St. Gerard Majella: "Trad" or "Neo-Catholic"???
[This was an entry to my notebook that never got posted. Hence I do so now - ISM]
Courtesy of The Anchor Hold we have "St. Gerard Majella: the scarlet A is for accused, and he opened not his mouth [1727-1755]".
I wish to love God. I wish always to be with God, and to do everything for the love of God. The center of all love for God consists in giving ourselves entirely to God by being in all things conformable to the divine will, and remaining in this conformity for all eternity.
St. Gerard was a tailor, born to a family in that trade. He was still an apprentice when his father died; he became a servant in the household of a cantankerous bishop for a while, then he went back to his hometown and opened his own tailor shop.
In 1748 he entered the Redemptorist community as a lay-brother; the founder of the community, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, received his profession in 1752. Gerard served as tailor and infirmarian in the community, and became known for great holiness and charity, and for charisms of prophesy and infused knowledge; his advice and spiritual direction was sought after even though he was not a priest.
However, disaster was coming over the horizon.
In 1754, a woman whom Gerard had helped to enter the convent washed out of the convent, and to distract attention from her failure at religious life she accused Gerard of fornication and lechery, believably. When confronted with the charges, Gerard made no answer at all to them, and, the charges being credible, he was placed under every penalty short of expulsion from the community: close confinement and surveillance, no contact with the outside world, exclusion from communion..... and this went on for months and months. Finally, the accuser became gravely ill, and, believing herself to be dying, she admitted she had lied about Gerard.
When St. Alphonsus asked Gerard why he had remained silent before the accusations, Gerard replied that he believed that was what was required in the face of unjust accusations; after all, Jesus did not answer Pilate, and the rule of the Redemptorists said that one was not to defend oneself from the charges of one's superior.
Not long after he was cleared of the charges, he died, of TB, in 1755 at the age of 29.
Now certainly there are channels allowed for the faithful to make their views known but whose model does St. Gerard most closely follow. Here are your choices:
(i) The faithful Catholic who takes a "ready, aim, fire" approach to faith matters, is hesitant to criticize their superiors - particularly in matters where the latter governs with divine authority, and when critical does so with deference and a willingness to be corrected. (This person is tarred with the label "neo-Catholic" and accused of "papolatry" or of "blind obedience".)
(ii) The self-styled "traditionalist" who takes a "ready, fire, aim" approach to faith, is not hesitant to be critical at the slightest prevarication on faith matters, has little if any respect for the authortity of their superiors - flouting it at every turn when it pleases them to do so, and in criticism is bereft of deference or any trace of being willing to be corrected. (This person calls themselves a "Traditionalist" and chooses when and where they will be obedient to divinely vested authority.)
Where I ask you gentle reader would St. Gerard Majella more closely conform???
Saturday, October 26, 2002
Note to Bill Cork:
Remind those pestering you that homoousian prior to Nicaea was a heterodox term and much of the chaos after Nicaea was because of reluctance to explicitly accept as orthodox a term previously associated with a heresy. (In this case the Sabellian heretic Paul of Samostata.) The problems were only overcome when the episcopate realized that they could not improve upon homoousian and accepted it in a consensus as the badge of orthodoxy it had been utilized as. And as today's situation will not improve until the "trads" of today who act as the vacillating bishops of post-Nicaea do not step up and accept ecumenism and religious liberty in the manner whereby they were appropriated by Vatican II.
Like Nicaea the Second Vatican Council appropriated a term previously appropriated in a heterodox fashion (and condemned in this sense: as homoousian was in a synod at Antioch in 268). Likewise the term "faith alone" can be used in an orthodox sense. I quote:
"Word made flesh, by Word He maketh Very bread his flesh to be; Man in wine Christ's Blood partaketh, And if his senses fail to see, Faith alone the true heart waketh, To behold the mystery."
Use this quote and and try to get your antagonists to call you a heretic for it. (As you are referring to "faith alone".) Once they do this, you have them trapped and can offer them a "double or nothing" stake to put up or shut up. Then email me and I will supply you with the eminently orthodox person who used this expression.
Remind those pestering you that homoousian prior to Nicaea was a heterodox term and much of the chaos after Nicaea was because of reluctance to explicitly accept as orthodox a term previously associated with a heresy. (In this case the Sabellian heretic Paul of Samostata.) The problems were only overcome when the episcopate realized that they could not improve upon homoousian and accepted it in a consensus as the badge of orthodoxy it had been utilized as. And as today's situation will not improve until the "trads" of today who act as the vacillating bishops of post-Nicaea do not step up and accept ecumenism and religious liberty in the manner whereby they were appropriated by Vatican II.
Like Nicaea the Second Vatican Council appropriated a term previously appropriated in a heterodox fashion (and condemned in this sense: as homoousian was in a synod at Antioch in 268). Likewise the term "faith alone" can be used in an orthodox sense. I quote:
"Word made flesh, by Word He maketh Very bread his flesh to be; Man in wine Christ's Blood partaketh, And if his senses fail to see, Faith alone the true heart waketh, To behold the mystery."
Use this quote and and try to get your antagonists to call you a heretic for it. (As you are referring to "faith alone".) Once they do this, you have them trapped and can offer them a "double or nothing" stake to put up or shut up. Then email me and I will supply you with the eminently orthodox person who used this expression.
Some excellent observations from His Canonness Pete Vere on Canon 23 -- Introducing A Custom to the Liturgy. Pete's four canonical and three pastoral criteria for introducing customs is something that your host can give his concurrence to. We need to walk a fine line between liturgical mummification and liturgical free-styling. Pete's proposed guidelines would do just that.
I was going to comment on the Luminous Mysteries - which I prayed for the second time Friday evening - and the myth about the "900 year unchanged rosary" but I found that Matt Abbot and my friends Dr. Art Sippo and Pete Vere have already done this and much more economically than I would have. So I direct your attention to their piece. I wonder if the Integrists will start praying the "5 Gloomy Mysteries" finding them more to their liking than the Luminous Mysteries which are Christ-centered and taken directly from the Gospels themselves...
