So many think liturgical abuse only happened in the past in the aftermath of Vatican II. No it continues and this is from a frequenter of my blog, names and places are removed so evidence isn't given to excommunicate the guilty!
And I so much looked forward to giving you my report on Mass at St T b t S....O B A..... oh so much to tell!!
I have never seen a priest walk
off the altar during the reading..... go to the back of the church....and I
mean a big church.....and bring people forward to be seated. At one point
not sure he was the presider or the usher.
At sign of peace..... deacon
with his hand motion blew a kiss...... to his wife, I presume. Will have
to tell you how he "handled" the ciboria.
Priest and deacon.... when seated.... talked with each other
CONSTANTLY.
Following singing of "we proclaim...."
Father said....."sure does not sound like you all were singing as one
body"......then he continued the Eucharistic prayer.... his words were
tied in to his homily.
Father.... when not
ushering..... sat with his legs straight out.....crossed at the ankles.
Did Divine Praises following
final blessing.
Enough for now.....
UGH! Yes! ENOUGH FOR NOW!
55 comments:
The answer is simple. DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES ATTEND SERVICES AT WHICH SUCH ABUSES TAKE PLACE. In particular, do not support them financially. If it's your parish it's difficult, but find a parish which doesn't abuse the liturgy or simply stay at home. Don't let people tell you that you are under any obligation to attend such travesties. Obligation works both ways. A lot is made of (now largely historical) sexual abuse by clergy, but liturgical abuse is far, far worse, since it is God who is being abused.
I don't expect Oratory standards to be replicated everywhere, but I will not tolerate deliberately bad liturgy and even worse music.
Absolutely, John.
I will not attend these messes for the same reason I will not attend the local Episcopalian church or the Presbyterian church, both literally a few feet from my house.
No obligation can bind one to support such erroneous actions.
Ho boy, guys, dig in--methinks Pater is gonna come gunning for you after these responses! He was all over Gene at one time for this, and STILL throws it at him on occasion...
Anon Friend, Ignotus can throw all he wants…HE is the one who refused to confess his belief in the Real Presence and the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus when asked directly by another blogger. He said it was a trap and beneath him to answer it. How can it be beneath a Priest to answer a simple yes or no question regarding two fundamental tenets of the Catholic Faith? LOL!
No, the obligation to attend mass on Sundays is not diminished by bad liturgy. The obligation to attend mass, under pain of mortal sin, remains.
Anon friend - Pin/Gene cooked his own goose when he trumpeted his disobedience. While he presents himself as a model, faithful Catholic, he 1) skips mass when he doesn't like the liturgy, 2) calls Catholic bishops "Communists," 3) refers to African-Americans as a "feral minority," 4) bemoans our "fag-infested culture," 5) refers to the ACLU as the "ALC(F)U," 6) states that bishops "should be ignored," 7) says that he would follow the pope only out of curiosity, 8) refers to the President as "Obammy," etc.
Pin/Gene - I have repeatedly said that I believe all that the Church teaches to be revealed by God. That's not sufficient for you and never will be - but that's your issue, not mine.
Anon friend - You can continue to defend the indefensible, but that's no skin off my teeth. None.
The same church that insists on the Sunday obligation allows this mess. No thanks. I refuse to be in communion with that.
I am not pagan. I am not Protestant. I will not be forced into communion with such errors and blasphemies.
PI, I cringe at every word and phrase you quote from my friend, Gene. But he is trying, mightily, to conform himself to God's Will and not retrofit the Word to his liking through a contorted Liturgical interface. I also know it is best if all of us go to Mass and remain in the Church; even Pelosi, et al. But everyone of us should either be listening or praying along, not commenting and interpreting. Gene will shut when it counts. And his sometimes obnoxious comments are illuminating by contrast: he fully accepts those who do right, or try to, and he does celebrate diversity. He also displays the thick skin that he expects of others.
There is at least one other on this board that has pinged Gene for his roughness. But, Lord, he brings a lot to the table.
"Anon friend - You can continue to defend the indefensible, but that's no skin off my teeth. None."
Pater, Interesting post response. I have supported you on a couple of occasions involving guns. I am very up-front when I defend. But on this issue, I did not defend or refuse defense to John and Marc.
I said "... guys, dig in...Pater is gonna come gunning for you...". And you did. No skin off my teeth, none. Nor anything I need to confess.
