While, if I were Pope Paul VI, I would have manufactured the 1970 Roman Missal a bit different than his committee did and offered to him, I would have stuck to what the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council desired for the Liturgy in Sacrosanctum Concilium, an expanded lectionary, some vernacular (like for the changing parts) noble simplicity (and here I think they are referring to pontifical Masses which I suspect the majority of bishops had a disdain because it was so complicated; certainly not the typical parish Mass in either its low, high or Solemn High Forms).
Thus, let’s pretend the photo above is one of the many reformed reincarnations of the 1970 Roman Missal.
Let’s pretend, that prior to this photo, the Liturgy of the Word was in the vernacular with a layperson installed in the formal ministry of lector, properly vested in a liturgical garment, read or chanted the Old Testament Reading and Epistle, with the Gospel chanted by a deacon and facing northward as in the rubrics of the ancient form of the Latin Mass.
This Ordinary Form Mass has the same “ethos” as the Tridentine Mass. It captures the spiritual imagination of children and adults alike, churched or unchurched, believer or non-believer.
The sanctuary is beautiful and traditional. The vestments are exquisite and beautiful, The choreography is sublime and all who experience this Mass know that each one according to their place in the Church is making this Mass as beautiful, inspiring and awesome as possible.
Why? Because it is the Mystical Body of Christ gathered with the Risen and Glorified Jesus Christ and all aspects of the Church are present: The Church Triumphant; the Church Militant and the Church Suffering.
You read that correctly, the entire Church in all her forms is present at every Liturgy, meaning heaven is on earth and the Church Militant has an obligation to make sure the Kingdom of Heaven is made visible in all Masses which are celebrated not just some militancy here on earth.
The priest, the ordained one, is not to distract from the only High Priest there is at Mass-Jesus Christ who is sacramentally represented in the ordained priest who is obscured in appearance by joining the assembly in facing the same direction! Even the faces of the assembly are obscured in facing the same direction.
The Glorified and Risen Christ is present in the Word of God, especially the Gospel, chanted.
Of course in all aspects of the Church, Triumphant, Militant and Suffering, Christ is present in the mystical body of Christ present at each liturgy.
And finally, the penultimate “Real Sacramental Presence” of the Risen and Glorified Risen Lord Jesus Christ His glorified Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is present under the form (accidents) of the Bread and Wine as well as His one Sacrifice on the Cross, now gloriously celebrated and received by each member of the Mystical Body of Christ of the Church Militant who have repented of their sins.
At your typical Sunday morning Ordinary Form Mass this day, though, how many Catholics in the pews after experiencing the manner in which the Mass has been celebrated in a stripped down sanctuary, could describe their experience as I have described it above?
And that, my brothers and sisters is the problem. Key to turning this around, though, are not just priests and congregation, but a pope and bishops in union with him who get it. Right now, I fear they don’t get it and certainly progressive liturgists don’t!
66 comments:
Father McDonald, on a somewhat related note, Father Hunwicke of Mutual Enrichment has a good piece on TC
The Mass of Paul VI is a large part of the problem. The myriad options and opportunity for omitting parts or substituting others fosters a spirit of "creativity" to respond to what the assembly finds meaningful. This coupled with the spirit of tolerance for the immediate abuses that manifested (and ran wild for decades) led to a loss of belief among the faithful.
I think your mistake is in thinking a major reform of the liturgy can be done without there being a major disaster. The Traditional Mass is not of human design, although it is the result of human action. It was handed to the Apostles by our Lord and implemented by them in accordance with his instructions. The adjustments made were not done by committee.
"The sanctuary is beautiful and traditional. The vestments are exquisite and beautiful,..."
According to what or whose categories is the sanctuary beautiful and/or traditional? According to what or whose categories are the vestments exquisite?
Therein lies the weakness of your argument. LOTS of folks may find the image you post very appealing, as it conforms to their categories of judgment and taste. LOTS may find the sanctuary and vestments gaudy and tacky. Many will "Ooh and Aah" upon seeing seven foot tall candlesticks and 9 foot tall candles. Others will roll their eyes at such a silly excess. Not a few will see a sanctuary that excludes women as the source and summit of their dreams and desires, while other will lament the exclusion of over half the population of the baptized world.
You seem to make the assumption that this image resembles the Kingdom of Heaven, which is more than a stretch. Eye has not seen . . . the things that God has prepared for those who love Him. When you conflate the Kingdom of Heaven with our own taste and preferences in church decor, you traipse into the land of unhealthy (and not very Catholic) thinking.
We should all thank Father K for illustrating a huge part of the problem of the postconciliar Church: Our complete buy-in to relativism, whether it be in morality, Church teachings or artistic tastes. Yes Father K, continue to mock us all--it says a lot more about YOU than it does about all of us stupid, unwashed peasants who "ooh" and "ahh" at such "silly excesses"!
