The first set of photos illustrates just how stupid and unnecessary it was to have placed underwhelming, temporary, ill-fitting, awkward etc. tables in front of glory. Oh wait, it provides a place for the "Environment Committee" to place the hay, corn and yams for the Thanksgiving tableau. There's nothing more off putting than some effeminate priest with a wimpy orans posture, standing verses populum in front of the hay, corn and yams. To make it truly perfect, there must also be the three off-center candles to the right of the table as well. Last, don't forget to shower the "Environment Committee" will effusive praise in the bulletin.
"Turn towards the ......table?" "I will go up....wait, it's down there...to the.......altar...wait, table of God??" But hey, to his grace in Idaho, it's packing them in.....Keep telling yourself that, Bishop....keep telling yourself that.
The high altars are crying out "Use Me!!". Unfortunately, most are mostly ignored plant stands. I thank goodness for the lack of these distractions in the Byzantine Church.
I know it will never happen, but the next step would be to remove all the pews, returning Catholic churches to that open sacred space which characterized them until the lamentable fashions after the Reformation locked everyone into these wooded crates.
I grew up when the Catholic Church was a great, universal Church. It is on life support, mainly because of Vatican Disaster II and priests, like Anonymous K, who only care about their comfort zone and not the Faithful whom they have not served for decades. I know the Church will survive because of Christ's promise, but millions will be lost to the Faith because of liberal hubris.
I am new to this blog. I think, in these difficult times, it is important to remember what the great Catholic theologian Hans Kung stated back in the 1970s that in emergencies laymen may bless the Eucharist at Mass. We should remember that Kung rightly suggested that in a pinch laymen can perform priestly functions.
Kung, that great theologian, was such a sexist. To use the term “laymen” especially in he 1970’s was anathema! Feminists would have been outraged by that term not to mention the emerging LGBTQ and no sex person.
Anonymous (new to this blog) is surely being ironic. Whether or not Hans Küng is a great theologian is a matter of opinion; however for forty years he has not been recognized as a Catholic theologian, as distinct from a theologian who happens to be a Catholic.
And do we have to endure yet another Anonymous? What's to stop them using a nom de plume if they don't want to identify themselves? Most blogs do not publish anonymous comments, and rightly so. A certain Anonymous has the impertinence to address me by my Christian name while withholding his. It does not predispose me to be charitable to him, even if his comments were worthy of consideration (which they aren't).
Yes I agree that the table-altar should be moved away from the main altar. It looks dated and stupid blocking the main altar. I don’t think there is anything wrong with churches having multiple altars, maybe the table could be moved to a side chapel? I also agree with Oreamnos.
Fr. Fox, the pulpit in the last photograph is the elevated gray structure on the far left of the picture. I suspect the pulpit may be further into the knave in the other churches as well rather than in the sanctuary proper.
"What's to stop them using a nom de plume if they don't want to identify themselves?"
The choice is ours, not yours. And that REALLY grates on you, doesn't it?
"Most blogs do not publish anonymous comments, and rightly so."
LOTS of blogs publish anonymous comments. What you meant to says was "Most blogs I read don't publish anonymous comments, therefore, my preference is that every other blog in the world should follow that practice. Why haven't you adopted this policy, Fr. McDonald?"
"A certain Anonymous has the impertinence to address me by my Christian name while withholding his."
"Impertinence"? Who are you, Aunt Augusta from The Importance of Being Earnest, that you think you are owed deference when you don't show it?
"It does not predispose me to be charitable to him, even if his comments were worthy of consideration (which they aren't)."
"If you love those who love you, what merits is there in that? Even sinners love those who love them?"
Oh, and you are predisposed to be charitable to everyone by this little thing we know as Divine Grace. If you reject the grace, don't blame anyone but yourself.
Kavanaugh at 12:18, you shtick is getting old. Why don't you do something useful like start streaming your Mass or go to a nursing home to anoint the dying?
