Tuesday, December 22, 2020



The first time I celebrated the EF Mass as a priest, on September 14, 2007, I was more nervous about it than my First Mass (apart from priestly ordination) as a priest on June 8, 1980. What made me the most uncomfortable, though, was the very low voice or silently prayed Roman Canon. I felt self-conscience and feared those behind me might think I had forgotten what to do, or worse yet, it wasn’t important for them to hear this prayer as they offered it with me. Of course the latter fear is a mentality foisted upon priest and laity by ideologues of the “spirit of Vatican” and the dismantling of the contemplative aspect of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass experienced in the Grand Silence of adoration during the Roman Canon.

I had forgotten that it was prayed silently, although the Mass changed in my parish around 1966 when I was 13 years old. I think the 1965 Roman Missal allowed for a more audible Roman Canon. I don’t recall, but I do recall hearing it in Latin once the priest faced the congregation and there was a microphone on the altar. 

As the years have passed, I have come to appreciate the Grand Silence of the Roman Canon. It enables communal actual participation in the adoration of the Triune God. When the priest and congregation realize that the Roman Canon is the most intimate priestly prayer of the Mass, the silent Canon is like going to your Heavenly Father and praying to Him in private, as though in a closet, because your Heavenly Father hears what no one else hears. 

There is no need for the laity to follow verbatim the Roman Canon in a vernacular participation aid. All that is needed is a knowledge of the structure of the Roman Canon. But eyes should be wide open watching this intimacy between the High Priest and His Father (sacramentalized by the human priest whose face is unseen in his ad orientem posture before the laity). 

The movements of the priest and the Grand Silence, is the window of actual participation of the priestly people called the laity. The bows, kisses of the altar, the multiple signs of the Cross, it is all eloquent “sign language” understood by all as prayer, praise, contemplation and worship (sacrifice). 

The Grand Silence of the Roman Canon is the Western’s Rite’s iconostasis of the Eastern Rite. Far from distancing the laity from the Sacred Intimacy of the Mass, it draws them into the most intimate, personal experience any person can have with God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and His Church. 

When the Roman Canon or any of the way too many Eucharistic Prayers are prayed in a loud “proclamation” voice and toward the laity, the priest looses the sense of communicating to God and pretends to be communicating to the congregation in voice and gestures. This is not prayer or adoration. It is a reenactment of the Last Supper under the pretense that the words of institution are directed to everyone not exclusively the apostles, the first ordained priests. It is not a reenactment of the Last Supper, but a “memorial” of what constitutes worship (sacrifice) in offering the Victim to the Heavenly Father for His acceptance of that Sacrifice. Not only is God accepting that One Sacrifice, He returns His Son, Priest and Victim to us, which both the ordained Priest and baptized and forgiven Congregation receive during the Rite of Holy Communion. It is appropriate only during the “Ecce Agnus Dei” for the priest to gesture to the congregation with the Host and Chalice as the Forgiven in Christ, are called to “eat and drink” the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ after declaring their unworthiness and plea for healing forgiveness from the Risen Lord. 


Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

"When the Roman Canon or any of the way too many Eucharistic Prayers are prayed in a loud “proclamation” voice and toward the laity, the priest looses the sense of communicating to God and pretends to be communicating to the congregation in voice and gestures."

Speak for yourself, oh presumptuous one!

I have no loss of a sense of communicating with God when I celebrate in a voice clearly audible to the people and facing them. Unlike "some" who were, by their own admission, ill-formed in their seminary training, I know and understand and sense very deeply what I am doing when speaking the words of the canon, when I am reading the proper prayers of the mass, when I am preaching or proclaiming the Gospel or the other biblical readings.

The celebration is both a Sacred Sacrifice offered to God and a Sacred Meal shared by the People of God.

Liturgy is the expression of a communal, rather than individual, reverence for God. Romano Guardini

Anonymous said...

In this wonderful photo, I see young men attending the EF (or is that my lying eyes?)? How can this be? Leftists tell us only old people want the EF.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Yes, you are correct that your seminary was/is a very ultra orthodox, pre Vatican II seminary from which you are in ill advised rebellion. It is sad you don’t understand or appreciate the genius of about 2000 years of ad orientem and the canon’s grand silence. The rigidity of your pre Vatican II seminary formation applied that rigidity to the post Vatican II Mass. But remember that the OF Roman Missal during your seminary training stated in the rubrics after the orate Frates that the Eucharistic prayer may be prayed in an audible voice which allowed for the more ancient grand silence tradition. Unfortunately that magnanimous caveat disappeared in much later revisions of the Mass of 1970.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Having never attended Mt Seminary, Mt. St. Mary's, Emmitsburg, you have NO basis for labeling it "ultra-orthodox. It was orthodox, no "ultra" needed. You have stated that your seminary faculty was the source for such nonsense, and I doubt if THEY knew what their were talking about either.

