"Let your Yes, be Yes, and your No, be No, anything
other than this is from the Evil one"
Benedict XVI's pontificate has been marked by
a few defining moments that have provoked some
neither entirely foreseeable nor easily controlled
reactions: one need only think of the polemics
that ensued after the release of the motu proprio
Summorum Pontificum. This act, which occasioned
an openly hostile, widespread reaction, was also
an opportunity for some to discover the Church's
genuine liturgical patrimony and, through it, they
were spurred on to discover an ecclesiology and
theological system not only different from, but also incompatible with, that forged. over the Last 50 YEARS _ and peremptorily imposed on "the People of God."
Among the choices characterizing Benedict
XVI's pontificate it seems to me that we can include the principle of the "hermeneutic of continuity,"! which was articulated in his famous speech to the Roman Curia of December 22, 2005. The speech was not followed by the explosive reactions that have occurred in other instances, but it did give rise to a current of thought, and to its opposition, that is still with us and merits our attention.
In the following reflections we intend to scrutinize what the principle of the hermeneutic of continuity asserts, and we shall try to situate it in the historical context of the Church today so as to deduce all of its implications.
A True Principle and an
Unproven Presupposition
Forty years after the close of the Second Vatican
Council, Benedict XVI recognizes the fact that
situations creating a deep malaise arose after this historic event. He immediately frames the difficulty as a problem in the acceptance of the Council linked to a problem of the interpretation(hermeneutic) of the texts of the Council itself: too often, the Council was interpreted and thus applied in discontinuity with the perennial teaching of the Church, contrary to the objective meaning of its texts and contrary to the intentions of the Council Fathers themselves.
The hermeneutic of continuity thus is presented as
the proper approach to interpreting the Council
authentically, according to its true intention and
especially in perfect harmony with Tradition.
Benedict XVI's intervention has the merit of
highlighting a basic principle,namely,that in the
Church's magisterial teaching," there cannot be a break with previous teaching, but only continuity: what the Church has always taught can neither be surpassed, nor set aside; rather, it constitutes the Church's patrimony, which can neither be repudiated, nor substantially altered.
We should remark that this truth recalled by
Benedict XVI is in one sense quite simple; it pertains to the rudiments of the Faith and to the foundational principles that define the very nature of the Church. Consequently, the fact that he deemed it necessary to outline his papal program in light of this truth constitutes a first significant acknowledgement of the doctrinal crisis in which the Church finds itself. By
solemnly reiterating such a simple, elementary truth, which had been set aside in practice and in common teaching, the Pope inevitably provided an objective indicator of the gravity of the current situation. The usual commemorative orations about
the council were replaced in this speech by a
reminder of elementary principles: it constituted
an initial acknowledgment that something has not
worked. Moreover, it should be recognized that the
fact of recalling that there can be no break in the Church's teaching prompted in some individuals
especially priests, a desire to valorize things past and the Tradition of the Church. In many cases this re-evaluation led to the progressive discovery of an absolutely new patrimony, which these priests felt had been denied them. This is certainly the most positive effect of the hermeneutic of continuity. However, the hermeneutic of continuity stands out, not so much for its intrinsic, abstract value as in the concrete application made of it, as a two-edged sword: it affirms, in effect, that the documents
of the Council are in perfect continuity with the
Church's perennial Tradition, and when it brings
to light an .objectively serious problem of a break, it systematically reduces it to a question of the interpretation of the Council itself, to a deviation that occurred in the post-conciliar period. The absolute fidelity of the Council to the previous authoritative teaching of the Church seems to remain as an indisputable postulate. In this way, the "blame" falls upon a heterodox current of thought incompatible with Catholic doctrine and foreign to the Council, but
which paradoxically succeeded in steering in large
part the application and the concrete results."
As we now get to the crux of our considerations,
we plan to situate the hermeneutic of continuity
historically by seeking to grasp every aspect without entering in detail into specific conciliar teachings, which have been discussed over and over, we realize that it postulates a series of elements which, instead of saving the Council, indirectly demonstrate its failure.
(I would say then, based on the above, that the VCII created this failure without intending to break with the traditions, that have been followed for over 2000 years. The corrective measures that Pope Benedict VXI
is attempting to do, is just, and needed then, but is being opposed by those in the Catholic church,who have read in to the VCII actions, those changes ,that were not the intention of the Council, and should then be extracted, as having no validity. JMHO)
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
SI SI NO NO
The following is excerpted from the SI SI NO NO article:
Benedict XVI's pontificate has been marked by
a few defining moments that have provoked some
neither entirely foreseeable nor easily controlled
reactions: one need only think of the polemics
that ensued after the release of the motu proprio
Summorum Pontificum. This act, which occasioned
an openly hostile, widespread reaction, was also
an opportunity for some to discover the Church's
genuine liturgical patrimony and, through it, they
were spurred on to discover an ecclesiology and
theological system not only different from, but also
incompatible with, that forged. over the Last 50 YEARS _
and peremptorily imposed on "the People of God."
