"Tales From the Mailbag" Dept.

I would not post this email if not for the fact that mailerdaemon returned it. As I am not sure whether the person emailing me has seen this weblog or my "miscellaneous writings" list (where there is a link to this weblog), I will post the email here so that they will hopefully see it. Their words will be in blue font.


Dear Mr. McElhinney,

Hello XXXXX:

Many thanks for a most useful site! I'm taking a break from attending our local indult due to family duties and am using the time to study up on some concerns I've always had re: Trads. To put it as briefly as possible: I really love the Mass of Pius V, but am most uncomfortable in the average Trad milieu, with its underlying assumptions- even at our indult Mass. I'm finding your site, and pertinent links, very helpful in answering many of my questions. Not the egregious "uber-Trad" assertions, but the more subtle areas of discussion.

There is a spectrum involved here certainly.

May I ask if there are any discussion groups for persons who are attracted to Traditional forms of piety, but at the same time, reject the errors of the self-styled "traditionalists"? If you have to spend a lot of your time going "Um, NOT what he said.", you begin to wonder if you're in the wrong place!

I am unaware of any that deal specifically with what you mention that are completely free from the crackpot types.

Again, many thanks for the obvious effort and time you must expend on your site.

I assume you are referring to Rerum Novarum and yes I do spend a bit of time on it. But it is much more than simply traditionalist stuff. Nonetheless, if you have any specific questions in the latter area, let me know and I will try to respond accordingly.

Pax Domini Sit Semper Vobiscum,

Shawn

Completion of Previous Weblog Update:

I mentioned in the last major update that there was more to tend to than I had time to do last time. I just got around to it and will at this time update you the reader on the matter.

First of all, I reclassified Greg the Obscure's Vita Brevis BLOG to inactive status as I noted this morning I would do. I also reclassified the Association of Students at Catholic Colleges BLOG -something I was hesitant to do for a while because of the thought that it may well resume activity in the fall quarter. Well as today it has not so it has been deemed inactive for the time being. Anne Wilson's blog will remain on active status even though she indicated months ago it would be inactive for the summer. Apolonio Latar need not think I am snubbing him any longer with not having his weblog up at the site. (I have intended to add it for months but kept forgetting to do so.)

With regards to archive additions, the final two installations intended earlier in the week were tended to. Here they are by respective category:

On 'Traditionalism' (Properly So-Called)

"Serendipity On Ice" Dept. (On Catholic Involvement in Ecumenism and Other Subjects)

On Controverted Subjects

Discussion List Musings on Common Problematical Catholic Approaches to the Ordinary Magisterium

Anyway, this post is properly interpreted as a conclusion to the aforementioned update from Monday the tenth of November.

Courtesy of Jeanetta's De Fidei Oboedienta BLOG comes a rather stunning announcement about the US Bishops. Apparently the recent crisis is having the effect that I predicted a while back might happen -though granted I viewed this somewhat jadedly. But the bishops now appear to be realizing that they have to actually lead and that includes upholding Catholic teaching in the public arena.

Anyway, in the one area that I least expected this to happen appears to be about to happen -as the US Bishops are apparently going to reaffirm the stance on birth control. See Jeanetta's BLOG for details as she provides just enough of a teaser to entice you to read the entire article. (Hence there is no reason for me to do so here.)

The Obscure One terminates blogging at Vita Brevis. We at Rerum Novarum send him our best and hope he returns to blogging when circumstances are better for him to do so.

On Ressourcement and Recapitulation:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

This is a followup to the recent TCR update post located HERE.

Stephen's work, as well as the response to Jeff Culbreath -which was posted a couple of hours ago after more than a week of reflection on the matter- provide two sides to the multifaceted dimension that is Rerum Novarum. Another is the post on disagreements with Fr. Fessio brought about by an inquirer who asked about an offhand comment I made a few months back in a weblog post. And of course there is a subject that in my mind is of significant importance but which I have to pick my spots on talking about lest this weblog degenerate into the kind of ideologizing that grates on me when others do it.

I say this upfront but not as an attempt to knock the concept of principles of course -as Lord knows I have them. It is simply a recognition that like all endeavours it is vital to maintain one's bearings and pick one's spots to emphasize certain key points of one's respective weltanschuauung for the best possible effect. (Both short and long term.) For this is the procedure that works most successfully in war strategy as well as engaging in successful diplomacy. And both elements of this equation need to be kept in mind or else the result will be imbalance -something that history reveals to those who study it only so acutely.

Surely the trackrecord of this weblog -not to mention the manner whereby I have sought to approach writing on various subjects in web essays or print periodicals- indicates that whatever differences do exist amongst those of good will -against whom I will stridently defend my view as much as the next fellow- there is an intention on my part to contribute to and facilitate a bringing together of diverse viewpoints and find ways of seeing such views cohere as much as possible.

Instinctively I believe it has always been my desire to build bridges rather than create islands - even in my earliest days of pre-Rerum Novarum message board forays and debates on divers subjects (religious, political, social, philosophical, theological, ethical, etc). Granted, sometimes this means being less than irenic with people -particularly those who seek either to divide based on irrelevant points or ones of such minutiae that they amount to "straining the gnat and swallowing the camel" (Matt. xxiii,24).

Likewise at times it involves stridently opposing those who seek to bring people together but in a kind of "least common denominator" way which sees principle as something to be sacrificed to achieve this aim. I will not put labels on these kinds of people at this time -indeed anyone who follows my weblog knows the sorts to which I speak- but settle for simply mentioning this in passing.

Rerum Novarum is if nothing else an ongoing project of ressourcement and recapitulation. The ressourcement is in a sifting of various outlooks (theological, philosophical, historical, devotional, political, social, etc) and trying to isolate from them all whatever noble aspirations can be found.

From this process there has been the proposition of certain theses at times which aim to recapitulate through the building of bridges to others of good-will while respecting legitimate differences. However, at the same time, in order to celebrate legitimate differences there is a need to separate wheat from chaff. Thus the importance of the dialogue format that I employ with those of good-will -which becomes a fisking format for those I see as being of ill-will.{2}

Anyway, all of this came to mind when reviewing the entries noted above on the front page of the weblog and finishing the response to Jeff which was blogged earlier today. It took a couple of days, some patience on my part, and some spare moments of musing to bring them together as a coherent statement; nonetheless the processes noted above is not something that works well when one attempts to utilize it in haste.

Notes:

{1} I believe that I have remained true to the founding intentions of this weblog -first elucidated in part HERE.

{2} To post some representative examples of each of these from my weblog archives.

Dialogue on Liturgy and "Restoration":
(El Camino Real vs. Rerum Novarum)

This is a response to Jeff Culbreath's response to my previous offhand comments to one of his weblog entries. Worry not gentle reader, you do not really need a program to keep up -it only appears that way ;-) In this response, Jeff's words will be in shale font with his previous words italicized. My previous words will be in blue font.

A reply to Shawn McElhinney:

"Authentic Traditionalism is not found in externals Jeff. It is akin to an authentic observation of the Law which Our Lord commanded and which those who were obsessed with external rituals (i.e. Pharisees) did not react to well."

Catholicism requires externals, Shawn. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

I do not disagree with you there. Externals are needed in that they are intended to make the intangible perceptable to us. But externals are and always have been subject to change as Church history amply demonstrates. The essence of our faith though is and must be internal.{1}

Our Lord's condemnation of the Pharisees was because they went through the motions of the rituals and did not internalize the law. It is important to always be on guard against this tendency as it is prevalent amongst those of a more rigorist mentality. (And the latter applies as much to the "traditionalist" as the lax mentality does to the "progressivist."){2}

But I don't recall anyone here advocating a restoration in externals alone. Indeed, the compromised externals we are living with today signify a catastrophic decline of belief.

The problem Jeff is that for too long, people did not make a correct distinction between the substance of the faith and the accidents. The blending of the two in the polemic against Protestantism was bound to create problems when the accidents were stripped away.

But the accidents needed to be stripped away in many respects because the Catholic faith had come to be seen in the context of "obligations" ala the Mosaic Law in Our Lord's time and the exterior trappings had become a crutch. As the spiritual masters of the Catholic tradition teach, this is a sign that the sensual part of the soul is in need of purgation.{3} Pope Paul in his dialogue with Jean Guitton expressed this sentiment quite acutely. I recommend obtaining that book if you can and reading it.

This is not to say that those attending the Latin mass are Pharisees of course; however, the attachment to externals to the extent many of them have is not spiritually healthy.

Shawn, you've got to get out of the habit of arguing with some un-named SSPXer in your past when you're talking to me. I know scores of traditionalists, and I can't think of one who has an "unhealthy attachment to externals" at the expense of spirituality or the life of grace.