Your formation, on the other hand, was, as you have often stated here, "lacking." I use that word rather than some of the other terms you and others have used to describe St Mary's, Baltimore.

My seminary formation was solid, as opposed to yours which was not. Only in a confused mind does that make it "pre-Vatican II" formation.

That you may not have been properly formed in liturguical theology and spirituality doesn't mean others were not. You make an absurd accusation against those who do not share your preferences, demonstrating a lack of charity.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Little touchy about your pre Vatican II seminary. Don’t be, wear it as a badge of honor if only in a grand silence.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Tell is again how superb your seminary formation was.

Tell us again how little time you actually spent at Mt. St. Mary's and never one day as a student.

Tell us again how your faculty in Roland Park were the ones to lament the "pre-Vatican II" Mount.

No, I'm not touchy. I just don't care for lies being told about one of my alma maters in an attempt to cover up for your absurd suggestion about priests who are not you.

Anonymous said...


Based on your comments here, it is obvious your seminary training did not take. Instead of blathering here, start up your own blog

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

For 11 years I was the vocation director and visited there twice a year, your alma mater, and yes, my visits confirmed what my seminary professors said about Mt. St. Mary's, that it was pre-Vatican II. Now I ask you, is that descriptive bad for you? Because I suggest you wear it as a badge of honor. Don't be humiliated by what others suggest about your alma mater, including me you most humble blogger. Pre-Vatican II is not the ecclesiastical equivalent to the "n" word. We've moved beyond that.

Anonymous said...

Dear Father K, any, ANY spiritual treatise worth reading will point out that active worship/prayer is below that of contemplative worship/prayer. It is the difference between talking about love and loving, or the difference between talking and listening.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

A humble blogger would not post false statements about a seminary.

A humble blogger would not take pot shots at others priests because they do not share his preferences.

And the day you can humiliate me is the day I will eat your biretta.

Anonymous 4:38 - The liturgy is not an act of contemplative prayer, and individual pursuit. It is a communal act of worship. The celebrant says, "Let US pray." "The Lord be with YOU." (plural) "May almighty God have mercy on US, forgive US OUR sins, and bring US to everlasting life."

Anonymous said...

There are communal aspects of a Mass, but its primary aim is the union of the individual soul with that of its creator in loving adoration, which cannot be done when engaging in activity, and is one of the main advantages of the older Mass form, which provides that time and opportunity for such interior union.

I know what is spiritually best for flocks is often the last thing considered in the liturgy wars, if considered at all. And then folk wonder why people quit attending.

Anonymous said...

Fr. MJK, “touchy” doesn’t begin to describe your issues or your temperament. And it spans decades with our blog host (read Southern Cross letters to editor 25-30 years ago, folks). Get some help with this for your sake if not for ours. You can’t get to Heaven save with empty hands.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

and I don’t get it, as his pre-Vatican II seminary training has served him well. Maybe FRMJK is too humble to take my most gracious compliment not only of him but of his seminary. Pre-Vatican II is not a four letter word!

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Your "pre-Vatican II" comment is not a compliment.

If you were to say to your sister, "That's a beautiful red dress you are wearing, I love it!" when, in fact, she is wearing a beige pants suit, you would not be offering a compliment.

When you intentionally misrepresent the reality of Mt. St. Mary's Seminary in order to be, as you claim, "...provocative and ironically comical with a cynicism matched by few others." you aren't offering, not even trying to offer, a compliment. You're spouting words in an attempt to deflect from your baseless accusations against priests who do not share your views.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

In no way by 1976 through 80 had your seminary been through the Vatican II updating or metamorphosis as St. Mary's in Baltimore, in no way whatsoever, and no how. Mt. St. Mary's was still pre-Vatican II with a post-Vatican II liturgy only. It was never as strict as St. Mary's was up until about 1968 but certainly the "renewal" occurred on steroids from 1972 to 1976. That simply did not happen at your school.

