tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post6755779738383183090..comments2024-03-28T18:02:12.286-04:00Comments on southern orders: WHY DO CATHOLIC LIBERALS ENJOY POLARIZING AND DIVIDING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?Fr. Allan J. McDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-39343501495178630992016-08-13T09:14:44.410-04:002016-08-13T09:14:44.410-04:00John Nolan,
The Brompton Oratory is in a class by...John Nolan,<br /><br />The Brompton Oratory is in a class by itself and should serve as a universal model for how Mass should be celebrated. I agree with your interpretation of SC. I use it to show lefties how far off they are in their liturgical practice. In reading SC, you would never conceive that its blueprint would end up fostering the Novus Ordo. A long deceased priest friend of mine who was a peritus at the Council said the sense he got out of SC at the time, that it would encourage the Missa Dialoga, chanting of the Mass by priest and people (our parish was already doing this), and perhaps some of the non propers and Ordinary parts of the Mass might be permitted to be in the vernacular on non solemn occasions. If that had happened, we might have not had the ensuing liturgical wars. Also, the death of John XXIII was tragic because he evidenced a true love of the EF.When he died his last words were "Ut unum sint." Well the Novus Ordo has had the opposite effect. TJMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-74757883836834301312016-08-13T04:33:24.736-04:002016-08-13T04:33:24.736-04:00Joseph Ratzinger did not criticize the Novus Ordo ...Joseph Ratzinger did not criticize the Novus Ordo per se, rather the way in which it is commonly celebrated. 'A fabricated liturgy, a banal on-the-spot product' refers to the tendency of many priests to alter the texts to suit themselves. He spoke of a 'hermeneutic' of rupture rather than an actual rupture.<br /><br />His 'Spirit of the Liturgy' does question the assumptions of at least some of those who put together the new Mass as well as those who implemented it in practice, so there is an implied criticism here.<br /><br />Sacrosanctum Concilium was the blueprint for a future reform of the liturgy. It is not an instruction for individual priests or bishops on how Mass should be celebrated. So strictly speaking neither progressives nor conservatives should cite it in their defence. John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-4510455348458895822016-08-12T19:24:44.396-04:002016-08-12T19:24:44.396-04:00TJM
Two years ago I was at a Solemn Latin NO Mass...TJM<br /><br />Two years ago I was at a Solemn Latin NO Mass (I won't name the church, but it wasn't Brompton) and since the Canon is said audibly I heard the celebrant say 'una cum famulo tuo papa nostro Benedicto'. I mentioned it afterwards to the twenty-something priest and he said 'Did I really? I don't recall doing so. Still, one can but dream.'<br /><br />The first Easter Vigil I ever attended was at Brompton Oratory, sometime in the 1970s. The church was darkened right up to the point where the celebrant intones 'Gloria in excelsis Deo' at which moment all the lights came on, the organ thundered out, at least a dozen bells were rung, and the violet veil which covered the large picture of St Philip behind the high altar was slowly lowered on invisible wires. The choir then sang a Haydn Gloria while sacristans with tapers lit all the candles on all the altars. Dramatic? It was mind-blowing.<br /><br />The centenary Mass in 1984 was presided over by the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster with the then Apostolic Pro-nuncio, Archbishop Bruno Heim in the sanctuary wearing cappa magna. A full orchestra accompanied Beethoven's C Major Mass. Five years later I was browsing in a Catholic bookshop and found a glossy booklet aimed at young people which featured a photograph of this event - but as an example of how NOT to do liturgy; the facing page showed the correct way, with people gathered around a table/altar strumming guitars. I had to chuckle. Telling the Oratorians that they can't do liturgy is akin to telling the Brigade of Guards at nearby Wellington Barracks that they can't do foot drill. John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-36724603640968072782016-08-12T15:24:28.988-04:002016-08-12T15:24:28.988-04:00Father Kavanaugh, Pope Benedict himself said the N...Father Kavanaugh, Pope Benedict himself said the Novus Ordo was a hodge podge and was a severe rupture with the past. Tiny changes occured in the Roman Mass like when Pope John XXIII added St.Joseph to the Canon. Since you stand with the Church on SC and I imagine all of the other papal pronouncements on the Liturgy you will finally conform your practice and that of your congregation so they begin to sing the parts of the Mass proper to them in Latin. Also don't tamper with the texts, because that is expressly forbidden by SC.