The Anonymous commentator at 12:18 (whom you identify as Fr Kavanaugh) was clearly riled by my criticism and has come back in his inimitable style which combines crude ranting with a sanctimoniousness which in the context is somewhat nauseating. I do not take it as a personal insult if someone posts as Anonymous, although it's confusing when one has a 'good' Anonymous and a 'bad' Anonymous on the same blog.
I would never call Fr Kavanaugh a berk, since if you understand rhyming slang it indicates another and extremely insulting four-letter word derived from the Latin for the female pudenda. So Anonymous's anonymity has advantages for me, since an unknown person cannot require deference of any sort.
If one sees blog exchanges as a form of conversation, it follows that someone who pointedly does not introduce himself cannot presume to address his interlocutor by his Christian name.
All the same, every time Anonymous puts his cerebrally-challenged head above the parapet I'll be there to take a pot-shot. It's an easy target, but it provides innocent amusement for me, and, one hopes, a bit of light relief for other readers of this blog.
"Sanctimoniousness which in the context is somewhat nauseating"
Agree. The lay-in-wait for the perceived holier-than-thou "teaching moment" is tiresome. That's not conversation. I'm sure said person(s) think they are truly helping us to see where we are always wrong. Makes me wonder how I function elsewhere in life without them.
"If one sees blog exchanges as a form of conversation, it follows that someone who pointedly does not introduce himself cannot presume to address his interlocutor by his Christian name."
And there you have it, folks. "It follows!" The Great and Powerful John has spoken. Let us all bow before his pomposity and grovel before his pronouncements.
Self-congratulations, John, are the stock-and-trade of the weak. Much like the American president.
Since when does suggesting that one concept is consequent on another amount to self-congratulation?
Your heavy-handed sarcasm might suggest to others that you haven't much of an argument. Perhaps it serves as a catharsis for your feelings of inadequacy. Perhaps you are even now congratulating yourself on your profound insights and coruscating wit.
I don't know and quite frankly I don't care. I believe you are familiar with Ecclesiastes 7:6.
"The Anonymous commentator at 12:18 (whom you identify as Fr Kavanaugh) was clearly riled by my criticism..."
"Clearly riled..."...?
Now, John, is this the exact sort of thing you take others to task for, knowing what's going on in other people's minds?
Yes, it is precisely the same thing. When you do it, it is an example of your keen intellect and admirable perception. But when someone else does it, you are the first to harrumph and complain and sputter about how this sort of thing is inappropriate.
Now, to return the favor... Your mind is trapped in self-congratulatory mode. You have made choices that you think others are wrong for not making, and you are piqued that they do not share your opinions since, as you yourself believe, the superiority of those opinions is 1) self-evident and 2) shared by people like you. Smug and self-content, your need to see yourself as superior in intellect, possessing superior opinions regarding just about any topic, leads you to belittle others.
That last step alone indicates the emptiness of your argument.
I don't claim to know anyone's mind. I comment on what they write. In your case, I am merely speculating about your reasons for writing as you do. Note the reiteration of the word 'perhaps', the use of the subjunctive 'might' and the admission that I don't know. I don't state them as if they are fact, unlike your assumptions about me (which, incidentally, I don't give a toss about).
My opinions are my own. They are usually well-founded, but there is no such thing as a 'superior' or 'inferior' opinion. An inference is also an opinion, and I infer from the tone and content of your recent offerings that you have a grudge against anyone who is more erudite and eloquent than yourself. I find this psychologically interesting. I know lots of people who are cleverer and more talented than I am - the professional singer who cantors the schola I sing with, the priest who is a formidable classicist and who knows far more about the liturgy than I do, the professor under whom I studied 38 years ago and is world-renowned in his field - yet I admire these people, not resent them.
Perhaps you need therapy. Or perhaps not. Or you may* just be a nasty piece of work. I don't know.
