Recently Pope Leo speaking to seminarians and priests from Spain, said this:
Removing the supernatural and finding the unnatural
At the centre of the Holy Father’s address was a striking quotation from G.K. Chesterton: “Take away the supernatural, and what remains is the unnatural” (cf. Heretics, VI). Pope Leo XIV used this line as a key to his entire message, explaining that when the living relationship with God is obscured or weakened, life itself begins to fall into disorder from within. This “unnatural” state concerns not only scandalous sin, but the silent, daily decision to live as though God were merely a concept, pushed to the margins of one’s thoughts and choices.
For a seminarian or a priest, this danger is heightened. What could be more unnatural, the Pope asked, than speaking of God with familiarity while living as if He did not truly exist in the fabric of one’s life? He warned that nothing is more dangerous than becoming accustomed to the things of God without truly living from God. Everything, then, begins - and always returns - to a living and concrete relationship with the One who has chosen us.
My astute, humble supernatural comments:
Many Catholics feel as though the institutional Church through its overreaching reform of the Tridentine Mass attempted to remove as much of the “supernatural” concerning the Mass and other Sacraments and even sacramentals, in order to make the Mass more intelligible, less formal, less reverent (less supernatural) and more natural, all of which has led to the unnatural loss of reverence, awe and wonder.
And thus Catholics go elsewhere, mostly to nothing (nones) the most unnatural thing for Catholics to do or elsewhere, like the FSSPX. But those going to so-called “Tradition” are far fewer in numbers than those going to Protestant non-denominational sects with their exuberant musical entertainment, Bible studies and fellowship. The actual schism in the Church that doesn’t need the pope, bishops or priests for the Sacraments are those going to Protestant non-denominational sects, not to mention, of course, those who have become nones.
One of the things that Vatican II did not mention or foresaw was eliminating kneeling to receive Holy Communion, removing altar railings to make way for a “chow line” of those constantly on the move as they go to Holy Communion and for many processing in a direction not even close to the altar or even towards it!
One of the greatest restorations that can be made to the Bugnini Mass is the restoration of kneeling for Holy Communion at an altar railing. It moves the reception of Holy Communion back to the supernatural, to the supernatural altar of God in heaven and a tangible, touchable, supernatural experience of the altar as the altar railing is not only an extension of God’s altar in heaven, but the altar in the Church.
For me, as a child, I always felt I was at the altar when I knelt to receive Holy Communion and waited for the priest, acting in persona Christi, to offer me Holy Communion along with the communal aspect of those kneeling on either side of me to do the same. It was a suburb supernatural experience of the personal and communal aspects of receiving Holy Communion.
As well, as a child, teenager and young adult, it was more of a supernatural experience for me to kneel at the altar railing to pray my penance, adore Christ in the Blessed Sacrament or simply say a prayer on a visit to the Church apart from Mass.
The altar railing was and is a sacramental, touching the supernatural, and leading us away from the unnatural, blah, superficial and irreverent to the Supernatural and All Holy!
79 comments:
So-called fiddleback chasubles made of brocade or damask are not "supernatural."
Latin is not "supernatural."
Kneeling is not "supernatural."
Baroque or rococo decoration is not "supernatural."
Tracts are not "supernatural."
The exclusion of women from the sanctuary is not "supernatural."
The supernatural remains - bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus.
The supernatural remains - the voice of God is heard in the readings from Sacred Scripture.
The supernatural remains - we are called to share worthily in the Paschal Feast of the Lamb.
He! He! He! So funny 😆!
They are not supernatural in se but they do point to the supernatural. Blue jeans and a T-shirt may be perfectly good clothing, but one does not wear them to a White House dinner. Why such hatred for traditional sensibilities?
Holy Communion received from a Priest or Deacon only on the tongue while kneeling at an altar railing might increase belief in the Real Presence! Remind me; are we in favor of that?
For K and his ilk, Holy Communion is a Happy Meal you grab with your hands and shove it in your mouth!
Anthony - It is not hatred. I don't like oysters, but I do not "hate" them. I don't care for hip-hop music, but I don't "hate" it. You use that word far to flippantly - and lazily I would add.
Does Latin do a better job of pointing to the supernatural than English or some other vernacular language? I say no. If you say "Yes," please explain how that works.
The same for baroque/rococo decoration, fiddle back chasubles, tracts, the exclusion of women from the sanctuary.
K - you're just deficient in Latin. And back in the 1960s a Jewish psychologist bemoaning the destruction of the Roman Mass said Latin was what gave vitality to the Rite - you also conveniently forget Veterum Sapientia where St. John XXIII said "Latin is the language which joins the Church of today!" Today, not yesterday.
Good to see, Fr. MJK, that the puritanism of the Pilgrim Fathers has not been lost.
Ironically, Hollywood is probably the proper litmus test for measuring a sense of the supernatural and awe. When the Catholic Church is portrayed in movies, architecturally gorgeous Churches, fine vestments, Gregorian Chant is employed, not the simpleton 1960s-1970s nonsense most of us have foisted on us at the Novus Bogus!