The Faith Legion Weblog has been updated. I replaced the original posting of links with the full text of the professio and then reposted all those who have subscribed. And I reiterate: we are not a closed club all faithful Catholics are invited to make the profession as prescribed by the Holy Father. Those who do so can email me at ismac@lycos.com and send me a link so I can verify it. Upon verification by myself or someone on the list your site will be included.
Friday, October 25, 2002
A Digression on Steve Ray's Catholic Converts Board and Some of its Participants Past and Present:
There was a while where I felt I had a responsibility to keep a presence at Steve's board. I did not feel this way in 1999 but with 2000 rolling around and my exodus from the "traditionalists" an inescapable conclusion, I felt a responsibility to be at the board. There was also the element of my discovering in early 1999 that the board was a fertile ground for actively "field testing" certain arguments and finding out quickly which ones were valid and which ones were rubbish. (I had in mind trying to convert a loved one at the time and thus this criteria was of vital importance.) But with my treatise project of the time taking up so much of my research time and my scanning of dialogues from 1999 saved to Word format - some ideas for essays began to take shape.
Much of 2000 was spent driving the nails in the coffin of "traditionalist" arguments, and basically codifying in essay format certain subjects I had dialogued with at various message boards about.{1} But there was the responsibility aspect of it - both to those who had become friends to help them in their evangelization and also to other friends who were on the wrong side of the fence objectively speaking at various points.
Nonetheless, I would be remiss if I did not note that as bad as the climate has gotten over there in 2002 overall, there are some very good people mixed into the gumbo if you will. One of them is of course "Matt1618" my good friend and essay patron if you will and also one of my early influences. There is also Edwin Tait my favourite Anglican - whom I had some excellent dialogues with over the years and just started another one on the Council of Florence. (An offshoot of another thread I started but good conversations often start off that way on message boards.)
Tim Enloe is not there anymore but he is at Gary's board and as he has been reading up on medieval mindsets and history the past year plus, I sense he and I can break some new ground in the coming year.{2} Gary Hoge is there at Steve's board at times and he launched a new board recently which I encourage my readers to go to if they want to discuss theological stuff. And of course Steve though he is seldom there anymore.
Dave Armstrong is a good friend and tireless evangelist still weighs in over there from time to time. David Smith one of those who identifies themselves as a traditionalist - one of the few who make that claim that I would say can legitimately do so. (Another is Zack who goes by "The Sane Trad" moniker.) Anawim and Mary H: more spiritual then philosophical which provides some balance over there. Bill Bannon also is one of my favourites at the board. Jimbo has been really coming along nicely the past six months too.
And numerous others who pop in and out from time to time including Art Sippo, Walt, John Betts, Lane Core Jr., GKC (my favourite Anglo-Catholic), and Bill Cork who recently made some stops there. Past players such as Tammy L, Albert Cipriani, Pax, Mark Shea, Jase, too many to recall offhand. (And one such as the mighty Curmudgeon who has recently returned.) But before this looks like an Academy Awards speech - if it does not already - there is the particular "good wheat" I intend to focus on in this post: SecretAgentMan.
For SAM is one reason I have not felt the "responsibility" I used to in spending time at that board. Like my old friend Pax who no longer posts at that board - though in a different way - SAM has really cultivated himself into a force of reckoning over there. And while I did not intend the inquiry below for him and those of a likemind to his, he nonetheless turned in some really good responses which deserve noting particularly in light of some recent unfortuate events which I am not in the mood to discuss at the moment. Anyway, here is the sequence of my posts and SAM's either in response to me or to others.
*NO* Christian Outlooks Influenced the Holocaust: My Query to a "Traditionalist" (properly so-called) and several "traditionalists" (falsely so-called) at Steve's Message Board
SAM's Response to my Query
Brief Response to SAM
SAM to Dragonfly on Christian Responsibility for Past Episodes of Imprudent Zeal
Seldom have I smiled when reading a message board post this year but some of SAM's stuff tends to find that reaction with me. Passion is good but it needs to be informed, prudent, patient, and balanced to IMHO have the most effect. SAM has cultivated these factors well and as I know he reads this weblog I better throw in an admonishment lest his head start to swell so here it is. SAM: a little less lawyerly in your responses please. Consider yourself rebuked {smile}...
Notes:
{1} I plan to touch-up some of those earlier essays and divide them into smaller sections for easier readability. Whether I get to them before 2003 I am not sure yet.
{2} We have not dialogued since January of 2001 for a variety of reasons. But we had some good exchanges for about a year and a half previous to that time and remain on good terms and recently we talked about resuming dialogue.
There was a while where I felt I had a responsibility to keep a presence at Steve's board. I did not feel this way in 1999 but with 2000 rolling around and my exodus from the "traditionalists" an inescapable conclusion, I felt a responsibility to be at the board. There was also the element of my discovering in early 1999 that the board was a fertile ground for actively "field testing" certain arguments and finding out quickly which ones were valid and which ones were rubbish. (I had in mind trying to convert a loved one at the time and thus this criteria was of vital importance.) But with my treatise project of the time taking up so much of my research time and my scanning of dialogues from 1999 saved to Word format - some ideas for essays began to take shape.
Much of 2000 was spent driving the nails in the coffin of "traditionalist" arguments, and basically codifying in essay format certain subjects I had dialogued with at various message boards about.{1} But there was the responsibility aspect of it - both to those who had become friends to help them in their evangelization and also to other friends who were on the wrong side of the fence objectively speaking at various points.
Nonetheless, I would be remiss if I did not note that as bad as the climate has gotten over there in 2002 overall, there are some very good people mixed into the gumbo if you will. One of them is of course "Matt1618" my good friend and essay patron if you will and also one of my early influences. There is also Edwin Tait my favourite Anglican - whom I had some excellent dialogues with over the years and just started another one on the Council of Florence. (An offshoot of another thread I started but good conversations often start off that way on message boards.)
Tim Enloe is not there anymore but he is at Gary's board and as he has been reading up on medieval mindsets and history the past year plus, I sense he and I can break some new ground in the coming year.{2} Gary Hoge is there at Steve's board at times and he launched a new board recently which I encourage my readers to go to if they want to discuss theological stuff. And of course Steve though he is seldom there anymore.
