Wednesday, September 3, 2014

THE NEW PARADIGM POPE FRANCIS HAS BROUGHT TO THE PAPACY AND CHURCH

 This morning, His Holiness Pope Francis continued his Wednesday audience with tens of thousands in attendance in sunny, hot Roma. He continued his teaching on the Church as Holy Mother.

It is hard to pin Pope Francis down and classify him in any category usually reserved for political designations. Is His Holiness conservative, liberal, progressive, traditionalist, radical or middle of the road? Yes to all of these. Thus the new paradigm.

At this point in the papacy, those left of the middle of the road take great comfort in Pope Francis because they think he is more like Saint Pope John XXIII or Pope Paul VI rather than St. Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict. Thus they see His Holiness as a progressive. But I am not sure His Holiness is except when it comes to the pastoral care of his flock. I think he is of the school of bending the rules to assist the laity in feeling loved by God and included in the Church and will do all in his power to allow Catholics to know, love and serve the Lord even in irregular situations. The synod on the family will be quite telling in this regard and may upset some apple carts.

But in other ways he is to the right of the middle of the road.

For example this is what Pope Francis said about the nature of the Church in his Wednesday audience catechesis:

"Dear Brothers and Sisters: In our catechesis, we have often noted that we do not become a Christian on our own, but by being born and nurtured in the faith in the midst of the People of God, that is the Church.  She is a true mother who gives us life in Christ and, in the communion of the Holy Spirit, brings us into a common life with our brothers and sisters.  The model of motherhood for the Church is the Blessed Virgin Mary, who in the fullness of time conceived through the Holy Spirit and gave birth to the Son of God.  Her motherhood continues through the Church, who brings forth sons and daughters through baptism, whom she nourishes through the Word of God.  In fact, Jesus gave the Gospel to the Church to bring forth new life by generously proclaiming his word and winning other sons and daughters for God our FatherAs a mother, the Church nurtures us throughout life by illuminating our path with the light of the Gospel and by sustaining us with the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist.  With this nourishment, we are able to choose the good and be vigilant against evil and deceit, and overcome the difficult moments of life with courage and hope.  This is the Church: a mother who has at heart the good of her children.  And since we are the Church, we are called to live this same spiritual, maternal attitude towards our brothers and sisters, by welcoming, forgiving and inspiring trust and hope."

My comments: I can say from my experience of the 1970's seminary and the ideology of those to the left of center in the Church, that the use of male and female to describe God and Church was/is anathema. The ideology to stop using "sexist" words in Scripture and liturgy began in the 1970's. Even the term "sexist words" is of this ideological perspective to demonize words in order to change doctrine.

For example, radical feminism is insecure with male pronouns to describe men and women collectively. Thus a woman cannot be referred to as a chairman of a organization, it must be changed to chairperson or chairwoman. Many make fun of this ideology by reminding feminists that the word women must be changed too to something like woperson or wogirl or wolady or just womyn or wo?

But apart from bastardizing the English language, feminists also want to bastardize the Church by removing anything masculine or feminine from the Church. Thus the Church is not referred to as "mother", "she", or "her" as Pope Francis reiterates time and time again, but rather as "it." 

God is never referred to has Father, but only as God and male pronouns for God, such as He, Him and His are change to God. So in the sentence, "God our Father is good and He is loving and His family is the the Church and we thank Him for her because she is a mother." is changed to "God our Creator is good and God is loving and God's family is the Church and we thank God for it because it is a parent."

But the silly feminists forget that even the word "god" is masculine since there is a feminine counterpart in English of "goddess." The same is true of the word priest in English which is masculine with the feminine counterpart being "priestess." In English the word priestess has an almost exclusive pagan connotation while the word priest does not although it could refer to a pagan priest, but he would be male of course. 

Even the Trinitarian formula is bastardized being changed from "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" to "Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier" or some other such neutral concoction that boarders on the heretical. In fact baptisms that change the traditional Trinitarian formula are deemed invalid by the Church not just illicit.

This tinkering with God language and pronouns has an even more sinister, heretical thrust to it as well, especially in the areas of sexual morality and fecundity not to mention the true nature of Holy Orders and Holy Matrimony.

