Adam Schiff

@RepAdamSchiff

·

Nov 6

Next week, the House Intelligence Committee will hold its first open hearings as part of the impeachment inquiry. On Wednesday, November 13, 2019, we will hear from William Taylor and George Kent. On Friday, November 15, 2019, we will hear from Marie Yovanovitch. More to come.

Lawyers, Guns, and Money

@ShawnMcElhinney

Replying to

@RepAdamSchiff

Morning Consult/Politico already has public support for impeachment falling to 47% from a high of 51% in mid October. But like Wil E Coyote, I am sure you and your ilk will push on nonetheless. I am looking forward to the latest ACME Impeachment gadget blowing up in your faces.

3:13 PM · Nov 6, 2019·

Twitter Thoughts:

I am not sure how often I will do one of these but here is something from Twitter that I found of interest in the past week...

Comfortably Smug
@ComfortablySmug

NBC and ABC are really going all in on protecting rapists. Like holy shit. This isn't even gaslighting. They're doing it in front of everyone's eyes and the Journos aren't saying a peep.

Amazing what they're willing to ignore to get CNN contributor gigs

4:54 PM · Nov 6, 2019

Sean T at RCP
@SeanTrende
·Nov 6

It's gonna be lit when McConnell schedules a six-week Senate impeachment trial that all Senators are required to attend, silently, starting a week before Iowa.

Lawyers, Guns, and Money
@ShawnMcElhinney

Replying to
@SeanTrende

Only six weeks? I figured #CocaineMitch would slow roll this thing from about a week before Iowa all the way through April or so basically crushing the presidential campaigns of Warren, Sanders, Harris, Booker, and Klobuchar in the process.
12:10 AM · Nov 7, 2019

It seems appropriate to designate a special subtag for the upcoming postings pertaining to the 2020 election in addition to the usual subtag we use for political stuff. Essentially all political, election, sociopolitical, and geopolitical postings will continue to be tagged with the Pol/Elect/Sociopol/Geopol subtag but those pertaining to the upcoming election will have an additional political subtag attached to them. However, unlike the main political subtag, the one being introduced here will have a select shelf life.

So without further ado, I want to introduce the subtag 2020 Election which will be utilized on applicable postings from this point forward until the presidential swearing in on January 20, 2021.

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

AEW Full Gear results, recap, reactions: Lunatic fringe

Outline For Planned Expository Musing on the Magisterium:

I cannot remember the last time I wrote out an actual outline for a subject I planned to treat on in some detail but this subject is one that has been on my mind from time to time in the past few years. As I put the finishing touches on a piece that will probably be used as one of the references for this project, the idea to set down a skeleton outline of how I am considering treating the subject of the magisterium seems appropriate. Without further ado...


Magisterium Outline:

Introduction and Prefatory Comments on the Subject of Obedience:

a) Introduction
b) On the Nature of Obedience
c) Examples of Obedience in the Writings of the Catholic Spiritual Tradition
d) Newman on the Obedience Owed to the Pope

On the Magisterium: Faith and Morals:

a) Nature and Scope
b) Newman on Faith and Morals

The Popes on Their Magisterial Authority:

a) Clement I
b) Victor I
c) Callistus I
d) Leo the Great
e) Hormisdas I
f) Nicholas I
g) Agatho I

Ecumenical Councils on the Magisterial Authority of Popes:

a) Philip the Roman Legate at Ephesus on Behalf of Celestine I
b) Council of Chalcedon to Leo the Great
c) Council of Constantinople III to Agatho I
d) Council of Constantinople IV 
e) Council of Lyons II
f) Council of Florence
g) First Vatican Council
h) Second Vatican Council

On the Magisterium, Extraordinary Matters of Faith:

a) Definitions De Fide
b) Canonizations of Saints

On the Magisterium, Ordinary Matters Pertaining to Faith:

a) Ordinary Universal Magisterium
b) Dogmatic Truths

On the Magisterium, the Authentic Magisterium:

a) Newman on the Syllabus of Errors

On the Magisterium, Matters of Ecclesiastical Discipline

On the Magisterium, Matters of Church Government

On What the Magisterium is Not:

a) Matters of the Prudential Order
1) Matters of Science
2) Matters of Economics
3) Matters of General Politics

Conclusion


I anticipate that the above project will be finished and ready for publication sometime in the spring of 2020.

