A corporal work of mercy.

A corporal work of mercy.
Click on photo for this corporal work of mercy!
Showing posts with label Matt C. Abbott. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Matt C. Abbott. Show all posts

Tuesday 17 July 2018

The Bishops who remained and continues to remain silent about McCarrick are complicit in a crime

The New York Times has reported on the disgraceful coverup of the homosexual predator Cardinal, Timothy McCarrick. There is no need to write more here of that filthy monster, the label name at the bottom can take the reader to the history which I have written about this pathetic man. From his long known homosexual predator life to his illegal lobbying for the election of Bergoglio, it is legion.

In the Times article; "He Preyed on Men Who Wanted to Be Priests, Then He Became a Cardinal," the times reveals one of the seminarians who this pervert McCarrick went after. 

As a young man studying to be a priest in the 1980s, Robert Ciolek was flattered when his brilliant, charismatic bishop in Metuchen, N.J., Theodore E. McCarrick, told him he was a shining star, cut out to study in Rome and rise high in the church.
 Bishop McCarrick began inviting him on overnight trips, sometimes alone and sometimes with other young men training to be priests. There, the bishop would often assign Mr. Ciolek to share his room, which had only one bed. The two men would sometimes say night prayers together, before Bishop McCarrick would make a request — “come over here and rub my shoulders a little”— that extended into unwanted touching in bed.

Matt C. Abbott wrote years ago about the pervert sodomite predator Cardinal and later took the column down. I read it archived a number of years ago. Now, Abbott has named the man who was the reason he hid the column originally. Former priest Bart Aslin wrote to Matt and provided a full disclosure of his history. 

To my readers in here Toronto, don't think this Archdiocese is so holy, so clean, so moral. I can assure you that the filth and homosexual penetration of St. Augustine's Seminary in past decades is legendary. What I know about the filth in Toronto would fill a book. I do not report it in order to protect those whom I know that were victims and others who have confided in me, the truth of the sordid history here from the era of Philip Pocock, Emmett Carter and Aloysius Ambrozic. 

Returning to McCarrick, every American bishop must be suspect of the cover up. They knew, all or most of them knew and did nothing, said nothing. Men who are now bishops and cardinals covered it up, think about that.

Think not that Bergoglio is unaware. Bergoglio is the most complicit, he has failed to clean out the filth from the stables and in fact, has pushed the agenda of the homosexualists and done their bidding.

May God free us soon from this perverted juggernaut.

Tuesday 8 November 2016

I stand with Father Frank Pavone!

Two nights ago, Father Frank Pavone appeared live on social media at an altar to talk about abortion and the election. On the altar, Father Pavone had placed the dead, saline burned body of an aborted baby - a body intact and of late term.


pavone-w-aborted-baby

Father Pavone has come under criticism for doing this. Ed Mechmann, director of public policy for the Archdiocese of New York, said the use of an aborted baby 'as a prop' is 'absolutely appalling, and deserves to be repudiated by all of us who consider ourselves to be pro-life in the fullest meaning of that word." 

Coming from anyone in power in New York, that's rich. 

Matt C. Abbott at RenewAmerica has Father Pavone's response to this criticism.




For what it is worth, this blogger supports Father Frank Pavone and publicly thanks him for his work on behalf of the murdered, butchered children.

Placing the baby on the altar evoked, in my mind, the very sacrifice offered there to the Father. The Son was sacrificed on Calvary and re-presented on the Altar. The child was presented to God on that Altar and their soul presented back to him. The baby's suffering, in the great mind of God, was in unity with that of Christ. It was innocent blood spilt for greed and selfishness. It parallels the innocent blood spilt by Christ.

AS FOR YOU TROLLS ATTACKING THIS WRITER OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS:



"Crux sacra sit mihi lux
Non draco sit mihi dux
Vade retro satana
Numquam suade mihi vana
Sunt mala quae libas
Ipse venena bibas"

For a properly consecrated altar, as below, the candles and flowers are placed on the gradine, not the consecrated altar. Clearly, the supreme lawgiver doesn't care about the GIRM in the nervous disordered Missal and has absolved himself from any law in order to place upon this true altar, the Holy Beachball. While I cannot be certain, that used by Father Pavone, seems to be a private chapel and a table, not a properly consecrated altar. This is not a Mass and it was done to focus attention on the dastardly matter of abortion and the position of one of the candidates for President of the United States.

