FIND YOU WINGS AND YOUR LATIN! TAKE THEIR LATIN MASS SURVEY!!!
This is from Kennesaw State University In Kennesaw, Georgia:
Title of Research Study: The Use of the Latin Language at Catholic Masses
Introduction
My name is David Johnson and I am a Professor of English and Linguistics
at Kennesaw State University (USA). You are being invited to take part
in a research study that I am conducting on opinions concerning the use
of the Latin language at Catholic Masses. Before you participate, you
should read this form and ask questions about anything you do not
understand.
Description of Project
The purpose of the study is to understand the opinions of clergy and lay persons on the use of Latin at Catholic Masses.
Explanation of Procedures
The survey consists of demographic questions and opinion questions (both
multiple-choice and short-answer). The survey should take approximately
ten minutes to complete.
79 comments:
Done. Very pro-TLM response from me.
One discovery that I've made during the COVID live stream era, the country is awash with unattractive churches (both vintage post VII and wreckovated), priests wearing supremely ugly vestments and singers doing the best they can with 'meh' music. It's no wonder the bottom has dropped out in some places. Those attending just to fulfill their obligation finally had the out some likely were longing for.
Done. Would like to be able to see the final results.
Mallen
You could ask him:
djohnson@kennesaw.edu
Done
Thank you for posting the link, Father. I thought of this crew when I read the intro letter. I truly wish that all of the regulars here could visit my parish and attend several Masses and share your thoughts and impressions.
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
The survey failed to address two key issues.
1. Continuity. The liturgy of the Western Church has been in Latin since the mid-fourth century (in some places even longer). The Church does not simply exist in real time, in this case the third decade of the 21st century. She links the classical era and the medieval era with the modern era in a unique way. That this link should be modified (some would say ruptured) as recently as 1965 militates against continuity and liturgical tradition.
2. Music. The development of the Latin liturgy is inseparable from the chant which developed alongside it, and the only Catholic liturgical music in the vernacular was mostly composed after 1965 and is usually of poor quality. A sung Mass entirely in the vernacular, turning its back on the great treasury of sacred music for the simple reason that it's in Latin would strike me as perverse, and I would not attend it on principle.
I completed it. I think it was slightly leading by including reverence in EF response options - so can already guess the conclusions. There wasn’t an option for me to say I preferred OF because it’s more reverent.
I had to remind myself that this is a survey. It seemed to be testing specific allegations about the two forms. I hope the researcher follows on with a more detailed and rigorous investigation of how people view the differences.
There are some ancient time, classical era, and medieval concepts and practices that, although they would come under the heading of being "continuous," have been changed or sets aside, and rightly so.
Monarchs ruled by diving right since pre-Christian times, but we have come to the realization that this ancient notion does not serve us well today.
Males were understood to be superior to females in virtually every aspect of life, from earning in order to support families, holding political office, practicing law and medicine, etc. This notion, too, has been debunked.
Music developed alongside and as a part of the liturgy is largely a cultural reality. There is nothing more sacred in the nature of a Gregorian chant than there is in a Corsican chant, the music of ancient Japanese shinto practitioners or ancient religions of other cultures.
Caucasians were - in mostly caucasian Europe of course - believed to be superior to non-caucasians. And everything produced by caucasian cultures, from architecture to music, and from glassware to tatting, was also superior.
Mercifully, especially for the non-caucasian people and cultures who suffered the effects of this stupendous tomfoolery, this notion is also going the way of the Dodo.
Anonymous at 9.59 AM,
How wonderful to see a Catholic so influenced by Hegel, Marx and Foucault (for Dummies) !!!
Anonymous at 4:12 PM,
Worse yet that Anonymous is a priest
How wonderful, and not in a positive sense, to see a supposedly educated Catholic priest completely miss the point and launch into a catalogue of tendentious and irrelevant drivel. Is he trying to beat the record for non sequiturs and red herrings? Or has he been at the bottle?
Done!
Thank you for finding this survey and posting it.
Sheila
Anon 4:12 - I'm not influenced by Hegel, Marx, or Foucault. You, on the other hand, seem to be in the camp of Moe, Curly, and Larry. Nyuk nyuk nyuk.
