Sunday, August 17, 2014

Karl Rahner Was Right - Part 1: The Changing Face of Catholicism

There is an interesting psychological phenomenon that was identified in 1972 called "Groupthink". Wikipedia [HERE] gives us the definition:
Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints, by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.
Social Psychologist Irving Janis is responsible for identifying groupthink.  Janis gave eight symptoms of groupthink, as follows:
Type I: Over estimations of the group — its power and morality
  • Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
  • Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
Type II: Closed-mindedness
  • Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.
  • Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid.
Type III: Pressures toward uniformity
  • Self-censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
  • Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
  • Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty"
  • Mindguards— self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.
Having been part of the Catholic Traditionalist movement for several years, I saw this type of mindset up close, and was very much a part of it. There is very little independent thinking among Catholic traditionalists.  They are all in total agreement on who and what they consider the main enemies of the Catholic Church to be, which is basically anything and anyone in authority since the end of the Second Vatican Council. They are all in agreement that the Second Vatican Council is the source of all evil, and anyone who supports this Council is an enemy of the True Church.  They are also in total agreement that the only legitimate Mass is the Traditional Latin Mass. The Novus Ordo Mass is a protestant fake which must and will eventually be destroyed.

Karl Rahner and Joseph Ratzinger
at Vatican II
Further, they feel the fathers of the Second Vatican Council were all evil modernists whose real goal was to destroy the Catholic Church. One of these men who stands out front and center is theologian Karl Rahner, a German Jesuit priest who lived from 1904 to 1984.  Father Rahner attended the Second Vatican Council as a Peritus (expert theologian) and was one of the most influential men at the Council.  Many mainstream Catholics (whom Traditionalists refer to as "Neo Catholics") consider Father Rahner to be, arguably, the most important Catholic theologian of the 20th Century. Traditionalists, however, consider him an evil man whose ideas were resolutely anti-Catholic.

The effect of groupthink among Catholic Traditionalists was seen very clearly in a recent blog post by Father John Zuholsdorf.  Father Z linked to an article from Rorate Caeli, a very militant traditional Catholic blog [HERE] and entitled his post, "ACTION ITEM! Must read piece about how wrong Rahner was."

Father Z does not tell us in his post the subject matter of the Rorate piece. All he tells us is this:
At Rorate there is an anonymous piece (how I wish they would use names) which is a fine, concise exposition of a key problem with the thought of the late Jesuit Father Karl Rahner. The piece doesn’t really move the question anywhere or explain why Rahner is wrong. It isn’t an argument, but it is one of the best summaries I have seen.
Father Z then links to a speech given by Pope Benedict XVI supposedly proving how wrong Father Rahner was, but we still don't know the subject matter.

So I went to the Rorate article, which you can read HERE.  The title is, "Rahner's Un-Roman Epoch of the Church."  We are told:
The Canadian television station Salt and Light has decided to use the account of a third epoch in the history of the Church developed by the famous theologian Karl Rahner, S.J. (1904-1984) as a way of describing the current pontificate. As Fr. Thomas Rosica, C.S.B., director of Salt and Light and top English-language officer of the Holy See Press Office, puts it in an interview with America:
I really believe, with the coming of Pope Francis, that this is that third epoch that Karl Rahner talked about in “The Three Great Epochs of the Church.” In our recent Salt and Light documentary on Pope Francis, we start off the whole story with Rahner’s now-epic essay in which he speaks about the three great epochs of church history. (h/t: DJ)
Rorate gives us a link to Father Rahner's essay which is entitled, "Towards A Fundamental Theological Interpretation of Vatican II." You can read this essay HERE, which I highly recommend. In this essay, Father Rahner says the history of the church can be divided into three epochs, or ages. Rorate actually does a fairly good job summarizing the essence of Father Rahner's arguments:
Rahner's idea of three epochs of the Church has antecedents (for example in Joachim of Fiore), but Rahner's version is unique. He sees the first age as having been the very short period of Jewish Christianity before the decision of the Apostle's not to impose circumcision on the gentiles. Rahner argues that the decision not to impose the Jewish law on gentile Christians brings about a radically different form of Christianity, a form appropriate to Graeco-Roman culture. This form, the second epoch of the Church, brought about far reaching changes in moral doctrine, liturgy, etc.
He then argues that with Vatican II, a new age is begins [sic], and that the changes that will have to be worked out for this third age will perhaps be every bit as great as those from the first to the second. In this third age, the Church becomes truly a world Church.
Rorate Caeli most definitely does not agree with this argument. Their chief criticism against Father Rahner is the following:
[Rahner] asks how Christianity will change in other parts of the world if it is not seen as tied to Graeco-Roman-Jewish notions of law, morality, ceremony etc. Will African tribesmen have to accept monagamy, or will their form of Christianity include polygamy? "Must the Eucharist even in Alaska be celebrated with grape wine?" He leaves these questions open, but his idea is that one will have to perform a "reduction or return to the final and fundamental substance" of Christianity in order for it to be then adapted to each culture.
Rorate speaks of a "reduction or return to the final and fundamental substance" of Christianity as if that was a bad thing.  But this is exactly what the Church did in Acts 15 at the Council of Jerusalem.  Up to this point, the Church had a Jewish culture, observing all of the Jewish laws and customs, including circumcision.  Circumcision and obedience to the Law, e.g. observance of the seventh day Sabbath, were the identifying signs of God's covenant with Abraham, and as such, could never be abrogated in the Jewish mind.

However, the Church was now open to Gentiles and the question was raised as to whether Gentiles should be subject to Jewish laws and customs.  St. Peter addressed the Council in verses 6-11:
“Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us.  He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.  Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?  No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
The apostle James gave the answer to this dilemma (verses 19-21):
19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
Circumcision as the sign of a follower of the True God had been abolished. This is what Rahner describes as the end of the first epoch of the church, which he describes as "Jewish Christianity." By eliminating the requirement of circumcision, the Church performed a "reduction or return to the final and fundamental substance of Christianity in order for it to be then adapted" to the Gentile culture. Is there little doubt that had Rorate Caeli been around at that time that the writers of this blog would have soundly condemned these actions by the early Church?

As Rahner explains, this period of Jewish Christianity was followed by "a distinct cultural region, namely that of Hellenism and of European culture and civilization."  Rahner says that this is exactly what is happening now in the church as we go from a period of European Christianity to World Christianity, no longer embracing just one culture but all cultures.

