On that we disagree. It has been around for so long, I am surprised that others are not familiar with it.
I’m sure many, if not most are familiar. The issue remains, has he gone beyond the feminist drivel to paganism. The actual language suggests it’s possible. Which is all I’ve ever said.
Oh please! The Church itself presumes the intent. The feminist issue of Father/Mother God has been around so long that the presumption carries the weight.
A presumption, but not one that’s rebuttable. I suggest that the growth of neo-paganism is well reflected in the language used. It may not be that he is a neo-pagan - but it’s far from clear. That the use of feminist language has been around does nothing but indicate that it’s been around. It says nothing of how things have changed. Nor does it do anything to support the position that he may have simply adopted a poor expression rife with ambiguity and possibly neo-pagan sentiment to which he does not subscribe. We have no idea what he actually believes. Not me nor you.
Submit away; you are not showing any facts which do not point to the feminist spin on gender; nor are you showing any facts which support another reading over that.
au contraire, the very language bespeaks polytheism. As to what he actually believes, neither of us have any idea whether he subscribes to polytheism or merely feminist terminology. All I have ever said is he
MAY subscribe to neopaganist polytheism and thus validity could be questioned. Perhaps you would care to review the posts above. BTW “may” implies, and I have stated explicitly above, it may be valid. What I have not done, as you want to do with such vehemence is declare it’s clearly valid - I don’t see how you can possibly claim the knowledge to do that.
That is flat out judgementalism. you have never met him, never spoken with him, know nothing of his background, and other than your own judgmental opinion, have no basis to determine his intent, knowledge and training or lack thereof.
He is clearly engaging in illicit activities. We do not disagree on that. So I do in fact have a basis to distrust him and call him a rogue. It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc… It’s merely being factual. Misplaced acceptance of clear and knowing misbehavior is hardly judgmentalism. It’s simply pointing out the fact. That I distrust him has everything to do with his illicit behavior - which i do know about. Don’t blame me when he has by his own actions called for distrust by the laity.
I am not suggesting in the least that he is correct or that he should be encouraged, or that he does not need correction. But your attitude is that he is intentionally defying with specificity the Church’s position on the matter.
Yep - a priest who engages in clearly illicit actions with respect to Mass - I surely do not give them the benefit of the doubt. Presumably he went to seminary, is trained in how to say Mass, trained in canon law and can read church documents as you and i do. I most certainly believe he is doing this sort of stuff deliberately - the burden is on him to show otherwise - not me.
All that has been shown is that he is in error; not why he is in error; you are judging that he is intentionally defiant, or are fast bordering on that.
If that is so, the state of seminary training is so poor as to be a scandal in itself. HE’s a priest for heavens sake - he most certainly is presumed to know the texts and rubrics. again, the burden is on him.
I did no such thing, nor did I suggest anywhere that it is not in need of correction. I am saying you are over the line in making a determination of his knowledge and motivation.
As you continue to give an ordained priest the who is clearly engaging in illicit behavior a by for his clear disobedience - I submit again, you are whitewashing his actions, however you want to characterize it.
No, what you are suggesting is something pernicious. In the name of a distorted and ultimately fruitless “charity” you fail to call him on his most egregious and self-aggrandizing manhandling of the Mass. That is not charity in any sense of the word.
Often it is charity to tell people truthfully they are wrong - especially when they are grievously wrong.
It is not a lack of charity to point out that someone else is wrong; it is a lack of charity to describe to them motivation of which you have no knowledge.
]
It certainly is hubris for a priest to change the words of the Mass. It is certainly reasonable to not give such a person the benefit of the doubt - he already has acted improperly. And he certainly has hijacked the Mass. That is wehat I have ascribed to him - all factual. I have stated repeatedly I don’t know if he is a neo-pagan - but he might be. That is conjecture supported by the very words he has used. The problem here is with this priest - not me.
