tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post6918272781883616295..comments2024-03-28T20:30:10.681-04:00Comments on southern orders: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT MY ATTITUDES TOWARD VATICAN II AND SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUMFr. Allan J. McDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-74193615032382908372012-12-23T08:08:49.352-05:002012-12-23T08:08:49.352-05:00Andy - You have labeled and labeled and labeled me...Andy - You have labeled and labeled and labeled me. Don't play the innocent victim when you engage in the same practices of which you accuse me.<br /><br />"I will pray for you" too. Happy Christmas.Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-2755950478011252452012-12-22T21:04:35.670-05:002012-12-22T21:04:35.670-05:00Fr. Kavanaugh,
I am sorely disappointed. I offer...Fr. Kavanaugh,<br /><br />I am sorely disappointed. I offer a means of peace and you respond that I am somehow ignorant? You don't know me at all, yet you label me. I have not labelled you, nor do I have any preconceived ideas about you or Holy Mother Church.<br /><br />Father, I will pray for you. Thank you for giving me that chance. God Bless you and Happy Christmas.<br /><br />I am now finished conversing with you. God Bless you Father and Godspeed.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009356356243871772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-66776220465258503642012-12-22T16:54:01.777-05:002012-12-22T16:54:01.777-05:00Andy - As you cannot distinguish between a persona...Andy - As you cannot distinguish between a personal attack - which you have levelled against me a number of times - and theological discussion, you may also be unable to distinguish between that which is the Church's authoritative teaching and what is not. This is because you come with preconceived conclusions about 1) me and 2) the Church's teaching.<br /><br />I am not advocating blind acceptance of anything except the fact that neither you nor I nor anyone without ordination to the episcopate has the authority to say "what is" and "what is not" the Church's teaching. As theologians you and I are to make sense of it, not to say "No, this is not part of the tradition." If we find it hard to make sense of a particular teaching, neither you nor I are free to say "Well, it must be false." That is the tack you take.<br /><br />Your bishop, not I, would be the one who can tell you why UR and the Second vatican Council are, without question, parts of our Church's magisterial teaching.Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-19390361451261221832012-12-22T16:07:20.146-05:002012-12-22T16:07:20.146-05:00I will now open my question to the rest of the boa...I will now open my question to the rest of the board, in hopes of a valued theological discussion:<br /><br />"How does one reconcile the view of UR and ecumenism v. the traditional understanding of religious tolerance?"<br /><br />Thank you.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009356356243871772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-56890668853046625262012-12-22T16:05:52.861-05:002012-12-22T16:05:52.861-05:00Fr. Kavanaugh,
I can see that you are not interes...Fr. Kavanaugh,<br /><br />I can see that you are not interested in having a decent conversation regarding theology. I am sorry that you are of that mindset. It really is quite "pre-conciliar." I don't question these things just to question them, but rather to continue to learn.<br /><br />I don't think that a theological question was ever solved by blind ahderence, which is what you are advocating. Unless, you really are not all that interested in having a theological discussion. If you are not, simply say so and our future discussions are over. Which, would be incredibly pastoral of you, btw.<br /><br />As it stands, I have not asked a question of you which is 1. out of bounds or b. threatening to your (or my) faith.<br /><br />However, if I may...I am taking no "tack" with you. I am asking you a theological question. You are a priest and you have an education in theology. In short, you are a theologian. I have an education in theology, and I (in short) am also a theologian. Our schools of thought differ and I was hoping to engage you in those differences, sadly though, you have chosen to not answer those questions, but rather accuse me of mortal sin.<br /><br />Interesting that in this last post of yours, you accuse me of two mortal sins. Thank you, Father. I will take that as a need to add to my weekly confession. Not that the whole of the internet needs to know, but since you offer them, as a priest, as something which I am guilty of, publicly, I will address them as such. You charity knows no bounds. I am not being facetious nor am I being snide. It is my fervent prayer that you can forgive me for being so malicious and know that as I offer my penance tonight after Confession, I will be asking Our Lord to soften your heart with regard to my lack of faith and excess hubris, with regard to you.