tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post1264778758171677167..comments2024-03-28T19:16:02.689-04:00Comments on Catholic in Brooklyn: Holy Innocents Church Partners With The Devil's BibleCatholic in Brooklynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02714284710110785019noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-14765333240532616652014-08-14T22:04:58.975-04:002014-08-14T22:04:58.975-04:00This is breathtaking. Are you seriously accusing t...This is breathtaking. Are you seriously accusing the Latin Mass of inviting heresy into the Church and ignoring the fact that people who have Protestantized and attend the Novus Ordo are full of heresy and absolutely bringing the Church into one of the greatest crises in its history??<br />The Latin (read proper) Mass is the one where you see proper Catholic worship, how the saints have always enjoyed it. The Protestant Novus Ordo doesn't even seem Catholic and they disrespect the Sacred Host. How does that not bother you but you're enraged by orthodox Catholics being upset with the hierarchy who often support heresy and are persecuting the most faithful Catholics??<br />It's ok with you if they turn a blind eye to baby murder, sodomy and diverse other forms of soul-jeopardizing behavior but to be upset with the persecutorial hierarchy is just too much for you??Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-81440719809335109102014-07-05T22:22:11.490-04:002014-07-05T22:22:11.490-04:00I'm sorry that you see my actions as being unc...I'm sorry that you see my actions as being uncharitable to the people of Holy Innocents. I think they have made a huge mistake in partnering with The New York Times which is completely against the Catholic Church. How is pointing that out being uncharitable?<br /><br />Yesterday I went to St. John the Baptist Church in Manhattan. This Church is also on the potential hit list. They told the people to remember that the final decision has not been made and to pray that God's Will be done. There was no attacking the bishop for not caring about them, no talk of going to the media to employ their help in stopping the closing of their church. <br /><br />Maybe Holy Innocents could take some pointers here?Catholic in Brooklynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02714284710110785019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-49188104769593422672014-07-04T21:53:09.310-04:002014-07-04T21:53:09.310-04:00I don't understand why the people at HI are no...I don't understand why the people at HI are not given the same level of charity and respect as the parishioners at St Francis. You bent over backwards to read faithfulness into the actions at St Francis, but at Holy Innocents, they are bad, bad people. Does no one at St Francis talk to the paper or criticize the hierarchy? Maybe there are sinners in both parishes and if you want to help one group avoid schism you should devote a similar amount of energy to the other as well?GenXBenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15298459502431357489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-20844809493103776342014-07-01T12:48:27.135-04:002014-07-01T12:48:27.135-04:00"Father Wylie is a priest who took a vow of o..."Father Wylie is a priest who took a vow of obedience to his superiors. He was in complete disobedience to his vow when he attacked his superiors in this way."<br /><br />The first difficulty is that, strictly speaking, Cardinal Dolan is not Fr. Wylie's "superior.' He is a priest of the Archdiocese of Johannesburg, previously detached for duty with the Holy See's UN delegation. To the extent that he reported to anyone, he reported to the head of the Holy See delegation, Rev. Msgr. Janusz Urbanczyk, First Counsellor; and ultimately to his own ordinary, the Archbishop of Johannesburg. He was given faculties to celebrate sacraments in ADNY, but Cardinal Dolan was not his ordinary. Cardinal Dolan did exercise a very limited jurisdiction over Fr. Wylie's conduct (to the extent that he was given faculties in ADNY), but not that of an ordinary over his priest. <br /><br />The second difficulty is that, when given orders, Fr. Wylie was, in fact, obedient. He was told to cease celebrating any public sacraments in ADNY, and he complied. He was ordered to return to Johannesburg, and he complied. <br /><br />So we're left with the comments Fr Wylie made in his homily, which never mentioned Cardinal Dolan by name. I grant very readily that a priest who says something unwelcome in a local chancery had best be prepared to face some consequences, and arguably Fr. Wylie did so. But I remain unconvinced that this was a case of "disobedience." Athelstanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07346012062816580296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-17244615741948432612014-07-01T12:14:45.253-04:002014-07-01T12:14:45.253-04:00Fourth, I was there when the “demonic” comment you...Fourth, I was there when the “demonic” comment you site was made. First, your claim is calumnious. No one called the Archdiocese “demonic.” The remark targeted the parish closing process. Second, I agree with the remark as it was actually made (and not as you misquote it) and I find no fault in it. There seems to me to be no better characterization of a parish closing process that targets healthy parishes important to the spiritual vitality of the Archdiocese. Who but the Satan himself will profit from the closing of these parishes? And, of course, support for this view comes from no less an authority than Pope Paul VI who famously remarked near the end of his Papacy that the smoke of Satan had entered the Church. It’s a shame you were not a Catholic in Brooklyn in those days or you could have chastised him for such outrageous language. