Post Catholics in the Church symbolized by Praytell and the Director of Liturgy in the Diocese of Raleigh and their post Catholic golden calves, find their post Catholicism in a defunct form of ecumenism that inspires them in their post Catholicism. Fr. Hunwicke's blog captures my train of thought from my last couple of posts. He is from England:
ARCIC and Coronavirus and S John Henry Newman
"REAL PRESENCE": ARCIC SORTED IT OUT
The Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission, from its beginnings until 1994, dealt withn the Eucharist. It concluded, in 1994, with a statement by "the appropriate dicasteries of the Holy See" [which must include the CDF] to the effect that "The agreement reached on Eucharist and Ministry by ARCIC-1 is thus greatly strengthened and no further study would seem to be required at this stage".
It was no secret that, on the Vatican side, there had been unease about the reality of this agreement. In some quarters, there was a suspicion that the doctrinal formulae of agreement were abstract verbal confections which papered over a real and persisting disagreement. It centred upon the question of the Eucharistic Presence, particularly with regard to the Reserved Sacrament. Given this unease, there was a very sensible desire to investigate Anglican praxis ... what people did with the Eucharistic Elements; how they were physically treated. This was on the ground that praxis would reveal whether the fancy verbal agreements actually meant anything.
So the question was insistently put: Do the Anglicans adore It? [Apparently: YES!]
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE: PRAXIS
But there is another equally important aspect of Eucharistic doctrine that needed to sorted out by ARCIC: the question of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. ARCIC had indeed arrived at some formulae of agreement; but it was not easy to see how the test question, the litmus test, How about praxis? Does praxis confirm the agreement? could be made to operate in this field.
But now ... 2020 ... a question of praxis ... yippee!! ... has finally presented itself.
The Anglican hierarchy, during the Coronavirus lockdown, forbade clergy to celebrate the Eucharist even on their own in locked churches; even when the clergy-house was so adjacent to the church that the priest could get into it without "going outside". I believe there was even a suggestion that clergy discipline regulations might be made to apply if a priest disobeyed this behest (yes; I know that Anglican bishops are lovely and smiley on TV but many of them are unpleasant bullies in real life).
On the other hand: Archbishop Nichols explained on the BBC that Catholics don't talk much about "Going to Church"; what matters for us is the Mass.
The Mass is a Sacrifice, impetratory, propitiatory.
With the country in turmoil and people dying by the thousand, here and throughout the world, any priest would naturally wish, above all else, to offer to God the Father the Sacrifice of His only-begotten Son. Not less often, but very greatly more often. Even if, exceptionally, he had to offer the Sacrifice without lay presence.
Nichols explained that, despite the coronavirus, every Catholic priest would be offering Mass daily. He did so, alone, in his own darkened and empty Cathedral, and did it online.
The reality of Anglican belief concerning the Eucharistic Sacrifice has been made abundantly and practically clear.
Those who control the C of E do not believe in it. And as for praxis: they are prepared to enforce their disbelief by sending their ecclesiastical police in. This policy, it seems, is being enforced even by Anglican bishops who claim to be "Catholic" ... who wear skull caps and waggle incense around and who think that sort of stuff makes them "Catholic".
S JOHN HENRY NEWMAN
said that he welcomed the existence of the C of E as a bulwark agaist unbelief, but recognised that the time was likely when it would be more of an obstacle to Truth than a help. In his Second Spring sermon he envisions the C of E as a corpse which corrupts the air which once it refreshed, and cumbers the ground which once it beautified.
Perhaps the next ARCIC agenda should concentrate on what to do with corpses ... ecclesial corpses.
The Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission, from its beginnings until 1994, dealt withn the Eucharist. It concluded, in 1994, with a statement by "the appropriate dicasteries of the Holy See" [which must include the CDF] to the effect that "The agreement reached on Eucharist and Ministry by ARCIC-1 is thus greatly strengthened and no further study would seem to be required at this stage".
It was no secret that, on the Vatican side, there had been unease about the reality of this agreement. In some quarters, there was a suspicion that the doctrinal formulae of agreement were abstract verbal confections which papered over a real and persisting disagreement. It centred upon the question of the Eucharistic Presence, particularly with regard to the Reserved Sacrament. Given this unease, there was a very sensible desire to investigate Anglican praxis ... what people did with the Eucharistic Elements; how they were physically treated. This was on the ground that praxis would reveal whether the fancy verbal agreements actually meant anything.
