Crypt Oratory Chapel of Sts Stephen and David

Crypt Oratory Chapel of Sts Stephen and David Contact information, map and directions, contact form, opening hours, services, ratings, photos, videos and announcements from Crypt Oratory Chapel of Sts Stephen and David, Religious organisation, 326 Gloucester Road, Cheltenham.

06/03/2026

What is wrong with the Catholic Church
==========================
Doctrine
---------
1. Uncritical adoption of many secularist and post-modernist ideas, in complete disregard of the warnings of popes Pius IX – XII, Leo XIII and Benedict XV.
2. Confusion of Sacred Tradition with Contemporary Policies.
The rosary decade invented by JP-II is presented as being “traditional”.
Contemporary Vatican/Papal policies/teaching are described as being in accord with what has always been taught – contrary to readily available facts.
The idea that the pope can do whatever he likes and any new ideas he puts forward must be adopted with enthusiasm.
The idea that the pope can say that some doctrine is infallible dogma without himself making an infallible dogmatic definition.
3. Dumming-down of Catechetics.
Most of what is presented is incoherent and vague.
Failure to address many doctrinal and ethical questions in a rational way.
Most Catholic clergy cannot enunciate the basic doctrines of the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, and Justification without lapsing into serious heresy.
Most Catholic laity have no more than a passing acquaintance with the words: “Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement and Justification.”
De-emphasis of sin and asceticism.
The Catechism is dry, boring and uninspiring; seems to unduly restrict doctrinal plurality; is overly definite about things of, at most, secondary importance; and is vague about things of primary importance, such as the Atonement.
4. Promotion of religious indifferentism.
5. Appeasement of Islam.
6. Dumming-down of the process to canonise a saint.
7. Approval of “modern ecclesial movements” such as the Neocatechumenal Way in disregard of the fact that their practices reek of heresy.

Liturgy
--------
1. Illegal suppression of Traditional Worship.
2. Systematic persecution of those who refused to accept this.
3. Dumming-down and Protestantizing of liturgy:
Textually, Pope Paul’s Mass: de-emphasises Trinitarianism; de-emphasises the sacrificial nature of the Mass; and de-emphasiss devotion to the saints.
Rubrically, Pope Paul’s Mass: reduces the respect shown to the Blessed Sacrament; and promotes a Spartan, Calvinist aesthetic.
Via ubiquitous abuses, Pope Paul’s Mass: confuses the roles of laity and clergy; promotes religious indifferentism; and promotes a Post-Modernist aesthetic of casualness and even ugliness.
4. Suppression of lay devotions.

Culture
--------
1. In 1955 the Church mostly suffered from two problems: authoritarianism and an obsession with s*x. In 2026 these are the only things that haven’t changed, and both have arguably gotten worse.
2. Promotion of papal celebrity, which facilitates Vatican tyranny.
3. The only virtue recognised and promoted in the Church is uncritical obedience.
4. Promotion of a culture of revolution, rather than organic development.
This started off by being imposed from the Vatican.
Now it is frequently forced by parochial abuses first being tolerated, then formally allowed and even imposed.
Suppression of Traditional Worship.
5. Promotion of a culture of hypocrisy and cover-up, rather than transparency.
The prime concern of the hierarchy always seems to be “how to avoid loosing face,” but this inevitably results in a huge loss of reputation.
Cover-up of clerical pederasty.
Cover-up of financial irregularities within the Vatican.
Dishonourable dealings with the Soviet Union, to the detriment of the RCC and UGCC in Eastern Europe.
Adoption of hypocritical pastoral policies: for example: “I will marry you two – even though you are cohabiting – if you will sign this document saying that you will try hard not to have s*xual relations between now and your wedding.”
Hypocritical attitude towards conscience. “Freedom of conscience” is promoted when this can be spun to mean “freedom to exercise ones prejudice, in accordance with the Church’s official teaching,” and is condemned whenever it is used to mean “freedom to disagree with some non-definitive Vatican policy or teaching.”
6. Improper formation and promotion of clergy.
Perversion of the role of parish priest from pastor and liturgos into administrator and social worker.
Clergy understood as “bosses” of the laity, rather than their servants and enablers.
Seminary formation is focussed on producing compliant and obedient priests and deacons; not educated and devout clergy who are “on fire for God”.
Promotion of clergy who implement bad policies in a “populist” manner.
Promotion of clergy on the basis of “management skills” and being “ambitious” and “malleable” rather than sanctity, leadership skills, and orthodoxy.
Demotion of clergy who favour Tradition over contemporary norms.
7. Improper formation of laity.
The laity are encouraged to “play at being priests.”
The laity are not equipped as evangelists and catechists and to work in social outreach among the poor and marginalised.
Rather than an educated laity, what the hierarchy works for is an indoctrinated and compliant laity.
Marginalisation of those who sincerely ask awkward questions in an intelligent manner.
Promotion of those who are ignorant but compliant.
Acceptance and uncritical promotion of the family as the building-block of both secular society and the Church, contrary to the explicit admonitions of Christ.
De-emphasis of the need for Catholics to be “signs of contradiction” rather than unremarkable and conformist members of secular society.