John, again, touts his education. Yes, John we KNOW you think you're better educated than anyone else here. We KNOW you think that any disagreement with your positions signals the superiority of your education. We KNOW this because you've said it so many times . . .
Antiquity as the basis for the uprightness or superiority of what you prefer is extremely shaky. As I pointed out, there are many ideas from antiquity that we have rightly dispensed with, and we are the better for it.
I think the "has he been at the bottle" is new for you - a new low - when you aren't able to respond soberly to those who disagree with you. Or did I miss your earlier attempts that smearing your learned opponents as heavy drinkers?
Anonymous K at 10:49 AM,
A priest who votes for the Abortion Party has no business lecturing anyone about lows. You are about as low as they get
Dear “Anonymous” @10.49,
I’m sorry I disagree, there is no one in the last 10 plus years, who has contributed to this blog, who has been more influenced by - and can more put a simplistic spin on - a core part of modernist thinking, ie: that all ideas and concepts MUST be regarded historically, as embedded in ways of life, and are thus never timeless and unchanging, but are embodied in societies and institutions, in historical realities that change....as your dear self.
Learned opponent? Your capacity for self-delusion knows no bounds. Anyone who can write 'Nyuk nyuk nyuk' as a comment is either drunk or as mad as a box of frogs.
Crawl back into your hole and stop trying the patience of the rest of us who are both sober (most of the time) and sane (all of the time).
Anon 12:42 "...all ideas and concepts MUST be regarded historically..."
Yes, they must, inasmuch as they are part of history. Anything of human origin must change as humans change.
That which is timeless and unchanging of God's Truth.
Language, art, mathematics, music - these all have changed and will continue to change. Soimetimes the chnages will come slowly, sometimes quickly.
What is considered beautiful changes.
Alek Wek appeared on the cover of Elle magazine in 1997 and people were shocked at her beauty and how the beauty of women like her, a dark-skinned Sudanese woman with "less than perfect" teeth, had been ignored.
Men in powdered wigs and tight leggings with bulging codpieces were all the rage there for a while. Not anymore.
John, with ALL the education, superior education I am sure you would want me to say, that the onomatopoetic "nyuk nyuk nyuk" should be troublesome for you is of concern.
Anonymous K at 4:25 PM,
Even for a berk, you are more tiresome than usual. Your leftwing lunacies and adoration of the Abortion Party would be better received at. The National Anti-Catholic Reporter where the Faith does bot matter just “feelings.” You are the proverbial troll and not a clever one
Yet it IS a problem that most Catholic modernists include Catholic beliefs and practices in with ALL ideas and concepts that MUST primarily be regarded historically, as embedded in ways of life, embodied in institutions etc ... and never timeless or unchanging.
I recall a lecturer at my university years ago talking of a "modernist gap"; that is in each historical era, modernists believe, there will always be a big gap between what the Church teaches about God, the world, morality etc in that era and whatever the full unchanging truths of God and life etc might be....
I'm not here to attack anyone except with an opposing viewpoint.
"Caucasians were - in mostly caucasian Europe of course - believed to be superior to non-caucasians. And everything produced by caucasian cultures, from architecture to music, and from glassware to tatting, was also superior."
Huh?
The Trigonometry and Geometry developed by the ancient Greeks are taught and used worldwide as is the Calculus of Newton and Leibniz. Much is owed to the discoveries of the Greeks Aristotle, Archimedes, Appolonius, Euclid and Menelaus. There were certainly important discoveries by Indian and Arab mathematicians but what was the difference with the Greeks and later Europeans was the application of mathematical principles.
It is important to note that starting in the 16th century and extending to our own time, nearly all important scientific and mathematical discoveries were by Europeans. And of course these were to the benefit of all other parts of the world.
The Integrated circuit, so crucial to the development of modern electronics and computers, was invented by a European American, Television, radio, cell phones, the Internet, lasers, electic power transmission, electic lighting, and quantum computing, all owe their discoveries to European -Americans and Europeans. One could construct a lengthy list in the fields of chemistry and biology as well.
Then there is also the development of musical notation and composition...