Once the language for God is bastardized and neutered, then the same can happen for the Church and the eligibility of the sacraments of Holy Orders and Holy Matrimony not to mention changing the nature of sex by eliminating its procreative power and making it simply a physical act of pleasure or comfort given or received with or without love or commitment and regardless of gender and numbers participating.

Thus the Church cannot be described as mother or bride and Jesus cannot be describe as bridegroom or father.

This opens the door to same sex relationships that are sexual and same sex "marriage." It opens the door to the contraceptive mentality in line with the sterility of homosexual sex. It opens the door to abortion since the intention of sex resides with the one who is doing it and not as God created it. 

This neutered sexuality in words and practices then opens the door to females being priestesses as the bridegroom sacramental aspect of the priest is eliminated in disdain as well as the fecundity of the true nature of the Church and priesthood as generative of new members in a marital paradigm. The priestess simply becomes a functionary to do a ceremony and shows forth the perversion of sexuality that is desired by those who are left of center. 

Pope Francis rejects this paradigm and has done so brilliantly and in a stealthy way! God bless His Holiness. The heretics really don't know what has hit them and do not know that the Trojan horse triumphs in the end.

 

44 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Pope Francis rejects this paradigm and has done so brilliantly and in a stealthy way! "

What exactly is brilliant and stealthy about causing worldwide confusion? Because of his imprudent speech and his refusal to speak clearly the entire world thinks that Francis doesn't have a problem with abortion, active homosexual behavior, or divorce. When Jane Fonda, NARAL, Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Matthews and the LCWR etc. are singing your praises clearly there is a problem. It is unjust for any Pope to allow himself to appear as a foe of the Catholic Faith. Either Francis does not care that he is being misinterpreted or that is his intention. Which ever is true both are scandalous and he will pay for this when he stands before his maker. What did Our Lord say about those who mislead the little ones?

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

What you wrote is a damnable lie and libel not to mention a mortal sin. You either are ignorant or simply read press accounts of the pope and what he says where there is indeed cherry picking to promote a secular agenda. I would suggest you read the entire corpus of what the pope says and not just one speech or interview.
Lies, lies lies, all damn lies. Repent or go to hell.

Pater Ignotus said...

So why do you post such "lies," especially in light of your disclaimer and your assertion that you will NOT post comments that are disrespectful of the Pope?

Anonymous said...

Neo cons, when faced with undeniable Catholic Truth in the face of silly rationalization of modernism remain.....silent because can't refute Catholic Truth when faced with it, right. Father.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Because its my home and my blog and I decide and others, if they wish to read comments, which no one has to do so or even read the blog for that matter.

JBS said...

With comments like these, I find myself wondering, "what ever happened to Gene"?

Anonymous said...

He's liberal "Communio." Catholic theology since VII, in its official forms (papal encyclicals, CCC, Synodal documents, etc.) has largely been of a "Communio" stripe--either of the "left" (Kasper, for instance)or the right (de Lubac, for instance). JP II and Ratzinger were on the theological "right" of the "Communio" spectrum.

But the "Communio" left is very different from the radical "Concilium" (Rahner, Kung, etc.).

Tracey Rowland has a very nice explanation of all this in "Ratzinger's Faith."

So, Francis has referenced publicly de Lubac (on spiritual worldliness), Guardini (on whom he nearly did his dissertation), and Balthasar (on the Marian femininity of the Church). And, of course, his personal favorite, apparently, Kasper (on mercy). He is deeply influenced by Giussani (who is very Balthasarian). Not so much by, say, Schillebeecxk.

Pater Ignotus said...

It's not your "home," it's a public blog where anyone and everyone can read what's posted. You have a responsibility to keep "damnable lies and libel" off this public blog that belongs to you.

Would you let children in St. Joseph School post such comments on poster board in the halls of the school for everyone who passes through to read? Gimme a break.

You can't be taken seriously if you say, "Any comment that is vitriolic and disrespectful of the laity in general, and Pope Francis, bishops and priests in particular will not be posted!" and then, turn right around, and post what are clearly disrespectful comments regarding Pope Francis.

JBS said...

"Neo cons"? Is that a Biblical term I just never heard of? Is it from some part of the Apostolic Tradition I'm just not familiar with? Or, could it be a divisive term prompted by the Devil?

Henry said...

