Highlight: Fr. Longenecker Shows You How to Identify an Enemy of the Faith: The Radical Traditionalist. AKA Protestant who is "Legally" Catholic

Hello Everyone,

I realize I have been snoozing away at blogging here on Servimus. I've been busy between my other minsitry activities as well as my wedding preparations, with only two short months away. The date is set for May 14, 2016. Please everyone, pray for us both, as the Devil is seriously trying to wreck things for us, now and for our future, and sometimes I feel he is using anything and even anyone in my vicinity as pawns to destroy us.

Anyways, I know a few people do read this blog or check it every so often, so to keep things fresh, I'll feature a "highlight" of one of my favourite blogs, "Standing on my Head" under Fr. Longenecker. This priest thankfully is orthodox, and detest Radicals Misrepresenting Traditionalists. This priest is even hated right now by the so-called "true remnant" of the Church because he has respectfully called out the Godless and amoral man that may possibly be the United States' next president, Donald Trump. Unfortunately, in hypocritical and commandment violating action, the RMTs have made Mr. Trump their newest "golden calf" to idol worship, over the Lord Jesus Christ. They think Trump will be some kind of saviour against "those damn Lie-berals" in the church and society, and he's a bully and loudmouth just like them.

Now, what I am featuring is Fr.'s latest article, which is a top ten list of vile and I daresay, Protestant and Satanic behaviours that these RMTs exhibit. Seriously, suck this in and take note, because if you don't know what constitutes an RMT, you will know. With this handy list, you will now know that if you see these actions, who one is.

I'll leave it up to you when you do identify an RMT, if you even dare to try and employ fraternal correction or counsel of these wayward brothers, frequently displaying little to no mercy or reception to spiritual counsel. They abhor mercy and it's current minster of proclamation, Pope Francis. More likely, this list will help you to know who to stay away from, as they are spiritually damaging the souls of the faithful from within the Church (including you.) As arbiters of the Devil's works (unwillingly, or maybe even willingly???) the RMTs rightfully deserve to be isolated and ignored in the Faith when not adhering to the teachings of the Catholic Church and virtue, and if necessary, need to be policed spiritually, and/or civilly/criminally to stop malicious behaviour.

Enjoy from the words of Fr. Dwight Longenecker. Pax, Julian.

Source: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/ten-traits-of-catholic-fundamentalism

Ten Traits of Catholic Fundamentalism

March 7, 2016 by Fr. Dwight Longenecker

Within Catholic ultra traditionalist circles a new wave of ugliness has arisen. Numerous traditionalist blogs, websites and publications spew disrespectful hatred towards the Catholic church. They mock the Mass by despising the “Novus Ordo” they denigrate the Holy Father referring to him as “Pope Frank” or “Bergoglio” and refer to their mother the Catholic Church with adolescent disrespect as “FrancisChurch”.

I avoid commenting on the filth because, why wallow in sewage? I’m not going to link to the aggregators and websites in question because if you’re interested all you have to do is snoop around a little and follow a few links. You’ll see how they lie, misrepresent and tear down fellow Catholics, how these self appointed prophets ridicule, gossip and slander their fathers in God, and how these self righteous, pretentious Pharisees vomit their bile on all they meet.

It is pointless to ever argue with these people because they are always right. They have no true repentance in their hearts, but are driven by the worst kind of pride: spiritual pride.

Instead of arguing I would like to point out what is going on. First of all, I think it is unfair to use the term “traditionalist” for these people because it pulls down the many good, sensible and holy Catholics who are traditionalist by nature and by their devotions and worship. These people are my friends and family. I am on their side.

They work hard for the church. They live their faith. They build up their families and their parishes in the faith. These good folks deserve to keep the term “traditionalist” and to honor it with their good, strong, faithful and humble Catholicism.

We should separate the paranoid hate mongers from the rest of the traditionalists. They are not traditionalists. They are Protestant fundamentalists wearing traditionalist Catholic clothes.

I know about Protestant fundamentalism. I was raised and educated among Protestant fundamentalists. Among them were many good and sincere Christian people, but also among them, and driving their religion–was a certain type of religious person whose attitudes mirror exactly the Catholic fundamentalists on the rise today.