The Five pillars of Modern Catholicism
------------------------------------------
1. Abortion is wrong.
2. Contraception is wrong.
3. Homos*xuality is wrong: especially same-s*x marriage and gay priests.
4. Euthanasia is wrong: people should welcome unendurable agony.
5. Women priests are wrong.

The Creed of Modern Catholicism
-------------------------------------
Unquestioning obedience is the greatest virtue.
The purpose of conscience is to be indoctrinated by Rome.

The pope of Rome can make an infallible statement
without making an infallible statement.
Catholicism is whatever the pope of Rome says that it is;
hence it was perfectly proper for pope John-Paul “The Great”
to kiss a Koran. This was not apostasy.
It was perfectly proper for pope Francis
to honour a Pachamama statue. This was not idolatry.
Every pope is always right,
even when he disagrees with other popes.
Every post-Vatican II pope is or will soon be a saint by virtue of his election:
except for John-Paul I, who we’ve all forgotten;
and Benedict XVI, who was a mistake.
Modern popes are more right than the popes of history
– who you should try to forget about
and whose teachings you should certainly not study:
especially not Pius IX, Leo XIII or Pius X.

What was believed and done before 1965 is best forgotten.
In any case, what matters is the version of history
promulgated by the Congregation of Truth.
It is important to pay lip-service to the Fathers,
but not to base ones belief on their teaching.
Every policy decision of the Vatican
must be accepted without hesitation.

It is sensible to approve the Legionaries of Christ,
Opus Dei, and The Neocatechuminal Way;
for they are a source of significant revenue to the Vatican.

Religious freedom amounts to the idea that
the Vatican should be allowed to tell every-one
(whether Catholic or not) how to run their lives.
This is because it is a crucial part of the Catholic Faith
that the Vatican has this responsibility;
so Vatican officials should be free to exercise it.

The purpose of the laity is to finance the clergy;
and to procreate, so as to produce more clergy;
and more laity to pay for them;
and to procreate and so on.

Notice that God, Jesus, love and justice do not come into this.

06/03/2026

Pope Francis: idolator and heretic
=====================

The case for “pope” Francis being a material heretic dates back to the Pachamama controversy; to his issuing of a text (jointly with a Muslim Imam) which asserted that false religions are positively willed by God, rather than being divinely tolerated as an unavoidable implication of human autonomy; and to his teaching that every human being is justified by Jesus’ sacrificial death – whether or not they have faith, and whether or not they make any attempt to live righteously.

I did not publicly denounce Francis earlier as a matter of prudence: because I knew very well that nothing would be gained by me doing so. I am well aware that I am of absolutely no importance, and that what I think is of no consequence to anyone else. I am a worm, and less than a worm. All that would happen is that I would expose myself to condemnation and reprisal: an extravagant price paid with no advantage gained.

Then, the situation changed. I (and others) were condemned and singled out for slaughter. There is no point in keeping ones head down when it is already in the hangman’s noose. The one worthwhile thing that the organisational Church gave me was ripped from my hands. Instead of bread I was offered a boulder. Instead of a fish I was offered a snake.