From the Office of Readings on this OF memorial of Pope St. Gregory the Great, in a reading from his homilies on the Book of Ezekiel (in English translation):

”I am often compelled by the nature of my [papal] position to associate with men of the world and sometimes I relax the discipline of my speech. If I preserved the rigorously inflexible mode of utterance that my conscience dictates, I know that the weaker sort of men would recoil from me and that I would never attract them to the goal I desire for them. . . . . . Because I am weak myself I am drawn gradually into idle talk and I find myself saying the kind of things that I didn’t even care to listen to before [assuming the papacy]”.

Gene said...

JBS, I am right here…I do not care for this Pope, but I don't think I have ever libeled him. I understand Anonymous, frustration and anger, though. This very blog is witness enough to what a divisive force the Pope has become, whether it was his intention or not.
I don't think we can lay it upon the media (although I detest the media) that this Pope is so misunderstood.
If he is such a wily political in-fighter as everyone says, he should know that careless language and irresponsible actions will be interpreted carelessly and irresponsibly.
I haven't posted as much lately because I am starting to lose hope that the Church is going to correct the wrongs and problems in her practice and politics. I am starting to think, after 8 years, that I have just joined another protestant church.

Gene said...

PS I have talked with others who have come into the church in recent years and who have theological backgrounds…most of them feel the same way. But, I think the thing that keeps us here is what brought us here…theology and doctrine. The Catholic Church is the repository (if not the guardian) of true Christian doctrine. That is what led me here after much struggle and study, and it is what will keep me here unless the Church starts to compromise that, too. Also, we are kind of trapped here…there is no where else to go. Modernism's steady fire has destroyed the main stream protestant churches and pushed believers and the devout up against the wall. The Catholic Church is the other side of the wall, but the ricochets of unbelief are beginning to chip away the brick and sting our eyes…we need an Airstrike.

Pater Ignotus said...

Pin/Gene - Not only do you not care for this pope, you said you would follow him "only out of curiosity."

You did not join another Protestant Church 8 years ago. You joined the Catholic Church.

What you might only now be beginning to appreciate is that there is far, far more legitimate diversity in the Catholic Church than you might have thought there was or hoped for.

You've discovered that he Catholic Church is not merely a reflection of St. Joseph Parish. That fact, and that discovery, are good things.

Anonymous said...

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...
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.
June 25, 2014 at 6:56 AM

Gene said...

JBS, You never heard of the Neocons? They were the fierce horde from the hills of Canaabama who would only receive standing and chugged Communion wine and were smitten by the prophet Billy Bob using the thigh bone of a wild boar. I think that is in the sixteenth chapter of Talledeganiah.

Henry said...

Gene, take a look at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAoGT-rKeeA

to see what a really protestant worship service looks like. Night and day difference from the typical Catholic Sunday Mass. Right?

No ordinary pew Catholic would ever think this a Catholic Mass, would he? Couldn't be, given the ad orientem celebration.

JusadBellum said...

All social change starts with vocabulary change.

Which is why the adults need to tell the children to settle down and stop being stupid with the tinkering with the language bit.

1) God has revealed HIMSELF in the masculine. Not my doing, it was his doing. No, we don't care if it makes you feel bad. too bad. grow up.

2) Jesus, the Word made flesh, is a man. Don't like it? too bad. Your daddy or uncle or boyfriend who abused you don't get to annul the revelation of God's decision to be a male. Your feelings don't get to veto God's choice in the matter.

3) I don't care if Jimmy REALLY REALLY FEELS GOOD about calling his boyfriend Bobby "spouse". By definition, marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. Don't like? too bad. No we don't care if it makes you FEEL BAD. Plenty of things make adults feel bad but we take it in stride...because we're adults.

4) Men are made to be husbands and fathers (physically and/or spiritually). Women to be wife and/or mothers. A man cannot be wife or mother. A woman cannot be husband or father. Not my problem if you disagree. You might as well disagree with the blue sky.

5) Equality of dignity doesn't mean equality of vocation or action or station, or outcome. There's a hierarchy of angels, of being, of life... while we're all equally creatures. What in the world makes anyone think our equality of dignity as human beings must be lived in a monolithic sameness? The New Jerusalem has "many mansions". It has 12 gates and "all the nations" will go up to her - meaning diversity will exist even in heaven.