Dave Armstrong is a good friend and tireless evangelist still weighs in over there from time to time. David Smith one of those who identifies themselves as a traditionalist - one of the few who make that claim that I would say can legitimately do so. (Another is Zack who goes by "The Sane Trad" moniker.) Anawim and Mary H: more spiritual then philosophical which provides some balance over there. Bill Bannon also is one of my favourites at the board. Jimbo has been really coming along nicely the past six months too.
And numerous others who pop in and out from time to time including Art Sippo, Walt, John Betts, Lane Core Jr., GKC (my favourite Anglo-Catholic), and Bill Cork who recently made some stops there. Past players such as Tammy L, Albert Cipriani, Pax, Mark Shea, Jase, too many to recall offhand. (And one such as the mighty Curmudgeon who has recently returned.) But before this looks like an Academy Awards speech - if it does not already - there is the particular "good wheat" I intend to focus on in this post: SecretAgentMan.
For SAM is one reason I have not felt the "responsibility" I used to in spending time at that board. Like my old friend Pax who no longer posts at that board - though in a different way - SAM has really cultivated himself into a force of reckoning over there. And while I did not intend the inquiry below for him and those of a likemind to his, he nonetheless turned in some really good responses which deserve noting particularly in light of some recent unfortuate events which I am not in the mood to discuss at the moment. Anyway, here is the sequence of my posts and SAM's either in response to me or to others.
*NO* Christian Outlooks Influenced the Holocaust: My Query to a "Traditionalist" (properly so-called) and several "traditionalists" (falsely so-called) at Steve's Message Board
SAM's Response to my Query
Brief Response to SAM
SAM to Dragonfly on Christian Responsibility for Past Episodes of Imprudent Zeal
Seldom have I smiled when reading a message board post this year but some of SAM's stuff tends to find that reaction with me. Passion is good but it needs to be informed, prudent, patient, and balanced to IMHO have the most effect. SAM has cultivated these factors well and as I know he reads this weblog I better throw in an admonishment lest his head start to swell so here it is. SAM: a little less lawyerly in your responses please. Consider yourself rebuked {smile}...
Notes:
{1} I plan to touch-up some of those earlier essays and divide them into smaller sections for easier readability. Whether I get to them before 2003 I am not sure yet.
{2} We have not dialogued since January of 2001 for a variety of reasons. But we had some good exchanges for about a year and a half previous to that time and remain on good terms and recently we talked about resuming dialogue.
Rerum Novarum Updates!!!
The following complete the update to the weblog which I started the other night:
My Musings on the War Subject (New Category):
War in Reality vs. the Abstract
War is Hell on the Homefront Too
Tying Together Some Strands Viz. "Just War" Theory, Etc...
Yeah I *do* have a position on the war even if it is a bit ambiguous. My reasons for this can be ascertained in the links above.
Frederic Bastiat's Magnum Opus "The Law" in Bite-Size Musings (New Category):
A Thesis of Vital Importance to the Health and Well Being of Human Freedom (Prologue by I. Shawn McElhinney; Introduction by Walter E. Williams)
No minor addition I spent over an hour linking to all the posts in this series both forward and backward for the benefit of the reader. (Basically the last sentence of each post is a link to the next section and at the top of each section is a link to the section that preceded it.) With elections coming up this series is *vital* because perversion of the law is so common-place in our society and most people uncritically support it without realizing it. This series is intended to expose unlawful plunder for what it is and educate the masses.
Weblogs:
The Curmudgeon's "Disturber of the Peace Institute" BLOG
The "Catholic Light" BLOG
Chris Burgwald's "Veritas" BLOG
Greg the Obscure's BLOG
Shawn's Eastern Catholic Corner:
Orientale Lumen: Apostolic Letter to the Churches of the East (Pope John Paul II)
Other Recommended Web-Sites:
Catholic Outlook Discussion Board - Gary Hoge
As Sovereign Thane I give all of these sites my motu proprio as of this moment in accordance with Rerum Novarum's specificities for site approval in the sidemargin of the weblog all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
The following complete the update to the weblog which I started the other night:
My Musings on the War Subject (New Category):
War in Reality vs. the Abstract
War is Hell on the Homefront Too
Tying Together Some Strands Viz. "Just War" Theory, Etc...
Yeah I *do* have a position on the war even if it is a bit ambiguous. My reasons for this can be ascertained in the links above.
Frederic Bastiat's Magnum Opus "The Law" in Bite-Size Musings (New Category):
A Thesis of Vital Importance to the Health and Well Being of Human Freedom (Prologue by I. Shawn McElhinney; Introduction by Walter E. Williams)
No minor addition I spent over an hour linking to all the posts in this series both forward and backward for the benefit of the reader. (Basically the last sentence of each post is a link to the next section and at the top of each section is a link to the section that preceded it.) With elections coming up this series is *vital* because perversion of the law is so common-place in our society and most people uncritically support it without realizing it. This series is intended to expose unlawful plunder for what it is and educate the masses.
Weblogs:
The Curmudgeon's "Disturber of the Peace Institute" BLOG
The "Catholic Light" BLOG
Chris Burgwald's "Veritas" BLOG
Greg the Obscure's BLOG
Shawn's Eastern Catholic Corner:
Orientale Lumen: Apostolic Letter to the Churches of the East (Pope John Paul II)
Other Recommended Web-Sites:
Catholic Outlook Discussion Board - Gary Hoge
As Sovereign Thane I give all of these sites my motu proprio as of this moment in accordance with Rerum Novarum's specificities for site approval in the sidemargin of the weblog all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
"Credit Where Credit Is Due" Dept.
Though it does not come up often, your generally very humble blog host is asked at times whom his "influences" are. They are many but a few in particular stick out both in stylistic similarity as well as a sense of personal debt if you will. For example, in the area of apologetics, your blog host owes a lot to Dr. Art Sippo for the fact that he (referring to me) is no longer a self-styled "traditionalist". Not that Art was the only influence on that element but his was the most pronounced. There is also the element of style.
