Saturday, May 14, 2016

FAR RIGHT HYSTERIA ABOUT DEACONESSES IS MUCH TO DO ABOUT NOTHING! THERE ARE DEACONESSES IN EASTERN ORTHODOXY WHICH IS A CHURCH THAT BASES HER TEACHINGS ON ORTHODOX BELIEFS AND PRACTICES!


What is it that a deacon does that a lay person could not do? NOTHING! In an emergency or necessity a lay person, male or female could validly do whatever a deacon does!

In an emergency, a lay man or woman could baptize.

In the absence of a priest, the bishop could delegate any lay person, male or female to witness a Catholic marriage.

In the Ordinary Form of the Mass females may serve the altar, read the Scriptures and distribute Holy Communion.

The laity may bring Holy Communion to the sick and home bound and distribute Holy Communion at Mass when there is a legitimate need.

The only thing that a deacon can do that a lay person is not permitted is to proclaim the Gospel because the deacon linked to the Sacrament of Holy Orders reads the actual words of Jesus in the Gospel thus being  an "alter-Christus" or a man who acts in a sacramental way in the Person of Christ when proclaiming the Gospel just as a priest or bishop would if either proclaimed the Gospel in the absence of a deacon.

But when is comes to deaconesses, their role in not a part of the Sacrament of Holy Orders but deaconesses are mentioned in the New Testament and were a part of the patrimony of the Church of the East and in some Eastern Orthodox Churches even today.

This is a good article on deaconesses in the Greek Orthodox Church and other Eastern Orthodox Churches:

Grant Her Your Spirit


Image
The Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church of Greece voted in Athens on Oct. 8, 2004, to restore the female diaconate. All the members of the Holy Synod, 125 metropolitans and bishops and Archbishop Christodoulos, the head of the church of Greecehad considered the topic. The decision does not directly affect the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, which is an eparchy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Greek ecclesiastical provinces of the Ecumenical Patriarchate received their independence from Constantinople in 1850 and were proclaimed the Autocephalous Church of Greece.

While women deacons had virtually disappeared by the ninth century, the facts of their existence were well known, and discussion of the restoration of the female diaconate in Orthodoxy began in the latter half of the 20th century. Two books on the topic by Evangelos Theodorou, Heroines of Love: Deaconesses Through the Ages (1949) and The Ordination or Appointment of Deaconesses (1954), documented the sacramental ordination of women in the early church. His work was complemented in the Catholic Church by an article published by Cipriano Vagaggini, a Camaldolese monk, in Orientalia Christiana Periodica in 1974. The most significant scholarship on the topic agrees that women were sacramentally ordained to the diaconate, inside the iconostasis at the altar, by bishops in the early church. Women deacons received the diaconal stole and Communion at their ordinations, which shared the same Pentecostal quality as the ordination of a bishop, priest or male deacon.

Despite the decline of the order of deaconesses in the early Middle Ages, Orthodoxy never prohibited it. In 1907 a Russian Orthodox Church commission reported the presence of deaconesses in every Georgian parish; the popular 20th-century Orthodox saint Nektarios (1846-1920) ordained two women deacons in 1911; and up to the 1950’s a few Greek Orthodox nuns became monastic deaconesses. In 1986 Christodoulos, then metropolitan of Demetrias and now archbishop of Athens and all of Greece, ordained a woman deacon according to the ritual of St. Nektariosthe ancient Byzantine text St. Nektarios used.

Multiple inter-Orthodox conferences called for the restoration of the order, including the Interorthodox Symposium at Rhodes, Greece, in 1988, which plainly stated, The apostolic order of deaconess should be revived. The symposium noted that the revival of this ancient order should be envisaged on the basis of the ancient prototypes testified to in many sources and with the prayers found in the Apostolic Constitutions and the ancient Byzantine liturgical books.

At the Holy Synod meeting in Athens in 2004, Metropolitan Chrysostom of Chalkidos initiated discussion on the subject of the role of women in the Church of Greece and the rejuvenation of the order of female deacons. In the ensuing discussion, some older bishops apparently disagreed with the complete restoration of the order. Anthimos, bishop of Thessaloniki, later remarked to the Kathimerini English Daily, As far as I know, the induction of women into the police and the army was a failure, and we want to return to this old matter?

While the social-service aspect of the female diaconate is well known, the Holy Synod decided that women could be promoted to the diaconate only in remote monasteries and at the discretion of individual bishops. The limiting decision to restore only the monastic female diaconate did not please some synod members. The Athens News Agency reported that Chrysostomos, bishop of Peristeri, said, The role of female deacons must be in society and not in the monasteries. Other members of the Holy Synod agreed and stressed that the role of deaconesses should be social, for example, the conferring of last rites on the sick.

The vote of the Holy Synod to restore the female diaconate under limited circumstances may be the most progressive idea the Orthodox Church can bring to the world. The document does not use the word ordination, but specifically allows bishops to consecrate (kathosiosi) senior nuns in monasteries of their eparchies. But bishops who choose to promote women to the diaconate have only the ancient Byzantine liturgy that performs the same cheirotonia, laying on of hands, for deaconesses as in each major order: bishop, priest and deacon. Even so, some (mostly Western) scholars have argued that the historical ordination of women deacons was not a cheirotonia, or ordination to major orders, but a cheirothesia, a blessing that signifies installation to a minor order. The confusion is understandable, since the two terms were sometimes used interchangeably, but other scholars are equally convinced that women were ordained to the major order of the diaconate. The proof will be in the liturgy the bishops actually use. At present there is only one liturgy and one tradition by which to create a woman deacon in the Byzantine rite, and it is demonstrably a ritual of ordination for the servant who is to be ordained to the office of a deaconess.

Even the document on the diaconate issued by the Vatican’s International Theological Commission in 2002 admits that Canon 15 of the Council of Chalcedon (451) seems to confirm the fact that deaconesses really were ordained’ by the imposition of hands (cheirotonia). Despite the pejorative use of quotation marks here and elsewhere in the document when historical ordinations of women deacons are mentioned, this Vatican commission seems unwilling to deny the history to which the Church of Greece has now newly returned. Further, the Vatican document points out that the practice of ordaining women deacons according to the Byzantine liturgy lasted at least into the eighth century. It does not review Orthodox practice after 1054.

The rejuvenation of the order of deaconess in the Church of Greece is expected to begin during the winter of 2004-5. The contemporary ordination (cheirotonia) of women provides even more evidence and support for the restoration of the female diaconate in the Catholic Church, which has acknowledged the validity of Orthodox sacraments and orders. Despite the distinction in Canon 1024, A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly, one can presume the possibility of a derogation from the law, as suggested by the Canon Law Society of America in 1995, to allow for diaconal ordination of women. (The history of Canon 1024 is clearly one of attempts to restrict women from priesthood, not from the diaconate.)

In fact, the Catholic Church has already indirectly acknowledged valid ordinations of women by the Armenian Apostolic Church, one of the churches of the East that ordains women deacons. There are two recent declarations of unity, agreements of mutual recognition of the validity of sacraments and of orders, between Rome and the Armenian Church, one signed by Paul VI and Catholicos Vasken I in 1970, another between John Paul II and Catholicos Karekin I in 1996.

These agreements are significant, for the Armenian Apostolic Church has retained the female diaconate into modern times. The Armenian Catholicossate of Cilicia has at least four ordained women. One, Sister Hrip’sime, who lives in Istanbul, is listed in the official church calendar published by the Armenian Patriarchate of Turkey as follows: Mother Hrip’sime Proto-deacon Sasunian, born in Soghukoluk, Antioch, in 1928; became a nun in 1953; Proto-deacon in 1984; Mother Superior in 1998. Member of the Kalfayian Order. Mother Hrip’sime has worked to restore the female diaconate as an active social ministry, and for many years was the general director of Bird’s Nest, a combined orphanage, school and social service center near Beiruit, Lebanon. Her diaconate, and that of the three other women deacons, is far from monastic.

The future Catholic response to the documented past and the changing present promises to be interesting. The tone of the International Theological Commission document reveals an attempt to rule out women deacons, but the question is left remarkably open: It pertains to the ministry of discernment which the Lord established in his church to pronounce authoritatively on this question.
It is becoming increasingly clear that despite the Catholic Church’s unwillingness to say yes to the restoration of the female diaconate as an ordained ministry of the Catholic Church, it cannot say no.

Prayer for the Ordination of a Woman Deacon

O Eternal God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Creator of man and of woman, who replenished with the Spirit Miriam, and Deborah, and Anna, and Huldah; who did not disdain that your only-begotten Son should be born of a woman; who also in the tabernacle of the testimony, and in the temple, did ordain women to be keepers of your holy gateslook down now upon this your servant who is to be ordained to the office of a deaconess, and grant her your Holy Spirit, that she may worthily discharge the work which is committed to her to your glory, and the praise of your Christ, with whom glory and adoration be to you and the Holy Spirit for ever. Amen.