The Number Of Democrats Showing Up At Trump Rallies Is Stunning

Black Cat Makes End Zone Run, Becomes MVP Of Monday Night Football

Democrats are wasting America's time on impeachment

Seahawks claim former Patriots WR Josh Gordon off waivers

Purgatory Project Names 2019:

Richard Dunn McElhinney
Margaret Dianne McElhinney
Anna Maria McElhinney
Shawn McElhinney
Teresa Marie McElhinney
Frank D. Barone
Raffaelina Barone
Bobby Kanski
Pat Kane
Chris DiSomma

Mic Greubel
Jim Greubel
Cindy Greubel
Kathy Hanks
Shane Rasmussen
Bill Walkling
Tim Tull
Charles Tull
Daniel Tull
Pauley Perrette

Mike Mentzer
Ray Mentzer
James Dunn McElhinney
David Kanski
Harry Kanski
Mary Kanski
Paul McElhinney
Mildred McElhinney
Mark Usher
Virginia Usher

Jack DeLisle
Larry Gonczy
Ed Flynn
Cecilia Flynn
Hugh Dunn
Silvana Barone
Albert King
Albert Collins
Freddie King
Sharon Yotter

Lisa Yotter
Bob Kanski
Claudia McElhinney
Keith McDonald
Mona McDonald
Michelle Bigliatto
Gwen Stefani
James Pavlick
Kevin Tierney
Albert Cipriani

Mark Harmon
David McCallum
Barry Goldwater
Ronald Reagan
Fr. Augustine Hartmann
Fr. Christopher Hunter
Emilio Barone
Jimi Hendrix
Ronnie Van Zant
Allen Collins

Steve Gaines
Leon Wilkinson
Bob Burns
Billy Powell
Roger Waters
Syd Barrett
David Gilmour
Rick Wright
Nick Mason
Jack Bruce

Eric Clapton
Ginger Baker
Johnny Cash
Waylon Jennings
Merle Haggard
David Allan Coe
Glen Campbell
Yvonne Goodwin
Diana Louie Taylor
Marc Taylor

Beth Cleaver
Kender McGowan
Misha Lynn Nicastro
Mel Denny
Hattie Denny
Miki Odendahl
Bob Klaus
Deborah Klaus
Art Sippo
Michael Lopez

Leta Allen
F John Loughnan
Fr. Robert Taft SJ
Mark Cribbs
Larry Usher
Steve Paul
Marlene Eiden
Linda Hale
Dave Altier
Vangie Altier

Fox is very good at mocking Raw for not having a champion on their roster

Points To Ponder:

The critique of fundamentalists that Catholics basically appropriate pagan symbols left and right is not without merit. Catholics are supposed to have a nuanced understanding of these things not react like haughty colonizing douchebags about contemporary examples of inculturation while blindly uncritically accepting prior pagan inculturations without a second thought. After all, if they did that, they would have to jettison virtually everything about Catholicism. How do you think the Church is Catholic which means "universal" and how do you think it was able to worm its way into so many cultures? A hint: inculturation.

Seahawks trade for Quandre Diggs

Wendy Williams Says She Brought Her Son to a Strip Club and Taught Him How to 'Make It Rain'

Points to Ponder:
(On Dialogue)

The dialogue...supposes that one listens to the other, and in the divine sense of this word listen, as Jesus the child listened to the doctors, or the risen Christ listened to the pilgrims of Emmaus, or the man listens to Revelation, or God listens to man's prayer. Let yourself listen, I say, with the hope that the other's point of view will teach you something new, will complete your thought, or will allow you to expand it, to purify, subliminate, deepen it. An objector, contradictor, critic are unsuspecting aids, for in every objection there is a part of the truth, which allows us to better express what we think, to forestall confusion, to give relief and contour to our opinions. St. Thomas began by presenting what went against his thesis. He leaned on the obstacle, on the apparent negation he built his discreet affirmation, filtered, tested, simple, and sure. And Laecorde, in the same spirit, said: "I do not try to convince my adversary of error, but to join him in a higher truth." [Jean Guitton: Dialogues of Paul VI With Jean Guitton pg. 163 (circa 1967) as quoted in I. Shawn McElhinney's Commentary on the Intricacies of Dialogue (circa 2003)]

Points to Ponder:

Yesterday was the 102nd anniversary of the Fatima appearance of 10/13/1917. I remember many devoted Fatima folks who were convinced the Blessed Virgin Mary would make an appearance to mark the 100th anniversary of the event but that never happened. I have long wondered if the biggest devotees of Fatima have not wondered as to why that was the case.

Having given this some thought, I strongly suspect that the reason why there was no anniversary appearance is that the BVM was none too pleased with those who claimed to honour and venerate her Fatima apparition (the foundation of which are repentance, conversion, and obedience) more than everyone else (essentially being More Fatima Than Thou™) while at the same time, being so blatantly and unrepentantly disobedient and disrespectful to her Son's Vicar.

