with regards to modernism, doctrine and practice.

Comment:

"Unhelpful for LifesiteNews to quote from a particular comment at the Synod. Archbishop Peta would better serve the church by allowing discussion, listening without judgement to other Synod fathers, rather than releasing for public consumption his particular input. It stifles debate, restricts freedom of discussion, sows fear and shows lack of trust and ultimately undermines his brother bishops. If all Synod fathers released there own personal views for the conservative or liberal media, it would destroy any possibility of unity in the Synod deliberations. Where is your faith? DO NOT BE AFRAID."

My response:

 The problem Michael is that the modernists want us to believe that certain issues are not closed and are still open for discussion and haven't been declared upon by the Church. I'm all for debate but issues such as Communion for adulterers, homosexual relations, artificial birth control etc. are already settled issues.

The very idea of debating these issues [that are already settled] is part of this "infernal smoke" that the Archbishop is speaking about.

His reply:

These issues need to be debated, not to alter doctrine but to find an appropriate pastoral approach to bring people to Christ. Remember Jesus ate and mixed with adulterers, thieves prostitutes, enemy collaborators and often found greater faith among these "sinners". No doubt he would eat and drink (and even allow himself be photographed) with those we dislike today. What's wonderful is that Jesus even loves those of us who consider ourselves "worthy" to receive communion (as if we ever could be), and we are the most difficult of all to be converted to the gospel and love of enemies!

My response:

You are right Michael, Jesus did eat with sinners and we should welcome all! But Jesus doesn't just go to people and try to understand them in their situation. He also tried to bring them out of that situation! John 8 is a perfect example. The last line is, "go and sin no more." and in fact this call to leave sin behind is part of loving someone.

The issue of Communion for adulterers is already decided and there isn't a debate to be had. None of us are worthy to receive Communion and we all sin! But there is a difference between people trying to live a life in accordance with the Gospel and falling from weakness and those who live a life in rebellion to God's plan and do so willingly. The Church, as a mother, is very merciful towards her children and for those who cannot separate because of children or other circumstances are not condemned but told to live as brother and sister. I haven't heard anyone explain to me what's wrong with the Church's rules as they stand currently. They are in line with doctrine and truth, and also merciful and understanding.

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Worksop

This will be a brief departure from my normal Catholic blog writing but I wanted to share my experience on a certain topic. Be warned, this will be quite a long post.

I was recently invited to do a Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) workshop for the weekend. I will say that I went more out of obligation than of really wishing to attend as I already had some idea of the issues surrounding true Catholic spiritual growth (found by going towards Christ) and personality-profiling which normally believes that growth is acheived through reaching an equilibrium between contrasting traits. Below is my reflection on how I was "typed". I tried to go through each of the sentences/definitions of the alleged profile individually and critically so to avoid confirmation bias and any of the forer effects with dog these kind of things.

What is the MBTI?

Taken from the Report Form for the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator - Copyright 1976 by Isable Briggs Mters, Copyright 1988 by Consulting Psychologists Press Inc. All rights reserved.

"The MBTI reports your preferences on four scales. There are two opposite preferences on each scale. The four scales deal with where you like to focus your attention (Extrovert or Introvert), the way you like to look at things (Sensing or Intuition), the way you like to make decisions (Thinking or Feeling), and how you deal with the outer world (Judging or Perceiving)."

What did I "score"?

I won't go in to explain each category individually as it will take too long but the test gives you a supposed tendency; how much you would tend to choose one side over the other. Each of the types is the types/tendencies are then given an explanation which I will analyse in more detail below. My scores were as follows:

Extrovert 7 (small tendency), Sensing 25 (good tendency), Thinking 63 (incredibly high), Perceiving 39 (very high).

Extrovert (E) or Introvert (I) - 7 extrovert

This low score is described as a "little E". This means that I don't associate strongly with E and can shift quite easily in to I. With the dangers of confirmation-bias in mind I took a step back and several things became clear, As a "little E" I should feel a slight tendency to choose E over I. However, if I choose the "extovert" option 50% of the time and the "introvert" option 45% (in the arbitrary situations of the initial phase of the test) then I am actually neither E nor I and this I believe would bring in to question the further alleged explanatory nature of the system. Sometimes I'm an extrovert, sometimes I'm an introvert and my tendency depends on inmuerable factors and varies according to situations as shown. Therefore the advice given to an E really would only apply to me in 50% of situations say, and would in fact not apply to me in 45% of situations.

