Thursday, December 20, 2012


Today's neo-Protestant Reformation:
On the post below this one, I had the following comment and question that I thought was rather good and would allow me to clarify my position if it is muddied in the eyes of anyone:

Blogger Catholic in Brooklyn said...

I'm a little confused, Father. Are you saying that Vatican II is to blame for the crisis of faith in the Church, that it produced the rebellion against Humanae Vitae, and the pro abortion, anti-Catholic catholic politicians in our era? Are you also saying that unlike other councils, Vatican II is not infallible? Are you saying that we should ignore and discount Sacrosanctum Concilium?

Not to be disrespectful, but your post left me with more questions than it answered.

December 20, 2012 6:38 AM

My response was:

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I think the Second Vatican Council was hijacked by well-intentioned reformers who wanted to take the ball and run with it. I don't think the documents of Vatican II read in a strict, literal sense called for the type of rupture in Catholic identity, either liturgically, ecclesially or otherwise that the "spirit of Vatican II" theologians and bishops thought that it did.

I am very much in agreement that Ecumencial Councils are some of the most authoritative forms of Catholic teaching and promoting pastoral practice, the most authoritative way that the Pope and bishops in union with him excerise their commission to "teach, rule and sanctify."

Thus I very much think we should have followed Sacrosanctum Concilium to the letter in revising the 1962 missal and I think the 1962 missal should have been allowed from the beginning to maintain a place of pride in the liturgical life of the Church and if it had it would have certainly balanced the unbridled experimentation with the Ordinary Form we saw after the Council.

So, I would say that I am a disciple of Pope Benedict and his vision for reform in continuity and accepting all of Vatican II through the lens of continuity. That vision when implemented will bring about the authentic renewal that Vatican II desired and perhaps a reformed liturgy that is actually more in continuity with the 1962 missal. But I still contend that the revised missal as it is today can be in continuity with the 1962 missal if celebrated ad orientem, with some Latin, and kneeling for Holy Communion, not anything that is radical or opposed to Vatican II at all and in fact allowed since the Council, but who really knows and understands that when most Catholics were told all these things were wrong!

December 20, 2012 7:04 AM

My final comment:

I think too, that all the progressive, liberal neo-reformers today want to refashion the Catholic Church according to some corrupted ecumenical model embraced by the more liberal Anglican Communion and its expression in the USA, the Protestant Episcopal Church as well as the more progressive branches of Lutheranism and Presbyterianism. This model of Church will be governed by democratic principles, popular election of bishops and priests and the end to what they call the monarchy of hierarchy or the old 1960's worn out cliche "patriarchy."

What they desire is an "ecumenical liturgy" that allows for women priests, a church that allows for gay marriage, birth control and pro-choice morality when it comes to both contraception and abortion. They want a church that is more like the Unitarians but with a broader appeal to make what the Unitarians had desired into a reality.

They wish to do away with Scripture, Tradition and Natural Law as it concerns sexual morality and marriage. They are truly anarchists and perhaps anti-Christ.

They want a neo-Reformation Church that would make Martin Luther, John Calvin, King Henry VIII and other significant Protestant reformers blush in shame and regret what they had wrought.


Pater Ignotus said...

"That vision when implemented will bring about the authentic renewal that Vatican II desired..."

What, Good Father, leads you to this conclusion?

And would "accepting all of Vatican II through the lens of continuity" include Unitatis Redentigratio, Nostra Aetate, and Dignitatis Humanae?

Joe Shlabotnick said...

You are right Father. The Council WAS hijacked.

Archbishop Bugnini only became the president of the Consilium because Paul VI (Montini) appointed him, before he was forced to remove him later. He had an equally devastating role beforehand, however: He was appointed Secretary to the Preparatory Commission on the Liturgy for the Second Vatican Council. He prepared the schemata that was nearly unchanged by the Council.

Most people reading this blog know that the Church cannot reverse Her doctrines and teachings. The legitimacy of, at very least, the IMPLEMENTING of Vatican II has to be questioned when we read Canon 10 from the Council of Trent:

"If anyone saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular only; of, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that is contrary to the institution of Christ, let him be anathema."