DEBRA J. SAUNDERS: Whistling past the graveyard

Points to Ponder:

"...And now, though I might say much more about the prerogatives of the Holy Father, the visible head of the Church, I have said more than enough for the purpose which has led to my speaking about him at all. I have said that, like St. Peter, he is the Vicar of his Lord. He can judge, and he can acquit; he can pardon, and he can condemn; he can command and he can permit; he can forbid, and he can punish. He has a Supreme jurisdiction over the people of God. He can stop the ordinary course of sacramental mercies; he can excommunicate from the ordinary grace of redemption; and he can remove again the ban which he has inflicted. It is the rule of Christ's providence, that what His Vicar does in severity or in mercy upon earth, He Himself confirms in heaven. And in saying all this I have said enough for my purpose, because that purpose is to define our obligations to him. That is the point on which our Bishop has fixed our attention; 'our obligations to the Holy See;' and what need I say more to measure our own duty to it and to him who sits in it, than to say that in his administration of Christ's kingdom, in his religious acts, we must never oppose his will, or dispute his word, or criticise his policy, or shrink from his side? There are kings of the earth who have despotic authority, which their subjects obey indeed but disown in their hearts; but we must never murmur at that absolute rule which the Sovereign Pontiff has over us, because it is given to him by Christ, and, in obeying him, we are obeying his Lord. We must never suffer ourselves to doubt, that, in his government of the Church, he is guided by an intelligence more than human. His yoke is the yoke of Christ, he has the responsibility of his own acts, not we; and to his Lord must he render account, not to us. Even in secular matters it is ever safe to be on his side, dangerous to be on the side of his enemies. Our duty is,—not indeed to mix up Christ's Vicar with this or that party of men, because he in his high station is above all parties,—but to look at his formal deeds, and to follow him whither he goeth, and never to desert him, however we may be tried, but to defend him at all hazards, and against all comers, as a son would a father, and as a wife a husband, knowing that his cause is the cause of God. And so, as regards his successors, if we live to see them; it is our duty to give them in like manner our dutiful allegiance and our unfeigned service, and to follow them also whithersoever they go, having that same confidence that each in his turn and in his own day will do God's work and will, which we have felt in their predecessors, now taken away to their eternal reward..."  [St. John Henry Newman: From a Sermon (circa Oct. 7, 1866)]

Jane Fonda, 81, arrested for protesting climate change at the Capitol after citing Greta Thunberg as her inspiration
Good!

Opening Address To the Council

Points to Ponder:

Complaining not only ruins everybody else's day, it ruins the complainer's day, too. The more we complain, the more unhappy we get. [Dennis Prager]

On the Electoral College Map For 2020:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

This was compiled from comments posted to social media about three or four weeks ago.

Of the 538 electoral votes out there, 451 are already known. Well, 452 because whatever the polls say right now, Trump is not going to lose the one tossup electoral vote in Nebraska. So it starts off as follows:

Republicans -220 electoral votes
Democrats -232 electoral votes

I am assuming for a moment that the Democrat floor is 232 which is not a given either (as Minnesota and New Hampshire were very close last time and the Republicans have a lot more money to spend this time around). But let us make that presumption from the get-go, ok?

So starting with 220 electoral votes, Trump will follow the pattern of Republicans in 16 of the past 17 elections in the postwar period and retain Arizona and its 11 electoral votes. That puts his total at 231 electoral votes. Then there is Florida. Watch for the Republicans to dump a metric shit ton of money into Florida. Unlike in 2016 where the Democrats outspent the Republicans 3:1 the numbers will be reversed this time and the president will be helped by the lack of a primary contest meaning the Republicans can use all their money in a fashion befitting a general election and not worry about wasting any of it to fight off primary opponents as will be the case with whomever the Democrats nominate.

As has been the case in 13 of the past 17 elections in the postwar period, the Republicans will keep Florida and its 29 electoral votes. That brings the president's total to 260 electoral votes and a mere 10 away from what he would need to win re-election.

From there we have Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania representing 10 electoral votes, 16 electoral votes, and 20 electoral votes respectively and all of which Trump won in 2016. The Republicans would only need to grab one of those three to put the president at or over 270 electoral votes. By contrast, the Democrats would need to run the table there and win all three of them and with the lions share of their remaining field, that is not going to happen. Its conceivable that a Biden-Gabbard ticket could do it however but many Democrats seem insistent on nominating someone like Warren, Sanders, or Mayor Pete: none of whom would be successful in running that gauntlet with the radical nonsense they are spouting in these primaries and which the Republicans will tar and feather them with in a general election campaign.

As I said, this path is not a hard one at all. And the real kicker is this: it could be reached even if there was an overall nationwide five million deficit in the popular vote.

#######

Even if the Dems swung MI and PA back in 2020, they would still lose if they did not also swing WI. And as I said before, this assumes for the moment that Dems hold MN: a state they won with a mere 1.5% in 2016. The Republicans are going to dump some coin into that state this time to try and swing it and a few others which were barely contested last time which were a lot closer than many folks figured.

