Excerpts from the Forgotten Vatican I Relatio:

By Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser of Brixen

Delivered on July 11, 1870

Most eminent presidents, eminent and reverend fathers.  I get up to speak today with great sadness and even greater fear. With great sadness, since the treatment of the center of ecclesiastical unity has become the occasion of discord among the reverend fathers, such discord that we are able to say with the prophet: "Seeing this, they will cry out in the streets, and the messengers of peace will weep bitterly" (Is. 33:7). I rise to speak with even greater fear, lest a great cause be ruined by its advocate.  Nevertheless, I proceed, counting on divine grace and your good will...

The office of the Apostles consisted in this: they would be the authentic ocular and auricular witnesses to the word of God, witnesses preordained by God and sent by Christ to all nations: and to this office, proper to the Apostles, there was added the corresponding gift of personal infallibility.  The bishops succeeded the Apostles not as succeeding to a universal apostolate but rather to an episcopate as rulers of individual churches.  And thus it happened that the prerogative of personal infallibility, joined in an extraordinary mode to the apostolate, would not pass on to the bishops.  The bishops by power of their office are guardians of the deposit which the Apostles - as witnesses preordained by God - committed to them.  It is as Paul says to Timothy: "Hold to the form of sound teaching, which you heard from me in faith and in the love of Christ Jesus.  Through the Holy Spirit who dwells in you guard the worthy deposit" (2 Tm. 1:13-14).  This same thing is said to all the bishops.  In this duty of guarding, communicating and defending the deposit as a treasure of divine truth, the bishops also are helped by the Holy Spirit.  But this infallible aid of the Holy Spirit is not present in each of the bishops but rather in the bishops taken together and joined with [their] head, for it was said to all generally and not each individually: "Behold, I am with you all days until the end of time" (Mt. 28:20).

This prerogative granted to St. Peter by the Lord Jesus Christ was supposed to pass to all Peter's successors because the chair of Peter is the center of unity in the Church.  But if the Pontiff should fall into an error of faith, the Church would dissolve, deprived of the bond of unity.  The bishop of Meaux speaks very well on this point, saying: "If this Roman See could fall and be no longer the See of truth but of error and pestilence, then the Catholic Church herself would not have the bond of a society and would be schismatic and scattered - which in fact is impossible."

LET NO ONE SAY: "Yes, the See of Peter is the center of unity, but from that there only follows the office which the Roman pastor has of confirming and of preserving his brothers in the faith. But the office is one thing, the authority, especially an infallible authority, is something else."  I REPLY: how would the Roman Pontiff be able to fulfill this office which was divinely and especially given to him if he did not have a special authority which all others - even the bishops whether dispersed throughout the world or gathered together - should recognize as unassailable?...

We now come to the arguments from tradition, and this is the argument from the public documents of the councils which can be found in the proposed Draft itself.  However, before I make a few reflections on these documents, let me say a little bit in a general way about the argument from tradition as it is brought forth to prove the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff.  Generally speaking the argument comes from tradition but it can be construed in different ways.  Let me say it as I will (for now I will omit  things for the sake of time); let me say how I would construct this argument from tradition and the way I was led to use this method.

One day when I was praying on my knees at the "confessio" of St. Peter's, I lifted up my eyes and saw the words inscribed there which say: "From this place one faith shines on the world."  At these words I recalled all those things which, from the earliest ages of the Christian religion down to our own day, the holy Apostolic See has done and suffered in order to preserve the authority of the faith in the Church of Christ and to repair that authority where it has been harmed.  While I was thinking about this, the deep conviction held me that the Holy See would not have been able to fight so strenuously, so constantly and so successfully for the truth unless it had always been persuaded of the gift of inerrancy, promised, in the person of Peter, to Peter's successors, and unless the Church had offered its assent to this conviction of the Holy See.  