We are living in the devastation forewarned by the Blessed Mother at Fatima. Pope John XXIII was supposed to make the 3rd Secret public in 1960. Instead, he put it away and called a Council that his predecessor had considered, but wisely decided not to do. The Vatican made a deal with the Soviet Union that the Council would remain silent on Communism and the errors of Russia have continued to spread. We have reaped the spiritual desolation and devastation of a Church in apostasy where bishop is against bishop, priest against priest and the fact that we are even DEBATING the liturgy in this way proves it. For two thousand years there was no doubt about the Church's position on key issues of morality, doctrine and liturgy. Today, everything seems up for debate. Vocations have been devastated, Church attendance has been decimated and the world has become a moral sewer.

Destroy the liturgy and you destroy the Church. Renew the liturgy and we will renew the Church.

Henry Edwards said...

Permit me to offer some forthright answers to Blogger in Brooklyn's questions, from the viewpoint of one who is utterly and totally committed to Pope, Faith, and the Magisterium of the Church.

Are you saying that Vatican II is to blame for the crisis of faith in the Church, that it produced the rebellion against Humanae Vitae, and the pro abortion, anti-Catholic catholic politicians in our era?

Yes, in the limited sense that Vatican II was taken as authorization by those who interpreted its teachings to permit this rebellion. The crisis had origins pre-dating the Council, but without some such historical event, it might not have been able to overwhelm the Church, and it happened that the Council was the specific event that permitted this. Even though. surely. none of this was intended by Pope John XXIII and the majority of the Church fathers.

Are you also saying that unlike other councils, Vatican II is not infallible?

The Church has never taught that ecumenical councils are infallible in everything they say, only in their dogmatic teachings. Cardinal Ratzinger has stated that Vatican II was a pastoral council that made no new dogmatic teachings at all. Aside from restatement of previous doctrine, the recommendations of Vatican II, and in particular those of Sacrosanctum Concilium. are pastoral and procedural in character, and hence do no rise to any question of infallibility.

Are you saying that we should ignore and discount Sacrosanctum Concilium?

As a conciliar document, it deserves the very highest respect and consideration. Though it may not yet have been implemented properly, it has received that consideration for forty years, and this actual experience may provide perspective adequate to see which of its recommendations are consistent with tradition, and which attempts to implement it have been successful.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

PI, I completely agree with Unitatis Redentigratio in terms of restoring Christian unity to the Church but as Pope Benedict XVI see it and as the Anglican Ordinariate has become the primary role model! I also pray first for the complete reconciliation of the Orthodox Churches under the Supreme Pontiff.

As it concerns Nostra Aetate, I see the pontificates of the past two popes as our role model.

And certainly I accept Dignitatis Humanae on religious freedom.

All of these are authoritative teachings of the Magisterium and each Catholic must give some kind of moral consent to them. We can't be cafeteria type Catholics and denigrate or propose solutions that are in a breach with the Magisterium and the papacy. We'd become like to progressive Catholics pushing for women priests and bishops, a dumbed down ecumenical Mass and ridding the Church of Scripture, Tradition and Natural Law when it comes to sexual morality and same sex marriage. That would be totally unacceptable!

Unknown said...

Fr. Kavanaugh,

I know that you intended this for Fr. McDonald, but I would like to chime in, because it is a fruit of my formal study as well as my informal study after I left school.

You ask: "And would "accepting all of Vatican II through the lens of continuity" include Unitatis Redentigratio, Nostra Aetate, and Dignitatis Humanae?"

I think that those documents, especially Nostra Aetate were misguided and it was a philosophy which was trying to be understood rather than a theology. Oh, sure there is talk about theology, but it isn't so much about theological concepts as it is about accepting them in a philosophical manner. Look, for example at how "ecumenism" is re-defined.

