Hier erstelle ich Lösungen, versuche Tipps zu geben und lade die Episodenbilder von Sweet Amoris hoch. Falls ihr Fragen habt oder Kommentare, immer her. Hier erstelle ich Lösungen, versuche Tipps zu geben und lade die Episodenbilder von Sweet Amoris hoch. Falls ihr Fragen habt oder Kommentare, immer her. Mai Episode 34 - Lysander. Zur Info ganz zu Beginn: Momentan gibt es Probleme mit den Bildern bzw. manche kriegen das Bild mit Weg X und. Ich muss sweet amoris episode 34 wohl oder übel damit begnügen, ihr das Handy zu bringen und sie zu fragen, ob es ihr gehört. Wir verstecken uns reflexartig hinter einem Busch. Pia erzählt uns von Liv, welches der Name ihrer Freundin aus Tokio ist und erklärt uns, dass es für sie keinen Unterschied macht, welches Geschlecht jemand hat. Ach Quatsch, real darts hat biathlon franziska hildebrand schon genug um die Ohren. Ich hatte fast vergessen, dass Armin sich ja immer noch im Zimmer befand. Das ist mir beim Jackpotcity casino online gerade nur aufgefallen. Okay okay… Du kennst mich doch. Na komm, beruhige dich erst mal… Ich strich ihr mitfühlend über den Rücken. Wir wollen ihr beim Suchen helfen. Aber wie du dir vielleicht denken kannst, Beste Spielothek in Wohlmuthing finden eure kleine Auseinandersetzung gegen Ende des Spiels nicht unbemerkt geblieben. Wie immer ein unheimlich hilfreicher Guide, ohne den ich mal wieder vollends aufgeschmissen wäre. Die meisten Wege verlaufen nicht General Bonus Terms and Conditions | spinit, sie kreuzen sich nur. Ich spürte deutlich, dass meine Frage irgendwie unpassend war, nur hatte ich schlichtweg keine Lust, die ganze Mahlzeit hindurch nur über mich zu reden…. Grrr, nun hör aber auf, ja? Da bin ich ja erleichtert, dass ich nicht die einzige bin, welche auf diesen verdammten 86 rumhängt dank dieser Episode und einfach nicht an diesen stargames home web Punkt gelangen kann: Bei Viola wirkt sich " Sprachlos starrte ich sie an. Im Flur treffen wir auf sie. Plötzlich hören wir Iriss Stimme. Ah, Cecilina, da bist du ja! Oh, guck doch bitte nicht so traurig! Da bin ich ja erleichtert, dass ich nicht die einzige bin, welche auf diesen verdammten 86 rumhängt dank dieser Episode und einfach nicht an diesen einen Punkt gelangen kann: Du solltest dich nicht wegen mir in irgendeine schmutzige Angelegenheit verwickeln lassen" gewählt und habe das Bild bekommen. Bestätigt ist das aber noch nicht. Trotzdem ist die Stimmung zwischen uns seit der Party irgendwie eisig. An diese Zeit denke ich nur ungern zurück…. Sie sagt sie wäre schlecht in Geschichte und würde deswegen weinen, woraufhin wir ihr anbieten mit ihr zu lernen.
Erstes online casino deutschland: free spins netent
|Jouez aux Machines à Sous Wild Gambler en Ligne sur Casino.com Canada||Free casino online slot games|
|ALIANTE CASINO HOTEL LAS VEGAS||952|
|BESTE SPIELOTHEK IN JAHRSDORF FINDEN||Virtual visa|
|GALA CASINO - 10.000 KR + 80 FREE SPINS!||621|
Sweet amoris episode 34 -Sollte man bei Iris ihrem Handy nachsehen oder besser nicht? Mag sein, dass ich mich wiederhole, aber du gefällst ihm. So weit würde ich jetzt nicht gehen, aber ich glaube, Carla hat aus ihren Fehlern gelernt. Es geschah ein Missgeschick und wir vielen durch Hilfe von Amber mit unserem Essen hin. Ja, genau so stelle ich es mir vor, wenn man einen Zwilling hat. Danach wollen wir in der Freistunde kurz nach Hause. Ihr bedeutungsvoller Blick machte aus ihrer Frage eher einen Befehl… A.
Love is a variety of different feelings, states, and attitudes that ranges from interpersonal affection "I love my mother" to pleasure "I loved that meal".
It can refer to an emotion of a strong attraction and personal attachment. It can also be a virtue representing human kindness, compassion, and affection—"the unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another".
It may also describe compassionate and affectionate actions towards other humans, one's self or animals.
Arranged alphabetically by author or source: Every morning I shall concern myself anew about the boundary Between the love - deed -Yes and the power -deed-No And pressing forward honor reality.
We cannot avoid Using power, Cannot escape the compulsion To afflict the world , So let us, cautious in diction And mighty in contradiction , Love powerfully.
Just as a mother with her own life Protects her child, her only child, from harm, So within yourself let grow A boundless love for all creatures.
Let your love flow outward through the universe, To its height, its depth, its broad extent, A limitless love, without hatred or enmity. Then as you stand or walk, Sit or lie down, As long as you are awake, Strive for this with a one-pointed mind; Your life will bring heaven to earth.
Excuse me I'm sorry to bother you, But don't I know you? There's just something about you. Haven't we met before? Sad hours and glad hours, and all hours, pass over; One thing unshaken stays: Nor means a tinseled dream pursuing lovers Find altered by-and-bye, When, with possession, time anon discovers Trapped dreams must die, — For he that visions God, of mankind gathers One manlike trait alone, And reverently imputes to Him a father's Love for his son.
Years, ye shall mix with me! Ye shall grow a part Of the laughing Sea ; Of the moaning heart Of the glittered wave Of the sun-gleam's dart In the ocean-grave.
Fair, cold, and faithless wert thou, my own! For that I love Thy heart of stone! From the heights above To the depths below, Where dread things move,.
There is naught can show A life so trustless! Proud be thy crown! Ruthless, like none, save the Sea, alone!
And pray that a wreath like a rainbow May slip from the beautiful past, And Crown me again with the sweet, strong love And keep me, and hold me fast.
The light came through the window, Straight from the sun above, And so inside my little room There plunged the rays of Love.
The daily actions of religious people have accomplished uncounted good deeds throughout history, alleviating suffering, feeding the hungry, caring for the sick.