If anyone doubts the truth of just how dramatically changed is the face of Catholicism, here is an excerpt from a 2012 article from American Magazine [HERE] written by Brother Seán D. Sammon, former Superior General of the Marist Brothers:
John L. Allen, Jr., points out that at the beginning of the 20th century the cultural and ethnic profile of the Roman Catholic Church was not significantly different from what it had been about the time of the Council of Trent. Approximately 200 million of the world’s 266 million Catholics lived in Europe and North America; the remaining 66 million, about 25 percent, were scattered across the rest of the planet.
By the end of the 20th century only 300 million of the world’s 1.1 billion Catholics were European and North American, approximately 33 percent. The overwhelming majority, 750 million people, lived in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Baring some unexpected development, by the year 2023, only one Catholic in five will be non-Hispanic Caucasian. This shift in a century is the most rapid and sweeping demographic transformation ever to occur in the long history of the Roman Catholic Church.
There can be no doubt for most of her 2000 years, European culture drove the Church. Our music, our artwork, and even our liturgy are all very European at their roots.  Even the official language of the Church - Latin - is European.  When the Church went out to evangelize the rest of the world, she did so by imposing European culture.  This is what Father Rahner wrote in his essay:
It is, of course, already open to misunderstanding, inasmuch as the Church was always a world Church "in potency" and that potency could only be actualized in the course of an extensive historical process whose origins go back to the beginning of European colonialism and the modern world-mission of the Church in the sixteenth century. Even today that actualization is not yet at its term. 
But one can consider the official activity of the Church in a macroscopic way and see clearly that despite the implied contradiction to its essence, the actual concrete activity of the Church in its relation to the world outside of Europe was in fact (if you will pardon the expression) the activity of an export firm which exported a European religion as a commodity it did not really want to change but sent throughout the world together with the rest of the culture and civilization it considered superior.
Karl Rahner is telling us that for almost two millenia the Church had been Euro-centric, and even when doing missionary work, the Church's message was wrapped in its "superior" European culture. And Holy Mother Church made it clear that when it came to liturgy and other Church traditions, she expected people to reject their own cultures and conform to "superior" Europe.

Father Rahner goes on to explain that the Second Vatican Council was the first Church council that was not based solely on western culture but truly world-wide:
For the first time a world-wide Council with a world-wide episcopate came into existence and functioned independently. In point of fact, the importance of the non-western part of the total episcopate may still have been relatively modest. The repercussions of the conciliar process on the extraconciliar life of the Church may still be very limited, as the subsequent synods of bishops in Rome show. But this does not alter the fact that at the Council a Church appeared and became active that was no longer the Church of the West with its American spheres of influence and its export to Asia and Africa. Under the appearance of an obvious and gradual development, something like a qualitative leap took place here, even though this world Church's new essence is masked to a considerable extent not only potentially but actually by characteristics of the old Western Church.
Others who attended the council corroborate Karl Rahner's view.  One example is Cardinal Franz König, archbishop of Vienna and attendee of Vatican II, who wrote the following:
I will never forget the opening day of the Council. As the relatively young Archbishop of Vienna, I proceeded with two and a half thousand other bishops down the Scala Regio towards the entrance of St Peter’s. As I looked around me I realised for the first time that the Church was a global Church, an impression that has remained indelibly impressed on my mind.
Just looking at the numbers of Vatican II compared with other councils tells the story.  The highest number of bishops at the Council of Trent was 255 in 1563.  That was even less than the attendance at the First Council of Nicea, which had 318.  The First Vatican Council in 1870 had 737 bishops at its opening session. In contrast, there were 2600 bishops along with theologians and expert consultants and representatives of other faiths who attended Vatican II.

Bishops at Vatican II
Credit:  americanmagazine.org
Nothing like the Second Vatican Council had ever before been seen in the Church.  As Brother Seán D. Sammon wrote:
Rahner argued that the council initiated by Pope John XXIII was fundamentally different in makeup than any that had occurred before, and surely different than Vatican I where the Asian and African episcopate was made up of missionary bishops of European and North American origin.

At Vatican II, however, these same regions were represented, in the main, by delegates indigenous to Africa and Asia. And they did not come to Rome as uncertain visitors. At Vatican II, we witnessed a gathering of the world’s bishops not as an advisory body for the pope, but rather with him serving as the final teaching and decision-making body in the Catholic Church. For the first time in history, a worldwide council with a truly worldwide episcopate came into existence; one of the oldest globalized institutions in the world was finally taking on a face that matched its complexity and diversity.
Following is a list of continents and countries represented by bishops who attended Vatican II:
  • 1089 bishops from Europe
  • 489 bishops from South America
  • 404 bishops from North America
  • 374 bishops from Asia
  • 296 bishops from Africa
  • 84 bishops from Central America
  • 75 bishops from Oceania, which included Papua New Guinea, The Solomon Islands, New Zealand and Australia
As a further illustration of the changing face of Catholicism, here is a chart from Wikipedia showing the make-up of the 1939 papal conclave which elected Pope Pius XII.  Even though this was on the eve of WWII, all 62 cardinals were present.  As you can see, 55 of the 62 cardinals were European.

PAPAL CONCLAVE, 1939


Absent0
Africa0
Latin America2
North America4
Asia1
Europe55
Oceania0
Italians35
DECEASED POPEPIUS XI (1922–1939)
NEW POPEPIUS XII (1939–1958)

In contrast, here is a chart from Wikipedia showing the make-up of the 2013 papal conclave which elected Pope Francis:

Papal Conclave of 2013[35]

Cardinal-electors by continent
  Italy
28
  Rest of Europe
32
  North America
20
  South America
13
  Africa
11
  Asia
10
  Australasia
1
Total Electors115
According to Wikipedia:
There were 207 cardinals on the day the papacy fell vacant. Cardinals aged 80 years or older before the day the papacy fell vacant are ineligible to participate, leaving 117 electors. Two of them were the first cardinal-electors from their churches to participate in a papal conclave: Maronite Patriarch Bechara Boutros al-Rahi and Syro-Malankara Major-Archbishop Baselios Cleemis, the first bishop from the Syro-Malankara Church to be created cardinal.
It is obvious from these examples that Catholicism outside of Europe is growing dramatically. Out of the 115 cardinal electors in 2013, 60 were from from Europe.  That is only 5 more European cardinals than were present in 1939, but there were 53 more non-European cardinals than in 1939.  Vatican II, inspired by the Holy Spirit, recognized the growing presence of the Church in non-European cultures, which is why this Council is of such great importance.