I wish I could say I concurred with this assessment Jeff.

Our liturgy is like the clothes we put on. If I dress like a slob, chances are I think like a slob and otherwise act like a slob. True, one can be fooled by externals -- but in general the exterior signifies the health of the interior.

The essence of Catholic mystical theology is embodied in the purging of the sensual exteriors Jeff. If exteriors signified the health of the interior then the spiritual masters would be running in vain in their exhortations. You will have to excuse me for not believing that -indeed my own experience with liturgical vanities only confirms their assessment much to my own discomfort at times.

The Church has finally returned to a more traditional practice of varying liturgical usages by dioceses -with control of the macro format in the IGMR.

I think we should try to stay focused here.

I am

Varying liturgical usages are not the issue.

But it is since essentially you are endorsing the restoration of a particular usage that is not utilized by the Church at large. The irony is, the very untraditional uniformity policy promoted by many "traditionalists" is precisely the policy that many use to shut them out of the arena of debate.

Now I would argue (and have) that the latter people are being inconsistent with their own calls for diversity; however their insistence on a uniformity in rejecting Tridentism is quite consistent with the paradigm of the "traditionalists." The weapon is the same, the only difference is, the "traditionalists" are on the other side of the barrel now.

I reject completely the fiction of "the unchanging Church" and the notion that catholicity means uniformity.{4} I was lied to for too long on this matter by not only the Lefebvrist apologists but also by confessional scholarship promoting agendas rather than the truth. (Not to mention the polemical works the Lefebvrists recommended as "objective" or "fair" observations which in reality were anything but objective or fair.){5}

For that reason, I hope you understand that I can hardly be expected to endorse such a viewpoint even tacitly. And when I see it being promoted -even by someone such as yourself whose goodwill I do not doubt for an instant- there is the conscious need on my part to set that record straight.

Nonetheless, I am not about to let one extreme lead to another. Many of those who (not without good reason) reacted to the kind of untraditional enforced "uniformity" often go to the other extreme of promoting novelty for its own sake and variety for the sake of variety. However, they then contradict themselves by trying to shut out the Indult people. I am in favour of promoting all approved charisms in the Church -even those which I do not understand or are not my cup of tea. To quote an online associate of mine who was also once in the camp of the "traditionalists":

Holy Mass, offered in the Tridentine manner, bears more fruit in a great many Catholics. The Holy Father has acknowledged this and, therefore, the contiuance and promotion of the Tridentine Mass could not be considered rebellious. Other Catholics are left cold by an unknown Language and much pomp.

This situation is not unusual. The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius bear much fruit in a great many Catholics but they are not for everyone. In some, these exercises can cause scruples and a form of despair. "In my Father's house, there are many mansions." Almighty God has created us with different temperaments and we respond differently to externals, etc.

This is something that I sense a lot of people zealous to promote the Indult do not realize. Until they do, it will be a case of Sysphus endlessly rolling the stone uphill only to have it roll over them and have to start anew.

If the Church, in her pastoral wisdom, permits a diversity of ancient rites in various lands that's fine with me.

Rites are not to be esteemed simply because they are ancient (or rejected simply because they are novel). Every single practice or established method was at one time a novelty.

But there is nothing traditional about varying liturgical usages when one of them is seriously compromised. And of the 29 rites (or thereabouts) in the Catholic Church, only one is thus compromised.

I am not sure if you are referring to the Indult usage here or the Revised Missal when you say compromised.

The problems experienced to some extent include (i) the breakdown in traditional understanding of obedience to ecclesiastical authority -and this is just as much the self-styled "traditionalists" as it is anyone else who ignores the Vatican's directives and (ii) the bishops having to find their feet again as regulators of the liturgy in their dioceses.

I disagree. The problems of the Novus Ordo stem from a crisis of faith, plain and simple.

A crisis in obedience as I noted is right at the heart of the faith. However, there is also a crisis in catechesis. But before that can be addressed, there is another facet that needs to be touched on and it is this: the faithful following of the Tridentine rubrics is not something that was common in the decades prior to Vatican II. But that is not all.

The catechesis in the decades prior to Vatican II was rather rudamentary at best -milk to infants which was almost never built upon into solid food. Thus, the faithful were taught to memorize canned answers as children and seldom ever advanced in knowledge past this level as adults. To anyone with a hint of higher education or the ability to think outside the box, these people were sitting ducks.

Also, I would not mistaken the way the Tridentine liturgy is celebrated today with being ipso facto evidence of a strong faith. A series on the liturgical movement compiled by the Society of St. John's (SSJ) -a society hardly hostile in the slightest towards the older liturgy- was posted recently to my weblog as a four part guest editorial. While not concurring with everything in the thread, I do nonetheless agree with the vast majority of their insights on the issue.

That series -including my prologue can be read in full starting HERE. One key point made in the piece is that the lack of obedience is one of the central issues here. Another is that the liturgy was in decline prior to the French Revolution and even prior to the "reformation."

I happen to concur with both of these assessments; ergo I see the predominent movement of "restoring" the Tridentine liturgy to some uberliturgy in the Church to be both shortsighted and intrinsically faulty paradigmatically. This does not mean that I am opposed to the Indult by any means -as I am quite open about promoting it- however as one option among many.

The liturgy was diluted because the Faith was thought to be too rigorous and exacting.

I disagree. The liturgy was simplified because intelligibility was viewed as more important than blind ritual.{6} The spiritual masters often taught that one must leave the familiar abode to make the first steps towards spiritual growth{7} for ascent in the spiritual life means being stripped of one's habitual garments and being clothed anew. This is a principle that for whatever one wants to say about the liturgical reformation was one that Pope Paul felt Catholics were spiritually capable of doing.

In retrospect, it is pretty clear that there was not enough spiritual maturity to make this transition at that time. Nonetheless, retreat to the past -and to inauthentic "catholicity" coupled with dangerous dualist thinking- is not what will fix the problems we have seen.

The repetitions and the kneeling and the gestures were reduced because they were deemed too ascetic.

The manifested intention of the liturgical reform was ressourcement Jeff. (However well they succeeded in this is of course a matter of legitimate debate.) But one of the laudable goals was the reduction of duplicated parts and unnecessary -or even counter productive- repetition. The norm on this was written as follows:

The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity. They should be short, clear, and free from useless repetitions. They should be within the people's powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation. [Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium §34 (c. 1963)]

This principle applied to all rites including rites of the sacraments. As far as kneeling goes, the faithful stood for the entire mass on Sundays and Holy Days for fifteen centuries. This only changed with the policies of the Counter-reformation. So in a rather ironic twist (and not the only one) those who do not favour kneeling for practically the entire mass have tradition firmly on their side. The true novelty is in the rubric of the Tridentine liturgy but of course since it was done for a period of time, most "traditionalists" accept it unquestionably.

The reformers wanted a religion with less to believe and less to do.

This is a rather broad brush statement Jeff. There was no one "agenda" in the liturgical movement. It was actually quite diverse as the SSJ series I linked to above well outlines.

There is also the authentic understanding of local customs being introduced which is something the Church for four centuries unwisely wanted nothing to do with but is nonetheless a very traditional understanding of unity in plurality liturgical expression.

History seems to tell a different story. The Church converted nations -- even continents -- when she had a comparitively uniform and inflexible liturgy.

History actually tells us the opposite Jeff: that the Church's most successful missions by far were those where she utilized the principles of assimilation and inculturation in her worship and practices. This principle also extended to the sacred liturgy. It was only when this policy was rejected when the missionary fields reaped less fruit as a result.

This was pointed out in an essay I wrote almost three years ago titled Confusing Culture With 'Tradition' where among the issues I took serious issue with was the misunderstanding of many Latins about the true damage of cultural imperialism masquerading as 'tradition.' For the sake of brevity I will not reference that piece at this time. (Nor will I out of charity go over the rather pitiful track record of missionary work in the Third World in the centuries prior to Vatican II whenever the myth of "uniformity" was in sway and governed the approach taken in the mission fields.)

Mission-field results today, with all the supposed benefits of "inculturation", are meager by comparison.

If we examine the true track record of the past, it becomes clear that "success" being measured in baptisms is a misleading source of measurement. I would at this time appear to criticize our forefathers in the faith if I continued this thread so I will not do so except to say: we should learn from them what worked and what did not. And continuing what did not work cannot be viewed by us as a viable option if we are concerned about bringing the Gospel to all nations and peoples. And I see in the weltanschauungs of too many who style themselves as "traditionalists" a desire to go back to what failed so miserably before. This does not show concern for the common good of others over and above the desires of the individual to me: the hallmark of the Dominican Rule of St. Augustine which is grounded in a true Traditional Catholic understanding.