Those who have detected similarities in our styles over the years and inquired about it - well I am as forthcoming about it as Stevie Ray Vaughan was about his tremendous debt to the bluesmaster Albert King. (Though in Stevie's case the debt was not a moderate one but I digress.) Though not as obvious perhaps as it was when I started posting more prominently to message boards, there is still enough traces in the gumbo that comprises my style that I get asked on occasion about it. (Sometimes it is perhaps more prevalent than other times.)
Since early 2000, Art and I have become friends and even authored stuff together - and not a few of my essays were either in whole or in part reviewed by Art with the occasional suggestions for improvement when needed. I mention all of this because (i) it is a good idea to remind oneself of those whom they owe some degree of gratitude to on occasion and (ii) I was going to address Reformed Protestantism today when I remembered Art's piece on The Problem With Calvinism and decided to post his piece instead. (And in the process I started thinking a bit about what I note above.) But that is not all.
After finding Art's piece above I was scanning Mark Bonocore's page at Frank Jerry's site and saw the following expansion of Art's thesis about the Calvinist God which is noted at the link above. (Art calls him "Goid".) Like your host, Mark Bonocore owes a good degree to Dr. Sippo both in the areas of approach and also directness - though Mark to his credit is more in the line of Art's penchant for supreme economy viz writing than I am ;-) He expands upon the "Goid" subject a bit and gets at the core of a lot of the problems HERE.
Note in particular Mark's opinion on the Germanic mentality which is one that I am in concurrence with. (His insights on Exodus and Job are also on target.) Very compelling thesis and worth a read but not the kind of thesis you want to throw out in a debate with a Reformed apologist IMHO. (Translation for the neophytes: keep this one in-house people.)
Though it does not come up often, your generally very humble blog host is asked at times whom his "influences" are. They are many but a few in particular stick out both in stylistic similarity as well as a sense of personal debt if you will. For example, in the area of apologetics, your blog host owes a lot to Dr. Art Sippo for the fact that he (referring to me) is no longer a self-styled "traditionalist". Not that Art was the only influence on that element but his was the most pronounced. There is also the element of style.
Those who have detected similarities in our styles over the years and inquired about it - well I am as forthcoming about it as Stevie Ray Vaughan was about his tremendous debt to the bluesmaster Albert King. (Though in Stevie's case the debt was not a moderate one but I digress.) Though not as obvious perhaps as it was when I started posting more prominently to message boards, there is still enough traces in the gumbo that comprises my style that I get asked on occasion about it. (Sometimes it is perhaps more prevalent than other times.)
Since early 2000, Art and I have become friends and even authored stuff together - and not a few of my essays were either in whole or in part reviewed by Art with the occasional suggestions for improvement when needed. I mention all of this because (i) it is a good idea to remind oneself of those whom they owe some degree of gratitude to on occasion and (ii) I was going to address Reformed Protestantism today when I remembered Art's piece on The Problem With Calvinism and decided to post his piece instead. (And in the process I started thinking a bit about what I note above.) But that is not all.
After finding Art's piece above I was scanning Mark Bonocore's page at Frank Jerry's site and saw the following expansion of Art's thesis about the Calvinist God which is noted at the link above. (Art calls him "Goid".) Like your host, Mark Bonocore owes a good degree to Dr. Sippo both in the areas of approach and also directness - though Mark to his credit is more in the line of Art's penchant for supreme economy viz writing than I am ;-) He expands upon the "Goid" subject a bit and gets at the core of a lot of the problems HERE.
Note in particular Mark's opinion on the Germanic mentality which is one that I am in concurrence with. (His insights on Exodus and Job are also on target.) Very compelling thesis and worth a read but not the kind of thesis you want to throw out in a debate with a Reformed apologist IMHO. (Translation for the neophytes: keep this one in-house people.)
"Bastiat's Corner" Dept.
The last installment can be read HERE. Without ado, here is the next one which will be meaty so chew on it slowly please:
Who Shall Judge?
The followers of Rousseau's school of thought -- who consider themselves far advanced, but whom I consider twenty centuries behind the times -- will not agree with me on this. But universal suffrage -- using the word in its strictest sense -- is not one of those sacred dogmas which it is a crime to examine or doubt. In fact, serious objections may be made to universal suffrage.
In the first place, the word universal conceals a gross fallacy. For example, there are 36 million people in France. Thus, to make the right of suffrage universal, there should be 36 million voters. But the most extended system permits only 9 million people to vote. Three persons out of four are excluded. And more than this, they are excluded by the fourth. This fourth person advances the principle of incapacity as his reason for excluding the others.
Universal suffrage means, then, universal suffrage for those who are capable. But there remains this question of fact: Who is capable? Are minors, females, insane persons, and persons who have committed certain major crimes the only ones to be determined incapable?
The Reason Why Voting Is Restricted
A closer examination of the subject shows us the motive which causes the right of suffrage to be based upon the supposition of incapacity. The motive is that the elector or voter does not exercise this right for himself alone, but for everybody.
The most extended elective system and the most restricted elective system are alike in this respect. They differ only in respect to what constitutes incapacity. It is not a difference of principle, but merely a difference of degree.
If, as the republicans of our present-day Greek and Roman schools of thought pretend, the right of suffrage arrives with one's birth, it would be an injustice for adults to prevent women and children from voting. Why are they prevented? Because they are presumed to be incapable. And why is incapacity a motive for exclusion? Because it is not the voter alone who suffers the consequences of his vote; because each vote touches and affects everyone in the entire community; because the people in the community have a right to demand some safeguards concerning the acts upon which their welfare and existence depend.
The Answer Is to Restrict the Law
I know what might be said in answer to this; what the objections might be. But this is not the place to exhaust a controversy of this nature. I wish merely to observe here that this controversy over universal suffrage (as well as most other political questions) which agitates, excites, and overthrows nations, would lose nearly all of its importance if the law had always been what it ought to be.
In fact, if law were restricted to protecting all persons, all liberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than the organized combination of the individual's right to self defense; if law were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression and plunder -- is it likely that we citizens would then argue much about the extent of the franchise?