#######

You cannot base what will happen in presidential election years with what happens in midterms. Ask the Republicans who thought their wipeout of the Democrats in 2010 made winning in 2012 a certainty. Ask the Democrats who thought in 1998 that they were on their way to a threepeat in 2000 or who thought after 1986 that they were well positioned to win the presidency in 1988.

The bottom line is the party whose president is in power usually loses seats in midterm elections. The only exceptions to this rule in the past 90 odd years were 1934 and 2002 where the presidents party actually increased their presence in the House and Senate. In that light, what happened in 2018 was not unusual except for the fact that Republicans while losing roughly the average in House seats for a midterm correctional actually gained Senate seats last year. In short, the Republicans showed less overall weakness in 2018 (-41, +2) than the Democrats showed in 2010 (-63, -6).

#######

Ohio is slated as likely Republican in 2020. It has also been roughly twice as likely to go Republican (12 times) than Democrat (7 times) in presidential elections since 1944. Florida has gone Republican in 13 of the past 17 presidential elections and so strongly trends that way that even Obama in bucking that trend struggled to win Florida. (While Obama did win Florida in 2012, he won it by .88% and even in 2008 his margin of win was less than 3%.) You can expect the Republicans who will have a lot more money in 2020 than the Democrats to prioritize campaign spending in Florida and they will carpetbomb that state into submission next year. North Carolina and Georgia are Republican leans even more so than Minnesota and New Hampshire are for the Democrats. Arizona is open at the moment but as I said, when a state goes to one party in 16 of the past 17 elections, it is very rash to presume that trend will be bucked in 2020 -especially since the one time that trend was, the Democrats were running with the power of incumbency: something they will not have next year.

In short, incumbents always have an advantage in re-election and the Republicans have a very strong structural one in the electoral college right now. So much so that Trump could lose the popular vote by up to 5 million next year and still win the EC. None of this means he will win of course but those who rashly consign him to defeat without considering the actual numbers on these matters as well as the partisan voting index of states in play{1} could very easily find themselves come November of 2020 wondering what the hell happened to their supposed concrete certainties on these matters.

Note:

{1} State PVI's of 2020 Swing States:

Arizona: R+5, Colorado: D+1, Florida: R+2, Georgia: R+5, Michigan: D+1, Minnesota: D+1, Nevada: D+1, New Hampshire: EVEN,  North Carolina: R+3, Ohio: R+3, Pennsylvania: EVEN, Wisconsin: EVEN

As you can see, the swing state PVI's strongly favour the Republicans and once impenetrable Democrat strongholds like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are tossups while Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, and Nevada are a mere D+1 which is not much of a Democrat advantage and one easily wiped out if the GOP gets even a slight turnout advantage in those states next year.

UltraBriefly on the "Unanswered" Dubia:

My words will be in regular font.

The dubia Cardinals have entirely legitimate theological credentials yet the Pope still has yet to answer them.

The Dubia has been answered. Twice. By yours truly.

Here is the most recent answering if interested:

Revisiting the Controversial Dubia (circa March 21, 2019)

Points to Ponder:

Had we not faults of our own, we should take less pleasure in complaining of others. [Francois Fenelon]

Points to Ponder:

Tell General Howard I know his heart. What he told me before, I have it in my heart. I am tired of fighting. Our chiefs are killed; Looking Glass is dead, Too-hul-hul-sote is dead. The old men are all dead. It is the young men who say yes or no. He who led on the young men is dead. It is cold, and we have no blankets; the little children are freezing to death. My people, some of them, have run away to the hills, and have no blankets, no food. No one knows where they are—perhaps freezing to death. I want to have time to look for my children, to see how many I can find. Maybe I shall find them among the dead. Hear me, my chiefs! I am tired; my heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever. [Chief Joseph (circa October 5, 1877)]

Seahawks 30 Rams 29: Winners and Losers from a Thursday night classic

If my words did glow with the gold of sunshine

And my tunes were played on the harp unstrung

Would you hear my voice come through the music

Would you hold it near as it were your own?

It's a hand-me-down, the thoughts are broken

Perhaps they're better left unsung

I don't know, don't really care

Let there be songs to fill the air

Ripple in still water

When there is no pebble tossed

Nor wind to blow

Reach out your hand if your cup be empty

If your cup is full may it be again

Let it be known there is a fountain

That was not made by the hands of men

There is a road, no simple highway

Between the dawn and the dark of night

And if you go no one may follow

That path is for your steps alone

Ripple in still water

When there is no pebble tossed

Nor wind to blow

You who choose to lead must follow

But if you fall you fall alone

If you should stand then who's to guide you?

If I knew the way I would take you home.