In prior ages, Ecumenism was understood to be something very specific, that it was how Holy Mother Church related to other AUTHENTIC Churches. In short, how the Church dealt with Orthodoxy and it's strains. By the time of Nostra Aetate in '65, Ecumenism had been distorted to understand that the Lutherans, the Anglicans, the Methodists, etc...all encompassed a Church. Not so. As has since been clarified by Benedict XVI, they are not Churches, but they are ecclesial communions. That is a very important distinction. In short, our view of the Protestants shouldn't be Ecumenical, but rather it should be catechetical. The same holds true for the Jews, Muslims and "others (not YHWH centered)." By looking at Nostra Aetate, the view was that we should be Ecumenical with them, as if they were some sort of Church, in their own right. Not so, again. Those people should be evangelized.

That being said, the shift isn't in theology, but in philosophy, as in "what defines a Church?"

We must believe as Catholics that there is only one Church; that it is Holy, catholic, and Apostolic. Right? Well, if that is the case, then we are to:
1. catechize those Christians who are separated
2. be ecumenical to those Churches which are legitimate, but separated and finally,
3. to evangelize the non-Christian

Nostra Aetate changed that philosophy. And to be completely honest, there is no place for philsophy in an ecumenical Council, because it doesn't directly deal with the theological issues at hand in the world.

Whether it was intended or not, there is a major flaw in some of this stuff. Does it invalidate it? I cannot say. But, I do know that this new view is DIRECTLY at odds with how the Church has understood it's mission. That mission is divinely inspired and to have such a radical change is dubious at best and should be questioned.

I do believe that the same questions can be asked, in context (ie. philosophically) with regard to Unitatis Redentigratio and Dignitatis Humanae.

Marc said...

PI has an excellent point here. Although he and I draw different conclusions, we are asking the very same questions. His choice of three VII documents in particular is a good indicator of or agreement on those questions.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that PI is at least being intellectually honest in his view of the Council. I find the so-called hermeneutic of continuity requires a sort of mental gymnastics that necessarily leaves me skeptical. PI's methodology, on the other hand, requires no such mental leaps and is, arguably, more consistent with the concept of the development of doctrine and the authority of the Pope and Councils. Therefore, his conclusions are certainly valid within that framework.

Unknown said...


"Therefore, his conclusions are certainly valid within that framework."

But is his premise valid? That is the key. An argument can be valid, but not sound.

If he has in invalid premise and it leads to a conclusion which is valid within that context, doesn't mean that it's sound. And that is just as much a part of authenticity as any other validity issue.

Just keeping it real.

Anonymous said...

Sound within the framework of soundness, but invalidated by an invalid validity? Huh?

Marc said...

Andy, I think I agree with you. That's why I wrote "within that framework." I think PI and I do share the same premise essentially and we both draw internally consistent conclusions from that premise within our respective frameworks.

My point was simply that both our conclusions require much fewer logical leaps than the whole hermeneutic of continuity idea.

Today's announcement of the heroic virtues of Pope Paul VI seems to indicate to me that PI's conclusions will be vindicated by the Catholic Church hierarchically.

I'll keep my conclusions to myself.

Pater Ignotus said...

Andy - Inasmuch as the Holy Spirit was the "guide" behind UR, NA, and DH, so I am loath to say they are "misguided." I think any Catholic should be as well.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says "Christ bestowed unity on His Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time. Christ always gives His Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ will for her…. The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit (n. 820)."

"The desire to recover the unity of all Christians" is the work of ecumenism.

Matt C. Abbot, a frequent contributior to The Wanderer wrote the following: "To say that the Magisterium itself is teaching and promoting heresy is preposterous, for we know that Christ’s Church is both infallible and indefectible. And all of Pope John Paul II’s ecumenical efforts stem from the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, which — like the previous 20 ecumenical councils — was guided by the Holy Spirit and thus protected from doctrinal error."

Pater Ignotus said...

Good Father - I would disagree (Pin/Gene will read "I hold you in contempt for saying..." but be assured that is NOT my intention) that the Anglican Ordinariate is not the "model" being set forth by B16 as the wave of future Church unity. I think this "ordinariate" structure is rife with potential difficulties, not the least being the non-standard practice of having residents of an episcopal jurisdiction not under the authoritative leadership of the diocesan bishop. I suspect this is seen as an "interim" step, but only time will tell.