Bad liturgy, (bordering on invalid Mass?) however, needs to be confessed by the perpetrator, as he has led the faithful into serious error and the near occasion of sin.
PI, if you think you can invoke a discipline which dates from the days when the Mass was more or less the same everywhere in order to get a captive audience for these anti-liturgical shenanigans, think again. God is not mocked, and we are not fooled. I notice you are quick to disparage those who prefer the classic Roman Rite but are singularly reticent in commenting on liturgical abuse. I suppose you think it's all made up by Latin-loving reactionaries and the many videos are part of a disinformation campaign to discredit the Council and its reforms. Why don't you come clean?
Fr did not post my response to Ignotus, which repeated all the phrases of mine he quoted (a couple out of context, of course). So, since Fr. chose to censor what was really a very straightforward post, I'll try again. I make no apologies about any statement I have made on this blog. Ignotus is a liar and a distorter and I believe he is deliberately malicious and
an embarrassment to the Church.
I mentioned that I skipped Mass once because I knew what was coming and then went to Confession. He wants to interpret this as skipping Mass regularly. There is no mortal sin in anything else I said, and I would repeat them to anyone. That is the way I view the current state of the Church and culture. If you don't see it, too bad.
The silly censoring of my replies, which contain nothing offensive and which only repeat phrases used by others is unfair and DISCRIMINATORY…ha…I used that favorite word of the *censored* minorities. I may call Yobama and see if he will go to bat for me…except I am white.
Gene your views have become heterodox Catholicism to the extreme right and boarder on the schismatic. The race baiting by using terms that do not speak well for southerners is unacceptable and the disrespect you show the clergy who do not agree with your point of view is unacceptable. I've posted comments that I felt were out of order but did so to allow others to challenge them but you are now skating on very tin ice where as soon as I see a comment from you I may cease posting them altogether. Let me repeat, race baiting, derogatory terms towards minorities and the rest of it will end up having you banned.
Don't really care at this point. You allow others on the blog plenty of offenses, and there is nothing heterodox or schismatic in my beliefs.
Show me anything I have said that is schismatic. It is no sin to criticize the Pope or to disagree with him on non-doctrinal, non-infallible stuff. Bishops are certainly not above criticism. My disrespect for Ignotus is not based upon his disagreement with me; it is based upon his blatant refusal to confess his belief in the basic tenets of the Faith (his after-the-fact lip service means nothing) and his contempt for traditional Catholicism and Catholic identity. If anyone should be banned, it is a disgusting pretender like him. Oh, and accurate observation based upon the highly publicized and everyday reports of the behavior of certain minorities is not "race-baiting." You live in Macon...read the paper every morning…same in every major city in the country...
John Nolan - Obligatory attendance at mass on Sunday is not "a discipline." It is Divine Law.
Divine Law obtains and obliges in every time, in every place.
Your suggestion that Divine Law obtains only in some places and in some times is ludicrous and, from a Catholic understanding, unsupportable.
Anon friend and Good Father McDonald, you can ADD to the list of Pin/Gene's un-Catholic notions the idea that racial segregation is acceptable and defensible.
This summer marks the 50th anniversary of the Freedom Riders who risked life and limb to force segregationists and bigots to end the unjust and immoral separation of Whites and Blacks. Young men and women, White and Black, Jews and Christians, were beaten, attacked with dogs, shot, and murdered in a vain attempt to perpetuate the "I want to be with my own kind" mentality.
I'm curious what Gene has said to justify his publicly being called a "borderline schismatic"?
The canon to attend Mass does not bind when one doesn't have the ability to get to Mass. That exception applies for people who cannot get to an actual Catholic liturgy in about an hour's distance away. So that would apply in Macon, where the nearest actual Catholic Mass is about 1.5 hours away. If the priests there in Macon feel like helping their people get to Mass more regularly, they should offer an actual Catholic Mass more often.
Anyway, that canon is not divine law. Divine Law is to keep the Lord's day holy. Attending liturgy is the best way to do that when one is able. If one is unable to attend liturgy, there are other ways.
Marc - You are wrong. Canon Law contains and explains Divine Law, in this case, Divine Positive Law.
From "Catholicism for Dummies":
According to Exodus in the Old Testament, God issued his own set of laws (the Ten Commandments) to Moses on Mount Sinai. The Ten Commandments are considered divine law because God himself revealed them. And because they were spelled out specifically with no room for ambiguity, they’re also positive law. Hence they’re also known as divine positive law."