Apostolic Constitutions, No. 8 (late fourth century)

Phyllis Zagano is adjunct associate professor of philosophy and religious studies at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., and author of Holy Saturday: An Argument for the Restoration of the Female Diaconate in the Catholic Church (Crossroad, 2000).

96 comments:

Flavius Hesychius said...

So... the view from the ground is this:

No Orthodox person I know of (online or in real life) has ever met one of these deaconesses. They're like the Loch Ness Monster.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Despite that Flav, Eastern Orthodoxy because of their synod style of governance allows this here and there and has a ancient tradition to support it, which the Western Church would respect.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Also, when deaconesses were use in the ancient Church, this was prior to any schisms including the Great Schism, so it is a part of the Western Church's ancient tradition too.

Flavius Hesychius said...

Perhaps, but 'tis not the point. 'Tis allowed, but not done. Kinda like a public Vespers service is allowed, but not done.

__________________

Although, Father, if I may suggest a slight correction: it's the Church of Greece, not the Greek Orthodox Church. They're not the same thing. One is in Greece, the other is in Turkey.

Technically, the 'Greek Orthodox Church' is (in Greek) called the 'Roman Orthodox Church of Constatinople and New Rome blah blah blah...'

Anonymous said...

I don't care what some schismatic church practices. Naturally born female human beings cannot receive Holy Orders. You can't change that nor can Francis. And what is it about always wanting to return to the past. I thought we have to live in the present and even the pope himself denigrated those who want to return to the past. Well if it is wrong to want to return to the past circa 1950 why is okay to want to return to the past circa 100? The man is a scandal, is causing confusion, has no prudence and purposefully is causing harm to the faith of people. There is a question regarding the validity of his election since cardinals who voted in that conclave publicly stated they collaborated amongst themselves to get him elected. This madness needs to stop. And you Father need to stop denigrating and demoralizing innocent souls who are rightly shaken by that man.

Anonymous said...

Forget about the nonsense of female deacons. What about the restoration of the sub diaconate which truly does have ancient validity. The subdeaconate wiped away with the stoke of a pen by one, ONE, liberal pope who personally felt it was useless. Talk about clericalism.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

But Flav, Orthodoxy is nationalistic by design and deaconeses are allowed here and there in these national eparchies or whatever they are called. I'm not speaking exclusively of Greek Orthodoxy, but any Eastern Orthodox Church, such as the Georgian one, Russian one and the myriad of others that fall under the big tent of Eastern Orthodoxy.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

But that's the rub, deaconesses were allowed in the unified One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church under the Bishop or Rome prior to any schisms and the Great Schism. Thus the West and the East have the same tradition prior to any schisms.

It was the east, though, that preserved the married priesthood, not for bishops who must come from monastic orders, but for secular priests, but the man had to be married prior to being ordained a priest. But married priests in the east existed when prior to the Great Schism or any other schisms.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Think before you write. The FSSP which is completely canonical in the Church still has all the minor orders including the subdiaconate. It is still a part of the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church in full communion with Rome as well.

We'll have more sub deacons and minor orders when His Holiness fully reconciles the SSPX to the Church.

johnnyc said...

So if all these things are already being done by woman why is it necessary to give a title to it? Pride? Vanity?


I bet all these women religious orders that do not wear the habit to be 'modern' will most definitely wear whatever garb that will identify them as 'hey I'm a deaconess"

Anonymous said...

Father it has become totally clear that the purpose of your blog is your ego. As a priest you have an obligation to try and save, and instruct souls who need help. But what do you do? You ridicule, judge, condemn people who have REAL, HONEST, fears and confusions over the actions of the present pope. Way to go Father. You don't try to be patient, show kindness or assist people in any way. No, you judge them as being in mortal sin, of being Protestant of being heretics etc. gee who was it that said it's easy to show kindness to those who agree with us? I wonder who said that? Instead of blindly following a human being who is teaching errors against the Catholic Faith you should be showing true mercy by counseling the doubtful not mocking them and deriding them. Way to go Father. You also will die one day and will have to give an account. Where is your understanding with the deficiencies in other people. You are so quick to anger and to mock people. I have never seen a priest act like you do, except Francis.

Jan said...

johnnyc, you got it in one! It will be interesting to see how this evolves - we have practically more men deacons in my diocese than there are laymen. One of the parish priests noted that he did not know what to do to keep them occupied.

At many of the Masses the priest is flanked either side by a deacon. A number of the Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist have their noses out of joint because the deacons get the role of distributing communion when they are at Mass.

I can well imagine the rush of the multitude of women pastoral workers to join up if they get a whiff of a chance to become a deaconess - we will soon have more people congregated up on the altar than in the pews, and one can only imagine the length of the procession into the church - it will probably take longer to process in than the Mass itself - especially as one of our parish priests has now declared he wants to introduce a speeded up version of the Mass - very reverent he says but speeded up. A good way of speeding up the Mass would be to cut down the sermon which often consists of one of the deacons playing a CD of himself singing various psalms accompanied by pictures of his family played on to the overhead display.

I suppose what we are getting is this all inclusiveness - at the local cathedral at Mass there is a robed altar server who gets to sit most of it out while a non-garbed man and a woman do the altar serving, they the priest and the altar server wait at the foot of the sanctuary for the gift bearers - sometimes four or five, and then it's time for the Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist to pop up - usually about a dozen of them.

As one of my friends said "This isn't the Catholic Church I was baptized into" and how right he is - a convert too - yet as usual there are those who protest there is nothing wrong. And Mark Thomas trots out yet another defense. When oh when are some people going to wake up and realize, as one of your posters said, this is not going to go away any time soon and from where I'm sitting it's going from bad to worse ...

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I WILL ALWAYS LOVE AND RESPECT THE POPE AS MY FATHER, MY PAPA AND UNTIL DEATH!(WHITE OR RED MARTYRDOM) I AM A ROMAN CATHOLIC AND THUS A PAPIST!!! GET OVER IT!

Bernard Fischer said...

Well, if Phyllis Zagano said in the NcR, then why do we need a commission to study the matter?

Marc said...

If the Pope told Fr. McDonald to become a Protestant, Fr. McDonald would gladly follow. As we have seen. He's a papist, after all.

Anonymous said...

Way to go Father. Why don't you just tell those who disagree with you to go to hell. Way to go. Such an example.

Vox Cantoris said...

Zagano was in Toronto last week at St. Michael's College peddling her wares.

The Pope is wrong.

It matters not what was done then or what the Orthodox do. This is a cover for women's ordination.

Deaconettes eveolved into active sisters and cloistered nuns.

I think Marc is right Father, with all respect if the Bishop of Rome said to become a Protestant you would out of some kind of illogical obedience.

I'm long thinking that your exposure to the EF is nothing more than "smells and bells" and had done little to alter your muddle-headed 1970's upbringing.

Sorry for this but it needs to be said.

The Pope is wrong, how can you keep defending this bile from his mouth.

The matter was studied in 2002. He had no business opening this can of worms!

Vox Cantoris said...

I also sick of your "far right" insult.

Perhaps you've become another Francis or Rosica. Have you seen his latest?

Some of you priests really need a readjustment.

"The Digital World and Catholic Blogosphere"...the big battlefield before humanity is also the digital world: (Not an abandonment of faith and Christian life and culture. Not abortion. Not euthanasia. Sodomite priests raping boys. Not atheism, radical secularism, Islamic terrorism. Modernist and heretical priests destroying the Faith. Not running to every sexual deviant idea, rampant greed, globalisation, environmental fascism; none of these except for the "digital world." The "big battlefield" is the digital world! - Vox)
You only need a keyboard, a screen or a hand-held device. In the wild, crazy world of the blogosphere, ... there is no accountability, no code of ethics, and no responsibility for one’s words and actions. It can be an international weapon of mass destruction, crossing time zones, borders and space. In its wake is character assassination, destruction of reputation, calumny, libel, slander and defamation. ... “Catholics” have turned the Internet into a cesspool of hatred, venom and vitriol, ... character assassination on the Internet by those claiming to be Catholic and Christian has turned it into a graveyard of corpses strewn all around. Often times the obsessed, scrupulous, self-appointed, nostalgia-hankering virtual guardians of faith or of liturgical practices are very disturbed, broken and angry individuals, who never found a platform or pulpit in real life and so resort to the Internet and become trolling pontiffs and holy executioners! In reality they are deeply troubled, sad and angry people. ... The light of Christ reflected in the Church must not become the privilege of only a few elect who float enclosed within a safe harbor or ghetto network of communications for the elite, the clean, the perfect and the saved. This would be a “church clique” or a “personal blog” or “chat room” more than an ecclesial community.

Anonymous said...

Vox Cantoris: "I'm long thinking that your exposure to the EF is nothing more than "smells and bells" and had done little to alter your muddle-headed 1970's upbringing."

More concisely, "You can take the priest out of the Novus, but you can't take the Novus out of the priest"?

Henry said...

This discussion may illustrate the danger of using words so as to alter meaning or belief. The word “deaconess” seems to imply a status akin to that of a deacon. Of course, this is precisely what feminists most desire—a status that suggests a step toward the ordination of women as priests.