So the question was insistently put: Do the Anglicans adore It? [Apparently: YES!]
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE: PRAXIS
But there is another equally important aspect of Eucharistic doctrine that needed to sorted out by ARCIC: the question of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. ARCIC had indeed arrived at some formulae of agreement; but it was not easy to see how the test question, the litmus test, How about praxis? Does praxis confirm the agreement? could be made to operate in this field.
But now ... 2020 ... a question of praxis ... yippee!! ... has finally presented itself.
The Anglican hierarchy, during the Coronavirus lockdown, forbade clergy to celebrate the Eucharist even on their own in locked churches; even when the clergy-house was so adjacent to the church that the priest could get into it without "going outside". I believe there was even a suggestion that clergy discipline regulations might be made to apply if a priest disobeyed this behest (yes; I know that Anglican bishops are lovely and smiley on TV but many of them are unpleasant bullies in real life).
On the other hand: Archbishop Nichols explained on the BBC that Catholics don't talk much about "Going to Church"; what matters for us is the Mass.
The Mass is a Sacrifice, impetratory, propitiatory.
With the country in turmoil and people dying by the thousand, here and throughout the world, any priest would naturally wish, above all else, to offer to God the Father the Sacrifice of His only-begotten Son. Not less often, but very greatly more often. Even if, exceptionally, he had to offer the Sacrifice without lay presence.
Nichols explained that, despite the coronavirus, every Catholic priest would be offering Mass daily. He did so, alone, in his own darkened and empty Cathedral, and did it online.
The reality of Anglican belief concerning the Eucharistic Sacrifice has been made abundantly and practically clear.
Those who control the C of E do not believe in it. And as for praxis: they are prepared to enforce their disbelief by sending their ecclesiastical police in. This policy, it seems, is being enforced even by Anglican bishops who claim to be "Catholic" ... who wear skull caps and waggle incense around and who think that sort of stuff makes them "Catholic".
S JOHN HENRY NEWMAN
said that he welcomed the existence of the C of E as a bulwark agaist unbelief, but recognised that the time was likely when it would be more of an obstacle to Truth than a help. In his Second Spring sermon he envisions the C of E as a corpse which corrupts the air which once it refreshed, and cumbers the ground which once it beautified.
Perhaps the next ARCIC agenda should concentrate on what to do with corpses ... ecclesial corpses.
55 comments:
I think Fr. Hunwicke's (He is from England!) line of reasoning collapses almost as quickly as yours, Fr. Allan McDonald.
Your persistent error is that Ecumenism underlies most, if not all, of what you consider to be "errors" in the Catholic Church as we know it today. Inasmuch as you have little or no experience beyond "tea and crumpets" (your term) ecumenism, you are not in a good position to make such a judgment.
Fr. Hunwicke (He is from England!) relies on "praxis" to determine doctrine. There are considerable weaknesses in this line of reasoning. First, our Church has doctrines, but there are, as we all know too well, those who do not base their praxis on the doctrines of our faith.
A fine example, often noted here, is the most unfortunate error some priests make when preaching at funerals, effectively to canonize the deceased. "Your grandmother is in heaven now with no more pain and suffering. She is reunited with your grandpa, etc etc etc."
That praxis is contrary to the Church's expressed belief - its doctrine. So the "Use Praxis To Determine Belief" is, it seems to me, very weak.
Second, the temporary suspension of the celebration of the mass is cannot for the basis for the conclusion, "Therefore, Anglicans do not believe the Eucharist is a true sacrifice." They may well believe it is a sacrifice, but for a variety of reasons, have suspended the celebrations.
So when Fr. Hunwicke (He is from England!) opines: "The reality of Anglican belief concerning the Eucharistic Sacrifice has been made abundantly and practically clear. Those who control the C of E do not believe in it." he is making a leap and suggesting a linkage between belief and praxis that can't be supported.
I find myself in partial agreement with Fr. Kavanaugh here. In the Eastern Rites, there is no real tradition of offering the Divine Liturgy in the absence of the people. The saying is that if the priest says the opening, "Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," he needs someone to say "Amen!" before he can continue.
While the Eastern conception of the nature of the Eucharistic sacrifice is different than that in the Latin Rite (it is not generally conceived as a re-presentation of Calvary), that does not diminish the faith in the Eucharist.
