My comments first:
When I read this Vatican News post at the Vatican News website, I thought to myself, what a vague document based upon pious platitudes in a secular way that includes nothing about the primary mission of the Church, to save souls from the fires of hell.
Of course, that is the “vertical” aspect of the Church and I am not indicating that the “horizontal” aspects as described below are altogether unimportant, as these are and all aspects of morality and Church governance, but these flow from the primary mission of saving souls. Thus it isn’t either/or, but both/and. And the salvation of souls is the foundation and springboard from which all else flows and the primary reason that Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church and instituted the seven sacraments and gave us His Holy Word in an incarnate way!
Still more shocking and this truly shows the latent atheism and agnosticism present in this article, is that there is not only no mention of salvation, but no mention of God, the Father and Son, although “spirit” is used in a nebulous way and as a part of “charisms” that people have to do this, that and the other in a horizontal way.
That Jesus Christ, the Blessed Mother and all the angels and saints are not mentioned to include the fallen angel, Lucifer, is quite stunning not to mention no mention of the Church’s primary mission to proclaim Christ Crucified and Risen and for the eternal salvation of souls! NOTHING!
After reading this most worldly document with its horizontal pious platitudes, why would anyone want to become Catholic, let alone remain Catholic, when they can do and experience all of what is written below in a myriad of civic organizations, non governmental and governmental organizations or simply go it alone!
WHAT A DAMNABLE DOCUMENT TO COME OUT FROM THE VATCAN, ABSOLUTELY DAMNABLE!
Listening to the Faithful: Vatican releases Synod Preparatory Document
By Salvatore Cernuzio
Listening without prejudice; speaking out with courage and parrhesia; dialoguing with the Church, with society, and with the other Christian confessions.
The General Secretariat for the Synod has published the Preparatory Document, along with a Vademecum (or handbook) to indicate the guiding principles that will direct the path of the Synod on Synodality. The solemn opening of the Synod will take place in Rome on October 9-10, and in the particular Churches on October 17; and will conclude in the Vatican in 2023 with the assembly of bishops from around the world.
The Preparatory Document, released on Tuesday, is intended above all to be an instrument facilitating the first phase of listening and consultation of the People of God in the particular Churches, which will take place from October 2021 to April 2022.
“In other words,” as the document says, “it constitutes a sort of construction site or pilot experience that makes it possible to immediately begin reaping the fruits of the dynamic that progressive synodal conversion introduces into the Christian community.”
The text opens with a fundamental question:
"How does this ‘journeying together,’ which takes place today on different levels (from the local level to the universal one), allow the Church to proclaim the Gospel in accordance with the mission entrusted to Her; and what steps does the Spirit invite us to take in order to grow as a synodal Church?"
Steps towards synodality
To respond to this question, the Secretariat of the Synod points out some concrete steps. First of all, it is necessary to live “a participative and inclusive ecclesial process that offers everyone—especially those who for various reasons find themselves on the margins—the opportunity to express themselves and to be heard”; and then to recognize and appreciate “the wealth and the variety of the gifts and charisms that the Spirit liberally bestows… for the benefit of the whole human family.”
Further, it is necessary to examine “how responsibility and power are lived in the Church, as well as the structures by which they are managed, bringing to light and trying to convert prejudices and distorted practices that are not rooted in the Gospel.”
The document invites us to look at how the Christian community can be accredited “as a credible subject and reliable partner in paths of social dialogue, healing, reconciliation, inclusion and participation, the reconstruction of democracy, the promotion of fraternity and social friendship”; as well as how we can regenerate relationships among Christians, with representatives of other Christian confessions, and with other social groups, with the organizations of civil society, and with popular movements.
These concrete steps will take place “within an historical context marked by epochal changes in society,” beginning with the “global tragedy” of the Covid-19 pandemic, which has led pre-existing inequalities and injustices “to explode.” At the same time, the document recognizes that the synodal process is being undertaken in which “the Church herself must face the lack of faith and the corruption even within herself,” emphasizing that “we cannot forget the suffering experienced by minors and vulnerable people ‘due to sexual abuse, the abuse of power, and the abuse of conscience” committed by clergy.