"The exclusion of women from the sanctuary is not "supernatural."
But not using the Roman Canon and reciting the names of the women named therein is not "exclusion!"
David - You don't seem to know much about Puritans. I'm not in the least Puritanical like the pilgrim Fathers AND Mothers.
They are/were Calvinists in theology, I'm not. They believe/believed in a direct covenant relationship with God that excludes a church, I do not. They reject/rejected the use of vestments, I do not. Puritans believe/believed in only 2 sacraments, I believe there are no fewer than seven. Puritans believe/believed in congregational autonomy, I do not. I Etc etc.
You want to believe that a difference of opinion about liturgy makes a person a Puritan. It does not.
Oh my, your self awareness is very dim. Look at your vestments. Look at your so-called altar for the Lessard pastoral vestments. Look at your liturgical comments here. Calvinist and Puritan to the hilt! Fr. David made a great diagnosis.
Pastoral center
What's great is that "priests" like the All Highest K will just be a bad memory in a few, short years. He lacks self-awareness and ignores his role in undermining the Faith. A guy who votes for "abortion as healthcare" has no business in the Catholic priesthood!
I am sorry, Fr. Kavanaugh, but your comment about what is supernatural, and what is not, is dripping with condescension and contempt. For us mere mortals, who are not disembodied angels and who are not pure intellect, we are moved and communicate through the senses. For us these things do point to the sacred. You ask me how; I ask you how you cannot understand and appreciate a universal human response to beauty? You may not be moved by these things, but why to you object to those that are? I may not like oysters and hip-hop music, but you do not constantly post against those who do. So, no, I was not being flippant or lazy when I described you as hating traditional sensibilities.
Anthony - My comment was factual, a corrective to Fr. ALLAN McDonald's error-filled reasoning. If you found it "dripping with condescension and contempt," look into your own heart and discover the sources for your emotions.
It is a fact that:
So-called fiddleback chasubles made of brocade or damask are not "supernatural."
Latin is not "supernatural."
Kneeling is not "supernatural."
Baroque or rococo decoration is not "supernatural."
Tracts are not "supernatural."
The exclusion of women from the sanctuary is not "supernatural."
Is English or some other vernacular language not a communication 'through the senses"? Are not full-cut chasubles, a communication "through the senses"?
I understand and appreciate a universal response to beauty. I am a lover of and am moved by fine art, literature, and music.
Unlike you, I do not attempt to force MY appreciation for what is beautiful on others. Damask is not, per se, more beautiful than a woven wool or synthetic fabric. Baroque decorations are not, per se, more beautiful than, say, the interior decor of the Cathedral of Christ the Light in Oakland. The stained glass windows of a gothic style church are not, per se, more beautiful than John Nava's tapestries in the Cathedral of Our Lady in Los Angeles.
No, I do not post about oysters and hip-hop music here BECAUSE THESE ARE NOT TOPICS BROGHT UP FOR DISCUSSIONS HERE. How dim can you get?
"Fr. Kavanaugh, ... your comment ... is dripping with condescension and contempt."
This could be pinned regularly.
Nick
K, your idea of "beauty" is Calvinistic. Michaelangelo's David is more objectively beautiful than the monstrosity Picasso erected in Chicago. Your example of the Cathedral in LA shows how far off you are in terms of appreciating beauty. It also shows you are a relativist.
A nice article as to why many modern churches are ugly:
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2026/03/why-are-modern-church-buildings-so-ugly.html?m=1
TJM - Not being as egocentric as you, I find both David and The (Untitled) Picasso in Daley Square, if that's what you're referring to, to be beautiful. In much the same way, I find the very modern St. Augustine Church in Brno, Czech Republic and the Engleberg Abbey Church in the Nidwalden Valley in Switzerland to be beautiful.
Beauty is, after all, in the eye of the beholder.
Fr. Kavanaugh, you are misrepresenting what Fr. McDonald said. He did not say that the altar rail itself was supernatural but rather, "The altar railing was and is a sacramental, touching the supernatural, and leading us away from the unnatural, blah, superficial and irreverent to the Supernatural and All Holy!" This is what all of the sacramentals do. But you had to exaggerate Fr. McDonald's statement in order to denigrate those who hold on to traditional sensibilities.
And yes, you are trying to force your appreciation for what is beautiful on others. You might not view damask and Baroque art as more beautiful, but there are plenty of people who do. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then stop telling other people that they are wrong; just say that you do not share their opinion. I think that modern art and modern churches are ugly and I have every right to say so, just as you have the right to say that you find them beautiful.
Anthony - First, I have "traditional" sensibilities. I do not share your traditionalist sensibilities.
Second, do look again at Fr. ALLAN McDonald's post and his suggestion that we can "remove" the supernatural. There is no way to "remove" the supernatural from the celebration of the mass. That which is supernatural remains whether the mass is celebrated in St. John Lateran or on the hood of a jeep in the middle of battle. (You've seen, I'm sure, the photo of Fr. Emil Kapuan doing just that.)