Pastoral condescension and mocking. You gotta love it!
"Not a few will see a sanctuary that excludes women as the source and summit of their dreams and desires"
"You seem to make the assumption that..."
Ah, good Father Kavanaugh, what about YOUR assumptions? You dare to assume that an "absence of women in the sanctuary" is "the source ans summit" of some readers' "dreams and desires:, only to disparage Father McDonald in the subsequent paragraph for making assumptions? Seriously?
And WHAT OF the absence of women in the sanctuary? Perhaps you can show us the scripture in which Jesus washes the feet of women at the Last Supper or confers the priesthood upon them? Perhaps what some of us readers desire is not a "suppression of women" (using the jargon of the popular mindset) from the sanctuary so much as a return to what the Church has ALWAYS practiced--a male priesthood.
Of course, few of us here are surprised to see you invoke the "updated" thinking of our times by reducing everything to a "power struggle" whether it be men v. women, rich v. poor, one race v. another race, etc.. Now who else taught us to think that way? Oh yeah! That great theologian, Karl Marx!
But hey Father, since you are far more enlightened than poor slobs like me, here's a link to a group I am sure you would endorse and love:
https://www.womensordination.org/
Best wishes.
Thomas - I make the assumption about the absence of women based on what some regular posters here have said. Their sentiments have been posted here repeatedly, so try reading some past comments before spouting off about something you know little about.
Perhaps you can show us in the scriptures where the washing of feet by Jesus of the Disciples at the Last Supper has amything to do with who enters the sanctuary to perform a variety of ministries including altar server, lector, Extraordinary Minister of the Eusharist. Oh, it's fine and dandy if the women come in the clean the sanctuary, press the linens, and arrange the flowers, but some of the folks who post here are dead set again women filfilling their baptismal dignity as participants in the sanctuary.
That you thihk of this as a power struggle - I don't by the way - between men and women reveals your inadequate and self-serving on the theology of the dignity of the human person and the theology of Baptism as the fundamental sacrament of the Christian.
Here's a link you might enjoy: https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/index.htm
And a book to help you to begin to understand that Council https://www.amazon.com/What-Happened-at-Vatican-II/dp/0674047494
In my post I speak of an installed lector liturgically vested reading or chanting the Scriptures.
FrMJ
k do you presume, and of course in grave error, that means a man only? And what about female scholars or cantors in the sanctuary, are they a lesser dignity than male servers and readers?.
Scholas
Fr. ALLAN McDonald. I referred very specifically to the IMAGE you posted. In that IMAGE, do you see any women in the sanctuary? I don't.
If you see them there, get your eyes checked.
Women are in that church and their participation from the pew is as important as the males in the frame, but trust me, in that church there are more likely more women than men. At your Mass today, if the camera focused on you at the altar, I guess you would say no one else was there. Seems silly to me your way of seeing things!
Yes, now you avoid acknowledging that I spoke specifically of the image you posted and that the error was yours.
"Oh, I know, let's talk about Fr. Kavanaugh's church!" "Oh, maybe if they took a picture there we might see something interesting that we could complain about!"
Oh, that's the worst attempt at a dodge you've ever attempted, fr. ALLAN mcdonald.
With that comment it is obvious to all that I win!
I think Fr. MJK is right and I don't feel anyone is being mocked as a result. The style of the sanctuary spotlighted in the photo is of its era. I happen to like it. Others, as suggested, might find it and the candles to be gaudy (the Crystal Cathedral, its Catholic name escapes me, has large pillar candleholders but they to me look menacing placed like soldiers an appropriate distance away from the altar there). If this is such a gold standard, shouldn't something similar be teetering off the back of the altar at St. Anne's? Of course not, these are likely in proportion to the space that they fill. The vestments, were a style of a particular era. There were preceding and succeeding styles. I happen to like these, others might not. Others might like the vestments worn by Thomas Beckett, Charles Borromeo etc. Still others might like the "other modern" spotlighted her on several occasions as well as the gothic/neo-gothic cut that was prevalent and more tailored during that time.
Regarding women, I don't wish to speak for them, but after 50+ years of being present in the sanctuary at some point during mass, it's not unreasonable for someone to question their participation, or lack thereof. I'm sure others will cringe at this, however, I'm just mentioning a reality. The altar cards would lead me to conclude that it's an EF mass, all male on the altar, but after so many years simply doing what the Church has made possible, some will question and no doubt be displeased.