Here are ten principles things that connect them:

1. Private Interpretation – Protestant fundamentalists rely on their own private selection and interpretation of the Scriptures. Their interpretation is always the right one. Catholic fundamentalists rely on their own selection and interpretation of church documents. Like the Protestant fundamentalists they know better than the Pope.
2. Cafeteria Christianity – The Protestant fundamentalist picks and chooses which parts of the Bible he wants to adhere to. Catholic fundamentalists do the same. They pick which parts of Catholicism they consider “authentic” and ignore or denigrate the rest.
3. Private Prophets – Protestant fundamentalists alway raise up their own preachers and prophets. Mini demagogues–they cultivate a celebrity status and promote them as infallible mini popes. Catholic fundamentalists fall down before their own prophets and preachers who they also raise to a status of authority that supersedes the bishops and even the Holy Father.
4. Fortress Mentality – Protestant fundamentalism thrives on the fortress mentality. The little group gets together and builds walls and peers over them at al the “sinners” who are outside the enclave. Catholic fundamentalists practice the same ghetto mentality. “We few, we faithful few!” We are the Remnant of faithful ones who remain. Their response to this blog post, for instance, will be to retreat further into their self made holy fortress and throw stones over the parapet at me–not addressing my points, but resorting to name calling.

5. Invincible Self Righteousness – Protestant fundamentalists are totally convinced they are right.  There is no argument or discussion. Catholic fundamentalists are the same. The have their proof texts. They have their watertight world view. No discussion. No dialogue. It’s their way or the highway. Their response to this blog post will prove my point, for the ones to whom I am referring will not engage my points, but dismiss me and my message.

6. Anger and Violence Fundamentalism is always tinged with anger. There’s no sense of humor here. There’s no joy. There’s no laughter. Especially there is no sense of humor about themselves. Fundamentalists are angry and aggressive, and given enough rope they will move from verbal violence to physical violence. The Catholic fundamentalists who bother to read this far and react in anger to this blog post, for example, will prove my point and they will not even be able to see this themselves.

7. Fear and Loathing Protestant fundamentalists are fueled by fear and loathing. Catholic fundamentalists are the same. There is little light, joy, peace and confidence in their lives. Instead life is narrowed down by fear and loathing. Where there is fear there is darkness.
8. Suspicion and Separation Those who are outside the group are the sinners and suspect ones, but those who seem to be inside the group, but do not share the group think are suspected even more. The only ones who are worse than the sinners outside are the sinners inside the fortress. Therefore everyone inside must conform constantly, and anyone who steps outside the rules or exhibits the wrong attitude will soon be shunned, then excluded.
9. Conspiracy Theories – the atmosphere of suspicion and fear inevitably breeds conspiracy theories. The big, dark nefarious secret powers are always thought to be behind the scenes planning some sort of hostile attack on the select few of the faithful.
10. Persecution complex Fundamentalists do just about everything possible to make themselves obnoxious and unlikeable, then when people dislike them or get down on them they love to play the persecuted victim. It is almost as if they are not only looking for persecution, but are anticipating it with a sick kind of thrill.

Why take time to analyze these ten principles? Because what we see in the extreme religious behaviors of fundamentalists is not limited to Protestants or Catholics. It is actually the sick form of any religion. There are fundamentalist Muslims, fundamentalist Hindus, fundamentalist Jews, fundamentalist Mormons.

You name it. This is the form of religion that is a kind of anti-religion.

Furthermore, as we approach Holy Week, remember that it was this kind of religion which drove the Scribes and Pharisees who eventually scapegoated Jesus and made sure he was killed.

Finally, the analysis is not just a critique of fundamentalists. It should be a sober critique of all Christians because all of us, at one point or another, if we are not careful and prayerful, will fall into these traps to a greater or lesser extent.

I know what I’m talking about because, on my worst days, I see that kind of Catholic looking back at me from the mirror.

Simple Novus Ordo Catholics is an Insult to the Body of Christ and the Majority of Catholics Worldwide!

Hello Everyone,

Unfortunately, there will be no Part II to the Dave Armstrong posting I did. The apologist contacted me and thanked me for my efforts, but no more will be needed on the matters at hand.

Sure. Glad to serve the Catholic Church and you, SIR!

However, there is one thing that bothered me on the attack from Mr. Armstrong, and it really did bother me because I felt it was quite heretical, not to mention blatanly offensive to the Church at Large, the majority of believers who attend Mass in the Roman Rite (the majority of the Catholic Church), and embarasses once more those of us who participate in any way, even occasionaly, the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite/Latin Mass.