However, “it is precisely in the furrows dug by the sufferings of every kind,” the document continues, that “new languages of faith” and “new paths” flourish, in order to found anew “the path of Christian and ecclesial life.” These are occasions to offer ample space for renewed participation and appreciation of the laity, and especially of women and young people, as requested by recent Synods.
With regard to the laity, the document reiterates that all the baptized “are active participants in evangelization”; and so it is essential that on the synodal path, pastors “not be afraid to listen to the Flock entrusted to them.”
In a synodal Church, it insists, quoting Pope Francis, everyone – “the faithful, the bishops, and even the Bishop of Rome himself” – has something to learn, “all listening to each other, and all listening to the Spirit of truth.” This includes a call to deepen our relationship with other Christian communities. “A synodal Church,” it says, “is a prophetic sign, above all for a community of nations incapable of proposing a shared project, through which to pursue the good of all.”
More concretely, the preparatory text proposes a series of questions to guide the consultation with the People of God, beginning with the fundamental question:
"How is this 'journeying together' happening today in your particular Church?"
It is necessary, therefore, to ask what experiences in one’s own diocese this question brings to mind: “What joys did they provoke? What difficulties and obstacles have they encountered? What wounds have they brought to light?... What are the prospects for change, and the steps to be taken?”
Levels of synodality
The document goes on to explain three levels of synodality: “the level of the style with which the Church ordinarily lives and works… the level of ecclesial structures and process… [and] the level of synodal processes and events in which the Church is convoked by competent authority.” These three levels of articulation of synodality are distinct, but “must be held together in a coherent way; otherwise, a counter-testimony is transmitted, and the Church’s credibility is undermined.”
In this evaluation of experiences, account must also be taken in the particular Church of the internal relations between the faithful, pastors, parishes, and communities; but also between the bishops (among themselves and with the Pope), and with the intermediate bodies.
One must also consider the integration of diverse forms of religious and consecrated life; of associations and movements; and of the various institutions, such as schools, hospitals, universities, foundations, and charities. Beyond internal relationships, it is important to consider external relations, and possible joint initiatives, with other religions, with those who are distant from any faith, and with the various spheres of politics, culture, finance, labour, trade unions, and minorities.
Facets of lived synodality
Finally, the preparatory document indicates ten “thematic nuclei” that “articulate different facets of ‘lived synodality’.” These core areas should be explored in greater depth in order to contribute in a richer way to the first phase of consultation:
* The Journeying Companions: that is, reflecting on what we define as “our Church,” and on our “companions,” especially among the marginalized or those who are beyond the ecclesial boundaries;
* Listening: to young people, women, consecrated men and women, and those who are discarded or excluded;
* Speaking Out: considering whether “a free and authentic style of communication, without duplicity and opportunism,” is promoted within the community of the Church and in its institutions;
* Celebrating: thinking about how prayer and liturgy effectively inspire and guide our “walking together,” and about how the active participation of the faithful can be promoted;
* Co-responsible in the Mission: reflecting on how the community supports members who are engaged in service, such as the promotion of social justice, human rights, or preserving our common home;
* Dialogue in Church and Society: rethinking places and means of dialogue in the particular Churches, with neighbouring Dioceses, with religious communities and movement, with various institutions, with non-believers, with the poor;
* With the Other Christian Denominations: what are our relations with our brothers and sisters of other Christian confessions? What areas are involved, and what are the fruits and the challenges of our relationships?
* Authority and Participation: how is authority exercised in our particular Church, what is the experience of teamwork; how are lay ministries promoted?
* Discerning and Deciding: asking what procedures and methods are used to make decisions; how the decision-making process is articulated with decision-taking; what tools are promoted for transparency and accountability;
* Forming Ourselves in Synodality: in essence, looking at the formation offered to those in positions of responsibility in the Christian community, to help them to be more capable of listening and dialogue.
The Secretariat of the Synod is asking each Diocese to condense the fruit of their reflections into a maximum of ten pages, supplementing them, if necessary, with other supporting texts. The goal, it insists, “is not to produce documents, but to plant dreams, prophecies, and hopes.”
To learn more about the 2023 Synod on Synodality, we invite you to visit the official website of the Synod.