[Robert Hunter]

Media, the Left Have Pushed Trump Impeachment for 35 Months, Even Before Inauguration

I am not a fan of Mr. Trump as most everyone who has followed my stuff in various mediums online for a few years well knows. However, I also do not take this latest so-called "whistleblower" thing even remotely seriously either.

Why? Because these same clowns have been trying to push impeachment since before Mr. Trump was even sworn in. It was even being discussed on news networks before the Electoral College met to cast its votes. And there has been one attempted scam after another since November 9, 2016 undertaken by whining brats unable to accept the results of an election they did not like. It is why when (not if) the latest ploy blows up in their faces, I will laugh at them.

Mr. Trump is in many respects pathetic yes. But his opposition makes him look somewhat palatable by comparison. It did not have to be that way of course as Mr. Trump is an inherently vulnerable incumbent. But to beat him would require  both moderation as well as sanity: two traits nearly non-existent on the Democratic side right now. But I digress.

Cigar Thoughts, Game 4: Seahawks swoop into Cardinals’ nest, eat their worms, steal their eggs

In the attics of my life
Full of cloudy dreams; unreal
Full of tastes no tongue can know
And lights no eye can see

When there was no ear to hear
You sang to me

I have spent my life
Seeking all that's still unsung
Bent my ear to hear the tune
And closed my eyes to see

When there were no strings to play

You played to me

In the book of love's own dreams
Where all the print is blood
Where all the pages are my days
And all my lights grow old

When I had no wings to fly
You flew to me
You flew to me

In the secret space of dreams
Where I dreaming lay amazed
When the secrets all are told
And the petals all unfold

When there was no dream of mine
You dreamed of me. You dreamed of me.
[Robert Hunter]

A pistol shot at five o'clock
The bells of heaven ring
Tell me what you done it for
No I won't tell you a thing

Yesterday I begged you
Before I hit the ground
All I leave behind me
Is only what I found

If you can abide it
Let the hurdy gurdy play
Stranger ones have come by here
Before they flew away

I will not condemn you
Nor yet would I deny
I would ask the same of you
But failing, will not die

Take up your china doll
It's only fractured
And a little nervous from the fall
La la la la la la la. 
[Robert Hunter]

Democrats’ double standard on Ukraine

I seriously do not know about the whole Trump and Ukraine thing but I will say this: when the accusing side engages in the same thing themselves that they now are squawking about impeachment on, I cannot take them seriously for a moment no matter what I think of Trump!

Robert Hunter, Grateful Dead Collaborator and Lyricist, Dead at 78

"Fare you well, my honey, fare you well my only true one.
All the birds that were singing are flown, except you alone.

Going to leave this brokedown palace,
On my hand and my knees, I will roll, roll, roll.
Make myself a bed by the waterside,
In my time, in my time, I will roll, roll roll.

In a bed, in a bed, by the waterside I will lay my head.
Listen to the river sing sweet songs, to rock my soul..."

#RestInPeace

Seahawks' DK Metcalf is the big receiver Pete Carroll always wanted

For those who need an update on these things, the Democratic Presidential field is down to 19 candidates now. Here is a brief list of those who have dropped out so far:

Richard Ojeda (January 25, 2019)
Eric Swalwell (July 8, 2019)
Mike Gravel (August 6, 2019)
John Hinckenlooper (August 15, 2019)
Jay Inslee (August 21, 2019)
Seth Moulton (August 23, 2019)
Kirsten Gillibrand (August 28, 2019)
Bill de Blasio (September 20, 2019)

Pope Francis Addresses Criticism of His Pontificate and Discusses ‘Schism

Points to Ponder:

How beautifully leaves grow old. How full of light and color are their last days. [John Burrows]

Briefly on Sola Traditio and the Magisterium:

As I have seen variations of this problem over the years in various formats and contexts, I am posting here something written by yours truly as a recent response to certain misunderstandings and troubling methods of interpretation posted to the social media site of someone who dabbles in what some call traditionalism.

With all due respect, I do not see how in the above collection of quotes you are not engaging in a form of Sola Traditio whereby you purport to judge what is and is not Tradition or what is or is not properly speaking magisterial in the same way Protestants do with the Bible and Sola Scriptura.

We are supposed to believe the Bible is as St. Peter said "containing many things difficult to understand which the unlearned and unstable wrest to their own destruction" (cf. 2 Peter 1:20ff) but magisterial texts in isolation can be easily understood and do not have the same pitfalls for those who are themselves unlearned in such things as general norms of theological interpretation, understanding historical context, etc? And of course the self-proclaimed "conservatives", "traditionalists", etc are never admitting of their own unlearnedness and instability on these matters!