Under these circumstances, is it likely that the extent of the right to vote would endanger that supreme good, the public peace? Is it likely that the excluded classes would refuse to peaceably await the coming of their right to vote? Is it likely that those who had the right to vote would jealously defend their privilege?
If the law were confined to its proper functions, everyone's interest in the law would be the same. Is it not clear that, under these circumstances, those who voted could not inconvenience those who did not vote?
The Fatal Idea of Legal Plunder
But on the other hand, imagine that this fatal principle has been introduced: Under the pretense of organization, regulation, protection, or encouragement, the law takes property from one person and gives it to another; the law takes the wealth of all and gives it to a few -- whether farmers, manufacturers, shipowners, artists, or comedians. Under these circumstances, then certainly every class will aspire to grasp the law, and logically so.
The excluded classes will furiously demand their right to vote -- and will overthrow society rather than not to obtain it. Even beggars and vagabonds will then prove to you that they also have an incontestable title to vote. They will say to you:
"We cannot buy wine, tobacco, or salt without paying the tax. And a part of the tax that we pay is given by law -- in privileges and subsidies -- to men who are richer than we are. Others use the law to raise the prices of bread, meat, iron, or cloth. Thus, since everyone else uses the law for his own profit, we also would like to use the law for our own profit. We demand from the law the right to relief, which is the poor man's plunder. To obtain this right, we also should be voters and legislators in order that we may organize Beggary on a grand scale for our own class, as you have organized Protection on a grand scale for your class. Now don't tell us beggars that you will act for us, and then toss us, as Mr. Mimerel proposes, 600,000 francs to keep us quiet, like throwing us a bone to gnaw. We have other claims. And anyway, we wish to bargain for ourselves as other classes have bargained for themselves!"
And what can you say to answer that argument!
Perverted Law Causes Conflict
As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious. To know this, it is hardly necessary to examine what transpires in the French and English legislatures; merely to understand the issue is to know the answer.
Is there any need to offer proof that this odious perversion of the law is a perpetual source of hatred and discord; that it tends to destroy society itself? If such proof is needed, look at the United States [in 1850]. There is no country in the world where the law is kept more within its proper domain: the protection of every person's liberty and property. As a consequence of this, there appears to be no country in the world where the social order rests on a firmer foundation. But even in the United States, there are two issues -- and only two -- that have always endangered the public peace.
Slavery and Tariffs Are Plunder
What are these two issues? They are slavery and tariffs. These are the only two issues where, contrary to the general spirit of the republic of the United States, law has assumed the character of plunder.
Slavery is a violation, by law, of liberty. The protective tariff is a violation, by law, of property.
Its is a most remarkable fact that this double legal crime - a sorrowful inheritance of the Old World - should be the only issue which can, and perhaps will, lead to the ruin of the Union. It is indeed impossible to imagine, at the very heart of a society, a more astounding fact than this: The law has come to be an instrument of injustice. And if this fact brings terrible consequences to the United States - where only in the instance of slavery and tariffs - what must be the consequences in Europe, where the perversion of law is a principle; a system?
Two Kinds of Plunder
Mr. de Montalembert [politician and writer] adopting the thought contained in a famous proclamation by Mr. Carlier, has said: "We must make war against socialism." According to the definition of socialism advanced by Mr. Charles Dupin, he meant: "We must make war against plunder."
But of what plunder was he speaking? For there are two kinds of plunder: legal and illegal.
I do not think that illegal plunder, such as theft or swindling -- which the penal code defines, anticipates, and punishes -- can be called socialism. It is not this kind of plunder that systematically threatens the foundations of society. Anyway, the war against this kind of plunder has not waited for the command of these gentlemen. The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. Long before the Revolution of February 1848 -- long before the appearance even of socialism itself -- France had provided police, judges, gendarmes, prisons, dungeons, and scaffolds for the purpose of fighting illegal plunder. The law itself conducts this war, and it is my wish and opinion that the law should always maintain this attitude toward plunder.
The Law Defends Plunder
But it does not always do this. Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame, danger, and scruple which their acts would otherwise involve. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. In short, there is a legal plunder, and it is of this, no doubt, that Mr. de Montalembert speaks.
This legal plunder may be only an isolated stain among the legislative measures of the people. If so, it is best to wipe it out with a minimum of speeches and denunciations -- and in spite of the uproar of the vested interests.
How to Identify Legal Plunder
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.
[Truer words have seldom been spoken - ISM]
The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.
Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.
Any woman reading this who dismisses this argument simply because women were not allowed to vote in 1850 in France or other countries (or because Bastiat did not argue for female capacity to vote) would only be reinforcing the stereotype of the overly emotional woman who cannot think logically. Please keep that in mind at all times.
The last installment can be read HERE. Without ado, here is the next one which will be meaty so chew on it slowly please:
Who Shall Judge?
The followers of Rousseau's school of thought -- who consider themselves far advanced, but whom I consider twenty centuries behind the times -- will not agree with me on this. But universal suffrage -- using the word in its strictest sense -- is not one of those sacred dogmas which it is a crime to examine or doubt. In fact, serious objections may be made to universal suffrage.
In the first place, the word universal conceals a gross fallacy. For example, there are 36 million people in France. Thus, to make the right of suffrage universal, there should be 36 million voters. But the most extended system permits only 9 million people to vote. Three persons out of four are excluded. And more than this, they are excluded by the fourth. This fourth person advances the principle of incapacity as his reason for excluding the others.
Universal suffrage means, then, universal suffrage for those who are capable. But there remains this question of fact: Who is capable? Are minors, females, insane persons, and persons who have committed certain major crimes the only ones to be determined incapable?
The Reason Why Voting Is Restricted
A closer examination of the subject shows us the motive which causes the right of suffrage to be based upon the supposition of incapacity. The motive is that the elector or voter does not exercise this right for himself alone, but for everybody.
The most extended elective system and the most restricted elective system are alike in this respect. They differ only in respect to what constitutes incapacity. It is not a difference of principle, but merely a difference of degree.