Apart from Traditional Worship (which is hugely therapeutic for me, and is a significant support for my sanity) the contemporary Church now means nothing to me. It offers me no worthwhile catechesis or spiritual direction. Its leadership is morally bankrupt with a shattered reputation. It has lost its way and singularly fails to inspire adherence to the Gospel of Jesus – or even to make much of a show of preaching it. Truly, I am ashamed to be known as a Catholic: because of the dreadful image that Christianity – and Catholicism in particular – has in the world. I do not want to be associated with the hypocrisy, self-righteousness, incoherence, ignorance, and cruelty of the Vatican and of the Catholic hierarchy in general.

The Provost of the Birmingham Oratory remarked recently: “The Church [not merely its leadership, but the entire human organisation – my comment] must turn back from idolatry, apostasy and its adulterous relationship with secularism.” It is manifest that ecclesial idolatry, apostasy, and secularism was trail-blazed and promoted by pope Francis. I want no part in this programme, and utterly repudiate it.

06/03/2026

UltraMontanism
==========
The crisis the Church is experiencing today is partly attributable to the apparent victory of the Ultramontanist faction at the First Oecumenical Vatican Council. Their error was to understand authority in the Church as stemming from the pope of Rome as the Absolute Monarch of the Church and only being shared by the rest of the bishops by a participation in a charism which is – in essence – only proper to his Petrine Office.

They may not have believed that the Roman Pontiff was an absolute monarch – unconstrained by any context, circumstances, or mandate – and only accountable to God; but their legacy is a very prevalent belief (among the naïve and ignorant, but also many who think themselves erudite and sophisticated) that the Roman Pope is God’s personal representative on Earth; that his election is underpinned by divine providence and – in effect – that he is “God’s chosen one”; and that he is divinely inspired – at least when he acts officially or sets something out by spoken or written word in anything considered to be more than “off the cuff” remarks.

"Sacred Scripture and Tradition constitute the remote norms of our faith, but the next regula fidei is represented by the teaching and judging authority of the Church, which has its apex with the Pope.
There is no Tradition outside of [the papal office], just as there is no Sola Scriptura independent of the Magisterium of the Church…
The Church is based on Tradition, but it cannot continue without the Pope, whose authority cannot be transferred to either an oecumenical council, a national episcopate or a permanent synod…
The Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter, prince of the Apostles, is the guarantor par excellence of the Church’s Tradition…
What the Protestants… and Orthodox… have in common is the rejection of the infallibility of the Pope and his universal Primacy… there is no radical difference between the Eastern Schism and Western Protestantism."
[R. de Mattei “Ultramontanists: Godfathers of the Trad Movement” (2022)
https://onepeterfive.com/ultramontanists-godfathers-trad-movement/]

"It is a fundamental truth in all religious matters that every church that is not Catholic is Protestant… Every Christian who refuses the Holy Father’s communion is a Protestant or soon will be."
[J. de Maistre “Du Pape” (H. Pélagaud, Lyon-Paris: 1878) p401]

"But if the Church is infallible there must be a subject who exercises this charism. This subject is the Pope and it cannot be anyone other than him. In the faith of the infallibility of the Pope lie the roots of the faith in the infallibility of the whole Church."
[M. Schmaus “Catholic Dogmatics vol 3/1” (Marietti; Casale Monferrato:1963) p696]

For many Catholics today, the Pope is not the Vicar of Christ on Earth: whose job it is to transmit intact and pure the doctrine he has received; rather, he is a successor to Christ: one who perfects the doctrine of his predecessors, adapting it to the changing times.

They believe that Gospel doctrine is in perpetual evolution and coincides with whatever the reigning Pontiff asserts it to be. Sacred Tradition is supplanted by the “living Magisterium”, which is transformed every day.

"One does not need theological science to understand that, in the unfortunate case of contrast – true or apparent – between the 'living Magisterium' and Tradition, primacy can only be attributed to Tradition, for one simple reason. Tradition (which is the living Magisterium considered in its universality and continuity) is in itself infallible; whereas the so-called 'living Magisterium' – understood as the current preaching of the ecclesiastical hierarchy – is so only under certain conditions."
[R. de Mattei “Apologia della Tradizione” (Lindau; Turin: 2011) p146]

This belief enabled Paul VI to begin the revolutionary process of “self-destruction” which has ravaged the Church ever since.