Instead, these are the manifestations of variation in belief: in the East, the Eucharist is for the people. In the West, the Eucharist is for the Sacrifice. Both are in line with the theological development, and both are legitimate as based in Christian tradition.
Now, there is errant ecumenism that flattens praxis into minimalistic ideas and there is legitimate "ecumenism" where we can learn from other strains of authentic Christianity. There is, as Fr. Kavanaugh seems to be saying, a great deal of nuance involved in such discussions that is often lost in basic comparisons. While he and I disagree greatly as to the purpose behind such discussions, there are far from simplistic.
Now, there is errant ecumenism that flattens praxis into minimalistic ideas and there is legitimate "ecumenism" where we can learn from other strains of authentic Christianity.
BRILLIANT! I love flattening the curve!
"Father" Kavanaugh is the living embodiment of what ails modern Catholicism. Ecumenism is a waste of time when the Catholic Church is collapsing. But keep drinking that Ecumenism Kool-Aid.
FRMJK (He is NOT from England, although most assuredly an Anglophile) often shows considerable weaknesses in his line of reasoning while indulging in arguments on many subjects here. However, Ecumenism is his true raison d'être, and God help the person who argues that topic with him!
Marc’s (He is NOT from England) comments are an interesting perspective, and deserve examining. I was involved with an Eastern Rite Church for several years before returning to the Roman Rite Church and remain influenced by the differences.
FRMJK (He is NOT from England) I defer to your great wisdom, but I would love to see a live and in-person encounter between you and Fr. Hunwicke.
I would venture to suggest that Fr Hunwicke knows more about the Church of England than Fr Kavanaugh (He is from America!) does, since most of his career was spent as an Anglican priest. Here he is taking a swipe at the CofE's bishops. He is perhaps not being entirely fair, but nowhere does he rely on praxis to determine doctrine, as Fr Kavanaugh (He is from America!) alleges.
What he is saying is that praxis reflects belief. This has a particular resonance for the CofE where there was historically a divergence between what many priests believed and practised concerning the Eucharist, and the official doctrine of their Church.
John Nolan (He is from England!), praxis does indeed reflect the beliefs of the celebrant, and more importantly influences and directs the beliefs of the congregants involved with him.
Soo, supper at the table or Sacrifice at the Altar? Hmmm...
So what, exactly, is the purpose of ecumenism? If it is to find a civil way to discourse with other religions and perhaps find common ground, then fine. If it is to reconcile the bill of Faith through perpetual negotiations so that we trade our gift from God, as did Esau, for a quick comfort then count me not only out, but hostile to to it. The purpose of the truce is peaceful conversation of the other people, not to validate or elevate their errors.
Praxis certainly reflects belief. The point I wanted to make and didn't is that we just can't be sure exactly what belief is being reflected by the praxis without some additional understanding of what people believe. For example, Orthodox don't have Liturgy without people present. That doesn't reflect lack of belief in the Real Presence. It reflects a different understanding of the purpose of the Real Presence than what we have in the West. I expect the lack of private liturgy in Anglicanism is a reflection of a similarly different understanding of the Eucharist, but I can't make a lot of conclusions about their beliefs on the basis of that praxis alone.
"I would venture to suggest that Fr Hunwicke knows more about the Church of England than Fr Kavanaugh (He is from America!) does, since most of his career was spent as an Anglican priest."
I would imagine he does. However, my comments were not about his undoubtedly expansive general knowledge of the CofE, but of his argument to which Fr. Allan McDonald referred.
Regarding ecumenism as our Church understands and teaches it, the purpose is clearly stated in the first sentence of Unitatis Redentigratio: "The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council."
It is not, for us, simply learning about others, although that certainly can and should take place. It took 400 years for Catholicism and the other Christian denominations to recognize the need for unity and to answer the constant bidding of the Holy Spirit to act toward that goal. I'm proud to have played some small part in that endeavor.
Anon 12:15 - My raison d'etre is serving God and others in this life in anticipation of being united forever with Him in heaven. That is also, I would point out, your raison d'etre. We all do that with the talents God gives us and within the circumstances in which God places us. The sculptor is no less an artist than the painter, and the painter no less an artist than the composer.
Fr. Allan McDonald, I'm glad you like the picture of Chiesa Santa Maria dei Miracoli in Venice.
But, is the altar HIGH enough?
