tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post817998533091813114..comments2024-03-28T16:21:24.386-04:00Comments on southern orders: WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT?Fr. Allan J. McDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-33809393134751985562015-02-11T08:35:02.865-05:002015-02-11T08:35:02.865-05:00Gene - Who you had as teachers has no bearing wha...Gene - Who you had as teachers has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not slavery is part of the natural order as you have claimed, citing Jesus and Paul as your New Testament homeboys on this.<br /><br />The "fallen order" is not the natural order. And we do not wait around for the Second Coming to put things right. We work here and now to advance the reign of God which means, much to your disgust, that we oppose sin and those sinful social structures that cause human suffering.<br /><br />Slavery is not and has never been part of the natural order. The result of sin, a distortion of the natural order, slavery is directly repugnant to the dignity of men and women created in the image and likeness of God.Fr. Michael J. Kavanaughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-74433438850998977602015-02-09T11:17:06.222-05:002015-02-09T11:17:06.222-05:00Flavius, stop it, you're killin' me…LOL!Flavius, stop it, you're killin' me…LOL!Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-7396763437983310822015-02-09T11:10:30.051-05:002015-02-09T11:10:30.051-05:00Slavery was taken for granted in the ancient world...Slavery was taken for granted in the ancient world, and was not immutable; slaves could be freed by manumission and while the freedman (libertinus) still had the stain of former slavery (macula servitutis) his progeny were free men and free women.<br /><br />Christianity did not attempt to overthrow class distinctions, it simply stressed that all humanity was equally enslaved to sin and was therefore in need of redemption. Therefore we were all slaves in a real sense since the fall of Adam; our manumission was through baptism and the saving merits of Jesus Christ.<br /><br />Since the Second Coming was regarded as imminent, existing social divisions were in a large measure irrelevant.<br /><br /><br />John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-54220561826791177112015-02-09T10:31:49.053-05:002015-02-09T10:31:49.053-05:00It's funny, Mr. Kavanaugh, that the same churc...It's funny, Mr. Kavanaugh, that the same church responsible for the destruction of the Aztec religion should proclaim 'Every form of... discrimination on the grounds of... or religion must be curbed and eradicated'.<br /><br />In fact, I'd be willing to hypothesise that if the tlamacazqui were still sacrificing people to Huitzilopochtli (and then eating the sacrifice, to boot) in the Templo Mayor, the Catholic Church would not have this idea.<br /><br />But, of course, that is no longer possible, as an enormous cathedral currently sits on top of the Templo Mayor.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00554830859411216515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-45384869759370302572015-02-09T09:18:05.653-05:002015-02-09T09:18:05.653-05:00kavanaugh, again, you deliberately misunderstand a...kavanaugh, again, you deliberately misunderstand and misinterpret. Jesus' and Paul's views (or lack thereof) on slavery and ethnicity were a favorite topic of discussion in grad schools and seminaries in the 70's. I studied under a couple of pretty renowned NT scholars who lamented that neither of them spoke directly to the issue, rather accepted social strata and slavery to be a part of the fallen order and only to be put right with the coming of the Kingdom. Does that mean we should not work toward social justice…NO…depending upon your definition of "social justice." But, you cannot cite the NT as a program for social change, liberal socialist policies, or happy-clappy feel good social reformers. You betray, once again, a liberal/progressivist view of the NT which is not supported in fact…or history.Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-83114906877864747632015-02-09T08:05:15.214-05:002015-02-09T08:05:15.214-05:00Gene - Here's what you said: "...it is in...Gene - Here's what you said: "...it is interesting (and maddening for libs) that both Jesus and Paul accept both slavery and ethnic differences as givens and part of the natural order."<br /><br />Jesus and Paul do not "accept slavery" as part of the natural order. By nature, all humans have the dignity that comes from being created in the image and likeness of God. Slavery is directly repugnant to that dignity; therefore, it is not part of the natural order.