Among the choices characterizing Benedict
XVI's pontificate it seems to me that we can include
the principle of the "hermeneutic of continuity,"!
which was articulated in his famous speech to the
Roman Curia of December 22, 2005. The speech
was not followed by the explosive reactions that have
occurred in other instances, but it did give rise to a
current of thought, and to its opposition, that is still
with us and merits our attention.
In the following reflections we intend to scrutinize
what the principle of the hermeneutic of continuity
asserts, and we shall try to situate it in the historical
context of the Church today so as to deduce all of its
implications.
A True Principle and an
Unproven Presupposition
Forty years after the close of the Second Vatican
Council, Benedict XVI recognizes the fact that
situations creating a deep malaise arose after this
historic event. He immediately frames the difficulty
as a problem in the acceptance of the Council linked
to a problem of the interpretation(hermeneutic) of
the texts of the Council itself: too often, the Council
was interpreted and thus applied in discontinuity
with the perennial teaching of the Church, contrary
to the objective meaning of its texts and contrary
to the intentions of the Council Fathers themselves.
The hermeneutic of continuity thus is presented as
the proper approach to interpreting the Council
authentically, according to its true intention and
especially in perfect harmony with Tradition.
Benedict XVI's intervention has the merit of
highlighting a basic principle, namely, that in the
Church's magisterial teaching," there cannot be a break
with previous teaching, but only continuity: what the
Church has always taught can neither be surpassed
nor set aside; rather, it constitutes the Church's
patrimony, which can neither be repudiated nor
substantially altered.
We should remark that this truth recalled by
Benedict XVI is in one sense quite simple; it pertains
to the rudiments of the Faith and to the foundational
principles that define the very nature of the Church.
Consequently, the fact that he deemed it necessary
to outline his papal program in light of this truth
constitutes a first significant acknowledgement of the
doctrinal crisis in which the Church finds itself. By
solemnly reiterating such a simple, elementary truth,
which had been set aside in practice and in common
teaching, the Pope inevitably provided an objective
indicator of the gravity of the current situation.
The usual commemorative orations about
the council were replaced in this speech by a
reminder of elementary principles: it constituted
an initial acknowledgment that something has not
worked. Moreover, it should be recognized that the
fact of recalling that there can be no break in the
Church's teaching prompted in some individuals
especially priests, a desire to valorize things past'
and the Tradition of the Church. In many cases this
re-evaluation led to the progressive discovery of an
absolutely new patrimony, which these priests felt had
been denied them. This is certainly the most positive
effect of the hermeneutic of continuity.
However, the hermeneutic of continuity stands
out, not so much for its intrinsic, abstract value as
in the concrete application made of it, as a two-
edged sword: it affirms, in effect, that the documents
of the Council are in perfect continuity with the
Church's perennial Tradition, and when it brings
to light an .objectively serious problem of a break,
It systematically reduces it to a question of the
interpretation of the Council itself, to a deviation that
occurred in the post-conciliar period. The absolute
fidelity of the Council to the previous authoritative
teaching of the Church seems to remain as an
indisputable postulate. In this way, the "blame" falls
upon a heterodox current of thought incompatible
with Catholic doctrine and foreign to the Council, but
which paradoxically succeeded in steering in large
part the application and the concrete results."
As we now get to the crux of our considerations,
we plan to situate the hermeneutic of continuity
historically by seeking to grasp every aspect: without
entering in detail into specific conciliar teachings,
which have been discussed over and over, we realize
that it postulates a series of elements which, instead of
saving the Council, indirectly demonstrate its failure.
From what I have read from this, the VTII council was not explicit in its determination, and leeway given to the Priests. It had no intention of changing what has been the tradition of the Church for over 2000 years. What has happened, Bishops,
Pastors, and Priests have read into what was determined, to mean what they wanted it to mean. That was not the intent of the VTII Council. Therefore Pope
Benedict XVI must give an interpretation, whereby, none of the traditions of the Church have been supplanted, nor to have changed. And any conflict with the traditional teachings, should automatically, negate those changes to the traditional teachings of the church from 1962 on.
It is my sincere hope, that the Pope will return our church to the prior teachings, and traditions that were practiced prior to VTII.
I am in no way an expert, but only go with the direction of what my spirit leads me to go, and Just my Humble Opinions.
Benedict XVI's pontificate has been marked by
a few defining moments that have provoked some
neither entirely foreseeable nor easily controlled
reactions: one need only think of the polemics
that ensued after the release of the motu proprio
Summorum Pontificum. This act, which occasioned
an openly hostile, widespread reaction, was also
an opportunity for some to discover the Church's
genuine liturgical patrimony and, through it, they
were spurred on to discover an ecclesiology and
theological system not only different from, but also
incompatible with, that forged. over the Last 50 YEARS _
and peremptorily imposed on "the People of God."