I think we've all had our "If I were Pope or, Paul VI" moments, but I have to wonder if it would have made a difference during that particular era. The genie left the bottle and the way things were both within the Church and society at-large carried things to an nth no one would have thought possible. Had the council occurred +/- 20-30 years, the outcome could have been very different despite the proverbial pot simmering on the stove 20-30 years prior and a whole other slate of challenges becoming prevalent 30-50 years after.
Regarding the presence of women in the sanctuary:
On the one hand we have the unbroken liturgical tradition of both the Latin ad Greek Churches which does not allow it. On the other hand we have the subjective opinion of Fr Kavanaugh, as usual presented as a fact but with no supporting evidence, that women are qualified to be in the sanctuary by virtue of their baptism.
Pius X ruled that women could not be admitted to church choirs (Tra Le Sollecitudini 1903, Section 13). This was not universally followed, and by 1958 mixed scholas were officially permitted as long as they were positioned outside the sanctuary. Musicam Sacram, issued in 1967 and supposedly implementing the Conciliar reforms, reiterated this; no women singers in the sanctuary.
Fr Allan is being somewhat disingenuous concerning female lectors - the rule was changed only very recently, and you're unlikely to encounter an instituted lector outside a seminary.
John Nolan - The "unbroken tradition" that does not allow women in the sanctuary is not instituted by God through Divine Revelation, therefore it is of a kind that can be changed. Same goes for the language used in the liturgies.
Many practices that have been changed were part of "unbroken traditions" that people came to understand were unnecessary and, at times, oppressive. Like the banning of women in the sanctuary, they are gone.
I will leave it to you to read up on the dignity conferred by Baptism, as well as the other sacraments of initiation, as the basis for ministry in the Church.
Fr K,
You can’t get baptized if you are aborted. And YOUR voting practices support that. Think of the aborted females who will make it into the sanctuary.
Oh, come off it TJM! We should THANK Fr. K and other enlightened, superior minds like him who saw the great wisdom of electing Joseph Biden. Now that gasoline is more than double what it cost a year ago, thanks to our newfound dependence on OPEC and the shutting down of the Keystone Pipeline, and the greatest inflation rate since Jimmy Carter, we wasteful, sinful, selfish, Americans who are so obsessed with abortion have all gotten the just pay cut--in my case a severe one--that we deserve as punishment!
Beware of intellectuals compelled to show off their esoteric vocabularies. There are a great many intellectuals (just visit your average college campus) who have little in the way of common sense.
Please preserve us, Oh Lord, from becoming so spiritual that we are no earthly good.
I think it is abundantly clear that FRMJK comments on my article without reading it or noting that the caption under the photo I use is to give credit to the photographer, Edward Pentin, who took the photo at an EF Mass, not an OF Mass.
My point in using this photo is its ethos and beauty and that this could easily be transferred to an OF Mass celebrated in this direction with the EF’s penchant for glorious vestments and attention to detail, such as choreography.
I also indicted in the article that after an OF liturgy of the world with an officially installed lector (which Pope Francis has opened to women as well as acolyte) the OF Mass could take on this look.
Yet, FRMJK, because he hasn’t read the post and in his rush to make a snarky comment, fails to take this into account.
Fr ALLAN McDonald - I read what you posted. I commented specifically on the image. (You know this now, but continue trying - and failing - to dig yourself out of the hole you dug.)
I said, "LOTS of folks may find the image you post very appealing, as it conforms to their categories of judgment and taste."
You missed that. Your error.
Fr MJK
There are many places (including the Roman basilicas) which do not have women in the sanctuary substituting for clerics. Which 'people' decided in the last few decades that this tradition was 'unnecessary and oppressive'?
I know you have no truck with liturgical tradition and from your past comments see liturgy as primarily didactic and literalist. It is an opinion shared by many of your generation, but that does not automatically validate it. Had it to do with the intrinsic nature of baptism, I'm surprised no-one before your time picked up on it.
Fr. K,
Instead of peddling your wares here, why not start your own blog. All 2 of your fellow lefties who post here would likely follow it! Snark, snark
Perhaps I'm getting lumped in with the "2" lefties. Fine. This is just a blog.
I don't see how women are substituting for clerics with the elimination of the minor orders until recently as well as the provision to have EMHC. Women are simply availing themselves of that which the Roman Church made available. In the Byzantine Church, women read though aren't instituted, cantor, direct the choir and work alongside men in other roles such as trustee. Thankfully, they step up as in many places, without them liturgy wouldn't be as nice as it is. Interior participation aside, what is it that folks want, a return to something that's not likely to happen? Women have an obvious place/role within the church. What's wrong with that?
Yesterday in the UK was Remembrance Sunday (the nearest Sunday to Armistice Day, 11 November) when we remmber those killed in two world wars and later conflicts. The principal Mass in Catholic churches is a Requiem for the fallen, something of an anomaly as you would not usually have a Requiem Mass on a Sunday.