<br /><br />Your assertion that Jesus and Paul accept slavery as party of the natural order is wrong. <br /><br />You want it to be part of the natural order to support your racist claim that African-Americans are a "feral minority." It is you who are twisting the New Testament, Jesus, and Paul, to lend credence to your twisted views.<br /><br />I'll give Flavius another chance to chortle: "Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design."<br /><br />"Must be curbed and eradicated" certainly means that we are to work, to devote ourselves as Christians, to change social structures.Fr. Michael J. Kavanaughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-45708982725353408462015-02-09T06:58:37.554-05:002015-02-09T06:58:37.554-05:00kavanaugh, again you twist and deliberately mis in...kavanaugh, again you twist and deliberately mis interpret people's words. I did not say that the NT "teaches that slavery is a part of the natural order." I p;ointe out, as have many NT scholars, that the NT, notably Jesus and Paul, accept slavery as a given and look to the coming of the Kingdom to put everything right. As for racial/ethinc differences…the same. Check out the story of the Syro-Phonecian woman to get a view of Jesus' views on ethnicity. Christ's point is, again, there is salvation through Him regardless of race or social class. He did not come to create a utopia on earth, change social structures, pass affirmative action laws, or support the ACLU. Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-18322623610727476342015-02-08T19:24:20.533-05:002015-02-08T19:24:20.533-05:00MJK
'There is a world of difference between n...MJK<br /><br />'There is a world of difference between need and want' Not according to the dictionary (I prefer Chambers). However, you have dodged the main issue, viz. that 'I don't need X, ergo X is not needed' is a) solipsistic and b) illogical.<br /><br />Of course, you speak for 99.9% of Catholics, so I must be the one in a thousand capable of joined-up thinking.<br /><br />John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-16415750212018912242015-02-08T17:31:18.443-05:002015-02-08T17:31:18.443-05:00John - I think that, while there may be confusion ...John - I think that, while there may be confusion among many, there is a world of difference between need and want.Fr. Michael J. Kavanaughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-41511214574620699932015-02-07T18:21:48.789-05:002015-02-07T18:21:48.789-05:00Fr Kavanaugh
'Wanted, yes, but not needed'...Fr Kavanaugh<br /><br />'Wanted, yes, but not needed'<br />'I do believe it [the EF] is not needed.'<br /><br />Actually, 'need' and 'want' in English are practically synonymous; both imply a desire for something that is lacking. You are therefore making a false dichotomy. If someone tells me he does not need or want (say) Shakespeare or Beethoven I have to take this at face value, although his life will be undoubtedly poorer without them. What he is not qualified to say is that Shakespeare and Beethoven are 'not needed'.<br /><br />Similarly, a belief that the older Rites are 'not needed' is patently false; the most anyone can say is 'they are not needed by me', and even this is not necessarily true. I can say with some truth that I don't need algebra, but I can't say that algebra is not needed. It's not likely that my life will depend on my ability to solve a quadratic equation, but one never knows. <br /><br />John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-81007085973098594712015-02-07T17:39:01.224-05:002015-02-07T17:39:01.224-05:00Gene - From a person whose theological "acume...Gene - From a person whose theological "acumen" leads him to assert that the New Testament teaches that slavery is part of the natural order, I take your latest criticism to mean that I am, theologically, on the right track.Fr. Michael J. Kavanaughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-74723599134684870882015-02-07T16:26:34.594-05:002015-02-07T16:26:34.594-05:00Henry - I heartily disagree with your assertion th...Henry - I heartily disagree with your assertion that "the most faithful are generally the most fecund."<br /><br />Many of the most faithful Catholics I have known in almost 30 years of being a priest and 20 as a pastor have had small families. From these smaller families come the "regulars." The folks who are in church every weekend and Holy Day. The ones who serve on parish councils, who serve as lectors and Extraordinary Ministers of Communion, who contribute generously to the BAA and to the parish. They work in soup kitchens and clothing pantries. They are as faithful as any Catholics I have known.