From the development of the University system, to the scientific method, to art and architecture, to music, to our system of laws and jurisprudence, to medicine and language, to philosophy and astronomy,to the calendar we use, even to the bible itself, no other area of the world has contributed as much to the development of civilization as has Europe (owing much to the Catholic church).
I could go on.
Anon 4:55 - You're changing your words. You've gone from "that all ideas and concepts MUST be regarded historically" to "MUST primarily be regarded historically." Not necessarily.
Every human construct must be regarded historically. They cannot be regarded any other way since they are historical. They might be from 5,000 years ago or 5 minutes ago, but they are, all of them, part of history. Age does not necessarily determine the value of an idea or concept, or the advisability of keeping that idea/concept alive.
I do not share the belief that "Catholic beliefs" fit into this "regarded historically" category, insofar as those beliefs are divinely revealed. I stated as much at 4:25 when I said, "That which is timeless and unchanging of God's Truth."
How we express that truth - ah, that's another matter since the expression necessarily involves language which, as we know, evolves and changes.
Not K - "Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk"
Modernist Catholic intellectuals (unlike many ordinary priests and ordinary lay people they have influenced) are in no way stupid. They can scholarly talk and write - as they have done for the past c 150 years - on the various crucial meanings God has had for different prominent men and institutions over many centuries, often not caring at all that what they are really doing is basically questioning whether God can be known in any of the traditional ways.
PJK.
Some liberal, "progressive" Catholics in our era are unaware that the philosophical foundations of their worldview was laid by thinkers who really believe that it was never the case of God making man in His image but God Himself being made by men....or God Himself as a "human construct" !!
A devout Catholic lay person, who, for example, worked hard all his/her life, with neither the time nor aptitude for intellectual pursuits (and may even have enjoyed immensely the antics of the 3 Stooges etc) but actually fully BELIEVED all the core truths of Christianity and Catholicism (from the divinity of Christ, to the resurrection, to the teachings on marriage and sexual morality....) will, I believe, have a 100 times better chance of eternal salvation than a quasi educated Catholic priest, whose pretentious and pompous and rambling nonsense will have achieved little apart from having contributed, in his own little way, to the general decline in Christian belief and practice in our era.
PGS.
Oh what a glorious and wonderful era we live in, where we have Catholic priests ideologically aligned with those postmodern educators who would replace the study of Dante and Dickens in literature classes with the study of Seinfeld and the Simpsons in cultural studies classes and who honestly believe, for example, that a South Sudanese drum and dance performance is a more culturally significant event for students than a performance of Hamlet !!
Deacon Joseph Taylor.
I for one am in wholehearted agreement with the anonymous contributor(s) who many on this blog associate with the erudite, scholar-priest Fr K.
Fr K and various likeminded anonymous contributors here have inspired me to attempt an honours thesis for my degree which will argue that almost everything in the writings of Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas is really now as outdated as “powdered wigs, tight leggings and bulging codpieces” !
I am so grateful, myself, to have been intellectually and spiritually formed by modern priests who were educated in 1970s seminaries where the profound theological insights of Hans Kung and Paul Tillich etc trumped all that outdated, medieval, scholastic nonsense!
Love and best wishes,
Lucy Loisy,
PS - My honours thesis was going to be all about the wonders of lesbian dance therapy but no more.....thanks to the inspiration I’ve received from Fr K and several equally learned feminist, Catholic women at Patheos.com !
Dear Fr K,
I have introduced myself to you before as “New Zealand Seminarian”. Dear Father, you will perhaps recall that several months ago I informed you of my plan to compile a hundred plus of your theological and historical gems that have appeared in your comments on this blog to form a new blog titled “The Wit and Wisdom of Fr K.”
Since then, I have gone further and compiled a manuscript (containing lengthy selections re your insights into theology, Church history and the glories of modern liturgy and so on...) with the same title and presented it to the diocesan authorities here in NZ for an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat. I regret to inform you that as a result of this my seminary wants me to not only repeat first year philosophy and first year Church history next year but also to undergo psychotherapy, starting this Thursday!
NZ Sem, thats what you get for following a Dodo instead of a Kiwi.