Indeed, today we find the largest and most vigorous traditionalist groups in the Third World - a witness to the universal appeal of the Tridentine Rite. In retrospect one would have to say that Catholic Church's previous liturgical inflexibility was very wise indeed.

I disagree. And I could fortify this disagreement with copious references to point out the serious lemon that was Latin as a successful tool of evangelization of the Orient. However, the promise of brevity hangs over my head like the Sword of Damcoles. The truth my friend is that evangelization was hindered not helped by the Counter-reformation attempts to propound the myth of the "unchanging Church" and the idea of catholicity being akin to "uniformity." This myth cannot withstand the scrutiny of those deep in Church history - a history that shows a great deal more plurality than confessional Counter-reformation scholarship often admitted to.

The one constant in the Third World apostolates (Tridentine and non-Tridentine) is that they are in a sense being persecuted by their cultures and do not have the same distractions that we in the First World often have. That is one advantage they have over us -probably the only advantage but it is not an insignificant one. We in the First World are in essence being called to live our faith differently than the Third World people are. We have more advantages by far but also more pitfalls.

"I know many people who in reality are functionally ashamed to be Catholic and they manifest this in refusing obedience to the Supreme Pontiff and to the diocesan bishop in communion with him."

When your diocesan bishop is himself ashamed to be Catholic, what's a Catholic to do? Shut up and get to work on that rainbow banner for the inclusiveness workshop? I can imagine that explaining the antics of Fr. Feelgood to one's children gets old after a few years. I'm not defending schism, but a little sympathy is in order here.

I am if anything not lacking in sympathy for those who are anguished Jeff. Indeed, it is impossible to not feel some thorns in the flesh here. However, we have to have recourse to what the spiritual masters of the Catholic tradition teach. And one of the key components is obedience to lawful authority. As lawful authority according to Catholic teaching are diocesan bishops in communion with the pope, the first principle here is that areas where the bishop is not in communion with the pope do not compel our obedience.{8}

"They live their lives in a separation from the universal church in a land of make believe."

I don't judge them so harshly. Their degree of "separation" is not something Rome has been very clear about.

Rome has sought to take an attitude of generosity with these people because of the anguish and confusion involved. And I of course concur with this approach most of the time. However, part of separating the wheat from the chaff means at times being forceful in the sense of speaking bluntly. And when the functional effect of a particular policy is a form of "Neo-Donatism"{9} it is particularly necessary to do.

In the case of some, it may be the only means available of living a recognizably Catholic life.

How exactly do you define a recognizably Catholic life Jeff??? Does it include rosaries and novenas??? No meat on Friday??? Benediction and Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament??? Latin mass??? My Oriental ancestors would fail to qualify here if that is the case. And the fact that there are exceptions made for them cannot be based simply on the fact that their practices are "ancient." For every ancient practice was at one time a novelty.

I would argue that a "recognizably Catholic life" would include:

---Mass on Sundays and Holy Days
---Following the Church precepts
---Frequent reception of the sacraments
---A recognition of the diversity of charisms within the Mystical Body (cf. 1 Corinthians 12)
---Adherence to the disciplinary prescriptions of the Church
---Striving to cultivate a consistent devotional life

However problematical the local ordinary may be, it does not infringe on the ability of the individual (or families) to observe these points. The Church has always had bad bishops. That does not mean that obedience to the bishops is optional of course; however, what the bishop says has very little impact on the day to day life of the average parishoner.

"Reality though is that the Church has been going through a rough period and this is not aided by Donatist-like flights of fantasy into isolation."

Well, the memory of what authentic Catholicism used to look like needs to be preserved somewhere.

As authentic Catholicism in the counter-reformation model was often not acknowledged, you are in essence (and almost certainly subconsciously) endorsing preservation of an untraditional understanding of Catholicism.

"We are called to be salt and light and to put that light on the lampstand (cf. Matt. v,14-16). Unfortunately that is what a lot of even the Indult goers do -they functionally put that light under the bushel basket."

It is important to recognize the severity of the present crisis.

I agree but Church history shows us a Church in constant crisis of one kind or another. What was not allowed to previous generations in coping with their crises cannot be justified in our case. And forms of Donatism were never tolerated --indeed the Fathers castigated such people in very harsh tones. I have no intention of course in doing that; however a spade must still be called a spade in one form or another.

If you're going to put your light on a lampstand, you need to make sure you have a light to begin with and that your flame is not extinguished by the surrounding environment.

This is allowing the environment to affect you rather than you affecting the environment. The spiritual masters would chide you for taking this approach my friend. I though not possessing anything near their stature will merely point out the fact and leave it at that.

You need priests who preach the hard truths.

I do not disagree; however, one of the problems of knowing Church history is knowing what the saints and popes actually did on preach[ing] the hard truths pastorally versus what revisionists will tell you they did. For example:

---Did you know that the Church while on the one hand discouraging "official" involvement in the ecumenical movement early on{10} nonetheless sanctioned involvement in it provided that it was termed as "unofficial"???{11}

---Did you know that during the population explosion in Europe in the nineteenth century that not only did the Vatican not speak out about contraception but that it actually instructed its confessors not to ask married couples about their sexual practices -and St. John Vianney even emphasized this in his spiritual instructions to confessors???{12}

I could point to other examples but these are two significant areas touched on briefly for reflection. The fact is, there is always a balancing act in how you approach people on subjects. Was the Holy Office and Pope Leo XIII simply "shirking from preaching the hard truths" in your view??? Were they "discouraging a zeal of holiness" in confessors??? Or were they instead recognizing the principle that holiness is a process that is best nurtured by those who can empathize for the weaknesses of others rather then reacting in a cold manualist approach to them???

You need confessors who take holiness seriously.

Why do you presume that most confessors do not take holiness seriously??? I used to assume this admittedly but it was based on a faulty understanding of what "taking holiness seriously" actually is.

You should not presume to judge a confessor as "not taking holiness seriously" because he does not react sufficiently enough in your view towards repeat lapses by penitents. Holiness is not achieved overnight nor is it a path that is walked without a lot of falling -even by the just. And the longer a bad habit subsists, the harder it is to root out of the psyche and overcome.

I know several people{13} whose faith was either severely weakened or destroyed by so-called "traditionalist" confessors who over hype the "judge" element of their function in the confessional and downplay the part where they actually have empathy for people's weaknesses. I am not saying excuse them or imply that their sins were "no big deal." But a genuine and balanced approach to spiritual care. These kinds of confessors are no more plentiful among the self-styled "traditionalists" than they are in the mainstream Church.{14}

You need a liturgy that is worthy of the God you adore.

I do not disagree; however one must also recognize the snares that such a position can entail. (I will go over this in an upcoming series on the purgative theology of the dark night.)

You need a community of like-minded Catholics to exert a little peer-pressure when necessary.

Agreed. Peer pressure is not the solely negative thing that it is often portrayed as.

You need all the graces of the Church's sacraments and sacramentals.

Again, no disagreement there.

In short, your "light" depends upon more than just your own personal good intentions.

No disagreement with you there.

The indult-goers understand this and are in the process of giving themselves and their children the formation they never had.

As you are no doubt aware, I am not in opposition to the Indult by any means Jeff. If for some reason you were to doubt my weblog witness, you can ask my local ordinary about my pestering for the Indult from 1999-2001. I have never used it since it arrived (as it did in August of 2001) but I have supported it as a valid and necessary charism within the Mystical Body.

In the meantime, they're not hiding themselves -- but they are sometimes purposely hidden by diocesan functionaries.

There is a lot of talk about "40 acres and a generator" amongst the Indult crowd as much as there is among the SSPX crowd. Now granted, I have my Donatist moments too; however there is at times an inordinate amount of attempting to diseengage from society in this group.

There is also the fact that there are not a few Indult goers who if not for the Indult would be attending SSPX or SSPV. While being in communion with the Church through the Indult, they nonetheless are there by the skin of their teeth in that their theology contains the same poisons as the schismatics.

I believe that these are a minority amongst the Indult but they are often a very vocal minority. And these are the sorts of people who need to be contained lest the diocesan bishops continue to mistaken them as poster children for the Indult. For that often happens unfortunately -as I found out in bugging my ordinaries for the Indult for my friends and family. (And initially for myself as well.)

Jeff: "Expect the liberals and the modernists and the innovators to go on liberalizing and modernizing and innovating with impunity."

Shawn: "If they do, it is more crosses to bear. Compared to the agony of Him who sweat blood in Gethsemanie and died on the cross, the occasional sappy hymn and the like are pretty minor irritants."

They are destroyers of souls, not "minor irritants".

It seems that you mistaken the value of prayer with its sensible results here my friend. I have seen very few liturgies looked at objectively which constitute the kind of "desolation" you refer to. This is not to say that there is a lack of problems of course; however one needs to separate the real chaff from illusions.