I was expecting a Solemn Latin OF Mass, with black vestments and the traditional Propers - in previous years this had been the form, and very impressive too. However, on entering the church the first thing I noticed was the tall catafalque surmounted by a wreath of poppies and flanked by six unbleached candles; on the altar the traditional black furniture was complemented by black-framed altar cards. It was to be a Solemn Mass according to the 1962 Missal with absolutions at the catafalque. (The latter were dropped in 1965 - do some people still believe that the 'interim missal' was in any way traditional?)
Incidentally, it was the third such Mass celebrated this month. Like Fr McDonald, I am in favour of the new Mass being celebrated in the spirit of the old, and no-one does this better than the Oratorians. I have had nearly fifty years experience of it. Yet the older rite still has something the newer rite, however well celebrated, lacks. Anyone with a modicum of liturgical sensibility would know at once what it is, even if they couldn't articulate it.
John Nolan,
Well said. Even St. John Paul II said the Offertory Prayers of the EF were superior to those of the OF. Unfortunately he did not exercise his authority to reinstate them.
The Oratorians are in a class by themselves. I was stunned by the beauty and solemnity of the Latin OF at the Brompton Oratory.
Byz - If is is the case that you are now counted among the Elect, I mean, the Lefties, welcome to the club!
As to your question, "What's wrong with that?" John Nolan has the answer, it goes against the "unbroken liturgical tradition of both the Latin ad Greek Churches which does not allow it." in his view, it is as simple as that, no further reasoning is warranted.
John - I have GREAT respect for liturgical tradition, but I do not elevate mere traditions to the level of immutability. Liturgy is not merely didactic and literalist. Its very core is Mystery, and it is in that Mystery that we communicate with the Divine.
If you do not understand that there are many who find the exclusion of women from the sanctuary unnecessary and oppressive I would suggest 1) you are not paying attention to the world around you or 2) that you intentionally ignore the world around you. Either seems plausible to me.
Fr. k,
Lefties: pro abortion, pro gay marriage, pro illegal aliens. If that is “elect” I would want no part of that hell bound group
Fr. MJK - Thank you, however, I don't consider myself a "lefty". At the same time, I don't consider you to be one either. I believe I get both "it" as well as your viewpoint: the Roman Church has provided options and opportunities of all sorts. Trying to turn back the clock is not likely to happen, and, is it really critical absent correcting some severe doctrinal error? I'm not as focused on these matters as others are, I don't have legislative authority to effect change and I'm honestly getting to that point in life where I'm beyond ruminating over it.
TJM - Is that your idea of an adult response? Your list has nothing to do with this particular discussion. This and your "peddle your wares" comment, you sound like a _ _ _ brat (insert word of choice here), or bully. Other people's voting record is none of my business and no one here has come out as voting lefty. Total repetitive and very boring supposition. We've heard you again and again and again. I'm not going to even waste my time/breath on some of the nubes who just parrot others and, then, they really do it oh so poorly. It's just the same folks predictably orbiting each other repeating sound bytes of pseudo positive affirmation. There, that's out of the way. Can we try focusing on the discussion instead of the litany of cliches? I have a real nasty streak in me my friend, it's a perkin, I assure you.
Let's try a question: If you are married (even if not, it's irrelevant as I'm more interested in your attitude) and your wife wanted to offer her time by reading at mass, would you "forbid" it and tell her to sit down? If so, why? The Church as made such opportunities available unless I attended mass elsewhere in the matrix last weekend and the female reader was, perhaps, an apparition. If there's a passion there to serve, why would that be a problem? Note, I'm gonna mitigate what might be coming: Perhaps your wife favors the mantilla, a '62 missal with all the beautiful prayers for the day and year (I have several, antique, reprint, and new) interior participation and the rosary 15 minutes prior to / after mass. If yes, fine. There's absolutely nothing wrong with any/all except to the extent that anyone is doing other than participating in the prayers of mass as they are being offered.
Let's try a discussion. Nothing more. And though a lovely photo was provided, frontals, hymnography, gold thread, buskins, ermine and especially theoretical voting records etc. are not what we're currently focused on.
ByzRus,
Father K is a lefty - he votes Democrat - the party of instrinsic evil: pro abortion (rabidly so, demanding funds for the abortionatoriums during the pandemic), gay marriage, etc. I expect better of the Church's clergy. Of course you are free to overlook these things if you like. That worked out well in 1930s Germany.
Byz - You are inching closer and closer to membership.....
Fr. MJK,
Apparently. Not sure where one would begin to unpack that. Not sure it's worth the time either.