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-63567763375413635842014-07-01T12:07:25.929-04:002014-07-01T12:07:25.929-04:00First, regarding that photograph, why don’t you co...First, regarding that photograph, why don’t you conduct a test the next time you are at Holy Innocents when the loft is open. See if the sign stops you from going up there. The last time I looked, it did not stop anyone. <br /><br />Second, regarding that term, you are indeed the one who coined “Devil’s Bible.” I have never seen it anywhere else but in this blog post. Fr. Zuhlsdorf calls it “Hell’s Bible.” <br /><br />Third, (pause and count to ten), the only reason for the article was the Fr. Wylie story. Where does the actual article suggest that the parishioners at Holy Innocents are being “victimized”? There are dozens of parishes proposed for closing in the Archdiocese. Not one of them has gotten any media coverage. The story of the possible closing of Holy Innocents would also have been ignored by the New York Times had the Archdiocese not made it newsworthy by the way they handled the Fr. Wylie story. It was the Archdiocese that turned a minor matter into a news story. How? By making him a martyr to their persecution. By all reports, Fr. Wylie was leaving the Archdiocese within a few weeks of the sermon in question. It would have been easy to address concerns about the content of the sermon without triggering a news story. I certainly could have managed that and I suspect that even you could have done so. Why did they handle it in a way that gave the story legs? You like conspiracy stories. Tell us what you think! Finally, as usual, you have no evidence at all for your preposterous claim that someone at Holy Innocents had anything to do with triggering the story. I am a witness to the fact that the NYT reporter just appeared at Holy Innocents one day after Mass and that the regular parishioners there actually played a moderating role in their responses to her questions. Did you imagine that someone from Holy Innocents could just pick up the phone and that someone form the New York Times would come running? It is so absurd that even you should be embarrassed to insinuate such a thing. You still know some of the real weekday parishioners at Holy Innocents. Why don’t you call them and find out what happened?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-5741194191269903002014-07-01T12:05:05.723-04:002014-07-01T12:05:05.723-04:00Ah, so you choose just to dodge the question. The...Ah, so you choose just to dodge the question. The question is not the least bit "irrelevant." Answering the question will show just where you are coming from, and you don't what to reveal that. Trust me, your point of view is coming through loud and clear.<br /><br />I did not personally attack Father Wylie. I don't know how many times I have said that I think he is a good and holy priest. He went off the rails in his comments, and that is why he was disciplined, and why he faces even more discipline when he gets back home. It is totally relevant to the entire situation.Catholic in Brooklynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02714284710110785019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-64045013707690251212014-07-01T12:05:03.641-04:002014-07-01T12:05:03.641-04:00Catholic In Brooklyn, You still have not provided ...Catholic In Brooklyn, You still have not provided the definition of Schism. I really need you to do that in order to take that accusation (or fear as you call it) regarding some of the parishioners (or attendees) at Holy Innocents. <br /> <br />While your idea of obedience tells you that you should not stand in judgment of Church authorities, your impulse to charity should tell you that you should not criticize your neighbor. You cannot follow the first commandment if you do not follow the ones regarding your neighbor. <br /><br />If schism and rebellion concerns you so much (and all your posts actually indicate that there some obsession with it), then why don't you worry about the schism in all the other churches in midtown Manhattan? Not only those who are in disobedience with the Archbishop, but with the Pope himself!<br /> <br />Do you worry about the disobedience to the teachings of the magisterium at St. Francis of Assisi? I will now expect you to write a post (or 10) about how the parishioners and Priests at St. Francis of Assisi disobey Church law, Church teaching, Church morals, etc.<br /><br />You cannot sincerely pretend to correct (or counterattack) one particular group and be sincere about it, but you do not do the same with other groups who are probably worse. In this case you could say that some of the parishioners feel attacked or threatened and they do not know how to react.<br /><br />But what of those whose churches are intact (St. Francis of Assisi) and still do not follow the teachings of the Church? They do not follow Church law? Do you concern about them?<br /><br />You still have to tell me where exactly I told you that you cannot come to Holy Innocents anymore.