Jeff: "Meanwhile, find a refuge from the madness and prepare yourselves and your children for the coming restoration."

Shawn: "This is mythology Jeff. The most that can happen is that the Indult will be expanded to every dioceses in the world eventually - and of course this is something we all should pray for."

"The most that can happen"? Says who? If Rome could virtually abolish the formidable Tridentine Rite overnight, it can do the same with a liturgy that is absurdly unstable and barely established. We've seen bigger surprises in the last forty years.

Jeff, the Church since the Second Vatican Council has sought to emphasize the richness of the diversity of charisms within the Mystical Body rather than continue the Counter-reformation charade of the "unchanging Church" and the "one liturgy the same everywhere" myth.

The return to traditional pluralism is a return to authentic catholicity. The problem has been curbing those who recognize the principle of pluralism but not its limits. Your hoped for "restoration" is in essence a hope that the myths of the Counter-reformation be reinstituted. Those who know their Church history and their liturgical history -apart from confessional scholarship which sought as much to defend every jot and tittle of Counter-reformation orthopraxy no matter what- are not about to return to the land of "make believe."

However, in the increased awareness of the diversity of charisms and rites in the Church, there is room for the Indult apostolate. And the Indult apostolate -representing as it does a form of Catholic worship and practice that spanned a few centuries- is worthy of respect as well as promotion.

However, there will be no return to the days of Latinizing or pretending that the Tridentine reforms were a restoration of the "pristine norm of the holy Fathers" as St. Pius V stated in Quo Primum. I point you to the series on the liturgical movement from the Society of St. John for many of the reasons why this will not happen. They accept that the paradigm has perminently shifted and work within it to promote their own Tridentine apostolate. I would recommend that all who support the Indult do likewise.

Still, I do appreciate your prayers for the universal indult. We're beggars and we'll gladly take whatever bones are thrown our way.

I have personal reasons for this as well my friend. See this link from about a year ago and this one for two such examples of what I refer to.

"The kind of restoration you speak of would be tantamount to denying once again the truth that the Tridentine 'restoration' was far from the restoration to 'the pristine norm of the holy Fathers' that Pius V claimed it was."

I don't think that's the issue at all. The Tridentine will be gradually restored in the West because it better represents the immutable Catholic Faith.

Restoration of the Tridentine would be a rejection of the mandate from the last ecumenical council to restore the sacred liturgy. There were many improvements in this area with the Revised Missal but (unfortunately) most of them are on paper only. Only once a restoration of discipline happens will we be able to equitably judge the intrinsic merits of Revised Missal.

Furthermore, the Novus Ordo Missae is still on trial. It isn't working. It is in a state of perpetual "reform". The continual tweaking and fidgeting has Catholics disoriented and confused.

All of this gets back to the crisis in obedience.

At some point, Rome will finally say "enough is enough".

I agree. But the result will be a crackdown in laxity not replacing the Revised Missal with the Tridentine. No one I know who has a recollection of the way the Tridentine was celebrated prior to Missale Romanum would accept this argument of yours as valid Jeff.

"The Revised Missal is a much more authentic restoration to this laudable goal but of course is not without its problems as well."

That is a debate for liturgical scholars, not for me. In any case I think the move to "restore" liturgy to some pristine form of early church worship is misguided at best.

That was the intention of the Tridentine reformers in the sixteenth century Jeff. Likewise it was the intention of the magisterium with the more recent liturgical reform.

More often it is a cover for mischief. The Faith has developed and the liturgy has organically developed with it over the centuries.

In some areas sure but it also degenerated in some areas as well. The calls for liturgical reform were not effects without a cause my friend.

The Tridentine Rite is the crown jewel of this authentic liturgical development. (You do believe in development, don't you?) Yet what we see in the new rite is not liturgical development, but undevelopment. It is a retreat from the orthodox clarity of the Tridentine.

Well, I could posit parts of the Tridentine which are anything but clear without presupposing proper catechesis. I have done this before on message boards but brevity prevents me from doing it here and besides: enough has been touched on here I believe.

Of course, you and I have been at this for some time and pretty much know each other's respective positions. And if I know Shawn McElhinney, you will reply with a massive treatise that would take me a half-a-lifetime to refute.

I have sought to respond reasonably economical here. (I had to delete half the original template to do it.)

I do appreciate and welcome your comments here.

As I do yours. We may agree to disagree at times but it is always I believe with the charity that befits those whose name is "Christian" (and whose surname is "Catholic.")

Thank you, and God keep you.

Thank you my friend and may the Lord keep you and yours as well.

Notes:

{1} The Scriptures define faith as the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews xi,1).

{2} I am using these terms here in the "conventional" sense for the sake of convenience of expression only. I explain why these terms are not properly understood ad antagonistic to one another when discussing the definition of a conservative. (See this link for details.)

{3} For the sake of promised economy, I will not quote references here but be assured that I could do so without difficulty.

{4} Except of course in the area of the one faith which we all must profess.

{5} And what is particularly revealing to me (and not to my own comfort) was how easily I uncritically accepted this for a long time from the trads while simultaneously (and in almost all other areas of my thinking) I prided myself on not uncritically accepting the dictums of others.

{6} Understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed. Participation by the people is worth more--particularly participation by modern people, so fond of plain language which is easily understood and converted into everyday speech.

If the divine Latin language kept us apart from the children, from youth, from the world of labor and of affairs, if it were a dark screen, not a clear window, would it be right for us fishers of souls to maintain it as the exclusive language of prayer and religious intercourse? What did St. Paul have to say about that? Read chapter 14 of the first letter to the Corinthians: "In Church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue" (I Corinthians 14:19). [Pope Paul VI: General Audience Allocution of November 26, 1969]

{7} To quote one example of many, I refer to the opening stanzas of St. John of the Cross' masterpiece:

On a dark night, Kindled in love with yearnings--oh, happy chance!--

I went forth without being observed, My house being now at rest.

In this first stanza the soul relates the way and manner which it followed in going forth, as to its affection, from itself and from all things, and in dying to them all and to itself, by means of true mortification, in order to attain to living the sweet and delectable life of love with God; and it says that this going forth from itself and from all things was a 'dark night,' by which, as will be explained hereafter, is here understood purgative contemplation, which causes passively in the soul the negation of itself and of all things referred to above. [St. John of the Cross: Opening Stanza and Exposition from His Masterpiece Dark Night of the Soul (c. 1591)]

{8} Barring of course those areas where the bishop has by virtue of his position supreme authority in the dioceses. (A subject for another time perhaps.)

{9} No, I am not about to pioneer a new denigrating term (ala "Neo-Catholic") or a denigrating concept (ala "all who claim to be 'traditionalists' are schismatics").

{10} [I]t is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises. [Pope Pius XI: Encyclical Letter Mortalium Animos §8 (c. 1928)]

{11} Involvement in this venture started in the pontificate of Benedict XV and also received the sanction of Pius XI and Pius XII -despite what was "officially" said. (And yes, this can be demonstrated.)

{12} Though the source here is Fr. Andrew Greeley (whom I very seldom agree with), on these points he is 100% correct:

In the nineteenth century, the Vatican resolutely refused to speak out explicitly on contraception, even though France was solving its population explosion by coitus interruptus. "Do not disturb the Faithful," the Holy Office warned, a position which was repeated in his conferences for confessors by St. John Vianney, the Cure of Ars. Leo XIII wrote an encyclical at the time in which there was no mention of birth control...I do not intend that we should return to older policies, I merely cite them as evidence that the posture of a Church which never changes is untenable.

I mentioned the Leo XIII encyclical to Jean Jadot when he was apostolic delegate to the United States. The archbishop's eyes twinkled. "Ah, you know about that, do you?" [Andrew M. Greeley: Confessions of a Parish Priest - an Autobiography pg. 145 (c. 1986)]

{13} Including some friends and even family members.

{14} I am fortunate now to have so many fine Dominican confessors at my current parish. And as one whose own internal sense of sin was destroyed by theologically unbalanced so-called "traditionalist" confessors when I was younger this is no small value to have. Even today I am still prone at times to bouts of scrupulosity as a result of this and have been lightly chastized for this by my confessors. (Scrupulosity is just as bad of a tendency as indifference.)

Briefly on Michael Davies:
(A Recent Thread From a Discussion List)

My words will be in regular font.

I haven't really read Davies' writings. How are they? Are they respectful?

WOAH! There is a name from my childhood!

Indeed.

Wish I could make a wonderful and helpful comment. But you just hit a nerve that was very buried. My mother and her friends practically considered him a disciple.