Eliminating kneeling for communion does not remove the supernatural. Women in the sanctuary doesn't remove it, the use of the vernacular doesn't remove it, etc.
I have never told someone he can't wear a damask chasuble or decorate a church in the Baroque style - your suggestion that I have tried to force my appreciation for what is beautiful on others is false.
Fr. Kavanaugh, you cannot remove the supernatural but you can remove the markers of the supernatural. That is the point, and that was the point that that Fr. McDonald was making. And why remove them in the first place? What is the point in that?
You are not dealing with a rational nor a deeply spiritual person.
because "liberals" are consumed with externals, accusing traditionalists of that. LOL!
I’m shocked that you would suggest Fr. MJK would completely miss the point in his rush to mock and deride those who don’t share in his self-established sophistication.
Nick
Again with the thinking that led to Mass around the coffee table with the “presider” because it’s still Mass. Throw in some Bob Dylan songs and change out the lectionary for Sylvia Plath and we’re back in the groovy ‘70s! And it is still… technically… Mass. Thank God most… most of that nonsense is on its way out.
Nick
Anthony - Why is a gothic chasuble, rather than the fiddle back style, which, I remind you, was condemned by St. Charles Borromeo as a rupture with tradition, not a marker of the supernatural?
Why is damask a better marker of the supernatural than woven wool?
Why is Latin a better marker of the supernatural than English or some other vernacular language?
Why is the exclusion of women from the sanctuary a better marker of the supernatural than the inclusion of women?
And when did I try to force anyone to accept my tastes in liturgical decor or vestments?
Kyrie Eleison! Thanks for explaining your Calvinistic sacramental principle, showing you are Calvinistic and have none! Fierce individualism, a product of Calvinism, has no sacramental principle guiding true art and true beauty. I love bleached denim! That is just as beautiful as brocade! Yah, that’s it!
Fr. Kavanaugh, these are matters of taste and by their very nature are subjective. Where have you tried to force anyone to accept your tastes in liturgical decor or vestments? Every time that you belittle and denigrate those who hold on to traditional sensibilities and imply that their views are irrational and illegitimate. As for Latin, Vatican II said that Latin was to be preserved. Do you reject Vatican II?
K is a Cafeteria Catholic
Anthony - I tell you I don't care for oysters or hip-hop music and that means I'm telling you not to eat oysters or listen to hip-hop? Nonsense. Utter nonsense. It's also nonsensical to say that because I don't prefer damask fiddle back chasubles I'm telling you not to wear them. More nonsense.
Eat what you like, listen to what like, wear what you like. But don't then turn around and tell me that damask or Latin or the exclusion of women from the sanctuary of fiddle backs are better or greater or more effective markers of the supernatural. That, too, would be nonsense.
Fr. ALLAN McDonald - You understand of Calvinism/Puritanism is every bit as superficial as Fr. Evans'.
Thank you for confirming my insight! Calvinism/Puritanism are by definition superficial. Duh! And your tastes in altars and vestments further confirms this truth! Thank you. 😊
Your "insight" is thoroughly and, I fear, permanently clouded by the weak theological formation you tell us often you had in seminary.
Yes! Thanks for acknowledging your pre-Vatican II seminary and my post Vatican II seminary with world famous theologians and a rigorous academic curriculum unlike yours. Yours was known as kinder care.
Fr. Kavanaugh, we disagree with matters of taste. That's fine since it is, after all, subjective. But when you say holding traditional ideas about sacred signs is nonsense, you are basically saying that there is no objective reason for not agreeing with your subjective opinion; and that is all that it is, you subjective opinion, one which many disagree with.
I’m starting to think The All Highest K is a masochist
Anthony- You have yet to explain how fiddle back chasubles made with damask are more effective markers of the supernatural that woven wool vestments, Here's a hint: they're not. What you call "traditional ideas" are, also, merely matters of taste. Remember, long before damask fiddle back chasubles and Latin and baroque/rococo decor, and Gregorian chant, etc., the Church was alive and well.
Fr. Kavanaugh, it might surprise you that I am not particularly a fan of fiddleback vestments. I prefer a fuller cut. Indeed, I have a leaning towards conical vestments. But I do think that damask enriches whatever style of vestment you are wearing. But then I must ask you, is the lack of damask more supernatural? Are plain vestments more supernatural? Why do you object to others' preference for rich decorations? This is what is nonsense. If you want to wear simple vestments, go ahead but do not criticize those who disagree with you and who desire more highly decorated vestments. This is all subjective opinion, not absolute truth.
Anthony - I don't think damask enriches vestments - you do. Opinions abound. No, just as damask is not a greater marker of the supernatural, neither is a fine woven wool or other fabric.
I don't object to others' preferences. Eat oysters and listen to hip-hop. I won't be joining you. The same goes for church decor, the language of the liturgy, women being excluded from the sanctuary, etc.