The logical follow-up question is how learning about Anglicanism, for example, actually forwards the goal of unity among Christians. From the Catholic perspective, such knowledge adds nothing to Catholicism, its faith or practice. It is merely academic unless such knowledge is then used to evangelize the Anglicans more effectively so that they can appreciate and accept the truth.
There really is no pressing "need" for unity since unity already exists. The pressing need is for people to enter into the already-existent unity that is the Church. That is the constant bidding of the Holy Spirit: that people believe in the Gospel and are baptized.
To the extent anyone promotes the idea that Catholicism lacks unity and that it needs those outside the Church in order to be unified, such a one certainly is not promoting the bidding of the Holy Spirit.
I suggest parish priests should be focusing on teaching their flocks the Catholic Faith, and leave "ecumenism" to the higher ups. It might be a new experience for some, particular one "priest" who posts here regularly. He should probably start with himself and take a refresher course in Catholicism 101
I don’t know if there is anything wrong with all of the branches of Christianity trying to return to being the one holy Catholic and apostolic Church. From what I have seen of ecumenism, it is really just a rebranding of secularism.
Anonymous 11:43 - The accurate passage is "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church."
"Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam." - Missale Romanum
Isn’t “unity” the opposite of the “diversity is our strength” mantra?
I would settle for unity within the Catholic Church
The Catholic Faith is the only authentic understanding of what Jesus Christ taught necessary for salvation. All other Christians are Wellcome to share in this understanding. That is true Ecumenism, The Church always taught it. Other understanding of the term expects the Catholics to compromise the faith in Jesus Christ. This is a no-brainer.
Many other denominations believe and teach authentically what Jesus Christ taught as necessary for salvation. Some are very close to the fullness of faith that subsists in the Catholic Church, some are farther away.
Ecumenism is not pronounced "You-Come-In-Ism."
The tragedy of the the four centuries after the Reformation is that all we - Christians of all denominations - could do was condemn each other to hell. It made us all feel superior and safe.
It is far harder to recognize the damage that our divisions have done to the cause of evangelizing the world, to acknowledge our (Catholic) part in bringing about and maintaining the divisions, and to work under the guidance of the Holy Spirit for the unity that is the will of Christ.
The best form of ecumenism is Pope Benedict’s way trying to reconcile the SSPX and admitting some documents of Vatican IIdo not need an assent of Faith. Also establishing the Ordinariate was a stroke of genius and focusing on the Eastern Orthodox which have valid Holy Orders, apostolic succession and Scripture and Tradition.
Jesus Christ taught that, to have eternal life, one must eat his Flesh and drink his Blood. Which are the "many other denominations" that "believe and teach authentically" that as "necessary for salvation"?
The Ordinariate was a stroke of genius.
As for the Orthodox, it's a waste of time. The only people susceptible to converting en masse are people whose religion does not hold itself up as being the True Faith. Orthodoxy does teach that. At most, if some Orthodox patriarch were to unite with Rome, he'd be deposed and replaced with an Orthodox patriarch. So you'd just have a group of people leaving Orthodoxy and a group of people remaining Orthodox. As evidence, see the history of the Second Millennium.
"Father" Kavanaugh,
Lukewarm priests and bishops have decimated Catholicism. So we need to fix Catholicism first. Start in your own parish. Go minister to the folks in the hospitals and nursing homes. That would be a far better way to spend your time than coming over here wasting our time with debates about Ecumenism.
Marc - You have chosen one example on which we and most other Christian denominations disagree. That's what we and they did for 400 years following the Reformation.
Since the beginning of the Ecumenical movement, and since our Church began to participate in it, we have discovered, mirabile dictu, that there are many, many things on which we agree. That becomes the basis for further work toward the unity that Christ desires for His church.
The Holy Spirit - and I have this on good authority - does not consider seeking unity with the Orthodox a waste of time. I will side with the Spirit on this one.
Protestants are our brothers and sisters-our estranged brothers and sisters to be sure, but our separated siblings nonetheless. We should ever pray for them that what they do possess, which is the Sacred Scripture, the presence of God in his Holy Word, will inform and form their right conduct and perfect their incomplete grasp of Holy Truth. This is the ecumenism I see, which is not some idealized outward corporate and universal unity, but rather the unseen Spirit of God at work to mend the spiritual brokenness of humanity in whatever ways He in his wisdom and love for man is want to do. And I can't help but feel that whenever and wherever Holy mass is celebrated and the Sacrifice of Christ offered, some of the benefits of such redound in ways known only to God to those outside of His Church, though not to be sure the same as for those who are in full communion with her.