Thus, most reverend and eminent fathers, the traditional argument which I want to present to you.  As I have already said, I now abstain from proposing it.  In order to strengthen the first part of this argument, I read again and again the genuine epistles of the Roman Pontiffs as edited by Coustantio and by Andrea Thiel, his recent continuator.  As often as I read them and the more I considered them, the more did I become convinced that the Roman Pontiffs, as they descended into the arena as witnesses, doctors and judges of the universal Church to fight for the Christian truth, were incapable of erring, through the power of a divine promise.  Don't let anyone say that the Roman Pontiffs, commending the dignity of their own See, speaking, that is, on their own behalf, should not be believed.  For if the testimony of the Roman Pontiffs is weakened for that reason [viz., because they speak on their own behalf], then indeed the entire ecclesiastical hierarchy is called into question: the authority of the teaching Church is not able to be proved except through the teaching Church.

As far as the second part of the traditional argument is concerned, viz., the assent of the Church which is offered to the faith of the Roman Pontiffs concerning the gift of Inerrancy of their See, the Church has well manifested this assent indirectly (i.e., by reason of its mode of acting) as well as directly and by explicit words.  Passing over in silence the explicit testimonies by which the holy Fathers and the councils have manifested their assent, I ought to spend a little time on the indirect testimony which is drawn from the Church's mode of acting, since doing so will offer me the opportunity of removing some of the difficulties which have been raised by some of the reverend fathers.  This indirect testimony rises from the rule of faith which the most ancient Fathers have handed down...

I now come to the second part of our proposed chapter, that is, to the definition of papal infallibility itself.  This is contained in the second part of chapter four.  In the general relatio on this second part, it seems to me that two things are necessary: 1. to determine accurately the state of the question, and, 2. to illustrate the formula of the definition by a brief commentary.  First of all, therefore, the state of the question.

When we attempt a more accurate determination of the state of the question, we first come upon the words which have already so many times been ordered into exile from this hall, but which have not yet gone into exile.  Those words are: infallibility which is personal, separate, and absolute.  In reality the question hinges on these words. Let us see, therefore, as briefly as possible, what the sense of these words is.

In what sense can the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff be said to be personal?  It is said to be personal in order to exclude in this way a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the Roman Church.  Indeed, infallibility is said to be personal in order thereby to exclude a distinction between the See and the one who holds the See.  Since this distinction did not acquire any patrons in the general congregations, I shall refrain from saying anything about it.  Therefore, having rejected the distinction between the Roman Church and the Roman Pontiff, between the See and the possessor of the See, that is, between the universal series and the individual Roman Pontiffs succeeding each other in this series, we defend the personal infallibility of the Roman Pontiff inasmuch as this prerogative belongs, by the promise of Christ, to each and every legitimate successor of Peter in his chair.

Having said this, the notion of papal infallibility is not yet sufficiently defined.  The personal infallibility of the Pope must be more accurately defined in itself in the following way: it does not belong to the Roman Pontiff inasmuch as he is a private person, nor even inasmuch as he is a private teacher, since, as such, he is equal with all other private teachers and, as Cajetan wisely noted, equal does not have power over equal, not such power as the Roman Pontiff exercises over the Church Universal.  Hence we do not speak about personal infallibility, although we do defend the infallibility of the person of the Roman Pontiff, not as an individual person but as the person of the Roman Pontiff or a public person, that is, as head of the Church in his relation to the Church Universal.  Indeed it should not be said that the Pontiff is infallible simply because of the authority of the papacy but rather inasmuch as he is certainly and undoubtedly subject to the direction of divine assistance.  By the authority of the papacy, the Pontiff is always the supreme judge in matters of faith and morals, and the father and teacher of all Christians. But the divine assistance promised to him, by which he cannot err, he only enjoys as such when he really and actually exercises his duty as supreme judge and universal teacher of the Church in disputes about the Faith.  Thus, the sentence "The Roman Pontiff is infallible" should not be treated as false, since Christ promised that infallibility to the person of Peter and his successors, but it is incomplete since the Pope is only infallible when, by a solemn judgment, he defines a matter of faith and morals for the Church universal.