20 comments:
The Cranmers in the American hierarchy won't like your idea
The first set of photos illustrates just how stupid and unnecessary it was to have placed underwhelming, temporary, ill-fitting, awkward etc. tables in front of glory. Oh wait, it provides a place for the "Environment Committee" to place the hay, corn and yams for the Thanksgiving tableau. There's nothing more off putting than some effeminate priest with a wimpy orans posture, standing verses populum in front of the hay, corn and yams. To make it truly perfect, there must also be the three off-center candles to the right of the table as well. Last, don't forget to shower the "Environment Committee" will effusive praise in the bulletin.
"Turn towards the ......table?" "I will go up....wait, it's down there...to the.......altar...wait, table of God??" But hey, to his grace in Idaho, it's packing them in.....Keep telling yourself that, Bishop....keep telling yourself that.
The high altars are crying out "Use Me!!". Unfortunately, most are mostly ignored plant stands. I thank goodness for the lack of these distractions in the Byzantine Church.
I know it will never happen, but the next step would be to remove all the pews, returning Catholic churches to that open sacred space which characterized them until the lamentable fashions after the Reformation locked everyone into these wooded crates.
I saw these pictures, too, and I agree with you about the redundant altar.
However, notice that the "after" also includes no pulpit, at least, I can't see where it went.
Amen, Father, amen!
I grew up when the Catholic Church was a great, universal Church. It is on life support, mainly because of Vatican Disaster II and priests, like Anonymous K, who only care about their comfort zone and not the Faithful whom they have not served for decades. I know the Church will survive because of Christ's promise, but millions will be lost to the Faith because of liberal hubris.
I am new to this blog.
I think, in these difficult times, it is important to remember what the great Catholic theologian Hans Kung stated back in the 1970s that in emergencies laymen may bless the Eucharist at Mass. We should remember that Kung rightly suggested that in a pinch laymen can perform priestly functions.
Kung, that great theologian, was such a sexist. To use the term “laymen” especially in he 1970’s was anathema! Feminists would have been outraged by that term not to mention the emerging LGBTQ and no sex person.
And what about toddlers, children and teenagers, male, female, ambiguous and no sex, why not them too!?
Anonymous (new to this blog) is surely being ironic. Whether or not Hans Küng is a great theologian is a matter of opinion; however for forty years he has not been recognized as a Catholic theologian, as distinct from a theologian who happens to be a Catholic.
And do we have to endure yet another Anonymous? What's to stop them using a nom de plume if they don't want to identify themselves? Most blogs do not publish anonymous comments, and rightly so. A certain Anonymous has the impertinence to address me by my Christian name while withholding his. It does not predispose me to be charitable to him, even if his comments were worthy of consideration (which they aren't).
Yes I agree that the table-altar should be moved away from the main altar. It looks dated and stupid blocking the main altar. I don’t think there is anything wrong with churches having multiple altars, maybe the table could be moved to a side chapel? I also agree with Oreamnos.
Fr. Fox, the pulpit in the last photograph is the elevated gray structure on the far left of the picture. I suspect the pulpit may be further into the knave in the other churches as well rather than in the sanctuary proper.
"And do we have to endure yet another Anonymous?"
Seems so!
"What's to stop them using a nom de plume if they don't want to identify themselves?"
The choice is ours, not yours. And that REALLY grates on you, doesn't it?
"Most blogs do not publish anonymous comments, and rightly so."
LOTS of blogs publish anonymous comments. What you meant to says was "Most blogs I read don't publish anonymous comments, therefore, my preference is that every other blog in the world should follow that practice. Why haven't you adopted this policy, Fr. McDonald?"
"A certain Anonymous has the impertinence to address me by my Christian name while withholding his."
"Impertinence"? Who are you, Aunt Augusta from The Importance of Being Earnest, that you think you are owed deference when you don't show it?
"It does not predispose me to be charitable to him, even if his comments were worthy of consideration (which they aren't)."
"If you love those who love you, what merits is there in that? Even sinners love those who love them?"
Oh, and you are predisposed to be charitable to everyone by this little thing we know as Divine Grace. If you reject the grace, don't blame anyone but yourself.
Kavanaugh at 12:18, you shtick is getting old. Why don't you do something useful like start streaming your Mass or go to a nursing home to anoint the dying?