It is also clear that though I am apparently a "type" which is imbedded in to my nature, I have in fact changed. I was undoubtedly a strong introvert even as little as 8-10 years a go. However, I forced myself to become more extroverted by making a conscious choice to speak to others, make decisions without thinking so much etc.This swung me over to the extrovert side and in fact changed my initial sub-conscious reaction to situations (which is what the type tries to identify). So interestingly, it can be shown that conscious decisions can affect the sub-conscious after a long time. I believe this casts doubt on whether types exist at all if one can swing between different ones as I have.

Even without this conscious act of the will, studies have shown that as many as 50% of participants can change type within a period of as little as 5 weeks. The longer the period between tests is extended the higher percentage of changes there are. From this we can draw several options: 1) the initial test is flawed and doesn't give accurate profiles 2) the profiles simply don't correspond to a kind of inmutable nature 3) both 1 and 2.

Sensing or Intuition - 25 sensing

I should have a strong tendency towards choosing the sensing option. However, upon going through the definitions one-by-one - thereby avoiding confirmation bias again - of what constitutes typical behavioural tendencies of an alleged sensing person I found that I was actually a mix with no discernible pattern. Sometimes I was a strong S such as with factual, literal, practical as opposed to imaginative at the expense of observant. Other times I was what is categorized as a tendency of an intuitive person; needing variety and valuing complex conversation as opposed to disliking change and wanting simple conversation. I also work best under inspiration as opposed to perspiration - sometimes apparently sinonomous with an intuitive person. Other times I could be either. For example, a sensate has a tendency to follow instructions, an intuitive forget. Sometimes I do one, and sometimes I do the other. It depends upon many things and I wouldn't say either could be used to type me.

Now, a fan of the MBTI may say that these particular profiles were badly written/explained. However, I had the chance to read through sections of several other books which were made available to use and they fell in to the same issue.

Again from this we can draw several options: 1) the initial test is flawed and doesn't give accurate profiles 2) the profiles simply don't correspond to a kind of inmutable nature 3) both 1 and 2

I raised the concern with the person conducting the workshop that the, in my opinion, arbitrary distinctions between types weren't corresponding to how I actually am and she replied, "you must be a very messed up boy then". Not only is this very offensive it's also a ridiculous statement which I hope isn't shared by others when the evidence doesn't match there expectations. I have noticed this tendency in other fans of the system from personal friends to university lecturers that they tend to dismiss anomilies out of hand. Not that this has any baring on whether the system itself is useful of course, but it is quite telling that this could be a tendency.

The further issue with this jumping between sensing and intuition profiles is that the development which is then encouraged or offered will simply not be applicable. The only way around it would be to cherry-pick those advices which apply to me and reject those which don't, but then this of course undermines the whole idea of the existence of a "type" and this is what the system purports to predict and explain.

Is protesting outside of an abortion clinic harassment/pressuring?

Here is another exchange that I had on the Telegraph forum regarding the claim that we shouldn't be allowed to protest and pray outside of abortion clinics.

Initial poster:
Harassment and humiliation of vulnerable young women at a particularly stressful time of their lives is perfectly legal in the UK, and these protesters get their kicks from it.

My reply:
I'm sorry but we don't "get our kicks from it". We want to help the women who go in, who from my experience feel pressured to have an abortion because they don't see another way forward.

2nd Poster:

You want to help people who you think have been pressured to go in?

And you want to help them... by putting more pressure on them? Judging them as going to hell?

Just leave them alone.

My reply:

The group that I belong to certainly doesn't "put pressure" on them and we certainly don't judge and say they are going to hell.

I have never stopped or impeded anyone from going in. We pray, and hand out leaflets to those who wish to take them which informs about fetal development (a simple timeline) as well as showing them that there are other options available including financial and emotional support which includes post-abortion support should they go through with it. Often, the women are very poorly informed about these topics.

2nd Poster:

Listen I don't want to make an enemy of you and I'm sure your intentions are good. But you are putting pressure on these people by your simple presence and by implying that you know what's morally right and these people don't.

Please- I don't share your religious views. Some of these young women might and some of them don't. If they want religious advice we have enough churches, mosques and synagogues they can go to.

My reply:

I'm not sure why you think giving me your opinion would make an enemy out of me.

I agree that any women going in to an abortion clinic will feel a lot of pressure, some of which will be caused by the unnaturalness of what they are doing, something which goes against their motherly instinct and then also from their own personal situations which vary greatly from feeling that they don't have the resources to bring up a child, to feeling they can't cope alone and even to being pressured by their social worker to have the abortion.