Not only that, but such a "stand-alone" jurisdiction-with-a-jurisdiction multiplies the paperwork and bureaucracy immensely. While this format may work for some groups (Abbeys nullius, etc) it's a difficult model to live with.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

PI hogwash and you know it. In Augusta there is a little Eastern Rite Church under a separate bishop and in Georgia there are all kinds of chapels under the Military Archbishop all in the same diocese as ours--absolute hogwash what you are asserting.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

PI, and in addition to that when I was in Augusta I was a part time chaplain at the downtown VA and I was responsible to the Archbishop of the Military Archdiocese while I acted as chaplain in that facility, which happened to also be within my parish boundaries!

Henry Edwards said...

Matt C. Abbot, a frequent contributior to The Wanderer wrote the following: "To say that the Magisterium itself is teaching and promoting heresy is preposterous, for we know that Christ’s Church is both infallible and indefectible. And all of Pope John Paul II’s ecumenical efforts stem from the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, which — like the previous 20 ecumenical councils — was guided by the Holy Spirit and thus protected from doctrinal error."

Although it is not unknown to Church history for many or most bishops to fall prey to heresy at a given time, I suspect Mr. Abbot is guilty of a straw man argument here. For Pope John Paul II's ecumenical efforts likely lie in the area of (non-infallible) prudential judgement, rather than in am area of (infallible) doctrine.

Pater Ignotus said...

Good Father - Neither of the examples you cite are in the realm of ecumenism as neither directed toward the recovery of unity of all Christians, now are they? (Pin/Gene will read this as contemptuous, but is is merely gentle prodding, I swear!)

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

PI If you ask me, the Eastern Rite Church in Augusta, one of my examples, is clearly of ecumenical dimensions and similar I think, although not entirely, to the Anglican situation and would be completely so if Anglican Orders were not completely and utterly null and void.

Marc said...

Having multiple bishops with overlapping jurisdiction has no basis in the history of the Church - I think this topic was discussed and decided at Nicaea I.

After all, the very nature of a bishop is to shepherd his particular local Church. The ecclesiology becomes non- sensical when the local Churches overlap and are beholden to separate bishops within the same geographic area.

The ordinariate and Uniates are a model for the placing of merely visible hieraechical communion over meaningful "spiritual" communion (that is, communion of the same faith and the one Eucharist presided over by the local bishop as head of the local Church). The ordinariate is another sign of the Pope's "big tent" idea for Church unity. So long as everyone is under the visible "authority" of the Pope, the remaining characteristics of unity are brushed aside.

Pater Ignotus said...

Good Father - St. Ignatios Melkite Catholic Church in Augusta is a Catholic church. It is as Catholic as St. Joseph's.

Dealings between Catholic parishes or between Melkite priests and Latin Rite priests do not fall into the realm of ecumenism, which describes dealings between/among various Christian denominations.

(Pin/Gene will read this as "condescension," but it is merely fraternal correction.)

Unknown said...

So, Fr. Kavanaugh;

An honest question for you. You use CCC #820 to prove your point to me. How can you prove the legitimacy of UR by quoting UR?

That doesn't follow, Father. How about proving UR, by using sources other than those which you are trying to prove. That is a biased sample.

I am genuinely interested to know what you think, but there needs to be an actual proof for it, not just saying (essentially), "UR is valid, because it is proved by UR." No, Father, that is not the case.


Pater Ignotus said...

Andy - The Catechism of the Catholic Church is authoritative, is it not?

Gene said...

Actually, Ignotus, you are using the term "ecumenical" incorrectly, as do many. The term originates from the Greek "oikoumenikos," which originally meant that the Church would cover the inhabited world. The use of the word arose in the early Church, so it could only have referenced the Catholic Church. Note also that all the councils of the Church were referred to as "ecuemical councils," having to do with matters within the Holy Catholic Church. So, "Good Father," as you condescendingly refer to Father MacDonald, is completely correct in using the term in reference to other Catholic Rites. It has only been in modern times that the term has been appropriated by prots and Modernists to refer to some kind of accomodation for Protestantism on the part of ther Catholic Church. This false definition has become widespread and is taken for granted by many, but it is incorrect. I much prefer the original intent...the Catholic Church shall cover the inhabited world.