TJM
The Anonymous commentator at 12:18 (whom you identify as Fr Kavanaugh) was clearly riled by my criticism and has come back in his inimitable style which combines crude ranting with a sanctimoniousness which in the context is somewhat nauseating. I do not take it as a personal insult if someone posts as Anonymous, although it's confusing when one has a 'good' Anonymous and a 'bad' Anonymous on the same blog.
I would never call Fr Kavanaugh a berk, since if you understand rhyming slang it indicates another and extremely insulting four-letter word derived from the Latin for the female pudenda. So Anonymous's anonymity has advantages for me, since an unknown person cannot require deference of any sort.
If one sees blog exchanges as a form of conversation, it follows that someone who pointedly does not introduce himself cannot presume to address his interlocutor by his Christian name.
All the same, every time Anonymous puts his cerebrally-challenged head above the parapet I'll be there to take a pot-shot. It's an easy target, but it provides innocent amusement for me, and, one hopes, a bit of light relief for other readers of this blog.
"Sanctimoniousness which in the context is somewhat nauseating"
Agree. The lay-in-wait for the perceived holier-than-thou "teaching moment" is tiresome. That's not conversation. I'm sure said person(s) think they are truly helping us to see where we are always wrong. Makes me wonder how I function elsewhere in life without them.
"If one sees blog exchanges as a form of conversation, it follows that someone who pointedly does not introduce himself cannot presume to address his interlocutor by his Christian name."
And there you have it, folks. "It follows!" The Great and Powerful John has spoken. Let us all bow before his pomposity and grovel before his pronouncements.
Self-congratulations, John, are the stock-and-trade of the weak. Much like the American president.
Anonymous
Since when does suggesting that one concept is consequent on another amount to self-congratulation?
Your heavy-handed sarcasm might suggest to others that you haven't much of an argument. Perhaps it serves as a catharsis for your feelings of inadequacy. Perhaps you are even now congratulating yourself on your profound insights and coruscating wit.
I don't know and quite frankly I don't care. I believe you are familiar with Ecclesiastes 7:6.
"The Anonymous commentator at 12:18 (whom you identify as Fr Kavanaugh) was clearly riled by my criticism..."
"Clearly riled..."...?
Now, John, is this the exact sort of thing you take others to task for, knowing what's going on in other people's minds?
Yes, it is precisely the same thing. When you do it, it is an example of your keen intellect and admirable perception. But when someone else does it, you are the first to harrumph and complain and sputter about how this sort of thing is inappropriate.
Now, to return the favor... Your mind is trapped in self-congratulatory mode. You have made choices that you think others are wrong for not making, and you are piqued that they do not share your opinions since, as you yourself believe, the superiority of those opinions is 1) self-evident and 2) shared by people like you. Smug and self-content, your need to see yourself as superior in intellect, possessing superior opinions regarding just about any topic, leads you to belittle others.
That last step alone indicates the emptiness of your argument.
But it's your argument and you are quiet content.
Cheers!
Anonymous
I don't claim to know anyone's mind. I comment on what they write. In your case, I am merely speculating about your reasons for writing as you do. Note the reiteration of the word 'perhaps', the use of the subjunctive 'might' and the admission that I don't know. I don't state them as if they are fact, unlike your assumptions about me (which, incidentally, I don't give a toss about).
My opinions are my own. They are usually well-founded, but there is no such thing as a 'superior' or 'inferior' opinion. An inference is also an opinion, and I infer from the tone and content of your recent offerings that you have a grudge against anyone who is more erudite and eloquent than yourself. I find this psychologically interesting. I know lots of people who are cleverer and more talented than I am - the professional singer who cantors the schola I sing with, the priest who is a formidable classicist and who knows far more about the liturgy than I do, the professor under whom I studied 38 years ago and is world-renowned in his field - yet I admire these people, not resent them.
Perhaps you need therapy. Or perhaps not. Or you may* just be a nasty piece of work. I don't know.
*Note the subjunctive mood.
Post a Comment