The care of the woman (and her child) is fundamental to the work we do which is why, at least in my experience, the protests are discreet and we never force ourselves on the women but simply hand out leaflets and ask if they wish to speak - if they don't then they are never impeded to go inside. We know women feel great pressure which is why when we speak to them we try and find out their circumstances and offer alternative solutions if they want them which as stated before includes financial and emotional support which often is what these women need most.

Of course, we don't think that abortion is a good thing and I hope and pray that one day we will be an abortion free country. But you are right that care for women is fundamental to that and it is in fact at the heart of the pro-life movement.

Final comments

As you can read, there are two battles that we face in arguing for the pro-life cause. The first is the argument to the emotional. The second is that we are somehow anti-woman. Both of these are of course not false arguments. Abortion is wrong because it involved the killing of a human being and we should proclaim this (with respect of course) no matter how we make others feel. The second point is also completely false and is normally used to shut-down any rational debate.

Returning to Divorce and "Re-Marriage"

Just wanted to share a short exchange I had recently on Facebook about the issue of divorce and "re-marriage".

Poster:

Everything is just great with the church if you pay them enough for an annulment. Although it doesn't affect my family personally, it does many of my friends that were divorced from their first spouse through no fault of their own. The fact that a bunch of never married clergy men can make these rules is just plain stupid. I don't buy the notion that Jesus made this law for the Catholic Church. These same clergymen claim that God is all forgiving but refuse to apply this to re-married divorcees. This makes them nothing but hypocrites. 
And we wonder why Southeast Christian Church has so many former Catholics joining

My reply:

Butch, God will forgive any sin that we ask him too and those who have broken their marriage vows are no different. They must, however, do the same as everyone else which is turn away from the sin. It isn't enough to ask for forgiveness knowing full well you're going to carry on in the sin regardless. The Church, as a mother, recognises that in some circumstances separation isn't possible and so asks the two people in question to live as brother and sister.

Remember, that the rules on adultery come straight from Jesus' mouth (Matthew 19, Mark 10). And Jesus doesn't just go around forgiving people with a magic wand. He asked for conversion of heart. Remember the woman at the well accused of adultery? What did Jesus tell her at the end? Go and sin no more. So with those who have broken their married vow the Church too does not condemn them, but welcomes them in to the confessional, asks them to be faithful to the vows they made, and also asks them to "go and sin no more".

Trinitarian Baptism Formula?

Below is a short exchange from a Facebook conversation that I had. I have chopped out the relevant comments as the conversation drifted off topic.

Discussion on correct method for baptising

The initial question posed was the following:

What is the correct mode of baptizum & what formula & name(s) should be used?

My first response was the following:

Well, Matthew 28 is quite clear on which names must be used: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The correct mode of baptism is a slightly more complicated issue. The New Testament doesn't make explicit references to how baptism SHOULD be administered however we do know that many were baptised by full emersion. We also know from documents such as the Didache (written in the first century) that sprinkling or pouring of water was also permitted in the early Church as a valid form of baptism. Therefore, I think it's fair to conclude that both methods are valid forms of baptising.

A commentator responded:

"baptize means to immerse"

My response was the following which I believe to be an adequate rebuttal:

Hi #####, I believe that that is an oversimplification. Baptise certainly means immerse, but it doesn't only mean that. In Luke 11:38, for example, the same word is used to mean wash.

Certainly the early Christians didn't exclusively baptise by immersion. As I said, in the early Church both forms were acceptable and here is the direct quote from the Didache written in AD70:

7: Concerning baptism, you should baptize this way: After first explaining all things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in flowing water. But if you have no running water, baptize in other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, then in warm. If you have very little, pour water three times on the head in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. Before the baptism, both the baptizer and the candidate for baptism, plus any others who can, should fast. The candidate should fast for one or two days beforehand.

Discussion on the correct formula for baptising

I have to say that whilst I had heard before of differing opinions regarding the valid method of baptising (immersion/pouring/sprinkling) I was not aware of a debate with regards to the formula that should be used; I assumed that it was always done "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. However, a later commentator indeed questions which formula should be used. 

Below is our brief exchange beginning with the original posters follow-up comment:

Well, well, I put the comment up to see what you all think, Paul says in 2 Corinthians 13 v1 "out of the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word of God be established", there is only one ref for Father, Son & Holy Ghost, also in col 3 v17,it says "let everything you do weather in word or deed let all be done in the name of Jesus", this ref does not omit baptizum, on the other hand there are at least 10 refs in the new test for Jesus name baptizum.