It enabled John-Paul II to apply the brakes for a brief pause (while doing nothing whatever to address the underlying malaise) and made it possible for him to make even more extreme claims for arbitrary papal authority: in effect asserting that the Roman Pontiff could indicate definitively that some proposition was undoubtedly true without exercising the charism of infallibility – thereby exercising coercive theological power without having to take personal responsibility for doing so.

Benedict XVI did not subscribe to this erroneous doctrine, and so never acted in accordance with it.

Pope Francis revelled in the self-perceived plenitude of this supposed power: ransacking many well established Traditional practices and making statements in stark variance with orthodox belief.

The truth of the matter is that the Pope of Rome is no more than the First Among Equals of the bishops; but this primacy is associated with certain powers, because the Roman See (not the person of its bishop) is the centre of Catholic unity.

In particular, I firmly believe that the Roman Pontiff can make infallible statements in the same manner and on the same basis as an Oecumenical Council (and in extremis, even on his own personal initiative) as long as he acts in communion with the entire college of orthodox bishops (which in extremis might be a tiny minority of the putative episcopate) but not not necessarily under its direction or commission. I also firmly believe that the Roman Pontiff has universal ordinary jurisdiction over all Catholics – Roman, Greek, and Oriental; but that this is only to be exercised so as to oppose bullying, or the suppression of natural rights: that is, so as to promote and uphold charity and justice; never merely to impose his own whim, or express his own preference or will. The primacy of the Roman pope in no way means that he enjoys unlimited and arbitrary power. While the dogma of infallibility defines a supreme privilege, it sets its precise boundaries, admitting the possibility of infidelity, error, and betrayal.

John Henry Newman warned that the Vatican Council’s definition of papal infallibility was inopportune, as it was done in a context of over-enthusiastic triumphalism and without prudential caution. He might well have said to the pope “be careful what you ask the Council for: you may get it and the Church later regret it.”

There was a huge presumption among supporters of pope Francis that he could do no wrong, and that everything he said, wrote, and did was true and wholesome: merely because he said, wrote, or did it. It is not clear whether the people who propounded this idea thought that it only applied to Francis, or only to all post Vatican-II popes, or to all popes.

If the first case was intended, this is absolutely impossible to justify rationally. It amounts to nothing more than factionalism, sycophancy, the servile worship of celebrity and – in effect – the establishment of a fascistic tyranny.

If the second case was intended, this could only be justified on the basis that Vatican-II was some kind of spiritual re-set and revolution for the Catholic Church, which gave it a new constitution supplanting and – supposedly – improving on that which was inaugurated by Christ, and subsequently ratified and established by Holy Spirit at Pentecost. This is extravagant, to say the least.

Moreover, even if this were to be the case, it is difficult to see how the actions and words of pope Francis are coherent with those of pope John-Paul II and – most especially – Benedict XVI.

If the third case is intended, then pope Francis was condemned by the witness of Sacred Tradition, as he has explicitly adopted ideas and policies which are directly and explicitly condemned either by Scripture or by solemn dogmatic teaching (idolatry, the illegitimacy of judicial ex*****on, religious indifferentism, the indulgence of s*xual misconduct, the impossibility of a just war) hence this third case is manifestly incoherent.

The only way to quasi-justify this kind of view is via a dishonest slight-of-hand which asserts that all papal teaching is infallible – as long as it is understood as agreeing with that of the current pope.

This makes it sound as if no-one ever made a special claim for pope Francis, while in effect making him – and his successor(s) – not merely the “Custodian of Tradition” [What a horrendous and illiberal idea this is! Tradition lives in the body of the Church: most especially in the holy laity of God. It requires no custodian. This term misrepresents an abusive kidnapper as a benevolent guardian!] but rather the personal embodiment and actualisation of “Tradition”.

This means that in effect one can ignore what every Oecumenical Council, every orthodox Father, every approved theologian, and every previous pope has said: attending only to the words and policies of the sitting pope of Rome, because these are what constitute and entirely substantiate orthodoxy.

If a Roman pontiff can become a heretic – which fate has clearly befallen popes in the past – than it is manifest that pope Francis espoused serious heterodoxy and promoted serious heteropraxy. Hence he should have been denounced as a heretic and apostate.
If anyone tries to tell me that to say such things is any kind of breach of canon law, I reply.

