I will entertain these questions for the sake of being straightforward for the other readers.
1. I think your objections are rather silly. You put off an air of someone who has no sense of humor. You may not like his style of humor, but at least he can put a smile on his face. For someone you and others portray as a gruff and grumpy man, complaining about his apparent lack of stoic reverence at all times seems to contradict. Just keep in mind that everything in the bookstore is freely given provided someone donates a stated amount to the Church. We all are probably familiar with this workaround for distributing blessed items. Everything is priced at cost, and in the case of the (exotic?) perfumes, they are made BY HIM, and the proceeds are put into the church's general fund. I have his aftershave, and it is nice. He makes like one batch a year. And for Christmas he gave a bunch to our boutique group which was pure "profit" for the school to use for construction. This donating spirit included various pieces of silverware and a few swords (one was a replica of Gandalf's sword Glamdring). So if he is all about money, then why does he freely give these things away to be sold for the church and school? And if you think he shouldn't have these possessions in the first place, I would ask anyone to think about the fact that he is a SECULAR priest, i.e., he has no vow of poverty, and that if people offer him gifts, on many occasions it would be rude to not accept. I was there for the sword being given, and it was for his tenth year anniversary. A lot of work was put into that sword, and it would have been extremely rude to say he couldn't accept because of some scruple. But tactfully he donated it to the boutique nine years later, and a few years after the donating family has since moved away. So anyone familiar with him knows that he freely accepts gifts, and freely gives them. He himself is helping support a few unemployed families from the church's funds, so spare the indignation.
2. He owns no personal properties. His parents own two properties which he makes use of. If you think it is a sin to have successful parents, then I can't help you there.
3. Yes, I am younger than 52. But that doesn't matter. He is not a young person. Whatever standard you have in mind, most people would see a 52 year old man with 19 years of marriage and a few kids as "seasoned". So a priest with 19 years and a strong congregation is hardly wet behind the ears. He was brought in by Father Schell, who was a priest for something like fifty years, and was one of the people who laid the ground of tradition is the greater LA area here. So Monsignor is participating in a line of tradition that is older than he is.
4. ???
5. I have more things to do with my time than audit the church as to its bann reading practice. My statement is from common sense and common experience. But you reveal your double-tongued ways. You said, "I never said that only those with money had banns read. Only a select few had banns read. I don't know if it was a case of money or not." Bt this contradicts your earlier post which read, "Because the only banns that are announced or posted are for the favored ones, that is, those with money or the ones in power. Many, many marriages have been performed there without banns announced. Very few ordinary ones get posted or announced." You seem excessive worried about banns. If you are such a veteran in the trad movement, you'd know banns are almost completely ceremonial at this point in the game. Mine were read, and everybody I can think of had theirs read, so I've never had any reason to fret over such a insignificant thing. Nor have I thought of marriages as an occasion of investigation, but as a cause of celebration.
6. Strange. He tells you in the preview about his thoughts of vocation, the places he went to, and his eventual ordination with ICK.
7. Why should whether they deserved it or not be our business, unless of course he gave you the boot? I didn't know a parish was a democracy. If you want a parish council, then go to a bureaucracy leaden local parish. We all know that the traditionalist scene in many circuŠ¼stances is attaching yourself to a priest and riding that out, i.e., a monarchy. Every traditionalist parish is going to have these types of things. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry has an agenda and "vision" of how things should go. But when you go to OLHC, you're getting Monsignor Perez's vision. And somewhere else, someone else's vision. If you don't like it, you move on. I am not here to certify the vision in itself, although his vision has been proven by its fruits, I am here to call you and others out for your uncharitable ways which seem to aim to cut down instead of lift.