<br /><br />John Nolan, you and I are the same vintage and I have had the great privilege of attending Mass at the Brompton Oratory whenever I am in London. If the OF were celebrated like that univerally, I would complain far less. THe OF as routinely celebrated is boring, banal, and many of the priests who celebrate the OF of a certain vintage, frankly act like jackasses. They are the star of the show. I frankly believe the OF will be reformed substantially or will continue to attract less and less people to Church TJMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-15295012743780115972016-08-12T13:32:51.915-04:002016-08-12T13:32:51.915-04:00TJM
The trialling of the Missa Normativa in 1967 ...TJM<br /><br />The trialling of the Missa Normativa in 1967 before the Synod of Bishops is well documented. It was celebrated in the Sistine Chapel in Italian by Bugnini himself, and lasted 55 minutes. The bishops were asked to vote on certain details, and finally on the Mass as a whole.<br /><br />It should be remembered that by this date (October 1967) the choice was not between the classic Roman Mass and the Novus Ordo; the Mass as celebrated in most places was in the vernacular, with the Canon spoken aloud (the English translation being basically that used up to 2011) and with the Propers replaced by vernacular hymns and songs. Most of the rubrical gestures had been suppressed and the Communion rite was as it is in the Novus Ordo (see Tres Abhinc Annos).<br /><br />The final vote was as follows: placet 71, non placet 43, placet juxta modum 62.<br /><br />Thus only a minority approved without reservations. Apologists for the new Mass point out that 'juxta modum' is a positive vote, but this is disingenuous since however many reservations one might have, they have to modify 'placet'; they can hardly modify 'non placet'. <br /><br />You are perhaps being too hard on Fr Kavanaugh; since he was born in 1958 (the year I received first Holy Communion) he has no memory of the pre-Conciliar Church. Priests rarely attend a Mass celebrated by someone else, and if a priest tells me his congregation has no interest in hearing anything in Latin, or singing anything written before 1965, I can well believe him. But this is far from being a universal rule. The WYD closing Mass in Cracow had to be mostly in Latin since the Pope cannot speak Polish. There was no requirement for the young choir and congregation to sing their part of the Ordinary in Latin; yet they did it, and with gusto.<br /><br />When I attend Masses with sung Latin in London, Oxford and elsewhere the bulk of the congregation is under 40. Nor are they all middle-class intellectual types - in London especially many of them are immigrants. To suggest that when they sing the Gloria or Credo they don't know what they are singing since they have no qualifications in Latin (as Fr K has done on more than one occasion) is the ultimate in narrow-minded snobbery and condescension. John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-45894611109227298712016-08-12T11:56:39.324-04:002016-08-12T11:56:39.324-04:00TJM - I did not use stare decisis to bolster the N...TJM - I did not use stare decisis to bolster the NO, but as an example of how the development of liturgy has worked through the centuries. Change is built on the past.<br /><br />Whenever a new missal is promulgated, it is the result of decades or centuries of development, evolution, change, and growth.<br /><br />Yes, I know the bishops did not vote for the NO, and I did not say that they did. What I said was, "I say that when the Fathers of the Council voted on SC, two thousand, one hundred, and forty-seven (2,147) bishops disagreed with you."<br /><br />SC is Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. <br /><br />The referenced passages about the "compelling need for change" refute your claim that change was not needed or wanted.<br /><br /><br />Fr. Michael J. Kavanaughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-30050547202139063252016-08-12T08:30:22.832-04:002016-08-12T08:30:22.832-04:00Father K,