Even among the hip and cool politically correct crowd, they make distinctions due to fame, fortune and good looks. Discrimination according to fame, fortune and good looks is alive and well and apparently none of these geniuses notice it while focusing on the supposed dastardly hierarchical structure of Catholicism or 'patriarchy'.

What is wrong with telling people who are frankly both wrong on the merits AND insane that they're factually wrong on the merits and insane and that thus we're not going to roll over and play dead so as to placate their temper tantrums and whims?

What's wrong with telling union goons that they're goons and we won't be bullied? Or telling Jihadi terrorists that they're all a pack of momma's boys and cowards who aren't man enough to fight armed men so go after unarmed non-combatants? Or calling abortion "doctors" the murderers that they are - funny how none have admitting privileges to local hospitals but insist on being called "doctors"!

Why exactly do we care so much about the feelings of only SOME PEOPLE, some elements of society but not others? Who decided that only those generally of a 'left' persuasion have feelings worth sheltering?

Well, who ever it was, probably based his case on the claim of intellectual and moral superiority and the promise that doing so would result in some net boon to the Church and civilization... that placating those peoples' feelings would accrue to all sorts of good things for everyone.

Well...who ever it was, he was wrong.

In short, I don't know what happened to WW2 and Boomer generations that made them so utterly gutless when it came to allowing frankly insane people making insane demands, cowering them into submission.

Was it the trauma of the world wars? The trauma of the Bomb? Fear of being "behind the times" (which means, what, exactly?).

The Great commission wasn't to "go ye therefore and feel good about yourselves. Get people to like you and don't stir up trouble. Stay as popular as you can with the cool kids. And whatever you do, make sure you don't offend the cool kids (while it's totally OK to offend the squares and unpopular kids)."

But you'd think that was Jesus' last command to us by the actions of the WW2 and boomer generations here in the USA.


Henry said...

Gene,

Seriously, I know that "neo con" means "newly against", but what are they against? Ad orientem celebration? Latin? What?

Gene said...

Ignotus, thanks for making my point.

Gene said...

Anonymous, Fr. is wrong…there is absolutely nothing
heterodox about my beliefs or theology. My political leanings have nothing to do with out, just as the political leanings of Lefties have nothing to do with it.
Showing disrespect to Ignotus is like showing disrespect to a rattlesnake. I do not give a damn if I am banned.

JusadBellum said...

"neo con" was coined in the late 1990s to describe former liberals who had become conservative (generally on foreign policy).

Thus a GWBush and company were neocons. Santorum was always conservative. Reagan wouldn't have been a neocon either.

Paleo-cons were always conservative.

While we're at the name game, I'd like to point out that one learns an awful lot about how people or tribes refer to themselves....

Thus, for example, Blacks will refer to other, low class blacks by the forbidden "N" word that no one else is allowed to us. Whites however can call low class whites "red neck" or "hick" and it's still not a death sentence to do so.

Democrats refer to their coalition as made up of the following blocks arranged by: race, sex, and socio-economic status: the black or Hispanic vote. The female vote, the blue collar vote.

Republicans refer to their coalition based on policy preference and NOT race, sex, or economic status: the foreign hawks or isolationists. the economic conservative or liberal, the cultural conservative or moderate.

Now..which side prides itself on being NOT RACIST, SEXIST, CLASSIST? That's right! The ones who define themselves by sex, race, and class!

Unfortunately in the Church we have the same tendency to lump ourselves into tribes and nations but then I think it's unavoidable insofar as Our Lord tells us that all the nations (plural) will go up to the New Jerusalem. So diversity will be with us always. The key is unity where it matters.

The Pope has to be shepherd of all the sheep - this is something all ideological camps need to keep in mind, both traditionalists and progressives. A shepherd can't afford to leave anyone behind.

So as much as we might not like the other tribe, a shepherd (like a daddy) must at least leave the door open to them.

The challenge is that while one must not let the inmates run the asylum, neither must one unduly antagonize the inmates, the disordered, the insane, if you can help it. Tact and prudence is always called for.

So it makes perfect sense for Popes and priests to avoid hostilities as much as possible even if laymen are called to wage them. It makes sense for pastors to 'eat with sinners' even at a risk of 'older brothers' (but then note, in the parable, the father left he party to plead with that older brother, he didn't just stay indoors.)

If the Pope's words are misconstrued or not, we are still bound by Our Lord's commission to make disciples. Whether we're aided in this by higher levels of authority or not.... we're still called to this by Our Lord.