<br /><br />Going forward, I think that it best if you choose not to engage me, no matter how tempting. I will do the same, because I do not want for you to be placed in a near occasion of sin.<br /><br />Sadly (and I mean that with all sincerity), you cannot distinguish between theological discussion and perceived attack. I will also ask God, the Father for better understanding in this matter regarding your positions, as I read them in the future. I will offer compline from now until Christmas Day for your pardon. I ask for your peace, for forcing me into a position of you having to assert your power over me as a priest.<br /><br />AMDG+Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009356356243871772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-9924978319704113092012-12-22T12:09:09.376-05:002012-12-22T12:09:09.376-05:00Andy - I am not going to defend the authoritative ...Andy - I am not going to defend the authoritative nature of either UR or the Catechism. That is not something individual Catholics are 1) competent or 2) free to do. I accept the Second Vatican Council and the Catechism of the Catholic Church as authoritative because I am a Catholic and these are sources that the Church itself gives me as authoritative. If you find that tautological, that is your struggle, not mine.<br /><br />The "disconnect" is that neither you nor I are in a position to judge as "authoritative" what our bishops give us as such. YOU want to reject parts the Church's teaching as found in Vat 2 and/or the CCC, so the "burden of proof" is yours. So far, what I have heard in that regard, is "It doesn't look right to me, therefore I reject it."<br /><br />This is the tack that Traditionalist Catholics such as yourself take, in order to disregard authoritative teaching with which you disagree.<br /><br />This is not a matter of "logical fallacies" but 1) lack of faith and 2) excess of hubris.<br /><br />The "traditional understanding of religious tolerance" includes Vat 2 and the CCC.Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-54664873367850620612012-12-22T09:32:42.946-05:002012-12-22T09:32:42.946-05:00Fr. Kavanaugh;
" If you are free to reduce t...Fr. Kavanaugh;<br /><br />" If you are free to reduce the Catechism of the Catholic Church to nothing more than an "authentic reference text," then I am free to do the same to Catechism of the Council of Trent and the Baltimore Catechism."<br /><br />I thought that was understood. Where is the disconnect? We are free to utilize whichever form of Catechesis which is most appealing, as long as it is in line with the Church. But, I've said that already. (sigh...)<br /><br />Thank you for a partial CV, but that was a rhetorical question. I thought I was clear. I don't think that it is all that important to know which post nominals you have academically.<br /><br />"UR, in itself, and the CCC are, your misgivings notwithstanding, authoritative regarding the Catholic faith."<br /><br />I understand that you say that, I really do, but that is not what I'm asking. I am asking why and what is the reasoning for it being so. How many different ways do I have to ask a question. (But then again, I've never gotten a straight answer from you, in the few conversations we have had.)<br /><br />Your above response is another logical fallacy called appeal to authority.<br /><br />I'll ask again, "How do you reconcile the view of UR and ecumenism v. the traditional understanding of religious tolerance?"Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009356356243871772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-44484735368659306782012-12-22T09:12:17.233-05:002012-12-22T09:12:17.233-05:00Lordy, Lordy, Ignotus is trotting out his pedigree...Lordy, Lordy, Ignotus is trotting out his pedigree. LOL! So, he is great at reading the cookbook, but the pudding didn't turn out so well...<br /><br />So, are we to list our degrees and society memberships? I'll bet a number of us on the blog can play at that table and up Ignotus' ante considerably...LOL!<br /><br />Fr. MacDonald was not incorrect. He was using the term in its original intent and meaning. You have chosen a Modernist re-definition of it, sort of like you do with the Mass.Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-45837170218512399072012-12-22T08:52:06.794-05:002012-12-22T08:52:06.794-05:00Pin/Gene - the evolution or change of a word's...Pin/Gene - the evolution or change of a word's meaning is not "misuse."<br /><br />Were that the case, we would be "misusing" abandon, bachelor, coax, deft, edify, flabby, guess, harlot, infant, invest, knave, left, matrix, and on and on and on.