Saint Thomas Aquinas

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Blogs, Hecklers and Complaints

Every now and again I get a disgruntled reader who does not like my blog posts. They like to come over and tell me what I should and should not be writing. I don't mind complaints, and everyone has their opinion. But what I find amusing is that people are insistent on trying to force my hand on what I post on, as if I should change everything I write based on their personal opinion. Here is the deal. This is my blog, I write what I want, and if people like it, they will read it, if not they can go elsewhere. I am not one to mince words, and I have little use for effeminate cream-puffs who are afraid to voice concerns about problems in the Church. I am upfront about what I believe, and I trust in everything Holy Mother Church prescribes me to believe, because Jesus Christ speaks through His one Catholic Church.

Those who think I am a hardliner because of that, too bad. Those who want to paint every doctrinal teaching with an ambiguous gray undercoating, I have no use for. I will continue to promote the Catholic faith and I will continue to rebel against anyone or anything that threatens that faith to the best of my means and ability to do so. If you like my posts, great, if not so be it. But don't expect me to pander to you if you do not agree with me. Its not going to happen. If you want to debate a particular theological issue, or something pertaining to the Catholic faith, I am glad to do so. I have a couple of projects going on now and I am not putting up as many posts here as I usually do. I am spending a great deal of time on the promotion of the Cardinal Manning Society, so my time is limited over here for the time being. For all of the compliments I have received over the last couple of years since launching the blog, thank you!

8 comments:

misterkellywilson said...

On 20 October you complain about a man Pope Benedict saw fit to name a Cardinal.

On 17 October you highlight the polarity between Protestants and Catholics.

On 15 October you lament the "hype" surrounding a man Pope Benedict saw fit to beatify.

On 14 October you cite disparagingly the short memories of Catholics.

Look, this isn't about "effeminate cream puffs..." It's about the image you project here. You have an image of Catholicism that you seem to take comfort in, and that's okay, but I don't think that image reflects Catholicism as it is experienced today. Further, I don't think you're old enough to realize that this image of yours didn't exist when you think it did.

Wuerl's a Cardinal. Are there better candidates out there? Of course.

Catholics and Protestants are different. Who doubts that?

Newman overshadows Manning? Get over it.

Catholics don't read enough older stuff? You're right they don't.

What good does mentioning all this do. There's something more important than "truths" and its the "Truth." Like I said, Catholic has a beautiful person it communicates, and you could be part of that evangelism. Why shy away?

You mention your love and faithfulness to Catholicism. Then paint at this blog, what she paints in the world.

Or is that too effeminate for you?

Matthew Bellisario said...

"On 20 October you complain about a man Pope Benedict saw fit to name a Cardinal."

Yes, a bad decision, too bad if you don't agree with me!

"On 17 October you highlight the polarity between Protestants and Catholics."

Absolutely, one is the light of Christ's Truth, the other is a fraud!

"On 15 October you lament the "hype" surrounding a man Pope Benedict saw fit to beatify."

So what? There are other great men who deserve attention as well, and I provided positive affirmation of other great Catholic men of faith. If you do not like that, too bad.

"On 14 October you cite disparagingly the short memories of Catholics."

Yes, and it seems that you are one of those with a short memory as well!

Matthew Bellisario said...

"Look, this isn't about "effeminate cream puffs..." It's about the image you project here. You have an image of Catholicism that you seem to take comfort in, and that's okay, but I don't think that image reflects Catholicism as it is experienced today."

There are many who disagree with you. It is experienced by many Catholics that I know.

"Newman overshadows Manning? Get over it."

No, I wil just spend my resources promoting the other. No need to get over it, just because you don't like it.

"What good does mentioning all this do."

It allows people to discover great Catholic theologians who they would never have had access to before, that is what mentioning it does.

misterkellywilson said...

Then refresh my memory. Where, at Vatican II, do our Council Fathers refer to Protestantism as a fraud?

And if you want to cite to me previous statements of the Church, then would I correctly assume that you disagree with Ratzinger when he states that the old should be interpretted through the lens of the new?

Last comment for the evening. I'm sure you're not too disappointed about that.

Matthew Bellisario said...

If a faith does not profess the entire truth and leads people into error, then it is a fraud! If you read Pope Benedict, he says the new need to be interpreted in a continuity with the old, that is in light of tradition. The new does not overturn and reinterpret everything that came before it.

Matthew Bellisario said...

"He who abandons the Chair of Peter on which the Church is founded, is falsely persuaded that he is in the Church of Christ” Pius IX

juscot said...

Matt, the main reason I like this blog is that you're clear cut in your writing style. You don't try to soft-pedal the truth. You'll say "Protestantism is a fraud" because it leads people into error. You also said we must interpet what is "new" by the light of tradition. The Vatican II babies don't understand this at all. But if we don't have tradition, how are we going to know the truth? Our faith is based on the traditions handed down to us by the apostles. Something "new" might be a heresy, so we need tradition to judge these things. Sadly, many of the VII babies seem to think that a New World Order changed the Chrch forever in the 60's. Nope, it just temporary disrupted the one fonded by the apostles, just like the Arian crisis did in the 4th century. Pretty soon, every thing "old and traditional' will be new again.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Thanks. I agree. These guys who think that the Church started at Vatican II are in a state of delusion. They think that all the Vatican II documents, of which are not the same dogmatic nature as previous Councils, nullified everything that came before it.