<br /><br />I have no doubt that some with large families are exceptionally faithful, but the size of a family is no sign of faithfulness or lack thereof.Fr. Michael J. Kavanaughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-75747338236082397832015-02-07T16:01:41.915-05:002015-02-07T16:01:41.915-05:00kavanaugh, for you to speak of yourself (which you...kavanaugh, for you to speak of yourself (which you just love to do) as theologically well-formed is laughable…for you to criticize the theological formation of anyone else is a gut slammer...Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-44986959918172448972015-02-07T15:47:58.741-05:002015-02-07T15:47:58.741-05:00"If having lots of kids is a sure sign of Cat..."If having lots of kids is a sure sign of Catholic devotion, we are in trouble as a Church."<br /><br />The Church is certainly in trouble, but the fact that the most faithful are generally the most fecund is a glimmer of hope for the future.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-24781824624985756692015-02-07T12:12:51.440-05:002015-02-07T12:12:51.440-05:00Good Father - By your own admission, restated many...Good Father - By your own admission, restated many times, your theological and liturgical formation was dismal. As a result, you are learning now through the EF what you should have learned growing up and in seminary. <br /><br />My formation was very good, theologically and liturgically. As a result, I am not now looking around for ways to "get" what I did not get earlier.<br /><br />I suspect that had your formation been up to snuff, had your own appreciation for the theology and celebration of the OF been properly formed in seminary, and had you developed a deeper appreciation for it, you would not now be "discovering" the truths you were deprived of in your sub-standard formation.<br /><br />If having lots of kids is a sure sign of Catholic devotion, we are in trouble as a Church.Fr. Michael J. Kavanaughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-15150174326743181062015-02-07T12:06:02.690-05:002015-02-07T12:06:02.690-05:00Fr. Kavanaugh,
'It [the EF} has not brought t...Fr. Kavanaugh,<br /><br />'It [the EF} has not brought the masses back where it is celebrated. It is not going to lead us back to the Catholicism of the 1950's when 90% of Catholic's in the USA attended mass. If is not going to lead us back to the 1650's when the Church's missionary activity was blossoming.' It is not going to restore "reverence" in our churches, schools, homes, and society at large.' <br /><br />Probably true, sadly. The deterioration in faith and liturgy over the last 50 years is too great for any single quick solution.<br /><br />'It is not needed to correct the "abuses" that some experience in celebrations of the OF. It is not needed to help priests "understand" the true meaning of sacrifice.'<br /><br />Definitely false, sadly. In the short run, at least, until a couple of generations of deficiently trained priests are replaced.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-52089739782696118232015-02-07T09:26:55.635-05:002015-02-07T09:26:55.635-05:00Fr. Kavanaugh you are too smart to be so ignorant ...Fr. Kavanaugh you are too smart to be so ignorant of new movements and intentional Catholicism which recent popes have supported.<br />It would do you well not to be so narrow minded on this as it pertains to the EF Mass and communities of intentional Catholics who desire it from their pastors, including you.<br /><br />Intentional Catholicism, no matter the venue, EF, charistmatic or any of the many other new movments such as Catholic home schooling all have more children and these communities are highly committed to the Catholic faith. The point of truth is intentional.<br /><br />I don't disagree with the dismal experience so many have with a poorly celebrated OF Mass that is neither transcendent or an experience of heaven and earth together. Catholics have been malformed not necessarily through a well celebrated OF Mass but precisely by its poor celebration.<br /><br />Bishops [and Former PI] need to wake up to this truth and the truth of intentional Catholics in all of the variety of the new movements I mentioin, which includes the EF!<br /><br />In another post, I made this comment.Fr. Allan J. McDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-24386360477782828832015-02-07T09:14:25.192-05:002015-02-07T09:14:25.192-05:00John - You would not choose to fly a Sopwith Camel...John - You would not choose to fly a Sopwith Camel in air combat today. Why? Because in air combat today the Sopwith Camel is ineffective. <br /><br />Everything about air combat, except air, is different. That is what renders the venerable Camel ineffective.