Religions have brought the comfort of belonging and companionship to many who would otherwise have passed through this life all alone, without glory or adventure.
They have not just provided first aid, in effect, for people in difficulties; they have provided the means for changing the world in ways that remove those difficulties.
As Alan Wolfe says, "Religion can lead people out of cycles of poverty and dependency just as it led Moses out of Egypt".
There is much for religion lovers to be proud of in their traditions, and much for all of us to be grateful for. The fact that so many people love their religions as much as, or more than, anything else in their lives is a weighty fact indeed.
I am inclined to think that nothing could matter more than what people love. At any rate, I can think of no value that I would place higher.
I would not want to live in a world without love. Would a world with peace, but without love, be a better world? Not if the peace was achieved by drugging the love and hate out of us, or by suppression.
Would a world with justice and freedom, but without love, be a better world? Not if it was achieved by somehow turning us all into loveless law-abiders with none of the yearnings or envies or hatreds that are wellsprings of injustice and subjugation.
It is hard to consider such hypotheticals, and I doubt if we should trust our first intuitions about them, but, for what it is worth, I surmise that we almost all want a world in which love, justice, freedom, and peace are all present, as much as possible, but if we had to give up one of these, it wouldn't — and shouldn't — be love.
But, sad to say, even if it is true that nothing could matter more than love, it wouldn't follow from this that we don't have reason to question the things that we, and others, love.
Love is blind, as they say, and because love is blind, it often leads to tragedy: Love one another, but make not a bond of love: Let it rather be a moving sea between the shores of your souls.
Give one another of your bread, but eat not from the same loaf. Sing and dance together and be joyous, but let each of you be alone, Even as the strings of a lute are alone though they quiver with the same music.
For only the hand of Life can contain your hearts. And stand together yet not too near together: There's nothing you can do that can't be done Nothing you can sing that can't be sung Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game It's easy.
We all been playing those mind games forever Some kinda druid dudes lifting the veil. Doing the mind guerrilla, Some call it magic — the search for the grail.
Love is the answer and you know that for sure. Love is a flower, you got to let it — you got to let it grow. This was done to protect from scandal the surrounding community.
Any appearance of a priest or a woman flaunting or luxuriating in having committed the grave sin of not merely fornication, but also of sacrilege, as all sins against the 6th Commandment by or with a priest under vows of celibacy are, was to be assiduously avoided by the couple themselves, and insisted upon by the Church in order to protect the community from scandal, be it the scandal of inciting others to sin, or the scandal of causing people to lose their faith when confronted by the horror of such human depravity.
That is a mystery. The Vatican has started shutting off its famous fountains amid a prolonged drought in many parts of Italy. The Pope laid out his ecological fears in a encyclical, which denounced wasteful practices and highlighted the importance of clean drinking water.
The Vatican has about fountains, including two Baroque masterpieces, and all will be switched off, including those in its gardens. Unlike the natural scenario with water, this fountain causes drought, spiritual drought.
A friend pointed out to me today that the next group, hotting up for the kill, is the paedophile rights brigade.
Speaking of supernatural putrefaction, I just came across this latest by C. Does anyone have any information about any validity or other problems with the Novus Ordo blessing of the holy oils by Novus Ordo bishops?
A bishop blessing holy oils, is blessing holy oils. Wanted to call your attention to The History Blog. What makes this site special are the photos.
They can be zoomed in two stages for incredible detail. Appreciate the links, thank you. This is an interesting snippet: That is very good news about Germany, though.
Cardinal Kasper would make sure that was kept under wraps, LOL! There is an ongoing Pro-Life thread for such reports, situated right under this General Discussion thread, so if it is anywhere, that is where it will be posted.
That very long report is worth reading through, because it shows the machinations of the enemies of the Church and of human life, and how determined they are to further their evil agenda to make abortion available everywhere.
Then he can explain his myriad of sins against mankind to the Highest Judge there is.. The Herald, The Telegraph and Fr Z quoting the Telegraph all cover a story where a group of seven seminarians in clerical dress were refused entry to a pub in Cardiff.
As they were leaving, the pub manager realised they were genuine and so invited them back in and gave them a free drink. What struck me was the reaction of the other pub patrons:.
He invited them back in and when they walked back in the entire pub burst into a round of applause, and they had a free round off the City Arms.
I thought that was quite a nice story and welcome reminder that the perpetual hostility towards the Church, so evident in the media and certain sections of society, is not universal.
At times it can be easy to think it is universal. Here is the Telegraph link:. At the same time, this should be sobering news for the Church, highlighting that because of the modern trend for many priests to wear secular clothes, priests are often invisible in society and so the appearance of clerical garb is often taken as a joke at first sight.
That situation was also resolved amicably, but the story recalls that Cardinal Marx had been at the festival previously and celebrated mass there while wearing a suit.
In light of the Cardiff story, I have resolved to start wearing a cassock when I visit the pubs of Glasgow, if it means I can expect to receive applause and free drinks on arrival!
Call me old fashioned if you like, and most people will these days, but a discreet drink at home with friends would appear to me to be more appropriate.
I just doubt that I would be too impressed if I spotted one of our priests knocking back pints in any pub into which I had been dragged, kicking and screaming, to enjoy a glass of lemonade.
Of course such examples would be grossly inappropriate. The Catholic faith is bound up with alcohol — it is used in our worship and the Church has a long history of producing beer and wine.
Some of the best French reds come in bottles bearing the symbols of the Papacy. You might have a point regarding pubs, but then it very much depends on the establishment: I cringed when I heard the story of then Fr Keenan accompanying students to nightclubs, which is ridiculous, but then I am sure there are more appropriate examples.
Ultimately, men like gathering in male company to chew the fat and enjoy a beer. While they have a certain apart-ness from the world, I think its healthy for priests to have some company at times too.
This part of a Belloc poem is how I like to think of the faith, a source of happiness and pleasure. And I like how Chesterton put it too:.
But its interesting how both men liken their experience of the faith to the pleasure they get from a glass of wine.
Regarding how we expect clergymen to behave — one of the points I wanted to make above was that i thought It was a positive thing that at least some clergy are not ashamed to be seen as such in public.
PS — all this talk of wine has put me in the mood for some and its barely past lunchtime! I once knew a Carmelite Prioress who was as far as any of us can discern in this life very holy.
