Some of us have been proactive for many years and were either ignored or insulted by all who (should have been) concerned, for our trouble. Sorry, but I'm not going to fall about in delight because a few notables have signed one letter. I know a Scotsman, now deceased, who probably had his own library in the Vatican, he wrote so many letters about the schismatic state of the Church in Scotland. He never missed an opportunity to note that at no point did anyone in the Vatican contradict that description.

Don't get me wrong - it's good that those celebrity types have signed that letter but I can't help wondering if it fits that tired old description of "too little, too late." Hope not.

@Martin Blackshaw

There is nothing, as far as I can see, in any of the above article and the linked commentaries, to suggest that the authors and signatories of the Open Letter have exceeded their authority - they are not asking for anyone to depose the Pope just to admonish him for his manifest public heresies. Unless I've skimmed it too quickly (not the first time) and misunderstood but I read it as a call for the bishops to admonish Francis. Isn't that something we have all been crying out for, for a very long time now? Is not that the root mission of the SSPX - to defend the traditional Catholic Faith? If my cynicism is showing through, you - of all people - will understand why. I have more time for the Salvation Army that I have for the SSPX having seen, first hand, the scandalous anti-Catholic behaviour of the Society priests now (dis)gracing Scotland with their presence. As for "waste of time" - with respect, there is no such thing as a waste of time when we are working for the Faith. I am truly shocked that the SSPX leadership could make such an un-Catholic statement. Just because we don't get the result we want, when we want, see the result pronto, doesn't mean every little effort we make isn't winning God's pleasure and grace. Wasn't it Pope Pius X who denounced the indifference, "the easy going attitude" of Catholics, which he blamed for all the evils in the world - I'm paraphrasing, but that is at least a part quote (don't ask me which part )

I didn't meet him, more's the pity, but members of my family had a conversation with a gentleman and his family who were attending an occasion (First Communion) last Sunday, in the diocesan church where I currently attend the TLM (having been banned by the SSPX priests in Scotland, a decision upheld by the new District Superior). Anyway, this gentleman - who expressed shock at the details of my banning and yours - of his own volition, apparently, said he had been shocked himself at certain things he'd heard said in SSPX Glasgow, including (but not exclusively) the announcement that those who confess the same sins repeatedly, might not be given absolution. He was astounded at that and said he had stopped going to Confession there, as soon as he heard that. I digress, though, and don't mean to resurrect those "old chestnuts". Just sayin'

Martin, I'm not sure how much you've read of the above article or if you checked out the links but Dr Lamont, author of the above article, notes that Bishop Fellay supports the Open Letter. For ease of reference, I quote:

"Bishop Fellay’s support of the position of the Open Letter has not been limited to his endorsement of Salza’s and Siscoe’s book. He also signed the filial correction addressed to Pope Francis, which reproached the pope for upholding heresy and asked him to repudiate his heretical words and deeds.

It is true that Bishop Fellay is no longer the superior general of the SSPX. The character of the new leadership of the Society may give a clue to the position that the SSPX has taken toward the Open Letter. The current superior general of the Society is Fr. Davide Pagliarani, who was the superior of the SSPX seminary in La Reja, Argentina from 2012 until his election in 2018. The new assistants to the superior general are Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta and Fr. Christian Bouchacourt. Bishop de Gallareta was also a rector of the Society’s seminary in Argentina. Fr. Bouchacourt served as the district superior of the Society in Latin America from 2003 until 2014 and is known to have enjoyed good relations with the then-archbishop of Buenos Aires, Jorge Bergoglio. The new leadership of the SSPX thus seems to have been chosen in order to promote better relations with Pope Francis. Pursuit of this policy requires rejection of the Open Letter. It explains why the Society has chosen to attack the letter, regardless of the badness of the reasons it provides for rejecting it." End of Extract.

Even if, as the SSPX argues, the Open Letter is "a waste of time" humanly speaking, in that it may not get the obviously desired results of a public (or even private) admonishment of the Pope, it is certainly NOT a waste of time in the sight of God who will reward the conscientious zeal of the authors and signatories. Having said that, I have to admit to closing down our lay apostolate (Catholic Truth) last year because it had become clear that it was (humanly speaking!) pointless. Neither priests nor people seemed to care that the Faith was under sustained attack and those "right wingers" were only making things worse. Exit stage left, but only after 24 years of trying to make a bit of a difference.

The authors and signatories of the Open Letter have made a public effort to correct this dreadful pontiff while the leadership of the SSPX (with the happy exception of Bishop Fellay, former General Superior) have maintained their silent complicity. The current General Superior is, essentially, a pal of Francis, so that throws a little light on the otherwise incomprehensible silence of the SSPX in the face of the manifest scandals caused by this shocking pontiff.

End of sermon - sorry, didn't mean to be so long-winded

Reporting briefly...

I'm told that yesterday's Open House Conference was nothing special, that the majority of the laity present showed the confusion which we have come to recognise in those who have been influenced by the modernism which has infiltrated the Church this past 60 years, and that there were only a small number of priests in attendance. The archbishop attended, but nobody can recall any statements from him, so it seems like it will be business as usual - i.e. the apostasy continues apace - in Glasgow.

@Carol H
Carol, thank you for your kind words about the Catholic Truth blog - hugely appreciated.

Also, just to mention that I understand you remarks about speaking with Fr Sherry - I held him in high regard when he was in Scotland and even shared a platform with him when we were both invited to address a Conference in Cork - but I know that at least one woman in Glasgow wrote to him on his arrival in London as District Superior to ask for a meeting with him about the bannings (she was horrified to witness, in person, what happened to Martin on the day HE was banned) but while Fr Sherry acknowledged her email, he made no mention of her request for a meeting. Ambitious clergy is, I believe, a particular feature of the SSPX now. I know there are ambitious clergy all over the place, but I see a particular tendency in the Society, kind of in the nature of things, if you get my drift.