But the “deaconesses” of ancient time had no role or status pertinent to that of ordained deacons, nor did “deaconesses” receive any sacramental form of ordination. Frequently, a woman was called a “deaconess” merely because she was the wife of a deacon.

Abraham Lincoln allegedly said “You can look at the tail of a donkey and call it a leg, but that does make it a leg. Whatever you call its tail, the donkey still has only four legs.” So you can call a woman anything you want, but she’s still not a deacon.

The problem now is that, in the atmosphere of today’s rootless Church, allowing women to be called “deaconesses” by the faithful may well further the idea that women could someday be ordained as priests—despite the settled fact that the Church does not have the power to ordain women.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Exactly Henry and what I see as problematic is the anti intellectualism of so many who comment here who like Protestants think history does not matter or new ways consistent with the Deposit of Faith cannot occur.

Consecration could only ordination except when consecration refers to women then it does not.

Flavius Hesychius said...

You need to get your facts straight.

You said 'Greek Orthodox Church'. The article you quote says CHURCH OF GREECE. They are two different things. An eparchy is something else entirely.

Factual accuracy is important, even on a personal blog on the internet (especially on the internet, accessible by anyone where).

For whatever reason, you seem to think you know more about my religion than I do, which is simply bizarre.

rcg said...

Whoa, everyone! This is gone way too far. Fr mcdonald has taken issue with the Pope as a person several times. He strives to do so civily and distinctly from the office of Pope. As far as his fidelity to the Liturgy, he is obviously striving to bring the NO to the same reverence as the VO. From there a cool headed discussion of the orthodoxy of the NO can be held.

My only observation of the attacks on Fr McDonald is to ask everyone to take assurance in their faith and understanding of it to remain calm in the face of opposition.

rcg said...

I will admit that this post, as an apology, has the opposite effect on me than it may have intended. It seems to be hegemony toward Holy Orders for women.

johnnyc said...

Father.....St. Catherine of Siena loved and respected the Pope also.

Marc said...

I met a deaconess at an Orthodox Church: that is the title given to the wife of a deacon.

"Anti-intellectualism" of commenters here? That's funny. And it's them who think the history doesn't matter? Would that be the history of the past 16 centuries where there haven't been deaconesses or some other history? Wasn't it the Protestants who wanted to go back to their perception of the ancient Church before the 4th century?

Anonymous said...

"Consecration could only ordination except when consecration refers to women then it does not."

What the hell does that mean?

Mark Thomas said...

It is sad to read negative comments directed at Father McDonald. Certain Catholics have reached the breaking point in regard to His Holiness Pope Francis. The promulgation of Amoris Laetitia pushed them to that point as they believe that the Exhortation is heretical.

The Remnant summed up the position of various Catholics via the following article:

https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/2484-amoris-laetitia-foolish-bishops-and-bishops-playing-us-for-fools

The article denounced Bishop Schneider, Cardinal Burke, and Archbishop Chaput by name as well as all bishops (or anybody for that matter) who refuse to denounce Pope Francis.

The article's final line is chilling as The Remnant, which speaks for certain Traditionalists, declared: "For the time is growing near where there will no longer be any choice but resistance or apostasy."

There you have. The proposition that has been taken up by certain Traditionalists is that one must believe that Pope Francis is a heretic or else he or she will become an apostate.

I urge my brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ who have embraced the notion of "resistance" as noted in The Remnant's article in question to step back from the very dangerous ledge upon which they stand.

Please, let us ignore the brother-versus-brother war drums that certain Catholics are determined to pound. Please don't embrace war against Pope Francis and, in turn, Catholics who love and remain in communion with His Holiness.

Pope Francis has been denounced by the "resistance". Cardinal Burke has been denounced by the "resistance". The "resistance" has denounced Bishop Schneider, Archbishop Chaput...and all bishops who are in communion with the Vicar of Christ.

Now, Father McDonald has been denounced by the "resistance".

That is not the right thing to do. Therefore, please, as brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ, Our Lord calls us to opt for peace in our treatment of each other. Let us remain in communion with each. Let us remain in communion with Pope Francis.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

"Far Right Hysteria"?


Talk about offending to get a response!

Anonymous said...

"Exactly Henry and what I see as problematic is the anti intellectualism of so many who comment here who like Protestants think history does not matter or new ways consistent with the Deposit of Faith cannot occur. "

That's a joke right. You couldn't rationally argue on an intellectual level if your life depended on it. EVERYTHING you say is based on emotion. you can tell you have never studied Aquanis or Agustine or Duns Scotis. It shows. It really shows.

Flavius Hesychius said...

Touché, Marc.

To amend my statement: No one has met these female deacons (who are not really deacons). They're like the Loch Ness Monster.

Marc said...

Definitely true, Flavius. I'm rather certain that there are no female deaconesses in the Orthodox Church. I knew a Greek priest (as in from Greece) very well. He taught me the Orthodox faith. He would've mentioned this if it was something that happened in Greece.

There are women in monasteries who have a blessing to go behind the iconostasis or even help to serve the Divine Liturgy. But, again, they aren't called deaconesses, and they're used out of necessity. Also, for the purpose of modesty at adult female baptisms, a woman might assist the priest. In my experience, the priest's wife helps with this. She's not a deaconess, but she has a unique role in the parish.

Anonymous 2 said...

I am with rcg. These vicious attacks on our priests are becoming appalling. So are the vicious attacks on Pope Francis and various bishops. It isn’t appropriate and it certainly isn’t Catholic. If one has concerns they can be stated civilly and respectfully. We would all do well to take the following article to heart:

http://ccgaction.org/respectpriestsandbishops

Marc said...

Pope Francis's ideas and ideology, insofar as they conflict with Christ's teaching and the Church, need to be viciously attacked. The same is true for the bishops and priests who prop up and defend his errors. To defend the teachings of Christ, even against clerics, is not un-Catholic. In fact, it is our Cathoic duty to do so.

When the pope stops erring, well stop criticizing. The same goes for Fr. McDonald on this blog -- when he's in error, it's going to be pointed out so long as these comments are open. If he doesn't want people to point out those errors, he can (1) stop blogging, or (2) stop erring. Or, at the very least, he could stop calling everyone who disagrees with him a far right hysterical Protestant.

Bernard Fischer said...

I agree with Mark Thomas. The attacks on Fr McD are uncalled for. The attacks on Pope Francis are uncalled for. We owe our clergy respect. And if they say something that doesn't sound right, we should respectfully ask and wait for clarification. And, I suppose, we have a right to a respectful answer, though since the Vatican is way over there in Rome doesn't always come right away.

Alter Anonymous said...

OK, A2,

I respectfully state that I am very concerned that Francis, against whom I have no ill will, is deliberately making statements intended to undermine the Catholic faith. I am concerned because his patterns of statements and behavior are as Marc has noted.

If I were pope and wished to undermine the Catholic faith, I wouldn't make grand ex cathedra statements redefining marriage or permitting female ordination or banning the Rosary. I would instead act in the same way as Francis: making apparently off-the-cuff statements that open the door to debate on and potential revision of settled doctrinal matters and potentially subversive statements buried in footnotes of massive documents. I would further appeal, but highly selectively, to history--in particular, to portions of the early history of the Church (thus getting back, as the Protestants sought to do, to "real" Christianity, uncorrupted by the accretions of the 1500 years between Constantine and today). When confronted with charges that I was undermining the faith, I, as a supporter of a modernist agenda, would state that doctrinal dispute shouldn't be allowed to rupture our communion with one another and with the Church (i.e., that doctrine is less important that the love of God and of our fellow (hu)man(s), as if doctrine and love are somehow at odds or as if doctrine is somehow the enemy of "true" Christianity.)

Because I would do it this way, I must consider the possibility that Francis isn't a PR bumbler but instead has a modernist and heretical agenda. This possibility is all the stronger because Francis is engaging in what appears to be a pattern of behavior, as opposed to one or two bumbles that anyone might be expected to make, and these bumbles usually or always seem to tend towards the modernist rather than towards the traditionalist. The possibility is still stronger for anyone who's studied the history of the papacy and knows that there have been many corrupt popes with agendas and occasionally heretical beliefs.

I say this with no disrespect or rancor but with concern, perhaps even concern bordering on fear. And no matter how strongly people here or elsewhere argue that everything that has happened since VII is fully consistent with what went before, I simply cannot subscribe to that position, for reasons far too lengthy to go into here. I fact, I find such an argument to be patently ridiculous.

I hope that you find this a respectful and reasoned airing of concern.

Mark Thomas said...

Could somebody inform me as to what part or parts of the Faith that His Holiness Pope Francis has changed? In my diocese, at our FSSP parish and each "Novus Ordo parish" with which I'm familiar, there hasn't been any change in the Faith from the first seconds of Pope Francis' Pontificate to date.

For better or worse, I have not experienced one bit of change in my diocese in regard to the Faith and the manner in which the Faith is practiced here. On second thought, the one difference is that I have encountered a bit of Latin in the Mass offered at one parish near me.