Yes, the theological staff at Mt. St. Mary's to include the famous Sulpician, Fr. Raymond Brown and lesser known Fr. John Kselman saw Mt. St. Mary's as retro and pre-Vatican II.

Compared to St. Mary's today, we can say much has not change since that time.

But alas, you seem to prove my often mentioned writing point, that so many formed under a pre-Vatican II regime think that it was simply awful and that even the word Pre-Vatican II is an insult. It isn't.

Anonymous said...

"Father" Kavanaugh,

I concur with Anonymous at 11:25 PM, seek help!

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I should have written, "the theological staff at St. Mary's in Baltimore" my school, (not Mt. St. Mary's your school).

John Nolan said...

Frs McDonald and Kavanaugh shouldn't be quarrelling and trading insults in public. That they have differing liturgical preferences is obvious. Going by what they have posted over the tears one can reasonably infer the following:

Fr AJM celebrates Mass in both forms and in either orientation. He is in favour of the vernacular to such an extent that he wants some of it to be allowed in the older rite. At the same time he appreciates the importance of retaining some liturgical Latin, even in a mainly vernacular liturgy. He may be critical of some aspects (or options) of the Novus Ordo as often performed but is broadly supportive of Paul VI's Mass.

In contrast Fr MJK does not celebrate the EF Mass since he claims it is 'not needed'. There is nothing to indicate that he has any familiarity with it. He has made clear his antipathy to liturgical Latin and will not countenance any arguments in its favour. He admitted that he had no objections to the pre-2011 English texts because he had never compared them with the Latin originals. He is capable of celebrating the Novus Ordo in Latin but sees no point in doing so.

Both priests are quite entitled to their own preferences, but I would argue that Fr AJM's are based on wider experience and knowledge. But he does not seem to believe that his preferences and opinions are in any way definitive. His interlocutor has a propensity to parade his opinions as if they were incontrovertible facts.

That's my take on it. Other readers may disagree, and think that I'm being too hard on Fr MJK. He can also come back to me, although generalized insults under cover of anonymity and 'tu quoque' arguments won't cut the mustard. Apart from anything else, 'tu quoque' is an admission of guilt.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Thanks John, you have pulled back the curtain on my very progressive seminary training, revealing that I truly am a liberal in the best sense of the word! I am probably the most liberal person commenting on this blog, btw! Irony of ironies!

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Fr. AJM - You were not at Mt St Mary's Seminary 1976 to 1980. As VD you visited Mt St Mary's from 1985 onward. I was there from 1981 to 1985 and have visited often since then. Your assertion that Mt St Mary's was somehow "pre-Vatican II" is simply false.

There was no unnecessary strictness at The Mount. We wore clerical attire to class - is that "pre-Vatican II"? There were four House Rules: 1. We didn't visit the college students in their rooms, they didn't visit us in ours. 2. We wore cassock only when serving at mass. 3. If we were going to be away overnight, we were to let someone know, usually our spiritual director. 4. We were not to keep alcohol in our rooms. (#4 was widely disregarded.) Is this "pre-Vatican II"?

Our faculty ranged from conservative, such as Moral Theologian Germaine Grisez, to progressive, such as Msgr. Carroll Satterfield who had served as peritus to Cardinal Shehan at Vatical II. Most everybody was pretty moderate and entirely orthodox, which is why Mt St Mary's enjoyed and still enjoys the high regard of many bishops.

I don't think "pre-Vatican II" is an insult. It is simply wrong. And you are wrojng to keep repeating this falsehood.

John - I have no "antipathy" toward Latin. I have no "dislike" or "aversion" to Latin. I do not see any need for it in our liturgies. There's a very big difference there.

As to your conclusion that Fr. McDonald doesn't think "that his preferences and opinions are in any way definitive," I would say you haven't been follwing his pronouncements and judgments regarding the seminary he never attended.

Anonymous said...

Fr K,

You are denying reality or do you purposely avoid studying the pictures posted here of the young people attending the EF - so there is a need , desire, whether you think so or not.

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

John Nolan at Dec. 23, 9:03 am:

Your typo, "Going by what they have posted over the tears one can reasonably infer the following:..." is so ironic, it made me laugh! :-)

Mostly, the tears have been shed by those of us who have to read the rantings of FRMJK when he gets triggered. I would prefer not to read them, and largely skip over them when he identifies himself, but they are most painful when he spews them under Anonymous or other variant identities.

Such is the long-suffering of life...

God bless.

John Nolan said...