As for as the "novelty is our out" claim, you then have to explain how a purported "novelty" becomes sufficiently established to no longer be considered such as virtually everything you now consider Traditional or otherwise immutable was at one point in time a novelty. In short, you need a better standard than merely what is and is not a purported "novelty." You would also do well to remember the following words from Pope Leo XIII:

"[I]t is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them."

You also focus far too much on what is infallible and non-infallible. Apart from the fact that most Catholics do not understand well the subject of infallibility, "non-infallible does not ipso facto mean "containing errors." If your criteria of what requires assent of any form is what is or is not "infallible", then you run afoul of magisterial teaching on what is and is not requiring of assent.

There are recognized ways to approach areas of difficulty but I see none of them emphasized in what you write above.

Points to Ponder:

Autumn is a second spring when every leaf is a flower. [Albert Camus]

Seahawks defense the lone traditionalist in Week 1

On the Society of St. Pius X, Their Status, Diplomacy, Etc.:

My words will be in regular font. Without further ado...

So let me make sure I have this right:

1) You are critical of Pope Francis for supposedly saying he is not afraid of a schism in the Church.

But

2) You are often lionizing the schismatic Lefebvre on your page.

Sounds like you are trying to have it both ways.

supposedly saying? He said it. Its not even a question. Francis and benedict were clear that Lefebvre wasnt schismatic.

I noticed that you neglected to mention Pope St. John Paul II who explicitly declared in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre committed a schismatic act on June 30, 1988: a stance confirmed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in July of 1988 in an address to the bishops of Chile where he explicitly referred to "the schism of Lefebvre." Archbishop Lefebvre died in 1991 and Pope Benedict XVI never reversed the position he took as Cardinal Ratzinger. Pope Francis has not said anything about Lefebvre.

no...it was an objectively schematic act...sure...since 2000 rome has said the schismatic act did not equal a formal schism...successive heads of ED said that...people representing francis said it when visiting sspx...etc...its a 20 year long gone idea that there was a schism...there was a tense situation...distance even...great...im distant from the germans...distance happens...no one knows where the chips have fallen until the dust settles...for 20 years rome has ceased to call it a schism...

Nice try but this does not fly. The idea that just because for diplomatic reasons Rome through the Ecclesia Dei has not referred to them as schismatic does not mean that they are not (and that Lefebvre was not). Case in point: the reconciliation of the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer. They were formed in 1987 and actually approached Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 for his blessing (which he gave). When Lefebvre went off the rails in 1988, the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer followed him. After nearly two decades in the ecclesial wilderness, in 2007, they took the occasion of the issuing of the Motu Proprio Summorem Pontificum to approach Pope Benedict XVI for reconciliation and after a process he accepted. Upon returning to full ecclesial communion, the very document regularizing them in the official text mentions the ending of their "schismatic state."

It is not unusual for diplomatic or tactical reasons to soft pedal the language in many respects but in circumstances like this, it is stated more bluntly. For example, when he was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Mueller explained it as follows:

"The canonical excommunication of the bishops for their illegal ordinations was revoked, but a de facto sacramental excommunication remains for their schism; they put themselves out of communion with the Church. After that we are not closing the door and never will, but we are inviting them to be reconciled. But they too must change their attitude, accept the conditions of the Catholic Church, and the Supreme Pontiff as the definitive criterion for membership." [Cardinal Gerhard Mueller: Interview with Corriere della Sera (circa December 22, 2013)]

Or if that is not recent enough for you, consider this statement from the former head of the Vatican Apostolic Signatura as recently as 2017:

"[D]espite the various arguments surrounding the question, the fact of the matter is that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X is in schism since the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ordained four bishops without the mandate of the Roman Pontiff. 

And so it is not legitimate to attend Mass or to receive the sacraments in a church that’s under the direction of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X. Having said that, we, part of the kind of general confusion in the Church has also entered into this question because the Holy Father has given the priests of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X faculties to celebrate validly marriages, licitly and validly. But there is no canonical explanation for it, and it is simply an anomaly. 

And, also Pope Benedict XVI, before his abdication, he lifted the excommunication of the four bishops who were ordained without the papal mandate, but, he, they hadn’t, the requirement for having an excommunication lifted is that a person has withdrawn from his contumacy and now desires to be fully reconciled with the Church but in fact that hasn’t happened, and so that’s another bit of an anomalous situation 

They’re no longer excommunicated, but they’re also not in regular communion with the Catholic Church. 

And so the whole thing is very complicated, but I would say to you that, I don’t think it’s a good sign to receive sacraments in the Priestly Society of St. Pius X because that’s not helping them to, first of all, the sacraments are not celebrated licitly. They’re valid, there’s no question about it if the priests are validly ordained, but it’s not a, it’s a countersign to the communion of the Church. Instead we should be encouraging the members of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X to be reconciled with the Church." [Cardinal Raymond Burke: Sacred Liturgy Conference in Medford, Oregon Q&A Session (circa July 15, 2017)]

With all due respect, I would advise you not to not engage in cafeteria style picking and choosing in these areas based on your personal whims or inclinations. Otherwise you are doing nothing different than the Protestants.

