On St. John of the Cross and 'Traditionalism':
(A Response to Albert Cipriani)

Having noted previously about my intention to post on four key subjects "in the coming weeks", it seems appropriate at this time to post the second of the four planned responses noted above. I have already responded to my friend Kevin Tierney on society's ills and the function of law in a just society. It now seems right to respond to my friend Albert Cipriani's mid March email on St. John of the Cross and so-called "traditionalism: an email that was surely prompted by this humble weblog's Lenten meditation on Book 1 of The Dark Night.

The response to the unidentified "traditionalist" on political and social subjects will be next on the horizon and hopefully done in the next week. (It is at the moment partly completed.) That will leave the dialogue with Tim Enloe on philosophical presuppositions viz. universals as the one promised response from early April that is left to get to. That one will hopefully be a summer project if Tim is willing to have that discussion. But enough on that for now and onto this response to Albert. His words will be in lime green font and his sources in fire coloured font. My words will be in regular font and sources in dark blue.

Shawn,

Hello Albert:

You compare us traditionalists to those gluttonous beginners St. John of the Cross speaks of in his Meditations On the Dark Night of the Soul when he says: “Many of these persons are very insistent with their spiritual masters to be granted that which they desire…”

Yes I do. I actually pointed to spiritual pride, spiritual wrath, and spiritual gluttony as three areas that afflict most who call themselves "traditionalists." That is not to say of course that the other areas do not apply too -or that they are the only ones afflicted in the areas I pay particular emphasis on of course. But in light of how they claim to be "traditionalists" and thus by logical extension "The True Believers"™ who are "more Traditional than thou" it seems appropriate to highlight just how short of the mark such individuals really fall.

Remember, the ones who are making the boast are the so-called "traditionalists." They therefore should expect to be held to a higher standard. And when it is so manifestly obvious that they are as a rule badly informed about such important subjects as (i) Church history (ii) liturgical history (iii) dogmatic theology (iv) the spiritual masters of the Great Tradition,{1} then it only shows how their claims to be "traditionalists" are in realty nothing more than "so much sound and fury signifying nothing" to borrow a bit from William Shakespeare.

Our “desire” to pray as our fathers did feels to me more like an obligation than any desire I’ve ever felt. It’s our “piety,” that would be a more accurate description of what motivates us.

Piety is of course fine as long as it is not used as an excuse to countenance disobedience. I will for the sake of brevity not go into the liturgical diversity that permeated the universal church prior to Quo Primum. It discounts this idea that all our "fathers" and "mothers" in the faith prayed the same way as your statement implies. By contrast, there was a rich tapestry of external forms. Obviously in essentials there was no difference. But you are getting hung up on externals -something that I have noted many times{2} is a problem. The spiritual masters are clear that we are to focus on the gift, not the external trappings. Indeed it was failing to do this which is what Our Lord castigated the Pharisees for.{3} And the spiritual masters such as Thomas a Kempis (to name one example of many) are quite clear on this matter.{4}

I remind you that in the Spiritual Instruction on Prayer (posted to this weblog some time ago) that this theme was quite a prevalent one.{5} Fot that reason, I suggest that you take it seriously because it underlines a common key problem with this movement you align yourself with.

“For they [traditionalists according to you] go about clinging to their own will and pleasure.”

Oh not just the so-called "traditionalists" Albert. By no means do they own the franchise on spiritual gluttony. It is however a problem that they possess which is particularly of interest since it is one that is often criticized by the spiritual masters.

Yep, every one of the traditionalists I know gets a lot of pleasure out of stuffing their kids into their car and driving 45 minutes one-way to their Traditional Mass. With gas prices over $2 a gallon, it’s our will to cling to a Mass whose unlawful and scandalous scarcity empties our wallets.

First of all, (i) there is nothing unlawful about the scarcity of the Tridentine liturgical form and (ii) there is nothing scandalous about the scarcity of this liturgical form. Granted, the handling of this matter by many local ordinaries is not a situation that is good -particularly in light of the way that the "diversity" card is played to justify other variations.{6} However, that does not excuse those who seek the end of the older liturgy via illicit and criminal means. It is an eminently Traditional maxim that "the end does not justify the means." That principle is at the cornerstone of all Catholic morality -indeed it could accurately be said to be a theorem of Catholic morality.