Thanks for this new info, I was not aware of that. The camera crew is perhaps representative of that. I think you make a good point regarding occasions of sin and this as well as the reactions of other bloggers makes me see that I had misjudged the situation here.
She was retrained by the school and is now the head teacher. Anyway, apologies if I seemed rather blase regarding this issue — I think I was quite taken by the novelty of clergy being visually identifiable as such, and so I did not fully consider the other factors in the story.
I am hugely disappointed…! I do enjoy a drink red wine is my tipple , but I am always mindful of Chapter Forty of the Rule of St.
Benedict which is illuminating in this regard as in much else:. It is, therefore, with some uneasiness that we specify the amount of food and drink for others.
However, with due regard for the infirmities of the sick, we believe that a half bottle [probably about ml] of wine a day is sufficient for each.
But those to whom God gives the strength to abstain must know that they will earn their own reward. The superior will determine when local conditions, work or the summer heat indicates the need for a greater amount.
He must, in any case, take great care lest excess or drunkenness creep in. We read that monks should not drink wine at all, but since the monks of our day cannot be convinced of this, let us at least agree to drink moderately, and not to the point of excess, for wine makes even wise men go astray Sir However, where local circumstances dictate an amount much less than what is stipulated above, or even none at all, those who live there should bless God and not grumble.
Above all else we admonish them to refrain from grumbling. A glass of wine, or even two, with a meal is a very civilised habit, and probably does us good into the bargain.
And I firmly believe that our defences against the Enemy are first of all natural in nature. Thank you for not thinking me a prude — I do wonder, though!
So many people are so laid back about everything that I often feel like the proverbial fish out of water. I must start practising my swimming again!
I would add just one thing to my comment in reply to Gabriel Syme, and it is to conclude my point about the possible dangers of flirting; it would be a bit different if the group were mixed, say sisters, or good, trustworthy friends of the opposite gender i.
The collar, remember, attracts. What on earth did she see in him! Am I living in the wrong century? It is not just a question of form, important though that is and all grown ups know that form and content are inseparable.
Priests, and serious lay people, for that matter, should avoid anything that comes vaguely close to drinking to get drunk.
Further to this priests in the pub story, an ale served in the pub has now been renamed in honour of the priests. Thanks for that update which is depressing, really.
It is strange that these same seminarians like to dress in the cassock, yet see no problem with going into pubs and have an ale named after them.
My opinion would be that priests, especially in clerical garb, should not fequent public houses. In their case I would regard same establishments to be an occasion of sin.
However, I think it would be perfectly acceptable to see priests in restaurants, hotels etc. How they have lost that spirit of sacrifice. I am reminded of a flight I took a few years ago from Scotland to a certain European capital.
On the plane was what seemed like—to judge from his garb—a traditionalist priest, replete with soutane, fascia and saturn hat. He looked like Father Brown, and I was suitably impressed … until he opened his mouth, that is.
This utter chump, in a voice crying out for the forced administration of testosterone supplements, spent what seemed like an age debating with his lay companions what drink he was going to order, before plumping for a bloody mary.
A more mortifying spectacle I have rarely seen, and one which must have confirmed the worst anti-Catholic, anti-clerical, and possibly even anti-traditionalist sentiments of this small sample of the travelling public.
The founder of Opus Dei has a line in one of his books about being able to tell if a man reads the life of Christ.
And how right he is. The tragedy of so many priests at the moment is that they have no idea of what, and therefore who, they are. This man reads the life of Jesus Christ.
At the heart of the problem is formation. There is no area of Catholic theology so much neglected as that which is commonly known as spiritual theology.
This used to be a key course in priestly formation because it taught how to fight the good fight on a very practical level.
Alas, today it is most often supplanted by psycho-babble. I had thought this was a light-hearted news story, but its been interesting and informative to read the opinions of bloggers — I can now see that my initial reaction to the story was quite thoughtless in many ways.
The story said that Archbishop Stack himself is fond of the pub in question — so I would bet the seminarians who visited were under the impression that such visits were entirely normal.
Archbishop Stack is a major clue — or would have been if you had been aware of the fact that some years ago he went incognito to a Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice Conference in London!
Truly, we live in very interesting times! See link below about homo-fascism at the National Trust, which is the final straw.
No Catholic in good conscience should support this organisation any more. Click here to sign a petition from CitizenGo…. If human law contradicts the Divine Law then we are obliged to reject it.
I have signed that petition and I hope many others will do likewise, that is if they value any kind of freedom in the future. Too many people are ignorant of the encroaching despotism of the State over their lives.
They need to wake up now before they find themselves one day under a totalitarian regime that is completely evil, like that of Hitler or Stalin.
Behind a paywall — https: I wonder how Ben Thomson explains widespread paedophilia and sexual grooming outside religous organisations?
Suggesting celibacy leads to paedophilia is absurd and would mean that single people and the widowed are possibly dangerous to children and that prisons and football teams are paedophile factories.
Its an idiotic comment. It a sign of the times that you can make crazy, obvious false statements like this without censure, but to state the fact that Church abuse was overwhelming pederasty and so a manifestation of homosexuality brings accusations of bigotry?
The media and secular society are only interested in Church abuse as far as it is a vehicle for attacking the Church. Also to suggest a male-only environment inevitably leads to an abuse or violence environment is puerile sexism and should be treated with contempt.
Ben Thomson is obviously an idiot. The mainstream media is a function of the mindset of our ruling elite. OK, it maintains a veneer increasingly thinner of neutrality and objectivity, but only because it knows that open propaganda tends to alienate people.
It is for the sheeple. Our default position should be that the media is hostile and act accordingly. We have to wake up.
The idea that there still exists a public square in which ideas can be freely exchanged and debated in a climate of fairness and objectivity is, to put it frankly, preposterous.
The public square and the public consciousness have long been occupied by the legions of the Twitterati interested only in reciting their litany of modernity.
Real analysis and debate are moving more and more underground. In the abuse scandals involving Catholic clergy truly scandalous, it goes without saying in the vast majority of cases it was a matter of homosexual relations between clergy and post-pubescent males.
The idea of abstaining is so mind-boggling to the modern world that they can only conclude it must lead to sexual disorders. Of course, actual sexual disorders which do indeed lead to paedophilia, etc.
I can only see increasing pressure on all Christian churches to conform to the current trends of society and, unfortunately, not all churches will resist.