In the attacks on Mr. Armstrong, the following statement was said by his assailant, which I will not link to, to prevent you from being exposed to spiritual evil and possible corruption of your souls, and that they deserve no more web hits feeding their Internet Troll-ism:

"As for my "bombastic" comments, they are reserved for those who undermine the faith, not the simple "Novus Ordo Catholic" which you will never find on this blog."

WHAT THE HECK? "SIMPLE" NOVUS ORDO CATHOLICS??????

This comment has a number of sick problems with it. I'll start with the theological/heretical problems with this statement, and then I will tackle it common sense, which I think might be the more powerful evidence that this statement is quite asinine. 

Theological, Basic

This is foolish, even on a basic level. When Christ got together his Apostles, the 12 ordinary men from all walks of life, Christ did not summon only the elite and the wealthy to spread the Gospel and build his Church. If he wanted to turn to those who were the "elite" and/or with the most forceful and literal interpretation and knowledge of religious laws among the Jews, he would have taken 12 of the following: The Sanhedrin or other high/chief priests. Rabbis. Rich and wealthy in biblical times in Jerusalem. Popular scribes.

Jesus did NOT practice a spiritual elitism in his choice of people to carry out his mission. If he didn't want "simple" Jews, those who weren't the tops at practicing the law including the 613 Mitzvahs, he would have picked people from the above groups mentioned.

But he did not. He picked 12 ordinary men of the day and age, with the most wealthy or privileged being Matthew the Tax Collector, as in that time, as is this day and age, government jobs usually mean security and a fairly decent wage. Not to mention that Matthew, being the tax collector, got to take money from other people according to the Roman government's dictatum! But even Matthew wasn't "elite" or popular. In fact, as a tax collector, he was despicable to the common citizen because of his association with the Roman Empire as the guy who steals your hard earned money, only to give it to a corrupt and merciless government.

Christ clearly, even in his picking of his 12 Apostles, clearly shows that he did not want his Church to be one of popular prestige, nor that he only wanted perfect practitioners of the law to head it and demand the same rigoristic, non-merciful rendering of God's order and law to be part of his Church. That rendering, by the way, is purely how humans interpret the carrying out of the law, not necessarily the law in and of itself.

Theological, Advanced. Statement has Possible Traces of Heresy

The statements, also commits comments of a pseudo-Gnostic nautre. Gnosticism, of which the Church has condemned Gnosticism always in its history as heresy, is defined as by Wikipedia:

"Gnosticism (from Ancient Greek: γνωστικός gnostikos, "having knowledge", from γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) is a modern term categorizing a collection of ancient religions whose adherents shunned the material world – which they viewed as created by the demiurge – and embraced the spiritual world.[1] Gnostic ideas influenced many ancient religions[2] that teach that gnosis (variously interpreted as knowledge, enlightenment, salvation, emancipation or 'oneness with God') may be reached by practicing philanthropy to the point of personal poverty, sexual abstinence (as far as possible for hearers, entirely for initiates) and diligently searching for wisdom by helping others .... In Gnosticism, the world of the demiurge is represented by the underworld, which is associated with matter, flesh, time and, more particularly, an imperfect, ephemeral world. The world of God is represented by the upper world and is associated with the soul and perfection. The world of God is eternal and not part of the physical. It is impalpable and timeless"

While people do not formally call themselves, "gnostic" in their religious denomination on censuses taken by governments, it is entirely possible for people to subscribe to its heretical ideas, including pseudo-forms such as the idea expressed in the sentiment above. In this statement, it is a blend of both Gnosticism, as well as Puritanism/Jansenism.

Applied to the statement above, the Novus Ordo Church is what is the demigurge,  associated with improprieties in form, in the priest's demeanor, supposed poor theological education and lack of proper formation, and the majority of the laity as a whole being hypocrites to the Scriptures. The Novus Ordo Church, in the mind of bloggers and other Radical Traditionalists, is the demigurge, associated with only a face value love of Jesus.

Where the Pharisicm/Jansenism comes in, is that in the Catholic Church, is that in Pharicism/Jansenism, there is a high strictness for criteria of worshiping the Lord, according to specific ritual, law etc. as placed on papers, in definitions, etc. with no other interpretation but the most strictest.