1. If the pope can be a heretic, any positive law which penalises someone simply for claiming that this is the case is an unjust regulation, contrary to the divine constitution of the Church, and should be disregarded. Clearly, slander is slander; and any-one who commits such an uncharitable act should be subject to a just penalty: but denouncing a heretic as being a heretic is not slander. Failing to denounce a manifest heretic and cooperating with his policies is a grave sin against both faith and charity.

2. In my reading of the current code (recently updated to give greater impunity to the pope) what is criminalised is any attack on the institution of the papacy, or of one’s ordinary (bishop): not any particular pope or ordinary (bishop) as an individual.

06/03/2026

Progressivists vs Traditionalists
====================
The Church is riven into two warring factions. Both are pretty much brain-dead and neither exhibits any indication of having the virtue of real theological hope. The two parties are both wrong about crucial matters and both are so busy attempting to point out (but not help remove) the plank in their opponent’s eye that they entirely miss the corresponding beam in their own.

On the one hand there is the establishment crowd. These are more or less PostModernist. They believe that doctrine (in as far as this matters) should evolve with the times, and conform to the latest fashions and fads in politics, psychology and sociology. Whereas Jesus said that He came to bear witness to the Truth, they remorselessly insinuate that there is no such thing as Truth: because there is no objective reality to which human belief and opinion ought to seek to conform. They claim that “Tradition” is whatever they say it is; and that nothing they do, say, impose, forbid or require can be critiqued on any rational or objective grounds.

"One thing that annoyed many Catholics is that those devoted to the old ways of worship often describe themselves as ‘traditional’. I think they have hijacked the word for their own use. Pope Francis has reclaimed the world 'tradition' by clearly stating that the bishops are the guardians of the tradition. Tradition has a particular meaning in theology, it refers to St. Paul when he says that he passes on to us what he has received. In other words, tradition is a living concept not something stuck in the past. The Mass which I celebrate daily is the one which I received from Pope St. Paul VI and Pope St. John Paul II and is therefore the ‘traditional’ Mass. The point I am making is more than simple semantics; it is about the very life of the Church itself."
[Malcolm McMahon, RC Archbishop of Liverpool]

When challenged, they refuse to respond, while claiming to believe in dialogue. According to their narrative, there is no court of appeal before which they can be held to account and there is no constitution which they are beholden to uphold and that would constrain their tyranny. Claiming to be gentle and merciful, in fact they are the cruellest of authoritarian Ultramontanists – especially now that they have captured the papacy, and it seems that there is no way that their party could ever loose it.

When they want to keep something unchanged (for the sake of short-term political expediency) they refuse to take personal responsibility and claim that their hands are tied by “Tradition”.
When they want to change something (to advance their own immediate and pressing agenda) they find some disingenuous rationalism and proceed to overturn one or two thousand years of precedent and well-established dogma by the stroke of a pen. There is no intellectual health here: no personal integrity. They are answerable to no-one – not even God, they think! – and feel free “to do whatever the Hell they want.”

1. Capital punishment used to be moral in some situations. Now we are told that the Tradition is that it is always immoral.

2. Idolatry used to be always wrong. Now we are told that the Tradition is that it is sometimes excellent.

3. Giving communion to those who notoriously promote abortion used to be out of the question. Now we are told that the Tradition is that it should be allowed, at least if the person in question is the President of the United States of America.

4. The Catholic Church used to be understood as the One True Church founded by Christ and a necessary means to salvation. Now we are told that the Tradition is that all the religions of the world are intended by God as means by which human beings can freely choose their personal path to salvation.

5. The atonement flowing from the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ used to be understood as being open and available to all, its efficacy with regards to any particular individual being dependent on their acceptance of it and the quality of their response to it. Now we are told that the Tradition is that everyone is saved by the atonement, whatever their belief and whatever the quality of their lives.

This is Humpty-Dumpty theology: every doctrine being so malleable that it can readily be reversed.

On the other hand there is the reactionary crowd. Such folk are stuck in their ways, have no time for anything unfamiliar, think that all change is bad, and take conserving what they perceive as the Catholic heritage too far. They believe that doctrine is set in stone, and that any re-expression should do no more than re-iterate whatever view was conventional in 1950 or thereabouts.

