Showing posts with label patheos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label patheos. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

The Twitterverse: OnePeterFive v. Patheos and Matt Fradd makes a Franciscan joke

I didnt know there was such bad blood between 1Peter5 and Patheos Catholic.  For that matter I didnt know Patheos Catholic still existed (rimshot, i know I'm a funny guy)



But anyways there is a dust up between the two with accusations, name calling and general wasting of time going on.  Why is Skojac taking this seriously so as to continually reply?  I will leave that to you to consider why. After all nothing good comes from Patheos (but Patheos is no Galilee).




Oh and Matt Fradd had a funny tweet:




h/t to Badger Catholic twitter feed for the Matt Fradd quote

Sunday, May 11, 2014

Yes Deacon Greg Kandra protestants prancing around in clerics is a scandal

edited: it was not nice to call patheos types goombas... not nice, should have defined it first... im sorry

BTW, the only thing good I will say about this picture and the others on Patheos is that at least they are not afraid to be seen wearing their 'clerics' in the public
Patheos 
So my facebook feed had this on it tonight with yes that headline.  Now before you call me a hypocryt dont blame me I dont follow Patheos goomba patrols, blame Matthew Olson for commenting on it and therefore it being on my feed.

Where to begin?

I gather the source of scandal is the notion of a woman wearing a clerical collar (rather than the  concept of her wearing a tasteful black dress to go with it.)
Well, this isn’t really anything new. A lot of Protestant ministers, some of them women, wear the classic “tab” collar. They’ve been doing it for years.
Just your average Joe Deacon
Ok so to begin with there is obvious scandal in that there are many groups apart from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) that like to call themselves Christian parading about in what seems to be clerical garb which has the distinction of holding some authority.  One cannot consciously say there is no scandal.  Are you blind?  Do you only see clerical garb as clothing.... oh wait we are talking about Deacon Average Joe, I'm just like you.  For crying out loud, you Deacon Kandra have been given orders by an apostle of the Church to represent the Church, to stand out in the world not just in how you act but how you look.  We are not gnostics that merely see ourselves spiritually but materially as well and the way you dress speaks to the person or the office you hold.  If Barry comes out of the White House one day sporting a "wife beater" and sweat pants he does a disservice to the office because he is not above the office that he holds.  This is true for all people, especially those consecrated or ordained, they are to live in the world (some) but not be of it.  And giving a witness with the way you dress shows people the seriousness you take in filling that office within Holy Mother Church.  That protestants are mimicking Catholics in what they wear is a scandal in that it puts confusion in the hearts of the already non-formed faithful that are already prone to indifferentism.  This minimalist attitude of 'I dont wear my clerics because it doesnt matter, plus those who focus on such are clericalists' has got to be one of the most blind personal decisions to take hold since the council (well maybe the continuance of versus populum mass and other things are just as bad or worse, but hey the minimalists dont care in the Church of Nice).  That we pretend its ok for these laymen to dress like they hold a real office is a sham, they are laymen clinging to error and for some reason we are content to see to it that nothing is said about them mimicking and or mocking Catholics by using clerical garb to their ultimately evil ends because they are content to keep peace with material heretics by not offending their sensibilities

It’s becoming so common, in fact, that most suppliers of clergy apparel now cater to both men and women.
This led me on a fascinating Google search I never thought I’d undertake: “Clergy shirts for women.”
Yet another aspect of the scandal is that the faithful, who again are not taught the faith of Our Fathers to any meaningful extent now see women prancing about in clerics fostering more indifferntism.  Yes women wearing clerical garb is a scandal because it is not proper to them be they lay or "ordained" by heretics who have no authority themselves(which they are because calling them ministers is only a feel good, non confrontational way of perpetuating insanity).  Just because it is the thing for Protestants to do now in ordaining women doesn't mean we are silent on the issue.  JPII, when the episcopalians "ordained" the active same sex attracted guy cut off all talks with the Anglicans (one of the few things I applaud him for btw).  But to some there would be no scandal there because, hey, their protestants thats what they do, so lets let bi-gones be bi-gones.  Cowards, they mock Christ and call themselves Christians, and you are content giving them that title.  And another thing why is a deacon of the Church wasting his time searchig for such things.... what about the so called new evangelization?