Further, Jansenism as applied in the Catholic Church, was more of a practical level, denying Sacraments in combination with a lack of mercy and forgiveness, but also implying a denial of freely received and used grace, including free will. Today, these neo-Jansenists apply that theology in new ways with the Latin Mass and Roman Rite, whereby only the Latin Mass is "TRUE" Catholic Worship with true grace and true sacramental gifts, and where the TRUE Catholic faith is. The Novus Ordo, and the people within it are receiving a "bastardized" form of the faith, where the True Church is nearly all but absent.

How to we tie this all back into the statement from the attack on Dave Armstrong? Well, due to a misconstrued understranding of true Catholic tradition, the statement commits a fallacy in stating that the Novus Ordo, essentially, is a second class form of the Mass, and everyone involved is not a true believer, or are hypocrites. Thus, the only true form of the Mass in the Latin Rite is the Extraordinary Form, 'untouched by heresy and the Devil', and only those who attend this form of the rite, and believe everything that the neo-Jansenists and other "True remnants of the Catholic faith", the priests who serve it, are true sons of Christ, who are sacramentally nourished.

One could also argue that such a statement and the behaviour underlying the statement, even dovetails along the line of other schismatic groups in Church history, such as the Donatists.

The Killer .... Common Sense and the Statement Above Insults Normal Novus Ordo Catholics!
So, you may think I, beacause I am not of Holy Orders, or have umpteen theological degrees, have utter hogwash. Well, then, in preparation for a response of denial of my arguments, I decided to see just how offensive this statement is to those "simple" Novus Ordo Catholics.

Taking a poll of my friends on Facebook, I asked what they felt about this statement, positive or negative, or neutral. I received a good half to full dozen responses at this time, all from differrent perspectives. but also, one could say, different levels of Catholic education and involvement in the Church. Of the responses, I shall post the most prominent of the responses that illustrate the hatred and contempt (and even, possible heresy) of the comment. Two actually go together. All contributors names have been withheld to prevent Facebook stalking.

The first, from "Joan":
" XXXXXXXXX Yeah, kinda rubbed the wrong way by this. Someone who is Catholic, and therefore abides by Jesus' teachings, is telling others not to come to his/her blog because his/her profound statements are for people who think like him/her only. Doesn't that run contrary to the whole point of Jesus' teachings? What if He'd said at the beginning of a parable that it was only for those who were already following Him, or who agreed with what He'd taught in a previous lesson, or whatever, and everyone else should go away? I mean, of course it's this person's right to say and do as he/she sees fit, but I don't know, it doesn't seem very...Catholic."

What I love about this statement is it is quite common sensical, and even just on common sense alone, the argument is nearly blown away, and the hypocrisy and LACK of Christ`s example is present.

Next, someone, ``Augustine,`` a recent graduate of a Catholic-run theology School in Toronto, with a Masters in either Theology/Divinity, adds onto Joan's comments with this:

" XXXXXXXXXX [Joan] has already said what needs to be said but as a theologian I feel the need to point out that this person is dangerously close to denying that the NO sacraments are just as efficacious as the VO ones."

Ouch! Clearly this graduate, who has the proper credentials of study in Catholic Theology, is supporting what Joan has said, and adding a wealth more. Further, he support what I have said in my advanced section with this statement coming close to, if not containing, heresy. Mind you, I am not surprised at this heresy in a way, as the Society of St. Pius X speaks in a similar manner about the Novus Ordo, with firm detestment, and even statements in past such as it being "evil" which convey the same heretical message.

Finally, I will display some commentary from a devout, woman, "Theresa" who has attended the Latin Mass, though mainly attends the Novus Ordo. Despite not being a theologian, a Catholic teacher, or a lay minister of any sorts, her statement is full of knowledge, Truth of the Faith, and is powerful:

" The Catholic church, in it's truest meaning is an Universal Church, It includes everyone. The Magisterium permits either form of Mass and adherents to either form were extolled not to hold the other form in contempt. His statement belies both the universality of his Church and the acceptance of both forms."

Whoa. This one blew me away. This is quite a catechesis indeed!!! Universal, is one of the 4 marks of the Church, meaning Christ meant it for everyone. This is something basic that I've taught to confirmandi in past, and is key. Christ meant salvation for everyone, not just a select few.