<br />But, we're not. <br /><br />As hard as it is for you to accept that Good Father McDonald made an error, remember it's not 1) the first time, 2) the last time, or 3) the end of the world.<br /><br />Andy - If you are free to reduce the Catechism of the Catholic Church to nothing more than an "authentic reference text," then I am free to do the same to Catechism of the Council of Trent and the Baltimore Catechism. <br /><br />UR, in itself, and the CCC are, your misgivings notwithstanding, authoritative regarding the Catholic faith.<br /><br />No, I did not do poorly in philosophy. In fact, I was inducted into Phi Sigma Tau at Belmont Abbey College. And, should you ask, Beta Beta Beta as well. Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-69023260720012738232012-12-22T06:36:21.812-05:002012-12-22T06:36:21.812-05:00Ignotus, you couldn't teach a hog to get muddy...Ignotus, you couldn't teach a hog to get muddy. So, then, if a word is misused and misdefined insistently enough it then assumes the incorrect definition? Sort of like the sissies have hijacked the word, "gay." <br />You must believe that if you are stupid loudly enough you become smart. You should soon be a candidate for Mensa...Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-63907643479973945192012-12-21T21:04:16.375-05:002012-12-21T21:04:16.375-05:00Fr. Kavanaugh,
You do like mental gymnastics...an...Fr. Kavanaugh,<br /><br />You do like mental gymnastics...and...you didn't do very well in philosophy did you? (Don't answer that, it was rhetorical, smh)<br /><br />The Catechism is a document which is a compendium of Catholic thought. I am not bound to it as a matter of faith or of morals. I can choose to use any number of Catechisms. For example, I prefer the Catechism of the Council of Trent for adults and the Baltimore Catechism for children and neophytes.<br /><br />As it stands, I find the Catechism of the Catholic Church to be one source of many. I know it to be no more authoritative than any other Catechism.<br /><br />In short, it is an authentic reference text. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. It isn't superdogma, it isn't superdoctrine.<br /><br />I don't read more into it than what is there.<br /><br />Getting back on point though, how about we prove UR with something other than UR. I hate to be blunt, but you are leaving me with no choice, Father. So I ask you, directly:<br /><br />How do you reconcile the view of UR and ecumenism v. the traditional understanding of religious tolerance?<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009356356243871772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-28442116585856007672012-12-21T17:40:06.773-05:002012-12-21T17:40:06.773-05:00Andy - the quote is taken from the Catechism. Tha...Andy - the quote is taken from the Catechism. That UR has been quoted in the authoritative, magisterial Catechism means that it is - wait for it - authoritative and magisterial.<br /><br />Or do you have another take on the weight of that which is found in the Catechism?Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-10005247344738247522012-12-21T15:57:53.063-05:002012-12-21T15:57:53.063-05:00Fr. Kavanaugh,
You state, "And no, I did not...Fr. Kavanaugh,<br /><br />You state, "And no, I did not quote UR to prove UR. I quoted the Catechism. See the little "no 820" there?"<br /><br />Yes Father, I saw the little "no 820" there. However, had you checked your footnotes, 277-279, which is the source material for "no 820," you'll quickly see that they reference....<br /><br />....wait for it....<br /><br />....wait for it....<br /><br />Unitatis Redentigratio. Specifically, UR 1 and UR 4 § 3. So, while I do understand your desire to be thorough in debunking my position, it would seem that a smidgen of research would show you that you are...IN FACT...using Unitatis Redentigratio to prove Unitatis Redentigratio. And it is still a logical fallacy called "biased sample."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009356356243871772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-70463524023543548592012-12-21T14:47:19.171-05:002012-12-21T14:47:19.171-05:00Pertinent to this discussion are the following par...Pertinent to this discussion are the following paragraphs from an article on the SSPX situation by Dom Alcuin Reid, published in today's Catholic Herald and reprinted at NLM:<br /><br />Opening the Year of Faith, the Pope observed: “The Council did not formulate anything new in matters of faith, nor did it wish to replace what was ancient. Rather, it concerned itself with seeing that the same faith might continue to be lived in the present day, that it might remain a living faith in a world of change.” This is Blessed John XXIII’s “aggiornamento.” <b>That is it why Vatican II is described as a “pastoral Council”―it was not about doctrine, but policy.