You used stare decisis in a deceitful w...Father K,<br /><br />You used stare decisis in a deceitful way, because you used it to bolster the Novus Ordo, frozen in time. Pius X did NOT change the Mass, if so, please cite what he changed, other than fostering and encouraging that Gregorian chant, in Latin, be taught to the people. I bet you haven't done that yet with your parishioners as encouraged by Pius X and mandated by CC<br /><br />The bishops did not vote for the Novus Ordo and you know it. They voted to retain Latin, Gregorian Chant. They were expecting relatively minor changes which the 1965 Missal reflects. And it has been well reported that a group of bishops when they saw a sample of the Novus Ordo at the Sistine in 1967 they rejected it handily.<br /><br />And you still haven't answered this. If Pope Francis tomorrow re-imposed the EF on all parishes or that Canon I (aka the Roman Canon )be used at every Mass and said in Latin, what would you do? I bet you'd sqeal like a pig and spout off about papal usurpation. You old liberals are a source of great amusementTJMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-5863541962974140332016-08-12T08:19:06.065-04:002016-08-12T08:19:06.065-04:00Pius X made changes to the breviary and calendar (...Pius X made changes to the breviary and calendar (whether or not they were felicitous is still a matter of controversy). He did not make any substantive changes to the Mass.<br /><br />SC certainly asked for changes which on the face of it had more radical implications than anything that had happened in the last 500 years, since it proposed changes to the Mass Ordinary as it appeared in the Roman Missal (there are of course variations in other Missals, such as the Dominican). However, it seemed to set the bar for change fairly high, saying in effect that there had to be no change without compelling reasons, which is not the same as saying that there were compelling reasons for change.<br /><br />Few of the bishops who voted for SC thought that they were voting for the dismantling of the Roman Rite and its replacement with something radically different, or the removal, within a few years, of any vestige of Latin in most places. They could not possibly have foreseen this, and in any case SC appeared to guarantee that this would not happen.<br /><br />It's always interesting to observe how revolutions, once embarked on, tend to run away with themselves and go to extremes. By 1970 many progressive liturgists envisioned a 'permanent revolution' on the Maoist model. Ironically, the fact that the 3rd edition of the Pauline Missal (2002) hardly differs from the 1st edition of more than 30 years previously is a sign of the reaction that revolutions almost inevitably provoke. <br /><br />Other signs of reaction or counter-revolution are Summorum Pontificum and the 2011 English translation of the definitive Latin text. The assumptions which underlay the rejected 1998 Sacramentary (dynamic equivalence, locally-produced texts, so-called 'inclusive language') seem already to belong to a previous century (which of course they do)! <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-23898263722962465582016-08-11T19:50:56.375-04:002016-08-11T19:50:56.375-04:00TJM - No, I am not cherry picking the documents. ...TJM - No, I am not cherry picking the documents. We are discussing stare decisis and how, at long last, you have discovered that stare decisis doesn't mean "No Change, Ever," but means, in your words, "change for compelling reasons."<br /><br />So, when I cited SC, I cited passages that refer to change. This isn't cherry picking, it is discussion of a topic. <br /><br />Now, if you want to CHANGE the topic under discussion, have at it. <br /><br />You say "There was no compelling reason" to change the mass. I say that when the Fathers of the Council voted on SC, two thousand, one hundred, and forty-seven (2,147) bishops disagreed with you. Four (4) voted against adoption of SC.<br /><br />And, as I always do, I will side with the Bishops and the Church against your faulty judgment that there was no compelling reason to change the mass.<br /><br />Would you say that in 1903 Pius X had "no compelling reason" to change the liturgy? That might make an interesting discussion . . . Fr. Michael J. Kavanaughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-73696063599904846062016-08-11T17:57:41.112-04:002016-08-11T17:57:41.112-04:00Father Kavanaugh,