Further, the Magisterium is the authority of the Church on matters of the Faith, including its deposit of dogmas/doctrines (what must be believed by all Members of the Church, even if struggling with the concepts,) and the lessons of Christ and the Moral Truth. Yes, this is true, and even in Trad Hero, Benedict Emeritus XVI's Summorum Pontificum, he reiterates this concept of NOT bashing the other form of the Roman Rite, from either side.

Finally, that last statement ..... it's clear as day. This Mark of the Church, universality, is being denied in the statement, and the statement is also tratorious to the author's causes, and one of his Latin Mass heroes, Benedict XVI, who "freed" (though the Latin Mass was never legally/formally banned), the Latin Mass.

............................................................................

This just had to be countered. Offensive to the Church, as proven here by fellow `simple`` Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo Mass, and even heretical, I, Julian at Servimus Unum Deum, could not allow this to stand and with the help of my friends, I must "apologize", as in engage in Apologetics, against this statement, sadly even against my own Sibling in Christ.

All of us, have the duty, as a spiritual work of Mercy, as well as Practicing Roman Catholics, to instruct those needing counsel on matters of THE Faith, but as well to be proud and defend our truly universal, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Pax Tibi Christi, Julian.

Pro Apologia for Dave Armstrong, Professional Catholic Apologist, Part 1

BAAAAD To the Bone. Catholicism's Heavy Metal Gunslinger of Apologetics .... Dave Armstong!!! Source: http://speakerpedia.com/speakers/dave-armstrong

EDITOR'S NOTE: Due to starting the draft of this posting on an Iphone, and not doing what was necessary to fix things, the text displays itself all weird. I'll have to rewrite 

this post to fix the weird error later. 

Hello Everyone,

If you wonder why Catholic Traditonalism, never mind even in general the Catholic Faith is 
not spreading, it is because of sick, vile hypocrisy. Catholics, who are full of zest and vigor, and a sound knowledge of the Church's teachings, are misapplying their efforts into sinful 
stabs of Satanic action (e.g. gossip, misinformation) against other faithful Catholics, twisting truths into mis-truths, while trying to tell people about our faith and the awesomeness of our Catholic Liturgy. 

Who are the stabbers and the hypocrites? If you thought it's those dreaded "neo-cons" or 
"neo-traditionalists" ... You are being misled by the wrong kind of Catholic social media. The truth is, it is Radicals Misrepresenting Traditionalists who are the ones doing this stabbing. 

Some of the most prolific examples, comes from blogs and "news sites" such as Rorate 
Caeli, PrayTell blog, Mundabor, etc. Every day is virtually another story that paints Pope 
Francis, many cardinals and bishops who are not Cardinals Burke or Athanasius Schneider, etc. as the Devil's servants from within. Other individual bloggers add to the fray in a 
likewise, similar manner, projecting their true inner hate for Jesus' Church, oddly 
abnormal, even OCD-like obession (no offense to truly diagnosed OCD sufferers reading 
this, you are not THESE RMTs, and any overlap is entirely coincidental if you are a true 
case,) with Church liturgy and Tradtionalism, and/or untreated spiritual and mental wounds, 
in the form of calumnious and slanderous posts. They are not fraternal correction, they are 
hate crimes. 

Recently, I had the displeasure of being informed of a hate piece targeting a well-known 
Catholic apologist who've I've frequently featured here on Servimus by the name of 
Dave Armstrong. Dave's analysis of the sad situation of the poisoning of Traditional 
Catholicism by these individuals (e.g. as in this "Penses" piece) and groups who supposedly"love" the Church enough to commit evil to achieve good (ignoring St Thomas Aquinas,) is 
excellent and highly recommended reading, aside from the plethora of work he has done 
with other areas of Church apologetics and TRUE Church ecumenism. Such reading can 
be found in his blog postings, as well as in his two major books on Radical Traditionalists, inboth hard copy and e-reader formats. 

I will not link to the blog post attacking Dave, under the axiom of "Don't feed the Trolls." in 
Internet lingo. Web hits feed the trolls. The blog also does not deserve any more hits or 
exposure to gain access to innocent, Catholic souls, young and old alike, but especially 
young, "wired" ones. However, a blog search with Dave Armstrong might yield you the hate piece. Sadly it is when works like this are made public, and lies are spread, the New 
Evangelization is halted further in the church and further division is maintained or enhanced.