There are people who chatter during Mass, applaud the choir, receive Holy Communion, then bolt immediately to the parking lot, dress immodestly for Mass...other folks approach Mass in a more somber fashion.

The parishes haven't ceased to pray the Holy Rosary, the priests haven't turned the Mass into a clown show, homosexuals have not overrun the parish, parishioners don't seem any more or less judgmental than they were three years ago.

Where is this Pope Francis revolution? It doesn't exist in my diocese.

By the way, our bishop is most definitely not a traditionalist.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Marc said..."Pope Francis's ideas and ideology, insofar as they conflict with Christ's teaching and the Church, need to be viciously attacked. The same is true for the bishops and priests who prop up and defend his errors."

Marc, good luck with that task. The reality is that you will have to attack viciously 99.999999999 percent of Cardinals, bishops, priests, religious, and laity as they "prop up and defend" Pope Francis' "errors".

Marc, you have determined to do battle with the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

By the way, Marc, be careful as you will also fall under attack in regard to your "errors". Do not worry, somewhere out there are Super, Super, Super Trads who will determine that you are not a "true" Catholic.

If you belong to an "indult" FSSP parish, there are Trads who will insist that you are not a "true" Catholic. If you are attached to an SSPX chapel, Bishop Williamson and the SSPX Resistance will insist that you are a "modernist" who is to be shunned by "true" Catholics. Then there are Super Super Trads who aren't sure that Bishop Williamson is a "true" Catholic as, incredibly, he is too "liberal" in their view.

Yep...don't worry, Marc, there are Trads who will determine that you are a heretic.
That is what happens when each person becomes his own Pope. They will do to you, as you have done to Pope Francis and those bishops and priests who "prop up" Pope Francis' "errors".

What utter nonsense...

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Anonymous 2 said...

Alter Anonymous (and Marc and Others of Like Mind):

Good. The tone is definitely an improvement.

Now who has read the linked article about St. Francis discussing his “unshakeable reverence” towards the priests and bishops of his own time, including the many corrupt ones, and the spiritual dangers involved in criticizing them?

Jan said...

Mark Thomas, I think you need to read Alter Anonymous' comments. He sums the situation up very well.

A woman I know was told yesterday, by a priest, that she should be preparing and getting ready to be a deaconess. She - a former nun - who hates women wearing the mantilla (she took her veil off so may not like a reminder) is over the moon.

So, Mark Thomas, you are obviously in a very good situation with nothing to complain about - that isn't the case for many of us who are indeed seeing a worsening state of affairs under this pontificate. Even Fr McDonald has commented many times that we are reverting to the 1970s.

One young woman recently from the Philippines told me she had visited every parish in her diocese to see what the Masses were like - the vast majority she attended she was left wondering whether the Masses were in fact valid. She is now grateful to have stumbled across the EF Mass.

As regards being nice to everyone - you, Mark Thomas, Anonymous 2, have been among the worst offenders for being less than charitable towards your traditional brothers and sisters - so none of you have a leg left to stand on. Go back and read some of your own posts and you'll see what I mean.

Alter Anonymous said...

A2,

I'm glad I apparently have your approval. A correction/addendum, though: I, for one, haven't improved my tone. This is how I've spoken/written about Francis from the outset (i.e. from when I first perceived a problem). My tone may be an improvement over somebody screaming that he wants Francis to go to hell or something, but I have no control over such comments and don't like being lumped in with such persons. My point is that there are people who genuinely want to discuss this issue and call attention to it civilly, including here on this blog, but we are all too often lumped in with those who are described more or less as haters rather than respectfully engaged. In fact we are the ones who are told, implicitly and at times bordering on explicitly, that we're the ones going to hell unless we straighten up. I.e., we're treated to exactly the same sort of speech that the kinder, gentler, more merciful, less judgmental Church spawned by VII said was the wrong approach with people. Ironic.

As for St. Francis: I wasn't aware that sainthood conferred infallibility, especially on someone who was neither pope nor bishop. And at any rate, I'll see your St. Francis and raise you a St. Catherine of Siena.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Jan - Anonymous 2 has never been anything but civil. He is the one person here who can be counted on to maintain an even keel and, by his example, to call us back to respectful posting.

Anonymous 2 said...

Jan,

I have been back over my posts during the last several months and you will have to help me understand how I have been “among the worst offenders for being less than charitable towards your traditional brothers and sisters.” Can you please provide some examples?

Anonymous 2 said...

Alter Anonymous:

You began your post responding to mine with “OK, A2, I respectfully state that . . . ” and you ended it with “I hope that you find this a respectful and reasoned airing of concern.” I answered your implied question accordingly and, I believe, appropriately.

If you don’t like St. Francis and prefer St. Catherine of Siena, she is quoted in the same article to similar effect.

Anonymous 2 said...

I appreciate Father Kavanaugh’s kind comment.

As I indicated in my response to Jan, if I have fallen short of the standards we should expect of ourselves as Catholic bloggers, I would definitely like to know about such instances.

Jan said...

I have finally read what Mark Thomas claims to be "a vicious attack" on Cardinal Burke and others by the Remnant. The Remnant in fact appears to be the flagship of Mark Thomas's friends the SSPX and not all traditionalists at all. It is a hard hitting article, sure, but hardly a "a vicious attack". The Remnant is taking a position and asking that conservatives - like Mark Thomas - face the realities of what is happening and to have the courage to stand up against it.

I am sure that what happened with Cardinal Burke being demoted has meant that he and others have to be a bit more careful. Liberals, in particular, have called for Cardinal Burke to be stripped of being a Cardinal.

That is where Vox and other Catholic bloggers are doing a tremendous job of speaking out when others can't.

On the other hand, I see lay people - like Mark Thomas - as doing a tremendous job for the liberals and advancing their agenda by failing to see what is happening and labeling all traditionalists as vicious attackers of the pope. I would like to see Mark Thomas do the same hatchet job on Kasper and others that he is remarkably silent about ... how about turning the spotlight on the vicious assault on the Church by Kasper and others, Mark?

Jan said...

Yes, Anon 2, you are correct you haven't found anything in your most recent comments because you haven't commented much of late. However, a quick glance at some of your past posts I found the following, which are hardly charitable comments and actually fall into the category of "vicious intent" as you say here: "However, such misunderstanding can perhaps be more benign than where the context is indeed shared and very clear and there is no misunderstanding at all, just a vicious intent behind the communication that is correctly perceived by the recipient."

Who are you to judge? Indeed so, since you seem to be so bad at it.

Please re-read Father’s post about cafeteria Catholics. Now, it seems, I am “slick” because I take my cue from the CCC and defend the teachings in that document – all of them, Gene, not just those I like or find easy to accept.

Well, of course, I said none of those things, did I? You sarcastically project the negative implications into my comment. Does this arguably prove my point perhaps? In any event, I seem to have struck a nerve.

Or, to put it another way in the language you so aptly quote, but so inaptly apply, Gene, should we first be sure that our passionate intensity proceeds from the best in us and not from the worst in us?

By the way, I would respectfully suggest that supporting the new gun law “for no other reason than that it drives libs bonkers” is not an adult reason.

Was there a risk that some people were “Father Cuddy Catholics”? Undoubtedly so. However, I wonder how different this is from the attitudes of some today, including many who comment on this Blog, who hold their spiritual nose when attending a Mass of which they “disapprove” or encountering a priest whose demeanor and personality they find objectionable."

Mark Thomas said...

Jan said..."A woman I know was told yesterday, by a priest, that she should be preparing and getting ready to be a deaconess. She - a former nun - who hates women wearing the mantilla (she took her veil off so may not like a reminder) is over the moon."

Good luck to the lady in question. His Holiness Pope Francis made it clear the other day that Church dogma prohibits women from preaching and presiding at Mass.

Therefore, who plans to "ordain" the lady in question to the diaconate?

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Jan said...

Mark Thomas, who said anything about "ordaining to the diaconate"? The statement from the priest to the lady is just an example of the confusion occurring in the Church because of statements made by Francis off-the-cuff or otherwise.

Mark Thomas said...

Jan said..."I have finally read what Mark Thomas claims to be "a vicious attack" on Cardinal Burke and others by the Remnant. It is a hard hitting article, sure, but hardly a "a vicious attack"."

https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/2484-amoris-laetitia-foolish-bishops-and-bishops-playing-us-for-fools

I see. Jan, The Remnant's article in question is not vicious. Well, let us examine again what The Remnant said of bishops who refuse to condemn His Holiness Pope Francis.

1. Bishops are "playing us for fools".

2. Bishops "play dumb" in regard to Amoris Laetitia's supposed heresies.

3. "This act is fooling nobody (except the wilfully blind Neo-Caths)."

4, Bishops who refuse to join the "resistance" against Pope Francis will turn into apostates.

5. Bishops who refuse to march in lockstep with The Remnant's attacks against Pope Francis live "in an alternative reality".

6. Bishops who do not please The Remnant live in "conservative escapist reality".

Jan, none of the above is defined by you as "vicious". Correct?