You may not have an antipathy towards Latin as a language, and for all I know enjoy reading Horace, Cicero or Ovid in the original. But to say 'I do not see any need for it in our liturgies' implies an antipathy towards liturgical Latin, which was my exact point.

By 'our liturgies' I assume you mean what goes on in your parish. I can direct you to very many parishes which are not of the same opinion.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

"But to say 'I do not see any need for it in our liturgies' implies an antipathy towards liturgical Latin, which was my exact point."

No, it does not imply antipathy. They're my words - I know what they mean.

I have no antipathy towards liturgical Latin. I find it unnecessary.

I find wearing long johns in August, or almost any month since we have a temperate climate here in Savannah, unnecessary. I don't have antipathy for long johns.

I find having braces on my teeth unnecessary since they are naturally straight. I have no antipathy for braces.

Anonymous said...

Fr K,

Give it a rest. You’re showing your age. I guess tradition is for the young and not the jaded

John Nolan said...

Mike, stop nit-picking. For once your analogies (long-johns and tooth braces) are apt, since they only apply to yourself. The same goes for your opinions regarding liturgical Latin. As I said before, you are as entitled to your opinions, preferences and prejudices as the next man.

Neither yours, nor mine, nor Fr McDonald's by themselves establish a general principle.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

John - Yes, my analogies are apt. No, they do not apply only to me. Long johns are, to my knowledge, worn by no one in Savannah in August because they are unnecessary. I would go so far as to say that those who find them unnecessary hold no antipathy to them.

The same goes for braces for teeth.

You were wrong. Be an adult and acknowledge it, at least to your supercilious self.

Anonymous said...

Fr. K,

Seek help, you need it.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Fortunately, our new bishop, Bishop Stephen Parkes is encouraging priests who desire to celebrate this Mass because of requests from the faithful to learn how to do so properly. A Polish priest in my former parish of Most Holy Trinity in Augusta and also FRMJK's former parish, is going off to learn it and will offer it at MHT which is ideally suited for it. Augusta has a huge number who have requested it, only to be denied by insensitive pastors who have an obligation mandated by Summorum Pontificum to see to it that the EF Mass is provided for those who request it.
Of course, if like FrMJK, a priest is completely off the wall concerning the official language of the Church and Mass, even in the Ordinary Form, he must see to it that a priest is available to offer the EF Mass. Here are the pertinent aspects from Summorum Pontificum which even the good FRMJK must follow:

Art. 5, §1 In parishes where a group of the faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition stably exists, the parish priest should willingly accede to their requests to celebrate Holy Mass according to the rite of the 1962 Roman Missal. He should ensure that the good of these members of the faithful is harmonized with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the governance of the bishop in accordance with Canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.

§2 Celebration according to the Missal of Blessed John XXIII can take place on weekdays; on Sundays and feast days, however, such a celebration may also take place.

§3 For those faithful or priests who request it, the pastor should allow celebrations in this extraordinary form also in special circumstances such as marriages, funerals or occasional celebrations, e.g. pilgrimages.

§4 Priests using the Missal of Blessed John XXIII must be qualified (idonei) and not prevented by law.

§5 In churches other than parish or conventual churches, it is for the rector of the church to grant the above permission.

Art. 6. In Masses with a congregation celebrated according to the Missal of Blessed John XXIII, the readings may be proclaimed also in the vernacular, using editions approved by the Apostolic See.

Art. 7. If a group of the lay faithful, as mentioned in Art. 5, §1, has not been granted its requests by the parish priest, it should inform the diocesan bishop. The bishop is earnestly requested to satisfy their desire. If he does not wish to provide for such celebration, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.

Bean said...

Kinda like SPEED LIMIT laws MUST be followed, eh, Good Father?

John Nolan said...

Mike, it doesn't take long for you to descend to crude insults. Not very edifying for a man of the cloth. Did you forget to hit the Anonymous button? Couldn't you think of a catchy pseudonym? You disappoint me.

Bean said...

Whether I disappoint you or edify you is none of my concern.


Good Father McDonald can't demand others follow the rules when he himself does not, can he?

Take your imaginary concerns, put them in your pipe, and smoke them.

John Nolan said...

Mike, I think you should be aware that there is a nasty little troll calling himself Bean who is pretending to be you.

Merry Xmas!

Anonymous said...

Bean aka Fr. K does a poor job covering his nasty tracks, must be losing it

John Nolan said...