So, allow me to dispel these calumnies of Mr Armstrong in a pro apologia defense, where 
"the pot has called the kettle black," with some assistance from Mr. Armstrong as he has 
already taken this assassin's claims apart with factual information.  

The first major calumny is to attack Mr Armstrong in his profession as a Full Time 
"professional" Catholic apologist, that is it a self-appointed, claim. Now, we need to break 
down the attacks in this claim to show you the calumnies and retractions within, as well as 
hypocrisies. 

1a. Lay Apologist Status - Detraction combined with Selective Preference

First, the claim of being a ``self-appointed`` lay apologist must be examined. Here at the 
least the sin of detraction has been committed. What will be examined is how the claim is 
used in a detracting way, despite "truths," but also that based on his work, a "Catholic" 
curriculum vitae, the blog cannot make any claim about his status in this manner. 
Also, it can be argued that the blog post is implying in its attack, that one cannot bear a 
written or verbal status or title of work in the Church if it is non-official, or not pertaining to 
ordained clerics. 

Yes, it's true that in terms of employment or ministry, Mr. Armstrong is not formally 
employed in a company or institution that specializes in apologetics, with an annual salary of x dollars/yr. He would be ``self-employed,`` as per other professions, such as trades. If you are not providing service to someone, or people are not buying your products, you don`t 
make money. It is also true that his diocese, does not have a formal position of a "Lay 
apologist for the archdiocese of X, USA" that Mr. Armstrong can apply to, and smack on a 
business card. 

To tear apart this attack on his ``job`` we need to look at various apostolates and other 
church ministries/apostolates that other lay people do, without full compensation or salary, 
or no compensation at all. Within the Catholic Church, many laypeople, and even clerics, 
perform apostolate/missionary work that are full time hours, such as a parish assistant (not 
formally paid associate), and even duties a Deacon does, would qualify for this "Full-time" 
status, or perhaps a lay head of an intensive ministry (e.g. Catechesis of confirmandi in a 
multi-week program). These parish volunteers and Deacons are "full time" in terms of their 
quantity of hours of work, but more so, they are devoted in time and energy to their 
missionary work/apostolate in the Church. 

Does the Church acknowledge such work as, work per se, or that it is valuable? Yes it does.It even encourages it. One can especially see Mr. Armstrong's work as a lay apologist as 
exactly part of the Church's missionary spirit, vital to the New Evangelization, and also
allowable as She recognizes that with time, or change within a community, the Church must be able to meet new challenges and demands. A lay apologist is doing exactly that in this 
post-Vatican II/1962 environment. From the Vatican II Apostolic Decree, Ad Gentes, "On the Missionary Activity of the Church:"

" ...."Missions" is the term usually given to those particular undertakings by which the 
heralds of the Gospel, sent out by the Church and going forth into the whole world, carry outthe task of preaching the Gospel and planting the Church among peoples or groups who do not yet believe in Christ. These undertakings are brought to completion by missionary 
activity and are mostly exercised in certain territories recognized by the Holy See. 
The proper purpose of this missionary activity is evangelization .... Moreover, the groups among which the Church dwells are often radically changed, for one reason or other, so that an entirely new set of circumstances may arise. " (AG, 6)

And what of course are these new conditions? Well, if you want to follow the narrative of the Radical Traditionalists that Vatican II nearly killed vocations of the priesthood as well as the orthodoxy and quality of seminary formation, we have a crisis of vocations, and not enough orthodox priests to effectively carry out the "Old Style/Old Concept" of evangelization as 
above in AG 6, and even the "New Evangelization." 

And ironically, here is Vatican II acknowledging a new approach and need for evangelization and more lay involvement, yet the RMTs say Vatican II caused the crisis in the first place: 

" ....Therefore, let the missionaries, God's coworkers, ( cf. 1 Cor. 3:9), raise up 
congregations of the faithful such that, walking worthy of the vocation to which they have been called (cf. Eph. 4:1), they may exercise the priestly, prophetic, and royal 
office which God has entrusted to them .... To obtain all these things, the most important and therefore worthy of special attention are the Christian laity: namely, 
those who have been incorporated into Christ and live in the world. For it is up to them, imbued with the spirit of Christ, to be a leaven working on the temporal order from within, to dispose it always in accordance with Christ.(16) .... Now, in order to plant the Church and to make the Christian community grow, various ministries are needed, which are raised up by divine calling from the midst of 
the faithful congregation, and are to be carefully fostered and tended to by all. Among these are the offices of priests, of deacons, and of catechists, and Catholic action. Religious men and women likewise, by their prayers and by their active 
work, play an indispensable role in rooting and strengthening the Kingdom of Christ in souls,and in causing it to be spread." (AG, 15)

So in attacking Mr. Armstrong's position as a "lay apologist," on a broad basis it can be said 
that any type of missionary/apostolate work without compensation is not an official position one can say they do, and invaluable to the service of the Church, contrary to the above in 
Ad Gentes. 