I do object to and criticize others making ludicrous claims about one type of fabric or style of church decor or etc. being a greater marker of the supernatural.
In terms of art, and vestments should be considered art, I prefer a style that allows the medium - fabric, oil, acrylic, stained glass, wood, marble, precious metals - to take center stage and not be obscured with augmentations. For instance, the Bavarian stained glass seen in many churches can be quite beautiful. But that beauty is achieved by the heavy - and I mean heavy - use of paints which, in the past, included quite a bit of arsenic in the days before artisans were aware of its dangers. (Did you know that the Mad Hatter in "Alice in Wonderland" was "mad" because milliners used mercury to treat fabrics in the process of making headgear which resulted in neurological damage?) Folds in fabric, facial features, fingers, diadems - these are all created with various paints. A style that allows the medium itself, without additions, is, to my thinking, preferable. Again, I know this is a matter of taste.
Fr. Kavanaugh, your comments have gone beyond simply stating that you and others have different tastes. You have strongly implied that others believing that these things are stronger markers of the supernatural is irrational and illegitimate. This, by its very nature, is subjective. I, like others, can quite correctly believe that these more ornate materials do indeed better separate the profane from the sacred. You can believe otherwise, but that is just your opinion, not an objective fact that you are trying to make it out to be.
But to return to the point of Fr. McDonald's article, he was talking about altar rails. How can it be argued that an altar rail does not, indeed, better mark the division of the space for the priests ministering at the altar from that of the gathered laity? Or is it that you do not want that demarcation?
Anthony - I can't say if believing that some things are stronger markers of the supernatural is irrational. I can say it is illegitimate because this assertion is not supported theologically.
You can believe all you want that ornate materials are better for separating the sacred from the profane, just as you can believe all you want that Jimmy Hoffa, John Kennedy, and Elvis live together on a tropical island. You can't find theological support for either idea.
If what is wanted is a better landmark separating the space for the priests and the space for the laity, why not adopt the eastern iconostasis with separate gates for the ordained and the laity? A curtain could be drawn at specific times so that the laity could not see anything that takes place at the altar.
Maybe the iconostasis could be electrified...?
Fr. Kavanaugh, signs have meaning because of convention, not because of an inherent quality. You are trying to find objective reasons for what is by nature subjective. To take an example, in the West we show respect be uncovering your head. Thus in the old Mass the biretta is removed when prayers are said and the bishop removes his zucchetto for the Eucharistic Prayer. But in China, before the overthrow of the emperor, respect was shown by keeping your head covered. Thus the Chinese church actually had an indult that the priest was to keep his head covered for the whole Mass. They even had a special form of the biretta. Do you not wear vestments when you say Mass? The chasuble was adopted from the simple paenula, a rain cloak. But by usage it has taken on a new meaning. This is not supported theologically but by convention.
On the altar rail, you are avoiding the question. Should the space for the clergy be marked off from that of the laity? The General Instructions of the Roman Missal state:
295. The sanctuary is the place where the altar stands, where the word of God is proclaimed, and where the priest, the deacon, and the other ministers exercise their offices. It should suitably be marked off from the body of the church either by its being somewhat elevated or by a particular structure and ornamentation. It should, however, be large enough to allow the Eucharist to be celebrated properly and easily seen.
This should answer your snide questions. The sanctuary has been marked off by a rail or low wall since ancient times. Why do you find this so objectionable?
Anthony - I have no problem with the sanctuary area being "marked off." Almost every sanctuary space I can think of in our diocese is marked off, all of them by being elevated.
Are there theological reasons why damask is a stronger marker of the supernatural" than woven wool? If no, then it is simply a matter of taste/personal preference.
Too often people like to raise their personal preferences to universal norms.
Fr. Kavanaugh, you accept the sanctuary being marked off, then why do you have a problem with altar rails? If there are no theological reasons you should drop your objections.
On the question of damask, yes it is a question of taste. That is what I have been saying all along. But it is you who are trying to raise your personal preference to a universal norm by demanding theological reasons. For me, I think that it is clear that richer materials do indeed better separate the sacred from the profane. But, as I admit, that is my taste. You are quite free to disagree but stop disparaging those who disagree with you.
Anthony - Why rails when the marking off of the sanctuary can be achieved by elevation?
No, I have not raised personal preference to universal norm level. YOU asserted that damask is a stronger marker of the supernatural. I said woven wool is every bit as good.
What makes a "richer" material anyway. If silk damask is good, why not go to a richer fabric with silver thread? And why stop there? Let's make it gold thread! But Wait, There's More! Let's stitch in some amethysts, no, emeralds, no, rubies... Oh, what the heck, Blue Diamonds at $3.93 million a carat. That's the ticket.
You confuse worldly wealth "richer materials" with wealth that lasts forever.
I will disparage those who try to turn personal preferences into universal norms.