Trads consider Davies to have more authority than Vatican II, Pope Paul VI, or Pope John Paul II. I doubt that anyone this side of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre has midwifed more people into schism than Michael Davies has over the years.

Not that they would admit that. He was very popular with the radical/extremist Traditionalists.

In my own experience, Davies' work is rather misleading. He makes a lot of assumptions that are not warranted with the evidence he supplies. Further still, he is too wedded to confessional scholarship and does not seem to be able to approach the subject of the liturgy with any sense of objective fairness.

Davies is an ideologue first and foremost. And of course ideologues are incapable by nature of being balanced in their observations. (Since "the agenda"-whatever it is- comes before the truth with ideologues at all times.) For that reason, I would recommend taking anything he says with a shaker of salt or more.

"TCR" Dept.
(A Rerum Novarum Five Part Slam)

An Orthodox Primer on Liturgical Dance

Q: Is Liturgical Dance, in Itself, in Your Opinion, Always Wrong?

A: No, in itself, evidently that could not be, since, all abuses apart, it is part of the scriptural tradition, as witness the Psalms:

150:1 Hallelujah. Praise God in His sanctuary; praise Him in the firmament of His power.

150:2 Praise Him for His mighty acts; praise Him according to His abundant greatness.

150:3 Praise Him with the blast of the horn; praise Him with the psaltery and harp.

150:4 Praise Him with the timbrel and dance; praise Him with stringed instruments and the pipe.

150:5 Praise Him with the loud-sounding cymbals; praise Him with the clanging cymbals.

150:6 Let every thing that hath breath praise the Lord. Hallelujah.

Q: Is it often done tastelessly, reducing it to a performance, by misguided Catholic exhibitionists?

A: Yes, Uh-huh

Indeed.

Bishops Scold Some Catholic Politicians Over Abortion, Death Penalty Issues

Consider Sanctions Against Rebel Politicians

Frustrated that so many Catholic politicians support abortion rights, the bishops of the United States said Monday they will begin evaluating whether they can impose sanctions against elected officials who vote contrary to church teachings...For more, go here...

Are the US Bishops finally developing a backbone??? It seems so. I hope I am not being too optimistic here but one must "keep hope alive" to quote Jessie HiJackson's favourite dictums. (Ignoring for a moment that he does not understand this theological and practical concept at all.)

America Magazine and the Progressivist Agenda

While most of the big name Progressivists who have agitated for change in the past four decades have either passed from the scene or are now living out their twilight years, the Progressivist agenda continues, albeit in decisively weakened, limping, form, through diehard publication’s like America, the Jesuit weekly, and the National Catholic Reporter, the tabloid weekly which operates independent of the Church and any Church authority. I say "weakened" because, as all sides admit, the Pontificate of John Paul II, these past twenty-five years, has been calamitous for the liberals or neo-modernists who think Church dogmas can "evolve" from one meaning to another.

Not only has the Pope appointed the great majority of the world's living bishops and cardinals in our time, but through his own voluminous elucidations of the definitive meaning of the Second Vatican Council he has rejected and virtually smothered all Progressivist counter-interpretations. And he has done this not in any reactionary way, but rather through assimilating what is true and valid in such counter-interpretations while rejecting its essential poison. This is the Catholic way. For more, go here...

Also worth a read at the same link are Stephen's pieces The City and the Cross and Nihilism and the Divine Pity. As for the third piece in this update, it is an Evangelical response to Evangelium Vitae -the pope's 1995 encyclical letter on promoting life amidst a culture of death. Here is just a sampling of the piece:

Common Responsibility: An Evangelical Appreciation of Evangelium Vitae

Building the culture of life is simply too indispensable and too overdue a task to leave to Roman Catholics alone. This is, in a rather provocative form, one of the key exhortations of Evangelium Vitae ("Gospel of Life"), that remarkable encyclical from 1995 which aptly illustrates Pope John Paul II’s fervent desire that evangelicals, Orthodox and other Christians begin to embrace their common responsibilities to promote, enrich and defend the sanctity of human life. This really isn't a surprising thing. John Paul II's entire ministry has been one that reaches beyond the specific confines of Catholicism. His incredible travel schedule, his prolific writing, his boldness to speak the truth even in the world's halls of power - all this is wonderfully appropriate to authentic and wide-ranging Christian leadership.

The passionate desire of the Pope to enlist other Christians into the duties of creating a culture of life should not be surprising for another important reason too; namely, because John Paul II's exhortations are but an echo from the Scriptures themselves. The culture of life that His Holiness speaks of is but an application of the Kingdom of God, the combined lifestyle of Christians truly committed to doing righteousness and justice as they have been commanded by God. The hallmarks of the truly Christian lifestyle, therefore, include visiting the widows and orphans in their distress, defending the least of Christ's brothers, forgiving one's enemies, and walking in the beauty of God's holiness. "Doers of the Word" are the necessary builders of the culture of life and John Paul II understands that this command applies every bit as much to the Orthodox Christian, the Coptic, and the evangelical as it does to the Catholic... For more, go here...

The above entry to some extent ties into the final two installments of this update. The last two threads are from Stephen's own weblog journal of musings. My comments (if I make any) will be interspersed in regular font colour.

So Much to Be Grateful For...

Last December I took about a six month rest after several years of daily updating at TCR. The rest was good. Actually, I wasn't sure if it was going to be permanent or temporary at the time. But after about six months I was itching to take up the work again and to coordinate it quietly, as best we could, with all the other good works where the Gospel is treated seriously on the Internet (which at best is an Alician Rabbit's Hole of a place). And it has been a blessed year since. Carol O'Reilly's help has been a special blessing, for which I thank Our Lady, St. Francis, and Blessed John XXIII (Carol knows why).

TCR stands next to, and with, all those who believe the Creed and who are in sacramental communion with, and subject to, the Roman Pontiff, the only principle of Catholic unity in a world of increasing fragmentation and factionalism. Yes, there are other issues over which some of us will disagree, sometimes strongly, but we can never question the integrity of the faith we share and which makes us brothers and sisters (or sisters and brothers, as others would have it), sharing in the bond of unity and love.

We compete with no one (God forbid and save us always from such pettiness), but only add our voice and work to all the other good works in the Vineyard of the Lord. From the beginning TCR has sought to bring the scattered together precisely for those who cannot afford to buy every paper or book, and who have no time for it either. We exist to serve our sisters and brothers in this challenging time, and all persons of good will, especially the poor, always especially the poor.

We are so very grateful for all the good priests and laypersons, women and men, who----whatever our other differences---- seek to daily proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ to an aching, hurting and hungry world. We're all part of the New Evangelism, which the Holy Father has called for, a New Evangelism which combines faith and good works, orthodoxy and orthopraxis... the active lay participation" that the Council called for, whether in or oustide of liturgy.

Lord, help us to be faithful, despite our weaknesses.

And We at Rerum Novarum, for our part, concur with these sentiments completely. Some followup musings on these threads will be blogged after posting the final installment of this department update. Again the source is Stephen's web journal:

...And On Not Getting Depressed Over the News

One time I saw a cartoon where a man was being rushed into an Emergency Room by paramedics, looking quite discombobulated in the eyes. The Doctor, rushing alongside the stretcher, clipboard and pen in hand, yelled to the nurses: "Put him on Low News diet, immediately!"

It is easy to get weighed down over all the bad news we are saturated with in our time of Culture Wars if we don't look for the Christian possibilites / opportunities precisely in the difficult news. Every event gives us (whether here at TCR or you at home) an opportunity to pray and / or act toward a redemptive end in those contexts. Sometimes, as with the terrible scandals, that will mean urging collective repentance and purification----for every judgement of God is intended to be an atonement (kippur). At other times it will mean, "speaking truth to power," critiquing the power structures that exist and which threaten world peace---or the family. Sometimes it will mean bashing the ideologically laden courts and arrogant justices who put their own prejudices in place of God's law and beatitudes. One friend of ours writes letters to newspaper editors and TV networks---and very effectively. Others write for TCR or Catholic and ecumenical papers or magazines. Some pass out flyers.... And if we are too sick or weak to do any of that---or if it's just not our thing---the daily news can become our daily prayer agenda.

Love seeks His Cross, not just a pillow in our time, and yet we are assured of His Rest (Mt 11:28-30) in embracing that Cross and following Him. He refreshes us when we need it with Living Water. We need not lose heart, and our Lord specifically urged us not to. Calamity can be, instead, a spiritual reset button. The spiritual works of mercy and St. Francis' peace prayer apply particularly here (...not so much that I might be consoled, but that I may console others...)

These are just a few of the many articles and points to ponder at Stephen's rather massive website. See our weblog list of links for the address and visit it regularly. For whatever our differences are (and there are some), I have always sensed the twin spirits of ressourcement and recapitulation in Stephen's work and those whose work is published with TCR. These latter points will be touched on by your humble servant in an upcoming weblog entry so stay tuned for that...