8. Okay, I am ignorant. Let's give you that. That does not justify your words.
9. You contradict yourself again. You said, "Again, you misrepresented me about the straw sub-deacon. I NEVER meant or said that he was doing things will-nilly." But your plain words cannot be escaped: "Father didn't have enough priests to put on a Really Big Show for an important Mass. What did he do? He simply picked a young man from the flock, dressed him in priestly vestments, called him a straw sub-deacon & on with the show!!!!" So you make it sound like this "young man" is some random guy, instead of our master of ceremonies. You then confess you don't know what you're talking about when you said, "What, pray tell, is a straw sub-deacon? Falsity has no place at the true Mass. Either a man is a deacon or he is not, so what difference does it make what he wears??" and, "Where have you heard about a straw sub-deacon? In the NO? I've never in my life heard of one till this incident," and, "The straw sub-deacon was a complete layman in priest's vestments that matched the other priest's vestments who acted as a deacon (or maybe he acted as a sub-deacon too)." So you don't know what a straw subdeacon is, and completely mix up subdeacon with deacon and priest. You finally admit that you were wrong in your statements when you said, "I'm sorry, I stand corrected. I checked the pictures again, & indeed the priest who is acting as a deacon or subdeacon, and the young layman are both wearing either tunicles or dalmatics." Why should such a veteran in tradition as you mistaken these things?
10. Yes, they were private emails. He did not give him permission to post the email, but only the photos. There is a difference between an email and photos attached to an email.
11. Who's worse? A priest who posts reviews of products online (how long should that take?), or the person who apparently has hunted down all of said reviews and been able to positively identify them with Monsignor (and how long should that take?)?
As for Bakersfield, which is a 2 1/2 hour drive one way, it was a cost-benefit analysis, not being lazy. LA and Garden Grove have always been the core of Father Schell's mission. Ventura and Bakersfield are "extras". Bakersfield was dropped because the numbers were going down, and they have a Mass up there. In the case of Ventura, which will be dropped soon I am sure, the congregation is getting old and dying. And all of this was part of a general trend in refocusing on the core mission and not dissipating your resources. He never just drops them, but gives them provisions. These people are not without the sacraments of tradition. And it is false that he is lazy. He has gone to Korea multiple times to minister to those people. He has gone to India to participate in the Fatima Crusader stuff. He will go anywhere to helps someone who wants to get married in the Church. I hardly think you apply your standard to yourself.
And your rant about Monsignor's birthday shows that you may want to step back a bit, and gain some perspective. It seems a little obsessive to remember all these nit-picky things about him, and it even seems like you are keeping records. If you don't like him, then move on. But you can't, which tells me that you are really obsessed, because someone who wasn't wouldn't hold all this useless data in their heads about a priest they don't like, nor want to associate with.
So, to placate you, you can be assured that your prayers are working since this year there will be no birthday bash as of yesterday's bulletin. But perhaps this will change, and this will be the ultimate sin. Anyone who wants to understand Monsignor, just think of him as a kind of Bilbo Baggins. He loves parties, convivial get-togethers, good food, pipe-weed, and such like. Is that a sin? Was Tolkien the greatest of sinners in our time? And having his birthday in Lent, he always ties his birthday to St Patrick's day, which in the diocese of Orange was traditionally a 1st class feast, which had no fasting.
Thorn, I do not portray Monsignor as a saint. He is a man in training as we all should be. I take issue with your words and conduct. This is not how we go about reforming wayward brethren. If Monsignor was the worst traditionalist priest in the US, none of your methods of addressing that would have been sufficient by the standards of the Faith. And this is shown in your posts, which anyone here can read. Let any reader note this. Compare his writings with what I have said, and then come by our church and see for yourself. Our Lady Help of Christians is a flourishing congregation. Monsignor is well respected in the traditionalist sphere. He collaborates with the people from the Remnant, Catholic Family News, Tradition in Action, and Fatima Crusader. He collaborates with the local SSPX congregations and our teenagers are confirmed by their bishops. We have two vocations so far to the Benedictines in New Mexico. Two other men who are seriously pursuing the priesthood right now. This is all out in the open for people to see if they think our congregation is operated by an underhanded man. How can the tree produce good fruit if the root is rotten?
I leave you wish my prayers.
Topic: "Monsignor" Patrick J Perez (Read 44836 times)