None other than one of the most respected theologians of the 20th Century, Avery Cardinal Dulles, gave a speech in which he fully supported Karl Rahner.  Cardinal Dulles entitled his speech, "The Emerging World Church:  A Theological Reflection" [HERE].  Again, I would highly recommend that you read this entire essay.  It is not long and well worth the read.

This essay is in complete contradiction to the arguments of Rorate Caeli and Father Z.

From Cardinal Dulles:
The emergence of the world Church . . . marks the end of the period when Catholicism as a whole could be equated with its expression in the forms of Graeco-Roman, Mediterranean, or European culture. We are witnessing the birth of a new multicultural Catholicism in which all the regional churches may be expected to interact, mutually criticizing and enriching one another. 
Further:
Since World War II this Eurocentric Christianity has been in general disrepute. The synthesis has never been very convincing even in Europe, where Orthodox, Protestant, and Catholic Christians disagreed about what kind of culture should be paired with Christian faith. In Asia and Africa the identification of Christianity with European culture has been increasingly perceived as a form of cultural imperialism, and has provoked hostile reactions. Even in the West many Christians today regard the synthesis model, in all the forms here mentioned, as a misguided effort to link Christianity with a dying culture.
. . .
When the Bible, dogmas, sacraments and ecclesiastical structures are branded as culture-bound, the sources of continuity and communion in the Church are weakened. The idea of a visible world Church is undercut, and its place is taken by an invisible fellowship of an elite who have undergone intellectual, moral, and religious conversion within their own cultures and religions. 
Cardinal Dulles further wrote the following, invoking the words of the documents from the Second Vatican Council to prove his point:
Christianity is not exclusively linked to any one culture. According to the gospels, Jesus himself challenged the cultural and racial exclusiveness of the Jewish religious authorities. Paul advanced the process of cultural weaning by insisting that circumcision should not be obligatory for pagan converts to Christianity. Vatican II encapsulates this theme for the contemporary Church:
. . . the Church, sent to all peoples of every time and place, is not bound exclusively and indissolubly to any race or nation, nor to any particular way of life or any customary pattern of living, ancient or recent. Faithful to her own tradition and at the same time conscious of her universal mission, she can enter into communion with various cultural modes, to her own enrichment and theirs too.
Cardinal Dulles also supports Rahner's contentions that Vatican II was the first true world council of the church:
Even though the indigenous hierarchies of Asia and Africa played a relatively minor role in comparison with their European counterparts, the Catholic Church at Vatican II exhibited greater geographic and ethnic inclusiveness than ever before in its history.
Cardinal Dulles further supports Rahner when he says that missionary activity from 1500 to 1900 was Christianity exported in European form:
The novelty of the present situation can be illustrated by contrast with the period from 1500 to 1900, the great epoch of missionary expansion. In that period Christianity, though it was disseminated to all parts of the globe, remained an essentially European phenomenon, exported in European form. Christians of other continents took European names, used European languages in their worship, studied the religious history of the West, and learned their theology from European textbooks.
Since it is quite apparent that the majority of Catholics are no longer a part of the dying European culture but are as varied as the world itself, why are Rorate Caeli, Father Z and the traditionalist mindset in general so resistant to the message that we must move beyond our European identity to a world identity? And how does this affect the celebration of the Mass, which was a product of the European culture that predominated the Church for much of her history?

I will take up these questions in Part 2.

Credit:  www.prb.org

52 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. When I posted this, I said to myself that no one is going to read it. It is too long and uninteresting. I mainly wrote this to clarify the subject in my own mind. So thank you, Jackie, for actually reading tnis and and for your kind comment.

      Delete
  2. The psychology aspect intrigues me. I have experienced some of what you describe - though don't wear a mantilla!

    ReplyDelete
  3. There are big flows in this line of thinking.

    1) A big thing is made of mentioning Bishops from developing nations. Fine. That could be interesting, but not as interesting as knowing that in the early Church most of the Bishops (and Popes) were not European. Many of them were from African and middle eastern countries/areas.

    2) There is confusion of culture with religion (most jewish people do that nowadays).

    3) The downfall of the European culture is one thing. The REPLACING of the Jewish religious practices is something completely different. Having Cardinals from non-European nations is far different from putting an end to circumcision as a religious requirement of a religion that has just rejected God-made-man and whose religious views and practices were inadequate or unnecessary for the New Law.

    4) This type of change would be more on the line of: Should Catholicism accept polygamy in nations where it is allowed culturally? Of course, the answer to this will be no because monogamy is not a cultural thing in the Church of God. It is a moral thing.

    5) I suppose that Latin can be considered European, but frankly, Latin was first used (in the Liturgy) in Africa! Yes, in Africa! It was from Africa that it came to Rome as part of the Liturgy (which used Greek in most parts).

    Finally, having had Psychology as my major in both Undergrad and Grad school, I have to say that Groupthink is available in all human groups, especially liberals and New Order attendees. Liberals are the ones who immediately accuse people of hate and inflexibility if one sticks to Catholic doctrine. They are the ones, at Mass, who want everybody to do the same (join hands, give the sign of peace, clap, receive Communion in the hand, etc.). If one does not do this, one immediately becomes the target of so many negative words and expressions.

    No one is exempt from this type of behavior, and I have experienced and observed it everywhere.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you so much for reading the entire post and this very thorough comment. I know it’s a long post and as I told Jackie, I really didn’t think anyone would actually read it.

      1) Yes, absolutely the early Church was most definitely African and Mid Eastern. But that really has no bearing on the point of my post. The Church absorbed the European culture and made it Catholic at the time of Constantine when he stopped the persecution of the Christians and made Christianity the national religion in the 4th Century.

      .It also cannot be denied that the majority of Catholics are no longer European, as I pointed out in the post:

      “[At the beginning of the 20th Century] approximately 200 million of the world’s 266 million Catholics lived in Europe and North America; the remaining 66 million, about 25 percent, were scattered across the rest of the planet.

      By the end of the 20th century only 300 million of the world’s 1.1 billion Catholics were European and North American, approximately 33 percent. The overwhelming majority, 750 million people, lived in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Baring some unexpected development, by the year 2023, only one Catholic in five will be non-Hispanic Caucasian.”

      2) I’m not sure what your point is with this statement.

      3) This is far more than the downfall of the European culture. We are facing the same circumstances as the early Church when Gentiles were accepted. The Church had to recognize it was not Jewish and change its culture.