<br /><br />If there was no doctrinal innovation, the theology and practical measures adopted cannot be held to be infallible.</b> They may be judged on their merits, then as today. What is helpful in bringing people to the Christ and His Church may be different now from what was thought useful in the 1960’s. <br /><br />The documents were the product of lengthy preparation, debate and refinement and of organised politicking by bishops and experts, and reflect those realities. They are authoritative, certainly, enjoying the unparalleled approval of the Pope and the bishops solemnly gathered in Ecumenical Council, and must be taken seriously by any Catholic. <b>But they are not articles of faith. God the Holy Spirit does not protect Councils from possible error in matters of policy or theological style</b>, and about these we may hold differing opinions in good conscience―with the respect that is due to authority in the Church.Henry Edwardsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-50717074543772092842012-12-21T12:52:01.057-05:002012-12-21T12:52:01.057-05:00Andy - Inasmuch as you don't understand the de...Andy - Inasmuch as you don't understand the definitions of the word "actor," I have a sneaking suspicion that you will not understand that if UR, itself an authoritative statement of the magisterium, is cited and used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, another authoritative statement of the magisterium, that that is, for Catholics, sufficient basis to accept is as authoritative teaching.<br /><br />And no, I did not quote UR to prove UR. I quoted the Catechism. See the little "no 820" there? <br /><br />Pin/Gene - You are showing symptoms of "Andy-itis" which my dictionary defines as "the willful refusal to understand that words have (a) multiple and/or (b) changed meanings." <br /><br />Many words, including "ecumenical," have meanings that have evolved. Among them are "snack" (formerly to bite, now a small meal), "glass" (formerly a substance, now a drinking utensil), "enthusiasm" (formerly possessed by a demon, now passionate eagerness), "quarantine" (formerly a 40 day period, now the isolation of an infective person or thing).<br /><br />The list of words that don't mean now what they meant then is long and includes: abandon, bachelor, coax, deft, edify, flabby, guess, harlot, infant, invest, knave, left, matrix, and on and on and on.<br /><br />Context usually clarifies the meaning. In the context in which Good Father McDonald used "ecumenical," he erred.<br /><br />No, I am not condescending, I am correcting and teaching.<br /><br />Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-67586028603004933082012-12-21T07:55:53.911-05:002012-12-21T07:55:53.911-05:00Fr. Kavanaugh,
Yes, the Catechism is authoritativ...Fr. Kavanaugh,<br /><br />Yes, the Catechism is authoritative, but that doesn't matter in this instance. You cannot prove UR by quoting UR. Which is what you're doing.<br /><br />It is like saying, I can prove to you that an apple is an apple. Here is proof, look at this apple. See, it's true.<br /><br />It is a logical fallacy. So, rather than trying to play mental gymnastics, how about we just have a conversation. You and I have differing views. That's ok, by the way, we're allowed....but if I am to understand you better, you have to be able to coherently defend your argument. Using a premise to prove a premise is not a conclusion.<br /><br />I'll wait. I'm patient.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009356356243871772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-37493454783088953202012-12-21T06:02:22.118-05:002012-12-21T06:02:22.118-05:00Actually, Ignotus, you are using the term "ec...Actually, Ignotus, you are using the term "ecumenical" incorrectly, as do many. The term originates from the Greek "oikoumenikos," which originally meant that the Church would cover the inhabited world. The use of the word arose in the early Church, so it could only have referenced the Catholic Church. Note also that all the councils of the Church were referred to as "ecuemical councils," having to do with matters within the Holy Catholic Church. So, "Good Father," as you condescendingly refer to Father MacDonald, is completely correct in using the term in reference to other Catholic Rites. It has only been in modern times that the term has been appropriated by prots and Modernists to refer to some kind of accomodation for Protestantism on the part of ther Catholic Church. This false definition has become widespread and is taken for granted by many, but it is incorrect. I much prefer the original intent...the Catholic Church shall cover the inhabited world.Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-32351620165974928312012-12-20T21:02:14.234-05:002012-12-20T21:02:14.234-05:00Andy - The Catechism of the Catholic Church is aut...Andy - The Catechism of the Catholic Church is authoritative, is it not? Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-89914843734228399382012-12-20T19:41:36.366-05:002012-12-20T19:41:36.366-05:00So, Fr. Kavanaugh;