There was no compelling reason ...Father Kavanaugh,<br /><br />There was no compelling reason to overturn a rite that had nourished the Church for well over a millenia. And you are cherry-picking passages from the documents of Vatican II which have nothing to do with the Mass itself. SS also mandated that the Latin Mass be preserved,that Gregorian chant and the organ have pride of place and that pastors, meaning YOU, must teach the faithful to sing the parts of the Mass in Latin,proper to them. Have you implemented that in your parish? Ever? I get that you're an old lefty, doubling down on failure and lack the humility to admit you are wrong. But your generation is dying off and the younger clergy have none of the hang ups you have with restoring the sacred liturgy to its former splendor for the Glory of God. After all, the Mass is about praising and worshipping the Lord and not you and our little politburoTJMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-84419224958717398452016-08-11T14:54:08.885-04:002016-08-11T14:54:08.885-04:00I would just like to continue to point out that &q...I would just like to continue to point out that "the times" is always shorthand for "the opinion of people deemed the elite".<br /><br />The "times" have changed and so divorce on demand was suddenly something which had to be allowed.<br /><br />The times changed again to allow for contraception and then abortion and then gay-everything.<br /><br />But what really changed but the moral lives of the elites/rulers of society?<br /><br />And forgive me for not holding secularists or non-Catholics as MY leaders or even my intellectual or moral superiors sight unseen.<br /><br />I'll accept that aristocracy has never fully ceased to be the default mode of government the world over. And I accept that consequently, membership in the elite does grant someone a title of nobility (de facto) which allows them to be governed by an entirely different set of codes and rules than the rest of us (serfs) are governed by.<br /><br />But I can't accept these nobles as truly my nobles. Jusadbellumnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-86152302604844250552016-08-11T13:26:44.819-04:002016-08-11T13:26:44.819-04:00Michael Davies called for the Old Rite to be given...Michael Davies called for the Old Rite to be given 'parity of esteem' with the New. Although he didn't live to see it, this is the juridical position since Summorum Pontificum. It is clear from his writings that Benedict saw the EF and OF as being distinct Rites, and this is also the consensus of liturgists; the present Holy Father implicitly recognized this when he referred to the 'Vetus Ordo' and the 'Novus Ordo'. 'Two forms of the one Rite' is a rather neat piece of legal fiction, meant to sweeten what was for Modernist bishops a bitter pill.<br /><br />It is unlikely that anyone in the foreseeable future will want to tinker with the Roman Rite; but the Novus Ordo, with a recent and dubious provenance is certainly open to improvement. After all, it claims to be 'normative', with all that that implies. The Latin Church has always been able to accommodate a number of different Rites and Uses. If you look at the Visigothic Rite you will see no Roman Canon and even a few features that the creators of the NO plundered (the new liturgy is a cut-and-paste job par excellence)!<br /><br />I not infrequently attend the NO where it is sung in Latin; it's not ideal but is authentically Catholic, and although there is a nearer EF Low Mass, I miss the music. I've sung Vespers in both forms and find the older form superior. The new Roman Ritual is horrid and I will not have it inflicted on me in articulo mortis. Likewise the new funeral rites which are truly appalling.<br /><br />Bouyer, writing in the late 1980s, hoped that some of the better features of the new Rite - he called them 'scattered pearls' - would be salvaged in a future reform which he regarded as inevitable; however, his view on the new liturgy is damning: 'L'avorton que nous produisîmes'. John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-59845639998418596552016-08-11T12:41:13.471-04:002016-08-11T12:41:13.471-04:00Harry - I'd challenge you to give examples of ...Harry - I'd challenge you to give examples of my "lying, prevaricating, denial, and double-speak."<br /><br />I'd also like to see the names of some of those I have "controlled."<br /><br />TJM - AH! You have discovered the meaning of stare decisis. It includes "change for compelling reasons." I attempted to argue that change for compelling reasons is a good idea.