John Nolan said...

I see neither lies nor libels. I am confused by Pope Francis in a way that I wasn't with his two predecessors. But we have never had a Jesuit pope, and the reference to serpents and doves in Matthew 10:16 keeps coming to mind.

JBS said...

I believe everything contained in the word of God, whether written or handed down in tradition, which the Church, either by solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.

I also believe that the Holy Ghost guided the bishops at Vatican II to retain Latin and Gregorian Chant in the Roman Mass, and that he let them know that "there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them". Is it too early, or too late, for Pope Francis to ask whether or not the subsequent liturgical reforms were sufficiently faithful to VCII?

Gene said...

Henry, I have no idea. I am not really sure what a neo-con is, but it is probably akin to a neo-protestant…which is a bad thing.

Pater Ignotus said...

Pin/Gene - But you're not showing disrespect to me. Rather, you are disrespecting a caricature of me that you have conjured up in your own mind.

It's pretty much the same as fearing the monster under the bed or the ghost in the attic.

Gene said...

Ignotus, You have painted a very clear picture of your self on this blog over the years. I am familiar with the taxonomy of unbelief. There are no monsters under the bed or ghosts in the attic, but there are wolves in sheep's clothing.

Joseph Johnson said...

I'm with you, Fr. JBS. Too bad that so much of what the Holy Spirit guided the bishops to retain in Sacrosanctum Concilium was virtually wiped out later in practice by "competent authorities" (bishops).

Apparently, some of them have taken it upon themselves to protect laypeople like me from those "confusing" things that the Holy Spirit guided them to retain . .

Pater Ignotus said...

Pin/Gene - I would ask you for three examples of how I have "painted myself," but because these don't exist, you will make some excuse, probably as significant as "LOL" to run away from the question.

On the other hand, the examples of your "un-Catholic" beliefs and assertions and attitudes I have posted numerous times. So you can continue to believe the image of me as an enemy of the Church, the nation, and all that is good and holy, because you HAVE to in order to justify your conversion to Catholicism.

And if all you can come up with is, "You didnt answer my question," then you have nothing at all.

Joe Potillor said...

Anon at 6:47 AM, I share your frustration with the present pontificate...

As I have said rather consistently there are times when the Pope is truly misrepresented by the media, but there are also times when the Pope's words themselves are the problem. By extension, there are moments when Pope Francis is in continuity with his predecessors, and there are moments when he's in complete divergence from them.

As for the positions of Pope Francis, I think none of us can really say what his positions are explicitly...outside of a few remarks here and there, for the most part he's remained silent. (For better or for worse)...Being a "Son of the Church" was played by the Modernists who publicly professed Church teaching, but in private sought to destroy Church teaching (not calling Pope Francis a modernist)...so for that to be a 100% guarantee of orthodoxy, I can't say so.

More or less, it seems this Pope expects the Bishops' collectively to do their jobs so to speak, so that he (Pope Francis) doesn't have to. And while this is a good idea in theory, in practice, considering we have the 1st generation of those formed by the liberal Bishops of the past...it's going to be another generation before this strategy works I believe. It seems like he's trying to take the magnifying glass away from Rome, but in the age of mass media, this won't be successful.

It would certainly help if the Bishops' collectively stayed out of specific policy issues and focus on teaching the Catholic Faith, and battling the cultural issues of the day. But since the vast majority of the Bishops' in the world (save a few) are not doing this....this method may prove to be a disaster.

Of course it could very well be that he (Pope Francis) is preparing us for a persecution in which direct contact with Rome will be difficult....


Gene said...

Ignotus, you have posted no examples of my unCatholic beliefs because there are none. Now, let's see, folks, in case you are new here…Kavanaugh (Ignotus) is the Priest who was asked the direct question by another blogger, "Do you believe in the Real Presence and the bodily resurrection of Christ?"
Ignotus refused to answer on the grounds that the question was a "trap" and "beneath him to answer."
And this man wants to question MY beliefs.
That is the clearest picture you have painted, Ignotus…painting, Hell, that is an 8x10 glossy of exactly who you are.

Pater Ignotus said...

Pin/gene - I do not question your beliefs. I do show, by clear evidence which usually includes quotes from Magisterial documents, that what you SAY here is contrary to the teaching of the Church.