Kiwi Sem -
I am quite proud of the accomplishments of the seminary evaluation team - that they have been able to weed out so unsuitable a candidate. Please pass my compliments on to them on Thursday.
As you know, Fr. McDonald often asserts, rightly as he should, that, he was as proud of the applicants he recommended NOT be accepted as those who were.
Peace and Blessing.
We should remind ourselves that this thread is about the place of Latin in the Catholic liturgy. It's not about European cultural and technological supremacy, although this would make for an interesting discussion. Still less is it about US party politics and abortion.
The idea of the Catholic Church with one foot in the classical world and one in the modern echoes Macaulay in his famous essay of October 1840. Continuity does not imply that the ancient world is axiomatically better than the modern one. Macaulay sees continuity as being provided above all by the Papacy but the continuous use of Latin for seventeen centuries is also important. Even more so now than in Macaulay's day when Latin was still central to European academic life.
As for music, to exclude from the liturgy over a thousand years of some of the greatest music composed by man since it is not in the vernacular would strike most musicians or anyone else with even a rudimentary musical knowledge as at best perverse and at worst cultural vandalism. It's got nothing to do with ancient Japanese temple music (and I doubt that 'Anonymous nyuk nyuk nyuk' knows anything about the latter anyway).
'Anonymous nnn' has demonstrated many times that his reading comprehension is poor and his ability to argue logically even poorer. He can't even express himself properly in what is presumably his native tongue. Consider the following gem: 'Yes, John, we KNOW you think you're better educated than anyone else here. [Actually I don't.] We KNOW that any disagreement with your positions signals the superiority of your education. [Meaningless. Disagreement only signals the point of view of him who disagrees.] We KNOW this because you've said it so many times ... [Actually I've never said it, and wouldn't since I don't deal in meaningless assertions.]
Note the use of 'we'. Whom does he mean? The other contributors to this blog? The whole human race? My advice would be for him to sit in a darkened room with a damp towel over his head and get his ideas in order before posting. And take more water with it in future.
Yes, frmjk, I have consistently said over the many decades that my greatest achievement as vocation director was not the candidates I recommended for seminary/Holy Orders, but the ones I axed.
Fr. K., comes across as a bitter, petty man, and unsuited for his chosen line of work. Sad
C
Dear Fr Kavanaugh,
I thought the following might interest you and or others here: My cousin, who is a decade older than I, had to leave the seminary last year under a cloud. Apparently, he was caught out in plagiarism (of Tillich especially) one too many times and for use of sacrilegious figures of speech and for having a real weakness for strong OP rum ......for example, while tipsy, he’d read parts of his essays (which he thought profound and wanted others to believe original - and not material stolen from Tillich) to impressionable young theology students:
He’d start, for example, “...While truth itself remains constant, the human perception of truth must grow or else become a cipher. The Church was sure that it had the great fish Truth firmly held for all time in a mesh of theological formulae, that neither the fish nor the net would ever grow and change. That being so, it enforced on its subjects the study of the strands of the net as the only safe way of holding the fish. And the fish was ultimately God........as the Church’s primary system of thought calcified, God became more and more rationalised, more and more finite....
My cousin would start out like that but as his surreptitious consumption of strong rum increased he’d end up babbling incoherently like a character out of a James Joyce novel in praise of those original giants of Catholic modernism like George Tyrrell, Alfred Loisy and that old darling, Baron von Hugel....
To finish this true story, my cousin now, this year, has a well paid job as a layman in the Catholic Education Office in......diocese, New Zealand. Our family hopes his talents will not be wasted in his new career in the NZ Catholic Church.
John,
Perhaps “anonymous” feels or believes he has a sort of minor vocation, a sort of calling that has resulted in a decade long struggle to enlighten many of those who read and or contribute to this blog - who he perhaps or probably regards as die hard Catholic reactionaries who have some problems with some of the various religious reforms of the past 50 years; modern religious reforms, aligned to “the spirit of THE Council” that he regards as a great blessing to our universal Church....
After all, it was expected in that glorious decade of the 1970s that people such as us would be, in 50 to 100 years, as extinct as the DODO.