Among the choices characterizing Benedict
XVI's pontificate it seems to me that we can include
the principle of the "hermeneutic of continuity,"!
which was articulated in his famous speech to the
Roman Curia of December 22, 2005. The speech
was not followed by the explosive reactions that have
occurred in other instances, but it did give rise to a
current of thought, and to its opposition, that is still
with us and merits our attention.
In the following reflections we intend to scrutinize
what the principle of the hermeneutic of continuity
asserts, and we shall try to situate it in the historical
context of the Church today so as to deduce all of its
implications.
A True Principle and an
Unproven Presupposition
Forty years after the close of the Second Vatican
Council, Benedict XVI recognizes the fact that
situations creating a deep malaise arose after this
historic event. He immediately frames the difficulty
as a problem in the acceptance of the Council linked
to a problem of the interpretation(hermeneutic) of
the texts of the Council itself: too often, the Council
was interpreted and thus applied in discontinuity
with the perennial teaching of the Church, contrary
to the objective meaning of its texts and contrary
to the intentions of the Council Fathers themselves.
The hermeneutic of continuity thus is presented as
the proper approach to interpreting the Council
authentically, according to its true intention and
especially in perfect harmony with Tradition.
Benedict XVI's intervention has the merit of
highlighting a basic principle, namely, that in the
Church's magisterial teaching," there cannot be a break
with previous teaching, but only continuity: what the
Church has always taught can neither be surpassed
nor set aside; rather, it constitutes the Church's
patrimony, which can neither be repudiated nor
substantially altered.
We should remark that this truth recalled by
Benedict XVI is in one sense quite simple; it pertains
to the rudiments of the Faith and to the foundational
principles that define the very nature of the Church.
Consequently, the fact that he deemed it necessary
to outline his papal program in light of this truth
constitutes a first significant acknowledgement of the
doctrinal crisis in which the Church finds itself. By
solemnly reiterating such a simple, elementary truth,
which had been set aside in practice and in common
teaching, the Pope inevitably provided an objective
indicator of the gravity of the current situation.
The usual commemorative orations about
the council were replaced in this speech by a
reminder of elementary principles: it constituted
an initial acknowledgment that something has not
worked. Moreover, it should be recognized that the
fact of recalling that there can be no break in the
Church's teaching prompted in some individuals
especially priests, a desire to valorize things past'
and the Tradition of the Church. In many cases this
re-evaluation led to the progressive discovery of an
absolutely new patrimony, which these priests felt had
been denied them. This is certainly the most positive
effect of the hermeneutic of continuity.
However, the hermeneutic of continuity stands
out, not so much for its intrinsic, abstract value as
in the concrete application made of it, as a two-
edged sword: it affirms, in effect, that the documents
of the Council are in perfect continuity with the
Church's perennial Tradition, and when it brings
to light an .objectively serious problem of a break,
It systematically reduces it to a question of the
interpretation of the Council itself, to a deviation that
occurred in the post-conciliar period. The absolute
fidelity of the Council to the previous authoritative
teaching of the Church seems to remain as an
indisputable postulate. In this way, the "blame" falls
upon a heterodox current of thought incompatible
with Catholic doctrine and foreign to the Council, but
which paradoxically succeeded in steering in large
part the application and the concrete results."
As we now get to the crux of our considerations,
we plan to situate the hermeneutic of continuity
historically by seeking to grasp every aspect: without
entering in detail into specific conciliar teachings,
which have been discussed over and over, we realize
that it postulates a series of elements which, instead of
saving the Council, indirectly demonstrate its failure.
From what I have read from this, the VTII council was not explicit in its determination, and leeway given to the Priests. It had no intention of changing what has been the tradition of the Church for over 2000 years. What has happened, Bishops,
Pastors, and Priests have read into what was determined, to mean what they wanted it to mean. That was not the intent of the VTII Council. Therefore Pope
Benedict XVI must give an interpretation, whereby, none of the traditions of the Church have been supplanted, nor to have changed. And any conflict with the traditional teachings, should automatically, negate those changes to the traditional teachings of the church from 1962 on.
It is my sincere hope, that the Pope will return our church to the prior teachings, and traditions that were practiced prior to VTII.
I am in no way an expert, but only go with the direction of what my spirit leads me to go, and Just my Humble Opinions.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Time to set everything straight
Very few points of the current draft of the Instruction for the Application of Summorum Pontificum seem to be available to us. The first we mentioned, on blocking the application of the liberality of the motu proprio to all non-Roman Western rites and uses may seem minor - yet it is quite significant in what it reveals: an interpretation of the rights recognized by Summorum as privileges or "indults" that can be curtailed.
Our revelation today, made jointly with Messa in Latino, could seem even more limited in its extension - but it certainly is much, much, more serious and insidious in the extent it shows that the anti-Summorum field has infiltrated the composition of the Instruction. In short, the Instruction, in its current draft, will explicitly prevent Bishops from using the Traditional Rite of Holy Orders.