<br /><br />Venerable as the EF may be, it is not needed. Wanted, yes, but not needed. It has not brought the masses back where it is celebrated. It is not going to lead us back to the Catholicism of the 1950's when 90% of Catholic's in the USA attended mass. If is not going to lead us back to the 1650's when the Church's missionary activity was blossoming. It is not going to restore "reverence" in our churches, schools, homes, and society at large. It is not needed to correct the "abuses" that some experience in celebrations of the OF. It is not needed to help priests "understand" the true meaning of sacrifice.<br /><br />If you can show me where I am wrong, please do.<br /><br />I know this may put me at odds with what many think was Pope Benedict's vision for his novel "two forms of one rite" in the Latin Church. I think that vision was far too Euro-centric and far too academic to be practical or effective.<br /><br />I do not despise the EF as you have stated. That is simply false. I do believe it is not needed. Fr. Michael J. Kavanaughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-32752025973407532702015-02-06T19:37:59.769-05:002015-02-06T19:37:59.769-05:00It is no longer possible to parody kavanaugh...It is no longer possible to parody kavanaugh...Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-9492074091158939172015-02-06T19:30:28.178-05:002015-02-06T19:30:28.178-05:00Henry, of course the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass ma...Henry, of <i>course</i> the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass matters, and is worth celebrating well. But what I was trying to get at is that the beauty and care of the celebration itself does not make the Mass valid, just as a sloppily celebrated Mass doesn't make the Mass invalid, unless of course Father omits the consecration or ad libs the Eucharistic prayers or something like that. What a thoughtful, careful, and beautiful celebration does, though, is to more accurately communicate what Mass is and what's going on-- and therefore, what our disposition should be.<br /><br />The thing is, every Catholic is commanded to go to Mass, period: my answer to Anon was based on the fact that without Christ we can do nothing, unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood, we have no life within us. So we can't say that "unless Mass is celebrated beautifully, I'm not going to go to Mass; I'd rather not go to Mass at all than go to something so sloppy!" The Anglicans have a beautifully celebrated liturgy. But it's still not the Mass: nothing that they do there gives them a valid Eucharist. By contrast, the way many suburban parishes celebrate the Mass sadly doesn't come close. But it is nonetheless the Mass. <br /><br />Ideally, of course I would love a beautifully celebrated Mass in either form. But if I had to choose between a valid Mass that is unfortunately ugly and no Mass at all, I'd rather have the ugly Mass, even if I'd be trying hard not to cry (and yes, that did happen: we ended up at a Teen Mass once, and while the kids were well meaning, the music was so loud that it was intrusive. It was literally pressing down on me. I cried, because it was better than spending Mass seething with anger at them). But when it comes to Masses that aren't as well celebrated, the EF has helped me tune out an awful lot, and I do try to remember that a lot of these folks likely don't know any better, and are trying their best.<br /><br />Moreover, the way I often put it to OF-only folks who don't know the EF and are coming from the other direction is: "yes, that's still Jesus, because it's a valid Mass. But precisely <i>because</i> that <i>is</i> Jesus, why do we celebrate Mass in such a sloppy way?" It's absolutely true that in some areas of the world, Catholic can barely even go to Mass, so who are we to constantly bicker over the liturgy? But precisely because our persecuted brethren suffer in ways that we don't have to at the moment-- and nowadays even get killed AT Mass-- it is beyond rude to treat Mass the way we often do. Priest holes did not exist because Christians were "dying to have fun."WSquarednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-34159019164900969522015-02-06T18:52:14.133-05:002015-02-06T18:52:14.133-05:00Fr Kavanaugh