Fr. Kavanaugh, the question is, why not altar rails. They were the historical norm for making off the sanctuary and continue to be a legitimate option. What is your objection? Why are you so adamantly opposed? What is your theological reason?
Enough with your snide hyperbole. Damask is relatively inexpensive but gives a richness to the fabric. You may not appreciate it but many do. Why do you hold your preferences as absolute truth and have contempt for those of others?
You should take another look at what I said. I acknowledged this was a question of taste and that this was just my opinion, and that you are free to disagree with me. Now look at what you said:
I can't say if believing that some things are stronger markers of the supernatural is irrational. I can say it is illegitimate because this assertion is not supported theologically.
You outright declared that opinions that differ from yours are illegitimate. So who is it that is trying to turn personal preferences into universal norms, you or me?
And why did you bring up the question of fiddlebacks and damask in the first place? Fr. McDonald was talking about altar rails. There was no mention of fiddlebacks, Latin, baroque or rococo decoration, tracts, or the exclusion of women from the sanctuary. (By the way, Fr. McDonald favors altar girls.) What caused you to go on this tirade?
Anthony - Why have altar rails if kneeling for communion is not the norm? Why add to the cost of construction/renovation with an altar rail when elevation is a legitimate option, achieving the same purpose of marking off the sanctuary.
Oh, yes, you can get cheap (inexpensive) damask, but you'll pay for it over and over as it fades and frays. The good quality stuff is very expensive. I'm looking at prices of $111.00, $258.00, $277.99...
You maintain that expensive fabrics are stronger markers of the supernatural. They are not. You can choose to wear what you like, but you can't make spurious claims and expect them to go unchallenged.
Fiddlebacks, etc are all part of the "If we make the church look, sound, and smell like it did in the 40's - and that can be the 1940's, the 1840's, the 1740's or the 1640's, - we will cure the ills of the church" silliness.
I am grateful that we have the altar rail at Most Holy Trinity. It deepens the experience of receiving Holy Communion for me. Others can still receive by hand while standing at the center aisle. I occasionally attend Mass at two other churches in the Augusta area that bring out a portable, single kneeler for those who wish to receive while kneeling.
Fr. Kavanaugh, why go to the expense of removing altar rails? You are still not giving a reason for opposing altar rails for those who think that the expense is worth it. You do not like them, fine, but there are others who do think that they better demarcate the sanctuary than steps alone and are thus worth the cost. Additionally, they can be used for kneeling before the altar, both (pace Bishop Martin) for Communion and for private prayer. Is there a reason you oppose others from installing them that you do not want to articulate?
I have reasonably priced damask vestments that have not faded, so your criticism does not hold up. Nor are the prices you are listing very expensive. And what if someone is willing to pay those prices, or even more, what is that to you? Yours sounds like the poverty of Judas.
Whether or not richer fabrics are stronger markers of the supernatural is a matter of opinion, not fact. Do fuller chasubles in plain materials better the supernatural than more elaborate ones? No. You can have your opinion on the matter, but that is only your opinion, not an existential fact.
And it seems that we have finally gotten to the real root of your opposition: these things are, to you, markers of a continuation to the pre-Vatican II church. That opposition, however, is based on the spurious idea that Vatican II intended to create a break between the church after the Council from that before. It did not, nor did it intend a general rewrite of the liturgy. It respected tradition and called for only a modest reform of what was required, even specifically calling for the retention of Latin and giving the pride of place to Gregorian chant. Are you doing this at your parish? Even, on paper, the new Mass does not demand that break. And if someone does want the church to look like it in a past age, what is that to you? That, after all, is how we got the fuller chasubles that replaced your hated fiddlebacks. The church has gone through a number of architectural revivals. What is the big deal? You like the modern look. Great! But that is just based on your preferences, and is not supported theologically.
Anthony - If kneeling is not the norm, why have an altar rail as the elevation of the sanctuary is sufficient to mark off that area. (In the same vein, would you be in favor of restoring unneeded preaching shells above the pulpit, even though 99.9% of churches have sound systems that obviate the shell?)
Sorry, $277.00/yard is expensive in my part of the world. (6-7 yards needed for a full-cut chasuble.)
You say, "Whether or not richer fabrics are stronger markers of the supernatural is a matter of opinion,..." I say, No, they are not.
No, these things are not markers of a continuation to the pre-Vatican Two church. They are markers of a misdiagnosis of the current state of the Church. Any misdiagnosis will, necessarily, result in a doomed-to-fail prescription for remedy. You can't recreate the Church of the 40's by making churches look, sound, and smell like churches of the 40's.
Fr. Kavanaugh, standing for Communion is the norm but not, as some would like to portray it, a mandate. Kneeling is still an option. In addition, the altar rail also serves to mark off the sanctuary. You may not think that it does a better job than steps alone but not everyone share your opinion. It is still an option in the new Mass. Why are you opposed to what others do?