And it bears noting that for those who do not have an Indult to utilize -and who act as you note in the above paragraph- that they are engaging in an egregious violation of that principle. There is nothing commendable there. It instead strongly parallels what St. John of the Cross noted about those guilty of spiritual avarice and how they place undue value in externals:

[T]rue devotion must issue from the heart, and consist in the truth and substances alone of what is represented by spiritual things; all the rest is affection and attachment proceeding from imperfection; and in order that one may pass to any kind of perfection it is necessary for such desires to be killed.

I knew a person who for more than ten years made use of a cross roughly formed from a branch that had been blessed, fastened with a pin twisted round it; he had never ceased using it, and he always carried it about with him until I took it from him; and this was a person of no small sense and understanding. And I saw another who said his prayers using beads that were made of bones from the spine of a fish; his devotion was certainly no less precious on that account in the sight of God, for it is clear that these things carried no devotion in their workmanship or value.

Those, then, who start from these beginnings and make good progress attach themselves to no visible instruments, nor do they burden themselves with such, nor desire to know more than is necessary in order that they may act well; for they set their eyes only on being right with God and on pleasing Him, and therein consists their covetousness. [St. John of the Cross: The Dark Night of the Soul Book I, Chapter III on Spiritual Avarice (c. 1580)]

“These persons [traditionalists!] think that their own satisfaction and pleasure are the satisfaction and service of God.”

Yeah, it’s been real satisfying being called a schismatic and well over 100 names by your “good” friend Mark Shea.

Mark and I get along but I am not sure that we are "good friends." If we are good friends, it seems strange that my weblog is not listed over there. And while I have made by my reckoning (thanks to blogger's search engine) forty-eight references to Mark Shea's weblog or him personally in the past twenty-two months, I doubt you can find more than five references in return. Yup, "thick as thieves" we are.{7}

As far as the schism subject goes, I do not want to delve into it now. If you like, we can perhaps discuss it in another dialogue and see if Mark's reference of the term to you is accurate or not. I cannot speak for whatever else he has called you since I have in most cases probably not seen it. Certainly if it has happened in the past two plus years I have not. If you are referring to some of the rounds over at the old converts board, I remind you that I took your side in those exchanges out of principle.{8} But enough on that point for now.

These persons who are thus inclined to such pleasures… are very weak and remiss in journeying upon the hard road of the Cross. For the soul that is given to sweetness…”

If journeying great distances physically, emotionally, and intellectually in order to attend the Mass that the English were martyred over is not “the hard road of the Cross” then I don’t know what is.

Prior to Quo Primum the mass the English were martyred over was not the Roman rite contemporary to the sixteenth century. (Or basically the liturgical form you attend.) The predominant liturgical form in England prior to Quo Primum was the Sarum liturgy. So nice try but you do not have the same liturgical solidarity with the English martyrs that you claim. Furthermore, the difference between the old Sarum mass and the Anglican liturgy is that the latter did not (and does not) involve a valid Eucharist whereas the former did. And the lack of a valid Eucharist is not a charge that can be laid at the feet of the Revised Roman Missal. So again your analogy collapses like a cheap tent in a big wind kemosabe.

If the intellectual turmoil I’ve endured these past four years can be counted as “pleasures,” then the one doing the counting is a sadist.

It is akin to an adulterer who goes through intellectual and emotional turmoil over his affair. Or the alcoholic who goes through intellectual and emotional turmoil over his frequent repairs to the bar or his private bottle.

My conversion to traditional Catholicism has brought my soul to the precipice of despair over my past 20 years of mindlessly obedient neo-Catholicism and over the bleak future I see for me and what’s left of our religion.

In light of what you note above, it does not seem prudent at this time to go into why your usage of terms like "traditionalist Catholic" and "neo catholic" are contrary to the manifested mind of the ecclesiastical magisterium prior to the Second Vatican Council.