<br /> <br />Regarding the comment about free access to the choir loft: Whether there is a sign or not to prevent people from going, it is still the fact that the church choir loft is always open whenever there are singers there. This is because individual singers cannot be provided each with a separate key. So, the door that leads to the choir loft is always open when singers are there. In such case, no one keeps guard to prevent people from going up there. So, if you show up tomorrow (which is a Sung Mass day) and see the door open and decide to go up, you will see that no one will prevent you from going up, especially if it is right before or after the Mass. <br /><br />Try doing this and take a picture for your post from the choir loft and you will certainly see "some parishioners" will collaborate with you as much as "those parishioners" collaborated with the NYT because you can be guaranteed that no one will stop you from going up and no one will kick you out once you are up there. Once this happens, you should recant your suspicion of "collaboration."<br /><br />Regarding your comments about people making fun of the Archbishop and the Holy Father, I have to say that I have even heard Priests (even the ones whom you least expect!) make fun of Cardinal Dolan and the reigning Pontiff. You should write a post about that as well. In fact, if regular people feel "free" to make such comments, it is most because they have heard Priests (including the ones you least expect) make such or even worse comments.<br /><br />Go figure that one out!latinmass1983https://www.blogger.com/profile/18109855026898340656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-19552290224580466862014-07-01T11:25:00.152-04:002014-07-01T11:25:00.152-04:00Irrelevant. Whether he was disciplined or not, it ...Irrelevant. Whether he was disciplined or not, it is, according to your own statements, not your place to judge his actions as a priest. Yet you keep doing so. Lots of calls for humility from <b>other</b> people.Samuel J. Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12766238466391394665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-6865787487952124262014-07-01T11:06:02.037-04:002014-07-01T11:06:02.037-04:00I did not change the subject. I was not attacking...I did not change the subject. I was not attacking anyone when I made the statement about turning to the New York Times. As I stated in my blog, the New York Times wants to destroy the church. Joining forces with them is joining forces with the devil. <br /><br />You tell me that I am mean and vicious. I say that joining forces with the "devil's bible", so named by Father Z, is mean and vicious.Catholic in Brooklynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02714284710110785019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-62202776371210431972014-07-01T10:59:50.533-04:002014-07-01T10:59:50.533-04:00Why do you think Father Wylie was disciplined? Do...Why do you think Father Wylie was disciplined? Do you think it was just persecution?Catholic in Brooklynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02714284710110785019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-8308469457194650702014-07-01T10:59:06.807-04:002014-07-01T10:59:06.807-04:00All schisms have started with people who are absol...All schisms have started with people who are absolutely convinced of their own rightness. They will not listen to anyone who disagrees with them. <br /><br />You don't know my background, but FYI, I was once in total agreement with people like you. I may have been even more extreme than you. I felt that Vatican II was about the worst thing that happened to the church. I believed that most bishops were modernists set out to destroy the church. I have since deleted them, but I had several posts on my blog which were extremely critical of Cardinal Dolan, even one where I complained about him laughing too much. I was one of those people who felt he was a "clown."<br /><br />But as I was writing more of my blog, I began reading more on my own and not through the lens of Traditionalism. The writings and talks by Pope Benedict XVI had the most profound effect on me. It is too much to go into here, but basically what it comes down to is that I accepted the authority of the Church, even when I personally disagreed with it. I accepted that Cardinal Dolan is an anointed Prince of the Church, and I had no right to stand in judgment of him or anyone else. I found myself becoming more and more separate from my Traditionalist friends. I still loved (and still do love) the Mass, and so kept going. <br /><br />But when this whole thing with Holy Innocents started happening, and I began hearing and seeing the things I have described, I knew I could no longer be a part of it. You probably won't believe me, but it is very painful for me to write these kind of things on my blog. I have great affection for Holy Innocents and the people there. I know how devoted they are. I was a part of it for several years. <br /><br />But I cannot turn a blind eye to the spirit of rebellion that seems to be forming there. You can deny it all you want, but that doesn't make it go away. And this could most definitely lead to schism. If they are so convinced that the Archdiocese itself is demonic and that Cardinal Dolan does not deserve their respect, and then the parish is ultimately closed, just what do you think will happen? I truly hope I am wrong. Catholic in Brooklynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02714284710110785019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-47551289477379748812014-07-01T10:55:47.677-04:002014-07-01T10:55:47.677-04:00You all feel that you have a right to say the most...