In what sense can the infallibility of the Pope be said to be "separate"?  It is able to be called "separate," or rather distinct because it rests on a special promise of Christ and therefore on a special assistance of the Holy Spirit, which assistance is not one and the same with that which the whole body of the teaching Church enjoys when united with its head. For since Peter and his successor are the center of ecclesiastical unity, whose task it is to preserve the Church in a unity of faith and charity and to repair the Church when disturbed, his condition and his relation to the Church are completely special; and to this special and distinct condition corresponds a special and distinct privilege.  Therefore, in this sense there belongs to the Roman Pontiff a separate infallibility.  But in saying this we do not separate the Pontiff from his ordained union with the Church.  For the Pope is only infallible when, exercising his function as teacher of all Christians and therefore representing the whole Church, he judges and defines what must be believed or rejected by all. He is no more able to be separated from the universal Church than the foundation from the building it is destined to support.  Indeed we do not separate the Pope, defining, from the cooperation and consent of the Church, at least in the sense that we do not exclude this cooperation and this consent of the Church.  This is clear from the purpose for which this prerogative has been divinely granted.

The purpose of this prerogative is the preservation of truth in the Church.  The special exercise of this prerogative occurs when there arise somewhere in the Church scandals against the faith, i.e., dissensions and heresies which the bishops of the individual churches or even gathered together in provincial council are unable to repress so that they are forced to appeal to the Apostolic See regarding the case, or when the bishops themselves are infected by the sad stain of error.  And thereby we do not exclude the cooperation of the Church because the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff does not come to him in the manner of inspiration or of revelation but through a divine assistance.  Therefore the Pope, by reason of his office and the gravity of the matter, is held to use the means suitable for properly discerning and aptly enunciating the truth.  These means are councils, or the advice of the bishops, cardinals, theologians, etc.  Indeed, the means are diverse according to the diversity of situations, and we should piously believe that, in the divine assistance promised to Peter and his successors by Christ, there is simultaneously contained a promise about the means which are necessary and suitable to make an infallible pontifical judgment.

Finally we do not separate the Pope, even minimally, from the consent of the Church, as long as that consent is not laid down as a condition which is either antecedent or consequent. We are not able to separate the Pope from the consent of the Church because this consent is never able to be lacking to him. Indeed, since we believe that the Pope is infallible through the divine assistance, by that very fact we also believe that the assent of the Church will not be lacking to his definitions since it is not able to happen that the body of bishops be separated from its head, and since the Church universal is not able to fail.  For it is impossible that general obscurity be spread in respect to the more important truths which touch upon religion, as the Synod of Pistoia held.

Note well.  It is asked in what sense the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is "absolute."  I reply and openly admit: in no sense is pontifical infallibility absolute, because absolute infallibility belongs to God alone, who is the first and essential truth and who is never able to deceive or be deceived.  All other infallibility, as communicated for a specific purpose, has its limits and its conditions under which it is considered to be present.  The same is valid in reference to the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff.  For this infallibility is bound by certain limits and conditions.  What those conditions may be should be deduced not "a priori" but from the very promise or manifestation of the will of Christ. 

Now what follows from the promise of Christ, made to Peter and his successors, as far as these conditions are concerned?  He promised Peter the gift of inerrancy in Peter's relation to the Universal Church: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it ..." (Mt. 16:18).  "Feed my lambs, feed my sheep" (Jn. 21:13-17).  Peter, placed outside this relation to the universal Church, does not enjoy in his successors this charism of truth which comes from that certain promise of Christ. Therefore, in reality, the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is restricted by reason "of the subject," that is when the Pope, constituted in the chair of Peter, the center of the Church, speaks as universal teacher and supreme judge: it is restricted by reason of the "object," i.e., when treating of matters of faith and morals; and by reason of the "act" itself, i.e., when the Pope defines what must be believed or rejected by all the faithful.  Nevertheless, some of the most reverend fathers, not content with these conditions, go farther and even want to put into this constitution conditions which are found in different ways in different theological treatises and which concern the good faith and diligence of the Pontiff in searching out and enunciating the truth.  However, these things, since they concern the conscience of the Pontiff rather than his relation [to the Church], must be considered as touching on the moral order rather than the dogmatic order. For with great care our Lord Jesus Christ willed that the charism of truth depend not on the conscience of the Pontiff, which is private - even most private - to each person, and known to God alone, but rather on the public relation of the Pontiff to the universal Church.  If it were otherwise, this gift of infallibility would not be an effective means for preserving and repairing the unity of the Church.  But in no way, therefore, should it be feared that the universal Church could be led into error about faith through the bad faith and negligence of the Pontiff. For the protection of Christ and the divine assistance promised to the successors of Peter is a cause so efficacious that the judgment of the supreme Pontiff would be impeded if it were to be erroneous and destructive of the Church; or, if in fact the Pontiff really arrives at a definition, it will truly stand infallibly.