People who are upset about that image at the top of this post are falling prey to a manufactured outrage that isn’t really all that outrageous—and the issue is older than some realize. The simple fact is: it’s not uncommon for non-Catholic ministers to dress like Catholic clergy. It’s just that now, a growing number of those ministers are women.
Lest we forget: nearly 70 years ago, David Niven was depicted as an Episcopal bishop with both the tab collar and—spoiler alert— a wife.
So in other-words the Deacon has fallen, himself, prey to complacency.  And complacency breeds contempt, especially for those that dont just take a ho-hum approach to those that have chosen to separate themselves from Christ.  That this issue is not brought up today is outrageous because their is no zeal to call out confusers of truth.  When they dress as they do they cause scandal because their is no distinction between those with true authority and those that are self-appointed buffoons of error.


It’s also worth noting that the clerical collar itself is a relatively modern invention. In fact, its roots aren’t even Catholic. Wikipedia points out:

Which makes me wonder more why Catholic clerics give their assent to such things.  The Roman Cassock is the clerical garb of the Church from time immemorial yet you will hardly ever see it worn by a cleric in the confines of the Church or in public because they worry that they will be perceived as being clerical and not friendly.  Take for instance my own archdiocese.  One priest wished to wear a cassock and was called into the Bishops office for having had the gull to do so, when the USCCB made specific allowances (theres double speak for you) so priests that chose to do so would not be persecuted as being clericalists.  When in reality most priests in this diocese will not be caught dead in public wearing their clerics and even sneer at those that do.  Give witness to the faith not just in the actions and thoughts but in the way you look because then the world will know you stick out like a sore thumb to them calling them to something greater than yourselves, the office you hold

Also, why are so many Fathers in the faith removing their Fr. status from their Facebook pages?  Is this tryng to prevent clericalism or more liberal pandering to a world devoid of fathers to begin with?

Dear Average Joe Deacon Kandra dont be complacent with this but give testimony to the true scandal that it is!!


Look at that lace! What a Clericialist!!!!

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Tolkien Round 3: Doesn't this just say it all?

From the why are the non reactionaries [?] acting like such a bunch of over-reactinaries file:

As New Catholic put it in a Tweet the other day, the Patheos inquisition (a funny reference to Zmrick's smear) is at hand, and when the indifferentists over there (if you want me to state why I call them that just ask) continue to throw a tizzy.

Now step in a new voice at Patheos to shame the Audio Sancto priest:

Apparently there is an audio lecture going the rounds slamming Tolkien. I haven’t listened to the lecture, but I understand it is along the lines of “Nobody ever came to faith and was baptized by reading fantasy novels like Lord of the Rings and there’s no myth or fantasy literature in the Bible so what good is it?” Whether I am over simplifying the lecturer’s point or not doesn’t matter, because he does raise an interesting question: Is J.R.R.Tolkien an evangelist or not?
I guess I should be grateful that he doesn't attack RC as being neo-pelagian rad trad reactionaries but still why is so hard for these people to get the point of the talk?

The main thrust of the talk was not whether Tolkien is or is not an evangelist.  For that matter Dante in his Divine Comedy is guilty of putting a now canonized pope in the eternal fires so there is a problem there.  But the difference is that people recognize the problems in the comedy and dont hide them thinking the work sacrosanct.

First if you he admits to not listening to the talk, but taking his cues from hearsay.

Second from this hearsay he then connects supposed dots that this is an attack on Tolkien.  (A note here there is a logical fallicy here that the homosexuals fall into as well not being able to seperate their person from the things they do)

Third the priest mentioned that he knew of no one that came to the faith through the Lord of the Rings.  He is speaking about how the story does not directly bring people to the faith until others show the good points then they can play off these things, but they then ignore the problematic aspects.

If the book helps people come into the faith great.  But for those that are not familiar with the audio sancto sermons the priest has been focusing on the inability of some to directly call out error even in inconvienent situations.  In the sermon called "Hatred of Heresy"he calls out Fulton Sheen indirectly for promoting heretical bible commentaries.  The point is that we have become so focused since the council on showing the positive aspects of things that we have lost the zeal to point out the troubling aspects.

A person is not his work.  Whether there are people that come to the faith by the works of Tolkien directly or indirectly is not the point of the sermon when you trace the theme over the last few months.

The point is whether or not we are willing to recognize problems then they come up, or whether we will side step the issues out of comfort.

Why is this so complicated?