"Actual Catholic liturgies" are celebrated at St. Joseph, St. Peter Claver, and Holy Spirit numerous times each weekend.
Pater, I think we are actually saying the same thing. The Canon is a gloss on Divine Law, but isn't Divine Law in itself, which you originally claimed it to be.
So when you say, "Marc - You are wrong," you must have meant: "Marc - You are absolutely right." I can see how your fingers might have slipped when you were typing.
Catholicism For Dummies was the first book I ever read as an atheist before converting to Catholicism. I'm glad you also like it.
Pater, I am not Gene's or Marc's or John's judge, nor am I yours. God alone will judge all. I leave it to Him.
Having said that, I do believe that Priests and most certainly Bishops are in this life held, and will at the final judgement be held to a higher standard. Those who teach and lead must use great care when speaking and by example, not to drive people away or lead the faithful into error. You must model HOW to love, not just speak of it, as that is the first and greatest Commandment. Our Holy Father really gets this. Speak the truth in love with authority, but without arrogance, rancor or malice. A heavy burden to be sure (I wouldn't trade places with you for anything!). As me sainted mother used to admonish us ner-do-well kids: "Mind, it's not what you say, but how you say it and what you do that'll get you into trouble...".
Hot off the press today...From the Holy Father to ALL of us:
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/santa-marta-34861/
PI, deliberate liturgical abuse amounts to sacrilege, which is, 'from a Catholic standing, unsupportable'. And of course, indefensible. The Seattle Pentecost 'mass' (I use quotation marks and a lower-case 'm' quite deliberately) is neither OF nor EF, but in a separate category which may be called PF (Preposterous Form). It is not recognizable as Catholic liturgy, in fact it might well be regarded as anti-liturgy, so far removed is it from the tradition of the Roman Rite.
I could not in conscience attend, nor would I in conscience believe that in attending I had fulfilled my obligation as a Catholic. Fortunately I don't have to, but I pity the poor souls who have no choice in the matter.
In the objective sense, PI is right, strictly speaking Liturgical Abuses are on those that commit them, and the obligation to assist at Mass remains regardless of whether the Mass is abused or not. The Faithful have a right to Masses celebrated properly in their rite)
At the same token, Mass should not be purgatory on earth, nor a near occasion of sin, and in that case I have to say it's better to avoid sin, than to place oneself in a situation to sin. And so, I do agree with John Nolan
I drive quite a distance for good Liturgy each week, and I would not have it any other way. (I attend a Byzantine Catholic Parish)
The NO is a valid Missal, and so the obligation to assist at Mass is such.
Marc - Canon Law 1247 is not a gloss on Divine Law.
"Canon 1247
On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass; they are also to abstain from those labors and business concerns which impede the worship to be rendered to God, the joy which is proper to the Lord's Day, or the proper relaxation of mind and body."
It is Divine Law that Catholics are bound to participate in Mass. That is what the canon states.
Church law notwithstanding, does a Catholic have to attend an aberrant liturgy when there are no other parishes in town? Isn't there a little thing called conscience and discernment and if I attend a Mass that is not the red or the black and this so distresses me that it causes it to be an occasion of mortal sin for me to attend, I think in good conscience I could forgo that Mass and attend a high Anglican Liturgy but not receive Holy Communion or maybe a well down Methodist one.
So if one had lived during the Protestant Revolt in England, one still had an obligation to attend the new Protestant Mass that was developing at the time and supported by many clergy men?
A more interesting question might be . . . When does one have a moral obligation to absent himself from a liturgy that is so aberrant as to be sacrilegious and therefore offensive to God? When is it a sin to support sacrilege by acquiescence?
Of course there is a practical question of competence to make the necessary judgment. But I’m confident that no qualified canon lawyer would say that the canonical obligation of Sunday Mass participation obliges support of serious sacrilege. I’m no canon lawyer, but I recall one mentioning what amounts to a “principal of greater spiritual imperative” in canon law that could apply.
As a very practical matter, especially now that the 1983 canon law no longer imposes a territorial obligation of attendance, in a locality with two parishes, one of which honors God much more than the other in its liturgy, when does one have an obligation to attend the one and avoid the other?
Reformation Revisited
Marc and Gene were schismatic
So they started a Church in the attic.
When asked why they did,
They said to be rid
Of an OF so strangely erratic.
Would someone please describe for me a "well-done Methodist Liturgy." Is that not some kind of oxymoron?
Wow, this discussion has gotten fascinating...thanks, Father!