Father K and ByzRus, you are welcome to stay in your special world where good is evil and evil is good. In the meantime the aborted females will never have the chance to enter the sanctuary
TJM,
Grow up. You sound like a fool.
I'm now a pro-abort because I don't want to ban women from what the Roman Church has deemed to be permissible and I because I don't see anything wrong with it? Really? Is that honestly your conclusion? You won't believe me, but, I assure you that its folks like you that have hurt and in places destroyed the liturgical movement. You have no one but yourselves to blame. It's people like you that got me to stop attending the TLM. I couldn't deal with the non-stop repetitive negativity, the noticeable social awkwardness and the holier than thou attitude. This crap that you spew is insulting at so many levels. News flash - there are many good NO priests and believers. There are many NO masses that are very high church yet incorporate more recent practice well, because those are our current norms. On the Roman side, I attend a cathedral of a parish that's renovated, paved with antique marble fixtures, massive antique stained glass windows that would cost 7 figures to replace, beautiful vestments, vessels, with spendid music - I don't love every hymn, but I get to hear some of what I like and am therefore happy to share. The pastor is a true leader and has woven traditional practices, processions, a feast adapted from the Sicilian tradition, blessing of foods, you name it, there's something for everyone. We're blessed to be a parish regularly entrusted by the archdiocese with the formation of transitional deacons. Our current deacon, very NO, could inspire a gnat to follow Christ. We give food, necessities and regularly meet and exceed appeal goals that approach 6 figures. Who have you inspired here? Perhaps deafening silence is being heard across this global readership as I've never heard one peep out of you for YEARS about something spiritual, or something done for someone else.
As you've given me suggestions and told me who I suck up to, here's one for you: Go. You add little that isn't trite, or just tedious to read over and over again. You regularly slander a priest of God which repulses me. Go. Go start your own blog. Call it...I know...."It needs a Frontal" as that's the regularly suggested improvement that will just solve so many of the issues pertaining to salvation, unwed mothers, families who can't make ends meet, families where replacing the water pump in their 15 year old beater car is a m-a-j-o-r expense, poverty, sloth, abortion, bad manners let alone the glorification of our Lord. Yes, a piece of cloth should lick it for you. Run a border of lace around the edges. About a .75" margin on all four corners should about do it. Take about 4-5 of the predictable commenters here with you so you can all bask in your perpetual negativity.
Mark Thomas, as frustrating as his commentary could be was at least genuine - I could respect that much and totally made a clear path not bothering him. Not that you owe me a blessed thing, but you've not ever displayed an authentic moment that's evident to me aside from something corny (see your above attempt at wooing John Nolan), just a rad trad hate on every damn thing rant. I'm almost Orthodox in my Eastern world so, don't lecture me on tradition. Just go already. Is your behavior this boorish in person?
As I won't allow you the privilege of continued free real estate in my head, I'm going to join Fr. MJK in not acknowledging your nonsense any longer. I don't wish you ill, I just am done. Go with God and steer clear of me.
ByzRus, you have chosen badly!
ByzRus,
TJM tends to post affirmative responses to my posts, so it might seem like I am just blindly defending him. I am not.
I do not like the idea of attacking priests. I think we can disagree with them, but we should be careful in doing so. From that standpoint, I can see your disgust with TJM as he seems to be relentless in his reminders of a certain priest's political preferences. Believe me, I understand.
But before writing this person off, perhaps we should consider a point or two. When I see TJM's quickfire ripostes I see the annoying relentlessness that offends you, but I also see something else. I see a faithful man defending the honor of his Church.
One of the greatest offenses that has sown doubt and dissent among us is the scandal of public politicians proudly invoking their Catholic faith--usually using it as an extra tool for re-election--only to embrace abortion "rights", feminism, LBGTLMNOP nonsense, now gender-fluidity and every other abomination that is incompatible with our faith. We even had a future pope send our bishops a letter reminding them in 2004 that public figures who embrace such positions should be denied Holy Communion, which was, of course, widely ignored. And we, the little guys, just keep sitting back and taking it while our Honored Lady, Holy Mother Church is relentlessly offended by such rank hypocrisy.
We might expect this from our politicians. So when our PRIESTS, those consecrated to the service of the Church and the faithful go down this path, it should rightfully outrage us. I love the priesthood. I love our priests. I want them to be worthy leaders. So when they are found to be taking liberties with altar boys or living a double life while they cavort secretly with their "gay" lovers, I am injured. The priesthood is injured. The reputation of our Honored Lady, Holy Mother Church, is injured.
But to take it a step further, when a priest openly, brazenly, and I might add, sanctimoniously BOASTS of his support of a political party that has embraced the perverted Culture of Death (while being "personally opposed"--utter twaddle) it provokes a lot of feelings, most of them negative.