You did not specify price per yard. I thought that you were mentioning price per vestment. I do not know where you shop but I can obtain a nice damask gothic vestment set for $60. Even Almy, not known for their inexpensive prices, sells synthetic damask at only $44/yard. So where is your objection about exorbitant prices? Why do you always go to hyperbole and extremes to make your points? And what if there is someone who has the means and will to buy truly expensive vestments, why should you object? That is their option, not yours. Jesus did not object when his feet were anointed with expensive oil.
I am sorry but you are not the arbiter of what is opinion and what is not. Historically you are in the minority when it comes to using richer fabrics for the liturgy. And even if they were not, what right do you have to complain if others wish to use them?
We will have to disagree about the diagnosis of the current state of the Church. But this misses the point of why many younger people are being drawn to the older Mass. They are not coming as a part of a campaign to restore the church of the 50's. Rather, they are drawn by its beauty, its antiquity, and its (for them) sense of reverence. If salvation is the highest law of the Church, why should you object if they are drawn to the old Mass, or even to a more traditional form of the new Mass?
Anthony - I was looking at quality fabrics and vestments, not $60/set vestments.
You say, " They are not coming as a part of a campaign to restore the church of the 50's." Peter Weigel wrote: "I grew up with the pre-conciliar liturgy. It was not a Mozart Missa Brevis and sonorous Latin every Sunday; it was more often badly pronounced (and often mumbled) Latin, and execrable, pietistic music (when there was any). Of course, there were dignified, beautiful celebrations of what we now know as the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, and living in a cathedral parish, I was privileged to participate in them as an altar boy and choirboy. But they were hardly the norm in American Catholicism. Nostalgia for an imaginary past is not a reliable guide to the future."
You contention is that "expensive" means "better." Damask vestments with wide galloons, embroidery, etc., are more expensive.
We do not give everyone everything they want because they say, The Highest law of the Church is salvation and I need this for my salvation."
The NO mass I celebrate is just as traditional as any other mass.
Fr. Kavanaugh, let's cut to the chase. Putting aside the old Mass, the new Mass itself has options for a form of celebration that comes close to the old Mass. You may not prefer them and choose to celebrate the Mass in a more modern form, but who are you to say that others cannot or should not take advantage of these legitimate options? What business is it of yours how others outside of you parish celebrate?
He’s an alleged liberal so that’s how he rolls!
Anthony - Yes, let's cut to the chase. I acknowledge the authority of both Vatican Two AND the Consilium and the work it did with the authorization of the Pope.
I don't choose some options because I don't believe they serve the needs of the people. Latin is a prime example. No one needs Latin, unless you are in a Latin class and you need it to pass an exam. No one needs the exclusion of women from the sanctuary in order to obtain salvation. No one needs an ad orientem celebration to understand that the prayers of the mass are directed to God. (The people I serve, all of them, understand that when I begin a prayer, " O God, who in the one perfect sacrifice brought to completion the varied offerings of the law...", they know to whom the prayer is being addressed.) No, I don't think they should be used because - see above - they don't serve the needs of the people.
What business of yours is to comment on ANYTHING I post here?
You claim to claim to acknowledge the authority of Vatican II and the reform authorized by the popes but in fact you reject both. You reject Vatican II's call to retain Latin and to hold Gregorian Chant in pride of place. You also reject those options in the new Mass, also approved by the pope, for a form of the Mass that resembles the old Mass. In effect, you reject the Novus Ordo and only accept those parts that agree with how you think the Mass should be celebrated.
You believe that those options you mentioned do not serve the people and should not be use. That is your opinion but do not try to make it out as absolute truth. It is an opinion not shared by me, many other, and above all, by the Church. It is contrary to the Church's historical understanding of the liturgy. The intolerance that you show is what has divided the Church since the Council.
You choose to celebrate the new Mass in a more modern form and I respect that for you. That is what the Church has authorized. But others have as much right as you have to choose other options approved by the Church. As for what business it is of mine to comment on anything that you post, you posted on a public forum and I am your peer, not a subordinate. I will comment on anything that you post here.
Father Anthony, by now you should realize K is not playing with a full deck!
Anthony - You wrongly assume that the "call to Latin" was the last and final word on the language(s) to be used in the celebration of mass. It wasn't and it isn't. You wrongly assume that I must choose to celebrate the mass using "those options in the new mass" that are approved. I am under no obligation to do so. (If you want to - go right ahead.)
Oh, yes, you are my "peer" and can comment on anything you like. In the same way I am the peer of other priests whose celebration styles I am entirely free to comment on.
Thanks for highlighting how the Bugnini Mass enables the fierce individualism of the priest who exclusively makes his choices based upon his preferences, his interpretation of the liturgy’s instructions and all done so because the Bugnini Mass choices are all about the priest and his clericalism. Thanks FRMJK for brilliantly illustrating that for everyone to read. Wow! just vow and kudos….
Fr. Kavanaugh, retaining Latin in the liturgy was the last word of Vatican II. Argue for a fully vernacular liturgy if you want, but do not invoke Vatican II in doing so. Rather, be honest enough to admit that you reject Vatican II.