To be fair, Gene, I'm actually schismatic.
You're just borderline schismatic.
But compared to how schismatic I am, you're not even close.
Marc, No, no. I'm so schismatic I see two of myself in the mirror every morning.
I'm so schismatic, I can sing "When the Roll is Called Up Yonder" in Gregorian chant.
I'm so schismatic, I can say the Rosary in quotes from Calvin's "Institutes."
I'm so schismatic, I sleep with a 1962 Missal under my pillow.
I'm so schismatic I make Bishop Lefebre look like Fr. MacDonald.
There…top that!
Gene,
I'm so schismatic, I think the SSPX isn't traditional enough.
I'm so schismatic, I don't think Trent was in continuity with Tradition.
If you use your imagination you could see this as an Elizabethan - Renaissance Faire with musical accompaniment of oboe and harpsicord. I have had the great fortune of not having had to endure or experience these kind of liturgical abuses. I have attended quite a few protestant services (funerals). Some of the music was not all that bad but when attending these it makes me appreciate all the more what we Catholics have, which is first and foremost the Holy Eucharist.I could even endure this ONE time, but would be looking to find another more traditional Mass afterward and henceforth.
In his comment at 2:28 Pater Ignotus referred to Mass, not mass. Since he is on record as giving great weight to the distinction between upper-case and lower-case (Tradition versus tradition) does this portend anything? Perhaps he can enlighten us.
Both Joe and Fr AJM have made the same crucial point that I was making. In any juridical system rights and obligations have to be balanced, and obligations have to be reciprocal. A subject's allegiance to his sovereign is conditional on the sovereign fulfilling his obligation to protect the subject. This was the key accusation against Charles I - by declaring war on his subjects the king had forfeited their allegiance.
A Catholic is obliged to hear Mass on Sundays and Holy Days, unless he is prevented from doing so by a sufficiently grave cause. The diocesan bishop is in turn obliged to give him the opportunity to do so according to the approved rites of the Church.
If the integrity of the liturgy is compromised by wilful abuses and 'creative' distortions which are essentially anti-liturgical the main fault lies with the bishop.
I may prefer the EF to the OF, or Latin to the vernacular; that is quite legitimate, but I can't make this an excuse for missing Mass. But the abusers are saying in effect: 'We can mess with the liturgy as much as we like, and if we turn it into a New Age carnival that's our business. We don't care how offensive you find it because, hey-ho, Canon 1247 says you must put up with it.'
This is to turn the Church's juridical system, which exists for the good of souls, into a tyranny.
John Nolan - I quoted a passage in which mass was capitalized. Nothing to see here...
And John, attendance at mass on Sunday and Holy Days isn't a discipline, it is Divine Law. When you suggest that Divine Law obtains here, but not there, now, but not then, you have created a system of nothingness.
Good Father - Let's explore your suggestion that a Catholic go down the street to an Anglican or Methodist service when he/she encounters an "aberrant" liturgy...
Jo-ann Catholics visits your church and, as the entrance procession forms, a GIRL in a cassock and surplice appears as an altar server. Disgusted with what she finds "aberrant," she flees from St. Joseph, looking for an "actual" catholic mass elsewhere.
Caliban Catholic visits your church and, as the cantors says "Please join us in the OPENING SONG, 'Holy, Holy, Holy,'" begins to shake violently from the onslaught of what he finds "aberrant" and flees from St. Joseph, looking for an "actual" Catholic mass elsewhere.
Philomena Catholic, visiting your church and, as a WOMAN enters the sanctuary to proclaim the first reading, begins to go into apoplectic shock, and fless from St. Joseph, looking for a "actual" Catholic mass elsewhere.
When you start suggesting that each Catholic can skip mass because he/she finds something "aberrant" in the liturgy you're heading into a morass of liturgical individualism and uninformed, ignorant peculiarism that will bring only further division.
Not a good plan, Good Father.
Pater (or anyone who knows), do you know when this canon compelling Mass attendance on Sundays and Holy Days was promulgated and by whom?
I mean, historically, I assume this was in the 1917 Code of Canon Law and is now in the new Code. Before that, where was this obligation delineated?
(Note - This isn't a "gotcha" question. I don't know the answer and haven't been able to find it anywhere. Please don't just quote the First Commandment.)
I would point out that the days of obligation have changed a lot over time, which indicates to me that this obligation can be changed by time and circumstance. I agree, though, that there is a Divine Law to worship on Sundays and Holy Days. Again, I'm focused on the codification of the particular practice of attending Mass.