As for me, I try to know and understand what I am able to, but place my trust in God about those things which are beyond what I can know or understand.
So then there aren't actually "[m]any other denominations [that] believe and teach authentically what Jesus Christ taught as necessary for salvation," as you initially claimed.
There are people who disagree that partaking of the Holy Eucharist is necessary for salvation, contrary to the very words of Christ.
Those people must let go of their errant belief and believe what Christ taught since it is necessary for salvation.
Only in that way do they enter into the unity of the Church.
"Father" Kavanaugh,
The Holy Spirit? I have it on good authority that the Holy Spirit wants YOU to re-instill in YOUR parishioners the concept of belief in the Real Presence, Transubstantiation. Surveys show that only a minority of so-called Catholics believe in the Real Presence.
FYI, the "ecumenical movement" poked the Catholic Church in the eye and spat on her when they began ordaining women as "priests" or "ministers." How can there be unity with that crowd?
Although the first generation of Protestant reformers (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin) disagreed as to the precise theological definition of the Eucharist, it can be argued that they believed in the 'real presence', albeit articulated in different ways.
The crucial faultline between Catholics and Protestants concerned the Mass as a sacrifice. The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England are unequivocal:
'Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.' (Art.31)
And as the non-Catholic Augustine Birrell pointed out, 'It is the Mass that matters.' That's what Cardinal Nichols and Fr Hunwicke (not one of the Cardinal's greatest fans) are arguing.
No martyr, Catholic or Protestant, went to his or her death for the principle of religious freedom. They believed that they were upholding the truth. No amount of agreed statements and mutual breast-beating can get round that one.
John, it isn't only the understanding of the Mass as sacrifice, but the necessity of an ordained bishop or priest to "confect" that Sacrifice, which necessitates the "Real Presence" of Christ after the Bread and Wine are consecrated to allow Christ to offer Himself to His Father and to us afterward. The Sacrament of Holy Orders does not exist in a valid way in Anglicanism as it does in Orthodoxy and perhaps other schismatic sects that preserved the priesthood.
With that said, though, God's grace can be available to people in the way in which they might approach "their" communion in their non-sacramental church. I don't know if they would phrase it that way, but certainly Anglicans, Lutherans and others who share the "Lord's Supper" benefit from some kind of grace in doing so, not the real presence or sacrifice, but the grace of prayer.
If God's grace is available to people outside the Catholic Church, it is in spite of -- and not because of -- their rituals or practices. Such a grace would be the grace of conversion to the Catholic faith. In other words, there is no ex opere operato grace for heretics in their false sacraments. They may receive grace despite their false worship, though. But certainly they do not receive grace as a result of that false worship.
"If God's grace is available to people outside the Catholic Church, it is in spite of -- and not because of -- their rituals or practices."
This is not correct.
A Protestant who reads the Bible, a common practice for many, is making himself or herself open to the redeeming grace of God through that worthy and pious practice.
A Protestant who is Baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is, indeed, Baptized, receiving the Grace that is offered through that sacrament precisely because of the celebration of that Sacrament.
"It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church." (Unitatis Redentigtatio #3)
There are many more examples of Grace being available to Protestants through their rituals and practices.
The truth is affirmed by the Church in our official teaching.
A Protestant service does not confer grace ex opera operato. Participants receive grace despite their violating the First Commandment in their false worship.
A Protestant who reads the Bible may indeed receive the grace of conversion. But that is not the same thing and it is despite his false beliefs and so that he will come to the truth.
No, the Protestant receives the grace through the act or worship or through the act of reading Sacred Scripture.
“Father” Kavanaugh,
Please confirm your belief in Transubstantiation. Most of us could care less about your focus on Ecumenism when Catholics are not being taught the Catholic Faith. Ecumenism is a luxury we can ill afford at this time when the Catholic Church is shedding members. We can be respectful of them with aping their false doctrine and praxis
"Catholic" TJM,
Please confirm your sanity. Three letters from board certified physicians, including at least two psychiatrists, will suffice. Scan the letters and post them with NO redactions - none.
Please confirm also that you are not under the influence of 1) drugs, 2) alcohol, 3) demonic oppression or possession, 4) Dolly Parton, 5) Metamucil, or 6) your cat Fluffy who has been giving you stock market advice for the last nine-and-half years.