Unknown said...

Fr. Kavanaugh,

Yes, the Catechism is authoritative, but that doesn't matter in this instance. You cannot prove UR by quoting UR. Which is what you're doing.

It is like saying, I can prove to you that an apple is an apple. Here is proof, look at this apple. See, it's true.

It is a logical fallacy. So, rather than trying to play mental gymnastics, how about we just have a conversation. You and I have differing views. That's ok, by the way, we're allowed....but if I am to understand you better, you have to be able to coherently defend your argument. Using a premise to prove a premise is not a conclusion.

I'll wait. I'm patient.

Pater Ignotus said...

Andy - Inasmuch as you don't understand the definitions of the word "actor," I have a sneaking suspicion that you will not understand that if UR, itself an authoritative statement of the magisterium, is cited and used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, another authoritative statement of the magisterium, that that is, for Catholics, sufficient basis to accept is as authoritative teaching.

And no, I did not quote UR to prove UR. I quoted the Catechism. See the little "no 820" there?

Pin/Gene - You are showing symptoms of "Andy-itis" which my dictionary defines as "the willful refusal to understand that words have (a) multiple and/or (b) changed meanings."

Many words, including "ecumenical," have meanings that have evolved. Among them are "snack" (formerly to bite, now a small meal), "glass" (formerly a substance, now a drinking utensil), "enthusiasm" (formerly possessed by a demon, now passionate eagerness), "quarantine" (formerly a 40 day period, now the isolation of an infective person or thing).

The list of words that don't mean now what they meant then is long and includes: abandon, bachelor, coax, deft, edify, flabby, guess, harlot, infant, invest, knave, left, matrix, and on and on and on.

Context usually clarifies the meaning. In the context in which Good Father McDonald used "ecumenical," he erred.

No, I am not condescending, I am correcting and teaching.

Henry Edwards said...

Pertinent to this discussion are the following paragraphs from an article on the SSPX situation by Dom Alcuin Reid, published in today's Catholic Herald and reprinted at NLM:

Opening the Year of Faith, the Pope observed: “The Council did not formulate anything new in matters of faith, nor did it wish to replace what was ancient. Rather, it concerned itself with seeing that the same faith might continue to be lived in the present day, that it might remain a living faith in a world of change.” This is Blessed John XXIII’s “aggiornamento.” That is it why Vatican II is described as a “pastoral Council”―it was not about doctrine, but policy.

If there was no doctrinal innovation, the theology and practical measures adopted cannot be held to be infallible.
They may be judged on their merits, then as today. What is helpful in bringing people to the Christ and His Church may be different now from what was thought useful in the 1960’s.

The documents were the product of lengthy preparation, debate and refinement and of organised politicking by bishops and experts, and reflect those realities. They are authoritative, certainly, enjoying the unparalleled approval of the Pope and the bishops solemnly gathered in Ecumenical Council, and must be taken seriously by any Catholic. But they are not articles of faith. God the Holy Spirit does not protect Councils from possible error in matters of policy or theological style, and about these we may hold differing opinions in good conscience―with the respect that is due to authority in the Church.

Unknown said...

Fr. Kavanaugh,

You state, "And no, I did not quote UR to prove UR. I quoted the Catechism. See the little "no 820" there?"

Yes Father, I saw the little "no 820" there. However, had you checked your footnotes, 277-279, which is the source material for "no 820," you'll quickly see that they reference....

....wait for it....

....wait for it....

Unitatis Redentigratio. Specifically, UR 1 and UR 4 § 3. So, while I do understand your desire to be thorough in debunking my position, it would seem that a smidgen of research would show you that you are...IN FACT...using Unitatis Redentigratio to prove Unitatis Redentigratio. And it is still a logical fallacy called "biased sample."

Pater Ignotus said...