In short, The Remnant accused Cardinal Burke, Bishop Schneider, Archbishop Chaput, Cardinal DiNardo, and Archbishop Cordileone by name, and all bishops who refuse to accept The Remnant's declarations on Pope Francis and Amoris Laetitia as frauds who "play us for fools".

Jan, that is not vicious in your opinion? Okay. You don't believe so. So be it.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Jan said...

Well, Fr Kavanaugh, it is obvious that you don't read Anon 2's posts. The exchanges in the following post are among his most sarcastic and he is at his uncharitable best.

Sarcasm of course is noted as the lowest form of wit but it can be seen from many of Anon 2's post that he is an exemplar of sarcasm and needling, far from maintaining an even keel at all. I suppose the fact that he is a supporter of much of your liberal perspective may cause you to see his comments in a different light than others do:

http://southernorderspage.blogspot.co.nz/2016/01/i-wonder-if-cdw-reads-my-blog-because.html

Jan said...

As I said Mark Thomas, hard hitting but hardly vicious as I read the definition of vicious and I think your quotes prove that:

vicious adjective
adjective: vicious

1. deliberately cruel or violent. "a vicious assault"
synonyms: brutal, ferocious, savage, violent, dangerous, ruthless, remorseless, merciless, heartless, callous, cruel, harsh, cold-blooded, inhuman, fierce, barbarous, barbaric, brutish, bestial, bloodthirsty, bloody, fiendish, sadistic, monstrous, villainous, murderous, homicidal, heinous, atrocious, diabolical, terrible, dreadful, awful, grim."

Mark, I think you tend to take liberty with language.

Whether the Remnant should have written what they did is another thing but I think you need to be less "over the top" with your language and certainly you shouldn't be lumping all traditionalists into that context which you constantly do. On the one hand you uphold the SSPX but I believe the editor etc are tied in with the SSPX - I stand to be corrected on that.

I see many of your posts as an attack on Traditionalists - and when you used those comments then it becomes a vicious attack on Traditionalists, the majority of whom do not subscribe or read the Remnant.

Marc said...

The Remnant is an incredibly well-established traditionalist newspaper in America. They are not affiliated with the SSPX, and they state overtly that they do not assist at SSPX chapels for Mass regularly. They featured articles from Abp. Lefebvre during his lifetime, and they have been reprinting some of the recently as his warnings now appear rather prophetic.

Jan, I think you are drastically underestimating The Remnant's importance in the American traditionalist movement. But, I understand you don't live in America, so it makes sense that this publication wouldn't be on your radar.

As for Mark Thomas, he posts on numerous sites all over the internet -- he's somewhat well-known for his style of writing and content. I find his posts to be rather bizarre, frankly. So I don't think it is really worthwhile to try to debate him on the specifics of what he writes.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Jan - I do read Anonymous 2's posts. Yes, they are sarcastic at times, but now you're changing the charge you laid against him.

You said, and I quote, "...you, Mark Thomas, Anonymous 2, have been among the worst offenders for being less than charitable towards your traditional brothers and sisters...

It seems that you find anyone who disagrees with you, points out your errors, or challenges you way of thinking is viscous and uncharitable.

You will undoubtedly find this post vicious and uncharitable, too. But that perception isn't anywhere close to reality.

As for anything The Remnant publishes - it is trash. No, that's not vicious or uncharitable. It is simply a comment on the Remnant's raison d'être.

Anonymous 2 said...

Jan:

Thank you for your response and for referencing various previous comments of mine.

I said that I had reviewed my posts during the last several months. In fact, I reviewed 99 double-spaced pages of posts since December 2015. These are in a separate file. I did not review posts before that time, which are in another file. The comments you reference in your post of 8:26 p.m. are all before that time. This said, they are all, with only one exception (the last comment in which I was defending the memory of Father Cuddy), responses to Gene. Similarly, many of my posts in the thread you reference at 9:37 p.m. are responses to Gene.

I concede that I have frequently responded to Gene in a forceful manner, including the appropriate use of sarcasm. As followers of this Blog will know, many, probably most, of Gene’s comments are gratuitously sarcastic, belittling, and/or ad hominem attacks on Father Kavanaugh, me, and anyone else who provokes his ire or whom he deems otherwise deserving of “the treatment.” I submit to you that these exchanges are sui generis. The only way to deal with a bully is to stand up to him, in this case verbally.

I invite all readers who wish to take the time to do so to google my comments, to read them in context, and to make their own judgments about whether they are uncharitable or otherwise fall short of the standards we should expect of ourselves as Catholic bloggers. I do not want to fall below these standards. But please remember that, as Father Kavanaugh says, to disagree, point out what one believes to be errors, or to challenge a way of thinking is not uncharitable. Father Kavanaugh does this himself and his comments, I think you will agree, are invariably very informative and illuminating models of clear thinking. What would you have us do? Be silent?

All this said, you are correct that I have not commented much in the most recent couple of months or so. This is partly due to the press of work. But it is also partly because it is not good for me psychologically or spiritually to expose myself to the kind of comments that now so often appear here. I hope you see what is happening to us. There is often such divisiveness and anger that erstwhile followers are now even turning on Father McDonald.

Once again I urge everyone to read the article I linked in an earlier comment on this thread regarding the respect and reverence that are due to our Lord’s ordained ministers (including St. Francis and St. Catherine of Siena’s views on the matter). Here it is again:

http://ccgaction.org/respectpriestsandbishops

Mark Thomas said...

Marc said..."As for Mark Thomas, he posts on numerous sites all over the internet -- he's somewhat well-known for his style of writing and content. I find his posts to be rather bizarre, frankly. So I don't think it is really worthwhile to try to debate him on the specifics of what he writes."

Marc, I post to Father McDonald's blog and Vox Cantoris' blog. That is the extent of my posting to blogs. If that constitutes "numerous sites all over the internet," then you and I have a different understanding of the phrase in question.

As to my posts being "bizarre"...you are free to say that. That is fine with me. If my posts are garbage, well...that's the way it goes. I know for sure that I'm a lousy writer. I thank Father McDonald and Vox for tolerating me and my garbage posts on their respective blogs.

As to it not being worthwhile to debate me...that's good news for me as I'm not very intelligent and certainly not skilled in debate. I am just a nobody who loves Holy Mother Church and, in my poor, unintelligent way, enjoys reading and discussing (in my limited way) Her.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Jan said...

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh, you said "Anonymous 2 has never been anything but civil. He is the one person here who can be counted on to maintain an even keel and, by his example, to call us back to respectful posting". What I have posted shows that Anonymous 2, with his needling and sarcasm, can hardly be said to be maintaining an even keel. So what you stated is incorrect.

Jan said...

Anonymous 2, whether it is Gene or not, your comments are read by others and they can incite them to respond in kind, so you are not squeaky clean at all which is solely what I wished to point out. In saying that, the vast majority of people commenting on blogs can offend others in the heat of posting - unfortunately that seems to be part of the cut and thrust of blogs and we know that Fr McDonald does weed out the vast majority of those seriously offending.

Jan said...

Marc, I know a couple of people here who get the Remnant and I have read a little of the history of the Matt brothers but thought they were allied to the SSPX, so thank you for the clarification.

I re-read the article that Mark Thomas complained about and have responded because I think he has unfairly labelled the Remnant and taken the comments out of context. Reading the entire article I can certainly see why the Remnant are questioning the comments of the bishops, even Cardinal Burke. To summarise what the Conservative bishops are saying is that the Pope has no authority to change doctrine and therefore, despite what is said in AL, there is no change. The Remnant would obviously like them to be speak out more clearly. However, I do think that under the present "regime" at the Vatican the Conservative bishops and cardinals have to be careful. After all, we will need to have some conservative cardinals still able to vote at the next conclave and I believe Cardinal Burke is under threat as it is.

Therefore, it is incumbent on the laity - as Bishop Schneider points out - to stand up for the truth. Vox and One Peter Five, Rorate Caeli, the Remnant and others are doing just that. Thanks be to God that not everyone is too complacent as many of the laity seem to be. It is absolutely the state of the Emperor has no clothes that no one will admit to, or the slow boiling up of the frog so that when the frog realises her is being boiled alive it is already too late.

Whatever happens, remaining silent and doing nothing is enabling the quicker demise of the Novus Ordo Mass and the sacraments. I am utterly astounded how where I live in the space of a year things have dramatically changed. During that time all priests from overseas have been sent home to their dioceses with the consequence that parishes have been amalgamated, Masses reduced and confessions reduced and in many parishes now only available on request. Many parishes are now being run by pastoral workers - all women - the future deaconesses I imagine - whether ordained or not.

Anonymous 2 said...

Jan:

Okay, let’s take the first two comments of mine you reference in the list at 8:26 p.m. yesterday evening as an illustration. Here is the entirety of the relevant exchange with Gene for context (a context that is missing from your list). This exchange is on Father McDonald’s thread “This Is Scary Stuff” of August 3, 2014, about a Satanic “black Mass”. Please note that I am omitting intervening comments from others that are not germane to this exchange. Also, Ignotus is Father Kavanaugh:

Anonymous 2 -- This would seem to be a good occasion for some ecumenical and inter-faith cooperation.