In the 1990s, former Charleston Bishop Thompson and his VG, Mister Sam R Miglarese, spend more than a million dollars on the “Synod of Charleston” that published a “book” which I have which said and accomplished absolutely nothing. Except maybe the Vicar General got to know his future wife and her husband and children before he spawned an adulterous little bastard child with this married woman with children and became Presbyterian. By their fruits, you shall know them. But I guess it was all predestined.
Well, I received my bank statement today and note that the Blessed Virgin, the salvation of souls, and the Communion of Saints weren't mentioned. Another "Damnable" document? Hardly.
The Preparatory Document for the Synod is not a Catechism, it is not a statement of the Church's belief or purpose, nor should it be. To expect that is not realistic.
I wonder if you read the document in a less than cursory way. It most certainly does speak of the Church's mission:
"...accomplishing the mission of evangelization..." (#2)
"...exercising responsibility in the proclamation of the Gospel..." (#10)
It calls all to participate in the "evangelizing mission" of the Church.
It does speak in a non-nebulous way of the Holy Spirit who unites us (#11), who keeps the Church from error (#13), who teaches us (#15), and who empowers us to proclaim the Gospel. (#27)
It does speak of Jesus Christ who "offers liberation from evil and conversion to hope..." (#17), who is the way, the truth, and the life (#10), in whose mission we share (#16), and who summons us and forms us into the People of God. (#27)
"Listening to the Faithful" - LOL - they are certainly not listening to the most faithful of all Catholics - the EF attendees. Just more drivel from the Vatican.
JED, Sam’s story is tragic. He was Charleston’s vocation director when I was discerning for Savannah in the mid 70’s. There was a close collaboration with Atlanta, Savannah and Charleston on vocations discernment programs and these were very 1970’s! I liked him and there is more to this tragedy too. And yes a colossal waste of time and money for Charleston and now the universal Church.
The Synod should be figuring out why only 30% of OF attendees believe in the Real Presence. That would be a good place to start!
Did you mean to address " Fr. Kavanughty?
How pernicious this business of never ending synoding really is becomes clear, I think, only when you start thinking about the nuts-and-bolts of it; which I started doing when I saw that, apparently, we're going to be asked in this country to have levels of synoding, all aimed at contributing something to this worldwide synod on synoding.
So at some point, the U.S. bishops are supposed to get diocesan synods accomplished; these, in turn, depend on something happening at the parish or regional level. More layers make it more opaque.
So at some point, I'm supposed to organize some sort of parish synod? Who is going to show up? How much time and energy do you suppose will need to be devoted to doing the following:
1) Establishing a date that doesn't conflict with sports schedules, school events, and other parish activities, not to mention things like Thanksgiving and Christmas.
2) Creating an agenda and preparatory information.
3) Creating materials that explain all this.
4) Someone has to make sure all this is communicated widely, in overlapping and repetitive ways, over and over and over.
5) All this means working backward in time: if you have an event on, say, October 30, to which EVERYONE is invited and expected, right now -- September 7 -- is already too late to start.
There's more, but that gives a taste.
So, here's what ACTUALLY happens. These things get organized, but most people never hear about it. Oh, it's announced; but people are busy, they don't read every word in every bulletin, they will miss it, and it'll go on without them.
Why, all those folks who:
1) Are employed in the church in some way;
2) Those who work for organizations that do business in a significant way with church organizations;
3) Those with any sort of axe to grind.
It's easy to see how terribly UNrepresentative such a synod would be; and it's also easy to see how much work it could take to avoid that outcome. After all, lots of sensible, normal people are entirely too busy to attend such meetings and would find them deadly dull (because they are NORMAL). Maybe if you PAID them to attend they might show up, but even that's not certain. They'd rather put a nailgun to their forehead and pull the trigger than sit through such torture.
In short: normal, sensible people will absolutely be vastly UNDER-represented at such synoding.
The best case scenario is that enough sensible bishops and pastors appoint sensible people to sit in the meetings, who will call BS as soon as they hear it, and whenever a lot of gobbledygook starts being spouted, they will pull out the Holy Water and splash whoever is droning on about "trusting the process."
Make no mistake: people with agendas they could never sell straight out will try to work this synod business to their advantage.