Having little familiarity with the actual Tradition, and no more than a passing interest in the witness of the Fathers of the first few centuries they mistake what they are familiar with for Apostolic Tradition. Just as the establishment crowd assert that whatever novelty is handed on to them by their Führer pope is “Tradition”, the reactionaries insist that whatever they believe they have picked up from the Nineteenth Century is “Tradition”. They do not care to investigate the provenance of what they naïvely accept as authentic.

When challenged they fall back on quoting slogans and texts without any concern to plumb the depths of meaning that may be hidden there. They refuse to accept that theology (like any science) is a journey of exploration into “the undiscovered country”, and that while we have a reliable map of defined dogma and well-established doctrine in well-travelled lands, there are large regions marked as “unknown”, “doubtful”, or “here be dragons” – and in such territory many surprises are in store for us, some of which will seem frightening at first. They refuse to acknowledge that their precious dogmas were all thrashed out in the forum of theological disputation: sometimes among friends, often between those who thought of each other as enemies. They refuse to take on board the teaching of John Henry Newman that doctrine develops: and this of intrinsic necessity, not by extrinsic circumstance.

06/03/2026

Evolution vs Development
=================
“Development” is very different from “Evolution”, of course. Evolution is the change of one thing into another thing which is very different from the original, as a result of external pressure.
In evolutionary change there is no sense of the maintenance of identity. One species of thing becomes an entirely new species. A fish evolves into an elephant. The nature of the progenitor is lost and a novel being is formed. Development is the process by which the inner reality of a thing becomes more and more fully manifest, in accord with its own interior dynamic. An acorn develops into an oak tree. Whereas the two things look very different from each other, an oak tree is nothing other than the fulfilment of what it is to be an acorn. While the change of the one into the other requires a suitable environment, it is not driven by extrinsic forces; rather it is the unfolding of an intrinsic programme: which is the core intelligibility of what it is to be oak.

Every defined dogma was a novelty in its day. Many did not like it when the Roman See insisted that any sin – even apostasy – could be absolved, and that the sacraments of heretics were generally valid. [This is still not universally accepted in Eastern Christianity.] Thomas Aquinas was at first condemned as a Modernist, before being lauded as the “Angelic Doctor” of the Latin West.

Jesus says of the practitioners of Kingdom knowledge:
“Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the Kingdom of Heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old.” [Mt 13:52 RSV]

On this basis, I contend that rather than a off-hand and casual rejection of tradition, or a defensive clinging to received wisdom and custom understood as static and fixed assets, it is necessary to actively contend and grapple with Tradition: so furthering its development, while maintaining its authenticity and integrity.

Answers, policies and customs accepted as adequate in one age regularly turn out to be at best partial and at worst flawed. The mature response to such a discovery is neither to discard as worthless what has been found to be inadequate; nor to double down on what should always have been taken as provisional, insisting that it be maintained inviolate despite its manifest failings. Rather, a return to the root of the matter is required.

The premises giving rise to the problem situation which these answers, policies and customs addressed should be examined, to see if they were formulated correctly. They should be adjusted as necessary in the light of current knowledge, and the problem situation then be re-expressed. Finally, how the Gospel applies to this updated problem situation should be worked-through: taking due account of the best philosophical, theological, and scientific understanding.

If this is done prayerfully, with humility and care, and with pious (but not uncritical) respect for the wisdom of the past – the teaching of the orthodox Fathers and subsequent theologians – then we can be confident that the outcome will be in accord with divine providence, by virtue of the gentle guidance of Holy Spirit.

“When the Spirit of Truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak, and He will declare to you the things that are to come.” [Jn 16:13 RSV]

There is, of course, the pressing need to distinguish clearly “human traditions” from “Divine Tradition.”

Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus… and said, “Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.”
He answered them, “And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honour your father and your mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die.’ But you say, ‘If any one tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is given to God, he need not honour his father.’ So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God.”
[Mt 15:1-6 RSV]

Address

326 Gloucester Road
Cheltenham
GL517AG

Telephone

+447761434830

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Crypt Oratory Chapel of Sts Stephen and David posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Place Of Worship

Send a message to Crypt Oratory Chapel of Sts Stephen and David:

Shortcuts

Share

Category