BUT SOME WILL PERSIST AND SAY: there remains, therefore, the duty of the Pontiff - indeed most grave in its kind - of adhering to the means apt for discerning the truth, and, although this matter is not strictly dogmatic, it is, nevertheless, intimately connected with dogma.  For we define: the dogmatic judgments of the Roman Pontiff are infallible. Therefore let us also define the form to be used by the Pontiff in such a judgment.  It seems to me that this was the mind of some of the most reverend fathers as they spoke from this podium.  But, most eminent and reverend fathers, THIS PROPOSAL SIMPLY CANNOT BE ACCEPTED because we are not dealing with something new here. Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See; where is the law which proscribes the form to be observed in such judgments?

Perhaps someone will say: if we don't have a law, let us make one.  But let us not do this lest we run up against that already condemned law which said that the council was above the Pope.  Furthermore, of what use would be such a law? Would it not be completely useless, since it would never be able to be verified by the faithful and the bishops scattered throughout the world?  Even more, it would be a very dangerous thing since it would offer the opportunity for innumerable foolish objections and anxieties.  Therefore, let Peter gird himself according to the word of our Lord Jesus Christ, since Peter does not grow old while the world grows old but rather renews his powers like the eagle...

Indeed it cannot be denied that, in the relation of Peter to the Church, to which Christ willed that the infallibility of Peter be joined, there is contained a special relation of Peter to the Apostles and therefore also to the bishops, since Christ said to Peter: "I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail, and you, once turned, confirm your brothers" (Lk. 22:32).  This, therefore, is the relation of the Pontiff to the bishops which is contained in the promise of Christ.  If these words of Christ are to have their necessary force, then it seems to me that one should conclude that the brothers, that is, the bishops, in order that they be firm in the faith, need the aid and advice of Peter and his successors, and not vice versa...

A figure of speech is not an argument, or, as is commonly said, every analogy limps.  And that this
comparison, applied in this way, really limps, can be shown by the following reason.  Are not the laity, among whom there are very many who are outstanding in knowledge and piety, and, even more, are not the priests who exercise the duty of teaching their parishioners, are not they all members of the Church? Who would doubt it?  Therefore, should these also help the Pope by their advice and aid when he makes dogmatic judgments?  By no means.  And why not?  Is it not because they do not belong to the Church teaching?  All right, but at the same time it is evident that the analogy about the head and members limps.  But now it is asked whether the bishops also - although they are constituted by God as witnesses, teachers and judges of the Christian faith - do not relate to the Pope as disciples to teacher, when he is defining for the whole Church and exercising his duty as universal teacher.  Such is the case. For this is what the words of Christ and the words "supreme judge," "universal doctor," and "pastor of the whole flock of Christ" signify.  So, on that point, too, the adduced comparison limps, and the consequence about the necessity of the advice of the bishops falls...

Furthermore - and this is to be noted well - everyone knows that this rule about the consent of the Churches in their present preaching is valid only in its positive sense and, by no means, in its negative sense.  This means that everything which the Universal Church, consenting to, receives and venerates in its present preaching as revealed is certainly true and Catholic [doctrine].  But, what happens if disagreements arise among the particular churches and are followed by controversies about the faith?  Then, according to Vincent of Lerins, one must recur to the consent of antiquity, that is, to Scripture and the holy Fathers; and, from the consent of antiquity, differences in present preaching are to be resolved...