In the old days, before "Cancel Culture", we had another tradition: Shunning. If someone was known to be an abortionist, or child molester, or any host of other disgusting things, those who loved their faith and wanted to protect their families would shun such people and even publicly call them out. And we would not let such people off the hook until they stopped and changed their ways. Cancel Culture, in its utter lack of mercy (because it is utterly un-Christian) simply wants such people disposed of. Christian Culture wants these people to repent.
Now we have a priest who has frequently injected his political superiority complex into completely unrelated posts by Fr. McDonald, showing every bit as much foolishness as TJM--yeah even more brazenly so.
So when I see TJM, I see a fellow traveler who loves his Honored Lady, Mother Church and will not look the other way when Her honor is disrespected.
If you were brought in to assist at an exorcism, the first thing you would be told would be to make a thorough Confession. If you did not, every sin you are retaining would leave you as open-prey for the demons the exorcist-priest would be casting out. In a way, it's like they are shouting, "HOW DARE YOU? YOU DARE TO ASSIST IN FIGHTING US WHEN YOU ARE ON OUR SIDE?"
TJM stands on the other side, the side of the Church. And, like decent people of another age, he is not letting go. His lonely cry shouts, "How DARE you put up such a pretense when you support My Honored Lady's enemies? HOW DARE YOU?"
Does it annoy me sometimes? Yeah. But then I remember where my loyalties lay and I let it go. Hard as it is to fathom, he might just be doing us all a favor.
ByzRus,
TJM tends to post affirmative responses to my posts, so it might seem like I am just blindly defending him. I am not.
I do not like the idea of attacking priests. I think we can disagree with them, but we should be careful in doing so. From that standpoint, I can see your disgust with TJM as he seems to be relentless in his reminders of a certain priests political preferences. Believe me, I understand.
But before writing this person off, perhaps we should consider a point or two. When I see TJM's quickfire ripostes I see the annoying relentlessness that offends you, but I also see something else. I see a faithful man defending the honor of his Church.
One of the greatest offenses that has sown doubt and dissent among us is the scandal of public politicians proudly invoking their Catholic faith--usually using it as an extra tool for re-election--only to embrace abortion "rights", feminism, LBGTLMNOP nonsense, now gender-fluidity and every other abomination that is incompatible with our faith. We even had a future pope send our bishops a letter reminding them in 2004 that public figures who embrace such positions should be denied Holy Communion, which was, of course, widely ignored. And we, the little guys, just keep sitting back and taking it while our Honored Lady, Holy Mother Church is relentlessly offended by such rank hypocrisy.
We might expect this from our politicians. So when our PRIESTS, those consecrated to the service of the Church and the faithful, it should rightfully outrage us. I love the priesthood. I love our priests. I want them to be worthy leaders. So when they are found to be taking liberties with altar boys or living a double life while they cavort secretly with their "gay" lovers, I am injured. The priesthood is injured. The reputation of our Honored Lady, Holy Mother Church, is injured.
But to take it a step further, when a priest openly, brazenly, and I might add, sanctimoniously BOASTS of his support of a political party that has embraced the perverted Culture of Death (while being "personally opposed"--utter twaddle) it provokes a lot of feelings, most of them negative.
In the old days, before "Cancel Culture", we had another tradition: Shunning. If someone was known to be an abortionist, or child molester, or any host of other disgusting things, those who loved their faith and wanted to protect their families would shun such people and even publicly call them out. And we would not let such people off the hook until they stopped and changed their ways. Cancel Culture, in its utter lack of mercy (because it is utterly un-Christian) simply wants such people disposed of. Christian Culture wants these people to repent.
Now we have a priest who has frequently injected his political superiority complex into completely unrelated posts by Fr. McDonald, showing every bit as much foolishness as TJM--yeah even more brazenly so.
So when I see TJM, I see a fellow traveler who loves his Honored Lady, Mother Church and will not look the other way when Her honor is disrespected.
If you were brought in to assist at an exorcism, the first thing you would be told would be to make a thorough Confession. If you did not, every sin you are retaining would leave you as open-prey for the demons the exorcist-priest would be casting out. In a way, it's like they are shouting, "HOW DARE YOU? YOU DARE TO ASSIST IN FIGHTING US WHEN YOU ARE ON OUR SIDE?"
TJM stands on the other side, the side of the Church. And, like decent people of another age, he is not letting go. His lonely cry shouts, "How DARE you put up such a pretense when you support My Honored Lady's enemies? HOW DARE YOU?"
Does it annoy me sometimes? Yeah. But then I remember where my loyalties lay and I let it go. Hard as it is to fathom, he might just be doing us all a favor.