@Martin Blackshaw

Just to clarify one thing, Martin. You wrote the following about my expulsion, referring to Fr Wall: He obviously doesn't know Patricia as well as he thinks, but she went quietly because she didn't want to cause scandal to others by turning up at church for Mass and being forced to leave by the police.

Well, it didn't occur to me that he would call the police. I was told by Fr Hennick that people would be put on the door to keep me out, but if I somehow got in, then he would simply not begin the Mass until I was removed. Which I took to mean that someone or some group would either persuade me to leave or physically remove me. I didn't know what to think.

The reasons I chose not to just attend as usual (which I now regret), however, and which I stated in my email(s) responding to the banning, was two-fold. As I said to the priests at the time, I'm always careful not to impose my company where it's not wanted, so I assured them that I would accept (not respect) their banning; thus, the threat of having me actively removed could be set aside. But Father Hennick had also warned me that my niece and her children (one of whom was a server at Mass) would be subject to unnecessary drama if I insisted on attending, so again I assured him that I was indeed mindful of my family members and didn't want them to suffer any embarrassment. I, therefore, went quietly for those reasons. I continued to drive my niece and children into Mass while I went on to the diocesan Mass - until the archbishop of Glasgow ended that provision. But there was a third reason why I decided just to accept the banning and it is this: I truly believed that once Fr Wall's temper had cooled and he had time to reflect on the whole situation, he would find a way to invite me back, given that a few members of the congregation had asked him to reconsider.

Had I thought of the possibility of ending up in handcuffs, I must admit, that would have been reason # 4, without a doubt

The whole situation is a scandal but who was it said "there's always something to be glad about"... In short, it is through this scandal that I have been able to identify my (very few) true friends from the rest. Signed Pollyanna

@Carol H
I've heard/read this many times, Carol and I have to accept that, if this has been your personal experience, so be it. Generally speaking, however, I find it impossible to comprehend. Most especially with regard to children. Think how quickly they run to mother to snitch on a sibling for the simplest thing. I struggle to believe that these same children would remain silent about something so obviously seriously wrong but, I dare say, there are exception to this as to every other rule.

@English Catholic
Many thanks for those links, some of which I'd seen previously. It's very disturbing indeed that Bishop Barron is considered one of the "good guys" among the bishops. Truly astounding that we are living through such disorientation.

Thanks again for posting - we need to keep ourselves fully informed these days.

@Martin Blackshaw - Well I hope I have many tomorrows because I need all the time I can get to prepare for my (terrifying) judgement... I popped in here to say that I won't be able to attend the Open House Conference (can you hear those cheers!) because I have a multitude of things to attend to this coming Saturday. In any event, I know that there will be priests in attendance who are there because the archbishop expects his priests to be there and there are also those who will go to check out what is being said. All of that is fair enough - it beats attending because you want to join the Open House Brigade in building their own very new religion.

@salliperson

As I've said below to Martin, I struggle with this idea that people who have been abused in this shocking way keep silence - for any reason - for years, indeed decades, before speaking out. I really struggle to believe that.

@Martin Blackshaw

That's my own first instinct - to ask why it takes so long for these allegations to come to light and I'm afraid I struggle to believe them. I think the normal response is to scream from the rooftops in such a situation and not to be intimidated or blackmailed into silence. Who knows. I dare say the truth will emerge in due course.

@chris griffin

Clarification: you are being totally untruthful to claim that I said Fatima "must be accepted by all Catholics". Nowhere, did I say that. You have thus identified yourself as a troll, a person who thinks nothing of peddling falsehoods and blackening the character of another. Your fixation with the abortion issue does not mean you get a pass on every other sin. You even call Our Lady to account for not mentioning abortion in her Church-approved apparitions! Some Catholic - about as Catholic as Joe Biden!

@chris griffin
No, I didn't run away (that's the childish response of certain types when someone feels they have to withdraw from a discussion - accuse them "running away"). I was planning to return briefly because I have, almost by accident, uncovered a fact about you, through your various comments on GTV, that I was coming in to comment on that. Will do so in a moment, but first, your insistence on 5 sins that cry for vengeance, is rooted in a paragraph from the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, a catechism renowned for its unreliability, not to mention errors such as the novelty of making the death penalty "inadmissible". I prefer the traditional Catechisms, so here's the Catechism of Saint Pius X:

Catechism of St Pius X

8 – Q. Which are the sins that are said to cry to God for vengeance?

The sins that are said to cry to God for vengeance are these four: (1) Wilful murder; (2) The sin of sodomy; (3) Oppression of the poor; (4) Defrauding labourers of their wages.

I planned to return when I discovered that you do not accept the Church-approved Fatima apparitions, despite two of the three seers now being canonised saints, and you don't accept them because Our Lady did not mention abortion. Incredible. You need help, and I don't mean that sarcastically, but literally.

Sadly, you are simply an opponent of abortion, like many atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Hindus, Protestant and, of course, Catholics - but Catholics who accept ALL of the Church's teaching, ALL of Divine Revelation, not just the bits that suit their personal agendas. That is how you are presenting on this site. Your Catholicity, if it exists, is hidden behind the Protestant practice of citing select Scripture passages to support your argument - which is always about abortion.

So, I am not going to waste any more time with you. If you choose to make snide remarks and insult me because I do not have the time to keep going over the same ground over and over again, then you do that. I'm not interested.