<br /><br />Now, if you want to discover the compelling reasons, begin with Sacrosanctum Concilium, especially:<br /><br />Para 1 which includes, "to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change,..."<br /><br />Para 21 which includes, "For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it."<br /><br />Para 62 in toto, "With the passage of time, however, there have crept into the rites of the sacraments and sacramentals certain features which have rendered their nature and purpose far from clear to the people of today; hence some changes have become necessary to adapt them to the needs of our own times. For this reason the sacred Council decrees as follows concerning their revision."<br /><br />Para 93 which includes, "To whatever extent may seem desirable, the hymns are to be restored to their original form, and whatever smacks of mythology or ill accords with Christian piety is to be removed or changed."<br /><br />Long before Vatican II, changes were deemed to be necessary for compelling reasons: "In 1903 St. Pius X called a commission for the general reform of the liturgy: Music, calendar, observance of Sunday, age and frequency of communion and he coined the phrase “active participation."<br /><br />And there's quite a bit more about compelling reasons for changes in the liturgy available for your inspection. Fr. Michael J. Kavanaughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-68273577510488752532016-08-11T09:31:20.265-04:002016-08-11T09:31:20.265-04:00Father Kavanaugh, if it comforts you in your old a...Father Kavanaugh, if it comforts you in your old age to deny the plain meaning of your own words, then have at it. You used stare decisis in a way which suggests, just like in the law, that the status quo doesn't change other than for compelling reasons. The wholesale overhaul of the Liturgy by Paul VI clearly violates the plain meaning and spirit of that term as applied to liturgy. You are now dishonestly using that term to canonize a spiritually bankrupt liturgy. You would be the first to squeal like a pig if the Pope exercised today the same high handed tactics of Paul VI and re-imposed the EF on all parishes or demanded only Roman Canon 1 be used and that it be said in Latin. TJMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-24279595291191709552016-08-11T07:15:09.034-04:002016-08-11T07:15:09.034-04:00Kavanaugh, your lying, prevaricating, denial, and ...Kavanaugh, your lying, prevaricating, denial, and double-speak are all forms of control...the need to control others through interpersonal ambiguity and intellectual dishonesty. It is a common phenomenon in sociopathic character disorders such as you exhibit. You seek power over others in these ways because you cannot have it in any other.Harry Stack Sullivannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-56219877832291575262016-08-11T06:40:57.895-04:002016-08-11T06:40:57.895-04:00Lawyer TJM - Has no legal decision ever been overt...Lawyer TJM - Has no legal decision ever been overturned? Has no long-standing legal principle been set aside? Have no changes ever occurred in the celebration of the mass? <br /><br />You see, as much as you claim to understand stare decisis "far better" than I, I don't think that is the case.<br /><br />Stare decisis does not mean, "No Change, Ever." It never has and it never will. Liturgy, legal principles, legal practice, evolve and develop, changing over time.<br /><br />No, I do no aspire to power. Come to think of it, that's something I don't think I've ever been accused of. Fr. Michael J. Kavanaughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-25965681022378173572016-08-10T23:19:05.483-04:002016-08-10T23:19:05.483-04:00Fr. Kavanaugh, intellectually dishonest to the end...Fr. Kavanaugh, intellectually dishonest to the end, I see. Stare decicis, which I understand far better than you do, would have applied to the 1965 Missal, but not the hodge podge that the Bugnini Consilium, an evil group of people, concocted. There is a terrible rupture between the OF and EF and they are NOT both the same expressions of the same Faith. I believe Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, former head of the Holy Office, and Cardinal Bacci, Supreme Latinist in the Church, had far superior intellectual and theological training than Paul VI, or you or I. Their words were prophetic, that the OF was an incalcuble error, and we have seen the bitter fruit born from this error foisted on the Faithful, in haste, in 1969. So let's drop stare decisis crap. You have no respect for the concept. Like a typical liberal, you aspire