Gene -- Yes, Anon 2, I think we should reach out to the Satan worshippers…after all, who are we to judge.

Anonymous 2 -- Gene: I assume you are making a joke and that you know that is not what I meant. But just in case I have been misunderstood – Satanists are a common enemy of all Christian denominations and all three of the monotheistic religions. It seems like a good occasion and a good cause on which to join forces with one another.

Gene -- Anon 2, so are Muslims, progressives, and Leftists. You don't seem to have the same problem with them, in fact, you have defended them on this blog. But, again, who am I to judge…right? Oh, and there is only one, true monotheistic tradition and that is the Judaeo-Christian one.

Anonymous 2 – Gene, You are absolutely correct – I do not have the same problem with mainstream Muslims, progressives, and Leftists as I do with Satanists.

Who are you to judge? Indeed so, since you seem to be so bad at it. Thus you say I have “defended” these other groups. However you want to label what I have said, please show me one place (just one, that’s all, so it should not be difficult) where I have said anything contrary to the teaching of the Church. I am confident you will be unable to. Can you be as confident about what you have said?

Gene -- Anon 2, I've never said that you said anything contrary to the teachings of the Church. You and Ignotus are both too slick for that.

Anonymous 2 -- Gene, Please re-read Father’s post about cafeteria Catholics. Now, it seems, I am “slick” because I take my cue from the CCC and defend the teachings in that document – all of them, Gene, not just those I like or find easy to accept.

Please explain to me how I have responded inappropriately or uncivilly to Gene in this exchange when my comments are put in their proper context (including Gene’s frequent rejection of certain teachings set out in the CCC). More to the point, please instruct me what I should have said differently. I am open to correction and instruction.




Anonymous 2 said...

I sent this yesterday evening but it seems not to have made it through the cyber-gauntlet and so I am sending it again this morning:

Jan:

Okay, let’s take the first two comments of mine you reference in the list at 8:26 p.m. yesterday evening as an illustration. Here is the entirety of the relevant exchange with Gene for context (a context that is missing from your list). This exchange is on Father McDonald’s thread “This Is Scary Stuff” of August 3, 2014, about a Satanic “black Mass”. Please note that I am omitting intervening comments from others that are not germane to this exchange. Also, Ignotus is Father Kavanaugh:

Anonymous 2 -- This would seem to be a good occasion for some ecumenical and inter-faith cooperation.

Gene -- Yes, Anon 2, I think we should reach out to the Satan worshippers…after all, who are we to judge.

Anonymous 2 -- Gene: I assume you are making a joke and that you know that is not what I meant. But just in case I have been misunderstood – Satanists are a common enemy of all Christian denominations and all three of the monotheistic religions. It seems like a good occasion and a good cause on which to join forces with one another.

Gene -- Anon 2, so are Muslims, progressives, and Leftists. You don't seem to have the same problem with them, in fact, you have defended them on this blog. But, again, who am I to judge…right? Oh, and there is only one, true monotheistic tradition and that is the Judaeo-Christian one.

Anonymous 2 – Gene, You are absolutely correct – I do not have the same problem with mainstream Muslims, progressives, and Leftists as I do with Satanists.

Who are you to judge? Indeed so, since you seem to be so bad at it. Thus you say I have “defended” these other groups. However you want to label what I have said, please show me one place (just one, that’s all, so it should not be difficult) where I have said anything contrary to the teaching of the Church. I am confident you will be unable to. Can you be as confident about what you have said?

Gene -- Anon 2, I've never said that you said anything contrary to the teachings of the Church. You and Ignotus are both too slick for that.

Anonymous 2 -- Gene, Please re-read Father’s post about cafeteria Catholics. Now, it seems, I am “slick” because I take my cue from the CCC and defend the teachings in that document – all of them, Gene, not just those I like or find easy to accept.

Please explain to me how I have responded inappropriately or uncivilly to Gene in this exchange when my comments are put in their proper context (including Gene’s frequent rejection of certain teachings set out in the CCC). More to the point, please instruct me what I should have said differently. I am open to correction and instruction.



:









Jan said...

Anonymous 2, good that you put in the context. I am not surprised that Gene commented as he did because your comment was ambiguous and could be interpreted that you were wanting to dialogue with satanists. But my point was that, while you point the finger at others, you yourself have been less than charitable to traditionalists which the comments you have made - taken in context or out of context - confirm.

"Who are you to judge? Indeed so, since you seem to be so bad at it" - sarcasm

"Please re-read Father’s post about cafeteria Catholics. Now, it seems, I am “slick” because I take my cue from the CCC and defend the teachings in that document – all of them, Gene, not just those I like or find easy to accept" - implying that Gene is a Cafeteria Catholic and doesn't accept certain teachings of the Church.

Sorry, but I think those comments are offensive to any Catholic and, to be honest, I don't think Gene's comments justify the responses you gave. His one fault seems to be quoting Francis "Who am I to judge?"

Anonymous 2 said...

Jan,

Thank you for trying to instruct me as I requested but I am still having a problem seeing how I responded inappropriately to Gene. Please notice the dynamics of the exchange.

First, there was a broader context for Gene’s opening sarcastic comment. It is an immediately prior sarcastic and very characteristic comment about Blacks that is part of another exchange. Here it is:

Gene -- RCG, I don't know, he has a point about it being a toss up as to which would upset most Bishops more...the Black Mass or the Tridentine. Unless, of course, by Black Mass one meant a Mass exclusively for Blacks, complete with Rap music, dancing up the aisle, and stoles with African flag colors...then it would be just fine.

In this even broader context, isn’t it rather clear that Gene is deliberately interpreting words to give them a meaning other than the intended one?

Second, even if you are correct and Gene genuinely misunderstood my comment about ecumenical and inter-faith cooperation, I replied courteously and clarified my meaning -- without any sarcasm or other criticism please note – and then was gratuitously attacked for it, with sarcasm. Both of my “sarcastic” comments, then, are defensive, made in response to unprovoked ad hominem attacks on me.

Perhaps you would say that I am guilty of being less than charitable in this because I should “turn the other cheek” and simply take Gene’s continual abuse (which extends over several years by the way) without response. Perhaps I should, but if so I think it is for a priest to tell me this. Anyway, if I did so, Gene would immediately accuse me of “not having a pair” of you know what, as he has done before. =)

Jan, you know your thesis is in trouble when it involves defending Gene. =)

This said, I have had a handful of very enlightening and very civil exchanges with Gene’s better self on the blog as well.

In any event, all this is really not about me at all, is it, but about you justifying the disrespect shown by many so-called “traditionalists” towards our Lord’s ordained ministers, including Pope Francis, who you yourself have accused on another thread of being a liar.

Gene said...

How in there Hell did I get dragged into this thread? I haven't even posted in it. But, since I am here. I stand by all my comments, sarcastic and otherwise. I am a believer in the Articles of the Creed and the words of our Lord and Savior. I believe we should be matter of fact about our belief and have no patience with the kind of dissembling, double speak, and intellectual/theological dishonesty of the likes of Kavanaugh and Anon 2. I will continue to ridicule, scorn, and disagree with them just as I would with any of the other enemies of the Faith.

Jan said...

Sorry, Gene, Anon 2 has dragged you in to try to justify his comments. My point is that he is quite capable of sarcasm and needling people, so not at all squeaky clean although he and Fr Kavanaugh try to take the high ground and point the finger of blame at Traditionalists when they themselves do engage in sarcasm, etc, and indeed double speak as you point out.

Jan said...

Anonymous 2 I consider your comments as needling and sarcastic. For example, you state, "including Pope Francis, who you yourself have accused on another thread of being a liar". I have never called Pope Francis "a liar" and I am sure that you would have quoted what I said if I had. That again is just you needling, as is your usual way of going about on this blog, but what you said probably also falls into the category of dishonest as well as sarcastic and needling, so far from what Fr Kavanaugh describes you as.

Anonymous 2 said...

Jan:

Perhaps you have forgotten but please look at the thread “Full Text of Papal Interview” dated April 17 in which Pope Francis explains why he brought three Muslim families with him from his visit to the refugee camps in Syria rather than some Christian families: “I didn’t make a religious choice between Christians and Muslims. These three families had their documents in order. There were, for example, two Christian families who didn’t.”

You posted the following comment at 5:28 a.m. on April 18:

“Very convenient that the Christians didn't have their papers in order but the three Muslim families did. How did the Muslim families manage to get documentation and visas to Rome unless they had advance warning of when and where they were going? Totally unbelievable as is not being aware of the footnote. In fact, you would expect the Pope to be aware of the footnote more than he would know of the situation as regards the papers of families picked "randomly" from thousands of refugees ... only the absolutely gullible would believe what we're being fed by the Vatican these days.