Jerome Merwick
Thank you for your thoughts. I don't want to perpetuate the circle that I've advocated against, however, in principle I understand. It's not entirely the message but it's delivery that has, at least to me, become untenable.
Fr K
I'm a bit wary of those who claim respect for liturgical tradition but preface it with the qualifier 'mere' and then go on to elevate 'the world around us' to some sort of guiding principle.
The fact that many, particularly of your generation, agree with you is neither here nor there.
John - I respect and appreciate tradition, but know that it has changed over time and will continue to do so. That neither frightens nor disturbs me. The fact that many of your compatriots agree with your understanding is, also, neither here nor there.
Mike - 'Compatriots'? What's nationality got to do with it?
Johnny - You're not untutored, so the act flops.
Mikey - Your act, certainly. Evading the question as usual.
"Mikey"?
Even a disappointing priest is still a priest.
Johnny - A compatriot is not necessarily someone who shares a person's nationality. You're a highly literate man, so you know this.
Acting as if the ONLY meaning of compatriot has to do with nationality is your act, not mine.
Micky - Chambers has: 'compatriot n a fellow countryman (also adj).' No other definition. A literate person would not use it to mean anything else.
If Americans choose to do so, it comes as no surprise. You've been mangling the English language for at least two-and-a-half centuries. Why stop now?
Jerome Merwick
Priest or not, if someone addresses me in an insolent manner he will be repaid in kind.
Johnny - Chambers? So what? Marriam-Webster has a second definition: : COMPANION, COLLEAGUE
Neither you nor Chambers control language, as much as you want to do so, as much as you need to. So get over your supercilious self.
BTW, from Chambers: supercilious adj 1 arrogantly disdainful or contemptuous. 2 self-importantly judgemental. superciliously adverb. superciliousness noun.
ETYMOLOGY: 16c: from Latin super cilium eyebrow.
Jerome - Some time ago the Blog Owner commanded posters to address priests as "Fr," saying he would not post comments of those who would not bend to his will. That he chooses not to do so in the case of Johnny Nolan is telling, no?
As a priest you are provoking the responses against you. Your provocations toward lay men and women is not pastoral; it is scandalous to the laity who experience it. Thus the fruit of these snarky and often insulting/condescending comments directed toward specific lay men and women products the backlash. You alone are the blame for this.
No, Fr. ALLAN McDonald, I am not provoking anything. Posting a different view, a different opinion, or, heaven forfend (!), a correction is not a provocation.
Unfortunately, people expect that, when an idea or thought is posted, everyone who reads it will simply agree. Many people, as we know, want an "echo chamber" where they hear nothing but praise or agreement. Guess what? That's not real life.
If the laity or clergy, for that matter, don't want - don't EXPECT - to hear differing views, differing opinions, or to receive correctioins, then they should say nothing to anyone.
And why is it that Johnny Nolan is exempt from your rule about addressing priests as "Father?" Hmmm...?
No FRMJK, You prove the responses toward you and fuel it as in “Johnny” just posted. It is compulsive on your part. You are the priest. I have had laity speak to me about this, privately and in person, as they were scandalized by it and the condescension. One woman complained to me last year, after of of my Masses at St. Anne, about comments you make on Facebook. I had no idea what she meant as I don’t read Facebook comments or have seen yours, but she was clearly scandalized by what she read.
Oh, Fr. ALLAN McDonald, it's fine for Johnny Nolan to refer to me as Mickey, but when I call him Johnny, OH! That is SCANDALOUS! That's PROVOCATION! What rot. Why aren't you enforcing your own rules? I am "scandalized" by your selective application of your own rules . . .
I suspect the person who complained to you was among those who want to hear no different view points, no different opinions, and no corrections. Again, Guess What? That's not the real world.
When a person speaks or posts in public - FaceBook and this blog are public - they ought not have the notion that their comments will never produce any responses.
As for being provocative, do you have any BOMBSHELLS coming out soon? Hmmm...?
It’s one thing to be provocative in a generic way; quite another to be insulting toward a specific layman or woman. That’s what you don’t get; and yes, people are scandalized whether they are the brunt of the insult or not. let me be clear, coming from a priest, these personal sophomoric insults are scandalous to many laity and they have voiced their concern to me.
Let me be clear, Fr. ALLAN McDonald, provocation is provocation.
Let me be clear again, people who expect that their false statements and errors and baseless accusations should not be addressed or corrected in responses directed specifically at them are not living in the real world.
When a Catholic says, for example, that she is following a "prophet" who has predicted that Trump is still president and will be re-installed to office on a specific date, that person will be corrected. When people mis-state or show a complete misunderstanding of Catholic teaching they will be corretced. When people attack the Church, I will defend it.