Enquiring minds want to know.
Anonymous K,
Thanks for confirming what I always thought. You don't believe in Transubstantiation. Time to become a greeter at Walmart or hand out match books for the local Democrat politicians running for office.
TJM, we've known for years that Fr. Kavanaugh doesn't believe in the historical and actual bodily Resurrection of Christ. And you see the consequences of that in his views on everything else from ecclesiology (as demonstrated here) to his recently espoused view of the priesthood in another thread. Unbelief is the cause.
Marc,
If true, then he needs to resign from the priesthood and find honest work. Quit taking money from Faithful Catholics under false pretenses.
A serious question. Why do Americans say 'could care less' when what they really mean is 'couldn't care less'? It's serious since such solecisms have a habit of crossing the pond and infecting the English language, concerning which I, for one, could certainly care less, yet in fact couldn't care more.
I did not know you could receive sanctifying grace from reading the Bible or participating in Protestant worship services.
John, same reason some say "irregardless," "He gave it to John and I," and "Your in trouble."
John, we're too busy making the world a better place for everyone to be concerned about things like what our phrases mean.
I, for one, could certainly care less.
That’s even across the pond is redundant. I is always one. No one says, I for two, as though They could be more than one unless multiple personality.
Qualifying the first person singular by 'for one' indicates that the speaker believes he is not alone in his contention.
A serious question here too. Do TJM and Marc know that Fr. Kavanaugh nor Fr. McDonald nor any other priest is subject to their inquisitorial practices?
Another serious question. Do they know that Bishops, not anonymous blog posters, determine the worthiness of priests who serve as pastors?
Last one. What would lead them to believe otherwise?
Anonymous K,
We are not worried about Father McDonald's bona fides as a Catholic priest. And for the bishops, we know how trustworthy they have been. "Cardinal" McCarrick, anyone?
Anonymous, all priests are totally subject to any questions I might have. And they darn-well better answer exactly as I think they should answer, or I’ll write to Rome and tell someone — maybe even the pope himself — that they disagree with me.
Now just who are you to question ME, buddy? Explain yourself or I’ll not address you anymore.
In all seriousness, Anonymous, we (including myself and Frs. McDonald and Kavanaugh) have been discussing this same basic stuff in these comments on this blog for, what, 11 years now? So that’s why the tone and content is what it is -a I guess I can see how it might sound bizarre to someone who is new.
TJM - It's interesting that you have no questions about Fr. McDonald's "bona fides" since his come from the same bishop that gives Fr. Kavanaugh his "bona fides."
Priests don't give themselves any authority to teach or act. They do so in the name of their bishop or religious superior.
Isn't there some kind of dissonance in your approach to Archbishop-Elect Hartmayer here?
'The historicity of the Incarnation and the Passion, Death and Resurrection is essential to Christian faith and dogma.'
(Fr MJ Kavanaugh, 18 April 2020)
Anonymous K,
Father McDonald by his words and deeds demonstrates his orthodoxy. What got the Church in the mess it is today is that hardly anyone questioned or pushed back on priests or bishops who were heterodox. The laity has every right to question a priest or bishop's orthodoxy. The "pray, pay, and obey," went out the window long ago.
TJM - You question a priest's orthodoxy 1) with no evidence to support your claim that he may be unorthodox, and 2) when he has already stated his answers to your challenges.
You are not seeking "orthodoxy." You are seeking to vent your spleen by making absurd claims in a public forum in the hope that someone, somewhere will listen to your rantings.
Sadly, for you, no one is.
Disagreement with your opinions is not heterodoxy.
John, my throwaway statement hearkens back to a discussion many years ago in which Fr. Kavanaugh refused to answer whether a person with a camera on Easter morning could have photographed Christ's Resurrection.
I tend to forget that sarcasm doesn't work on the internet.
Anonymous K,
I still see you are clericalism on steroids. Always has to have the last word.
TJM - There's no "clericalism" on calling you out when you deserve it. And when you make baseless accusations, you deserve it.
Anonymous K,
Hey maybe you should set up your own blog so you can snark morning, noon, and night at Faithful Catholics. I imagine it would have the readership similar to CNN viewers, very few
TJM - Hey, maybe you should have your own blog so you can make false accusations against priests and bishops to your heart's content.
Then, since it is your blog, you can block all responses from the folks who call you out for your lies.
Post a Comment