I nowhere said that you must exercise those options present in the new missal for a more traditional form of the Mass, On the contrary, I have repeatedly said that you are free to choose whatever approved options that you like. It is you who have repeatedly stated that those options are invalid. All I have ever called for is a live-and-let-live attitude, that the restrictions against those options be lifted.
I have no objections to you expressing your opinions. Where I draw the line, however, is when you say that other priests do not have the same freedom that you have in exercising legitimate options with which you disagree.
I have never taken issue with those who have wanted a greater freedom to celebrate in a new and more modern way. What I have never understood is why those who want such a modern form of the Mass have so much contempt and intolerance for the historical form of the Mass and those who would wish to celebrate in that manner.
Anthony - I do not agree that was the "last word" on Latin in the liturgy. As liturgy has changed and evolved over the centuries, sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly, the "last word" has yet to be spoken. I suspect that 'last word" will be spoken when we are gathered for the eternal feast of the Lamb in heaven.
I didn't say that certain options are "invalid." I said and say they are not as necessary or beneficial as you imagine.
You say I am free to express my opinions, but, you also say, "What business is it of yours how others outside of you parish celebrate?" I can't have thoughts on celebrations in other parish? And if I do, I dare not express them?
I have neither contempt not intolerance for the historical form of the mass. I have no contempt nor intolerance for a Model T, a rotary dial phone, or a Sopwith Camel. We have better ways for road travel, ringing up a neighbor, and flying. I understand that "The past is a foreign country and they do things differently there."
Fr. Kavanaugh, my specific statement was:
Retaining Latin in the liturgy was the last word of Vatican II. Argue for a fully vernacular liturgy if you want, but do not invoke Vatican II in doing so. Rather, be honest enough to admit that you reject Vatican II.
Do, indeed, advocate for a complete vernacular Mass if you wish but acknowledge that this is contrary to Vatican II. And your judgment, too, is not the last word. There are many, especially younger Catholics, who are coming to see the wisdom of the call of Vatican II to retain Latin.
Your statement was:
I can't say if believing that some things are stronger markers of the supernatural is irrational. I can say it is illegitimate because this assertion is not supported theologically.
You have repeatedly denied the legitimacy of using approved options for a form of the Mass that resembles old Mass. If I have misunderstood your position then simply say that these options are completely valid and legitimate, and that priests should have the freedom to celebrate in this manner as has been authorized by the Church in the new Mass.
You have complete freedom, as I do, to comment on how others celebrate the Mass. What you do not have is the right to say that they should not exercise options approved by the Church but are not approved by you. I may not like how you celebrate the Mass, but as long as you follow the directives of the Church I have to cede that you have the right to celebrate in that manner.
The past is not a foreign country to everyone. For many the continuation of historical forms is our home. That you would equate that with the Model T, etc., shows lack of respect and contempt no matter how much you deny it. Why can you not accept that not everyone holds the same judgments as you and give them the respect that you demand for yourself? Do you not see how this intolerance for historical forms and for those who wish to worship in this manner has divided the Church for the past 60 years?
Father Anthony, you are wasting your time with that old 1970s relic. Everyone here supports your views and analysis other than maybe MT Suit who blows with the wind.
"You have repeatedly denied the legitimacy of using approved options for a form of the Mass that resembles old Mass.
I don't think I have ever denied their legitimacy. (I'm not sure how you understand that word - legitimacy.) I do deny the advisability/necessity of doing so.
The past is, indeed, a foreign country. You don't live there and never will; I don't live there and never will. When you move there, please provide a forwarding address.
I have no contempt for a Model T. I do deny the advisability of using a Model T for road travel today.
I do not have to respect any- and everyone's judgment. Some judge that Trump's loss in 2020 was due to rigged/stolen ballots. That judgment is 100% false and to expect me to respect that judgment is foolishness.
Fr. Kavanaugh, I am just quoting what you said: "I can say it is illegitimate." If you want to retract, fine.
To you the past is a foreign county, but not to those who, with church approval, see that past continuing today. For us it is not an obsolete Model T but continues to be a viable and treasured vehicle. And if you want to continue the analogy, it would seem that your vehicle is a Yugo that you continue to insist is a good car. Newer is not always better. The results speak for themselves.
Anthony - The Model T may be a viable and treasured museum piece, but it is not appropriate, dare I say "legitimate," for use in traffic today. That some people want it for today's travel doesn't make it viable for use.
To add the context you omitted: "I can't say if believing that some things are stronger markers of the supernatural is irrational. I can say it is illegitimate because this assertion is not supported theologically." The "I can say it is illegitimate" phrase refers to your claim about certain things being "stronger markers of the supernatural." It does not refer to the approved options.
Now, if YOU want to retract......
Fr. Kavanaugh, I can also say that your dismissal of the old Mass as being viable for today's worship is also illegitimate because it, too, is not supported theologically. All that you have is your emotional dislike.