I asked for clarification:

Hi #####, hope you're well. I'm a bit confused as to what you're proposing. Are you saying we should baptise using only the name of Jesus?

They responded:

ONLY JESUS NAME, Acts 2 v38.

My previous posts say why

After some further research my response was the following:

Hi #####. I find that you are still left with the "problem" of Matthew 28:19 with regards to your interpretation. You seem to dismiss it by saying it was only mentioned once. This is completely inadequate as Scripture isn't a democracy where the most references wins; it's the full and coherent Word of God. Therefore we must reconcile the verses.

First of all, I'd say that Matthew 28:19 is the only verse explicitly relating to how Baptism should be administered, rather than a reference to Baptism. When Baptism is described in Acts it is not prescriptive as was the case in Matthew 28. We can see this because in Acts Luke uses the phrase "Lord Jesus" and at other times says "Jesus Christ" which would suggest that he wasn't so much concerned with prescribing the explicit formula that was used but rather was looking to say something else such as distinguishing Christian baptism from other Baptism's around at the time; such as John's, the Jewish one, pagan one etc. 

For example, I can say that I was baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. I could also say now that I repented and was baptised in the name of Jesus without an issue; ##### explained well how this isn't a contradiction. ***

I also think it would be wise to see how the early Church understood which baptism formula that should be used. The Didache document is just one of many examples that speak of the Trinitarian formula being used for baptism in the early Church: "Concerning baptism, you should baptize this way: After first explaining all things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit..."

Conclusion

I'm still slightly surprised by the conversation, and further research would lead me to suggest that the second commentor is most likely a Jesus Only/Oneness Pentecostal. Whilst most of the commentators on this particular discussion, and the vast majority of Protestants in general, do indeed baptise correctly using the Trinitarian formula this type of conversation really affirms my faith in the One, True, Catholic Church as being the only infallible interpretor of Holy Scripture and the problem of Sola Scriptura as a foundation for doctrinal matters. It also highlights the need for good, solid Catholic apologetics (see 1 Peter 3:15).

God bless.

*** comment referred to: the right way Matthew 28:19 all the way Acts is just the same Because Jesus is God the fullness of the God head bodily dwells in the Son Jesus is the son God manifested himself into man Jesus is that Man JESUS IS GOD.

Pro-Life Event - Glasgow

I was fortunate enough to be involved in a beautiful pro-life event today in Glasgow which involved a rosary, followed by a procession to Glasgow Cathedral. There was a good turn out, especially considering the weather, and it was great to see so many young faces in the crowd.

Over 500 people each day are denied the right to live in the UK and since the Abortion Law was passed in 1967 over 8 millions abortions have been carried out.

Sister Cristina - Like a..secular woman?

Does this make any other Catholic watching feel very uncomfortable...

Now compare that to truly beautiful music such as the Georgian chant below which lifts one's soul to heavenly things:

Cardinal Burke on the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops

I highly recommend listening to this wonderful interview by Raymond Arroyo with Cardinal Burke. Cardinal Burke has a wonderful grasp of Catholicism and is always a pleasure to listen to. Here are his final words from the interview but please listen to the whole thing:

"What I'm hoping is that the Church's really rich and beautiful Magisterium with regards to marriage and the family will be brought to light again and held up. I think of, for instance, of the encyclical Casti Connubi of Pius XI, I think of Familiaris Consortio, I think of Humanae Vitae. There is just a whole body of wonderful teaching on marriage and the family and so I really hope that the Synod will draw us all to go back and plum again the depths of that teaching"

Bishop Galantino Comments - Irregular Matrimonial Situations

I wish I didn't have to write another article about comments people have made but it's called for and I will try to do so with as much charity as possible. It's not clear exactly what Bishop Galantino meant by certain phrases and so please take this as a general criticism of the comments and commentary attributed to him in the media which may or may not be related to what he actually said/meant.

Here are some quotes attributed to Bishop Galantino taken from the Huffington Post article (although various outlets have quoted them):

“Couples in irregular matrimonial situations are also Christians, but they are sometimes looked upon with prejudice,” said Bishop Nunzio Galantino, an apparent reference to divorced and remarried Catholics.