It is clear there is an agenda and curtailing the EF Mass which was/is gaining wider participation stands in the way of it.
This is remaking the Church or Vatican III in the progressive sense and as the German Synod is doing without calling an ecumenical council to do it.
It sickens me when our energy and resources should go to clarity of teaching and beauty of worship!
I often wonder what Benedict knows of all of this and what his thoughts are but at his age there may be dementia and other issues where we will never know.
LOL - but no, just bad type job
Ole Sam took over my parish (Cathedral) and immediately got some guitars and a non-Catholic to run the music, dumped our organist of 30 years and put a jacuzzi in the sanctuary near his own throne, just a hair shorter than that of the bishop. Sam was petty, dishonest, power-hungry and a trespasser. I hold him in “minimum high regard.”
These Synod types are cooking their own goose - they will cause more Catholics to walk away. The 900 pound gorilla staring them in the face is the OF where only 30 percent of its attendees believe in the Real Presence. That is the issue they need to focus upon. Once they fix that problem they can focus elsewhere.
To supplement Father Kavanaugh’s point, the word “salvation” appears five times, the word “saved” appears three times, and there is at least one, and arguably two, references to the Holy Trinity.
To Father Fox’s point, I suppose we will have to wait and see but documents that emerge after running the gauntlet of bureaucratic layering and the inevitable related committees are usually uninspiring. Perhaps this one will be different?
At some point, some vague, boilerplate references to Jesus Christ are de rigueur for such documents, but we all know the focus isn't going to be on deeper conversion, re-focusing on the sacraments or anything else that the Church has focused on. This synod and all the fluff (expensive fluff) that will follow will help create the Church that Judas wanted--a quasi-political entity at the service of secular society, one of many "faith communities" employed by the Globalist New World Order cabal to serve their secularized priorities. We will "journey together" towards the eventuality of a one-world religion that will ultimately worship the Antichrist.
Just as the wretched failures of communism have not deterred our civic leaders from pursuing its doomed path, likewise the wretched emptiness of Protestantism and Paganism do not deter our careerist bishops and cardinals from their siren call of spiritual death.
The gates of Hell will not prevail against God's Church, but it's time to face the fact that the current facade of a Church being led by faithless men has grown so corrupt and turned so far away from God that He appears to be allowing it to crumble under its own weight--as I've said before, the Novus Ordo Establishment cannot sustain itself. The remnant of the faithful are visibly being forced underground.
If I were a betting man, I would place my wagers on the inevitability of women's "ordination" and the sacking of celibacy. It's VERY important to the neo-Catholic Novus Ordo Establishment that we lose anything that might distinguish our Church from all the other "equally valid faith communities". Since all morality is relative, there can no longer be One True Church.
And when Francis's successor, Pope Judas, canonizes Francis, we will all witness the new slogans of heroic Christian virtue enshrined in the Vatican: "Who am I to judge?", "Proselytizing is nonsense" and, of course, "I observer them (the 10 Commandments) but not as absolutes."
"Extra Ecclesia de Pachamama Nulla Salus"
The 30 percent of Catholics who still believe in the Real Presence is not an obstacle or impediment to the neo-Catholics of Francischurch. It's merely a benchmark towards their goal.
Growth: three OF parishes in Dayton are merging for lack of priests and parishioners. The one TLM parish grew during the pandemic, both by addition of children born as fruits of social distancing, transfers, and conversions. We have only one priest because the Fraternity can’t spare them as we expand the number of parishes throughout North America. Of course we may find the expansion nipped in the bud so we hope the last class of priests can be shared with the existing parishes.
It appears to this layman that synods have purpose when there is a clear point of contention or differences to resolve for various members of the Body of Christ. If synods are held to seek out problems then they are likely to find them, or create them.
Canon 342 thru 348 clearly define the purpose, scope, and authority of Synods. They may be necessary when there are "points of contentention." Or a synod may be convened when the Holy Father wants the counsel of a group of bishops regarding some particular topic.
Ordinary Synods have addressed:
The Sacrament of Reconciliation (1983)
Consecrated Life (1994)
The New Evangelization (2012)
among other thing.