to power, the people and their Faith be damned. In the US 80% of Catholics went to Mass on Sunday prior to the "reforms" while a mere 20% go now, with this so-calledi new and improved Mass, the "Edsel" of our time. Your devotion to failure is perplexing. But Deo Gratias, younger priests, after you and I are gone, will undo the damage of the past 50 years and will either reform the OF in continuity with the EF or consign the OF to the ashbin of history. The Consilium abandoned the concept of Mass as the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary and subverted it for the "holy meal." So you can lie to yourself, but you are fooling no one but yourself. At least Father McDonald has the humility, honesty, and introspection to admit the deficiencies of the OF and has tried to right the ship,something that Pope Benedict in his gentle way, laid the foundation for with Summorum Pontificum. TJMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-47018934196843321372016-08-10T20:05:39.431-04:002016-08-10T20:05:39.431-04:00Lawyer TJM - No, I did not realize that you might ...Lawyer TJM - No, I did not realize that you might rejoice, nor did I do a 180 degree turn.<br /><br />The NO is not undercut by my statement - as if anything I said could do that - when one understands that stare decisis is not "No Change, Ever."<br /><br />Liturgical stare decisis includes, as it must, development and change. The same is true for legal stare decisis. <br /><br />There is no "rupture" between the EF and the NO. They are both expressions of the same faith. They are both inclusive of the essential elements of the mass. They are both unbloody representations of the sacrifice of Calvary. They are both the "immemorial" mass. (Hence the term "form" in Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form.)<br /><br />Now, you choose to see it otherwise. I will stand with the Church and the "malevolent loons" - Roger Tory Petersen would take umbrage - rather than with you. And standing with the Church is always the wise choice.Fr. Michael J. Kavanaughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-8162679124529311202016-08-10T18:05:06.984-04:002016-08-10T18:05:06.984-04:00Fr. Kavanaugh, I am an attorney and fully understa...Fr. Kavanaugh, I am an attorney and fully understand its meaning. You intentionally are walking away from your statement, id est:<br /><br />"I'm not one to throw it all out and make it up as we go along - I certainly believe in a sort of liturgical "stare decisis." But there also has to be some understanding and appreciation of liturgical development and change. I don't believe that change for the sake of change is, in most circumstances, a valid principle. I also don't believe that the Seven Last Words of Liturgy - "We've Never Done It That Way Before" - are a valid principle for not changing."<br /><br />Your first sentence really undercuts the Novus Ordo, completely. THEN, when you realized the context in which the sentient amongst us would understand that phrase(and we began to rejoice thinking that you were liturgically sane) you did an about face. I then realized you were fine with "stare decisis" so long as it would maintain and canonize a terrible liturgy, concocted on the fly by a bunch of malevolent loons. Nice try, but I think John Nolan and I are basically on the same page, and you are out in left field trying to defend the indefensible. I think Pope Benedict was right and Paul VI, dead wrong on liturgy. Paul VI left the Church in a terrible condition and his signature disaster was the Novus Ordo. TJMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-78578673017499633022016-08-10T16:15:14.782-04:002016-08-10T16:15:14.782-04:00TJM - You misunderstand Stare decisis as I pointed...TJM - You misunderstand Stare decisis as I pointed out earlier. Stare decisis does not mean "no changes ever." <br /><br />John, I accused TJM, not you, of holding a "No Changes Ever" understanding of the liturgical stare decisis.<br /><br />Please read again what I wrote.<br /><br />NOTE WHO IS ADDRESSED HERE: "TJM - "Stare decisis" isn't mine. It's a very common legal term meaning "the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent."<br /><br />Legal precedents, as you (TJM) know, are, from time to time, set aside, overturned, redefined. "Stare decisis" doesn't mean, as you (TJM) seem to think, "No Changes, Ever."<br /><br />Are we clear?<br />Fr. Michael J. Kavanaughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-2463690529914120522016-08-10T12:00:13.053-04:002016-08-10T12:00:13.053-04:00Fr Kavanaugh