<i>You all feel that you have a right to say the most horrendous things about bishops and, with some Traditionalists, even the Pope. </i><br /><br />You just continue to dig your hole of calumny deeper and deeper.<br /><br />That some people have said innapropriate things about bishops doesn't mean that "all" of "you" agree with that. You should confine yourself to actual remarks people make, not imagine people's evil intentions and then state them as fact.<br /><br /><i> I respectfully stated my disagreement with Father Wylie, never once condemning him as a person or as a priest.</i><br /><br />You have done so in this very comment. <br /><br /><i>I saw things in it, as I have explained and which you conveniently ignore, that go directly against his vow of obedience to his superiors.</i><br /><br />Here you accuse him of violating his "vow of obedience" (diocesan priests make a promise of obedience, not a vow, but let that pass). You cannot repeatedly malign people's actions while claiming that you are not criticizing them. It is intellectually bankrupt. To do so while hiding behind the cloak of anonymity is even worse.Samuel J. Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12766238466391394665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-16402975304705266072014-07-01T10:43:44.387-04:002014-07-01T10:43:44.387-04:00Please, don't hold back. Say what you really ...<br />Please, don't hold back. Say what you really think. <br /><br />Father Wylie said some very explosive things in his sermon, and all over the Internet people were praising him as being courageous. I saw things in it, as I have explained and which you conveniently ignore, that go directly against his vow of obedience to his superiors. You all feel that you have a right to say the most horrendous things about bishops and, with some Traditionalists, even the Pope. I respectfully stated my disagreement with Father Wylie, never once condemning him as a person or as a priest. As I have stated, I have personally met Father Wylie and am very fond of him. But I think he went over the line in his sermon, and I have every right to say that. There is nothing hypocritical about it. You can disagree, but your admitted ad hominem attacks reflectCatholic in Brooklynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02714284710110785019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-5325778210981254692014-07-01T10:37:27.473-04:002014-07-01T10:37:27.473-04:00There is a sign at the steps to the choir loft whi...There is a sign at the steps to the choir loft which says, "Authorized personnel only." So please don't tell me just anyone can go up there.<br /><br />Secondly, I was not the one who coined the term, "Devil's bible." That is directly from Father John Zuhlsdorf, who even admits that is his name for the Times. <br /><br />Thirdly, the entire reason for the article was to give the story of the parishioners of Holy Innocents as being victimized by the Archdiocese. I have no way of verifying that parishioners there tried to mitigate this in any way. Since you are wrong about other things you have mentioned, I cannot automatically assume that you are right about this. The Archdiocese must interact with the New York Times and all media. That is part of their job. That is not the job of the parishioners of Holy Innocents, especially when they have an ax to grind, as they feel they do against the Cardinal. <br /><br />I have talked to enough people at the parish to know what at least some of them are thinking, and that includes the leaders of the parish. I heard one man, who is in a position of authority, call the archdiocese "demonic." They use terms like clown and worse to describe Cardinal Dolan, showing no respect for him at all in the things they say. <br /><br />One person from HI told me she was not that happy with Father Wylie's sermon. Why? He talked too much about charity. <br /><br />What does that tell you?Catholic in Brooklynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02714284710110785019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-65128728164593140112014-07-01T10:35:05.471-04:002014-07-01T10:35:05.471-04:00For Holy Innocents, the Committee recommended that...<i>For Holy Innocents, the Committee recommended that the territorial parish be merged into the nearby parish of St. Francis Assisi. It did not mention closing Holy Innocents and, even if it had, it was explicitly called “Preliminary.”</i><br /><br />This is not correct. The preliminary recommendation when read in conjuction with the manual for the process makes clear that what is recommended for Holy Innocents is both the merging of the parish and the permanent closure of the Church.Samuel J. Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12766238466391394665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-77738476758448273362014-07-01T10:31:31.121-04:002014-07-01T10:31:31.121-04:00You are excellent at trying to change the subject,...You are excellent at trying to change the subject, but please try to stay focused. You write that "the people of Holy Innocents have turned their backs on our Lord and instead enlisted the devil in their cause" yet you deny that you are attacking them? You say that this is not an attack?<br /><br /><br />Samuel J. Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12766238466391394665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-80004529911853526922014-07-01T10:29:18.345-04:002014-07-01T10:29:18.345-04:00You don't call allowing the New York Times int...You don't call allowing the New York Times into the church and giving interviews to them which are designed to besmirch the reputation of Cardinal Dolan an act of disobedience? You don't call going onto the Internet and pushing their stories through various channels to bring sympathy upon themselves and again, to cast Cardinal Dolan as the "bad guy" an act of disobedience? As I said in my post, where in all of Church history have you ever seen saints use such tactics? Here is just one comment from Father Z's blog, which he allowed to stand, as a result of the stories about the plight of Holy Innocents:<br /><br />"¡Vaya lío!<br /><br />To quote “I, Claudius”:<br />“Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out.”<br />If Pope Benedict XVI had not resigned, we should never have been able to see these snakes emerge from under the rocks where they had concealed themselves so cunningly.<br />I believe Pope Benedict’s resignation was effectively a mystical echo of Jesus’ words to Judas:<br />“What you do, do quickly.” John 13:27<br />And they have been quick about it, haven’t they?"<br /><br />These kind of comments and much worse are all over the Internet. This is truly becoming a scandal.<br /><br />Sin always starts in the mind and the results in actions. This is exactly what I am seeing here. As you say, Cardinal Dolan hasn't even made any decisions yet. I dread to see what will happen if the parish is actually closed. Catholic in Brooklynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02714284710110785019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-57151092370289048682014-07-01T09:03:07.234-04:002014-07-01T09:03:07.234-04:00Fourth, the schism you predict. Forgive me, but n...Fourth, the schism you predict. Forgive me, but nothing in your post seems more absurd than this wild- eyed prediction. You seem to concede that, whenever a Bishop (Archbishop or even Cardinal) decides to try to close and sell a Church, our most Holy Roman Catholic Church (the Church that canonized St. Margaret Mary and St. Pio of Pietrelcina) allows parishioners to oppose his action. Indeed, our most Holy Roman Catholic Church has now sided with parishioners against their Bishops in dozens of recent cases of Church closings (and even in the case of a few parish mergers). If the Church allows parishioners to oppose such an action openly and directly (and without any taint of disobedience), what would the parishioners of Holy Innocents gain by this schism you predict? And, more importantly, how would they even accomplish it? What schismatic acts could the humble parishioners of Holy Innocents take to realize your prediction? Is it their prayer for the Cardinal? or their daily Rosary Novena to Our Lady, or the daily prayer to St. Michael, or perhaps, their fasting on Friday’s? Tell us what actions you think are even tending in the schismatic way at Holy Innocents. Perhaps you worry that in the future they might appoint their own Bishop of Jerusalem?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-72770468151841396952014-07-01T08:55:57.646-04:002014-07-01T08:55:57.646-04:00Third, the disobedience you overlook. Let me try ...Third, the disobedience you overlook. Let me try out an ad hominem argument on you since you seem to have some fondness for them. If you really believe in the kind of obedience that you criticize parishioners at Holy Innocents for rejecting (without any evidence by the way), wouldn’t you have held your tongue and not posted anything about Fr. Wylie’s sermon? That sermon was, after all, given by a priest from the pulpit of a Church on a Sunday and carried with it that degree of the Church’s teaching authority that accompanies a Sunday sermon. As such, it clearly had real spiritual authority over you, the Catholic lay person, receiving it (whether in person or through some blog). Is it not the case that your own very public (and, forgive me, rather poorly reasoned) rejection of his sermon, does the very thing you claim (without evidence) that the people of Holy Innocents are doing, refusing to accept authority? Where in your own conduct is the docility you demand of them? Is it not your argument that the Gospel requires this docility in response to authority even when the authority is wrong? Doesn’t your version of the Gospel require that you submit to Fr. Wylie’s sermon and keep silent about the errors that you find there, errors screaming to high Heaven (and, it would seem more importantly, to you) to redress. How is it not, frankly, rank hypocrisy that you tolerate in yourself the very fault that you criticize (without evidence) so shrilly in people at Holy Innocents?