He’s unhinged from reality. He is Clericalism on Steroids. Fortunately he won’t be around much longer
Anthony - The theology that supports my contention is expressed very well in various authoritative documents, beginning with Sacrosanctum Concilium. Another fine presentation in Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's "The Ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council."
Retraction coming...?
Fr. Kavanaugh, as has been done many times in the past, you are misrepresenting Sancrosanctum Concilium. For instance, it specifically says that Latin is to be preserved and that Gregorian chant is to have pride of place, two things that you reject. Furthermore, it respects the value of tradition and calls for changes only where required; not beneficial or desirable but required. This is a very narrow category and contrary to the wholesale rewriting of the liturgy that happened. I challenge you to justify any of the changes that went beyond those of 1965. The value of Latin is also confirmed in the Code of Canon law:
Can. 928 The eucharistic celebration is to be carried out in the Latin language or in another language provided that the liturgical texts have been legitimately approved.
You should also look at Pope Benedict's "Spirit of the Liturgy" to understand his thoughts about the liturgy. Again, with regards to Latin, his own practice confirmed its validity. The idea that Vatican II called for the massive rewriting of the liturgy that we have experienced is pure myth.
Anthony - As you have done many times in the past, you are seeing SC as the last word - that nothing done in the liturgy that is not explicitly mentioned in SC is somehow, to use a word you struggle with, illegitimate.
I will justify EVERY change that was approved by competent authority by referencing that authority. And that authority doesn't end with SC. I have never said or suggested that VAT 2 called for "massive rewriting" of the liturgy.
Fr. Kavanaugh, you are the one who invoked Sacrosanctum Concilium as your justification. SC may not be the last word overall but it is the last word of Vatican II. You also misunderstand my position. I am not questioning the authority of subsequent changes, only that they are not justified by Sacrosanctum Concilium and Vatican II. For far too long these changes have been presented as if they had been mandated by Vatican II, which they were not. That falsehood has to stop.
But the very authority that you invoke to justify the changes that you like also justifies those options that you do not like. All that I have advocated for the last 35 years is that these options be recognized and accepted without restrictions by those in authority in the Church. I do not want to forbid a vernacular Mass versus populum, etc. for those that want it. All that I ask is that the restrictions on a Latin Mass ad orientem, etc. (which is fully authorized by the new Mass) be lifted, that the hostility between the two forms of the Mass be ended and that they can co-exist side by side with equal legitimacy. But this seems to be too much for some people.
K is an annoying, insufferable, and contumacious pest. Do not feed the troll!
This will depress lefties like The Roche and The All Highest K. Of course, His Eminence doesn't know as much about Sacrosanctum Concilium as The All Highest K! No one does!
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2026/03/cardinal-eijk-to-celebrate-pontifical.html
Anthony - Vatican Two/SC are not the only regulators of the liturgy. You need to stop pushing this falsehood.
I can dislike whatever options I want - as do you. There are levels of authority - you know this - that regulate the liturgy, including a bishop in his own diocese.
Fr. Kavanaugh, did you read my post? I actually said: "I am not questioning the authority of subsequent changes, only that they are not justified by Sacrosanctum Concilium and Vatican II." I have also repeatedly said that I accept the new Mass and freedom of those who wish to celebrate it in more modern form. So your criticism that I pushing the idea that Vatican II and Sacrosanctum Concilium are the only authorities is without foundation.
So now we reduce the suppression of a traditional form of the Mass even within the new Mass to the arbitrary authority of the bishop. As I have said in an earlier thread, and which you denied, your position always comes down to authority.
The bishop does exercise authority in his own diocese but this authority is subject to the universal authority of the Church and to the rights of the faithful. A bishop, as does a pastor, abuses his authority when he goes contrary to this. There is nothing in universal authority of the Church that justifies a bishop suppressing legitimate options within the new Mass for a form of that Mass that continue traditional practices. Indeed, I have a copy of a letter from the then Congregation of Worship explicitly stating that a bishop does not have the authority to forbid or mandate any option contained in the Missal. That bishops routinely ignore this only shows that they are abusing their authority.
Nor are the faithful merely subjects of their bishops. They possess inherent rights that a bishop cannot over violate. Among these is to worship in a manner that reflects the traditional form of worship that they have inherited from their ancestors. Just as it would be a violation of the rights of the faithful in the eastern rites to impose upon them a form of worship that is contrary to their traditions, so is it a violation of the rights of the faithful of the Roman rite to do the same.
So in the end you can invoke no church authority or theological reasons for the suppression of traditional forms. All that you have is your personal dislike and that the abuse of authority by the bishops.
Father Anthony, we all agree with your cogent arguments so please do not feel the need to continue to respond any to K the All Highest, more omniscient than anyone, including Our Lord
Father Anthony,
K and "Father" Martin, SJ, LGBT should be focusing on their naughty partisans. Although they probably don't know about this because they limit themselves to fake "news" which actively hide Democrat crimes:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/03/democrat-gettysburg-mayor-who-ran-local-gay-pride/
Post a Comment