If, as the republicans of our present-day Greek and Roman schools of thought pretend, the right of suffrage arrives with one's birth, it would be an injustice for adults to prevent women and children from voting. Why are they prevented? Because they are presumed to be incapable. And why is incapacity a motive for exclusion? Because it is not the voter alone who suffers the consequences of his vote; because each vote touches and affects everyone in the entire community; because the people in the community have a right to demand some safeguards concerning the acts upon which their welfare and existence depend.
The Answer Is to Restrict the Law
I know what might be said in answer to this; what the objections might be. But this is not the place to exhaust a controversy of this nature. I wish merely to observe here that this controversy over universal suffrage (as well as most other political questions) which agitates, excites, and overthrows nations, would lose nearly all of its importance if the law had always been what it ought to be.
In fact, if law were restricted to protecting all persons, all liberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than the organized combination of the individual's right to self defense; if law were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression and plunder -- is it likely that we citizens would then argue much about the extent of the franchise?
Under these circumstances, is it likely that the extent of the right to vote would endanger that supreme good, the public peace? Is it likely that the excluded classes would refuse to peaceably await the coming of their right to vote? Is it likely that those who had the right to vote would jealously defend their privilege?
If the law were confined to its proper functions, everyone's interest in the law would be the same. Is it not clear that, under these circumstances, those who voted could not inconvenience those who did not vote?
The Fatal Idea of Legal Plunder
But on the other hand, imagine that this fatal principle has been introduced: Under the pretense of organization, regulation, protection, or encouragement, the law takes property from one person and gives it to another; the law takes the wealth of all and gives it to a few -- whether farmers, manufacturers, shipowners, artists, or comedians. Under these circumstances, then certainly every class will aspire to grasp the law, and logically so.
The excluded classes will furiously demand their right to vote -- and will overthrow society rather than not to obtain it. Even beggars and vagabonds will then prove to you that they also have an incontestable title to vote. They will say to you:
"We cannot buy wine, tobacco, or salt without paying the tax. And a part of the tax that we pay is given by law -- in privileges and subsidies -- to men who are richer than we are. Others use the law to raise the prices of bread, meat, iron, or cloth. Thus, since everyone else uses the law for his own profit, we also would like to use the law for our own profit. We demand from the law the right to relief, which is the poor man's plunder. To obtain this right, we also should be voters and legislators in order that we may organize Beggary on a grand scale for our own class, as you have organized Protection on a grand scale for your class. Now don't tell us beggars that you will act for us, and then toss us, as Mr. Mimerel proposes, 600,000 francs to keep us quiet, like throwing us a bone to gnaw. We have other claims. And anyway, we wish to bargain for ourselves as other classes have bargained for themselves!"
And what can you say to answer that argument!
Perverted Law Causes Conflict
As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious. To know this, it is hardly necessary to examine what transpires in the French and English legislatures; merely to understand the issue is to know the answer.
Is there any need to offer proof that this odious perversion of the law is a perpetual source of hatred and discord; that it tends to destroy society itself? If such proof is needed, look at the United States [in 1850]. There is no country in the world where the law is kept more within its proper domain: the protection of every person's liberty and property. As a consequence of this, there appears to be no country in the world where the social order rests on a firmer foundation. But even in the United States, there are two issues -- and only two -- that have always endangered the public peace.
Slavery and Tariffs Are Plunder
What are these two issues? They are slavery and tariffs. These are the only two issues where, contrary to the general spirit of the republic of the United States, law has assumed the character of plunder.
Slavery is a violation, by law, of liberty. The protective tariff is a violation, by law, of property.
Its is a most remarkable fact that this double legal crime - a sorrowful inheritance of the Old World - should be the only issue which can, and perhaps will, lead to the ruin of the Union. It is indeed impossible to imagine, at the very heart of a society, a more astounding fact than this: The law has come to be an instrument of injustice. And if this fact brings terrible consequences to the United States - where only in the instance of slavery and tariffs - what must be the consequences in Europe, where the perversion of law is a principle; a system?
Two Kinds of Plunder
Mr. de Montalembert [politician and writer] adopting the thought contained in a famous proclamation by Mr. Carlier, has said: "We must make war against socialism." According to the definition of socialism advanced by Mr. Charles Dupin, he meant: "We must make war against plunder."
But of what plunder was he speaking? For there are two kinds of plunder: legal and illegal.
I do not think that illegal plunder, such as theft or swindling -- which the penal code defines, anticipates, and punishes -- can be called socialism. It is not this kind of plunder that systematically threatens the foundations of society. Anyway, the war against this kind of plunder has not waited for the command of these gentlemen. The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. Long before the Revolution of February 1848 -- long before the appearance even of socialism itself -- France had provided police, judges, gendarmes, prisons, dungeons, and scaffolds for the purpose of fighting illegal plunder. The law itself conducts this war, and it is my wish and opinion that the law should always maintain this attitude toward plunder.
The Law Defends Plunder
But it does not always do this. Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame, danger, and scruple which their acts would otherwise involve. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. In short, there is a legal plunder, and it is of this, no doubt, that Mr. de Montalembert speaks.
This legal plunder may be only an isolated stain among the legislative measures of the people. If so, it is best to wipe it out with a minimum of speeches and denunciations -- and in spite of the uproar of the vested interests.
How to Identify Legal Plunder
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.
[Truer words have seldom been spoken - ISM]
The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.
Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.
Any woman reading this who dismisses this argument simply because women were not allowed to vote in 1850 in France or other countries (or because Bastiat did not argue for female capacity to vote) would only be reinforcing the stereotype of the overly emotional woman who cannot think logically. Please keep that in mind at all times.
Thursday, October 24, 2002
"Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa" Dept.
Speaking of the Curmudgeon, for those who are shills for worldwide conspiracies, he has discovered the truth about that as well and those of us who have mocked you need to wear the Dunce cap of shame.
For the true Anti-Christ has been found and we all owe the "trads" a HUGE apology for not taking them seriously all these years with their apocalyptic shrieking!!! Let me be the first to eat crow on this one my friends...I humbly apologize to the "trads" I have mocked for years on end now. Here is the incontrovertible proof that the "trads", Christian Identity crowd, and the John Birchers were right all of these years:
The Curmudgeon's Expose on the Vatican's Secret Plot to Take Over the World!!!