To resume the original discussion:

Praying the Canon aloud and in the vernacular dates from 1967. It was also stripped of most of its rubrics, and the new Eucharistic Prayers were circulated in advance of the rollout of the 'Missa Normativa' aka the Novus Ordo.

In the older rite of Ordination the new priests 'concelebrate' with the bishop, not standing at the altar as in the modern form but kneeling at the foot of the altar. The bishop prays the Canon audibly to enable the concelebrants to synchronize their words with his. The new rite of concelebration authorized in the mid-1960s necessitated the audible recitation of the Canon.

When ascending to the altar the priest and ministers enter the 'holy of holies'. In the ancient Roman basilicas a curtain would be drawn around the ciborium magnum during the Canon - the Byzantine iconostasis serves a similar function.

In a Solemn Mass the 'silent' Canon is often overlaid by singing. A polyphonic Sanctus and Benedictus are sung either side of the Consecration and it is a French custom to sing 'O salutaris Hostia' after the Benedictus.

In the Novus Ordo the celebrant can sing the entire Canon in Latin or the vernacular. The London Oratory used to do this in the 1970s at their Solemn Mass (in Latin of course) but the practice seems to have been discontinued.

Bean said...

John Nolan - You should be aware that there is a nasty troll calling himself John Nolan and making you look foolish and pretentious.

Oh, wait. That's you.

Never mind...

Anonymous said...

Bean aka Fr. K,

So puerile, get a life, and YOUR own blog

John Nolan said...

I would have thought that my post at 6:57 simply added to the discussion, not exercising any preferences but perhaps of some use. I did not expect a Catholic priest to reply as Mike Kavanaugh did at 9:45.

I shall say this once and with great regret, since I have in the past agreed with some of Mike's propositions or at least recognized where he is coming from even when I disagreed with them.

Mike Kavanaugh is a disgrace. One might forgive his lack of intellect but not his lack of charity. I can say, with Hilaire Belloc, 'caritas non conturbat me' but then I am not a priest. The only excuse he might have is that when he posts his anonymous and pseudonymous comments he is obviously drunk.

Yet I doubt this. He comes across as a malicious individual burdened with a massive inferiority complex. No amount of psychiatric help is likely to avail him. Quite why he needs to advertise his inadequacies in the way he does is a mystery, not just to me but to most of the contributors to this blog.

Inapt analogies, semantic hair-splitting, 'tu quoque' arguments, inability to distinguish genuine irony from crude sarcasm - these are some of the most egregious aspects of his stock-in-trade.

He is, in short, utterly unworthy of his calling.

Bean said...

Inferiority complex? Inferior to whom? To you? That you think so is not surprising since you think you're superior to everyone who posts here.

Your post at 6:57 had nothing to do with mine of 9:45. Look again at your 8:37 post.

You "regret" agreeing with someone whose propositions you agree with. Is that some of your intellect at work, John?

You conclude that disagreement with you and other posters on this blog is due to psychiatric illness, an inferiority complex, or malice. Of course, it could not possibly be because a poster is factually wrong, or because not everyone shares your opinions.

No, that's not possible since you and those who agree with you are invariably right or, with you faculties in tact, your opinions are unassailable and everyone should agree.

Your stock-in-trade is to pounce on others who don't share your preferences. There's the quite disgraceful behavior.

John Nolan said...

Sorry, Mike, you seem to have totally missed the irony of my 8:37 post, which is hardly surprising. Your predilection for pseudonymous and anonymous comments is presumably because should your bishop happen to read them you can lie and say 'It wasn't me, guv, honest.'

I can't think of another reason. I have never suggested that my opinions are unchallengeable, although I might reasonably expect that those who do challenge them have reasonable counter-arguments. Nor do I regret agreeing with some things you have posted under your real name - once again you have demonstrated a lack of reading comprehension (and I'm being generous here; the alternative does you no credit).

Can you give me a recent occasion on which you have corrected me on a point of fact? I actually welcome such corrections and acknowledge them. The only reason I correct your grammar is that you have a penchant for 'correcting' that of others (and usually getting it wrong yourself).

Apart from the blog owner, there are two priests who regularly post on this blog. One is balanced, charitable, and is not afraid to voice his opinions without ever suggesting that they have the force of holy writ. He sees no reason to hide behind anonymity or pseudonymity in order to coarsely rail and crudely sneer.