Andy - the quote is taken from the Catechism. That UR has been quoted in the authoritative, magisterial Catechism means that it is - wait for it - authoritative and magisterial.

Or do you have another take on the weight of that which is found in the Catechism?

Unknown said...

Fr. Kavanaugh,

You do like mental didn't do very well in philosophy did you? (Don't answer that, it was rhetorical, smh)

The Catechism is a document which is a compendium of Catholic thought. I am not bound to it as a matter of faith or of morals. I can choose to use any number of Catechisms. For example, I prefer the Catechism of the Council of Trent for adults and the Baltimore Catechism for children and neophytes.

As it stands, I find the Catechism of the Catholic Church to be one source of many. I know it to be no more authoritative than any other Catechism.

In short, it is an authentic reference text. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. It isn't superdogma, it isn't superdoctrine.

I don't read more into it than what is there.

Getting back on point though, how about we prove UR with something other than UR. I hate to be blunt, but you are leaving me with no choice, Father. So I ask you, directly:

How do you reconcile the view of UR and ecumenism v. the traditional understanding of religious tolerance?

Gene said...

Ignotus, you couldn't teach a hog to get muddy. So, then, if a word is misused and misdefined insistently enough it then assumes the incorrect definition? Sort of like the sissies have hijacked the word, "gay."
You must believe that if you are stupid loudly enough you become smart. You should soon be a candidate for Mensa...

Pater Ignotus said...

Pin/Gene - the evolution or change of a word's meaning is not "misuse."

Were that the case, we would be "misusing" abandon, bachelor, coax, deft, edify, flabby, guess, harlot, infant, invest, knave, left, matrix, and on and on and on.
But, we're not.

As hard as it is for you to accept that Good Father McDonald made an error, remember it's not 1) the first time, 2) the last time, or 3) the end of the world.

Andy - If you are free to reduce the Catechism of the Catholic Church to nothing more than an "authentic reference text," then I am free to do the same to Catechism of the Council of Trent and the Baltimore Catechism.

UR, in itself, and the CCC are, your misgivings notwithstanding, authoritative regarding the Catholic faith.

No, I did not do poorly in philosophy. In fact, I was inducted into Phi Sigma Tau at Belmont Abbey College. And, should you ask, Beta Beta Beta as well.

Gene said...

Lordy, Lordy, Ignotus is trotting out his pedigree. LOL! So, he is great at reading the cookbook, but the pudding didn't turn out so well...

So, are we to list our degrees and society memberships? I'll bet a number of us on the blog can play at that table and up Ignotus' ante considerably...LOL!

Fr. MacDonald was not incorrect. He was using the term in its original intent and meaning. You have chosen a Modernist re-definition of it, sort of like you do with the Mass.

Unknown said...

Fr. Kavanaugh;

" If you are free to reduce the Catechism of the Catholic Church to nothing more than an "authentic reference text," then I am free to do the same to Catechism of the Council of Trent and the Baltimore Catechism."

I thought that was understood. Where is the disconnect? We are free to utilize whichever form of Catechesis which is most appealing, as long as it is in line with the Church. But, I've said that already. (sigh...)

Thank you for a partial CV, but that was a rhetorical question. I thought I was clear. I don't think that it is all that important to know which post nominals you have academically.

"UR, in itself, and the CCC are, your misgivings notwithstanding, authoritative regarding the Catholic faith."

I understand that you say that, I really do, but that is not what I'm asking. I am asking why and what is the reasoning for it being so. How many different ways do I have to ask a question. (But then again, I've never gotten a straight answer from you, in the few conversations we have had.)

Your above response is another logical fallacy called appeal to authority.

I'll ask again, "How do you reconcile the view of UR and ecumenism v. the traditional understanding of religious tolerance?"

Pater Ignotus said...

Andy - I am not going to defend the authoritative nature of either UR or the Catechism. That is not something individual Catholics are 1) competent or 2) free to do. I accept the Second Vatican Council and the Catechism of the Catholic Church as authoritative because I am a Catholic and these are sources that the Church itself gives me as authoritative. If you find that tautological, that is your struggle, not mine.