Anon 9:23 - I suspect you find anyone who disagrees with you or does not share your dispositions "bitter" and "petty" and "unsuited" for his line of work.
John - You consistently bellittle the education of those who disagree with you. Just scroll up to your comment "...to see a supposedly educated Catholic priest..." (May 1, 2021 at 7:55 PM) Yes, that is most certainly belittling and yes, that is most certainly a claim that you are better educated.
My advice to you is stop denying that you do what others can plainly see you do.
"NZ Seminarian" is about as much a real person as "Lucy Loisy". I'd say both are clearly characters invented to mock or at least tease the "erudite, scholar-priest" Fr K.
In defense of Fr K he merely echos the thoughts given to him and a large portion of the public. In fact, once one understands that bigotry is a shared human temptation it becomes clear why Christianity is resisted by people different than Europeans in race or culture. The list in that post, though offensive on many levels, prepares us for the environment evangelists must operate. Men, as man, are not saved by their lineage, culture, or family but must be saved individually and by their own acts of faith if they live much past their Baptism. Furthermore, we are all maintaining a vector either toward or away from Christ and a negative movement can exist even in members of the Body who may exit salvation of their own will. This is not unreasonable, it is in fact entirely due to reason. There is no reason that any culture could not create a liturgy in any language that is as useful as Latin. But they have not. So it is also entirely reasonable that Latin should continue to be used until they do. It also seems reasonable that because the Latin liturgy is more than acceptable, but also efficacious in both educating the Church and producing the desired unity of mind, that creating a liturgy in another language must be for the purpose of helping people in early stages of comprehension of the information held in the Latin reach a deeper unity with the rest of the Body. Any other use or purpose works against unity and understanding. Because the Latin liturgy already exists and is superior for its purpose the benefit of building a liturgy in a language to compete rather than induct is at best a questionable use of time and at worst diabolical.
I occasionally venture away from what has been called: my little conservative Catholic echo chamber.
Yesterday I googled: “Latin in Catholic liturgy” and stumbled across a lengthy, angry and bizarrely spiteful article on the Latin Mass and the people who attend the Latin Mass - “The Latin Mass becomes a cult of toxic tradition” by a Zita Ballinger Fletcher at ncronline.org
This article is astounding in its vitriol towards the Latin Mass and the people who attend the Latin Mass. It was painful to read all of this article but it was such an eye opener to me re how many liberal Catholics regard the Latin Mass. Believe me, vitriolic criticism (bitter, malicious criticism) is not too strong a choice of words to describe this article.
What an introduction for me to how “the other half” can regard the Latin Mass!!
“
Anonymous @ 10:41
That an educated person, let alone a priest, can write as you do is certainly a cause for wonder. But then you're not a priest, are you? Just an anonymous nutjob of the sort that writes poison-pen letters, usually in green ink. One can only surmise that you need to find an outlet for your frustrations. So carry on peddling your untruths if it makes you feel better; for my part I can put up with having my words 'twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools'.
However, in this case there is only one fool, yourself, and you are either too foolish or too thick-skinned to realize what a fool you are making of yourself. Can you not see from others' comments that you are exposing yourself to ridicule?
Perhaps by enduring the stripes of well-deserved ridicule you are deliberately mortifying the flesh. Unfortunately your comments are attributed by some to an actual priest who posts on this blog, so you are bringing down opprobrium on him as well. Is this also deliberate, one has to ask. That Father Kavanaugh has not disowned your comments is testament to his humility and forbearance. The man must be a living saint.
John - Of course I can see the comments of others. What a silly question. People ridicule lots of people wrongly, don't they? You yourself ape the foolish folks gathered outside the upper room where the disciples were gathered on the day of Pentecost: "Some, however, made fun of them and said, 'They have had too much wine.'" Don't go and deny it - we all can see the post.
So, no, I'm not worried what you and ohers might say.
No, I a not bringing opprobrium on anyone. That's as remarkable a statement as I have seen you post in a long, long time. I have to be concerned that foolish people say foolish things? Not in this life!
Anon @ 3:58
Do the foolish people saying foolish things include those who are convinced you are Fr Kavanaugh? Or are they in fact correct? Only you have the answer to that, and I assume you will plead the Fifth Amendment, since a simple yes or no would smack too much of honesty.