There will be two exceptions. One, dedicated to the those institutes (the 'Ecclesia Dei' institutes) and particular Churches dedicated exclusively to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. The other exception is that the Bishop that desires to ordain a certain seminarian in the ancient Rite will have to ask prior permission to Rome (to the Pontifical Commission 'Ecclesia Dei'), which will then evaluate if said permission should be granted or not.
While the motu proprio is unclear on the use of the Traditional liturgical rites of the Roman Pontifical for Holy Orders (Baptism, Matrimony, Penance, Extreme Unction, and Confirmation are expressly mentioned in art. 9, and the Holy Eucharist throughout the text), this is no loophole. While it might make sense to clarify some points regarding other Sacraments, as directed by the "Pastor" (art. 9 § 1), it would obviously be unnecessary to "allow" these same Pastors to do what they can always do: ordain priests of the Roman Rite using the books of the Roman Rite, including the rite of Holy Orders that was used in the Latin Church for well over a millennium.
What is to be achieved by this odious restrictive interpretation? Why should Bishops be forbidden to choose with which Rite to ordain their own deacons and priests? Since the advent of Summorum, in a few privileged places, Bishops have furthered the establishment of a biritual mentality in their seminaries, and have indeed celebrated Holy Orders in the Extraordinary Form; it seems clear that, if a Bishop so desires, for an unlimited number of pastoral and spiritual reasons, he should be able to do so freely.
The intention is, among others, to ghettoize the Traditional Rite of this most pivotal of all Sacraments, Holy Orders; and, further, to identify "problematic" Bishops and future priests, with all consequences that could entail (including for their careers). It is an alarming sign that the thrust of the Instruction is once again to make, even in law, all Catholics attached to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite or those who merely appreciate it (and, in this case, even Bishops and poor hopeful seminarians) second-class Catholics.
Rorate Caeli
Our revelation today, made jointly with Messa in Latino, could seem even more limited in its extension - but it certainly is much, much, more serious and insidious in the extent it shows that the anti-Summorum field has infiltrated the composition of the Instruction. In short, the Instruction, in its current draft, will explicitly prevent Bishops from using the Traditional Rite of Holy Orders.
There will be two exceptions. One, dedicated to the those institutes (the 'Ecclesia Dei' institutes) and particular Churches dedicated exclusively to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. The other exception is that the Bishop that desires to ordain a certain seminarian in the ancient Rite will have to ask prior permission to Rome (to the Pontifical Commission 'Ecclesia Dei'), which will then evaluate if said permission should be granted or not.
While the motu proprio is unclear on the use of the Traditional liturgical rites of the Roman Pontifical for Holy Orders (Baptism, Matrimony, Penance, Extreme Unction, and Confirmation are expressly mentioned in art. 9, and the Holy Eucharist throughout the text), this is no loophole. While it might make sense to clarify some points regarding other Sacraments, as directed by the "Pastor" (art. 9 § 1), it would obviously be unnecessary to "allow" these same Pastors to do what they can always do: ordain priests of the Roman Rite using the books of the Roman Rite, including the rite of Holy Orders that was used in the Latin Church for well over a millennium.
What is to be achieved by this odious restrictive interpretation? Why should Bishops be forbidden to choose with which Rite to ordain their own deacons and priests? Since the advent of Summorum, in a few privileged places, Bishops have furthered the establishment of a biritual mentality in their seminaries, and have indeed celebrated Holy Orders in the Extraordinary Form; it seems clear that, if a Bishop so desires, for an unlimited number of pastoral and spiritual reasons, he should be able to do so freely.
The intention is, among others, to ghettoize the Traditional Rite of this most pivotal of all Sacraments, Holy Orders; and, further, to identify "problematic" Bishops and future priests, with all consequences that could entail (including for their careers). It is an alarming sign that the thrust of the Instruction is once again to make, even in law, all Catholics attached to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite or those who merely appreciate it (and, in this case, even Bishops and poor hopeful seminarians) second-class Catholics.
Rorate Caeli
Friday, February 18, 2011
Urgent appeal for the Pope's clarification of Motu Proprio
All of you Conservatives, please go to this site to appeal to our Pope Benedict XVI
to continue with his clarification of Motu Proprio, in which he grants the permission of priests to say the Latin Masses without the permission of their PASTOR, OR BISHOP, plus to futher explain that VTII did not do away with the former liturgy. There has been mounted an opposition to this by the Liberals, and Progressives in the Catholic Church, and your signatures are urgently needed at this time. Thank you and GOD's Bleesing on you and your families.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/motuproprioappeal/
An Appeal to the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, Pertaining to the Instruction/Clarification of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum
Email friends
Most Holy Father, we the undersigned:
1. Express our profound gratitude to Your Holiness for your personal liturgical example to the Universal Church. You are a true homo liturgicus whose love for the sacred liturgy is an inspiration; it teaches more clearly than words the centrality of the liturgy in the life of the Church.