My final thoughts on this obligation idea is directed to the priests reading.
You do not have to suffer as we laity do. You do not have to attend liturgies that do not meet with your sensibilities. You can choose exactly what you want out of the liturgy (within certain boundaries).
Therefore, when you force us (or attempt to force us) to agree with your sensibilities by calling us names and condemning us, keep in mind that this is entirely rooted in clericalism. We are completely at your whim. We want a TLM, you don't. So... no TLM. No recourse for us. We are supposed to just accept the Progestantization of the liturgy because that is what you want? We have to accept that because we are unable to move to be near, yes, an actual Catholic Mass? Do we enjoy driving 3 hours on Sundays? We do that because of you. Because you see the liturgy as your plaything, but we want the Catholic faith and for ourselves and our families to be saved in the Truth.
So, when you have to deal with being called a schismatic, or driving long distances every Sunday, or being otherwise made inferior for holding the Catholic faith, let us know. But you don't because you have all the power over the situation so you never have to be in the crowd at such a shameful liturgy if you don't want to. Yet you date to tell us that's what we have to do.
End of rant.
Marc - I suspect there's a canonist's doctoral dissertation out there with the information you seek regarding the codification of mass attendance.
I reject the notion that the mass has suffered Protestantization. The changes to which you refer have not come from aberrant clergy, but from the Church herself.
Sure, there are loonies among the clergy who do silly things, but they are not the norm. Legislating against the fringes is never a good idea. As you know "Hard cases make bad law."
Actual Catholic masses are celebrated in each of the three Catholic churches in Macon and the eight or so Catholic churches in Montgomery.
In all of these parishes you will find Catholics, clergy and laity, who are "holding the Catholic faith."
And have you ever stopped to think of the dangerous accusation you are making against these Catholics when you claim that YOU and not THEY are holding the Catholic faith? It's treading the fringes of Gnosticism, you know.
Pater, have you ever been to the Churches in my area? Some are better than others, yes, but it is a bad situation. I respectfully disagree with you that liturgical aberration is not the norm. In my experience here and other places I've been, it is the norm albeit in varying degrees.
Anyway, I don't think I do a very good job of keeping the Catholic faith, actually. I'm sure there are thousands of Catholics, lay and cleric, in my town who are doing better than I am. My statement was not about them, it is about me. But I didn't write that very clearly.
Marc - When you claim that "actual" Catholic mass is not being celebrated in your city with 8 Catholic churches, you are making a statement about the Catholics, clergy and laity, who are members of those churches.
YOU want to avoid the "Protestantization" of the mass but THEY have accepted it. In your view that makes them less Catholic than you.
YOU want to be saved in the Truth which can come only in the form of the mass you prefer, so THEY must be excluded from that salvation because THEY don't prefer the same mass.
And you wonder why the vast majority of priests are not interested in welcoming the so-called Traditional Latin Mass into their parishes.
Ok, Pater. Thank you. I think you are right in many ways.
Those people, and people like you, are the REAL Catholics. I simply do not share that Catholic faith.
Pater Ignotus
You capitalized 'Mass' in your last sentence which was not in quotation marks. Why do you normally use the lower case? You have never explained, despite being pressed on the matter.
I find it quite astonishing that you can talk about 'a morass of liturgical individualism and uninformed, ignorant peculiarism' which admirably sums up the post-V2 situation and the abuses remarked on here, and which most eminent liturgists have identified, and yet attribute this not to those who perpetrate it but to those who vehemently oppose it.
I'm afraid Fr Allan played into your hands by suggesting that Catholics attend Anglican or Methodist services rather than anti-liturgical 'Catholic' ones. I did not recommend this. I have tried to engage you in dialogue but have found you perverse, obtuse, obfuscatory, incapable of addressing straightforward questions (using the dishonest politician's ploy of answering a different one), ideologically rigid, unwilling to accept the clear implications of your arguments, platitudinous, philistine, unhistorical, dismissive, smugly judgemental and sanctimonious.
Since I do not know you, I shall not engage in ad hominem attacks, but if your expressed views are anything to go by, I think you are in need of serious therapy.
John you shouldn't beat around the bush but tell us what you really think or PI will think you are paying him a compliment!
John Nolan - I capitalized "Mass" in that instance because it followed a quote in which it was capitalized. There's nothing more to it than that.