Meanwhile, pour yourself a large gin and tonic and treat us to another display of coruscating wit and incisive argument.
Anonymous K at 10:41 am,
Fathers Fox and McDonald seem comfortable in their skins as priests. You do not
John - Foolish people say foolish things because they are - wait for it - foolish. They are convinced of many thing, including foolish things. (This is not rocket science. A man of your superior education ought to have been able to figure that out.)
Anonymous K,
Then you are uber foolish because you vote for the Abortion Party
Anon 9:41 - A person expressing disagreement isn't a sign that that person is "uncomfortable in their skin."
I think people sometimes have an unreal expectation that they will be able to make a statement and find universal acceptance or agreement. Then, when someone does not agree or accept the statement, people are shocked or surprised. "There must be something wrong with you since you disagree with me!"
Or the one that is far, far too comon these days, "Why do you hate (fill in the blank)!?" Criticize someone or something and you are accused of bieng Trump haters, Biden haters, LGBTQ haters, Mozart haters, oregano haters - you name it.
Mike, you've answered the question I put to your anonymous alter ego, albeit not directly. I know you have little understanding of irony, and are incapable of constructing a rational argument, either nit-picking about unimportant details or constructing straw men whom you then claim to have vanquished.
You are intellectually dishonest, which is why you like to hide behind anonymous comments or constantly changing pseudonyms which to you indicate a form of cleverness, but convince no-one.
When you post under your real name you can be occasionally quite sensible and indeed insightful. Why squander this credit by your senseless trolling which merely invites ridicule?
I would genuinely like to know.
John - One wonders why a person would be "quite sensible and indeed insightful" when posting under his/her real name, but not so when using a pseudonym? Think about that strange assertion for a bit.
As with foolish people saying foolish things, the same crowd is, I suspect, likely to ridicule that which displeases or bothers or challenges their foolishness, not that which is worthy or ridicule. Thank about that, too.
As for intellectual dishohnesty, your opinion is worth the ink used to post the comment, don't you agree?
Mike, the simple answer is found in your own conduct on this blog. A pseudonym used consistently identifies the poster while guaranteeing his privacy. It is quite common on blogs. Making up a silly moniker and changing it frequently serves what purpose? Why post under your own name one day and under 'Anonymous' the next? Again, it is only you who can answer this.
I am reluctant to enter this argument, but first two paragraphs of Anonymous of 4 May, 12:12 draw me out. That someone would behave differently under a pseudonym seems likely and the reason for using the pseudonym. The second paragraph assumes that a foolish person is foolish about everything and, at the same time, the object of ridicule is undeserving because the objecting person is foolish. A hazard of being ridiculed even by a fool, is that the object of ridicule may deserve it and be even more embarrassed by proximity of and jibes of the fool.
“I marvel what kin thou and thy daughters are. They'll have me whipped for speaking true, thou'lt have me whipped for lying, and sometimes I am whipped for holding my peace. I had rather be any kind o' thing than a fool. And yet I would not be thee, nuncle.”
John - Your assumption is that I, or anyone else for that matter, ought to answer your questions. If anonymous posts are SUCH a bother - yes, they are, given the time you've spent commenting - to you, don't read them. It really is that simple.
rcg - Foolish people may or may not be foolish about everything. People act foolishly about the Covid vaccine while managing to be very stable, down-to-earth folkls in many other ways.
Sometimes the foolish person is whacked about everything. Read the posts here sometimes...
Anonymous K at 4:37 pm,
You come across very poorly in contrast to Fathers Fox and McDonald. You are very similar to Mark Thomas and that is not a compliment. I actually have come to feel sorry for you
Mike, my assumption is that people do want answers to questions. Blogs are forums for opinion pieces which can and do invite questioning. It's called debate. You, or anyone else, must question my opinions and give his own counter arguments.
I have been questioned many times on many subjects and answer such questions to the best of my ability. I have never suggested that those who pose such questions are not entitled to do so; still less that they are undeserving of an honest answer.