An honest question for you. Y...So, Fr. Kavanaugh;<br /><br />An honest question for you. You use CCC #820 to prove your point to me. How can you prove the legitimacy of UR by quoting UR?<br /><br />That doesn't follow, Father. How about proving UR, by using sources other than those which you are trying to prove. That is a biased sample.<br /><br />I am genuinely interested to know what you think, but there needs to be an actual proof for it, not just saying (essentially), "UR is valid, because it is proved by UR." No, Father, that is not the case.<br /><br />Thanks.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009356356243871772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-39512289218510504842012-12-20T15:33:37.248-05:002012-12-20T15:33:37.248-05:00Good Father - St. Ignatios Melkite Catholic Church...Good Father - St. Ignatios Melkite Catholic Church in Augusta is a Catholic church. It is as Catholic as St. Joseph's.<br /><br />Dealings between Catholic parishes or between Melkite priests and Latin Rite priests do not fall into the realm of ecumenism, which describes dealings between/among various Christian denominations.<br /><br />(Pin/Gene will read this as "condescension," but it is merely fraternal correction.) <br /><br />Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-2615919819013613102012-12-20T15:21:33.930-05:002012-12-20T15:21:33.930-05:00Having multiple bishops with overlapping jurisdict...Having multiple bishops with overlapping jurisdiction has no basis in the history of the Church - I think this topic was discussed and decided at Nicaea I. <br /><br />After all, the very nature of a bishop is to shepherd his particular local Church. The ecclesiology becomes non- sensical when the local Churches overlap and are beholden to separate bishops within the same geographic area. <br /><br />The ordinariate and Uniates are a model for the placing of merely visible hieraechical communion over meaningful "spiritual" communion (that is, communion of the same faith and the one Eucharist presided over by the local bishop as head of the local Church). The ordinariate is another sign of the Pope's "big tent" idea for Church unity. So long as everyone is under the visible "authority" of the Pope, the remaining characteristics of unity are brushed aside. Marcnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-3675273738506013382012-12-20T15:17:35.859-05:002012-12-20T15:17:35.859-05:00PI If you ask me, the Eastern Rite Church in Augus...PI If you ask me, the Eastern Rite Church in Augusta, one of my examples, is clearly of ecumenical dimensions and similar I think, although not entirely, to the Anglican situation and would be completely so if Anglican Orders were not completely and utterly null and void. Fr. Allan J. McDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-3825997387596481112012-12-20T15:08:02.601-05:002012-12-20T15:08:02.601-05:00Good Father - Neither of the examples you cite are...Good Father - Neither of the examples you cite are in the realm of ecumenism as neither directed toward the recovery of unity of all Christians, now are they? (Pin/Gene will read this as contemptuous, but is is merely gentle prodding, I swear!)Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-9834553099477648822012-12-20T15:02:48.023-05:002012-12-20T15:02:48.023-05:00Matt C. Abbot, a frequent contributior to The Wand...<b>Matt C. Abbot, a frequent contributior to The Wanderer wrote the following: "To say that the Magisterium itself is teaching and promoting heresy is preposterous, for we know that Christ’s Church is both infallible and indefectible. And all of Pope John Paul II’s ecumenical efforts stem from the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, which — like the previous 20 ecumenical councils — was guided by the Holy Spirit and thus protected from doctrinal error."</b><br /><br />Although it is not unknown to Church history for many or most bishops to fall prey to heresy at a given time, I suspect Mr. Abbot is guilty of a straw man argument here. For Pope John Paul II's ecumenical efforts likely lie in the area of (non-infallible) prudential judgement, rather than in am area of (infallible) doctrine.<br />Henry Edwardsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-40595131244433668772012-12-20T14:37:04.719-05:002012-12-20T14:37:04.719-05:00PI, and in addition to that when I was in Augusta ...PI, and in addition to that when I was in Augusta I was a part time chaplain at the downtown VA and I was responsible to the Archbishop of the Military Archdiocese while I acted as chaplain in that facility, which happened to also be within my parish boundaries!Fr. Allan J. McDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.com