[W]hoever contends that the Pope, either for his information or for an infallible judgment about faith and morals, totally depends on the manifest consent of the bishops or on their aid has nothing left to do than to establish that false principle which says that all dogmatic judgments of the Roman Pontiff are weak and reformable in and of themselves unless the consent of the Church accrues to them.  But such an outlook is either completely arbitrary or subversive of all papal infallibility. It is arbitrary if it requires the assent of a greater or lesser part of the bishops.  Because, who will decide what number of them is sufficient?  Who will make a choice since, in this respect, the bishops are completely equal among themselves and the assent of some cannot be prejudicial to the assent and judgment of others?  The arbitrary character of this outlook is seen especially when one is dealing with subsequent assent, either tacit or expressed.  History is a witness to what anxieties, commotions and scandals come forth.  But, wait, there is more.  

This system or outlook is completely subversive of all papal infallibility if the consent of the whole Church is required by it.  For then there would exist in reality only one infallibility, that which resides in the whole body of the teaching Church.  But in that case, the decrees of the Roman Pontiff can and should be reformed by a general council inasmuch as, in the meantime, the assent of the Church would not be so manifest that it could not be denied.  And lest we fall again into the infallibility of the Pontiff decreeing by himself alone, the Pope would not be able to confirm any but those decrees of a council which were pleasing to a majority of the bishops or rather to the unanimity of the bishops.  But what if the bishops did not agree among themselves?  It would be the end of judgment in the Church, it would be the death knell of the Church which, according to the Apostle, should be the column and foundation of truth.

Now before I end this general relatio, I should respond to the most grave objection which has been made from this podium, viz. that we wish to make the extreme opinion of a certain school of theology a dogma of Catholic faith.  Indeed this is a very grave objection, and, when I heard it from the mouth of an outstanding and most esteemed speaker, I hung my head sadly and pondered well before speaking.  Good God, have you so confused our minds and our tongues that we are misrepresented as promoting the elevation of the extreme opinion of a certain school to the dignity of dogma, and is Bellarmine brought forth as the author of the fourth proposition of the Declaration of the French Clergy? For, if I may begin from the last point, what is the difference between the assertion which the reverend speaker attributes to Bellarmine, viz., "The Pontiff is not able to define anything infallibly without the other bishops and without the cooperation of the Church," and that well-known 4th article which says: "in questions of faith the judgment of the supreme Pontiff is not irreformable unless the consent of the Church accrues to it"?  In reality there is hardly to be found any difference unless someone wants to call the disagreement of the bishops the cooperation of the Church so that a dogmatic definition would be infallible, even though the bishops dissent, but as long as they had been consulted beforehand. These things are said about the opinion of Bellarmine.  

As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma.  For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls pious and probable, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy.  To say nothing of the other points, let me say that this is clear from the very words of Bellarmine, both in the citation made by the reverend speaker and also from Bellarmine himself who, in book 4, chapter VI, pronounces on the opinion of Pighius in the following words: "It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith."  From this, it appears that the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion.

©2003, Appendix D was edited by I. Shawn McElhinney. It is a compilation of texts from a speech presented by Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser of Brixen to the Fathers of the First Vatican Council. (On how the proposed dogma of papal infallibility was to be properly understood.) This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the editor.

DOBBS AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA

Quickening and human intuition on abortion

For Preserving the Historical Record:

(Against Comment Box Censorship)

In the posting from yesterday, I included comments of mine published in response to the linked article. As one of them was taken down while the source being responded to was allowed to remain, I will post here the response censored from the comments thread. Those interested in the piece I was responding to can find the lnk in that comment section for the full context. (I am in no mood to supply such a courtesy now.) Without further ado...

I yawned the moment I saw Leila Lawler resorting to the usual trad drivel and was just waiting for the obligatory Quo Primum reference. There it is, right on schedule even if she is five Pope Pius’ (and thus three hundred plus years) off in historical chronology.