If you're not offended by the pathetic, disgraceful and blasphemous action of what Bergoglio did below after returning from WYD Rio, then you have a problem with your understanding of Catholicism. What does this photo say about this Jesuit's respect for the Altar?



These who have risen up against him are comfortable Catholics who want a comfortable faith. They would burn incense to Ba'al if it kept them in their comforts, and they often, do.

Perhaps this was an error in judgement on the part of Father Pavone, that is a debatable point. But given his tireless work for the unborn and his faithfulness to his calling, I will not throw him under the bus; something being done by the paid "catholic" bloggers and so-called, journalists out there who will have no problem voting for the devil.

God bless Father Pavone and confound those who shy away from the Truth.

My American friends, read the post below before you vote.

And where is your outrage over these, I can find more!




Friday 12 September 2014

Cardinal McCarrick - Modern Judas to Christ and His Church


The phrase "there is no fool like an old fool" was never more true when it comes to former Washington Archbishop, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick.

Public court records include the testimony that "McCarrick, wearing just underwear then got into bed with one of its priests." If you wish to read the rest of the filth of this so-called Prince of the Church I refer you to Richard Sipe or the facts as documented by Matt C. Abbott.

Not enough for McCarrick, now he praises Mahomet and its false god with its statement equivalent to our signing of the Holy Trinity. He even wishes "peace" upon the so-called prophet who was nothing more than a murderer, warlord, thief, rapist, bigamist and child-molester. McCarrick was speaking to an Islamic group with links to the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organisation now once again illegal in Egypt.

You can read the commentary by Walid Shoebat, former Muslim terrorist and a Christian and the report by Neil Munro at the Daily Caller with erudite quotes by Robert Spencer who knows a thing or two about the subject.

You may ask, "But Vox, the Bishop of Rome, Jorge Bergoglio prayed with an Imam in the Vatican." 

Yes, and he was wrong for doing it.

These Cardinals are a disgrace and an affront to Christ, His Church and all of us as Catholics.

May St. Joseph, Patron of the Church, open their eyes soon, or close them as heaven sees fit.

Tuesday 11 March 2014

A massive, looming threat

Matt C.Abbott column
A 'massive, looming threat' to the Church; Catholic film critic on 'Passion' vs. 'Son of God'



March 11, 2014

The following is a good letter to the editor, written by Father Brian W. Harrison, O.S., of St. Louis, Mo., that appears (in slightly abbreviated form) in the February 2014 issue of Inside the Vatican magazine.

Dear Dr. [Robert] Moynihan,

In your latest Letter from Rome, commenting on the new appointments to the College of Cardinals, you report rather nonchalantly that "[Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig] Müller is also known for having said that the Church's position on admitting to divorced and remarried Catholics to the sacrament of Communion is not something that can or will be changed. But other German Church leaders, including Cardinal Walter Kasper, have recently gone on record saying the teaching may and will be changed."

Your brief, matter-of-fact report on this controversy reminds me of the tip of an iceberg. It alludes to, but does not reveal the immensity of, a massive, looming threat that bids fair to pierce, penetrate and rend in twain Peter's barque – already tossing perilously amid stormy and icy seas. The shocking magnitude of the doctrinal and pastoral crisis lurking beneath this politely-worded dispute between scholarly German prelates can scarcely be overstated. For what is at stake here is fidelity to a teaching of Jesus Christ that directly and profoundly affects the lives of hundreds of millions of Catholics: the indissolubility of marriage.

The German bishops have devised a pastoral plan to admit divorced and remarried Catholics to Communion, whether or not a Church tribunal has granted a decree of nullity of their first marriage. Cardinal-elect Müller, as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has not only published a strong article in L'Osservatore Romano reaffirming the perennial Catholic doctrine confirmed by John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio; he has also written officially to the German bishops' conference telling them to rectify their heterodox pastoral plan. But the bishops, led by their conference president and by Cardinal Kasper, are openly defying the head of the CDF, and predicting that the existing doctrine and discipline will soon be changed!

Think of the appalling ramifications of this. If German Catholics don't need decrees of nullity, neither will any Catholics anywhere. Won't the world's Catholic marriage tribunals then become basically irrelevant? Will they eventually just close down? And won't this reversal of bimillennial Catholic doctrine mean that the Protestants and Orthodox, who have allowed divorce and remarriage for century after century, have been more docile to the Holy Spirit on this issue than the true Church of Christ? Indeed, how credible, now, will be her claim to be the true Church? On what other controverted issues, perhaps, has the Catholic Church been wrong and the separated brethren right?