You are the one who claims to have the amazing power to read other peoples' hearts and minds. It's absurd, but you make the claim all the time. "I know what you really think/believe" is your stock-in-trade comment when asked, by me and by others, to give some evidence to back your assertions.

Your comments about Blacks are racist. You comments about refusing to acknowledge the authority of the pope are un-Catholic. Your calling the USCCB "the United States Conference of Communist Bishops" is a calumny. Your tirades against the Church's teaching on Social Justice are ridiculous.

No, I do not judge what you believe.

I have refused to answer your Inquisitorial questions because you are incompetent to judge what I believe. I would say that I operate with my Bishop's approval, but you would then turn around, and for the umpteenth time, tell everyone here that bishops cannot be trusted.

You have made yourself the only reliable source of Catholic teaching. This is what Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Melancthon, et al did when they decided that the Church and her bishops could no longer be relied upon.

JBS said...

"By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another."

JusadBellum said...

Gene, Pater has a point - at least as far as I've read him over the past 2 years. He's got a particular ideological bent but so do you and so do I! Being political or of a certain ideological perspective does not a heretic make.

One of the most important things the Church has always taught humanity is the need to distinguish similar but different things. Or distinguish related but different concepts.

Thus Jesus Our Lord is true God but also true man. There is one God but He has revealed Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Jesus is really present in the Eucharist in the same way as Jesus was a divine person in a real human being (a substantial, "hypostasis" way, not a physical/atomical way).

God is both Just and Merciful (indeed, mercy can only exist in a universe of justice).

We can critique or condemn an act of Peter or Paul or Gene without ipso facto hating Peter, Paul or Gene...OR necessarily judging their moral culpability for said action we disapprove of...

In the large house that is Catholicism there are many different spiritual families, many different 'styles' of priesthood - Jesuit, Franciscan, etc. and among the diocesan clergy too there are wide latitude for pastors' personalities.

It might really do you both a lot of good to actually have lunch together sometime. I've found that people are never as bad as we might initially think they are nor are people as 2 dimension. We do all have bad days. We do all have moments of pique and say or write screeds which are not entirely accurate. People can and do change their opinions.


Gene said...

Ignotus, you lie and distort ounce again. I am not the one who asked you what you call "inquisitorial questions." I do not need to…I know where you stand and I do not have to "read your mind." You lay it all out there for those who can read between your lines. No, no…it was another blogger and you refused to answer questions that should not be a problem for any believer, much less a Priest, to answer. What can possibly be a "trap" about "do you believe in the Real presence?" What is "beneath you to answer" about "do you believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ?"
Once again, operating with a Bishop's approval means nothing other than an administrative approval. The Church is full of apostate Priests…AND Bishops. I have never denied the authority of the Pope, and you don't even understand the definition of "racism."
Now, once again for the readers on the blog, I have never asked Ignotus questions regarding his doctrinal beliefs. These questions were asked by another blogger (actually two). I do not need to ask the wolf if he will steal sheep.

Pater Ignotus said...

Pin/gene - Your repetition of the question makes it your own.

Approval from my bishop is not merely "administrative." Having faculties from him is sanction of my right to teach, preach, in his stead and in the name of the Church.

Now, for readers on the blog, we'll review your un-Catholic comments:

First, calumny against bishops: "Ality, You mean the USCCB... United States Communist Cabal of Bishops...LOL! God help us...I cringe every time I hear they are meeting."
February 26, 2011 at 7:04 AM

And your assertion that Bishops should be ignored, which is actually a canonical offense: "Bishops are remarkably naive. Unless they are speaking "in persona Christi" or ex cathedra they should be ignored."
January 27, 2012 9:23 AM

Second, your vulgarity: "The ACL(F)U is the single most…"
December 23, 2010 at 9:38 AM

More vulgarity: "Anon who says Fr. words describe his writing. You are, undoubtedly, a proctologist's dream of Paradise..."
June 29, 2011 at 6:03 PM

And your racism: "The women altar servers come juking and jiving down the aisle dressed in African looking clothes (made in China and bought down at Wal Mart)and they probably couldn't find Africa on a map."
January 18, 2012 at 7:34 AM