Briefly on Pope Francis, Handling Difficulties, Principles of Dialogue, Etc:

My words will be in regular font. Without further ado...

no one ever knows what the Pope is saying

Actually, I have as a rule not found it difficult to figure out either what the Pope is saying or how it coheres within the broader Catholic tradition. The good priest would do well to remember these words from Donum Veritatis -though directed towards theologians, the words of this Instruction are no less important for regular layfolk as well (all emphasis is mine):

"...If, despite a loyal effort on the theologian's part, the difficulties persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented. He should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties. His objections could then contribute to real progress and provide a stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and with a clearer presentation of the arguments. 

In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the "mass media", but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth..."

"Donum Veritatis" is referring to legitimate disagreement with official (but undogmatic) Church teaching, not to public correction of heretical or otherwise destructive hierarchs, particularly those with diarrhea of the mouth who have already, and on numerous occasions, obstinately refused to entertain private corrections, or private invitations to clarification and self-correction.

XXXXXX while speaking of their willingness to dialogue lol

You cannot publicly trash your perceived enemies -- particularly when the enemies in question are orthodox Catholics and objectively innocent of wrong-doing -- and then demand that any and all retort must be made privately

Donum Veritatis is a text outlining the ecclesial vocation of the theologian. The principles involved in the Instruction however apply across the board as there are not more restrictions on these matters applied to theologians whereas the much more ignorant (as a rule) laity are given carte blanche to kvetch and whine publicly about every little matter. There is an acceptable and unacceptable manner for dealing with teachings as well as prudential interventions. Unfortunately, not a few Catholics who loudly proclaim themselves "orthodox" and/or "traditional" far too often run afoul in these areas and are as stubborn about being corrected here as they are in certain unorthodox positions they espouse. If their attitude was more humble and sincere, it would be a different story but alas the latter are the exception in More Orthodox Than Thou circles, not the rule. (At least online anyway.)

As far as "publicly trash[ing] perceived enemies", so-called "traditionalists" do so online all the time. So much so that it is extremely difficult oftentimes to separate this attitude from any potential points of value they might on occasion make. And the orthodoxy of many (thankfully not all) of them can very easily be questioned, particularly when they ignore general principles of traditional Catholic spiritual instruction while simultaneously claiming to be Traditional. Actions after all speak louder than words.

As for "willingness to dialogue", the latter presupposes by its very nature "the good will of both parties to the dialogue" (cf. Ecclesiam Suam 81,3). Sadly, a lot of folks have shown publicly and objectively that they lack such good will; ergo, they by their actions and statements forfeit this general courtesy.

Points to Ponder:

"[I]f we are just accidental, if this life is all there is, if there is no eternal standard of right and wrong, then all that matters is power. And atheism leads to brutality...it flows very naturally from an idea that there is no judgment and there is nothing other than the brief time we spend on this Earth." [Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels (circa December 24, 2009)]

Cigar Thoughts, Game 1: Seahawks grind out opening day win against feisty Bengals

Ultrabriefly on Pope Francis and Amoris Laetitia:

This is a follow up to the thread located HERE. My words will be in regular font. Without further ado...

When Francis published Amoris Laetitia, which at best, at least floated several heretical positions,

There is nothing heretical in Amoris Laetitia.{1}

cardinals and bishops did not assault him, but respectfully asked for clarity of teaching in the Dubia.

The Dubia was a less than sincere inquiry for reasons I explained in detail a couple years ago.{2}

Not only has Francis never responded to the respectful questions, but he has published his own heretical interpretation of AL.

See my first point.

Notes:

{1} See these links for details:

To Address the So-Called "Fraternal Correction" and its Signatories (circa April 14, 2019)

On the Malta Dioceses Application of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (circa April 16, 2019)

On Correcting the So-Called "Correctio Filialis", Addressing Its Accusations, Etc. (circa April 18, 2019)

On Correcting the Pretentious "Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church", Addressing its Accusations, Etc. (circa May 14, 2019)

{2} See these links for details:

Very Briefly on the Dubia Subject (circa April 9, 2017)

More on the Controversial Dubia Subject (circa April 10, 2017)

I realized recently that the Beer/Wine/Spirits subtag on this site has on occasion been used to tag postings that mention cigars. As I am again on a weight loss regimen, I cannot partake of any beer, wine, or other spirits though I can partake of an occasional premium cigar. I have decided as a result of these factors among others to inaugurate a new subtag:

Cigars/Beer/Wine/Spirits

I have tagged all threads previously subtagged Beer/Wine/Spirits with the new subtag, and the old tag has been obrogated in perpetuity.