And what of Jesus' teaching that those who remarry after divorce commit adultery? Admitting them to Communion without a commitment to continence will lead logically to one of three faith-breaking conclusions: (a) Our Lord was mistaken in calling this relationship adulterous – in which case he can scarcely have been the Son of God; (b) adultery is not intrinsically and gravely sinful – in which case the Church's universal and ordinary magisterium has always been wrong; or (c) Communion can be given to some who are living in objectively grave sin – in which case not only has the magisterium also erred monumentally by always teaching the opposite, but the way will also be opened to Communion for fornicators, practicing homosexuals, pederasts, and who knows who else? (And, please, spare us the sophistry that Jesus' teaching was correct 'in his own historical and cultural context,' but that since about Martin Luther's time that has all changed.)

Let us make no mistake: Satan is right now shaking the Church to her very foundations over this divorce issue. If anything, the confusion is becoming even graver than that over contraception between 1965 and 1968, when Paul VI's seeming vacillation allowed Catholics round the world to anticipate a reversal of perennial Church teaching. If the present Successor of Peter now keeps silent about divorce and remarriage, thereby tacitly telling the Church and the world that the teaching of Jesus Christ will be up for open debate at a forthcoming Synod of Bishops, one fears a terrible price will soon have to be paid.

Sunday 14 August 2011

The Latin Mass and one priest's 'science fiction'

On this early Sunday morning, I found this in my inbox from Matt C. Abbott:

Matt C. Abbott column
The Latin Mass and one priest's 'science fiction'


Matt C. Abbott
Matt C. Abbott
August 14, 2011

In a recent parish bulletin, Father Bill Conway, pastor of Divine Savior Parish in the Diocese of Joliet, Ill., wrote (excerpted and slightly edited; click here to see the bulletin):

    It is worth one's time to consider what some of the Church's leading theologians at the Second Vatican Council thought and wrote concerning the Eucharist and liturgy. In recent years one hears some speaking of the role of the priest in the liturgy as acting in persona Christi ('in the person of Christ'). My fear with such language is that it may have the effect of clericalizing the celebration of the Eucharist, making the assembly once again a passive observer....

    While I respect the decision of the Holy Father to permit the extraordinary rite of the Tridentine Mass (please note 'extraordinary'), my criticism of this form is that by the very manner of its celebration it renders the role of the laity to being little more than onlooker. In fact, it was precisely because of this that the Council Fathers in Sacrosanctum Concilium mandated the reform of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Mass: 'In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else (#14).'

    Phrases such as in persona Christi [and] ad orientem, I believe, run contrary not only to the spirit of Vatican II but to the very tradition of the Church. Jesus did not celebrate the Last Supper with His back to the apostles (ad orientem) but rather reclined at table with them....

I asked Father John Trigilio Jr., president of the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy, to comment on Father Conway's assertions. Father Trigilio, as he has done on previous occasions, graciously provided me with the following response:

    Father Conway needs to reread the actual texts of the Second Vatican Council as well as the Catechism of the Catholic Church. His Eucharistic theology is interesting, but not Catholic. If he has a problem with the notion of 'in persona Christi,' then he has a problem with Holy Mother Church.

    The conciliar document Presbyterorum Ordinis had this to say about the phrase 'in persona Christi' in relationship to the priesthood: 'Priests act especially in the person of Christ as ministers of holy things, particularly in the Sacrifice of the Mass, the sacrifice of Christ who gave Himself for the sanctification of men.'

    'Thirty years later, the Catechism of the Catholic Church reaffirms this teaching:

      'It is in representing [Christ] that the bishop or priest acting in the person of Christ the head (in persona Christi capitis) presides over the assembly, speaks after the readings, receives the offerings, and says the Eucharistic Prayer.' (1348)

      'Only validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.' (1411)

    Lex orandi, lex credendi. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass embodies what Catholicism believes about the Holy Eucharist. The teachings on the ministerial priesthood and on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass are embodied in how the Mass is celebrated. What we believe and how we worship are integrally and organically connected.

    The congregation does not consecrate bread and wine. The common priesthood of the baptized faithful does not have the power to transubstantiate bread and wine into the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. The ordained ministerial priesthood alone acts in persona Christi and consecrates bread and wine into the Real Presence for the sake of the people of God. Needing to be spiritually fed, the priest, like Moses of old, provided food for the journey. The manna given in church is the Precious Body and Blood of Christ. The people receive and are fed. The priest is the one who provides and then feeds the people the bread from Heaven.