I am sorry that you find my responses less than satisfactory, but then, I'm not here to make you happy. If you persist in thinking that that is my purpose here, then you will continue to suffer disappointment.
The only liturgists you count as "eminent" are those who agree with you. And I'm the one who is, among other things, "ideologically rigid"...?
And attendance at mass on Sundays and Holy Days of obligation is not a discipline, it is Divine Law.
Marc - I don't count you as less real a Catholic than myself or anyone else.
PI
'The only liturgists you count as "eminent" are those who agree with you'. But I'm not a liturgist. Had you written 'the only liturgists you count as "eminent" are those with whom you agree' it would still have been an unfounded allegation but at least would have made sense.
There must be a reason why you don't capitalize 'Mass' which is the linguistic convention in English. You are obviously making a statement but leaving it to others to deduce what it is. It is your prerogative, of course, but it hardly furthers dialogue.
You don't need to remind me that your purpose here is not to give satisfactory answers to perfectly straightforward questions. That is blindingly obvious to every other commentator on this blog.
John Nolan - I don't capitalize mass because I am a philistine, remember? How can you expect me to do otherwise?
You don't have to be a liturgist to have those liturgists who you deem eminent agree with you. (Those who don't agree with you you don't consider eminent.)
I structured it that way because I meant it that way. And that way it makes perfect sense.
Ignotus, you do not capitalize "mass," as you never have, because you want to send a certain message.
It is the same reason you post captious comments about tradition and often post quotes from dissident Catholics or Left wing lulus. You really are not fooling anyone, and it is probably about time we stopped engaging you at all. Having spoken with a number of others on the blog, I am aware that Fr. has "protected" you many times from being called what you are. I suppose he feels he owes that to a fellow "priest." It is too bad, but necessary for the Faith, that the Church protects you as well from the appealing, but heretical, teachings of Donatus. When you encounter them, I hope you enjoy the Bosch paintings I mentioned in another thread.
Pin/Gene - Since 99% of the quotes I post here are from papal documents or the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it should be easy for you to produce two or three examples of the "dissident Catholics" you say I quote.
Recognizing the difference between Tradition and tradition is actually very easy. I will quote from that very dangerous source, the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium."
Tradition is to be distinguished from traditions... See? It's not that hard to understand.
I'm glad you and "a number of others on the blog" are talking about me. It's always better to be talked about than not to be talked about at all!
And Good Father McDonald knows he doesn't have to protect me. I suspect he's protecting you from yourself, actually!
Pater Ignotus
Bingo! Mass with a lower-case 'm' is an indicator of philistinism. However, quite what is contained in this philistinism you have not yet explained.
Your logic is as flawed as your English. Had you paid more attention to those who were trying (no doubt in vain) to teach yourself some Latin, you might have realized that 'I agree with what you say' is not the same as 'you agree with what I say'.
It's a pity, since you are not completely stupid and you occasionally advance sensible opinions. But I have to reluctantly concede that you and I are not on the same intellectual level.
I'm sure everyone on here remembers or has read your quotes and references and, thus, have formed their opinion of you which many have expressed. I assure you I need no protection from myself. I am well aware of what I say and I say it with purpose.
John Nolan - The label "philistine" is entirely yours - I use it only to mock your arrogance.
And since "philistine" is your label, I leave it to you to define it.
I understand very well the difference between the two "agree" statements, and I used the one I used intentionally.
No we are not on the same intellectual level. And that is, for me, a blessing!
Yes, PI, ignorance is bliss. In the unlikely event of your ever being made a bishop, it could be your episcopal motto - 'Ignoratio beatitudo est'.
John Nolan - If and when the Nuncio calls, I will refer him to you for a Fair and Balanced review of my qualifications for episcopal office.
As to my motto, I kinda like "Disputandi pruritus ecclesiarum scabies."
Or, more seriously, "Credo ut intelligam."
Or, more reflectively, " Vocatus atque non vocatus Deus aderit."
I encourage everyone to google Pater's Latin quotes.
Plenty of apostate/modernist Priests in this country meet the minimal requirements and qualifications for episcopal office. That says absolutely nothing. "…the letter killeth…" Anybody can play the game…many just as well as Ignotus does.
PI, how about 'illegitimi nil carborundum'?
Seriously, though, the first of Pater's choices, although originally aimed at Charles I and in fact inscribed on his tomb, would make a fitting epitaph for the Second Vatican Council.
Post a Comment