John - Debate is all well and good. Yet, in these posts, you make it your practice to belittle the education of others, believing that your education is superior. Or you suggest that those who disagree with you are drunk. And why do you do this? Because you are convinced that your opinions or conclusions are right and others are wrong.
Being convinced is one thing. Demeaning others in another. Are those the rules of debate you learned along the way.
And if debate were your goal, the identity of the person posting would not matter. Debate the idea.
Mike, my strictures on your (often quite personal) comments derive from their content. If you persist in missing the point, veer off into a tirade of irrelevant comments and utterly inapt analogies I will call you out. I don't care if you are Mike Kavanaugh posting under his real name, using a cute pseudonym or simply posting as Anonymous.
Whether you are drunk, mad or just plain obtuse is nothing to do with whether you agree with me or not. In fact, if we were in agreement on anything of substance I would be both surprised and embarrassed.
Anonymous K at 12:08 PM,
Actually you always take the first shot and then John Nolan corrects you. You also politicize almost any thread when it clearly does not call for it. If you play fair, others will play fair
John - You've agreed with Fr. Kavanaugh previously, haven't you? Why, in just this thread you said he could be, how did you put it, "...quite sensible and indeed insightful." And yes, that has been in matters of substance.
So, you go on with yourself now, whine "You Missed The Point!" when it is simply not the case, trumpet your education and belittle that of others, and enjoy avoiding debate.
I don’t feel intimidated by John’s education at all. Perhaps I am not smart enough to be bothered by that sort of thing. I prefer to make allies of people who are better in their field than I am. If I yield to John’s position it is because he has a reason and some amount of evidence driving that reason. Even so, I have disagreed with him a few times and even those positions he takes that do not feel I can challenge at that moment remain available for testing when I encounter related situations or information. So far he’s held up well.
Similarly, I agree with about half of Anonymous 2’s conclusions but I respect and admire his method. He is almost certainly unconvinced by me. And yet I am certain I have benefited from our exchanges and reading his ideas.
Anonymous K at 5:28,
Yet you destroy your credibility when you go “under cover” where your innate nastiness and irrationality come out. That’s John Nolan’s point. You are just a slightly better educated version of Mark Thomas
rcg - I don't know anyone who is "itimidated" by John's education; I certainly am not. However, he diminishes his credibility and his innate nastiness comes out when he belittles the education of others or irrationaly accuses them of being drunk or rejects discussing ideas in favor of pushing his expectation that "Anonymous" not be used by those he says wants to debate with.
My point is that I have not witnessed any intimidation by John. If he points out a flaw in my reasoning or my evidence then his manner, in my opinion, is hilarious. We must learn to gain an objectivity that allows us to laugh at ourselves as we learn. Some things we do and say are simple mistakes, like my many typos. Others mistakes are made in sincerity so we are wounded when they are discovered and pointed out. But isn’t that the same path to salvation? Perhaps he reminds me too much of my grandfather and great uncle who would decimate foolish talk in a charming way that also trained us to avoid external definitions of ourselves and embrace humility with a laugh.
Anonymous K,
You’ve done it again - engaging in mind reading! How do you know if someone posting here is or is not intimidated by John Nolan’s erudition?
He’s actually pointed out this trait that you have.
Some people can be intimidated by a lump of sugar. I have not witnessed an attempt on his part to do so.
“Anonymous” at 8.22 AM,
Your words are both pathetic and predictable.
Grow up!
To you, John has diminished his credibility; to you, John has innate nastiness, to you, John is irrational.
To you.....but not to others. Again, grow up!
Anon 9:37 - Re-read what I posted: "I don't know anyone who is "itimidated" by John's education."
I said, "I DON'T KNOW." No mind reading necessary to say "I DON'T KNOW."
Anonymous K,
Is English your second language? What you said is precisely what I stated
This is a strange exchange indeed. I have for fifteen years contributed to a Catholic blog which is not notably conservative but encourages debate. I will not identify it because I don't want it trolled.
Some people agree with me, others do not; many are expert in their field and can and do correct me on points of fact. In other words, they are able to engage in meaningful debate. They are in most cases as least as educated as I am, and in addition have achieved eminence in their own fields.