      As the Second Vatican Council said:(quoted by Cardinal Dulles):
      “. . . the Church, sent to all peoples of every time and place, is not bound exclusively and indissolubly to any race or nation, nor to any particular way of life or any customary pattern of living, ancient or recent. Faithful to her own tradition and at the same time conscious of her universal mission, she can enter into communion with various cultural modes, to her own enrichment and theirs too.”

      4) Of course the Church cannot accept inherently sinful practices. But the fact is that we must deal with cultures that do not see practices such as polygamy as sinful. I think Our Lady of Guadalupe, who changed the entire Aztec culture, completely stopping human sacrifice, is a major lesson on how to deal with these things, which I will explore in my next post.

      5) No matter its origin, Latin is European. It was the language of the Roman Empire, and that is how it came to be the official language of the Church. Latin was used because of the great influence Europe and specifically Rome, had in the Church. There is nothing inherently more spiritual about Latin than there is any other language.

      Yes, groupthink is seen everywhere. And I see it very much as a part of Catholic Traditionalists. And that is very concerning.

      Delete
    2. Just as a further reply to your comments on groupthink: I have not seen this as much in the "New Order attendees" as you call them. I wear a mantilla, I receive on the tongue, I don't clap when I don't feel it is appropriate (although I see this very little) and I don't join hands in the Our Father. And I never feel pressure or condemned in any way for these things.

      But when I disagree with Traditionalists, I am attacked, and it is usually isn't pretty.

      Delete
  4. I was kind of shocked to hear someone say a prayer said in Latin was more efficacious...this is I think where the danger lies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are some people who believe that. I really don't think Our Lord cares all that much which language we use. He looks at our hearts: "To this man will I look, he who is of a humble and contrite heart."

      I agree that when we start putting emphasis on externals such as the language we use, we are starting to lose our true focus.

      Delete
  5. 1) No one has denied that there are fewer Europeans who are Catholics. But that does not mean, then, that because there are more non-Europeans that the Church Itself needs to change everything to reflect that. What is the greatest number of Catholics are in Africa? Will the Church need to become African in look and style?

    The Church became Romanized because the Head of the Church resided in Rome. Well, he still does!

    What I meant with #2 was that you seem to be mixing culture with religious practices and they most certainly do not always go together, no matter how much people may try to make it seem so.

    That quote in your #3 only confirms what has already preceded us. Look at the Catholic Church in the East. Look at the Catholic Church in Latin American. Look at the Catholic Church in Europe. The Church had differences in all these continents and lands. These lands were not all latinized or euripeanized, as your post seems to imply.

    I was born and raised in a Latin American nation. I never once felt that we needed to become less "European" in order to become more Catholic. Latin American itself was a mixture of European and native races (unlike Canada and the US, where the indigenous people had a different fate and mixing of races did not really take place).

    4) You mention this as if it were something new. In over 2,000 years, the Church has dealt with all of this. The Church was already in Africa before the US even existed. The Church was in the New World before Vatican II came around. The Church already saw human sacrifices, witchcraft, polygamy, incestuous practices, immorality at its worst (Rome and Greece?), persecution by Jews, Greeks and Romans, Communists, Dictatorships, etc. All this that you seem to imply was discovered at Vatican II is *not* new. There is nothing new under the sun.

    #5 No one has, thus far, claimed that Latin is more "spiritual." Who has? The Church, on the other hand, had with the tremendous weight of time and experience, said that one language united people more and protected the theology of the Mass. Then, changes came with Vatican II and we can leave it to each one who has ears and eyes decide whether there was some truth to that or not. Theologically, Latin is best (because of the way it is composed and all the things already written in that language). People always prayed in whatever language they wanted. People were not forced to pray in Latin in their very homes or outside on the streets. Are we now?

    If you do not see this type of groupthink where you go to Mass is because you have selected a more moderate parish. Plus, after your disillusionment with the "traditionalists," you subconsciously become more tolerant of things done at these parishes.

    I, on the other hand, have had very bad experienced at New Order parishes (though not all). In Rochester, in Brooklyn. in Manhattan, at a Portuguese community Mass, as a Spanish charismatic prayer group, etc.

    Try disagreeing with Liberals and you will see whether that will be pretty or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder how you would have reacted at the time of St. Paul and the Apostles when they made the decision to break from the practices of the Jewish faith. After all, the Church resided in Jerusalem so shouldn’t they follow the practices of Jerusalem? However, the Holy Spirit was guiding the Church and preparing her for reaching out to more than just Jews. Because the Church moved beyond her Jewish identity, she was then able, guided by the Holy Spirit, to embrace the Roman culture and make it an integral part of her worship.

      If the decision to stop the enforcement of Jewish practices had not been made by the Church, it never would have grown as it did. It could never have become the Roman Church that it became, and which you now champion.

      In the 20th Century, Europeans and North Americans have become only a small subset of the Church. Just as at Jerusalem in the first century when the Church moved beyond her Jewish identity, the Church at Vatican II in the 1960’s was guided by the Holy Spirit and given the foresight to see that it was time to move beyond her Roman identity. We had to make room for other cultures. I love the way Cardinal Dulles expressed it:

      “The emergence of the world Church . . . marks the end of the period when Catholicism as a whole could be equated with its expression in the forms of Graeco-Roman, Mediterranean, or European culture. We are witnessing the birth of a new multicultural Catholicism in which all the regional churches may be expected to interact, mutually criticizing and enriching one another.”

      Yes, the head of the Church is still in Rome. But we have not seen a Roman native as Pope since the death of Pope Paul VI. And now we have a non-European pontiff. I think it will be many, many years before we again see a European pope.

      There is nothing wrong with traditional Catholic practice, and Pope Benedict, in his great wisdom, has allowed those who are devoted to traditional ways to continue practicing them. But a big mistake traditionalists make is that they think their way is superior and is, in reality, the only proper way to worship. They have become very self righteous and hyper critical of anyone who disagrees with them. This negative and condemning spirit tells me that this is not the work of the Holy Spirit, and that is why I have broken away from the traditionalist movement.

      We need to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The only sure way to do this is to follow the Magesterium of the Church. And the Magesterium has told us that the Church is bigger than Rome.

      As far as disagreeing with liberals, yes you are right. But your statement implies that anyone who does not think like you is a liberal. And that is just wrong. I do not think as you do, and I am definitely not a liberal. You need to go out to the other churches with an unprejudiced mind and meet "new order attendees" as you call them. I think you will be amazed at what you find.