My soul’s only solace is not that it is “given to sweetness” but that it is taken by the truth, a brutally depressive truth, but truth nonetheless.

This sounds like depression to me. If that diagnosis is correct then it would also not be prudent to explain here why the "truth" you claim to be taken in by is counterfeit. To everything there is a season and this post is not that season my friend.

Notes:

{1} All of which are areas that I have outlined in well-documented web writings over the years.

{2} Here is but one of the many examples I could note on this subject:

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

{3} Though I am not as a rule inclined to use this parallel in dialogue, sometimes for the sake of vivid illustration it must be utilized.

{4} IT IS not hard to spurn human consolation when we have the divine. It is, however, a very great thing indeed to be able to live without either divine or human comforting and for the honor of God willingly to endure this exile of heart, not to seek oneself in anything, and to think nothing of one's own merit.

Does it matter much, if at the coming of grace, you are cheerful and devout? This is an hour desired by all, for he whom the grace of God sustains travels easily enough. What wonder if he feel no burden when borne up by the Almighty and led on by the Supreme Guide! For we are always glad to have something to comfort us, and only with difficulty does a man divest himself of self. [Thomas a Kempis: Imitation of Christ Book II, Ch. IX on Wanting No Share in Comfort (c. 1418)]

{5} If you experience great dryness in your meditation or other prayers, do not feel distressed and feel that God has turned His Face away from you. Far from it. Prayer said with aridity is usually the most meritorious. It is quite a common error to confound the value of prayer with its sensible results, and the merit acquired with the satisfaction experienced. The facility and sweetness that you may have in prayer are favours from God and for which you will have to account to Him: hence the result is not merit but debt. [Fr. R. P. Quadrupini: excerpts from his spiritual instruction "Light and Peace - Instructions for Devout Souls" pgs. 19-20 (c. 1795)]

{6} Some good and others which are not so good to put it mildly.

{7} That is not to say that anyone whose weblog or website is not in my scroll is not a friend of mine of course. However, certainly if we were "best buds" as you would say, I would note this quite often at Rerum Novarum. In checking my archives, I see that I never once have referred to Mark Shea as my "good friend." Indeed, I only have referred to him as my "friend" twice -and both of those posts were within the first two months of this weblog's existence. By contrast, there are twelve weblog archive references to you as my "friend" and four which I refer to you as my "good friend." I trust that the disparity between you and Mark on this point viz. my weblog references is not without notice to you now.

In the case of this humble weblog, the idea that being my friend translates into a web margin notation is not the case at all. I have friends of varying outlooks whose weblogs or websites may have been lost in my reconstruction of this template last month. Then there are others who frankly endorse particular outlooks which I cannot link to. That does not mean that they are not friends of mine of course. However, it does mean that certain outlooks some of my friends may have are not ones that I can countenance in good conscience. But I digress.

{8} Certainly it was not because I agreed with your arguments in the debates with Mark. (For the most part I concurred with him.) But that is ancient history. Now if you want to point to where Mark has called you names recently -say since he started his weblog- that would be one thing. In doing a quick search for you name and his weblog, I was only able to find one link from October of 2002.

With regards to the earlier post on blogging vs. message boards, Mary H. of St. Blog's Parish Hall has posted a response which can be read HERE. For the record, We at Rerum Novarum hope that everything on that message board goes in acccordance with how she outlines it.

The Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG has been updated.

Briefly on Blogging vs. Message Boards:
(Courtesy of Mary H's St. Blog's Parish Hall)

I'm curious if the stats from ye olde Catholic converts msgboard are down, and if so is it only because of their switch to a new format (which I don't happen to like) or is it because blogs are sucking the available oxygen from msgboards in general?

It is probably some of both. I know when I started blogging, my message board time decreased dramatically. And when Steve Ray's board went to the Novus Boardo format along with revoking the password I had used for nearly four years, I took an attitude of "sod off" to the message board format. That was in January of 2003 and I stopped posting to the converts board on New Years Eve 2002. And I have no plans to ever post there again.

