Dear all.

I would like to apologise for the spelling errors in my previous post. It was written in haste and rather late in the evening.

It would appear, that the person named in the post, took it upon himself to criticise the spelling and in doing so, showed himself to be extremely childish.

Succession to the See of Westminster

As many Catholics up and down England and Wales are well aware, after tending his resignation in August 2007 the incumbent Archbishop of Westminster, His Eminence Cormac Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor, is due to step down in the New Year. This has led to much speculation about his successor with particular attention being paid to their Graces the Archbishops of Cardiff and Birmingham (the Most Rev. Peter Smith and the Most Rev. Vincent Nichols).

However this in turn has led to the (self appointed) 'voice of Catholicism' in the UK to make judgements and essentially (in my view) make a mockery of the whole process of the selection of those who are successors to the Apostles.

He comments many times on the so-called 'Magic circle' of the English and Welsh Hierarchy, apparently placing himself morally above them! He is none other than Damian Thompson ... I really do not understand his agenda.

He comments on Archbishop Peter Smith as the 'Magic circle' candidate for Westminster, being as His Grace is therefore the 'left-wingers' choice! I know His Grace isn't the most traditional of all the Bishops in the English and Welsh Hierarchy, but he is one of the most outspoken with regard to moral issues in the country.

He is an outspoken critic of many of the Governments policies in particular those which contradict the Church’s teaching with regard to Ethics, he is in this sense, highly traditional! Just because he doesn't celebrate mass ad orientem doesn't mean he wouldn't be an excellent successor to the Cardinal!

However it is not for me to judge and I look forward to reading sometime in the New Year of the successor to the See of Westminster and assure him, if he reads this that he has my support!

Breviary confusion!!

All Saints by Fra Angelico

I sat down yesterday evening and looked at my liturgical calender and saw that it was 31st October ... so i turned to Evening Prayer I in mt breviary for the Feast of All Saints. I was about to begin to pray when a niggling began in the back of my mind, I looked at the calender again and looked at Saturday 1st November...

...I had forgotten that the Bishops Conference of E&W in their ... 'wisdom' had moved the Feast to the Sunday!

So i sat there, breviary in my hand very confused as to what to do. If i was in America i would probably have prayer Evening Prayer I but i just didn't know what to do, and in my confusion did not pray the office yesterday evening. I'm sure if i had looked somewhere i would have found an explanation.

Since a child I have been told that the Feast of All Saints is on the 1st November! Well it's common sense isn't it?! That All Hallows Day should follow All Hallows Eve! Traditionally held on the 31st October!

I do believe i used the correct term there "Hallow" after all surely it means "to make holy or sacred, to sanctify or consecrate, to venerate".

Do i pray Evening Prayer I of the Feast of All Saints this evening? some clarification on this would be greatly appreciated!

I think a little rant about liberalism and watering down of the faith should be included here, but i won't go on. Alas it's just another proverbial 'nail in the coffin' of the liberal bishops of this country!