"Sex, Sin and Salvation: What Augustine Really Said"

Points to Ponder:

The Church was shaped differently in the past than it is today. The essence of Catholicism should not be identified with the Counter-Reformation, late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century forms in which we find it. Later I would realize that the basic division in the post-Vatican church is between those who take history seriously and those who do not. History tells us of a far more pluralistic Church than do the catechisms or the theology manuals. [Andrew M. Greeley: Confessions of a Parish Priest - an Autobiography pgs. 145 (c. 1986)]

The Aggiornamento of Rerum Novarum:
(Via Ressourcement of Course...)

This is not the full update as I hope to add two or three more links tomorrow or so including a new blog to the list of Catholic weblogs and possibly an Ecumenical Jihad weblog or website or two. But in the meantime, here is what was updated as of earlier today:

---The links to Matt1618's site was replaced with the newer link. (I accidentally posted the old one many moons ago when that link was added.)

---The JunkYard BLOG link was replaced with the new weblog link.

And as the weblogs were reclassified and revised about two weeks ago, there is nothing to add to them at this time except what I already noted would be done in a day or so. I may also add some new links to the Other Approved* Sites or Links of Interest section at that time as well as a link or two to Shawn's Eastern Catholic Corner Approved* Links. But at this time, there are only weblog posts to add and the following additions were made by particular category listed:

General Political/Social Subjects

"Traditional Moral Principles" Dept.

Miscellaneous Mutterings and a Clarification

Terri Schiavo Situation: (And Another Pitch for Consistent Principles)

Developing a Consistent Principle of Argumentation: (An Exhortation to Readers of Rerum Novarum)

Miscellaneous Mutterings on Liberal Lies and the the Errors of False "Conservatism"

The five links above are quite possibly among the five most important entries to Rerum Novarum in a long time. I feel that virtually all entries to this humble weblog are worthwhile reading of course -but those are a cut above the norm in my view viz what they cover subjectwise. They can be seen as a call to all readers of goodwill to develop as I have noted the consistent line of argumentation to actually begin winning this Culture War rather than at best losing it little by little or declaring as "victories" what are in reality little more than "stays of execution."

I am not about to claim that I have definitively formed the foolproof system here; however, my approach is consistent and it squares not only with the manifested intentions of the Founding Fathers but also with Catholic teaching as well. Catholics can therefore utilize it for different reasons than non-Catholics but there is a need to put forth a consistent defense here.

Many of the "conservative" persuasion -as that term is so often loosely used- mean well but their thinking is not systemized nor is it consistent. For that reason, it is not as effective as it could be in confuting the errors of the agents of death. And while I may build on those posts later on -much as they were built on earlier posts on the same themes- at the moment they are adequate to provide a template for supplying order to one's political thinking if they identify themselves as "conservative" to any degree. Liberals of course are invited to consider the merits of this view versus their own -as I would gladly defend it without the slightest worry of confutation by liberal philosophy (to the extent that the liberals even have a philosophy). But enough on that point.

On the Recent War and War in General

Briefly on the War and "Manifest Destiny" Philosophies

Yeah, I have to ask this question my friends. And remember, I was a supporter of the war for very specific reasons. However, there are also faulty reasons for supporting the war and I believe this outlook -if any supporters actually have it- is not a viable one to have due to being intrinsically faulty.)

On Church Authority

Dialogue With Tim Enloe (Parts I and II)

On Papal Primacy and Church History --Parts I-II (Societas Christiana vs. Rerum Novarum)

Clarification on the Dogmatic/Pastoral Distinction

On the Supreme Magisterium

On the Papacy and Ideas With Tim Enloe

The first, third, and fifth posts above are part of a thread with Reformed Protestant (and fellow student of Church history) Tim Enloe. The others pertain to the magisterium in general. (The first addressing the canard of dichotomizing "dogmatic" and "pastoral" distinctions viz the authority of certain teachings; the second touching briefly on the Supreme Magisterium.)

On 'Traditionalism' (Falsely So-Called)

"To Be Deep in Catholic Theology is to Cease to Be a (Pseudo) 'Traditionalist'" Dept.

Yet another in the biblical scroll of case studies of why Catholic theology does not support the (often nuance-challenged) views of the self-styled "traditionalists."

On Controverted Subjects:

Briefly on Limbo

A Significant Oversight by Yours Truly

Dialogue on Mel Gibson's Movie (Parts I-II)

On Theological/Philosophical Freedom of Inquiry

"Turn Back the Clock" Dept.

On The Controversy of the Unrevoked Old Covenant

More on the Unrevoked Covenant

The first two involve theological or dogmatic/canonical subject matter. (The second in particular will be of interest to those who have read my treatise.) The third is a discussion of Mel Gibson's movie The Passion. The fourth deals with theological/philosophical freedom of inquiry and how it applies to Catholics united in the one faith. The fifth reveals a more personal side to your weblog host -a bit of a birthday indulgence but (I believe) it gives some insight into why I approach issues as I do.

The sixth and seventh links deal with the controversy of the Old Covenant and whether or not the Old Covenant was ever actually "revoked." For obvious reasons -even though this is a common thread of argumentation amongst the self-styled "traditionalists"- it seemed fitting to put this link into the section on controverted subjects.

And now for the benefit of my readers who like either legal jargon, sweeping solemn language (or both):

In light of additional links which will be added later on to complete this update -and which will in no way derogate from what is enjoined above, and revoking all previous enactments contrary in any way to what is added in this update, by the authority vested in me as Sovereign Thane and Lord High Executioner of Rerum Novarum, I declare that the above links are added to the side margin motu proprio and are to be recognized hereunder as stable and valid and herewith set forth in perpetuity all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Of course none of this will detract what will be added "in perpetuity" tomorrow or the next day whenever I complete this update.

A Case Study in the Traditional Catholic Maxim of "Unity-in-Diversity"
(Fr. Joseph Fessio, SJ vs. Rerum Novarum)

This is to some extent a continuation of a previous post thread on theological/philosophical freedom of inquiry which can be read HERE. However, this is like one of those movie sequels where there are some different key actors than in the first movie. God willing it will fare better than most of those kinds of movies often do.

The original impetus for the post you are about to read was from an email where a person asked me to clarify a previous statement made at Rerum Novarum. I had to do an archive search to track down the entry where I said the words referred to by the emailer to refresh my memory a bit. (It was from a discussion with Christopher Blosser back in June: see the margin links for details.) My previously quoted words will be in dark faded blue and my inquirer's comments in red font. Comments quoted from Fr. Fessio will be in purple and my sources (if I use any) will be in lime font. Without further ado, let us get to it...

Yes they do. There is room for diversity of viewpoints provided that the essentials are maintained. And Dr. McInerney and Fr. Fessio do this. I do take some issue with them on some points (i.e. with Fr. Fessio on the liturgy) but it is in my view fellow Catholics agreeing to disagree. But with those who are not authentically Catholic in attitude...well... see my last five entries to the Lidless Eye Inquisition :)

Shawn, could you give me a brief overview of your disagreement with Fr. Fessio on the Liturgy... I love his Adoremus and the tapes that went along with the Adormus inception.

I suppose I can do this but before doing so, I want to make it clear that (i) I am a substantial supporter of the intentions of Adoremus and (ii) I have a tremendous respect for Fr. Fessio. And further still, (iii) in our disagreements, I do not see anything remotely akin to what the Lidless Eye types purvey in anything Fr. Fessio has said. The balance of this response will explain why.

Fr. Fessio has a piece titled The Mass of Vatican II which Catholic Dossier has on the web. The piece can be read HERE. In roughly sequential order, here are some problems I have with what he notes in the piece:

---His narrow interpretation of the term actuosa participatio in the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium. (I agree with him though that the term encompasses silence as an important but often overlooked principle in full participation.)

---His interpretation of SC §23 on organic development of newer forms is too narrowly confined to the mainstream post-Quo Primum liturgical forms. (And does not take into account the entirety of the Church's liturgical tradition.)

---His interpretation of SC §54 without taking into account later decisions of the Apostolic See on the usage of the vernacular.

---Likewise with SC §55.

---A slightly too narrow interpretation of SC §112 on sacred music. (But only slightly IMHO.)

---The assertion that "never in the history of the Church, East or West, was there a tradition of celebrating Mass facing the people" is not completely accurate.

---His views on the diversity of canon prayers in the Church over the centuries -as attested to by Church history- are partially inaccurate.

---His claim that St. Hippolytus of Rome composed the Anaphora attributed to him{1} shows very little understanding of Hippolytus' approach to matters of church practice and tradition.

