Plans for the blog include ongoing posting of innumerable records, accounts and correspondences of hitherto unpublished, now ‘declassified’ projects of the NCCL apostolate.
In other words, to publish reports now of much of NCCL’s action hitherto unpublished, under-published, or circulated only with discretion.
Why had they not been published in detail before? More often than not, to under-report certain projects allowed NCCL to avoid needless, puny ‘sacristy scuffling’ or risk ‘politicization’ of simple acts of charity and/or faithful adherence to the teachings of holy Church in the midst of senseless controversies.
It also preserved a very valuable advantage for a smaller force in the present spiritual combat: the element of surprise.
Not exactly ‘top secret’, nonetheless a couple small examples follows, below, to give our friends and others an idea of what NCCL has been ‘up to’ for going on 40 years. (The letters were a tiny portion of large projects, still ongoing.)
More examples can be found by clicking here, to take you into the ‘TOP SECRET’ archives under construction.
Does all that mean some kind of “CIA” activity among Catholics? Not really, just a coalition in action!
Bear in mind that the now-declassified reports & documents posted on this blog are a tiny fraction of the apostolate’s projects carried out with utmost discretion over the years.
Since Pope Benedict XVI’s abdication (announced 11 February 2013), plans are in motion to ‘declassify’ numerous correspondences with him (many when still Cardinal) and His sainted predecessor proposing concrete means to genuine reform.
Meanwhile, feel free to have a look at the other blogs and the websites of NCCL.
NCCL’s main website
[A version of this letter was sent to several major Catholic and secular international journals.]
May 31, 2007
The Letters Editor
1 Pennington Street
London E98 1XY
To the Editor:
The article, “Pope set to bring back Latin Mass in face of opposition” (The Times, May 14), demands a clarification apropos of the German bishops’ objection to the use of the Good Friday prayer for the Jews.
Although the descriptive phrase “perfidious Jews” does carry a negative connotation in English, the Latin from which this translation is taken, “perfidis Judaeis”, is not offensive. Handmissals from the 1950’s, used by the laity to follow the Liturgy, attest to this by translating the phrase properly as “faithless Jews” or “unbelieving Jews”.
Nevertheless, since traditional Catholics do not petition the vernacular translation of the Liturgy, let alone its meaning, but its Latin original, with its Latin meaning, the offensiveness of the English phrase “perfidious Jews” is irrelevant.
Moreover, by 1962 the so-called offensive word “perfidis” was removed from the Latin text. Since traditional Catholics petition for the 1962 liturgical forms, it follows that the phrase even in Latin, “perfidis Judaeis”, is likewise irrelevant.
Surely non-Christians could not possibly object to Catholics praying for their conversion, and, therefore, light for them from on high, since Christ spent three spectacular years of His life on earth for no other reason – a fact that has hardly been kept secret. One wonders why, then, the objections of those who think it is a secret, a novelty or an offense should be taken seriously. Besides, what sort of bishop objects to Catholics praying as they have for thousands of years, and do still with the Pope’s permission?
Gregory P. Lloyd, M.A.
621 Jordan Circle, Fullerton Pennsylvania 18052 USA
Here’s another example, this one which was also mailed to the Cardinal in question.
September 12, 2005
Catherine Pepinster, Editor
1 King Street Cloisters
Clifton Walk, London
W6 OQZ Great Britain
Dear Madam — Your Eminence,
Surely a jurist endowed with the acumen attributed to His Eminence Cardinal Francesco Pompedda would not really have made the silly statement attributed to him in an interview with La Stampa. Apart from everything else, why would the Society of St. Pius X, founded by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, call into question the elections of the very Popes with whom reconciliation was and is sought? Evidently someone confuses Catholics who are commonly called traditional, with the movement which is in formal schism, the so-called sedevacantists.
Though there are said to be various factions among sedevacantists, all of them believe that the See of Peter has been vacant since the death of Pius XII. That could hardly be the case of the Society of St. Pius X, since Blessed Pope John XXIII personally appointed the late Archbishop Lefebvre as a member of the Ante-Preparatory Commission charged with preparing Vatican II. Moreover, all clerics of the aforementioned Society, like all clerics of the Roman Rite, commemorate the reigning Pontiff as well as the respective local Bishop during the Mass.
Unless one wished to sabotage the Holy Father’s attempts at reconciliation, one would think that the report of such silly statements might be ignored especially during this delicate phase.
Had His Eminence really made the statement attributed to him, he rather than the “Lefebvrists” might be suspected of being a sedevacantist. For he would seem to derogate to himself the prerogative which pertains solely to the Supreme Pontiff to establish the criteria of ecclesial reconciliation with/in the Catholic Church.
I am, Madam, your obedient servant,
Gregory P. Lloyd, M.A.
528 North New Street, Suite 2
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18018-5715 USA
tel 610/882-3124 • 610/882-3125 fax