    The faithful participate in the sacrifice by their offering of themselves. This is why the English translation of the Roman Missal is being corrected to have the priest say at the preparation of the gifts: 'Pray, brothers and sisters, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.' Previously, the English said 'our sacrifice' even though the Latin was always ut meum ac vestrum sacrificium so as to distinguish the sacrifice of the priest (who acts in persona Christi as an 'alter Christus') from the sacrifice of the faithful.

    Divine worship and Church doctrine coincide and correspond with one another. A theology based on the premise that the congregation or the common priesthood of the baptized consecrates the bread and wine at Mass is not Catholic (and certainly not Eastern Orthodox, either). What also worries me is the one-liner in Father Conway's bulletin: 'Would that those who wish to restrict or limit the presence and active participation of women in the liturgy take heed.'

    Sounds dangerously close to a heretical notion some dissident priests — and one or two nutty bishops — have been recently espousing. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis ended the debate once and for all. It is an infallible teaching of the Church that only baptized males can be ordained. It is also infallible teaching that only the priest consecrates the bread and wine at Mass.

    I suggest that [Father Conway] get some remedial catechesis so he can better instruct his flock on what the Church truly teaches as opposed to his own personal theories, which are more akin to science fiction than divinely-revealed truth.

Responding to the same commentary, Susan Gorski of Illinois sent the following (edited) email to Father Conway:

    'I write to you out of concern for your commentary about acting 'in persona Christi' in your July 31 bulletin. You write about your fears and you criticized a form of worship that is centuries old. Clericalizing the celebration of the Eucharist? I thought it required a priest to consecrate the host into the Body and Blood of our Divine Lord; is this no longer true? Do you openly express that you think the pope was wrong? Do you doubt transubstantiation?

    'You criticize the extraordinary form of the Mass as though it demotes humanity and relegates them to mere onlookers; but that is not true. In the Tridentine rite, everyone participates in the worship of God as led by the priest by intelligently and reverently praying the Mass.

    'The blurring of the distinction and dignity that is the institutional priesthood appears to be a desire to dissolve the priesthood entirely. One of the exact titles of the papacy is Servus Servorum, or servant of the servants. This is an indicator of the responsibility you hold as a priest for the care of the souls in your charge.

    'Are you to be a shepherd of the flock, or a hireling that runs away when the going gets difficult? This is a major difference between a priest and a lay minster. Are there wolves out there ready to scatter the flock? Perhaps you do not believe in an actual devil. If you do not believe in the devil, then who is doing his work now? Is there not evil in this world that is beyond the scope of social justice, or is that all there is?

    'I've heard a number of priests in the Diocese of Joliet say they believe that salvation of souls is achievable through social justice — and they do not believe that the most important work of the priest is the salvation of souls through the sacraments. They feel salvation comes mostly or entirely through social justice; but this is only a very small portion of their priestly responsibility.

    'In the Traditional rite, the priest leads the people in worship of God and the people follow in worship to God. The priest is a servant of the people by being a servant to God first. He is to uphold the faith, he is to care for his flock, and if he should lose one of them, he should go out and search until he finds the lost sheep. This is the traditional priesthood.

    'Priests' hands are anointed for a reason. He is not a hireling; he is married to the Church and is to be her defender. So why do you question the teaching of the Magisterium on in persona Christi? Why do you fear it? Do you doubt your faith? This is what I read when I read your column in the bulletin. Sharing that doubt and fear with your flock means their shepherd isn't comfortable upholding the teachings of the Church.

    'I am praying for you, Father Conway.'


Matt C. Abbott is a Catholic columnist with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Communication, Media and Theatre from Northeastern Illinois University in Chicago, and an Associate in Applied Science degree in Business Management from Triton College in River Grove, Ill. He has worked in the right-to-life movement and is a published writer focused on Catholic and social issues. He can be reached at mattcabbott@gmail.com.

(Note: I welcome thoughtful feedback from readers. If you want our correspondence to remain confidential, please specify as such in your initial e-mail to me. However, I reserve the right to forward and/or publish e-mails — complete with e-mail addresses — that are accusatory, insulting or threatening in nature, even if said e-mails are marked confidential. Also, for subscribers to my column, please e-mail me directly instead of simply hitting "Reply" to the e-mail sent to you by the RenewAmerica site. Thank you and God bless!)


© Copyright 2011 by Matt C. Abbott
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/110814