You might consider emulating Fr Fox. As it is, my assessment of your character posted at 11:55 stands. Attacks on me for spurious reasons belie your constant assertions that my strictures have no effect. Actually, Mike, I don't expect them to - the carapace of your ignorant self-regard is probably impenetrable.

Anonymous said...

Bean aka Fr. K,

Give it a rest, you are no match for John Nolan. Maybe your bishop might find your inane rantings here sufficient cause to remove you from your post and give your flock a chance at a real Catholic pastor.

Anonymous said...

Dearest Bean,

Your last 2 sentences above are simply inaccurate and quite unfair. John’s “stock in trade” is NOT to “pounce on others”. Do you think that an accurate and fair description re the hundreds and hundreds of comments on this blog written by John over years? 99.9% of the time John shares his knowledge, insights, views and opinions on this blog on matters that interest him and matters he often has extensive knowledge of...

This particular comment section from one post out of thousands has descended into rounds of personal insults in a way and to an extent I have not observed in the past 8 years I have followed this blog and, dearest Bean, you have been a main or key instigator of this.

If you are not or have not been drinking I suggest a double scotch as soon as possible and do what my daughter does occasionally (eg during Lent) take a holiday from social media and perhaps increase the number of your daily prayers.

Helen P.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps Fr K could keep himself busy writing and submitting articles to ?
He could use, I suggest, the anonymous title Fr Michael Beanovich and enlighten readers on a range of Catholic topics with his unique blend of Catholic modernism, Marxist historicism and Foucauldian dogmatic assertions re a radically relativistic worldview....

And a happy new year to all,

Cordelia Flyte.

Bean said...

You can't think of another reason for anonymous comments? Really? I've found the reactions to anonymous commenters to be hilarious. "It's Terrible!" "It's Awful" "It Shouldn't Be Allowed!" People get SO riled up over nothing.

And before you dismiss that as mere provocation, remember the blog owner's disclaimer: "I mean to be provocative and ironically comical with a cynicism matched by few others."

You rarely get corrected in fact because, generally, you know you stuff. You might note again that my comments was "Of course, it could not possibly be because a poster is factually wrong, or because not everyone shares your opinions." "A poster" - not you.

You accuse others of nit-picking. Go beack and re-read your comments about what you understand to be the difference betyween "sex" and "gender." You pick nits with the best of 'em.'

By correcting another's grammar - not that there are errors - are you not you setting yourself forth as the authority, and you even cite authoritative sources to back you up. Of course you are. You are right - others are wrong. Holy Write. Case Closed.

Your reading of Fr. McDonald's comments as "balanced and charitable" is selective, although that could be just your memory.

Fr. McDonald: Wednesday, August 5, 2015

Again, August 17, 2019: "Humility is not their (archbishops) strong suit, hubris is, which is the case with most liturgists unfortunately!"

There are numerous other examples - you must have missed them.

That your Number One supporter and bonny cheerleader here is TJM tells me quite a bit about the value of you assessment of my character.

Dearest Helen P. - Disagreement isn't instigation. Stating one's disagreement with the preferences of others is not instigation.

Anonymous said...

Bean aka Fr.K

You are a head case - maybe Obamacare covers it!

Anonymous said...

Fr K,

I am reporting you to your bishop and the Papal Nuncio

John Nolan said...

Mike, once again your poor reading comprehension is your undoing. It was Fr Fox whom I described as 'balanced and charitable'.

Regarding 'sex' and 'gender':

The two can be, and frequently are, used interchangeably; sometimes for comic effect (Tom Lehrer got a laugh when he referred to 'persons of the opposite gender'). However, they are clearly distinct in that sex is biologically determined whereas gender is essentially a construct. Modern 'gender theory' depends on this distinction, which is far from being nit-picking or hair-splitting.

In Latin and the Romance languages the word for 'sun' is of the masculine gender. Would you say it was of the male sex? Of course you wouldn't. In German it is feminine - die Sonne. When it crosses the Franco-German border it doesn't change sex, since it doesn't possess this in the first place, but it does change gender.

As I recall, you cited Merriam-Webster to demonstrate that sex and gender were coterminous. Dishonestly, you gave one definition and ignored the others. Did it not occur to you that we all have access to on-line dictionaries?

The reason for citing an authoritative source is not to claim authority for oneself - quite the opposite in fact. And my value judgements on your character are based on what you post. They are not negated by the fact that another commentator happens to agree with them. Your logic is akin to this syllogism: Good people are kind to animals. Hitler was kind to animals. Ergo, Hitler was a good person.