---His claim that St. Hippolytus was a heretic is erroneous. (Hippolytus was a schismatic at one point and the first antipope but he was not a heretic.)

---His claim that the Anaphora of Hippolytus "was probably never used as a liturgical text" is at best a half-truth.{2}

---His claim that "the Canon of Hyppolytus was perhaps never used as a canon" is false on (i) the authority of St. Hippolytus himself{3} and (ii) the practice of the Churches down through the centuries.

---His claim that "[i]f it was [used as a canon], it ceased being used at least 1600 years ago" is false as well.{4}

---Fr. Fessio says that "[y]et from the Council, which says changes ought to come through organic growth and there should be no changes unless necessary, we come to liturgists saying, Oh, let’s pull this thing out of the third century and plug it back into the twentieth.' That’s not organic growth; that’s archeologism, specifically criticized by Pius XII in Mediator Dei." This is a very problematical interpretation of Mediator Dei because what Pope Pius XII criticized in MD not the utilization of earlier forms by the competent magisterial authority.

For if archeologism was condemned in toto by Pius XII in MD, why would his restoration of Holy Week to the form it had in the tenth century be acceptable??? This was taking a form not utilized for nine centuries and reinstituting it. If anything, Pius XII's Holy Week restoration was evidence that archeologism was not properly understood as most "trads" apply that term. Instead, it was an indiscriminate reapplication of something ancient simply because it was ancient.

Obviously if restoring liturgical usages from 1700 years ago is archeologism ipso facto, then so is restoring them from 900 years ago or any other period of time in the past when a practice fell out of usage for whatever reason. Clearly Pius XII did not see his actions as falling under the umbrella of illicit liturgical practices - indeed he affirmed the authority of "the Sovereign Pontiff alone" who "enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification" (Mediator Dei §58). This preceded the acknowledgment that "[t]he Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded" (Mediator Dei §59).

Indeed all references to innovations which Mediator Dei proscribes apply not to the magisterium as the "radtrads" try to to claim but to "private individuals and particular churches" (Mediator Dei §57), "[p]rivate individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics" (Mediator Dei §58), "private person[s]" (Mediator Dei §58), and of course the reference to "the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics" (Mediator Dei §59) must be interpreted in light of those mentioned in MD §58.

This is the reason why the "trads" who appeal to Mediator Dei over and against the Revised Missal (promulgated by Pope Paul VI with his Apostolic authority) quite clearly do not understand what Pius XII's encyclical letter actually says in that area. In Fr. Fessio's case, he does not do that but he does have the same misunderstanding of archeologism that was referred to in that encyclical.

Mediator Dei, written many years before Pius XII restored Holy Week, referred to "some persons" who were "bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately" and the pope noted that "it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device" (Mediator Dei §61). From there he listed certain practices -some of which have come to pass- but proscribed them in the sense of individuals doing these things.

Pope Pius XII then summarized the entire thrust of MD §57-65 with the command "In every measure taken, then, let proper contact with the ecclesiastical hierarchy be maintained. Let no one arrogate to himself the right to make regulations and impose them on others at will" (Mediator Dei §65). In the same section he noted that the only legitimate rulers in the Church are the Sovereign Pontiff and the Bishops in communion with him (cf. MD §65). In short, Fr. Fessio makes the same mistake with the notion of proscribed antiquarianism/archeologism that radtrads make: in both cases on a misreading of Mediator Dei.

For besides these things, Mediator Dei spoke as well of the ability of the Church as a living organism to grow and adapt her usages to fit the particular circumstances of time and place.{5} And Pope Paul VI, by promulgating the Revised Missal made those suggestions by the commission he set up by his authority his own, would likewise not be guilty of promoting archeologism in promulgating the Revised Missal. Fr. Fessio would (I would argue) not make this claim but radtrads do. And this claim is (of course) quite erroneous to no small degree.

Again, the criticism of "archeologism" by Pius XII was intended to be critical of those individuals of varying stripes (or local churches) who would indiscriminately restore something simply because it was ancient. Whether or not some in the Concilium did this or not is of course debatable but one should not presume that it was simply on the basis of appearances alone. (Not that Fr. Fessio is necessarily doing this himself of course.)

---The statement "[t]he Third Canon was entirely made up. There has never been a canon like the Third Canon in the history of the Church, except in bits and pieces. Father Vagaggini, with the help of Father Bouyer, I believe, actually constructed it using their knowledge of liturgical history, which was enormous. But they totally invented the canon. It would be like taking piece of a carrot, a piece of a tomato, a piece of a peach and a piece of some tree, then putting them together and saying, 'Well, you see that? It’s organic.' But it’s not organic; it’s constructed" shows again a difficulty on his part in understanding what a key subject term means. (In this case, the meaning of the term "organic".)

The reform of the liturgy was a restoration of the venerable traditions of the early post-biblical centuries. The intention was to restore the liturgy to "the pristine norm of the holy Fathers." Whatever the merits of the result were -the method used aside for a moment- the reform of the liturgy was itself an organic development out of the whole of the existing tradition -not just the Latin second millennium tradition as fixed after the Council of Trent. (A reform of which was anything but a restoration of the "pristine norm of the holy Fathers" as St. Pius V sought to claim in Quo Primum that it was.)

Eucharistic Prayer III -while being to a degree synthetic as Fr. Fessio notes- was nonetheless based on the Spanish Mozarabic liturgical usages. The intention of ressourcement does not involve simple restoration of something from the past but utilizing the wisdom of the past to address the present.

Hence, while Eucharistic Prayer III is not identical to any of the Mozarabic anaphoras -nor was Eucharistic Prayer II a carbon copy of the Anaphora of Hippolytus- these sources from antiquity were utilized in the restoration of the sacred liturgy. Again, how well this was done is debatable of course; however it is not as if there was no thought or no careful contemplation on these matters.

---The assertion that "the Council did not call for a multiplication of canons" is true; however it proves too much since the "pristine norm of the holy Fathers" (cf. Paul VI: Apost. Constit. Missale Romanum) was the intention of the synod in restoring the sacred liturgy. Indeed SC §50, which Fr. Fessio touches on in part included a key section that he overlooks which reads as follows:

"Other parts which suffered loss through accidents of history are to be restored to the vigour they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary." [SC §50]

And in the days of the holy Fathers, there was not one fixed canon in the liturgy in all places. Indeed if we really get technical about it, the idea of a single Roman Missal with a single celebratory form in the Latin rite was a Tridentine novelty. Vatican II intended to restore the tradition of local liturgical variations but within a basic structured format. So for this reason the liturgy would have certain variations even in the anaphora prayer.

I agree with Fr. Fessio that (i) the second anaphora is used too much{6} and (ii) the first anaphora (or Roman Canon) is not used nearly enough. However, the idea that Vatican II only envisioned one canon in light of the overarching intention to restore what might seem "useful or necessary" neither recommends nor rules out additional canons to accompany the venerable Roman Canon in the Revised Missal.

---The assertion that "the Council, as I mentioned, [did not] abolish Latin" is true as is the statement that the Council mandated "the retention of Latin and only permitted the use of the vernacular in certain circumstances." However, Pope Paul later extended the use of the vernacular at the request of many bishops to do so and therefore extended vernacular usage supersedes the limiting prescription in SC on vernacular usage.

---Fr. Fessio is correct that "the Council did not prohibit Gregorian Chant, as you might be led to think from its absence in your parishes. The Council actually prescribed Gregorian Chant to have pride of place." I agree that Gregorian Chant should be used at least as much as other forms are: this would be a minimalist interpretation of the pride of place clause. However, pride of place -while indicating a usage that has not in practice materialized as it should- nonetheless does not mean that every liturgical celebration would require Gregorian Chant to be used. Fr. Fessio seems to think that it does.

Now, having noted all of this, I want to note that I respect greatly Fr. Fessio and feel that he is the kind of Jesuit of which we need many more of. And though he is wrong on some points from a historical and factual standpoint, I respect his right to celebrate the mass in accordance with what he feels are the requirements of SC: a document he interprets in spots narrowly but at least he strives to follow it.

Indeed, I would not bring these things up publicly unless someone challenged me on them in the public arena. And even blogging this response -as I decided at the last minute to do- I would point out that I respect Fr. Fessio's right to disagree with me on those point which do not touch on doctrine or the Church's prescribed discipline.