Special Synods have addressed the needs of the Church in:
The Middle East (2010)
Pope Francis is changing the Church through synods and canon law be damned. He was most authoritarian with EF Mass goers and their communities in his desire to rid himself of rigid doctors of the law types. Yet, Germany, going off the rails he only mildly criticizes. There is an agenda with this Pope and his psychoanalyzing of those who want traditional Catholics (even independent of the EF Mass and its communities) he calls rigid. This is way beyond his mandate as pope to be a psychologist and to manipulate people with his diagnosis.
Everyone who questions him, think of the Dubia cardinals, he sidelines or ignores and enters into no dialogue and this from a pope who calls for ongoing dialogue with everyone except those he doesn't want to do so. Hypocrisy is what this is called and he's undermining not only the papacy but the Church in the process.
" This is way beyond his mandate as pope to be a psychologist and to manipulate people with his diagnosis."
I have to respectfully disagree with you Father. This IS a huge part of his mandate, because it's the justification of the butchering job he was elected to do. Summorum Pontificum was absolutely intolerable to the hoof-worshipping effetes in the Curia and its sub-departments and abolishing Tradition once and for all and cleansing the Church of any memory of what She once was is exactly what Francis was elected to do. Cardinal Martini wouldn't just be proud--he'd be jealous.
I thought a self-referential church was supposed to be a bad thing.
Having a synod about synods is the platonic ideal of self-referentiality.
And that is before we reach constant synodality mode.
The church of perpetual bureaucratic busy work. All in service to a pre-programmed agenda handed down from on high to carefully-selected participants.
Lord Vetinari approves.
Where is the Synod for determining why only 30% of OF attendees believe in the Real Presence? The other subjects you cite, while important, should be subordinate to this real crisis in belief. If we do not solve this, the rest does not matter.
Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said..."Special Synods have addressed the needs of the Church in:
Well, if this special synod is as successful as the one that "addressed the needs of the Church in the Netherlands," they might as well scrap it. The Catholic Church has almost completely disappeared from that country.
If the trend continues, SSPX adherents will be the majority of churchgoers in Holland.
Quotes from the link:
"Sunday church attendance by Catholics has decreased in recent decades to less than 200,000 or 1.2% of the Dutch population in 2006. More recent numbers for Sunday church attendance have not been published (with the exception of the Diocese of Roermond), although press releases have mentioned a further decline since 2006."
"A planned visit of Pope Francis to the Netherlands was blocked by cardinal Wim Eijk in 2014, allegedly because of the feared lack of interest for the Pope among the Dutch public."
"Currently, Catholicism is still the single largest religion of the Netherlands with around four million registered members, 22.9% of the Dutch population in 2015. In 2006, in the Diocese of 's-Hertogenbosch (in the eastern part of North Brabant and in part of Gelderland), only 45,645 residents, mostly people over 65, attended Mass, only 2% of the total population in that area. In western North Brabant (the Diocese of Breda), the number of people associating themselves with Catholicism also strongly decreased. Church attendance is even lower in the west with only 1% of the West Brabantian population visiting churches in 2006."
"92% of Dutch Catholics support same-sex marriage and 3% oppose it. 95% of Dutch Catholics believe society should accept homosexuality, while 4% believe society should not accept homosexuality."
"Well done, good and faithful servant."
DJR - You seem to assume that a synod has the magical ability to "fix" problems and to force people to behave in a certain way.
That assumption is false. They don't. No synod, no council does.
Regarding the Special Synod on the Netherlands held in 1980 under Saint Pope John Paul II, you can read the report here: https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/nl/speeches/1980/january/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19800130_sinodo.html
(The translation provided by Google has a few oddities in it - I haven't yet figured out what the "konvikten and rolduc" are in #28. I'm sure that a proper translation is available somewhere.)
At least a Synod should address the real problems facing the Church and not address imaginary problems of liberals like you. Are you happy to turn off the lights?
I see Father K cannot deal with the fact that only 30 percent of OF attendees believe in the Real Presence. Very Mark Thomas like
I don't think bank statements are religious documents. Neither are many of things that Pope Francis writes so maybe comparing the two makes more sense than I originally thought.