2. Thank Your Holiness for your gift to the Church of your 2007 Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. Since 2007 it has brought forth many fruits, including greater unity in the Church of Christ and a widespread enrichment of the liturgical life of the Church.
3. Note with sadness the continuing and real opposition to the implementation of Summorum Pontificum in many dioceses and on the part of many members of the hierarchy, the suffering and distress this continues to cause many of Christ’s faithful and the obstacle this opposition is to an effective reconciliation within the Church.
4. Note with anxiety the apparent signs that a forthcoming Instruction on Summorum Pontificum will, in some way, take away from what you have legally established in that Motu Proprio and from its wide application in the generous spirit so eloquently explained by Your Holiness in the letter accompanying it: “Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.”
5. Express our grave concern that any restrictive measures would cause scandal, disunity and suffering in the Church and would frustrate the reconciliation you so earnestly desire, as well as impede further liturgical renewal and development in continuity with Tradition, which is already so great a fruit of your pontificate.
6. Express our hope, our desire and our urgent appeal that the good Your Holiness personally initiated through Summorum Pontificum not be allowed to be hindered by such restrictions.
7. Turn to you with filial trust and as obedient sons and daughters, Most Holy Father, and ask that you urgently consider our concerns and intervene if you judge it necessary.
8. Assure Your Holiness of our continuing prayers, of our deep affection and of our loyalty.
to continue with his clarification of Motu Proprio, in which he grants the permission of priests to say the Latin Masses without the permission of their PASTOR, OR BISHOP, plus to futher explain that VTII did not do away with the former liturgy. There has been mounted an opposition to this by the Liberals, and Progressives in the Catholic Church, and your signatures are urgently needed at this time. Thank you and GOD's Bleesing on you and your families.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/motuproprioappeal/
An Appeal to the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, Pertaining to the Instruction/Clarification of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum
Email friends
Most Holy Father, we the undersigned:
1. Express our profound gratitude to Your Holiness for your personal liturgical example to the Universal Church. You are a true homo liturgicus whose love for the sacred liturgy is an inspiration; it teaches more clearly than words the centrality of the liturgy in the life of the Church.
2. Thank Your Holiness for your gift to the Church of your 2007 Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. Since 2007 it has brought forth many fruits, including greater unity in the Church of Christ and a widespread enrichment of the liturgical life of the Church.
3. Note with sadness the continuing and real opposition to the implementation of Summorum Pontificum in many dioceses and on the part of many members of the hierarchy, the suffering and distress this continues to cause many of Christ’s faithful and the obstacle this opposition is to an effective reconciliation within the Church.
4. Note with anxiety the apparent signs that a forthcoming Instruction on Summorum Pontificum will, in some way, take away from what you have legally established in that Motu Proprio and from its wide application in the generous spirit so eloquently explained by Your Holiness in the letter accompanying it: “Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.”
5. Express our grave concern that any restrictive measures would cause scandal, disunity and suffering in the Church and would frustrate the reconciliation you so earnestly desire, as well as impede further liturgical renewal and development in continuity with Tradition, which is already so great a fruit of your pontificate.
6. Express our hope, our desire and our urgent appeal that the good Your Holiness personally initiated through Summorum Pontificum not be allowed to be hindered by such restrictions.
7. Turn to you with filial trust and as obedient sons and daughters, Most Holy Father, and ask that you urgently consider our concerns and intervene if you judge it necessary.
8. Assure Your Holiness of our continuing prayers, of our deep affection and of our loyalty.
Why I may be remiss in my postings here.
If any of you readers here may know, I post on three other blogs, "Is it right for the new Pastor to attack his parishioners", and Elmont blog.
Another blog is "Cutting of Pastors roll called Vindictive" in the Massapequ park blogspot.
The third, "Swift name as principal at Our Lady of Lourdes School" also Mass. Park.
I have been malign, slandered,cursed at, and demeaned with lewd references.
Their posts are all without substance, and their intent is only to try to shut me up.
The posters who supposedly are Catholic, or Christian, have aligned themselves with a Woman who posts as "Ilona", or "Puffin Lady". She is obsessed in attacking the Catholic Church, as her family was Catholic(if you are to believe her). She has slandered the Catholic Church, made fun of Jesus with demeaning jokes, posted a prayer that she made up starting with " Our mother which are in ....".
I say this, only to show how far those, who profess to be Catholic, will go, in their attempt to censure my Conservative views, both in the Catholic church, and in my political beliefs. Many supposed Catholic posters, had been on these sites, and not one of them will tell her to shut up speaking against the Catholic Church.
She posts anti-Catholic information that she has cut and pasted from other sources,
the latest quoting Mark Twain. The progressives believe they have the right to
stand up side by side with Wicca, Heretic, Pagans , like this Ilona(PuffinLady), and still feel they are doing nothing wrong, as long as it is against my posts. They do not answer any of the posting information, but instead rant and rave against me.