      Delete
    2. "As Catholics, in some way we are also all Romans. With the words of Psalm 87, a hymn of praise to Zion, mother of all the peoples, Israel sang and the Church sings: "Of Zion they shall say: "One and all were born in her...'" (v. 5). We too can likewise say: as Catholics, in a certain way, we are all born in Rome." - Pope Benedict XVI

      Delete
    3. The Church was born in Zion. Then, through the power of the Holy Spirit, she saw she needed to move beyond Zion. Then she took up residence in Rome. And yes Pope Benedict said, we were all in some way born in Rome because that is where the Church has been. But the Church is now moving beyond Rome, it has become a world church, as can be seen in the numbers I posted. Our last three pontiffs have not been Roman in birth, and our current pontiff is not even European. The Church was bigger than Zion, and it is bigger than Rome.

      Any who would have fought the church in the first century when she disconnected from her Jewish roots would have been left behind. The same is true in the 20th and now into the 21st Century. To fight these facts is to fight the Holy Spirit as He spreads the Gospel around the world.

      Delete
    4. Given that it was clear in the early Church that the Jewish religion was not enough anymore, that the Jewish Temple was not THE place to worship, that Jewish religious practices had become a dead letter and very ritualistic for the sake or ritualism, and that the Jewish leaders had rejected God Himself (the second Person of the Trinity), I would say that I would have been fine with abandoning Jewish practices. Adherence to the old Law was useless when placed in contradiction to the New Law, to the feet of the Crucified Jesus.

      You say that we had to make room for other cultures. So, by this you mean that the Church did not make room for other cultures before Vatican II? Are you sure this is the case? Can you provide factual examples?

      I have always been amazed by the fact that Mass in China was allowed to be done in ancient Chinese (instead of Latin), that permission to use the Glagolitic Missal, the permission in some Asian nation for men to cover their head the entire time of the Mass (which, as you know, is a huge contradiction to the practice in the West), using the architecture of the places for the building of churches (India, Latin America, African nations, etc.). How was this NOT being open to other cultures?

      I do not think that Paul VI was Roman, but I am sure that Pius XII was. John XXIII was not Roman either.

      While some "traditionalists" may feel and think as you have mentioned, it is also true that some "liberals" or "novus ordo attendess" (as I call them), feel that way as well. Some of them feel superior because they are readers or because they are "Eucharistic ministers." Some of them feel that they are better people because they are "more open" to other ideas and practices that are not according to the morality of the Church.

      Unlike your implied point, I have attended many New Order Masses. I have met many new order attendees. Yes, I have found some good people, but these good people usually tend to prefer better liturgical practices and are not liberal in their thinking. So, I am not sure that they would actually be considered "liberal."

      It is difficult to accept your advice (go out and meet people) when you have really not done the same. In fact, you have consciously (and now publicly) abandoned the traditionalist movement. Fine. That is your choice and your level of comfort when you go to Mass plays a role in this. But it is very unjust to imply (by saying all of this) that everyone in the traditionalist movement is that way. Would not there be people in this movement (that you have abandoned) who might be as the people you think I would find if I attend the new order?

      Why would I do something that you are advising if you yourself do not follow that advice?

      I do not believe the Holy Spirit makes decisions based on statistical facts. If in the future the Church goes back to being bigger in Europe, then does this mean that the Church will have to go back and become more European again? This is what one of your points leads to: the bigger numbers tells us where the Church should go.

      Delete
  6. "What type of people"

    I found this on Novus Ordo Watch website;

    So, for instance, people who adhere to the changes since the so-called Second Vatican Council, or Vatican II for short (1962-65), are often referred to as "Novus Ordo Catholics" or simply "Novus Ordos." This is not meant to be demeaning but simply to clarify what type of people we are referring to"

    Interestingly you often hear about "like-minded people" in some communities & that reminds me of the psychological aspects of the group.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jackie,

    I could do the same and go to a weird website where people refer to traditionalists as "rad-trads" and such names. As I mentioned before, this type of people and these types of behaviors are found all over the place. Groupthink is not the exclusive realm of "traditionalists." In fact, if you actually think about it, it was groupthink that led to many of the theological and liturgical, as well as moral changed since the 1940-1960. That would seem to be a bigger community than the one(s) you have in mind in your comment.

    Which community do you belong to?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Replies
    1. Thank you, Jackie ;)

      LatinMass (the name you have chosen speaks volumes), I will be doing a second post which will address most of the points you have brought up. I know it is not going to change you or any who think like you. You really should understand that there was a time when I was in complete lockstep with your statements. The reason I feel as I do is because I have gone out to other churches and have done so with an unprejudiced mind. Depending on my schedule, I go to at least 3 different churches every week. So please get your facts straight before making accusations. (actually now that I think about it, I go to 4 different churches every week. I think that is a pretty good sampling).

      Delete
    2. Jackie -- That is great! That is the traditional one as well! So, I do not understand why you focused your comment of different types of community. Picking and choosing comments from random websites is not Catholic though.

      CatholicInBrooklyn,

      Can you tell me what was the accusation I made? Does one not choose the churches one goes to? Did you use to pick and choose what churches you used to go to?

      I have never really felt the need to jump from church to church, from community to community, from view to view. That is, actually, not the Catholic way to live a life of faith. Doing this simply puts in doubt whether one is really learning anything or growing spiritually at all.

      Stick to one think (church, view, priest, etc.) without shopping around when disillusionment comes!

      Delete
    3. P.S. Given that that name was chosen years and years ago, I do not know why it would "speak volumes."

      Delete
  9. Some of us have been actively involved in a multitude of diverse apostolic activities in variety of jurisdictions continuously since one's high school years over a score ago and, if so inclined, could pontificate extensively the state of ecclesiastical affairs and afflictions but then one would simply referencing the Bard's Scottish play Act 5, scene 5, lines 27-28.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr Screwtape - I have told you more than once that I think what you are doing in your parish is very important. But I do disagree with your harsh criticism of Church hierarchy.

      LatinMass- this is your accusation: "It is difficult to accept your advice (go out and meet people) when you have really not done the same" As I wrote, I go to at least four different churches every week. And it is not because I am "church hopping." I go to different churches because I try to go to daily Mass. I go to my local church when I am home. When I am at work, I go to the church one block away from my job. On Saturdays, because of my schedule, I go to another church because it has a Mass at a time that is at a convenient time for me. They also pray the Rosary after Mass, which I really love. I go to another church once a week because I pray in a cenacle for life.

      I go to still another church for the monthly all night vigil. That amounts to five churches, and they are all what you label as "novus ordo" churches. And in none of them do I feel any kind of discrimination or judgment because of my rather traditional practices (e.g. mantilla, communion on the tongue).