If we were to go back over the last three years and revisit the interviews to the atheist and other things where we're been told over and over again that the Pope has been misinterpreted etc, taken out of context and so on, it is absolutely appalling. Not one word do I believe. In my wildest dreams I never ever imagined as a Catholic I would think that of the Vatican but, having seen pictures of gays kissing in L'osservatore Romano, etc, I don't believe a word of what comes out of there but I don't think we've hit rock bottom yet. There is much more to come and in the end even apologists like Mark Thomas will eventually realise how naive they were ... or reluctant as we all have been in the past to face up to the reality ... unfortunately, it is as it is. There is no misinterpretation or taking out of context.”

Yes, Jan, you accused Pope Francis of being a liar. I will spare you the embarrassment of reproducing the subsequent comments in that thread, including one from me and one from Father McDonald.

Jan, please stop. It seems that your anger, understandable and forgivable though it may be, is getting the better of you. If you continue to attack me in this unjustified manner I will continue to defend myself and I do not want to hurt you any more than I have already.




Gene said...

I seriously doubt if Jan is "hurt" by your comments. Jan is right join the money regarding this Pope. The people who should be embarrassed are those who continue to defend this destructive and divisive Pope.

Jan said...

Anonymous 2, nowhere in that comment do I call the Pope a liar. I certainly don't believe that the Christians didn't have papers but that doesn't mean I am saying the Pope is a liar. What I said, as you kindly posted is: "Not one word do I believe. In my wildest dreams I never ever imagined as a Catholic I would think that of the Vatican but, having seen pictures of gays kissing in L'osservatore Romano, etc, I don't believe a word of what comes out of there".

As Gene says, no, I do not feel hurt by you, whatsoever, because your comments fall under that of being dishonest, so I would say in fact you are hoisted by your own petard.

Jan said...

Roula said she, her brother, 28, and their friend Samir, also 28, had been approached by three volunteers believed to be from Sant’Egidio a few days before Francis arrived.

“They said they would take us to Italy, to pack our bags and to meet them the next day,” she told the Daily Mail. “It was so secretive — they didn’t announce it to anybody and we were told to keep it a secret.”

Samir told the paper he was devastated when he found out they would not be going to Rome after all.

“I was so excited to go to Italy — it was such a relief,” he said. “They offered me my future on a plate, and then 24 hours later they took it away.”

http://nypost.com/2016/04/22/pope-francis-reneges-on-offer-to-take-in-christian-refugees/

Anonymous 2 said...

Jan:


Pope Francis: “I don’t remember the footnote.”

Pope Francis: “I didn’t make a religious choice between Christians and Muslims. These three families had their documents in order. There were, for example, two Christian families who didn’t.”

Jan: “Totally unbelievable as is not being aware of the footnote . . . I don’t believe a word that comes out of [the Vatican].”

If you are not accusing Pope Francis of lying, then please explain what your words mean.

Moreover, in subsequent comments on that thread both Mark Thomas and I suggested that you were accusing Pope Francis of lying and you did not deny it.

Anonymous 2: So now you accuse the Holy Father of lying? You speak of being gullible and naïve. I wish you would bring the same skepticism to some of the mendacious and manipulative videos to which you have posted links on this Blog during the past year – from global warming to Muslim refugees arriving in Europe (admittedly, not all of the videos fell into this category, and some of your posts on these topics have been genuinely informative). I agree we have not reached rock bottom yet but we take another dive with your post today. Sorry, but that is how I feel about it.”

Mark Thomas: Pope Francis said that the plan was to bring three Christian families to Rome. Rome went by the book in following the laws of governments. The three Christian families did not have their paperwork in order. That is that.

I don't have any reason to doubt the Pope's explanation. We are dealing with bureaucrats, immigration laws...we're also dealing with the Vatican. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?”

Jan: I am sorry but I simply don't believe the pat story that there were no Christians or Yazdis in the camp who didn't have papers ready, although happily for them the three Muslim families did. It simply beggars belief.

Mark Thomas: . . . Pope Francis explained in plausible fashion that three Christian families had been selected to return with him to Rome. Unfortunately, the paperwork of each family was not in order. If you wish to see that as a lie...well, I don't...but you do. Sorry, we disagree about that.

Jan: Mark, Christians don't have to be on the plane with the Pope. What is to stop him bringing Christian families or Yadzis to Rome now? Etc.

Jan, you continue to accuse me of dishonesty when much of my posting is an attempt to ensure honesty in the conversation. You do not like being challenged or called out (for example, regarding mendacious and manipulative videos that you propagate further on this blog). As Father Kavanaugh says, it is not uncharitable to challenge errors in a civil manner.


Jan said...


Anonymous 2, it is good that you put up this post because it shows how you actually go about on this blog. You again accuse me of calling Pope Francis a liar. To say that something is unbelievable is not accusing him of lying, as I explained that I don't believe a word that comes out of the Vatican, particularly in the face of reports of the two young Christians who were told that they were to be brought to Rome with the Pope and then dropped like a couple of hot potatoes in face of the agreement reached with the UN. Many Protestants have found this situation deplorable and I am no different from them.

According to you I linked mendacious and manipulative videos, but they are clear and obvious video evidence of Muslims running amok in mobs in France and other places in Europe, destroying vehicles etc. Anyone can find them on the internet, which will prove that they are not mendacious at all as you claim. Many of the reports and videos are carried by reputable news outlets who have reported on the rioting by Muslim groups in Europe. There is undeniable video evidence of some Muslims throwing away good food and kicking water bottles on to train tracks. The concerted sex attacks on women in Germany at New Year. Also reported are the disgusting cases involving thousands of young girls in Britain groomed for sex by Muslims gangs and widely reported - nothing mendacious there. The simple fact of the matter is that you will not face the facts that even a simple man can see for himself. It is no wonder that Trump is likely to be the next President of the US because people have evidence of what mass immigration of Muslims has done to Europe, to Germany, France and the UK in particular.

But I digress to get back to the point: when you accuse me of calling Pope Francis a liar and putting up mendacious videos, when the evidence is to the contrary, this makes you dishonest but above all putting up the above posts proves beyond all doubt the point I have made that you do not maintain an even keel on this blog as claimed by Fr Kavanaugh.

Jan said...

Just for clarity I put up my full comments so that people can see for themselves that you saying I am calling the Pope a liar is a dishonest interpretation of what I said:

"Very convenient that the Christians didn't have their papers in order but the three Muslim families did. How did the Muslim families manage to get documentation and visas to Rome unless they had advance warning of when and where they were going? Totally unbelievable as is not being aware of the footnote. In fact, you would expect the Pope to be aware of the footnote more than he would know of the situation as regards the papers of families picked "randomly" from thousands of refugees ... only the absolutely gullible would believe what we're being fed by the Vatican these days. ...

Anonymous 2 said... Jan: So now you accuse the Holy Father of lying? You speak of being gullible and naïve. I wish you would bring the same skepticism to some of the mendacious and manipulative videos to which you have posted links on this Blog during the past year "


Also others commented before me but you didn't take issue with them. This is what they said:

"AND.......HE CAN'T RECALL THE FOOTNOTE! Does anyone believe that is a true statement? Really? The whole world is talking about that footnote and he can't recall it."

"the "I don't remember the footnote" statement is about as credible as when Bishop Niederauer, Nancy Pelosi's bishop, in response to a question, stated that he really didn't know her position on abortion since he hadn't discussed it with her. Is he really so insulated that he doesn't know that that footnote has set off a firestorm?"

"Perhaps this is a bad translation, or perhaps the Holy Father just misspoke. But if he truly could not remember the famous/infamous footnote in question, then we're in serious trouble. In that case, this is no time for division among serious Catholics. We need to batten down the hatches and pray for divine intervention.

I'm now moving beyond patient confusion to full-blown bewilderment."

"Thanks for your clarification. I wish that I could give him the benefit of the doubt. But the pattern of behavior--the modernists' in general as well as Francis's in particular--make it very difficult for me to do so."

So this shows that not only are you dishonest but also you go after certain people on this blog just to needle them while ignoring the comments of others. Does that mean you also fall into the category of a troll?

Anonymous 2 said...

Jan:

Regarding what you did or did not accuse Pope Francis of, I have set out the evidence in my previous posts on this thread. Readers can reach their own judgments about what the language you use means. And if it is indeed the case that you did not intend to accuse Pope Francis of lying, perhaps you need to be more careful about what you write.

Similarly, perhaps you need to be more careful about links that you post, so that you are not duped by mendacious and manipulative videos or other material. I am not going to re-litigate the videos with you. Instead I refer you and others to the thread “Thank God I am not like these priests Pope Francis is judging! Yes, the pope of who am I to judge who in fact judges constantly which is so Italian, to deny, project and do it! But I digress” dated September 10, 2015, and in particular to our exchange beginning with your post of 9:51 p.m. on September 13, in which I set out the relevant evidence. Again, readers can reach their own judgments after examining this evidence.

Moreover, after reading our exchanges both on this thread and on that thread readers can also reach their own judgments about “how [I] actually go about on this blog” and can compare it with how you, Gene, and some others "actually go about on this blog."