'I also do not despise the old r...Fr Kavanaugh<br /><br />'I also do not despise the old rites anymore (sic) than I despise a Sopwith Camel.'<br /><br />This is what is known in English as an analogy, i.e. an agreement or correspondence in certain respects between things otherwise different. The only possible inference that can be drawn is that the 'old rites' were fine in their day but are no longer fit for purpose, in a word obsolete.<br /><br />You may well believe this, and your many previous comments would certainly suggest it is your view; however, it is not the Church's view. 'What was sacred for our ancestors remains sacred and great for us.' (Benedict XVI)<br /><br />Also, to say that your statement 'contains no reference to the EF' is beside the point, since the 'old rites' presumably include what is now referred to as the EF. 'Why would I - or anyone else - compare the Camel to the EF? It makes no sense, and that's not what I did.' It makes no sense if taken literally, but as an analogy it makes perfect sense, otherwise why make the analogy in the first place? My contention is that it is a highly inappropriate analogy to make, although it fits the mindset of a certain faction in the Church.<br /><br />I believe my arguments can stand on their own merits. To suggest that I need to misrepresent you intentionally in order to give them substance is risible. John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-70910152723229863802015-02-06T15:20:17.504-05:002015-02-06T15:20:17.504-05:00John - I already explained your misunderstanding. ...John - I already explained your misunderstanding. Here's what I originally said: "I also do not "despise" the old rites anymore than I despise a Sopwith Camel. However, I would not choose the Camel were I to engage in air to air combat in the 21st century."<br /><br />That statement contains no reference to the EF. Plainly I was not comparing the two.<br /><br />I already corrected your misunderstanding: "John - I did not compare the EF with the Sopwith Camel. I compared the CHOICE to fly a Sopwith Camel into air-to-air combat today with the CHOICE to fly, for example, an F-22 Raptor into combat today."<br /><br />Got it now? Surely a non-philistine such as yourself can understand that there is no comparison. Why would I - or anyone - compare the Camel to the EF? It makes no sense, and that's not what I did.<br /><br />Your ploy is to misrepresent intentionally what I say in order to make your position seem more credible.Fr. Michael J. Kavanaughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-70722425792175906672015-02-06T10:16:15.642-05:002015-02-06T10:16:15.642-05:00Fr Kavanaugh
You would have us believe that you w...Fr Kavanaugh<br /><br />You would have us believe that you were not making an analogy when you used that aeronautical metaphor. The only alternative is that you were simply telling us that you would not choose to engage in modern aerial combat in a hundred-year-old aeroplane, which is a point hardly worth making.<br /><br />Whenever challenged, your stock response is along the lines of 'that's not what I said, you are deliberately misrepresenting me'. It's also noticeable (and others on the blog have also noticed it) that when faced with a difficult question, or presented with an argument which you are unable to refute, you change the subject and answer a different question. This is the standard ploy of the politician; he knows he's being dishonest, and that any discerning person will see through him, but he doesn't care since he counts on discerning people being in a minority. John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-32434017793748162452015-02-06T09:53:38.287-05:002015-02-06T09:53:38.287-05:00Fr. Kavanaugh is correct in saying that the myster...Fr. Kavanaugh is correct in saying that the mystery of the Mass has not (in itself) changed with vernacularization and simplification of ritual. However, as a result of these changes (and others), the vast majority of pew-sitting Catholics, as well as many or most priests, are completely oblivious to this inherent mystery, while prior to these changes, virtually all Catholics—whether good, bad, or indifferent ones—were fully conscious of the majesty and mystery of the Holy Sacrifice, whether or not they were fully conscious liturgical participants.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-47720967769983357322015-02-06T07:17:13.334-05:002015-02-06T07:17:13.334-05:00John - I did not compare the Sopwith Camel with th...John - I did not compare the Sopwith Camel with the EF mass. Although this has been explained to you clearly, you continue to misrepresent intentionally what I said.<br /><br />The mystery of the mass has not changed with the switch from Latin to the vernacular. It has not changed with the switch from ad orientem to versus populum. It has not changed with the inclusion of Extraordinary Ministers of communion.<br /><br />The OF is not "non-ritualistic" as you suggest. It is simplified ritual when compared with the EF, and I suggest that is a good thing. Fr. Michael J. Kavanaughnoreply@blogger.com