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

What Popes Did Saint Thomas More Die For?

Jadeveon Clowney's move to Seattle was sealed by a new position, and a former teammate

On the Status of This Year's Atomic August:

I do not know how else to say it but I failed this August to accomplish an objective I have long thought about pursuing.{1} I refer here to the composition and publication of a challenge for those who every August involve themselves in the same "masturbatory ritual of anachronistically virtue signalling their ignorance about certain long ago war events as a way of trying to appear More Virtuous Than Thou."{2}

While the idea crystallized firmly in my mind over a two year period, the problem was the motivation to actually frame the material correctly to publish the challenge publicly. This steadily grew until I finally realized August was upon me again and despite my previous thoughts about doing so, I had nonetheless made no prior attempt to do the work to make it feasible to do. So as a small bit of time availed itself and in an effort to motivate myself, I published a public notation of my intention on the matter and begin setting the table for the challenge to be completed and published this August around or slightly after the middle of the month. My reason for the time crunch is a principle I have due to past experience{3} followed for more than a decade now; namely, to limit this subject matter discussion if it is to take place at all to the month of August in a given year.{4} While it is true that I have touched on subjects that indirectly touch on the atomic bomb subject on occasion{5}, I have adhered to the stricture of only discussing this subject directly in the month of August for over twelve years now.

And while I worked on the challenge, the factors of life including outside commitments and personal issues that required tending to made finishing it within the time frame intended improbable for reasons I noted a bit over a week ago. So the challenge thread being about 90% finished as of this writing will now be completed for publication before the start of next August. Considering that it will be summertime of a major election year{6} as well as the 75th anniversary of the matter to be discussed, perhaps in the end, it is prescient that things ended up as they did in this area.

So with that in mind, the challenge will now be issued in August of 2020 -most likely on the first of the month but certainly no later than August 6, 2020.

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Notes:

{1} While past published material points to a long implicit thought pertaining to such things, the first time I recall explicitly coming up with the real germs of this idea was when I wrote about returning to a metaphorical ground zero on the subject in a lengthy expository musing on the matter within a few months of this website being reactivated:

Commemorating A Controversial Anniversary (circa August 17, 2017)

From that process came the idea for the public challenge.

{2} Excerpt from a Rerum Novarum Post (circa July 31, 2018)

{3} I would be more than happy to discuss the subject of atomic bombings at another time -say contemporary to the next anniversary which will be in August of this year. The reason for that is that I have already written a fair amount on this subject already and it has a way of getting under people's skin in a way few other subjects can. For that reason -and because I am tired of discussing the subject[...]- I would ask that if you want to talk about it with me to let me know around August or so when the subject of the anniversaries of those events come around again and the circumstances would be more appropriate. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 15, 2007)]

{4} Prior to 2008, it was not uncommon for this subject to bleed outside of August and become a kind of all consuming force brought about by outside forces and to which I at times unwittingly was drawn. I made a conscious decision in late 2006 to embargo this subject completely and in January of 2007, first opened the door for future discussions on this subject only during the month of August: a principle that with only two explicit exceptions to that rule I have followed ever since.

{5} To note one such example:

On "Consequentialism", "Proportionalism", and a Lesson in General Norms of Interpretation, Theological or Otherwise (circa October 6, 2008)

{6} And is often the case, it will be in the midst of the Dog Days of Summer and thus requiring a change of pace for the sake of one's sanity.

Divorce, Annulment & Communion

This essay has its good and its bad points.

The good? It points out what I and others gave said about Amoris Laetitia{1} and also how absurdly ignorant traditionalists often are about actual church history.{2}

The bad? The author does not seem to grasp well the distinction between an annulment and a divorce: a distinction with a difference.

Notes:

{1} See these links for details:

To Address the So-Called "Fraternal Correction" and its Signatories (circa April 14, 2019)

On the Malta Dioceses Application of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (circa April 16, 2019)

On Correcting the So-Called "Correctio Filialis", Addressing Its Accusations, Etc. (circa April 18, 2019)

On Correcting the Pretentious "Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church", Addressing its Accusations, Etc. (circa May 14, 2019)

{2} In this case, the subject of marriage and the variegated ways the Church had dealt at times with the divorced and remarried.

Briefly...

"Its amazing how stupid Trump's supporters are, they will excuse and defend anything Trump says or does, etc etc etc." [#NeverTrump]

"Its amazing how stupid Trump's critics are, they will whine and complain about everything Trump says or does, etc etc etc." [#AlwaysTrump]

"Both of you are annoying as hell, shut the  fuck up!" [Me]