I am a convert from the Episcopal Church. You have described to a 'T' how the 'synodality' of the Anglican Church in the US and other Western countries brought about the 'ordination' of women. Yes, there was 'participation' all the way down to the parish meeting, which elected delegates to the diocesan convention, which elected more delegates to the general convention (read 'synod' for 'convention'). Of course, no one who opposed the move, which according to most unbiased polls was a vast majority of the lay membership, bothered to show up at the parish meeting, so only the liberals who wanted the change were there to vote. Bingo!, Womyn 'priests'. It was at that point that I left.
Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said... "DJR - You seem to assume that a synod has the magical ability to "fix" problems and to force people to behave in a certain way."
Father, what in the world would cause you to think I "seem to assume" such a thing when I just demonstrated to you concrete proof of the opposite? Who do you think posted the data?
On the contrary, my assumption is the direct opposite of what you think I "seem to assume."
I assume that any particular synod will not "fix" any particular problem and will probably end up being an enormous waste of time and money that could have been spent in a better fashion.
The Netherlands synod is a prime example. There was a synod in that regard, and several decades later, Catholicism is on the verge of disappearing from that country. Obviously the bishops, including the Bishop of Rome, don't know how to "fix" things there.
Unfortunately Fr Kavanaugh has a track record of making assumptions about other people's assumptions which are not warranted by anything they might have actually written.
It's partly down to poor reading comprehension, but I suspect (not assume, mark you) that he likes erecting 'homines stramineos'.
No, John, I do not suffer from poor reading comprehension.
You make that assertion because you disagree with me and want to take cheap shots that make you look superior. You clearly assume that YOUR reading comprehension is better than mine, so don't try to weasel out of it. And now you'll "sniff, sniff," settling more deeply into your overstuffed chair, while you ratchet up your condescension.
You support those who agree with you while denigrating those who don't. It is simple bias and it is just that simple.
FRMJK, now, now, now, your comment is a serious case of projecting. Go back and read all your condescending comments on my blog inciting so much animosity toward you and scandalizing so man lay folk.
Fr ALAN McD - You and others mistake disagreement for incitement. You criticize, in your post about the renovations in St. Augustine Church, Granada, Spain, the placement of flowers, "... in front the the liturgical furnishings..."
Were I or anyone esle to say, "The placement is fine and I like it," you would then charge "incitement."
It's not. It's disagreement.
And if you want to talk about scandal, look only to you your damnably scandalous and factually incorrect statements about the preparatory document for the coming synod.
Mostly wrong, never in doubt
Mike - Most intelligent people's reading comprehension is probably better than yours; for years you have based your arguments on what you 'assume' people think rather than what they actually say. If I disagree with you I will do so and give evidence to support my opinion. In fact I have done so on many occasions. I do not suggest that you inhabit an overstuffed chair, but I do suggest that your much-vaunted facility with the English language is based on little more than the straw wherewith it is stuffed, along with the straw men you love to erect.
The fact that you can make intelligent comments on church architecture is neither here nor there. It is your intellectual dishonesty, compounded by what would appear to be an inferiority complex, that is at issue here. It can aptly be summed up as follows: your own opinions are proposed as facts, and those who choose to disagree must have ulterior motives.
I find this attitude contemptible, but then you know this already.
John - I was expecting you to make the baseless assertion that I have an inferiority complex. Most people like you, who think their opinions and preferences are the cat's meow, tend to think that way. You seem to be comfortable with your self-puffery attitude, so I don't expect it will change. Understand, though, that I do not consider myself your inferior.
What people say reveals what they think, how they think, how they reason. For not a few who post here, what people say reveals how they DON'T think. Rather, they react, which is one of the tragedies of our times. You are among those here who, although you like to think yourself immune, are given to such reaction. You dress it up with learned quotations, references to those you consider to be great thinkers, and your oft-repeated announcement of the contempt you claim to feel towards me. Nothing new there - more reactions to come, I am sure.
And let me assure you, your "contempt," not matter how often you choose to announce it, has all the impact of a glass hammer.
Mike, I suggest you give up while you're still behind. Even when you were resorting to Anonymous and divers silly pseudonyms you could never resist 'reacting' and having the last word, which merely had the effect of making you appear even more ridiculous. It's hardly one of the tragedies of our times, however.