      So you see that your accusation that I don't get out and meet people is absolutely wrong.

      In the past, when I was still in a very traditional mindset which was in complete agreement with you, I found it actually painful to go to a "Novus Ordo" Mass. But then I decided to stop acting as judge and juror and fighting the Mass, and actually just pray it. And I have found the "Novus Ordo" every bit as fulfilling, and in some ways, more fulfilling than I ever found the TLM.

      That is my suggestion to you. If you go there with a closed mind, you will not be open to the graces. I know that was my problem in the past, and I suspect that is the problem with most traditionalists.

      I went to the TLM for 7 years. I can only speak from my experience. There may be "open minded" traditionalists, but I have yet to personally meet one. Most are very set in their opinions, and they don't let anyone tell them differently, not even the Church Magesterium.

      And please don't try accusing me of being set in my opinions. You wouldn't be arguing with me now if that was my problem.

      BTW, one of your loyal parishioners at Holy Innocents has been paying visits to my blog and leaving wonderful, loving Christian messages. Take a look.

      http://catholicinbrooklyn.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-enemy-of-my-enemy.html?showComment=1408511006310#c3874940881687988883

      And here as well:

      http://catholicinbrooklyn.blogspot.com/2014/08/reform-mass-or-reform-ourselves.html?showComment=1408410448519#c7017908373239655826

      Delete
    2. To Clarify: I did not mean that you did not go out to different churches (I knew that because you had mentioned it to me). What I meant to write was that it is not logical for you to expect me to be "open" and go visit different New Order churches (which I do, I even serve it in some of them), but you do not even try to be open to "traditionalists" because you have already decided that they are all crazy or in schism. I still do not believe that you know what that word really means or what really leads to it, since you continue to use it so carelessly.

      You project all your views, opinions, and ideas to everybody else who still adheres to what you have left. If in the future you change your views again and become Charismatic, (or whatever else there is left for you to experience in the Catholic Church), then you will oppose what you are championing and promoting now. This behavior takes seriousness away from what you may want to convey to others.

      It is good that you stopped acting as judge and juror for those who attend the New Order. Now, you should go the extra mile and extend that charity to the traditionalists. You seem obsessed with attacking that movement or group so exclusively that it seems you think it is the only evil in the world.

      Why don't you worry about the other people who are in greater danger of schism? The Jesuits? The liberal nuns? Have you ever considered writing about these groups? It might give you a good idea of how small-minded your views of the "dangers of traditionalism" are if you read/research the other more problematic groups.

      Did you ever write about the Legionaries of Christ? Did you ever write about the Jesuits? Did you ever write about nuns who fight for the ordination of women? It is not healthy for you to be obsessed with traditionalists. Not at all!

      Uncharitable messages indeed. Pray for him or her. It will be the Christian thing for you to do, instead of feeling that it is your "duty" to "unmask" him or her and then imply/accuse Holy Innocents of creating such a person/behavior.

      Delete
    3. You seem to follow a pattern when you come here. First you attack the points of my post. Nothing wrong with that.

      But then you always progress to making it about me personally. You try to dismiss my words by basically accusing me of being a flake, just jumping from one form of Catholicism to another. You, like others from Holy Innocents, are predicting that it's only a matter of time before I leave the Catholic Church entirely.

      You write as if you know everything there is to know about me, and have made some very severe judgments about my spiritual state and where I am headed. You agree that the comments left by your fellow Holy Innocents parishioner are out of line, but you are basically saying the same thing as he did, only without the harsh rhetoric. You don't use words like "evil rot heart" or "twit" as he does, but you mean the same thing.

      The Holy Innocents parishioner who attacked me is not alone in his sentiments regarding anyone who disagrees with him. Have you looked at some of the comments left on the Holy Innocents Church facebook page? Here are just a couple of examples:

      "Dolan has chosen the sodomites over the true Catholics and he is encouraged by Francis....time to leave for an orthodox church."

      "Cardinal Dolan has been a HUGE disappointment!! His failure to put in place any plan or program, to stem the outflow of traditional Catholics from his Diocesan Churches! He was placed in New York to suture the Apostasy, and all he has done is meekly accept the Status Quo, pandered to the burgeoning Homosexual community, created a clerical Gestapo to deny traditional mass and preferences, and unleashed a secret pogrom of church closings to drive the remainder of the flock out into the streets! Well Done Satan!"

      You and others have worked hard and have succeeded in making the closure of Holy Innocents a cause célèbre among traditionalists throughout the world. But you have also generated a tremendous animosity among many against the hierarchy of the church, specifically Cardinal Dolan.

      This hatred has now spread to Pope Francis, as can be seen in the Fox News article, "The Pope Francis Effect: The War on Conservative Catholics." Here is just one of many hateful comments from that article:

      "Pope Francis is a Jesuit, remember. An Order founded, more to infiltrate the Holy See, at it's inception, than to contribute to it's dignity. At times when the Secular Clergies were closer to Monarchies than to the foundings of the Church. A time when Regulars were constantly under attack from within... Yes indeed Francis would be wise to remember that he is at the service of Roman Catholics and not their despotic ruler...."

      You said you want me to write about the Jesuits because you consider them a danger to the Church. Is that what you are talking about?

      You personally have promoted this Fox News article. Did you know the author of this article was fired by Catholic News Service last December because he wrote an article saying Pope Francis is the Obama of the Catholic Church:

      http://davidgibson.religionnews.com/2013/12/06/fox-news-columnist-ripped-pope-francis-loses-catholic-news-service-gig/

      This is what you are supporting, and you are worried about me leaving the Church?

      You say I don't know the meaning of the word schism. I think that maybe you don't know what it means.

      Delete
    4. I do disagree with most of your points. As you said, nothing wrong with that. I am free to do that, as you are free to write blog posts that have a lot of flawed logic.

      I do not attack you personally because, as you said, I do not really know you nor everything there is to know about you. At most, I've only had one conversation with you in the past and it was about what form of Mass you liked (Low vs. Sung Mass). These were the things that you talked about before your disillusionment with the traditional movements (I wonder what you really expected when you were part of this movement). Most of the people I personally know in the traditional circles of which I am a part only want to be able to attend the traditional Mass daily. All the things that you say you have experienced, I have not.

      That makes me wonder: 1) what traditional circles were you a part of? and 2) what did you do or say to those people that generated the "attacks" that you say you received from them? People do not regularly attack other people if there is no reason (or perceived reason) to do so. Did you intentionally bring up topics of conversation that are likely to derail, such as politics?

