Wednesday, October 16, 2013

OKAY. NOT FROM ZOLTAN. FROM ANONYMOUS.

Sorry. I'm having trouble keeping up with who is attacking me, especially since some of them want to stay anonymous. 

As you may have seen in the comments of previous posts, "Zoltan" had descended from reasonable challenges to calling this blog "disgusting", etc. So when I got the following comment on a post titled "Zoltan Says" as part of a longer stream of comments, I, of course, thought it was from him. But it wasn't. It was from "Anonymous". Just in case you're up to following all this, here's the first comment:


oh did you take that as an insult? none intended on my end. Please enlighten me about what transpired in 2008. Change is hard to accept as with Vatican II as you and most of your followers know. I guess the NCW is always going to have a splinter in their eye from those who do not accept the log in theirs, the NCW claims to be a fruit of Vatican II and most of those who have problems with the NCW are the traditionalists who feel that Vatican II was a mistake. Extreme Traditionalists spend so much time trying to be in the right, trying to not make a mistake that they loose out on so much that can be done to help our fellow Christians. How often Tim do you see a person who has not been to church in years walk in to your apologetics class? Not that often I bet. I will even go on to say that its just the same group that flocks the TLM. right? How often have your group of followers, your prodigies chosen to not take part in the events of our local church? and this is the same thing the NCW on ZOLTAN SAYS

To which I responded:


MAN. TALK ABOUT A HATER!  IS THIS WHAT THE NEOCATECHUMENAL WAY TEACHES? Oh, and BTW, there's about 3 people who attend our group regularly that go to the TLM. Come and ask them.


And to which I further responded (but now will substitute Anonymous for Zoltan's name):


Oh, and BTW, Zoltan  Anonymous, sorry to get back to you so late on your comment. You see I've been busy the last couple weeks trying to keep this island from snipping the necks of born-alive babies, a practice supported and promoted by the owner of the bank our church does millions of dollars of business with. So you see, I really haven't had much time to pay attention to your rants.  BTW, have you sent in your testimony in support of Bill 195-32 or is killing babies while they lay on a delivery table gasping for life okay with you? Just wondering, Zoltan Anonymous. Oh, never mind. It's not your fault. You probably didn't even know about it.

I was advised that the comment did not come from Zoltan in a comment from Anonymous (follow that?) copied here:


Sorry Tim that comment you are referencing was not from Zoltan. My apologies too to Zoltan, I choose to remain anonymous. To refer to my comment as "hate" or to refer to me as a "hater" does not make sense. There was no hate intended on my end. Just frustrated that you continue to insult a movement on grounds that I cant seem to comprehend. I earlier stated that this is good entertainment but I may have to revisit that statement. Its not that entertaining to see someone ridicule something that is saving lives. Its the same passion that you have for Bill 195-32 that I have for all things that allow life to conquer death. Really no hate intended, just felt that you were being selective on your comments and not realizing that the problems exist in almost every other thing/subject in life. If I am wrong in my comments, I'll take the corrections. I also forgive you for calling me a "hater"

Now, let's take a moment with this, because I think it gets to the bottom of the difficulty. 

1. Zoltan called my allowing anonymous comments "disgusting", and a few other choice adjectives. So Anonymous, you may want to take that up with him.

2. You say your comment wasn't "hate". Okay, how about demeaning, ridicule, degrading? Any of those work? Let's take a look. 

3. You said: "Change is hard to accept as with Vatican II as you and most of your followers know."

Your accusation is that I don't accept Vatican II. You are wrong. And "followers" ? Really? That's insulting to the intelligent people who I associate with. This comment was a straightforward slap at calling me and others like me "backward", apparently not as enlightened as you. (Of course what really bothers you is that there are thousands reading these pages.)

4. You said:  I guess the NCW is always going to have a splinter in their eye from those who do not accept the log in theirs, the NCW claims to be a fruit of Vatican II and most of those who have problems with the NCW are the traditionalists who feel that Vatican II was a mistake.

This is amazingly judgmental on your part. (Though I am no longer "amazed".) So anyone who disagrees with you has a "log" in their eye. Apparently you're Jesus now. But then I've come to expect that from the NCW. And another slam at "traditionalists"? Just an FYI, outside of Guam, few know of the NCW, and none of the Traditionalist groups I follow every mention it. But speaking of "traditionalists" and assuming you mean us backward people who attend the TLM, you may want to actually read what Pope Benedict said in Summorum Pontificum and his accompanying letter to the bishops so you will know WHY he restored this Mass and why he directed the bishops to see to its restoration. But because it's obvious you don't read, here, I'll tell you. Benedict restored the Mass because it was never meant to go away "never abrogated", and its restoration was necessary for the true fulfillment of Vatican II in concert with his belief in the hermeneutic of continuity as the key. So while YOU believe the NCW is the "fruit of Vatican II", we KNOW the restoration of the TLM IS the "fruit of Vatican II" as per Pope Benedict. Oh, don't worry. I don't suppose you'll accept any of this, but it's important for others to know.

5. You said: How often Tim do you see a person who has not been to church in years walk in to your apologetics class? Not that often I bet.

Hmmm. Amazingly judgmental (AGAIN) for someone "walking". Really amazing. But actually, several people. Too bad you're not around for the stories. Two non-Catholics have chosen to come into the church specifically because of what they have learned at our "class". And several others have come back to the church. A young lady and a young man just told us so this past Monday. By the way, do you even know what we do? We READ the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I teach nothing. We READ THE Catechism of the Catholic Church. In other words, Anonymous, we actually LISTEN to the Church, NOT a catechist with some private instructions from Spain. You see, the plain old Mother Church is good enough for us. Yes, Mother Church, the Catechism, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Sacraments, a wholesome family, just normal stuff. I know its hard to believe that anyone can actually be a Catholic outside the NCW, but SURPRISE! 

6. You said: I will even go on to say that its just the same group that flocks the TLM. right? How often have your group of followers, your prodigies chosen to not take part in the events of our local church?

This one is just too damn funny. Your assumption evinces your disdain and disgust for anyone who challenges the NCW. Quite uncharitable, Anonymous. In fact, other than myself, my daughter and her friend, there isn't anyone in my apologetics class who attends the TLM. They all go to their own parishes. They simply come to our study group to learn more about the Catholic faith, by reading the Catechism. Our study group has NOTHING to do with the TLM. 

This is why you come across as a "hater". Haters mouth off ad hominum - attack the man. No facts. No nothing. Just attack the man. You are wrong on every count. But thanks for bringing this back up. I was going to let the NCW thing go away without pulling out my big guns, evidence you and the NCW will not like. Real evidence. And a REAL PROBLEM. Now I have a reason. Watch for it.




1 comment:

  1. Tim says: "Zoltan called my allowing anonymous comments "disgusting", and a few other choice adjectives."

    This is a lie! Plain and simple. I was talking about your comment page which is dishonest and totally absurd. Here are the exact words of what I said:

    "This is pretty much disgusting how you lump together all the comments here in one single page without any name or date attached. This is your way to "take care of" those who take time and effort to respond to your blog entries."

    Hopefully, you'll be able to realize now that your intellectually dishonest ways won't pay off. Please, pray for me.

    ReplyDelete

Recommendations by JungleWatch