“The burden of exclusion from the sacraments is an unjustified price to pay, in addition to de facto discrimination,”

It's a little difficult to ascertain exactly what he means with all this. Is he saying that general exclusion of adulterers from Communion is wrong? Or, that they should be admitted because they feel excluded? Or that how Catholics within the Church see them is wrong? It's not very clear and different commentaries have placed different emphasis from the original Italian.

It seems from the context that "irregular matrimonial situations" is a reference to divorced and remmaried couples. If that is what is meant then the technical term is "adulterers" (Matt 19:9) so let's not fall in to the same trap we have done with abortion (termination of a pregnancy), practicing sodomites (those with a different sexual orientation) etc. and start rebranding sin with happy/inclusive terminology. Christ said it's adultery so let's use that term.

The most important point to make is that the Church doesn't exclude such people from the Eucharist but it is in fact they themselves through their own (free) choice who place themselves outside the Church. In fact, the Sacraments are as open to them as to anyone else. All they need to do is to go to Confession, make a sincere Confession with the firm idea of turning away from the sin of adultery (i.e. stop feigning a Christian marriage and normalise their relationship in line with Christ's teaching by either a) ending the relationship and moving out b) or if this is not possible then living together as if they were brother and sister). Once that is done they are welcome to the Eucharist. This is the same as anyone who has committed a mortal sin. Repent, Confess and you are welcomed to Communion. If they choose to continue living in a state of grave sin then sorry, they can't receive Communion but please don't blame others, or the Church, for the choice they themselves have made and the life that they have willingly entered in to.

"In his talk, Galantino, who is secretary-general of the Italian Bishops Conference, stressed that everyone should “feel at home” in the church, and especially at Mass — including migrants, the disabled, the poor and those in unconventional relationships."

It should be noted that only the "feel at home" part is a direct quote however if the rest is the true context then this all stinks of the modern nonsense that is "inclusivity". Whether the context in which the quotation is placed is accurate to what Bishop Galantino meant or not the first thing that should be clear to any Catholic is that it is wrong to place "those in unconventional relationship"  with "migrants, the disabled, the poor". These are often external situations beyond a person's control  unlike an "unconventional relationship" which is a choice. This is very similar to gay-"rights" activists who wish to place those against sodomy (a CHOICE) in the same bracket as those who discriminate based on ethnicity, nationality, disability etc. it's a deliberate ploy to downplay a sin and we should be on our guard against it.

Next, as far as I can tell "feeling at home" is not part of the Gospel message and indeed someone living in sin (be it adultery, fornication, drunkeness etc.) will indeed (and should!) feel uncomfortable at Mass as they enter in to the presence of Almighty God. The closer we come to God the more we feel His hand upon us, calling us to repent, to come closer to Him, to let Him love us, and yes at times this is "uncomfortable". If they feel uncomfortable due to how others treat them then this is more complicated. As Catholics we should welcome all those who come to Mass, and indeed a friendly demeanour can go a long way to helping people come in to the Church. Yes, we should treat adulterers with as much love as anyone else, but they are also living in and we shouldn't downplay that in order to be "kind" and "friendly". As I've said before in this blog:

Christ came to call people to repentence (Mark 1:15) not just accept and let people live in sin (which would be a total lack of charity).

We have a perfect example of how to treat adulterers from the Gospel: John 8:1-11. Verse 11 is the key text here: "...neither do I condemn you," said Jesus. "Go away, and from this moment sin no more."

As disciples of Christ we must do the same, we shouldn't condemn a person who is living in sin, but the message is one of repentence and the last line "and from this moment sin no more" is just as important and the "...neither do I condemn you" part. If a person in an "irregular matrimonial status" (i.e. committing adultery) seeks forgiveness then God (and the Church) will welcome them with open arms, but part of true repentence (read: metanoia) is that they must then seek to sin no more.

Anyone in that state should take heart that Jesus will be with them in leaving this sinful life behind and will give them all of the grace and strength of heart that they need to live as he wishes them to. He will not condemn them and they should know that God has already prepared a place for them (John 14:2). Take heart, be brave and follow Christ! You will find more peace and joy than anything this world can give (John 14:27).

(Quotes taken from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/28/bishop-nunzio-galantino_n_5730552.html)

Chesterton on why he is Catholic

Whilst not speaking about women's "ordination" I think this Chesterton quote on the Catholic Church is indeed applicable:

"It is the only thing that frees a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age"

This should also be a reminder to the "churchmen" coming out in favour of sodomy, assisted suicide, abortion, false equality, inclusiveness of those wishing to "forget doctrine let us simply join together" etc.