And; "Oh, God. Don't tell me Ignotus is anti-gun. LOL!! It figures. That is so pitiful...I guess he really believes all those feral minorities he loves so much are gonna' give up their guns jus' 'cause we ax 'em nice. LOL!"
April 30, 2012, 4:38 p.m

And: "or like when Obammy mentions the Constitution, which I doubt he has ever read or gives a hoot about."
October 2, 2013 at 4:41 PM

And; "
Well, you know all those little "For the Needy" envelopes we get with our offering packets? Mine are going in the garbage. I'll give only to specific local Church needs from now on. Let Obammy feed 'em...Oh, I'll also give to the NRA."
November 8, 2012 at 6:57 AM

And, for good measure: "WSquared, Yes, the "man cave" is one of the more unfortunate developments resulting from our feminist dominated, fag infested culture. *sigh*"
March 25, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Your words, all of which you have defended and by which you stand.

As for your skipping mass, I never suggested you do it regularly. But you trumpeted your
sinful action here, encouraging others to follow the same path. That's scandal.



JBS said...

I'm glad Pater Ignotus comments here. He provides a different perspective, one that represents a significant group of Catholics. I tend to be more sympathetic to Gene's comments, or at least a "softer, gentler" version of his comments.

Gene said...

Ignotus, I still stand by every one of those comments. There is nothing racist about any of them, nor is it wrong to refer to the USCCB as I did. My comments about the culture are spot on. Many others agree. You just have your panties in a wad because of your PC mentality. When I mentioned skipping Mass because of the deplorable nature of the OF celebrated at that Church, it was in a confessional manner to members of the blog. I mentioned that I went to Confession about it and then, you, a Priest, derided that and repeatedly attacked me after I had said I went to Confession. Your pastoral identity is about as sharp as your theology.

Pater Ignotus said...

Pin/Gene - First, how is it that you are justified in bringing up what I have said in the past - actually, bringing up what I did not say, but that's a separate question, akin to "Is it next Tuesday yet?" - but I am a terrible monster for bringing up your exact words?

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander...

As to whether or not this was a one-time choice by you, let's examine your own words:

"I have mentioned before that I refuse to attend Mass at some Churches when I am out of town because I know ahead of time what to expect. Sin or not, I ain't going to Mass there and put up with morons like appear in the picture in this post."
August 9, 2011 at 1:40 PM

And: "I have, on occasion, omitted Mass when my only option was some post Vat II kook Priest in a Church that looked like a corporate conference room or, worse, a night club."
October 20, 2011 at 11:00 PM

As I recall, your admission was not of a confessional nature, but a proclamation and an encouragement to others to follow suit, striking a blow for what ever it is you think you are achieving by skipping mass.

I haven't found the original quote so that we call can examine it, but I'll keep looking.

Also, there are no "members" of this blog. It's a public blog and anyone who wants to can read what is posted here.

Now, I have reminded everyone here of what you said, will you, again, remind everyone of what I did not say?

Gene said...

Ignotus, I simply do not care that you keep re-posting my posts. It is actually quite humorous, and people get to keep reading what I said. Cool.
As for what you said or did not say, I think it is pretty clear what you said by not answering the question.
Members, readers, whatever…big deal. You really have a problem with exclusivity, don't you? I kinda' like it. LOL!

Pater Ignotus said...

Pin/Gene - I'm glad you're enjoying reading your own words.

I, too, am glad that people keep getting to read your words. What you say can be very illuminating.

Jdj said...

I'm going to Lowe's in the morning to buy two new axes. You guys have ground these old ones down to the nubs, and there is nothing left but dull, worn-out material that will never sharpen.

Jusadbellum said...

So you two have never met?

Gene said...

Who two?

Anonymous said...

Father,

I have not really liked you from my first reading of your blog. However, you allow anonymous posting, which is a commendable position.

I no longer support the Catholic Church and ceased attending after my son's wedding Mass was desecrated with communion being given to my wife and her lover.

I will do what I can to legally undermine the Catholic Church, likely for whatever time I have left in my life. Nothing, illegal, will I do or support but I can no longer walk with the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church is not marriage friendly. I was mistaken or deceived to believe it was when I married in the Church in January 1980.
This facilitated a lifetime of unending pain after my unilateral divorce at my wife's hands in 1990.

I DO appreciate being able to post, as you have allowed. A sincere thank you on that account.

God Bless.


Karl