As for Trump, given the abysmal debasement of our political conversation that he both exemplifies and further encourages – a debasement that is regrettably also found all too often on this blog and that I quixotically try to combat – I too will not be surprised if he becomes the next President of the United States. As the well-known saying goes, each people gets the government it deserves.


Anonymous 2 said...

P.S. Here is a link for the thread I reference in my previous post:

http://southernorderspage.blogspot.com/2015/09/thank-god-i-am-not-like-these-priest.html

Anonymous 2 said...

Jan:

The fact that others before you on the thread accused Pope Francis of lying provides a context that makes it even more understandable that a reader would read your words as also accusing Pope Francis of lying and as simply jumping on the same bandwagon.

I responded to you and not the others for two main reasons. First, I have a history with you to which I allude in my comment. Second, your own sweeping allegations go way beyond what anyone else had said. They focused solely on the footnote. You refused to believe not only the Pope’s statement regarding the footnote. You also refused to believe any of the explanations and clarifications of the Pope’s statements that have come out of the Vatican over the previous three years. In other words, you seem to be saying that these are_all_lies.

Jan said...

Anonymous 2, yes, people can read the posts for themselves and see how you twist things, needle and are patently dishonest. Everything you post highlights your style -

"Anonymous 2 to Calvin of Hippo: You continue to slander and vilify anyone who dares to question your distorted and extreme view of the world."

"Anyway, since you evidently do not care for bathos, perhaps you would prefer sarcasm. So, here is an alternative"

"No apologies for being male here. We just have a somewhat different idea of what being male means. In my view Jesus Christ was the model male. Funny, but I don’t recall Him getting into a bar fight, or maybe the Gospel writers just left that bit out. Hey, that gives me an idea. Why don’t you write a Gospel According to Gene?"




So, once again, Anonymous 2, all of this shows that you make ad hominem attacks instead of sticking to the point of what is being discussed and certainly shows that where you are concerned Fr Kavanaugh got it so wrong.

Jan said...

Anonymous 2, as you got us on to this topic as regards Islamic terrorism. Although you continue to downplay videos of Muslims rioting in Europe etc, people can see these videos for themselves and decide if they want that sort of thing in the US. All you have to do is put Google "Rioting Muslims" and click on videos and voila there you have it so many to pick and choose from ...

I link just a couple for you to look at from the Daily Mail and Telegraph so you and others know what is going on in the UK and Europe:


"Up to 100 demonstrators who ‘wreaked havoc’ in a Tesco store and attacked police officers in an apparent protest against its stocking of Israeli food are being sought by police."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2726831/Police-officers-attacked-stock-thrown-Gaza-protestors-wreak-havoc-Tesco-store.html#ixzz493lkQJyg
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



"Man dressed in Muslim clothes chases four young teenagers and shoots one in London Cul-de-sac"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3498580/Shooting-suburbia-Chilling-moment-gunman-dressed-Muslim-robes-opens-fire-teenager-broad-daylight-north-London-cul-sac.html


Muslim kills man on train in Germany attacks four others with knife.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/10/one-man-dead-after-attacker-heard-shouting-allahu-akbar-knifes-m/



Last but not least:


A newsreader interrupted her own broadcast to urge fellow Muslims to feel 'shame' over terrorist atrocities like the Brussels and Paris attacks.

One very brave Muslim woman - Nadine Al-Budair has said that it's time that people stopped saying that the terrorist acts committed by terrorists does not represent Islam:

"Nadine Al-Budair made a three-minute speech during a show on a Saudi Arabian news channel where she told her fellow Muslims to stop 'shredding their conscience'.

The broadcaster begged Muslims to take responsibility for the terrorists in their midst instead of suggesting that they were simply a 'rarity'.

'We must admit that they are present everywhere, that their nationality is Arab and that they adhere to the religion of Islam. 'We must acknowledge that we are the ones who gave birth to them.'

Previously Al-Budair has critcised Muslims in her column for a Kuwaiti newspaper, telling them to stop blaming the West for their problems, writes the Mirror.

She wrote: 'It is strange that we condemn instead of apologising to the world.
'It is strange that we condemn instead of addressing what is happening in our midst.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3530463/Newsreader-interrupts-broadcast-urge-fellow-Muslims-feel-shame-stop-shedding-conscience-terrorist-atrocities.html#ixzz493rBpa00

Jan said...

Also, Anonymous 2 others on the thread did not accuse the Pope of lying. They said they found his statement that he couldn't remember the footnote as not believable, and they are entitled to make that statement as AL was supposedly written by Francis himself of which the footnote forms a part and so the ordinary man would expect Francis to know what he put into the document.

There are many statements that people make that are unbelievable but it may be that the person isn't lying and that they have genuinely forgotten or didn't know about something. Therefore, you can find a statement unbelievable and say so but, at the same time, not know if the person was lying or not. So when you say that I and others accused the Pope of being a liar you are simply being dishonest and this is the last thing I am going to say on the matter ...

Anonymous 2 said...

Jan:

You are exhausting. But I am trying to be very patient. So, let me try once again.

If the Pope says “I don’t remember the footnote” and someone else then says “AND HE CAN’T RECALL THE FOOTNOTE? Does anyone believe that is a true statement” or “The ‘I don’t remember the footnote statement’ is about as credible as when . . ,” they cannot be understood to be saying that the Pope has genuinely forgotten the statement or doesn’t know about something. The ordinary meaning of their words is that they do not believe the Pope because they think he can indeed recall the footnote. In other words, they are saying that they think he is not telling the truth about what he remembers, that he is lying. Now, they do not actually use the words “I think the Pope is lying” but that is what the words they do use ordinarily mean. I am sorry if you still don’t agree. We can continue to disagree until the cows come home and at the end of the day readers can decide for themselves what they think the words mean.

Regarding my other comments you post at 10:21 a.m., they are all responses to Gene. I have already addressed my exchanges with him. Please see my posts of 2:30 p.m. and 9:21 p.m. on May 16 and 2:41 p.m. on May 17 above, where I say everything that I need to say on this matter.

Regarding the videos and other material, I have never denied that there are genuine problems with Muslims Europe or that there may be genuine videos or reports about those problems. Indeed, the existence of problems in our relationship with Muslims is the very premise behind my responses to you. It is why I challenge you when you post mendacious and manipulative material (please understand, I am not accusing you of being mendacious and manipulative yourself, just that you are being manipulated). In my view posting such material does not help address the problems; it just makes them worse. I will try to look at the new links you provide here. But even if they are genuine reports that can be taken at face value, it would not change my assessment of the previous videos you posted.

Jan, I really am trying to be charitable towards you and to give you the benefit of the doubt. But I have to begin to wonder what is going on with you. As I said before, please stop.

Jan said...

Poor Anonymous 2 hung by his own petard ...

Anonymous 2 said...

O day and night, but this is wondrous strange!

Gene said...

There are more things in Heaven and earth, Anon 2, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Anonymous 2 said...

Though this be madness, yet there is method in’t.

Gene said...

"...They have a plentiful lack of wit, together with most weak hams..."

Gene said...

"Now cracks a noble heart. Goodnight, Sweet Prince. Flights of angels sing the to thy rest."

Anonymous 2 said...

Words, words, words . . . and the rest is silence.

Well, one of us had to say it. =)

Gene said...

Good...now let's do Lear.

Jan said...

As far as Anon 2 is concerned, I can't say that "parting is such sweet sorrow" ...

And Gene, as far as you're concerned, from his comments Anon 2's theme song could well be "I've got you under my skin" ...

"I've got you under my skin
I've got you deep in the heart of me
So deep in my heart that you're really a part of me
I've got you under my skin" ...

Gene said...

Jan, Indeed so. Anon 2 and I have a strangely symbiotic relationship. But, we occasionally are on the same wave length with literary stuff, etc.

Anonymous 2 said...

We are all much more complicated than the caricatures conveyed by our blog personae. Indeed, adapting another line from the Bard to the present purpose, “We are such stuff as dreams are made on.”

Anonymous 2 said...

I suspect that Gene and I could get along quite well if we had the chance. But unfortunately, and I think to our mutual loss, he has declined my invitation to meet or even to say hello, presumably because one does not fraternize with those one regards as “the enemy.”



Anonymous 2 said...

I suspect that Gene and I could get along quite well if we had the chance. But unfortunately, and I think to our mutual loss, he has declined my invitation to meet or even to say hello, presumably because one does not fraternize with those one regards as “the enemy.”

Here is a Shakespearean joke for you (from Macbeth):

“Out, damned Spot! Out, I say! And take Buster with you too.”



Anonymous 2 said...

One further thought -- The Sinatra lyrics are interesting. Adapting them also to the present purpose, contrary to the individualistic assumptions of our age (hyper-individualistic assumptions over here), don’t our interdependence and interaction mean that we help shape, indeed co-constitute, each other's identities?

Gene said...

"I am a part of all that I have met...send not to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

Nathalie Uy said...

Breathe it all in, Love it all out. May you have a good day, and keep on sharing good thoughts :)
imarksweb.net
imarksweb.net