I am telling you this, so that if you come across any of these Progressive Catholics,
who fear and hate the traditional ways, you will not be silent, and speak out against them. Our Lord GOD said, "FEAR NOT FOR I AM WITH YOU ALWAYS" Isaiah 41:10
This is one of the last posts on those sites:
I have tried to help poor Ilona(PuffinLady),but as most heathen pagans, she is devoid of conscience.
"Itchy Watch" on the other hand is puffed up with his young childlike ways, that he believes he is a grown-up. Quite the contrary, it is a sign of
his "Oppositional Defiant Disorder".
In Puffin Lady's case, her elders were Catholics,
and her unacknowledged "Oppositional Defiant Disorder" went unchecked, and her rebellious nature grew into the Wicca she now follows. as C.S. Lewis wisely observed in his "Letters to an American Lady", "Nothing gives one a more spuriously good conscience than keeping rules, even if there has been a total absence of all real charity and faith. She believing she is free from the bad conscience by doing good deeds, feels that nothing more is needed. In reality, we are called to ore than rule-observance, and in reality, right conscience, does more than alert us to evil.
Her lewdness, foul mouth, posts show the true nature, and anger, still burning inside of her.
I noted that originally she was attacking the "people from India" having 3 day festivities,and on her postings in the topic called "love"(of all things, which she denies posting, as she used the name Ilona, and not Puffin Lady), she offers to meet with anyone at the "frozen Ice cream" stand,and that she "would show you why I am called the John Wayne of Elmont, I do not take any S...from any Indians." So then her actions belie her charity works, that she claims to do, along with her daughter. It would be a case of "do as I say,not as I do" situation, as her lewd mouth and actions show what she is really about. A person frothing with hate and anger, much as she tried to judge every one else. Conscience has an important role of approving, instigating, and inspiring us to positive action. Ilona, is devoid of any conscience, as her posts have proven from the beginning, when she latched on intentionally to this site. It was not by accident, but intentional,as she saw a chance of raving, and ranting against Catholics. She is blind, and refuses to admit to this fact, and is still acting out her "Oppositional Defiant Disorder" I can but pray for her soul, and that of my detractors, "Itchy Watch"......et. al. and reiterate:
Dominus Vobiscum, Omnipotens Deus have misericordia in vestri penuriosus animus
Another blog is "Cutting of Pastors roll called Vindictive" in the Massapequ park blogspot.
The third, "Swift name as principal at Our Lady of Lourdes School" also Mass. Park.
I have been malign, slandered,cursed at, and demeaned with lewd references.
Their posts are all without substance, and their intent is only to try to shut me up.
The posters who supposedly are Catholic, or Christian, have aligned themselves with a Woman who posts as "Ilona", or "Puffin Lady". She is obsessed in attacking the Catholic Church, as her family was Catholic(if you are to believe her). She has slandered the Catholic Church, made fun of Jesus with demeaning jokes, posted a prayer that she made up starting with " Our mother which are in ....".
I say this, only to show how far those, who profess to be Catholic, will go, in their attempt to censure my Conservative views, both in the Catholic church, and in my political beliefs. Many supposed Catholic posters, had been on these sites, and not one of them will tell her to shut up speaking against the Catholic Church.
She posts anti-Catholic information that she has cut and pasted from other sources,
the latest quoting Mark Twain. The progressives believe they have the right to
stand up side by side with Wicca, Heretic, Pagans , like this Ilona(PuffinLady), and still feel they are doing nothing wrong, as long as it is against my posts. They do not answer any of the posting information, but instead rant and rave against me.
I am telling you this, so that if you come across any of these Progressive Catholics,
who fear and hate the traditional ways, you will not be silent, and speak out against them. Our Lord GOD said, "FEAR NOT FOR I AM WITH YOU ALWAYS" Isaiah 41:10
This is one of the last posts on those sites:
I have tried to help poor Ilona(PuffinLady),but as most heathen pagans, she is devoid of conscience.
"Itchy Watch" on the other hand is puffed up with his young childlike ways, that he believes he is a grown-up. Quite the contrary, it is a sign of
his "Oppositional Defiant Disorder".
In Puffin Lady's case, her elders were Catholics,
and her unacknowledged "Oppositional Defiant Disorder" went unchecked, and her rebellious nature grew into the Wicca she now follows. as C.S. Lewis wisely observed in his "Letters to an American Lady", "Nothing gives one a more spuriously good conscience than keeping rules, even if there has been a total absence of all real charity and faith. She believing she is free from the bad conscience by doing good deeds, feels that nothing more is needed. In reality, we are called to ore than rule-observance, and in reality, right conscience, does more than alert us to evil.
Her lewdness, foul mouth, posts show the true nature, and anger, still burning inside of her.