What is interesting is that no-one has ever suggested that I believe my opinions are unassailable. This accusation has only been made on this blog, and by a single contumacious correspondent who sometimes identifies himself as Fr MJ Kavanaugh but usually hides behind pseudonyms or Anonymous.
It's sad, but what can I, or anyone else, do about it?
John - On the Catholic blog where you post I suspect that your opinions are shared by the majority, so no one is going to challenge you or the "eminent" in their own fields. They like it when you say you would not cross the road to attend a NO Mass. They may even share your view that European/Western culture is superior in almost every way to any other.
I suspect there you do not trumpet your education nor do you belittle the education of others. There you do not suggest those who disagree with you are drunk.
It amazes me that you are willing to be seen among the non-eminent hoi polloi who do not share you predelictions.
Anonymous K at 4:35,
You are now in clown territory and not a particular amusing one. You need to get a life - most folks here are on to you and find you as tiresome as Mark Thomas - your emotional equal.
Jumping to conclusions again, are we, Mike? The blog to which I refer has a wide spectrum of opinion and if anything leans towards a liberal perspective. Poor booby, you don't get taken to task because you disagree with me. If you do not agree that Latin contributes to continuity, say so, and give reasons. If you think that Marty Haugen is infinitely preferable to Gregorian chant or Palestrina, say so, and give reasons.
It's really as simple as that. Giving a stream of irrelevant and inapt analogies might tell us something about how your mind works, and may indeed invite ridicule, including an inference that someone who writes as you do is either unhinged or under the influence. Imagining that my strictures on your writings are based on the fact that you disagree with me is ludicrous; apart from anything else you haven't actually done so.
Were you to present a reasoned counter-argument to any points I raise I would have some respect for you. But you seem incapable of doing so.
John,
If you were lucky enough to be a young man in our era attending a progressive Catholic college, as I do, you would be blessed to be taught by academics who believe and teach the following:
Knowledge, truth and morality exist in relation to culture, society and or historical context. Further, in matters of art, literature and culture no one has a privileged opinion which must be deferred to........this often upsets conservative, religious people who have absolute perspectives on right and wrong.
A giant problem with the traditional canon of great literature is that the vast majority of the authors are dead white males. Great black, Japanese, Indian and female authors, don’t, or very rarely, make an appearance.
The historical greats in Western literature are in NO WAY necessarily better than a lot of modern non - white and female authors.
Hip Hop and Rap music are as deserving of critical assessment as Western classical music.
Catholic people who are socially conservative and with politically right wing leanings (like many who contribute to this blog) tend to be authoritarians. They want respect. They want their opinions listened to and, more importantly, taken as gospel. The postmodern concept that there isn’t anyone with a privileged perspective can often make them a bit crazy!
Regards,
Lucy Loisy.
Lucy Loisy,
Your last paragraph describes the behavior of the typical leftwing academician. Global warming is their religion and you dare not stray from its tenets or you will be ousted from the campus. Similar treatment is afforded those who correctly view Black Lives Matter as a Marxist organization hell bent on destroying American civil society. Cheers!
John - I'm pretty sure, even very sure, that Fr. Kavanaugh did give his reasons for disagreeing with you on the music chosen for the celebration of the Eucharist. Yes, very sure.
As for continuity, I don't find that a compelling reason to keep doing something, even if it has been done for 15 centuries. What must be and is continuous is the Church's teaching of the Apostolic Faith.
Styles of music, architecture, vesture come and go. Prayers used in the mass come and go. Languages come and go, as they must being human constructs. Truth is what remains constant.
Mike - what celebration are you talking about, and who chose the music? If you're that sure you wrote it, can you reference the post? And why have you taken to referring to yourself in the third person?
Also, Mike, continuity is not stasis, nor is it rupture. Keep up.
John Nolan,
Delusions of grandeur!!
Pierre
It did cross my mind. Julius Caesar (De Bello Gallico, De Bello Civili) always refers to himself in the third person.
It might also be indicative of a split personality. A university put up a poster advertising a 'Symposium on Schizophrenia'. A wag added the comment 'I'm in two minds about attending'.
John,
I am in love with your mind!
Best wishes and highest regards,
Monica A.
Post a Comment