Even if the implication was not intended by the blog post, detracting his lay apologetics 
position is an ad hominem attack, a foolish one when you consider the examples of other 
full-time apostolate work by lay people/clerics in the church without a formal requirement for secular/religious, post-secondary degrees and/or formal job postings. Furthermore, 
the attack is contradictory to the aims and goals of the Church in how the laity 
are to participate in Her missionary work and what Holy Mother Church encourages her 
adopted sons and daughters of Christ to do in being Hearlds of the Gospel. 

Having stated what I have above in the context of formal employment vs. voluntary work in 
the Church, it is also an ironic attack in a way, as the poster on the blog is involved in an 
apostolate/ministry centering around the Latin Mass that requires work, organization, 
training of involved members, (e.g. serving, schola cantorum, executive roles, priest 
training,) including the holding of an annual general meeting. The primary focus of the blog author is cantoring. The author is also a lay cantor at a parish for their Saturday vigil Mass 
weekly. All the activities, qualify quantitatively as a "Full-time" career of sorts, yet the 
author's positions are not formally titled or compensated, that of ``cantor`` nor head of their 
lay ministry. In addition, the blog author spends many hours blogging, in their ``journalism.`` 

However, the blog author, then, according to their logic, should not be publicly calling 
them self by any title that isn't formally part of ordained ministry or formal, employed work. 
That means the author should not be calling themselves a cantor, or a journalist, or 
whatever else they claims to be in their blog posts, as that is public, just the same as 

Mr. Armstrong. 

1b. Lay Apologist Status - Discrediting the Work, Training, and even the Mentorship of Mr. 
Armstrong. 

What I will state is factual, that the attack on Mr. Armstrong's position totally discredits 
the work, training, and formation of Mr. Armstrong. In fact, the training, experience, and 
body of work proves the opposite of the claim, that Mr. Armstrong in fact merits the title of 
lay apologist, and is perfectly justified to use it publicly. 

I will allow Mr. Armstrong`s factual information to speak for itself, that he has, quantitatively, and qualitatively, the combined practical experience, mentorship, and body of work 
equivalent to that or exceeding a post doctoral student (Ph.D) in the field of apologetics:

`` "self-appointed" huh? This is one of the favorite lines of "usual suspect" 
slanderers. Let's see, for starters, I have twenty officially published books 
with six different publishers, including most of the largest Catholic ones 
(including four bestsellers in the field). My first book has a Foreword by 
Servant of God, Fr. John A. Hardon, SJ, who was Blessed Mother Teresa's catechistand a close adviser to Blessed Pope Paul VI. My second book has a Foreword by 
Dr. Scott Hahn. I've been endorsed by virtually all of the leading apologists, 
have been interviewed on Catholic radio over 20 times, including twice on 
"Catholic Answers Live". I have Imprimaturs, including from my own bishop, 
a column every other week for "The Michigan Catholic," worked for The Coming Home Network for three years, but I am merely self-appointed and not even entitled to use the title "apologist"to describe myself. What the heck am I, then? I've made my living by writing apologetics these past 14 years. Oh, I forgot: I'm just one "of these sorts." That's what I'll put on my tax form, for occupation]

[Note: this guy favorably cites Fr. Hardon in articles dated 9-20-14, 1-17-14 (inthe title), 1-4-13, Fr. Hardon loved my work and called it "very Catholic." 
I studied with him for many months in 1990-1992. He received me into the Church and baptized my first two sons ``]"

Not to mention, on top of that, his formator, sponsor, and clearly his "supervisor" as it would be for a Masters/Doctoral student, was Fr. John Hardon, SJ. Hardon is widely acclaimed by good and Radicals Misrepresenting Traditionalism as a holy priest and orthodox, and one ofthe few good Jesuits left they would cite if asked. 