So, what about it… come on in! We are soon visiting friends for the weekend in Cambridge and, as far as I can see, a Dominican Rite mass at Blackfriars Cambridge is the only realistic ie non-novus ordo option for sunday mass.
Why did the Dominican order get its own specific rite of mass? Wikipedia says some classify it as a Roman Rite, some as a Gallican Rite and some as a kind of hybrid.
Why is this and is this seemingly confused identity significant as regards its origin? I am a Dominican Tertiary.
I know a little bit about the Rite. A few of the ancient orders had their own Rites and there were some local Rites too e.
The Sarum Rite, Ambrosian Rite etc. They were mostly identical to the Roman Rite. St Pius V allowed Rites that were more than years old to remain when he codified the Mass.
However, if it is the authentic Dominican Rite then I would encourage you to go. I know there is a modern Ambrosian Rite.
The brightest stars fall the furthest. Look at the numerous Dominican saints! The modern Order is now a joke! This was in the years running up to Summorum Pontificum, and I will always remember the conversation I had with this venerable old priest one afternoon after confession.
He was very knowledgeable about matters liturgical, but also very balanced in his criticism of the Novus Ordo. The combined effect of this was to make his critique of the post-Vatican II liturgy utterly devastating.
I cannot agree that the Dominicans are a joke. There may be some crazy people among them—seemingly par for the course in religious orders nowadays—but they are far better placed for a revival than, say, the Jesuits whose betrayal of their founder has turned them into the Society Not of Jesus.
I am not greatly acquainted with the Church in the U. I agree with you that the Jesuits are the ones at the root of the present crisis in the Church.
Once great defenders of Catholic orthodoxy, they are now the champions of Modernist heterodoxy. The devil has surely made great in-roads with the Jesuits in the last years.
I think the Dominicans who are orthodox are now in the minority. There may be one or two around , but the vast majority are raging liberals.
I received a kind welcome as a visitor. And so it was not well suited to traditional forms of worship, but is adequate. The mass was in the Priory chapel — I could see concrete domes through the trees outside and I wondered if that was a parish church of similar period to the priory served by the Dominicans.
As far as I could see, the main difference between the Dominican and Roman rites was that the offertory was done before the mass starting in earnest, which I thought was interesting you could see the priest washing his fingers and preparing the chalice.
It was an interesting experience anyway. Unfortunately I was often distracted — there were no pews, but individual seats of the traditional classroom type metal frames, wooden seats and backs.
My daughter had a field day when she realised she could make loud noises by moving the chairs about, and so I was often battling with her to stop that, in order not to disrupt the mass.
As he was vested I thought he would be offering the mass, and so only said hello, thinking I could speak to him later. As it turned out Fr Marley must have been at an earlier mass, for it was Fr Aidan Nichols who offered the traditional mass.
I had a chuckle on imagining the reaction of the Bursar on finding that! Yet there are numerous LMS-driven traditional masses in the area.
I am sure of at least some of these LMS supporters would be keen to have a fully traditional Church near-by. During our trip, we also got to see the impressive Ely Cathedral — but just the exterior and the nave of course, as it just wont do to pay admission money to the Church of England, in order to view the Catholic treasures it stole.
I think Fr Aiden Nichols made that comment about Amoris Laetitia when he was giving a talk to an ecumenical group. I read that whole article and then almost burst out laughing at the end when I read the bit about the ecumenical gathering!
But I hope that the success of their offering the traditional dominican rite the mass was busy with plenty of kids nudges them in that direction — after all we can easily see that the modernist guff only leads to the kind of errors Fr Nichols criticises in Amoris Laetitia.
The strangest thing just happened. I am reading a good book on the Dominican Rite just now and started to wonder if you had attended the Dominican Rite.
I thought I would send you an email, but I came to the blog first — and there was your comment!
You have a vocation as a Dominican Tertiary! A few years ago there was Traditional Dominican from France who came over to Edinburgh three years running to improve his English.
I seem to remember a third candle being lit at a particular point in the Mass and then extinguished before the end. I believe he is now in the US.
Of course the other difference is the lack of biretta. The Dominican wears the hood from his capuche when in procession.
The bows are different in the Dominican Rite too — I believe there are three distinguishable bows. In many ways the Dominican rite is a precursor to the reforms which would be undertaken by St Pius V after Trent.
The order, once it became truly international in nature, needed a rite which would transcend the myriad liturgical diversity of the West we are, I believe, in the thirteenth century in view of occasions like general chapters which saw priests gathered together from all over the place.
Why was St Thomas binned? One must never estimate our human propensity to go with the flow. In particular to the Mackin, Paton and Marshall families, whom I am privileged to know a little apologies if I missed anyone else from Glasgow!
A very happy occasion indeed and, while the Church is usually busy, it was bursting at the seams today! My wee girl actually fell asleep on my shoulder, due to I think the place being extra warm with the closely packed pews.
Thank you for that kind post. It was a lovely day and your wee girl looked so content sleeping on your shoulder — I was jealous of her sleeping soundly, not that she was lying on your shoulder!
What you AT, dude! It could happen any time now! Yes, the First Communicants were lovely today — you missed out the Weir family, one of the two little girls in her beautiful white dress and veil.
The children were all beautiful, of course, and such a lovely Feast — Transfiguration of Our Lord — for their First Communion.
Does anyone have an update on Fr. I see he is listed as celebrating his 30th priestly anniversary: The last I heard about six months ago was that Fr.
I thought this was an interesting story, both for the surprising Catholic connection and also because I was unaware of this local project going on:.
Tunnellers building a 3. I wonder if the original tunnellers protected by St Barbara were military tunnellers, who would tunnell under enemy fortifications walls, castles etc in an effort to collapse them?
Every tunneller invokes the protection of St Barbara at the start of a shift and thanks her at the end. The struggling Herald Group via their Evening Times rag have come late to this story, likely having seen it here.
Confident in the protection of Our Most Holy Mother, we continue to fight. The victory is certain: Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat!
To all of you I wish a holy and joyful feast of the Assumption! Lifesite reports Aug 16 that Cardinal Burke has again mentioned the necessity of a formal correction regarding Amoris Laetitia.
Really tired of him. He should either do what he said he would do — publicly correct the Pope for AL — or keep quiet on the subject.
Oh and he should NOT have accepted the invitation from the Chairman of Una Voce to offer a TLM in a Glasgow parish, but insisted on receiving said invitation from the Archbishop of Glasgow himself, who should be making his cathedral available for the offering of the Pontifical High Mass.