I noted that originally she was attacking the "people from India" having 3 day festivities,and on her postings in the topic called "love"(of all things, which she denies posting, as she used the name Ilona, and not Puffin Lady), she offers to meet with anyone at the "frozen Ice cream" stand,and that she "would show you why I am called the John Wayne of Elmont, I do not take any S...from any Indians." So then her actions belie her charity works, that she claims to do, along with her daughter. It would be a case of "do as I say,not as I do" situation, as her lewd mouth and actions show what she is really about. A person frothing with hate and anger, much as she tried to judge every one else. Conscience has an important role of approving, instigating, and inspiring us to positive action. Ilona, is devoid of any conscience, as her posts have proven from the beginning, when she latched on intentionally to this site. It was not by accident, but intentional,as she saw a chance of raving, and ranting against Catholics. She is blind, and refuses to admit to this fact, and is still acting out her "Oppositional Defiant Disorder" I can but pray for her soul, and that of my detractors, "Itchy Watch"......et. al. and reiterate:
Dominus Vobiscum, Omnipotens Deus have misericordia in vestri penuriosus animus
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Answer to OLL Bullitin Feb 6, 2011
I notice in the latest bulletin from OLL, that the Pastor is making an appeal to the congregation, to:
"inviting new members to join us. Or to "Bring Home", parishioners who may have drifted away over the years".
What part of," you drove them away", doesn't the Pastor understand? You destroyed the essence of the faithful of this parish, by your anger from uncovering the priest without faculties, that you had covered up for over 8 years, from St Thomas, to Our Lady of Lourdes parishes. This parish was a vibrant, thriving parish until you, for whatever reason you had, decided to rip apart this loving congregation.
And now you are looking for them to return to Our Lady of Lourdes? To what? An altar without the crucifix on it ? To the beloved statue given to us as a gift from pilgrims returning from Fatima being banished at one time in a closet?
A closed school? To a parking lot too small to hold the parishioners going to mass? To reduced confessions? To false teachings? To a pastor who doesn't say masses during the week, who doesn't hear confessions?It wasn't too long ago that the Pastor wanted to build a grotto,
facing Carmans Road. Was the parish flushed with so much money, that they could do that? Was it necessary for us to have a new Nativity for Christmas? Who complained about the old one?
FAITH, and Faith alone, will bring people back to the Catholic Church. Not the new progressive ideas, of turning the Catholic Church into a Protestant Church, but the returning back to the Catholic church as it had celebrated mass, with reverence To our Lord Jesus, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, as it had been celebrated
for over 2000 years. The Pastor did not want to listen to anyone that tried to contact him, as he did not want to listen to any criticism, or suggestion, from the Faithful of the parish, but instead listened, and pandered, to the progressives, who wanted instead to have their ears tickled, and to see dignitaries, who are pro-abortionists, receive holy communion, when our Pope had expressively stated that they should not.
No Msgr, you have no idea of the money you have lost, nor the amount of Parishioners, by your anger, and actions. Mathew Blockley was a lose cannon, and a lost priest, who should have had professional help within the church. Had his case been brought to light through the Bishop, and had the Bishop handled the matter, instead of you, taking it upon yourself to intercede, and not have him go back to Bishop Tomas Comacho, just maybe everything in the parish would have been dealt with ,in a loving, Catholic way. By dialogue and not angry actions. The actions taken against the faithful parishioners of Our Lady of Lourdes, are your responsibility. Whether ordered by you, or done without your knowledge, it is your job to oversee all that goes on in the Parish. If you are too busy with your TV, and Radio shows, to actively do your job, then Msgr, it is time to resign from the job of being the Pastor at Our Lady of Lourdes Parish.
My disdain, is not for a Pastor that made a mistake because of inability to understand, but from actions allowed to happen, with or without, your knowledge. As President Truman always said
"the Buck stops here" meaning he was responsible for anything under his charge. So too, should the Pastor of a parish, be responsible for all that happens in that parish. You can not run a parish from a long distance telephone call. Too bad you could not have learned that before coming to Our Lady of Lourdes. The Pastors job was accepted at that parish, and you should have done the job as it should have been done, by being in the parish to see to it that the parish is run by a caring Shepherd, that Pastors should be, leading the sheep safely home to our Lord.
Itzik
"inviting new members to join us. Or to "Bring Home", parishioners who may have drifted away over the years".
What part of," you drove them away", doesn't the Pastor understand? You destroyed the essence of the faithful of this parish, by your anger from uncovering the priest without faculties, that you had covered up for over 8 years, from St Thomas, to Our Lady of Lourdes parishes. This parish was a vibrant, thriving parish until you, for whatever reason you had, decided to rip apart this loving congregation.
And now you are looking for them to return to Our Lady of Lourdes? To what? An altar without the crucifix on it ? To the beloved statue given to us as a gift from pilgrims returning from Fatima being banished at one time in a closet?
A closed school? To a parking lot too small to hold the parishioners going to mass? To reduced confessions? To false teachings? To a pastor who doesn't say masses during the week, who doesn't hear confessions?It wasn't too long ago that the Pastor wanted to build a grotto,
facing Carmans Road. Was the parish flushed with so much money, that they could do that? Was it necessary for us to have a new Nativity for Christmas? Who complained about the old one?