Melius est a sapiente corripi, quam stultorum adulatione decipi: quia sicut sonitus spinarum ardentium sub olla, sic risus stulti.
John - There you go again. You say that I'm "behind," therefore, it must be so! And you want to say that you don't think you're superior to others.
You just can't help yourself, can you?
Bravo, John. Fr K also will NOT address a legitimate question which conflicts with his view of things, like why do only 30% of OF attendees believe in the Real Presence while nearly 100% f EF attendees do? No priest seems to want to tackle that question. I suspect they think Chancery stooges are reading these blogs and are looking for "wrong think."
There is a old saying, "if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." This applies to you in spades
'In spades'. Nice play on words. Unfortunately it will be lost on the person to whom it is addressed, who has no understanding of irony, and who seems unfamiliar with the advice about quitting while you are still ahead, as his bizarre last comment would seem to indicate.
I have been commenting here for ten years and have never suggested that my opinions are unchallengeable, which would be absurd. I do claim that they are well founded, and am prepared to argue in support of them. Not that Mike (I refer to him by his Christian name since he presumes to use mine) has ever put up much of an argument, preferring coarse raillery. The irony (which he wouldn't appreciate) is that it is he who constantly parades his ill-thought-out opinions as facts.
In any case, he doesn't have to argue with anything I say since you have come out in support, and if a Trump supporter happens to agree with me on anything this automatically invalidates my arguments. Yes, it's illogical, but logic and clarity of thought and expression don't appear to be high on his (admittedly meagre) list of attributes.
I admit I'm cruel to the poor booby although this probably doesn't penetrate his thick skin. I can say with Hilaire Belloc, 'caritas non conturbat me'. That's no doubt one of the 'learned quotations' I resort to in order to demonstrate my alleged 'superiority'.
John - You can imagine yourself to be crule all you want. It gives you perverse pleasure, so have at it.
You have often asserted the superiority of things western and European, from music on down. You do not admit that these merely opinions, but realities with which all should agree. And, of course, all WOULD agree if they only were . . . you.
Regarding your opinions on music, although I asked, you never once provided arguments in support of your position, other than repeating your preferences. Or you would say something like, "It is obvious to anyone with good sense." Maybe you've had time to come up with a droll comment from an early 19th century musicologist - English of course - who supports your claims.
I find it laughable that you think it presumptuous to use a person't first name in conversation. It must be interesting to see you in conversations, "Well, Mr. Smith, how was your morning bowel movement today?" "Well, Mr. Nolan, just the usual." "How about you, Mr. Brown?"...
It is just as laughable that Fr. ALLAN McD doesn't lower the boom on you for violating his rules, albeit silly rules.
What is "crule?" Our resident English critic is slipping or not proof-reading his comments? Silly rules? Why not start your own blog and you can have as few or as many rules as you like.
You really are puerile
Mike - I remember using the first movement of the Eroica symphony to demonstrate that Beethoven is objectively a great composer, regardless of personal preference, mine included.
When you asserted that the suitability of Gregorian Chant to the Roman liturgy is simply a matter of personal preference, I directed you to official Church documents which clearly teach otherwise.
When you asserted that Latin syntax can be forced on English language to the detriment of the latter, I demonstrated at length and with numerous examples how this is not possible.
You attempted to defend your position by quoting the number of times LA mentions syntax. By referencing the document itself I was able to demonstrate that in every case it is referring to the syntax of the 'target' language, not of Latin.
Regarding my belief in the inherent superiority of Western culture, I added 'Were I a Hindu or a Hottentot I might well disagree. But I'm not, and I'm glad I'm not.'
I would not expect a medical practitioner to address me by my Christian name unless I knew him socially as well as professionally. Over-familiarity implies condescension. Americans are usually more formal in this respect than Brits.
Your oft-repeated mantra that I expect everyone to agree with me and so do not provide evidence for my opinions and conclusions is palpably untrue. Yet you insist on maintaining it. Is it a sign of your intellectual inadequacy and inability to construct a credible counter-argument? Or are you simply a liar and a scoundrel? Only you can answer.
TJM - we all make typographical errors and they are usually easy to differentiate from genuine spelling mistakes.
Post a Comment