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa: I knew not what I was doing...
Speaking of the Curmudgeon, for those who are shills for worldwide conspiracies, he has discovered the truth about that as well and those of us who have mocked you need to wear the Dunce cap of shame.
For the true Anti-Christ has been found and we all owe the "trads" a HUGE apology for not taking them seriously all these years with their apocalyptic shrieking!!! Let me be the first to eat crow on this one my friends...I humbly apologize to the "trads" I have mocked for years on end now. Here is the incontrovertible proof that the "trads", Christian Identity crowd, and the John Birchers were right all of these years:
The Curmudgeon's Expose on the Vatican's Secret Plot to Take Over the World!!!
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa: I knew not what I was doing...
If the guys captured happen to be the sniper and his associates, would it be a mere coincidence that it happened about 24 hours after The Curmudgeon's Open Letter to the DC Sniper was put up at DPI's weblog and linked to the weblog of your humble blog host??? Maybe...maybe not...time will tell...
Some of my stuff from Steve's message board can be found HERE. I have not posted there much in 2002 but occasionally I do. However, unlike most of the other posts I have mentioned at Rerum Novarum, this is some "new stuff" fresh off the presses.
Wednesday, October 23, 2002
"Cleaning Up My Notebook" Dept.
Basically this is a snippet from a board dialogue some time ago. (I think I posted it to the board but cannot recall offhand.) I lost track of the link and do not intend to do a search for it:
That is not the only theological qualification of the Councils teaching. There is ordinary and ordinary universal. The latter is definitive, the former is not necessarily so.
I am aware of this distinction; however, the teaching is only ordinary and universal where it reiterates previously held doctrine. Lumen Gentium §25 is one example of this, drawn from the teaching of Vatican I and that of Pope Pius XII.
Actually this assertion is not completely true. While it is true that there are *some* reiterations of teaching as you note where this applies, the infallibility of the Council is not solely material in nature - though admittedly a lot of it is.
With regards to formal teaching of doctrine, whenever you have a situation where (1) the bishops in communion with one another and with the pope (2) teach authoritatively and in consensus on a matter of faith or morals to be held then (3) that teaching is rendered infallibly.
In the case of Vatican II there are many of these teachings which are definitively made but do not rise to the level of a definition of faith. This is why Vatican II is here to stay and why the popes continually refer back to it time and again. (And also why the Universal Catechism quotes Vatican II more than all other sources combined - sans the over 4,000 Scripture references.)
There is no "time limit" required on the ordinary universal magisterium. And since the Church has never put such a limit people who do are asserting their own private interpretation instead of following the traditional understanding of the universal church enjoying infallibility in the promulgation of doctrine.
And while usually the ordinary and universal magisterium is diachronic (stretching back through time) in the case of a solemn gathering of the bishops in ecumenical council it can be synchronic particularly when previously controverted theological issues are settled and when doctrine is being developed. And both of these things happened at Vatican II.
A pastoral provision to accommodate communion. This is what is called "withholding assent" and it always presupposes that the person will render proper assent later on. See the link on secondary truths where I briefly touch on this aspect. (It is not one I like discussing for reasons I make known there.)
So why shouldn't the pastoral provision hold today as well as in 1988?
It does for those who need it. Rome is being *very* generous in making this allowance. Basically any teaching that is not a clear definition de fide (which includes all of the formal teachings of VC II) falls under this sector. The fact is, infallibility is far more prevalent at Vatican II than is commonly presumed. But since most people are not theologians (nor do they need to be) they do not know this. And further still, since it is not easy at first glance to reconcile some of the teachings, the traditional pastoral leeway given to theologians to help them in their assent is being extended in the Protocol. To my knowledge this is the governing Constitution if you will of Ecclesia Dei so it is still in effect.
But it helps to remember that Rome expects eventual assent to all teachings of Vatican II. That is the presupposition of suspending of assent. I am going over this subject on a private message list at the moment and will probably blog some of my comments about it next week or so. [Ed. Note: I never did get around to the blogging part - ISM] I am hesitant to talk about it because this is extraordinary and without reference to the ordinary at the same time people would make the exception the rule. (Kinda like discussing invincible ignorance. Without discussing it in the context of eens it is open to misapplication.)
Ok. I deal with enough people who treat these matters lightly that maybe I overreacted here. Deitrich von Hildebrand noted once that any apparent incongruities between Vatican II and prior teaching are simply illusory. And I have noticed this myself in studying the issues.
Some years later Dr. von Hildebrand would revise his opinion of Vatican II; Michael Davies covers this in Pope John's Council
Yes but it was easy to become cynical in the 1970's and even the early 1980's. I do not hold it against Dr. Hildebrand if that happened as he watched the Church coming apart at the seams. Heck I cannot hold it against him or anyone considering my nearly fifteen year affiliation with the Society of St. Pius X. (This was the period between 1986 and January of 2000, though I attended masses occasionally from 1984-1986 when I went to church at all in that time period.) It was easy to be disillusioned in the '70s and early-mid '80s. *Far* easier than it has been in recent years that is for sure.
As for Mr. Davies' work...well I have commented in detail elsewhere on it. And as I want to end this on a good note, I will observe silence on it here :)
Basically this is a snippet from a board dialogue some time ago. (I think I posted it to the board but cannot recall offhand.) I lost track of the link and do not intend to do a search for it:
That is not the only theological qualification of the Councils teaching. There is ordinary and ordinary universal. The latter is definitive, the former is not necessarily so.
I am aware of this distinction; however, the teaching is only ordinary and universal where it reiterates previously held doctrine. Lumen Gentium §25 is one example of this, drawn from the teaching of Vatican I and that of Pope Pius XII.
Actually this assertion is not completely true. While it is true that there are *some* reiterations of teaching as you note where this applies, the infallibility of the Council is not solely material in nature - though admittedly a lot of it is.
With regards to formal teaching of doctrine, whenever you have a situation where (1) the bishops in communion with one another and with the pope (2) teach authoritatively and in consensus on a matter of faith or morals to be held then (3) that teaching is rendered infallibly.