Areas where there is permissible diversity of application{7} of course are areas where neither of us would have the right to impose dogmatically our views on the other. For in those areas, Pope Benedict XV supplies some excellent counsel on the matter in his first encyclical letter. After underlining that no one "whether in books or in the press, or in public speeches" is to controvert the teachings of the ecclesial magisterium, on other matters the Holy Father noted the following:

"As regards matters in which without harm to faith or discipline-in the absence of any authoritative intervention of the Apostolic See- there is room for divergent opinions, it is clearly the right of everyone to express and defend his own opinion. But in such discussions no expressions should be used which might constitute serious breaches of charity; let each one freely defend his own opinion, but let it be done with due moderation, so that no one should consider himself entitled to affix on those who merely do not agree with his ideas the stigma of disloyalty to faith or to discipline." [Pope Benedict XV: Encyclical Letter Ad Beatissimi §23 (c. 1914)]
This is precisely what I meant by the expression that "there is room for diversity of viewpoints provided that the essentials are maintained" along with my acknowledgment that "Dr. McInerney and Fr. Fessio do this."{8} I also if memory serves have some disagreements with Dr. McInerney but -like my disagreements with Fr. Fessio- these are examples of faithful Catholics who agree to disagree and do not in doing so controvert the authority of the ecclesial magisterium "in books or in the press, or in public speeches" to say nothing about the Internet, message boards, magazines, or weblogs where the same principles apply.

The reason I decided to blog this response to you rather than merely send it by private email is so that there is no confusion about why I can take issue with Fr. Fessio on these points (and possibly others) without hurling thunderbolts at him.{9} It boils down to the fact that Fr. Fessio is a faithful son of the Church and expresses his opinion without using expressions which "might constitute serious breaches of charity" and how he does this with modesty "so that no one should consider himself entitled to affix on those who merely do not agree with his ideas the stigma of disloyalty to faith or to discipline" following the exhortations of Pope Benedict XV in his Encyclical Letter Ad Beatissimi. I have yet to see any radtrads who follow these exhortations from the pope -including the one that states the following:

"Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as 'profane novelties of words,' out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: 'This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved' (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim 'Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,' only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself." [Pope Benedict XV: Encyclical Letter Ad Beatissimi §24 (c. 1914)]

For that reason and others related to it,{10} there is no inconsistency whatsoever in how radtrads are handled and how faithful Catholics such as Fr. Fessio and Jeff Culbreath -to name two Catholics among many whom I have some disagreements with- are addressed by your humble servant at Rerum Novarum. In short: there is a distinction of outlook here and one with key differences that are worth considering.

Notes:

{1} Fr. Fessio states "Now, where did Canon Two come from? From what’s called the Canon of Hyppolytus, composed by a theologian who became a heretic, later was reconciled to the Church and died a martyr." As my good friend Dr. Art Sippo has noted on this anaphora prayer and its usage from a project we worked on with Matt about three and a half years ago:

"St. Hippolytus said it was used in Rome. We have no reason to doubt him. He was so convincing that people in Egypt, Syria, and Ethiopia believed him and the Ethiopians actually adopted his Canon as one of their own." [Dr. Art Sippo: Detection and Overthrow of the 'Traditionalist Catholics' (Falsely So-Called) Part III, Section II (c. 2000)]

{2} "The Apostolic Traditions were quite influential in Egypt and Syria. It is considered to be one of the literary bases for the later work The Apostolic Constitutions. What is most important from our perspective is that the Eucharistic Canon it contains is the earliest liturgical text we have depicting the practices in the Roman Church. St. Justin Martyr previously documented a simple schematic of Christian worship in Rome in the 2nd Century, but the Canon of St. Hippolytus was the earliest example of the sacramental prayers themselves.

It gives us the earliest known use of the sursum corda in the liturgy. The words of institution clearly do not contain the phrase 'mysterium fidei' belying the claim of some Integrists that they were used by Sts. Peter and Paul. It does contain a reference to the Eucharistic elements as an oblatio showing that the early Eucharistic liturgy was seen as sacrificial..."

"Debate has arisen as to whether or not the Hippolytan Canon really was a fixed liturgical prayer in Rome. Most scholars are not sure how rigidly the Eucharistic Liturgy was structured in those days. Extemporaneous prayers on the part of the celebrant were probably common with the words of institution being the most highly conserved text in the rite. Nevertheless, the Hippolytan Canon seems to be in line with early Roman liturgical practice. St. Hippolytus was himself a rigorous traditionalist and was hardly likely to invent innovative liturgical forms." [Dr. Art Sippo: Detection and Overthrow of the 'Traditionalist Catholics' (Falsely So-Called) Part III, Section II (c. 2000)]

{3} Hippolytus (along with Tertullian) castigated Pope St. Callistus I for "innovations on sacramental discipline" in the years after The Apostolic Traditions were compiled. For this reason among others, St. Hippolytus' charge towards St. Pope Callistus I of "novelty" would have had no merit if he was an innovator himself - particularly in matters liturgical.

As far as whether or not the Anaphora of Hippolytus was used, to again quote Dr. Art Sippo on the matter "St. Hippolytus said it was used in Rome. We have no reason to doubt him." Barring the evidence of contemporaries challenging this assertion -and in light of the widely circulated text both as a liturgical text as well as the foundation for the late fourth century Apostolic Constitutions -there is no valid reason to doubt him on this assertion.

Furthermore, in the aforementioned piece (part of a project that Art coauthored with Matt and myself), one of the sources used was the esteemed Anglican liturgical scholar Dr. Gregory Dix who noted the following:

"Hippolytus, as we have noted, grudgingly admits that the 'Callistians' (Those Roman Christians loyal to Pope St. Callistus) faithfully preserved "the customs and the tradition" (i.e., as he himself practiced them). We may safely take it that in outline and essentials the rites and customs to which the Apostolic Tradition bears witness were those practiced in the Roman Church in his own day, and in his own youth @ AD 180. And it is also safe to say that this Roman tradition was, mutis mutandis typical of the practice of the Great Church everywhere in the second century." [Rev. Gregory Dix: The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome pages xxxix-xl as quoted by Dr. Art Sippo in Detection and Overthrow of the 'Traditionalist Catholics' (Falsely So-Called) Part III, Section II (c. 2000)]

This would seem to witness to the Pope and others using the same liturgical practices as outlined by St. Hippolytus himself. This is of no small importance since St. Hippolytus was a man with far greater similarities to Archbishop Lefebvre regarding liturgical matters than to your local novelty-happy liturgist.

{4} "[The Anapohra of Hippolytus] also became one of the traditional Eucharistic Canons used in the Ethiopian Church and to this very day is known there as 'The Anaphora of the Apostles'." [Dr. Art Sippo: Detection and Overthrow of the 'Traditionalist Catholics' (Falsely So-Called) Part III, Section II (c. 2000)]

{5} See Mediator Dei §59 and also Trent Session XXI where this principle was first explicitly formulated.

{6} "In the subjective opinion of the author, Anaphora 2 should be restricted to weekday Masses and not allowed in Sunday Masses or Masses celebrated on Holy Days of Obligation. This is not a question of validity but instead of fittingness. This also is in accordance with the intentions of the Anaphora being formulated for the shorter masses celebrated on weekdays. The greater theological depth and richness of Anaphoras 1, 3, and 4 makes them much more suitable for Masses on Sundays, Holy Days, etc. where the greatest number of people attend and the celebration itself thus should be more solemn. Likewise, any additional anaphoras approved should be of a similar richness as prayers 1, 3, and 4 as the anaphora is the heart of the liturgy and should therefore be treated as such.

However, this is not to be misunderstood as a derogation of Anaphora 2 but instead to have it used as it was originally intended." [I. Shawn McElhinney: A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' Part III (c. 2003, 2000)]

I would exclude from the above restriction of course elderly priests or those who have a legitimate impediment which would warrant them using the shorter anaphora on weekend masses (such as a serious injury which makes standing for longer periods extremely difficult due to pain).

{7} Such as points 1-2,5-7,16-17. With the others (3,4,8-15) there are points where Fr. Fessio errs in his facts. However, other than the points of fact involved, I would never insist on holding him to my interpretation of the magisterial text over and against his own. (And of course we both would submit to the judgment of the Holy See on the matter.)

{8} Coupled with the offhand note that I take issue with them on some issues -noting Fr. Fessio and the liturgy as one example.

{9} Whereas the radtrads who gripe about certain things are not spared the aforementioned thunderbolts being hurled their way by myself and others on occasion.

{10} "[W]henever legitimate authority has once given a clear command, let no one transgress that command, because it does not happen to commend itself to him; but let each one subject his own opinion to the authority of him who is his superior, and obey him as a matter of conscience. Again, let no private individual, whether in books or in the press, or in public speeches, take upon himself the position of an authoritative teacher in the Church. All know to whom the teaching authority of the Church has been given by God: he, then, possesses a perfect right to speak as he wishes and when he thinks it opportune. The duty of others is to hearken to him reverently when he speaks and to carry out what he says." [Pope Benedict XV: Encyclical Letter Ad Beatissimi §22 (c. 1914)]