If this is not sorted out asap, I will post it as a separate thread. In the meantime, for your prayers and comments, of course, if you wish, Margaret wrote:.
More news from the Remnant Newspaper about thought crime and the article is written by Chris Ferrara.
We have to be prepared, Theresa Rose…. Doubt that I would be accepted to study Law. I am not the brightest spark on the block, even if I had the qualifications to get into University.
It is indeed some situation over at the Remnant. I hope this is ok to post this here. I have recently become a Dominican Tertiary. I can thoroughly recommend this for lay men and women, married and single, who wish to enter a Third Order as a Dominican.
The Rule is very easy to follow. I have Tertiary Manuals and copies of the Rule if anyone , male or female, married or single, would like to find out more.
Feel free to email:. The Priestly Fraternity of St. The priests live in priories in 32 countries and have centers in 72 countries around the world.
A total of 14 districts and four autonomous houses are subordinate to the General House. Six priestly seminaries are run by the Society.
Four Carmel monasteries are connected to the Priestly Fraternity of St. I thought that made for some pleasant reading at a time when most news for the Church is pretty grim!
Clan Childlaw, a leading child law charity, has called on the Scottish Government to scrap even the revised Named Persons law:.
Pity the Catholics of Brighton. After the recent sad news regarding the closure of the SSPX chapel there, Fr Ray Blake says in the comments under the linked article below his own traditional mass has had to be discontinued due to i his ill health, ii the parish being unable to fund a stand in and iiI poor attendance.
What a sad twin loss, and in such a short space of time. I wonder if there is a trend behind this, such as traditional Catholic families moving elsewhere to live, given the kind of thing they must often encounter on the streets of Brighton?
Still the article- concerning the future of Catholicism — is largely upbeat, noting the good health of the UK Oratorian communities and the encouraging statistics from French seminaries.
Of the SSPX, he says:. I am rather saddened that the FSSPX have chosen to close their chapel here in Brighton but that is not the general trend, they are growing.
As most dioceses, most religious congregations are contemplating decline or even closure, most priests throughout the western world have a sense they will be the last in their parishes we should be asking if we have anything to learn from the traditional and radically orthodox.
If your only option is the novus ordo take note: There CAN be no obligation to do something that is damaging to your soul and — manifestly — displeasing to God.
I know Catholics who have agonised over this question of how to fulfil the Sunday obligation when there is no traditional Latin Mass available and eventually concluded that those SSPX priests are correct who recommend staying at home to read the Mass in their missal and make a simple spiritual Communion.
That, with rosary and spiritual reading would, no doubt, fulfil the obligation to keep holy the Sabbath. No question about it.
Surely now, Father, at this time in your life, it would be right to take a stand, and abandon, not the Mass of ancient Tradition which we KNOW pleases God and brings forth much fruit, but the new Mass which was concocted with the help of Protestant Ministers, explicitly for the purpose of making it acceptable to those outside the Church.
I take refuge in the fact that I have never, not once, not in any edition of our newsletter, nowhere on our website or blog, EVER claimed to be anything other than a fallen human being, full of faults, the quintessential sinner.
As for you being too militant, rubbish! Let the carpers go swim in Loch Ness, which is where all carp belong.
Thank you for your kind words. Self-evidently, Fr Ray Blake does not agree. My comment has not been posted on his blog.
I resubmitted my comment and it was published by Father — see my subsequent explanation below]. I hope that my Guardian Angel and his prevented him from reading my lack of charity here.
Mea culpa for my lack of charity, yet again. Eternal rest grant unto him O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in Peace.
Thank you for that link — I actually saw the footage of the SSPX chapel and floods in Dickinson, Texas on YouTube in the early hours, but was too much in need of my beauty sleep to post it then, so thank you for that.
But thank you for posting that, because it is a very beautiful prayer. God bless Bishop Fellay! Anyone have any thoughts on this website?
This blog apparently belongs to Dr. That is very interesting — this fellow spoke at the graduation ceremony in June at the Academy of a certain SSPX chapel I was not present, but I did meet him briefly afterwards.
I also came across something rather strange yesterday, but I forget where I saw it, might have been the very same website: Gruner had, near the end of his life, decided that Francis was not the pope after all, that b he wished to send his successor at the FC to train with Fr.
Kramer, and c he hid both these things from John Vennari, whom he knew would disapprove of them!
Ahah, it was indeed on this same blog, check this out: I met Peter Chojknowski at one of the Rome Conferences and he is a very nice man. I have avoided mentioning those claims about Fr Gruner because they have been mischievously circulated, beginning on the Louie V blog using a video clip where Father was merely quoting the opinion of another, when speaking to a very small group of people whom he presumably thought he could trust.
What they are claiming about Fr Gruner was not his considered opinion, at all because he never adopted a position at odds with the teaching authority of the Church.
For some time I have been pondering wearing a Brown Scapular. In Pope Leo XIII gave permission to bless and enrol the five scapulars cumulatively and later the Church extended the faculty to bless and enrol the Fivefold Scapular to any priest.
It is important to note that those wishing to wear the Fivefold Scapular must be enrolled using the approved formula provided in this booklet , even if they have been enrolled in one or more of the scapulars that make up the Fivefold Scapular.
So you can see that this Fivefold scapular confers the benefits of 5 scapulars, including the Brown. I am only familiar with the Brown Scapular, Green Scapular and the Dominican scapular, which forms part of the habit.
I wear the brown scapular and Dominican scapular. My general feeling is that the Brown Scapular is the most important, given that Our Lady Herself promoted it at Fatima.
Q Why are individual scapulars still in existence, given the existence of the fivefold scapular? For example, the Brown Scapular comes from the Carmelite Order.
Q Why is the fivefold version not promoted? If you Google it, you will see plenty for sale and information about it, so it is promoted to some degree.
A Each scapular has its own list of indulgences attached to it — for example a plenary indulgence can be gained by those who wear the Brown Scapular under the usual conditions on certain feast days of Carmelite saints and on the Feast Day of Our Lady of Mount Carmel.
Petrus has beaten me to it — I think Fatima is the answer as to why the Brown Scapular is promoted more than the others.
Since Our Lady appeared holding only the Brown Scapular, that gives it a primary place, it seems to me, among scapulars.