Mr. Armstrong clearly received proper theological, and practical formation by Fr. Hardon, 
who brought him into the Church. Then again, Radicals Misrepresenting Traditionalists 
already have an axe to grind with Dave, being a convert. They are seen as "spies" for the 
enemy, despite their conversion, who never truly give up their old ways. Do not believe the RMTs at face value when they deny this. 

Further, just look at the quantity of work, produced, published, created, and endorsed. Whenyou look at all that, that at the very least is quantitatively equivalent in man hours and work 
produced, to that of a post doctoral degree. Qualitatively speaking, it is clear that his 
formation if anything, even rivals or superceeds that of our modern seminary system, of 
which also, Radical Traditionalists love to bash for churning out "modernist" priests. 

For the blog author to discredit all this experience, betrays the time, energy, and the 
dedication that Mr. Armstrong has done in devoting his life to. He even has stated outright, 
this IS how he has made a living, and might I add in the process he has done so while 
having his larger family of more than two children home schooled AND participating in the 
life of the Church via his Ordinary parish under the archdiocese, one blessed with both the 
Extraordinary Form, and the rarer Latin Novus Ordo liturgy. 

The blog author, certainly does not have equivalent, nor superior experience, quantitatively, and qualitatively in a field as apologetics, to make such a claim. Further, the same can be 
applied to the blogger's past experience in the field of choir-mastering or his blogging, that 
because it is: a)  not based on formalized education, but rather years of practical experienceobtained from a combination of secular/religious experience, b) nor attached to a holy order, c) nor that the author possesses any formal post secondary education, period, and d) not 
part of formal paid work as implied in 1a (of which, as Dave has admitted, HE HAS DONE 
TO MAKE ENDS MEET) the blogger should not claim then, to be a choir master nor any 
position within the Catholic Church, regardless of "practical" experience. Clearly, to the 
author, practical experience does not merit the status of an individual. 

An secular side note, in the working world, is that one can obtain all the degrees, even 
doctorates or multiple degrees, in their post-secondary education, but employers refuse to 
look at them over those with practical experience. Formalized education is clearly not 
everything for work, and thus students, after degrees are going back to colleges for that 
practical experience and entry level job, to enter the workforce. 

Summary of 1a and 1b: My main points are such. The blogger's claim of the foolishness of Dave calling himself as a lay apologist, is asinine. In making the claim, it is an ad hominem attack on Dave. The blogger makes at least a broad claim that ministry in the Church, 
unless formalized or attached to religious orders, cannot be formally recognized through 
usage of a title to describe one's apostolate or ministry. Even if not part of the claim, it still 
singles out Dave's work as an apologist as fake and that he cannot use the title, 
"lay apologist", compared to others with "full-time" ministry in the Church and volunteers 
such as the bloggers and other lay ministers who can. Furthermore, it is an insult to the late Fr. John Hardon, SJ, and to the training, experience, and quantitative volume of work to be simply dismissed by the author. If anything, even at the least quantitatively, Mr. Armstrong 
has the equivalent and even more, of one or multiple Ph.D's in the field of both theoretical 
and practical apologetics, to rightfully deserve the title "lay apologist," even if no formal 
position with compensation exists in his diocese or in his parish. Dave also has used his 
field as a full, and at times a partial means, to provide for his family. Finally, the author's 
statement of claim contains an additional hypocrisy when attacking Mr. Armstrong, in that 
they discredit themselves as a cantor and journalist, or whatever ministry position/title they 
are, because they lack a formal education in their fields of practice, and their training 
was not under an official institution of the Church or a university/college/formal work 
experience. 

Logic is clearly lacking here in the attacks on Mr. Armstrong. 

I will follow up with a second post, attacking the claim that Mr. Armstrong`s respect for 
Traditional Catholicism is false in his apologetics work.  

Due to past history that the author and his adherents/loyal fans commit verbal/written 
harassment against  those who dare to say anything even remotely intelligent and insightful,
properly debated or analyzed, when it comes to their arguments, or the 
``establishment`` of what Radicals Misrepresenting Traditionalism THINK is Traditional 
Catholicism, (Not to mention anyone who is an anathema or gentile in their eyes, clerical or 
laity, young or old, even the Holy Father,) the combox is closed. 

Pax.