Well! I received a telephone call from, just guess! MARK THOMAS! He uses that as an alias but lives in Texas and his real name initials are SO!
He wanted to clear Father MJK’s good name and veracity which he did. He is taking time away from his blog.
He apologizes for the confusion! He asks for prayers for a 19 year old family member just diagnosed with the Delta variant of Covid 19 and other members close to her.
Now if only UK priest would call me from Buckingham Palace to further clear Father MJK’s veracity.
So "he" apologizes for the confusion...?
Seems there's a pretty big IF and really, really big BUT in this post.
Are the "initials" "SO" derived from Southern Orders? Is "SO/Mark Thomas" really a person, or is "he" like the photo that comes with the picture frame? Reflecting on "his" posts, of which there are many, I've often wondered if this is really a person sharing their thoughts, or, someone trolling this blog just to get a rise out of those that post here. I just found any/all difficult to take seriously as the tone/style always seemed so over the top contrived. I'm going to be the doubting Thomas here.
A very sinceee man who is appreciative of being able to contribute comments.
What caused confusion was not 'Mark Thomas', who posted using a consistent nom de plume, but the slew of 'Anonymous' commentators (I don't count 'Anonymous 2' which is an acceptable pseudonym) and one individual who posted either under 'Anonymous' or under a pseudonym which he changed at least as often as he changed his socks, but whose style and content was (sadly) consistent. You don't have to be Hercule Poirot to attribute correctly such comments.
'UK-priest' was never going to be Fr MJK a) because this pseudonym was used consistently, b) because the writing style was not that of the aforementioned, and c) because Fr MJK explicitly denied that it was he, something he never did regarding his other myriad monikers. Apart from occasionally, and probably unwittingly, 'outing' himself, the very use of increasingly silly 'handles' amounted to a 'fingerprint'. Was this perhaps the intention?
While the accusations against FrMJK turned out to be proven false during the mock trial here with its drama, as it concerns him being Mark Thomas with the surprise witness, Mark Thomas himself calling me, the accusations were a logical result of the other increasingly silly names and comments the priest in question used.
John - No, the confusion wasn't from someone using "myriad monikers."
In fact, there was no confusion at all. There was self-inflicted and completely unnecessary consternation that resulted from certain people being unable and/or unwilling to address ideas and concepts rather than individuals.
Fr. ALLAN McDonald refers to "THE accusations" when, in fact, they were HIS accusations. He made a claim with nothing - nothing - to base it on other than his own silliness. Now he wants to dress it up as "drama," hoping no one will remember that it was a tempest of his own making.
Maybe UK Priest will resurface, maybe he won't. If he does, I'm sure Fr. ALLAN McDonald will find a way to make it sound as if UK Priest were to blame for the imaginary "confusion" as he has done for Mark Thomas.
Why are “ifs” and “buts,” plural nouns yet written as possessives? Surely this was covered in elementary school.
JED, are you FRMJK?
Cardinal Burke off ventilator and out of ICU. Thank God!
I don’t know what those letters mean. I am a scold on grammar and so forth because it’s better to channel my aggressions there rather than on something that really matters.
Sophia here: Today the Church Celebrates the Feast Day of Pope St. Pius X, that wise shepherd, whose motto was fittingly, “To restore all things in Christ,” and
who sought to protect Holy Mother Church from the errors of Modernism by instituting "The Oath against Modernism" on September 1, 1910. He imposed it on all seminarians before their ordination to the major orders, all professors of philosophy and theology in seminaries and universities, and all confessors, pastors, preachers and religious superiors. This oath was in effect until 2 years after the end of Vatican II, when it was cancelled by Pope Paul VI (who is also a Saint now). What a pity that it was! God knows we could use such an oath today.
Pope St Pius X, please intercede for us!
I guess it is just coincidental that this comment by you and another by FRMJK for another post came in at the exact same time! Coincidence?
Sophia here: Thank you so much Mr. Johnson for this wonderful update on dear Cardinal Burke's
progress. Deo Gratias indeed! This certainly brightens my day!
Pius X was accurate in his assessment of Modernism and in condemning it was acting to protect the Church, as you correctly point out. However, it is difficult to justify the reign of terror which followed, fuelled by paranoia and a refusal to discriminate between real error and legitimate academic freedom. The atmosphere is vividly described by Eamon Duffy ('Saints and Sinners' pp 250-251).
It effectively stifled Catholic theology and intellectual life, imposing a narrow integralism verging on obscurantism; it puts one in mind of 'radical' Islamism, and although its violence was confined to language, many careers were wrecked and a toxic state of fear and suspicion prevailed.
Of the Anti-Modernist Oath, Duffy writes that it 'shattered public confidence in the integrity and freedom of Catholic academic standards'. Another historian, Henry Sire, who is certainly no Modernist, has this to say: 'The results of Pius X's policy were seen in the Second Vatican Council, when two thousand bishops who had solemnly taken the Anti-Modernist Oath at their ordination were unable to recognize Modernism when it jumped up and bit them.'
One of the fundamental reasons, maybe THE fundamental reason, for Pope Francis' most recent Motu Proprio, is the attitude held by some (many ?) "traditionalist" Catholics, that the Bishops of the Second Vatican Council joined the ranks of the Modernist heretics through the documents they approved at the Second Vatican Council.
As Francis wrote, "I am nonetheless saddened that the instrumental use of [the pre-concilar Mass] is often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the "true Church."
Of course Pope Francis can have his MO abrogated including the caricature he describes as TLM goers. It is all too sad.
The irony is that Francis's broad-brush condemnation of those who desired the rehabilitation of the classic Roman Rite is itself largely 'unfounded and unsustainable.' Cardinal Nichols said as much with regard to the archdiocese of Westminster, and even the French hierarchy was positive about those attached to the old Rite.
It appears that TC was written some time ago at the behest of a number of Italian bishops. No surprises there.
I am more concerned with priests like you and your attitude towards Tradition. Not very merciful nor accompanying. And very judgmental
Mark Thomas, Totally understandable. I still get calls about Hoffa and I was only 6 at the time.
LOL. Maybe the caller from Texas was a set up!
Post a Comment