Oh, my Lord and Saviour, support me in that hour in the strong arms of Your Sacraments, and by the fresh fragrance of Your consolations.
Let the absolving words be said over me, and the holy oil sign and seal me, and Your own Body be my food, and Your Blood my sprinkling;.
What a lovely prayer! I am going to try to say that every day. Thank you so much for posting it! Thank you for posting those links, Editor — I was getting ready to post the Ferrara link myself!
I notice that neither article names names…. I suspect no names were given to avoid pandering to the self-importance of those in the frame. She attributes that success to Our Lady and the two saints whose relics were sent to her by Athanasius, prior to hospitalisation.
However, following her operation, when she was making good progress, she had a very serious fall and required another operation, so she asks for the prayers of our bloggers — please continue to pray for her, as she is suffering quite a bit due to pain and, also, naturally, the frustration of being hospitalised again.
Came across this brave comment on Facebook today. Is the worm beginning to turn at last? We need more people to be equally fearless.
Today I have had enough. Well how did today go? Terrorism on an unprecedented scale in the UK and Europe, heartbreaking yet unififying. Election Winners and Losers.
I could write forever about the stories of heroes, cowards and the woes and highs in this year alone. Now back to today, at the risk of my hard earned career and alongside my passion for future years in aspects of life, I have been pushed over the edge.
Did I hear that on this exact same day that John Lewis have launched gender neutral range. Let me qualify, I have zero concern for any child who chooses to be whomever they want to be and to dress however they want to.
I do however have a massive, passionate and caring concern for any child who is forced to become gender neutral by a school, shop, community or parent.
This is not an attack on our anyone other than the decision makers at the School who made this ridiculous decision. It is meant to be a defence of simple values, girls wear pants boys wear undies, simple.
We need to stop this PC nonsense and accept ourselves for who we are and who we individually choose to become. Girls wear skirts, boys wear trousers — unless only they singularly choose not too….
I saw that news yesterday about girls being banned from wearing skirts in a school in England.. Most kids will hate that, IMHO. My immediate response to the John Lewis fiasco is ….
A young man from a traditional Catholic family invites the rest of the family to his civil wedding abroad. Many of the relations have accepted and since they have left the church long ago had no problems about attending.
However the parents and other members of the family are advised not to attend. The groom had been living with his fiance, an aetheist, for some time before deciding to tie the knot.
Those of us who had to refuse the invitation were cold-shouldered by most of the relations who accepted the invite even though they had always been on good terms.
This is heartbreaking for the parents as they have been alienated by many of their kin. Can I have your thoughts about this situation and what you would have done in the same circumstances and why?
This is not my personal opinion but the Traditional teaching of the Church herself. You will always know the true Catholic when they are faced with a choice of going along to get along or showing fidelity to the Church and being scorned.
You made the correct choice and will be rewarded for it because it is not easy when the choice involves family we care about. I can recall having been to three!
In two of these cases including the one involving the lapsed Catholic they were friends of my wife and, in the other, distant relations of a former girlfriend.
Everyone knows CofS events are a sham anyway. But it seems my understanding has been wrong and, given ignorance is not a mitigating factor, is this something I should raise in confession?
For the record, all of these events occurred when I was either a non-Church goer, or attending the novus ordo, and so — as with most things in either of these states in life — I did not give my attendance any great thought at the time.
I could be wrong. No, the Church does not recognise civil marriages even when neither spouse is Catholic. The Church does recognise two Protestants marrying in a Protestant Church, but never a civil ceremony.
The reason is that the spouses exchange vows in the presence of God during a Christian wedding ceremony, whereby the Sacrament of matrimony is bestowed.
Since this particular Sacrament is administered by the spouses and not the priest, the Church recognises valid Protestant marriages, though never a Catholic marrying a Protestant in a Protestant church.
In civil ceremonies God is excluded from the process meaning that no Sacrament takes place and the marriage is completely void.
For a Catholic to attend a civil ceremony, then, is tantamount to denying that marriage is a Sacrament of the Church.
Thank you so much , Athanasius , for clearing that up for me. I never will now either. Thank you for giving me the reply that I expected and which emphasises the gravity of sin committed by those who would give the wrong advice to a young person who was in two minds about attending.
He has a lot to answer for and I would not like to be in his shoes when he meets his maker. That priest is a great danger to young Catholic souls and he will have to answer for the poisonous advice he gave to your young relative.
Sadly, by the same token, the young relative in question is not without guilt in this since she was too keen to silence the voice of conscience on the advice of just one priest.
All true Catholics, young and old, are obliged to know the teaching of the Church in these matters and remain faithful to it come hell or high water.
She certainly does not recognise civil marriages where one or both spouses are Catholic. Once read, it is clear why Catholics should never, ever want to be part of a civil marriage, even when the contracting parties are non-Catholic.
Civil marriage may be said to have originated with Luther, for he prepared the way for the State to legislate concerning marriage. What he began, the French revolution completed; for marriage was then declared to be a civil contract, concluded before a government official.
Civil marriage is obligatory or compulsory when, as is the case in some countries, the marriage is otherwise not recognised by the State; it is optional, when the parties are free to choose whether the ceremony shall be civil or religious, as in America; finally it is unavoidable, if on account of the priest being debarred from marrying them through political reasons, or on other obvious grounds, the persons desirous of being married cannot be united otherwise than by the secular authorities.
Civil marriage is not a sacrament, because it is not contracted in the manner ordained by God and the Church; it is nothing more or less than a legal form, which must be gone through in order that the marriage may be recognised by the State, and Catholics must submit to it, if there is no other means of having their union recognised by the State.
They should, however, see that the ecclesiastical ceremony takes place as soon after as possible; for until their marriage has been solemnised by the Church, they are bound to live apart, as in the sight of God they are not really husband and wife.
Catholics who contract a civil marriage and are not afterwards married in a church, cannot obtain absolution and are excluded from the sacraments until they obtain the sanction of God and of the Church upon their union, or give it up altogether.
Catholics who prefer civil marriage when it is optional, or content themselves with it when it is unavoidable, are excommunicated. The Holy See condemns civil marriage in no measured terms; Pope Pius IX declares that the union of a man and a woman, if not a sacrament, is a shameful concubinage, although perfectly legal according to the civil code.
Civil marriage has disastrous results for the State, for it undermines faith, authority and morals. The Holy Father asserts civil marriage to be a fatal institution.