None of the above are wonderful new revelations from God that are just being discovered, they are simply the twisted things held as good by our decadent society which has long since turned it's back on Christ.

Female Priests? The CofE's decision to "ordain" women as "bishops"

Well the Church of England has (once again) distanced itself even more from the One True Faith by allowing women "Bishops". The result was greeted by some in a rather undignified manner with cheering, champagne drinking and even dramatic tears by several female members of the church.

I must say that most of the arguments, at least those that I heard, on the radio and TV by those in favour of the idea weren't based on the Bible, tradition or theology. Perhaps that's too much of an orthodox way of decisions being made? Instead appeals were made to vague terms which modern society loves such as "inclusivity", "equality" etc. all of which are also being used many of the same people to justify sodomy with the usual "Jesus was bound by his times, society has moved on" nonsense added on for effect.

All of this really begs the question as to why a church should be so obsessed with such nonsence as "inclusivity" and "being relevant to today's society"? Well the simple answer is that their quest to be inclusive, to fit in with what modern society calls "good", they've forgotten the Jesus of the Gospels and Tradition and prefer their own watered down, soft, inclusive, non-judging Jesus which conforms to the tastes of our neo-pagan society, which in turn doesn't care about Jesus either. To any Orthodox minded Christian it's clear that the CofE as an institution by wishing more and more to "appeal to the modern world" it is in fact making itself an even more irrelevant form of Christianity and rather than seeking to bring modern society to Christ it is instead subjective to it's wims.

So, what does the Catholic Church say about the possibility of female priests? Gladly, the matter has already been decided authoritatively by John Paul II who stated: "the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful".

If you'd like to read the full declaration the text can be found here:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

So could there be any positives to be taken from this?

Well, of course. The state of the CofE should really be cause for Catholics to thank God for the objective authority that He gave His One True Church to decide such matters and this whole debacle has certainly re-affirmed my faith in the True Church.

It could also be a great opportunity (and we should pray for this) for many people to take advantage of the Ordinariate and come home to the Catholic Church. The following links may be useful for anyone reading reading this who is considering the Catholic Church:

http://www.ordinariate.org.uk/
http://chnetwork.org/media/journeyhome/

On a slightly different note, but still a positive one, this decision has surely hammered another nail the ecumenical movement's coffin and should highlight even more that the only way to true unity comes from conversion to the Catholic Faith; there simply is no other way. There is already unity within the Body of Christ and we need to bring people in to that and not water down the truth until it includes everyone already. As one Bishop said, "it's all fine saying we're all together, that we are one, but you'll only really know it when you start walking" [paraphrased]. For all the friendliness that comes through eccumenical relations it's clear that the CofE and the Catholic Church are not only miles apart but also walking in two different direction. Baring a miracle there is no hope of unity now as the CofE as an organisation chooses modern society over Truth, and in doing so drifts further and further from Christ.

Cardinal Arinze on Visions and Private Revelation

With so many alleged visions and apparitions taking place, often false, the following words of Cardinal Arinze should give us some perspective on how the Church (the rightful authority on such matters) goes about discerning whether an apparition is true or not:

"We should test reported appartions with such questions as the following: does it agree entirely with the revealed Catholic faith? Does it lead us to the centre of our faith where Holy Scripture is, where Tradition is, where the Pope and the Bishops are? Does it lead us to obey the Pope and the Bishops? If you say, "the private revelation told us not to mind the Pope and the Bishops..." that would tell you it is NOT from heaven. Therefore it is a mistake if a Christian makes a reported apparition the centre of their Christian life or a test of whether someone is a true Christian.

It is a negative sign when reported Christians follow alleged visionaries and seers, they feed daily on their writings and utterances but they won't read the Gospel, they won't read the Catechism,, they won't read the documents of the Pope but will read the documents of the visionaries. It is a very negative sign when somone ignores the Pope and the Bishops in union with the Pope all in the name of the vision or apparition. Christ told the Apostles, “anyone who hears you hears me, and anyone who rejects you rejects me and those who reject me reject the One who sent me”.

One person said to me, there is a reported apparition are you going on pilgrimage there? I said, “oh yeah, I go on pilgrimage. But you know where? To the chapel where we have the Blessed Sacrament. Where we are not guessing, where we are sure. That's my pilgrimage! I do not say don't go to Lourdes, Fatima or Jerusalem. But there are some other places where we don't know whether Our Lady was there or not. I do not go to these places."

Wise words.