The "disconnect" is that neither you nor I are in a position to judge as "authoritative" what our bishops give us as such. YOU want to reject parts the Church's teaching as found in Vat 2 and/or the CCC, so the "burden of proof" is yours. So far, what I have heard in that regard, is "It doesn't look right to me, therefore I reject it."

This is the tack that Traditionalist Catholics such as yourself take, in order to disregard authoritative teaching with which you disagree.

This is not a matter of "logical fallacies" but 1) lack of faith and 2) excess of hubris.

The "traditional understanding of religious tolerance" includes Vat 2 and the CCC.

Unknown said...

Fr. Kavanaugh,

I can see that you are not interested in having a decent conversation regarding theology. I am sorry that you are of that mindset. It really is quite "pre-conciliar." I don't question these things just to question them, but rather to continue to learn.

I don't think that a theological question was ever solved by blind ahderence, which is what you are advocating. Unless, you really are not all that interested in having a theological discussion. If you are not, simply say so and our future discussions are over. Which, would be incredibly pastoral of you, btw.

As it stands, I have not asked a question of you which is 1. out of bounds or b. threatening to your (or my) faith.

However, if I may...I am taking no "tack" with you. I am asking you a theological question. You are a priest and you have an education in theology. In short, you are a theologian. I have an education in theology, and I (in short) am also a theologian. Our schools of thought differ and I was hoping to engage you in those differences, sadly though, you have chosen to not answer those questions, but rather accuse me of mortal sin.

Interesting that in this last post of yours, you accuse me of two mortal sins. Thank you, Father. I will take that as a need to add to my weekly confession. Not that the whole of the internet needs to know, but since you offer them, as a priest, as something which I am guilty of, publicly, I will address them as such. You charity knows no bounds. I am not being facetious nor am I being snide. It is my fervent prayer that you can forgive me for being so malicious and know that as I offer my penance tonight after Confession, I will be asking Our Lord to soften your heart with regard to my lack of faith and excess hubris, with regard to you.

Going forward, I think that it best if you choose not to engage me, no matter how tempting. I will do the same, because I do not want for you to be placed in a near occasion of sin.

Sadly (and I mean that with all sincerity), you cannot distinguish between theological discussion and perceived attack. I will also ask God, the Father for better understanding in this matter regarding your positions, as I read them in the future. I will offer compline from now until Christmas Day for your pardon. I ask for your peace, for forcing me into a position of you having to assert your power over me as a priest.


Unknown said...

I will now open my question to the rest of the board, in hopes of a valued theological discussion:

"How does one reconcile the view of UR and ecumenism v. the traditional understanding of religious tolerance?"

Thank you.

Pater Ignotus said...

Andy - As you cannot distinguish between a personal attack - which you have levelled against me a number of times - and theological discussion, you may also be unable to distinguish between that which is the Church's authoritative teaching and what is not. This is because you come with preconceived conclusions about 1) me and 2) the Church's teaching.

I am not advocating blind acceptance of anything except the fact that neither you nor I nor anyone without ordination to the episcopate has the authority to say "what is" and "what is not" the Church's teaching. As theologians you and I are to make sense of it, not to say "No, this is not part of the tradition." If we find it hard to make sense of a particular teaching, neither you nor I are free to say "Well, it must be false." That is the tack you take.

Your bishop, not I, would be the one who can tell you why UR and the Second vatican Council are, without question, parts of our Church's magisterial teaching.

Unknown said...

Fr. Kavanaugh,

I am sorely disappointed. I offer a means of peace and you respond that I am somehow ignorant? You don't know me at all, yet you label me. I have not labelled you, nor do I have any preconceived ideas about you or Holy Mother Church.

Father, I will pray for you. Thank you for giving me that chance. God Bless you and Happy Christmas.

I am now finished conversing with you. God Bless you Father and Godspeed.

Pater Ignotus said...

Andy - You have labeled and labeled and labeled me. Don't play the innocent victim when you engage in the same practices of which you accuse me.

"I will pray for you" too. Happy Christmas.