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-83709981487008770882014-07-01T08:50:53.860-04:002014-07-01T08:50:53.860-04:00Second, the Devil’s Bible. The New York Times is ...Second, the Devil’s Bible. The New York Times is a major media outlet in the United States. You may feel that the ideologically pure Catholic -- like yourself -- should shun it as long as it appears to pursue an anti-Catholic agenda but the Archdiocese itself disagrees with you. It clearly cooperated in the writing of the article in question. Its spokesman gets more space in that article than anyone else. Beyond the article, the Archdiocese engages directly with the New York Times all the time. This is almost always good for the Church and I find no fault in it. For that same reason, I find no fault with people who speak to a New York Times reporter when the reporter arrives asking questions at the Church’s steps. In this, I am at least consistent. I find no fault with either party for speaking to the Devil’s Bible, as you call it. You, in contrast, find fault only with the parishioners of Holy Innocents for speaking to the New York Times but are silent about the Archdiocese (which does its speaking through a paid full-time semi-professional spokesperson). As for those parishioners, I was there the day this reporter arrived at the steps of the Church. There were several other people also there who, like yourself, rarely attend Holy Innocents but have suddenly become most eager to take center stage in the discussion of its future. It was precisely because some holy, faithful, orthodox parishioners of Holy Innocents intervened to offer a more balanced view of the situation that the reporter did not get support for the sort of hit piece these self-appointed spokesmen might have wanted. This is the story you miss. The parishioners at Holy Innocents actually helped to make the story less extreme not more extreme. By the way, you seem to think you uncovered a smoking gun of complicity with the New York Times because it published a photograph that was taken from the choir loft at Holy Innocents. If you attended Holy Innocents as often as you say, you would certainly know that the choir loft is open any time there is a choir singing at Mass or Vespers, five times every single week. Once the loft is open, anyone, including a New York Times photographer, can take pictures there. No one stands guard at the steps to keep out the impure (unless, going forward, you should decide to give up blogging and deploy your purity-screening skills in person at Holy Innocents).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-42706268194548952042014-07-01T08:47:55.369-04:002014-07-01T08:47:55.369-04:00Where to begin? I suppose I should start by thank...Where to begin? I suppose I should start by thanking you for this post. Like some of your other recent posts, it is long but it seems that you gave considerable time and, no doubt, your very best thinking to it. It also seems clear that you tried to express thoughts that you sincerely wanted people to find helpful. And, a sincere effort can be commended even when it misses the mark. Unfortunately, however, sincerity does not ensure sound argument. I wonder if it might be possible to bring greater clarity to some of the issues you tried to consider.<br /><br />First, the disobedience you allege. The disobedience of the parishioners at Holy Innocents is a central complaint of this post (and others) but you offer no evidence of disobedience. What is it that you think Cardinal Dolan has “ordered” and how has he been disobeyed? It is true that more than a year ago Cardinal Dolan put in place a process that recently produced a Preliminary Recommendation about the Church of the Holy Innocents. But, by his own admission, he had nothing to do with making that Recommendation. The Recommendation was actually made by a Committee called the Archdiocesan Advisory Group. Cardinal Dolan did not even attend the meetings at which this Committee deliberated. For Holy Innocents, the Committee recommended that the territorial parish be merged into the nearby parish of St. Francis Assisi. It did not mention closing Holy Innocents and, even if it had, it was explicitly called “Preliminary.” That same Committee has now met again and made Final Recommendations to Cardinal Dolan on which he will not take action until September at the very earliest. Thus, the Cardinal has really not yet done anything that could be disobeyed. What disobedience did you have in mind exactly? Unless you can offer up some evidence of an order (a command, a directive, an invitation or even a request) that you think Cardinal Dolan has given to the parishioners of Holy Innocents (or, with respect to parish closings, to anyone else for that matter) as well as evidence, of course, that it is being disobeyed, there seems to be nothing for you to fault or correct. I suppose I should leave it to you and your readers to decide if your accusation crosses the line into calumny.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-81794900607587850872014-07-01T05:58:07.659-04:002014-07-01T05:58:07.659-04:00Do you realize that your comment, sadly, vindicate...<br />Do you realize that your comment, sadly, vindicates my post? <br /><br />First of all, just as you say we do not have to obey a disobedient bishop, so we do not have to obey a disobedient priest, and I say with all sadness that Father Wylie is a disobedient priest. This is not a judgment of Father Wylie. I looked at what he said. Father Wylie got up in the pulpit and compared the Archdiocese of New York to Reformation England and Cromwellian Ireland. This is where the Catholic Church was literally outlawed, priests had to be smuggled in, and if the priests were captured, as they almost always were, they were literally drawn and quartered. Father Wylie is a priest who took a vow of obedience to his superiors. He was in complete disobedience to his vow when he attacked his superiors in this way. And as I said in my post, you are not doing him any favors by defending his actions.