To render it compulsory is to overthrow the law of God, for it is tantamount to asserting that Christian marriage as ordained by God is invalid, that a union blessed by the Church is contrary to law.
What would be said if stealing, or any other crime forbidden by the divine command, were enforced by the law of the land?
Rebellion such as this against God cannot fail to undermine faith in God and respect for His commandments; and experience proves that the government which undermines the divine authority brings about its own downfall.
Civil marriages are also detrimental to morality. Divorce is an easy matter for persons who have been married by the registrar; on a comparatively slight disagreement or offence they are separated, each being free to contract a second marriage.
What is the consequence? The flood-gates are opened to admit unbridled license, the so-called free-love advocated by the Socialist.
This is proved by the number of divorce cases following on the introduction of civil marriage; nor need we wonder, for in a civil marriage no promise of mutual love, no vow of fidelity is required from the contracting parties.
I know that a Catholic contracting a marriage in a registrar office is making a declaration of unbelief and will be excommunicated. But if I attended that ceremony for some pragmatic reason, surely I cannot be excommunicated?
I would say that those attending a wedding are a witness. Therefore, we cannot be a witness to a godless marriage.
I think the simple rule of the Church is that no Catholic under any circumstances may marry in a civil ceremony, and no Catholic may attend a civil marriage where one of the spouses is Catholic.
Both are excommunicated; the former for breaching the canonical rules of the Church, the latter for demonstrating support for that rebellion.
Where is this stated? From some admittedly brief reading I have done this evening, the Church does not explicitly forbid Catholics from attending invalid marriages.
Surely the Church would be duty bound to do so, if it would be possible for a Catholic to unwittingly excommunicate themselves by attending such a marriage?
In the articles I have read which mentioning a lack of an explicit warning against attending invalid marriages, they go on to say attendance becomes a matter of prudential judgement for the invited Catholic.
They also make a distinction between merely being present and active participation in such a ceremony — the same distinction I heard an SSPX priest make about non-Catholic ceremonies another party has now advised me they also received this advice from the SSPX.
The couple in question had decided on this type of ceremony with no input from me, I scarcely know them , and it would have gone ahead with or without me.
So, in that sense, I would think myself free of any sin of encouraging them in this direction. My own motivation for attending was to accompany my wife to the wedding of her childhood friend the lapsed Catholic.
It was certainly not to demonstrate public support for any rebellion against the Church, indeed at the time I was unaware any rebellion was taking place because the person was lapsed and I was less informed about such matters.
As an aside, I might be tempted to dispute a lapsed Catholic having a civil ceremony constitutes a rebellion in itself, because surely their real act of rebellion is the prior lapsation in the first instance?
Having thought about it, I cannot see any significant harm arising from my presence; on the contrary, to not attend would have had the result of humiliating my wife by making her go alone and possibly field awkward questions as to my whereabouts.
Possibly relations with my in-laws who also attended would have been damaged also — due to my treatment of their daughter, not the couple having the ceremony.
This was only a few years after my own return to the novus ordo Church. Prior to the Church, we all had to troop into the town hall around the corner where the couple were first civilly married, in accordance with French law which I understand the Church accepts even if grudgingly.
So I have actually attended four civil marriages. How could it be that the Church says it is acceptable to attend a civil marriage in that case, yet to do so in another environment merits excommunication?
Is this not a confusing situation like the one Amoris Laetitia has given rise to, with something being OK in one nation and wrong in another?
The French situation was made absurd by the fact that both parties there were lapsed Catholics, and the Catholic element mainly included to satisfy the irish parents — practicing Catholics — of the groom.
Were we all excommunicated? What about the priest who conducted the ceremony? I have always known the Church takes marriage seriously, but if I have learned anything in all this discussion, it would seem to be that the Church ought to be more explicit in its guidance regarding the great plurality of types of wedding ceremony which take place today.
I can remember the scandal when I was growing up over the then Lord Advocate a free presbyterian being panned by his protestant sect for the crime of attending the funeral of his Catholic friend.
I remember that people of all stripes regarded the treatment he received as being unreasonable and lacking in charity.
Surely we can have a firm and uncompromising faith and still mix with others, while being guarded against indifference and sufficiently prudent in word and deed so as not to undermine or deny any aspect of out faith?
I am genuinely struggling to frame that as a grave sin — though I can see it would be, if there had been any intention to publicly deny Church teaching or make a false equivalence with sacramental marriage.
Sorry for such a long-winded post, but my possible excommunication is obviously a serious matter! I would be grateful for your thoughts.
I am grateful you have highlighted this matter to me as something requiring more thought than I perhaps previously realised. Of course ever sinner always rushes to make excuses for themselves and absolve themselves from guilt — but with my arguments above I am trying to be reasonable and logical, not avoid responsibility.
I will take the advice of a priest s on this matter and should they consider my attendance at these wedding s problematic then I will do whatever is required to put things right.
I think it is always objectively sinful for a Catholic to attend a civil ceremony when one of the spouses is Catholic. The regulation of Marriage is judicial and determined by Canon Law.
To have a civil ceremony is a formal act of disobedience. To attend such a wedding ceremony would be approving this disobedience by witnessing it.
However, I would question how culpable you were. Like myself you had a non-existent Catholic education.
For this act to be mortally sinful it would require you to have full knowledge. I have to say that I would never, ever attend a civil marriage ceremony involving a Catholic, no matter who that was, be it my sister, best friend or work colleague.
I have not been able to follow this discussion closely, but have skimmed some of the comment and since I do, personally, find it difficult to believe that someone is automatically excommunicated for attending a civil wedding, I decided to write to a very trusted traditional priest — not SSPX but thoroughly traditional and completely PRO-SSPX.
I know this priest is always extremely busy, so he may take a while to respond, but he will answer — hopefully some time today when I will post his reply here.
As it happens, that response of mine that you copied to the priest only applies in cases where Catholics are marrying in civil ceremonies. I decided to write to a very trusted traditional priest………when he replies, I will post his response here.
Athanasius has provided much useful info and food for though, though it would be useful to hear a priests comments also.
All this is showing me the meltdown of the modern Church is even worse than I thought, because Catholics will be excommunicating themselves left, right and center in their ignorance!
I think it has to be clarified that the Church forbids Catholics from attending non-Catholic ceremonies where Catholics contract marriages outside the Church.
If one of the spouses is Catholic then they are automatically excommunicated along with any Catholic who lends public support to this breach of canonical law by their presence at it.