It was not I who used the legal term...Fr Kavanaugh<br /><br />It was not I who used the legal term 'stare decisis', still less did I suggest that it meant 'No Changes, Ever', an absurd proposition. Once again you have chosen to accuse me of holding opinions which I do not hold, nor ever have held, because I happen to fit your stereotype of an obscurantist traditionalist.<br /><br />Since I am the only person on this blog who actually engages with what you have to say, rather than condemning you outright, I think you owe me the courtesy of making some attempt to understand what I am actually saying, which understanding should also encompass the fact that the arguments I advance are not simply my personal opinion.<br /><br />Unless and until you are prepared to engage on this level then no real discussion is possible and I would (sadly) have to conclude that Gene and others are right about you.John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-67853395422188530292016-08-10T11:12:39.384-04:002016-08-10T11:12:39.384-04:00I'm thinking that liberal clergy tend to skip ...I'm thinking that liberal clergy tend to skip over 2 Timothy 4:1-5 much like protestants avoid John 6.....<br /><br /><br />I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. As for you, always be steady, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil your ministry.<br /><br /><br />Liberal 'catholics' like Biden and Pelosi are of course the poster examples but indeed any liberal would not have to search long to find 'teachers' that suit their own likings and lead them into myths.johnnycnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-89445014824161810902016-08-10T10:54:33.934-04:002016-08-10T10:54:33.934-04:00Father Kavanaugh,
You continue to run away from y...Father Kavanaugh,<br /><br />You continue to run away from your own words and are bobbing and weaving and spinning your own words:<br /><br /> "I'm not one to throw it all out and make it up as we go along - I certainly believe in a sort of liturgical "stare decisis." But there also has to be some understanding and appreciation of liturgical development and change. I don't believe that change for the sake of change is, in most circumstances, a valid principle. I also don't believe that the Seven Last Words of Liturgy - "We've Never Done It That Way Before" - are a valid principle for not changing."<br /><br />Now you're saying, well "stare decisis" is the way to go, so long as its my "stare decisis" , i.e. the failed Novus Ordo. Logically, the old Liturgy should have been stare decisis, unless as Sacrosanctum Concilium says that any change must be for the good of the Church. Well the wholesale re-ordering of the Mass by the malevolent Bugnini Consilium doesn't pass that test at all. TJMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-46467011666436610922016-08-10T10:48:27.194-04:002016-08-10T10:48:27.194-04:00JJ - Actually, I think you've uncovered an ess...JJ - Actually, I think you've uncovered an essential element of tradition as we understand it and, more importantly, live it in the Catholic Church.<br /><br />Our normative liturgical tradition is "Something that is still being established."<br /><br />The liturgy is never "finished." I don't mean this in the mystical sense of the mass being offered every second of every day all over the world, but in the developmental sense. Rather, what we have received, with multiple, multiple additions, deletions, etc., is a living thing, as all tradition is.<br /><br />There are elements that cannot be changed; there are many that can. Fr. Michael J. Kavanaughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-47975037684490498112016-08-10T09:59:25.199-04:002016-08-10T09:59:25.199-04:00Ok, so "normative" means "establish...Ok, so "normative" means "establishing a standard" or, in other words, establishing what "ought" to happen in order to achieve desirable end or norm. Maybe I'm not getting it but is appears that Fr. Kavanaugh and John Nolan may have some agreement as to the general meaning of the word, "normative."<br /><br />So, as John suggests, how can tradition (which would be an already long established standard--in my understanding) be "normative?" Something that is still being established cannot be tradition (tradition is something already established for a long period of time--a path that has been long "tread" by others).Joseph Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00036852763902493131noreply@blogger.com