      Personally, I disagree with traditionalists when I have to, but I have never been attacked to the extent that you have. And, most certainly, even if they were to attack me, I will most certainly never stop attending the traditional Mass, nor leave the Church.

      How do you KNOW that these people are actual parishioners of Holy Innocents? That would be as if I were to say that people who agreed with you on your posts about St. Francis or St. John are parishioners there. That does not seem logical, does it? Unless you know for a fact that these people are parishioners (if not, would that not be considered slander?).

      Personally, I have not promoted anything. I have shared articles (good ones as well as harsh ones) about Holy Innocents. Is that a crime? Do I need your or somebody's permission to share articles?

      I do not want you to write about the Jesuits. Frankly, I wish you did not write about anything, which would leave you a lot of time for more actual prayer and meditation (as with most other bloggers).

      What I said was that you seem to focus on one specific "problem" in the Catholic Church (the traditionalist movement, as you call it), but ignore and even excuse all the other problems in the Catholic Church.

      The traditional movement is small in comparison to an actual Religious Order accepted by the Catholic Church. For such an influential Order to teach error (in their seminaries, etc.), would you not consider that a problem? Would you not consider it a problem that their numbers are decreasing and that their members are getting older? That their parishes tend to allow and promote many non-Catholic things, such as, to use your favorite word, schism -- material if not formal?

      Similar things with the Legionaries. There was so much to write about that, all the problems that Order had, all the silence they were forced to keep, all the immorality the founder was a part of? Did you not think any of that a problem to discuss and write about? That's what I meant.

      Delete
    5. Unlike others, I do not get much time to spend in front of a computer goggling people. I have a day job and things to do in the evening. So, I do not know much about Adam Shaw, Fox News, or any other reporter.

      I am not worried about you leaving the Church. I don't think that I have ever said (or wished) that. Right?

      But I have said that you seem to jump from one group in the Church to another one once you find something that disillusions you and then completely try to divorce yourself and your life from it. This cannot be healthy.

      When you use the word schism, you imply that there is a whole group that will *officially* and *publicly* separate itself from Communion with the Holy Father and establish their own (official) church -- such as the Orthodox and the Protestants have done.

      People leaving the Church (whether it is you or anybody else at Holy Innocents, or St. Francis, or St. Michael, or St. John, or St. Ignatius of Loyola, or any other parish, etc.), that is usually referred to as "leaving the Church." For all the research and reading that you seem to do, using the proper terminology for things should be a priority.

      Delete
    6. How have I jumped from one thing to another? I am a cradle Catholic who was away from the church for 38 years. During that time time I was part of a protestant cult for almost 30 of those years and unchurched the rest of the time. I have been attending the TLM since my second week back in the Catholic Church 7 years ago. I have recently separated myself from traditionalists because I no longer want to be part of the hateful, disrespectful attitudes that I see in this group.

      You tell me that I need to spend more time with trads. Isn't 7 years enough time?

      The only thing I have "jumped" to is to be part of the mainstream Church instead of a fringe element, which is what traditionalists are. I am fully and completely supportive of the Magesterium, unlike many of the trads I know. I am a daily communicant.

      Just what is it that I have "jumped" to? Do you have a problem with people who are not traditionalists?

      Delete
    7. You say you do not spend a lot of time on the computer. However, I see your name in a lot of places.

      Now that you know how radical Adam Shaw is, will you denounce his article?

      Delete
    8. As far as your first comment above (which I did not see at first), have you read anything I wrote? Did you read the horrible comments from the HI facebook page? Did you look at the comments from the Shaw article? You read the comments left here by one of your parishioners. You don't think there is anything wrong with that?

      I love the TLM. I think it is beautiful and I am very glad Pope B gave us the SP. But there is just too much garbage that goes with it in the attitudes from people.

      We live in very evil times when the Catholic Church is under massive attack in every way. The only way to be really sure of being on the right side is to stay as close to the Magesterium as possible. I actually find the traditional movement more dangerous than liberals because you know exactly where you are with liberals. But traditionalists can look so good and so spiritual, and yet be completely against Church authority. Scary stuff. It is something I know about and that is why I write about it.

      Why is it that all sedevancantist groups are traditionalists? Did you every wonder about that?

      If you still don't know what I am talking about after I have showed this to you time after time, then you are just closing your eyes to it.

      Delete
    9. Cradle Catholic: A person who has been raised in the Catholic faith since birth (in contrast to a person who has converted to the faith). It is usually implicit that the person has not lapsed in the faith. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Cradle_Catholic

      Delete
    10. You know better than that. Once we re baptized Catholic, we never stop being Catholic. I was baptized when I was 2 weeks old. Being a lapsed Catholic does not mean we are not Catholic anymore.

      Straining at a gnat?

      Delete
    11. Quite the opposite.

      The term is sociological not theological.

      Expostulation as an avocation requires a modicum of erudition and discretion which unfortunately is noted by its absence in this particular forum.

      Delete
    12. What's your point? You couldn't find anything else to attack, so you chose to say that even though I was baptized Catholic and received all the sacraments as a child and have my religious foundation in the Catholic Church, that I'm somehow less than Catholic because I left at one point? Is this suppose to somehow lessen my credibility?

      When I, and most other people use the term "cradle Catholic", that means that we were baptized into the Catholic Church as babies. It's not suppose to be theological.

      I still say you are straining at a gnat in your attempt to discredit me. And it reflects badly on you.

      Delete
    13. My point is that you are not able to handle constructive criticism or correction without taking personal affront and umbrage. That betrays an immature and irresponsible personality. I seriously and truly suggest that you include a mental health professional and a spiritual director in your personal support network, especially if you plan to continue in this semblance of an apostolate. (For the record, in addition to ecclesiastical superiors, I also have those mentioned on my own "team".) This is being written for your own good not out of any sense of "traditionalist superiority". Unfortunately, I believe that you will process this as yet another "attack" rather than a sincere attempt at an intervention.

      Delete
    14. Ah, now I understand the point of your comments. You are giving a truly brilliant example of one of the signs of those caught up in groupthink:

      "Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid."

      Thank you for helping us all to understand this point. It is appreciated far more than you know!

      Delete
    15. LatinMass, I re-read your comment, and I realized that you think I left the traditionalist movement because I was personally offended. I have had some pretty nasty things said about me on this blog, but except for a couple of rare instances, no one has been rude to my face.