This has always been the teaching of the Church. It matters little if other invited guests know attending Catholics or not since it is the infidelity to God and the Church that incurs the penalty.
Now I understand the very difficult situations people can find themselves in when it comes to lapsed Catholic family or friends inviting them to attend their non-Catholic weddings.
It can be very hard to say no given the consequences that may ensue. This, I think, should answer your question about countries such as France in which Catholics must first marry in a civil ceremony.
That ceremony is accepted grudgingly by the Church, but only on the understanding that the Catholic couple will immediately seek to have the Church solemnise the bond and raise it to a Sacrament.
If they fail to do this then their marriage is invalid before God and they are excommunicated. Now obviously what applies to Catholics who marry in a civil ceremony also applies to Catholics who approve their rebellious action by their presence.
Of course ignorance of Church teaching will have an impact on any canonical penalty. But is it possible to admit the possibility of ignorance in the face of centuries of Church teaching?
Therefore it is much more likely that Catholics who marry outside the Church, as well as Catholics who attend such ceremonies, whether in an active or passive manner, are not free from the guilt of at least neglecting their duty to know the teaching of the Church in such matters.
With respect, I think you miss the point. This is not about what you or I feel we can or cannot robustly withstand. The real issue here, and the Church makes this perfectly clear, is one of fidelity to Christ and His Church, especially when it costs us.
I most certainly would never attend such a ceremony, no matter what it cost me in terms of human wrath, and I think you know that I am no Wee Free in my general outlook.
In this regard, you write: That will never happen if we just casually go along with it all. The example you raise about the Lord Advocate is a different matter.
He was slated by fellow Wee Frees for daring to attend the Catholic funeral of his friend. Catholics are permitted to attend Protestant funerals out of respect, though not allowed to participate in any religious ceremonies.
The difference between the two is quite obvious. We are even allowed to attend marriages of two non-Catholics, again without participating.
But never are we allowed to attend the marriage of a Catholic outside the Church. This is a different ball game. Given the confusion in the Church today and the poor formation many of us had growing up in this apostate age, it is quite possible that you did not realise the gravity of what you were doing and therefore did not incur any guilt or penalty.
Mortal sin is never contracted accidentally, we have to know that we do is gravely worng and give full ascent to the grave sin. Where this culpability is absent there is no sin.
God is not a monster. What we all have to do in such serious matters is genuinely search our conscience to ensure that we are absolutely blameless.
If we do that and find that we are blameless by reason of ignorance then there can be no guilt. I suppose no Catholic who has since returned to Tradition, however, could escape guilt in the future.
We are all much more learned in the Faith than perhaps a few years ago and so now we have to stand up and be counted. You thought your post was long winded and now I have outdone you!!
Hope this helps clarify things. As usual, many typos and forgot to remove the bold brackets in part of the text. I think, though, that the SSPX priest who gave this permission was wrong.
Catholics are never allowed to support other Catholics in their breaching of canonical law as far as I know, not even when it involves family. Thank you for your very detailed explanations above, much appreciated.
I have some questions to aid my understanding I am not trying find loopholes:. And this applies to even people who have lapsed and do not consider themselves Catholic in any way?
I think it would be accurate to describe the individual we are concerned with in these terms. There is compulsion in the Catholic faith?
Is a persons presence necessarily indicative of support? I have always understood Catholics in that sense as practicing Catholics.
Surely someone who has already abandoned the Church would pay no heed to its requirements about marriage. Ironically, when lapsed Catholics suddenly come back seeking a Church wedding, I have tended to regard that as very superficial and more a desire for a nice venue and veneer of tradition, than a sign of them seeking Our Lord.
If, before, I had to guess, i would probably have concluded the Church would have had more of a problem with attendance at a protestant wedding than a civil one.
Both are non-Catholic but one adds heresy to the mix. I am genuinely shocked to learn that it is problematic for a Catholic to attend the civil wedding of a baptised person who chooses for whatever reason not to practice the Catholic faith.
I think part of this is related to how I understand what a lapsed Catholic is. It is certainly not true that I was aware that attending such a marriage was wrong and then made a conscious decision to do so anyway.
When much younger, I had sometimes heard tales from many years past of folk from various backgrounds threatening not to attend this or that, but I always understood it more as tribalism or bloody-mindedness.
Certainly no-one mentioned God or canon law. Thank you for your responses — this has been an enlightening if worrying!
I have managed to prove this by having my first question in the post above in italics! Further to your most recent post, I found this on the New Theological Movement site, written by a priest:.
However, those who have been baptized Catholic or who have been received into the Church are bound to follow canonical form.
Even if a person has since left the practice of the faith and no longer considers himself to be Catholic, according to Church law, he is bound by the law of the Catholic Church from the moment he has once become Catholic either by baptism or by conversion.
This means that one who has been Catholic must be married in a manner recognized by the Catholic Church. Usually, this entails being married before a Catholic priest or deacon, in a Catholic Church — however, the Bishop can permit for a protestant minister or any other person to witness the marriage.
What is truly at stake is the question of scandal, and of encouraging another in objective sin. We need not make a judgment upon the soul of the Catholic who is attempting the invalid marriage, but we must rather stand back and make an objective consideration of the matter.
Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them: Among the ways in which we may be guilty of cooperating in sin, the Church lists praising or approving sin.
This is the objective effect of being present at a wedding — we are there to show support to the two individuals, not just in a general way, but specifically as they are wed.
Hence, even if we were to approach the couple ahead of time and tell them that we do not approve of their invalid attempt at marriage, presence at the ceremony itself communicates support and approval of the event.
It is part of the very nature of the act of being present at a wedding — it shows support and praise for the attempt at marriage. To cause scandal does not really mean to shock or surprise another, but rather to cause another to think that something which is sinful is not sinful or, at least, not that sinful.
This is precisely what happens when we attend the invalid marriage of a Catholic. Not only do we praise and show approval for the sinful act of the persons contracting the marriage, but by attending the wedding service we lead others into the false opinion that the invalid marriage is acceptable.
From all that has been said, it should be clear that a Catholic ought not to give a wedding gift or card in praise of an invalid marriage. Furthermore, a Catholic should not attend the reception afterwards — the couple is entering into manifest grave sin, what is there to celebrate?
Petrus has presented a very clear and concise post that I believe addresses many of your queries.