Many former Catholic Converters are bloggers now, and many blogs serve as a msgboard since that they have comments (Amy Welborn & Mark Shea's spring immediately to mind). Anyway be nice to see this board get a lot of posts.

I suppose it will depend on how variegated the subject matter is. If it is too restrictive of subject matter, then there will be less interactions. I explain the problem I have long had with message boards HERE and will not reiterate it here. I am not sure yet if this site will have the same problems that every other message board I have posted at over the years has had.{1} Certainly I hope it does not. We shall see.

Note:

{1} All things being equal, I prefer for the reasons noted at the above link to focus on blogging rather than on message boards -particularly now that I have even less time for this kind of interaction than I did previously. I think I posted seven times last year to message boards. In 2004, thus far I have posted once including this post you are reading. But I digress.

A Digression on the "Scylla/Charybdis" Conundrum of American Political Parties, Etc.

Though some of this will be covered in an upcoming response to an unidentified self-styled "traditionalist" Charles de Nunzio, it seems appropriate to touch on it here since it will allow for setting forth one of the principles that will guide that response. My words will be in regular font with any sources in darkblue font.

You will be happy to know that on Friday I'll be with VP Dick Chaney, in a reception for a local candidate for State (of Texas) Representative.

A great judge, proudly pro lifer conservative and smart. I have been helping elect W Bush as governor twice and to president once, hope the battle will be won again in November. It was a joy to see the historically democratic Texas turn around in the last 10 years. We are the last corner of Texas which is still democrat but even this island is changing. Thanks be to God.

We need more Constructionists on all the supreme courts -state and federal.

TROUBLE is that many professional politicians are beginning to pretend they are Republicans and are joining the party in droves with their socialistic atheistic ideas.

This has been a problem for a long time. It is the reason why I cannot in good conscience affiliate with the Republican Party. If not for the fact that (i) the Democrats are even worse (ii) there is no viable third alternative, and (iii) on the war on terror, Bush actually understands the kind of enemy we are facing, there is no way I would support the president. But concern for the common good and by logical extension this country's survival make that choice in my view necessary.

It takes a lot of homework to study every candidate who runs for election, especially in such a vast state. But it is our responsibility.

I use a simple acid test. To me, the key variable is how they view the proper function of law in a just society. Any candidate that endorses a differentiation between the laws of the individual and the laws of society at large is one who inexorably endorses the plunder of one class of citizens to enrich another class is not a real conservative. And sadly, almost all who run for office under the conservative banner support legal plunder in some form or another. It then becomes a case of ascertaining whether or not their support of legal plunder is based on ignorance of what they are actually supporting or whether they are intentionally in support of it. That is admittedly not easy to determine but a safe norm to follow is to see how much they favour federal involvement or intervention. For the greater they favour those factors, the more they inexorably endorse legal plunder.{1} And no just society can countenance such an abomination and expect to avoid dissolving as a nation at some point or another - either through military conquest or revolution.{2}

It's amazing how when you are listening to a pro lifer it is usually a moral, honest person on all other phases. While when one starts with the "personally I am against abortion..." he turns out to be a dishonest person morally on all other subjects.

And usually those who support abortion also favour various forms of legal plunder as well. I do not believe this parallel is at all coincidental.

One of the "reasons" for pro abortion I heard is that we need to get rid of all the poor (and unwanted) babies since they are such a burden on the tax payer...like they care about the tax payer.

Margaret Sanger would be proud of that "logic." So too would the Nazis. Those who would call themselves conservatives{3} who place the market over any and all things are wolves in sheep's clothing. But I digress.

Notes:

{1} For a working definition of legal plunder, see this link.

{2} But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law -- which may be an isolated case -- is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: The Law (c. 1850)]

{3} See this link for some details on what it means to be a true conservative.

Points to Ponder:

Today, some self-identified Catholic politicians prefer to emulate Pontius Pilate's 'personally opposed but unwilling to impose' stance. [Bishop Thomas Wenski of Orlando, Florida]