      I left the traditionalist movement because I could no longer take the hateful things said against the hierarchy of the church, specifically Cardinal Dolan and Pope Francis, the constant putdown of the "Novus Ordo" Mass as basically being a Protestant fake, and the rejection of Vatican II as a valid council, among other things. I do understand that schism is about a group of people leaving the Church, and yes, I do feel that there is a great danger of this happening among traditionalists because so many have already separated themselves from the mainstream Church in their mind. The comments I pointed you to are just a small evidence of this.

      Delete
    16. You have some serious megalomaniac issues. Please consider making an appointment to see a mental or behavioral health professional for your own good.

      Delete
    17. Wow. I truly do appreciate your assistance in proving the points made in my post. Keep this up, and I will feel compelled to credit you as co-author.

      I hope you won't mind if I use your comments in future posts. They are very helpful.

      Delete
    18. Your reading comprehension is positively deplorable.

      My first comment on this this post was to point out that you were using a term in an incorrect sense. (For the record, you would be classified as a "Revert Catholic"; "Cradle Catholic" implies uninterrupted continuity.) You took immediate umbrage as if I had engaged in libel. My attempt to clarify just served to release further invective which led me question the state of your behavioral health.

      I have spent my entire career working for the "institutional Church" (including Jesuits!) and am currently pursing an ecclesiastical course of action which most "traditionalists" would openly disparage; therefore I am much more a "Novus Ordo Catholic" than a "rad-trad".

      It is quite telling that you have made no indication that you have any semblance of a support network of professionals.

      I openly wonder if you display this level of insubordination in your place of employment.

      Again, I know that you will not answer any of the points raised but will retreat into self-righteous indignation.

      Delete
    19. I'm sorry, but I have spent enough time in personal conversation with you and heard enough of your disrespectful and hateful comments against church hierarchy to know exactly where you are coming from. I ashamedly admit that I agreed with you at one time. And that is exactly the kind of thing that I am now separating myself from.

      Yes, I know you work in your "Novus Ordo" parish as Traditionalists call it, and I have been very supportive of that. But you are also a leader and intimately involved at Holy Innocents and the Latin Mass and in other traditional movements, such as St. Hugh of Cluny. You have been directly involved in all of Holy Innocents' efforts to save their parish from closure. You serve the Latin Mass there and are a major part of the Knights of Columbus at HI whose main goal is to preserve Catholic "tradition", which is a code word for traditionalism. If you try to deny that, you have completely destroyed any credibility you might still have, which doesn't seem to be much.

      You are digging your own hole here. I have not made any personal attacks against you or anyone else, but all I am getting from you is personal attacks. You are telling me that I am immature, irresponsible, mentally unbalanced and in need of immediate professional help. This is the first time in my entire life that anyone ever accused me of being a "megalomaniac." You have now added "insubordination." What is that about? I'm "insubordinate"? That makes no sense at all. You make snide comments like the "cradle catholic" one in order to show that I do not know what I am talking about, but you do not address the points in my post at all. In other posts you accused me of quietism, which is a heresy.

      My posts are not just my own opinions. I quote from many different and respected sources. I am in complete and total support of Church Magesterium and Church dogma. And this seems to be precisely why you, LatinMass and other traditionalists reject everything I write. Another colleague of yours at Holy Innocents in emails suggested that I am bothered by "spirits", indicating some sort of demonic influence. That is classic groupthink. If you can't kill the message, then kill the messenger.

      You and all of the others here are proving that the people at Holy Innocents and traditionalists in general are completely out of control.

      The more comments you make, the more you will continue to prove the point of my post, and yes, I do think I will add you as co-author.

      One last thing, Screwtape was a devil in CS Lewis's book whose goal was to destroy Christians. By choosing that name, just what are you telling us?

      Delete
    20. That plane just missed hitting the Empire State Building by about a mile..........

      Delete
    21. Please let me know when you have spent at least twenty years toiling in catechism, youth ministry, community outreach, homebound ministry, food pantries, thrift stores, liturgical committees, RCIA, evangelization ministry, ministry to the disabled, altar server formation and direction, Catholic homeschooling, international humanitarian support, ethnic apostolates, and this is before enumerating anything affiliated with Holy Innocents.

      Just thought I would provide some contextual background.



      Delete
    22. When are you going to give it up? I know you personally. I know the conversations we have had. You have tried to paint yourself as a mainstream Catholic. You and I both know better.

      I am glad you do all these wonderful things. God bless you, and I mean that. But that doesn't take away from the things I have heard you say, and it doesn't take away from your treatment of me on this blog and your attempts to smear me.

      I only pointed out your involvement with traditionalists to the extent that I know. I am sure there is much more that I don't know. Be who you are and stop pretending.

      Stop with the ad hominem attacks and psychoanalyzing me. It only shows that you have nothing to say. You really are not doing yourself any favors with all of these comments.

      If I really wanted to help you out, I would start deleting your comments. But if you really want to hang yourself, be my guest.

      Delete
    23. And at the end of the day my collaboration and assistance will be still be actively sought out and appreciated, from a high ranking monsignor to a novice altar boy, because I am not perceived as a whiny bloviating crackpot.

      Thank you for your offer of assistance but, as I have mentioned previously, I already have a select number of competent credentialed professionals whom I consult on a regular basis.

      Delete
    24. You keep coming with the ad hominen attacks. Do you really think this is Christian? I would have cut you off a long time ago except that I know you personally.

      There are people who like me too and respect what I do, including priests. So what? The only one who really counts is Our Lord. What does He think? He says He will judge us by the love we show to one another. I'm not getting a lot of love in your personal insults.

      It is not me you are hurting, as much as you may want to. You are hurting yourself.

      Delete
    25. I am getting really tired of this.

      You are way off the rails. I will give you one more comment. So either be as Christian as you can be (which I have yet to see from you), or continue on your path and give me your best zinger, and then I'm closing the comments for this post to you and everyone else.

      Delete
    26. And Father Zed is still quite open, frank and honest about his shortcomings, limitations and prejudices.

      Delete
    27. I would appreciate it if you would just stay away from my blog in the future. Your comments are snide and insulting and add nothing to clarify any issues.

      Delete
  10. Hi Latinmass; "Picking and choosing comments from random websites is not Catholic though." - pardon?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What was your intention in posting that quote?

      I could just as easily come up with a heretical or disobedient quote from, let's say, the blog Pray Tell and insert it here and affiliate it to your views and those or Catholic in Brooklyn. Would that be right?

      Delete
    2. You are right - I've been reading too many extremist blogs :)

      Delete
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...