In the case of Vatican II there are many of these teachings which are definitively made but do not rise to the level of a definition of faith. This is why Vatican II is here to stay and why the popes continually refer back to it time and again. (And also why the Universal Catechism quotes Vatican II more than all other sources combined - sans the over 4,000 Scripture references.)
There is no "time limit" required on the ordinary universal magisterium. And since the Church has never put such a limit people who do are asserting their own private interpretation instead of following the traditional understanding of the universal church enjoying infallibility in the promulgation of doctrine.
And while usually the ordinary and universal magisterium is diachronic (stretching back through time) in the case of a solemn gathering of the bishops in ecumenical council it can be synchronic particularly when previously controverted theological issues are settled and when doctrine is being developed. And both of these things happened at Vatican II.
A pastoral provision to accommodate communion. This is what is called "withholding assent" and it always presupposes that the person will render proper assent later on. See the link on secondary truths where I briefly touch on this aspect. (It is not one I like discussing for reasons I make known there.)
So why shouldn't the pastoral provision hold today as well as in 1988?
It does for those who need it. Rome is being *very* generous in making this allowance. Basically any teaching that is not a clear definition de fide (which includes all of the formal teachings of VC II) falls under this sector. The fact is, infallibility is far more prevalent at Vatican II than is commonly presumed. But since most people are not theologians (nor do they need to be) they do not know this. And further still, since it is not easy at first glance to reconcile some of the teachings, the traditional pastoral leeway given to theologians to help them in their assent is being extended in the Protocol. To my knowledge this is the governing Constitution if you will of Ecclesia Dei so it is still in effect.
But it helps to remember that Rome expects eventual assent to all teachings of Vatican II. That is the presupposition of suspending of assent. I am going over this subject on a private message list at the moment and will probably blog some of my comments about it next week or so. [Ed. Note: I never did get around to the blogging part - ISM] I am hesitant to talk about it because this is extraordinary and without reference to the ordinary at the same time people would make the exception the rule. (Kinda like discussing invincible ignorance. Without discussing it in the context of eens it is open to misapplication.)
Ok. I deal with enough people who treat these matters lightly that maybe I overreacted here. Deitrich von Hildebrand noted once that any apparent incongruities between Vatican II and prior teaching are simply illusory. And I have noticed this myself in studying the issues.
Some years later Dr. von Hildebrand would revise his opinion of Vatican II; Michael Davies covers this in Pope John's Council
Yes but it was easy to become cynical in the 1970's and even the early 1980's. I do not hold it against Dr. Hildebrand if that happened as he watched the Church coming apart at the seams. Heck I cannot hold it against him or anyone considering my nearly fifteen year affiliation with the Society of St. Pius X. (This was the period between 1986 and January of 2000, though I attended masses occasionally from 1984-1986 when I went to church at all in that time period.) It was easy to be disillusioned in the '70s and early-mid '80s. *Far* easier than it has been in recent years that is for sure.
As for Mr. Davies' work...well I have commented in detail elsewhere on it. And as I want to end this on a good note, I will observe silence on it here :)
As making the profession of faith as prescribed by the Apostolic see or an approved equivalent is a requirement for admission and as Chris Burgwald of the weblog Veritas hath made said professio according to the prescribed form (a form whereby collegial consultation with others is not necessary to determine if the aforementioned's profession meets the criteria for inclusion forthwith) and as Chancellor of the Legion List by the power vested in me as Sovereign Thane and Lord High Executioner of Rerum Novarum, I decree that Veritas has been officially enrolled in The Faith Legion with all rights and privileges of said enrollment intact all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Please pray for Sarah, the wife of my friend Bill Bannon. And also for Bill that he may continue to receive the Lord gentle hand of both chastening and caress and that both he and Sarah may be found worthy of Him through trial (cf. Wisdom iii,4-6).
An Open Letter to the DC Sniper:
(Guest Editorial by Disturber of the Peace Institute)
I am glad to see my old friend The Curmudgeon in the Blogosphere. As for the editorial itself, I tried to post it in its unedited totality and it would not publish. It cannot be the length as I have published much longer posts before. (Apparently blogger is being a bit temperamental today it seems.) Nonetheless if you click on the link above you will read what I intended to post here unedited as Rerum Novarum's fifth Guest Editorial.
Also...as I try to balance these editorials out between secular and religious issues, anyone who wants to write on the latter subject will have priority with regards to the next Guest Editorial.
(Guest Editorial by Disturber of the Peace Institute)
I am glad to see my old friend The Curmudgeon in the Blogosphere. As for the editorial itself, I tried to post it in its unedited totality and it would not publish. It cannot be the length as I have published much longer posts before. (Apparently blogger is being a bit temperamental today it seems.) Nonetheless if you click on the link above you will read what I intended to post here unedited as Rerum Novarum's fifth Guest Editorial.
Also...as I try to balance these editorials out between secular and religious issues, anyone who wants to write on the latter subject will have priority with regards to the next Guest Editorial.
Rerum Novarum Update:
I will probably do more tomorrow evening or so but other then adding Veritas to the Faith Legion log (formal ceremony to be held later today), the following sites and weblogs were added to Rerum Novarum today as decreed by me:
Website Links:
Disturber of the Peace Institute - The Curmudgeon
The Anawim Community
Weblogs Added:
Donna Lewis' "Quenta Narwenion" BLOG
Kathryn Lively's "Come On, Get Lively" BLOG
Duh duh duh duh duhhh...Good night sweetheart, wellll its time to go...
I will probably do more tomorrow evening or so but other then adding Veritas to the Faith Legion log (formal ceremony to be held later today), the following sites and weblogs were added to Rerum Novarum today as decreed by me:
Website Links:
Disturber of the Peace Institute - The Curmudgeon
The Anawim Community
Weblogs Added:
Donna Lewis' "Quenta Narwenion" BLOG
Kathryn Lively's "Come On, Get Lively" BLOG
Duh duh duh duh duhhh...Good night sweetheart, wellll its time to go...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)