FAITH, and Faith alone, will bring people back to the Catholic Church. Not the new progressive ideas, of turning the Catholic Church into a Protestant Church, but the returning back to the Catholic church as it had celebrated mass, with reverence To our Lord Jesus, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, as it had been celebrated
for over 2000 years. The Pastor did not want to listen to anyone that tried to contact him, as he did not want to listen to any criticism, or suggestion, from the Faithful of the parish, but instead listened, and pandered, to the progressives, who wanted instead to have their ears tickled, and to see dignitaries, who are pro-abortionists, receive holy communion, when our Pope had expressively stated that they should not.
No Msgr, you have no idea of the money you have lost, nor the amount of Parishioners, by your anger, and actions. Mathew Blockley was a lose cannon, and a lost priest, who should have had professional help within the church. Had his case been brought to light through the Bishop, and had the Bishop handled the matter, instead of you, taking it upon yourself to intercede, and not have him go back to Bishop Tomas Comacho, just maybe everything in the parish would have been dealt with ,in a loving, Catholic way. By dialogue and not angry actions. The actions taken against the faithful parishioners of Our Lady of Lourdes, are your responsibility. Whether ordered by you, or done without your knowledge, it is your job to oversee all that goes on in the Parish. If you are too busy with your TV, and Radio shows, to actively do your job, then Msgr, it is time to resign from the job of being the Pastor at Our Lady of Lourdes Parish.
My disdain, is not for a Pastor that made a mistake because of inability to understand, but from actions allowed to happen, with or without, your knowledge. As President Truman always said
"the Buck stops here" meaning he was responsible for anything under his charge. So too, should the Pastor of a parish, be responsible for all that happens in that parish. You can not run a parish from a long distance telephone call. Too bad you could not have learned that before coming to Our Lady of Lourdes. The Pastors job was accepted at that parish, and you should have done the job as it should have been done, by being in the parish to see to it that the parish is run by a caring Shepherd, that Pastors should be, leading the sheep safely home to our Lord.
Itzik
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
From the "New Catholic"
Let us defend Summorum Pontificum against the Trojan Horse
[Update: We will keep this up; all signs from different sources are aligning, and unexpected sources have confirmed our fears; the matter is too relevant to be kept in silence.]
[1014 GMT] Strange, violent, and dark forces wish to derail the application of Summorum Pontificum. Lawyers (and those who know lawyers...) and legislators are quite aware how this goes: a lower-ranking interpretive text so modifies the clear letter of the law that renders the latter ineffectual.
Reports from different sources suggest that ill-intentioned people within the highest ranks of the Holy See wish to use the clarification document on Summorum Pontificum as a Trojan Horse, emptying the motu proprio of all its content, especially regarding Parish Priests and other members of the diocesan clergy (see e.g. Messa in Latino). This is a dangerous, clear, and credible threat. We must pray, indeed, but all priests and lay faithful must act. All Catholic faithful must send urgent and respectful letters to the Holy Father, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Secretariat of State, the Pontifical Commission 'Ecclesia Dei', and other authorities, asking the Holy Father and curial authorities to defend the clear letter of the motu proprio that gave us freedom and thanking once again the Holy Father for the gift that was Summorum Pontificum, including references to the personal improvement brought to one's Catholic life and family by the wider availability of the Traditional liturgy.
This is also a time for open letters to the Pope, from all concerned Catholic intellectuals, in Italy, in France, in Germany, in Britain, in America, and elsewhere. We must make our voices heard BEFORE the storm hits, and it may hit us very soon.
[Update: We will keep this up; all signs from different sources are aligning, and unexpected sources have confirmed our fears; the matter is too relevant to be kept in silence.]
[1014 GMT] Strange, violent, and dark forces wish to derail the application of Summorum Pontificum. Lawyers (and those who know lawyers...) and legislators are quite aware how this goes: a lower-ranking interpretive text so modifies the clear letter of the law that renders the latter ineffectual.
Reports from different sources suggest that ill-intentioned people within the highest ranks of the Holy See wish to use the clarification document on Summorum Pontificum as a Trojan Horse, emptying the motu proprio of all its content, especially regarding Parish Priests and other members of the diocesan clergy (see e.g. Messa in Latino). This is a dangerous, clear, and credible threat. We must pray, indeed, but all priests and lay faithful must act. All Catholic faithful must send urgent and respectful letters to the Holy Father, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Secretariat of State, the Pontifical Commission 'Ecclesia Dei', and other authorities, asking the Holy Father and curial authorities to defend the clear letter of the motu proprio that gave us freedom and thanking once again the Holy Father for the gift that was Summorum Pontificum, including references to the personal improvement brought to one's Catholic life and family by the wider availability of the Traditional liturgy.
This is also a time for open letters to the Pope, from all concerned Catholic intellectuals, in Italy, in France, in Germany, in Britain, in America, and elsewhere. We must make our voices heard BEFORE the storm hits, and it may hit us very soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)