<br /><br />Next, nowhere was I writing about Canon law. Please re-read the post because you seem to have missed it. I am talking about the fact that a group of lay people with a grievance against their bishop took this grievance to a secular newspaper so that it could be aired to the world. And this isn't just any newspaper. This is the New York Times. Father Z is the one who named this paper the "devil's bible" because of their disdain for the Catholic Church and support of everything the Church stands against. Is there a Canon law that says if the laity have a problem with their bishop they are free to air this complaint to whole world, and if it can be done through media which hates the Catholic Church, so much the better? You will have to show me that law.<br /><br />You say you owe a higher obedience to the Pope than to the bishop. Yes, if the Pope declares that the bishop is acting wrongfully, which has most certainly not happened. If you are disobedient to a vaildly ordained bishop in good standing with the Church, then you are disobedient to the Holy Father. <br /><br />You next talk about defending people against evil. This evil, of course, would be Cardinal Dolan. There was an interesting reading today in the LOTH. It concerned the death of King Saul who was wounded on the battlefield. King Saul, as I mentioned in another post, hunted David down like an animal in an attempt to kill him. When Saul was wounded, he turned to another man and asked him to kill him (Saul). The man refused and Saul fell on his sword, killing himself. When the man got back to David, he told David that Saul was dead and that he had killed him, thinking David would reward him for that. Instead, David replied, "How is it that you were not afraid to put forth your hand to desecrate the Lord’s anointed?" David then had the man put to death, saying, "You are responsible for your own death, for you testified against yourself when you said, ‘I dispatched the Lord’s anointed."<br /><br />I ask you, how is it that you are not afraid to put forth your hand to desecrate the Lord's anointed? By condemning Cardinal Dolan as evil, you have, in effect, "dispatched the Lord's anointed." We may not like Cardinal Dolan and the way he does things, but we have no right to figuratively lift our hand against God's anointed and declare him "evil." And that is the whole point of my post. Too many people are doing exactly as you have done in your comment: going to the world and telling them that Cardinal Dolan needs to be "dispatched." You have unilaterally made the decision that Cardinal Dolan is an evil man who wants to destroy the Church. <br /><br />This is why I have a real fear of schism coming from the events at Holy Innocents.Catholic in Brooklynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02714284710110785019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-74792934605007244992014-06-30T19:44:54.019-04:002014-06-30T19:44:54.019-04:00Samuel Howard - "Mean and vicious" is c...Samuel Howard - "Mean and vicious" is cooperating with the New York Times to attack Cardinal Dolan. Do you really think that is the work of the Holy Spirit? You are torpedoing your own cause. Catholic in Brooklynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02714284710110785019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-65557194915121909212014-06-30T16:54:04.647-04:002014-06-30T16:54:04.647-04:00You are as welcome to Holy Innocents as you were b...You are as welcome to Holy Innocents as you were before you stopped coming more frequently. I have never said that you are not welcome there. I would not have that authority. I do not know what makes you think now that the doors will be closed to you if you go there again, and I would probably say hello as well.<br /> <br />I did not say that you want Holy Innocents closed. When did I say that?<br /><br />What I said is that your arguments are very one-sided and you barely offer the opposite point of view. The rebellious attitude is there, but so is the other one that you want: people are praying and you have rarely mentioned that in the posts. You have mostly focused on the "angry traditionalists" like Fr. Z, Michael Voris, and Christine Le Niles, according to you. I don't think they come to Holy Innocents every Sunday. Do you?<br /> <br />There's no anger at all. What my writing reveals is that I think that you are not offering the full view of the story. You have not once quoted any person from Holy Innocents who is praying and fasting for the intentions of Holy Innocents and the traditional Mass. You have not once mentioned the novenas people are making for the spiritual well being of the community and the Church leaders who need a lot of prayer.<br /><br />My sentiments? I keep those very privately. If you want to talk about them, you can always write me a private e-mail as opposed to a blog comment box. I have offer in comment boxed is called "opinion."<br /><br />Attending Mass at Holy Innocents does not mean that you know the church very well. I doubt that you know the servers, the singers, the people who come to the coffee hour, the Priests who say Mass and celebrate Vespers, the people who clean the church twice a month, the knights of Columbus. You might know the building well, but not what keeps it going or not going. I know you try to attend the all night vigil, but does not mean that by knowing those people you know everybody else.latinmass1983https://www.blogger.com/profile/18109855026898340656noreply@blogger.com