And speaking of being clear, could you clear up why you enforce your rule about adressing priests with the title "Father" selectively? Mind you, I am perfectly comfortable with not being addressed as such, but your prevarication in this matter is a cause of great scandal to some...
Hmm, you are always right; stupid me!
Father McDonald,
I think one of my personal maxims applies here: I never bother arguing with people who know everything.
To whom it may concern:
Those who address me by my full name, or by my surname (with or without title) or even by my Christian name alone, will receive similar courtesy from me.
I have never been called 'Johnny Nolan' except by a contumacious priest on this blog. He may or may not be aware that in English slang a Johnny is a condom; which makes his presumption even more insulting.
I don't expect him to be a gentleman; after all his lack of breeding is not his fault. But he cannot hide behind his cloth to insult others. I can only speculate as to why he chose to initiate an insolent form of address.
Perhaps he is miffed that he can no longer hide behind 'anonymous' or a selection of silly pseudonyms. Who knows?
Johnny - You use, "John Nolan said...Micky - Chambers has:..." and, "John Nolan said...
Mike - 'Compatriots'?...". Yet now you, "...can only speculate as to why he chose to initiate an insolent form of address."
Now, where might I have read this comment: "...if someone addresses me in an insolent manner he will be repaid in kind."
No more speculation needed. Sauce for the goose, you know...
Fr MJK
I addressed you as Fr K on 17 November at 9:43. You replied, addressing me by my Christian name; a touch over-familiar, perhaps, but I returned the compliment. on 19 November at 7:08, you came up with the 'Johnny' slur. Presumably you understand chronology, notwithstanding your spluttering and incoherent rant to Fr Allan at 9:24 today.
I will reiterate the point I made earlier. Merriam-Webster on-line includes incorrect and ignorant usage, provided it is current in the USA. It sees its duty as being to record rather than to correct or instruct.
I can assure you that the word compatriot is only used in its literal sense by British men and women, regardless of their level of literacy. To assume that everyone is conversant with American usage (or in this case misuse) is to assume too much.
I am doing you a service by challenging your opinions and correcting your errors. If you persist in being insolent, don't whine about the consequences of your incivility.
Johnny - Well, now we know that everything is better in Jolly Ol' England while in America even our language in incorrect and ignorant. I'm sure the toilets flush better, too, which is a good thing. There seems to be a lot of excrement in some households that needs to be gotten rid of.
Further to the above:
I shall henceforth refer to Fr MJK in the third person. He prides himself on his proficiency in the English language to the extent that he takes it upon himself to correct a translation without referring to the original; in at least one example he has (no doubt unwittingly) changed the meaning of the text.
The word 'compatriot' has a precise meaning which is defined by its etymology. To use it indiscriminately to mean 'colleague', 'companion' or 'associate' serves no useful purpose but impoverishes the language.
The term 'compatriot' when applied to a foreigner can only have a literal meaning. If Fr K doesn't grasp this he is being deliberately obtuse. Either that, or desperately trying to cover up his bad English. This is the man who couldn't spell 'supersede' but excused himself by arguing that lots of people were equally ignorant.
Mr. Nolan,
Please just let you-know-who have the last word and be done with it. His relentless need to have the last word is just one more symptom.
Johnny - The word "compatriot" has the meanings we give to it, etymology notwhithstanding. There are many words whose meanings have changed over time: awful, cute, fantastic, flirt, silly, among others.
"Myriad," according to its etymology, should mean 10,000. But we have come to give it a different meaning: a large, uncountable number of things.
You don't like this sort of thing - that's your personal preference. Your presonal preference doesn't, however, determine reality.
You are being silly, which, by the way, originally mean "pious."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compatriot
compatriot noun
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.
Log In
com·pa·tri·ot | \ kəm-ˈpā-trē-ət , käm-, -trē-ˌät, chiefly British -ˈpa- \
Definition of compatriot
1: a person born, residing, or holding citizenship in the same country as another
We watched our compatriots compete in the Olympics.
2: COMPANION, COLLEAGUE
her compatriots in academia
theater compatriots
U.S. English verses British English. Fr. MJK is RIGHT from a U.S. usage perspective. If that's a problem, stay on your side of the ocean. Enough already!
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/compatriot
compatriot
noun [ C ]
US /kəmˈpeɪ.tri.ət/ UK /kəmˈpæt.ri.ət/
formal
a person who comes from the same country
US
a friend or someone you work with
Thesaurus: synonyms, antonyms, and examples
a person you know well and like
friendWe've been friends for years.
buddyHe's one of my dad's old war buddies.
palThe heartthrob was spotted hanging with his Hollywood pals in L.A.
mateUK He's out with his mates.
Jerome Merwick
You are quite right. Mickey is welcome to have the last word, and much good may it do him. That's all, folks!
Post a Comment