I then waited to see the complaint that Tyler did not write a lengthy tome on liturgical history in an article with probable word and space limits and she did not disappoint there either, how dare he in a single article not cover “all the important issues” (cf. L. Lawler)? Then the trad literary circle where one trad (Peter K) recommends the work of another trad (Leila L) who themselves recommended the work of the one recommending them (Peter K). Nothing like keeping things in the trad echo chamber after all. But we are not done as we have the usual trad claims about supposed “contradictions” which they are either too lazy or disingenuous to see are rarely in substance what they claim. That would of course get in the way of the trad “in short, propaganda” (cf. L. Lawler) and at no time must we allow that.

From there we have the complaint that Tyler “does not grapple with the actual results of the near-universal implementation of the Mass of Paul IV” (cf. L. Lawler) setting aside the fact that (i) Paul IV never promulgated a Missal and (ii) it took some time for Quo Primum to be implemented in accordance with Pius V’s wishes. (In some parts of the world it took a century or more!) Someone needs to introduce Leila and other trads to a Latin saying “abusus non tollit usum.”

From there she gets in a standard trad swipe against Amoris Laetitia manifesting an unfortunate (and arguably vincible if not crass) ignorance of the issue. But it served its purpose for her as a great response padding distraction from the topic of Tyler’s article. Then she wraps up with a standard trad call of disobedience under the guise of being “truly obedient” and she has the temerity to accuse Tyler or others of “obeying contradiction”!

As enough has been said about Leila’s garden variety tradbabble, it seems appropriate to end this by admonishing her with the words of 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; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.

On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge.” [Pope Leo XIII: Apostolic Letter Epistola Tua]

Shepherding the Flock Out of the 1962 Missal

I have a few comments posted to the comments section of the link above. As they are approved, I will repost them here.

Comment #1:

Tyler, 

The title of the article should be changed. I think it is too deliberately provocative and that does not serve the cause of authentic dialogue very well. Otherwise, the article is not bad. (Some points could use fleshing out but I understand the nature of space constraints, word limits, and the like.)

I realize there are trad folks griping in the comments section about it but they whine about everything anyway as it is and despite numerous rebuttals over the years, they continue to make the same discredited objections. I highly doubt it is even worth the time and effort to engage the wilfully obtuse at this point but of course as we are called to evangelize so moving forward we must and entrust our efforts to God.

Despite the mountains of absurdities in trad arguments, they are right about exactly two substantive points and the longer those two points go unaddressed throughout various parts of the Church, the more trad resistance will have a flimsy pretense of justification. The first is Church architecture. Churches that look like gymnasiums do not speak to the senses in a way that is uplifting. (To be clear, this is not directed at places in the world where they have no other options but throughout the First World, the iconoclasm directed towards churches in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council was inexcusable.)

The second is Church music. You need not go all Gregorian all the time to have music fitting for liturgical worship but much greater discrimination in songs chosen as well as how they are arranged would go a long way to augment a liturgical celebration rather than hindering it.

I doubt I have witnessed a single liturgical celebration in my life that was wholly absent liturgical abuses and that includes when I attended the Tridentine form. But there are minor abuses and more significant ones. If those promoting the revised Roman Missal do not focus on rooting out abuses and creating an atmosphere conducive to authentic and uplifting liturgical celebrations, they will hinder their cause rather than help it.

But anyway, to get back to the first point I made, please change the title of this article to one less provocative, Tyler. Perhaps something like “On Bishops and the 1962 Missal” or something more innocuous than a title that explicitly denotes taking something away. While it will not placate the Usual crowd of trad gripers at least it will be much less of a proverbial finger in the eye.

As comment #2 was deleted, I will make a separate posting of it on the site and link to it here.

Points to Ponder:

It's better to be part of the process than to stand on the sideline and criticize, although I criticize, too. [Fr. Robert Taft SJ]

Miscellaneous Musings:

(On A Potential Petrine Apologia For Galatians 2)

This material was posted by yours truly in a social media instant messenger thread within the past couple of weeks.

The reason most Catholics approach the Galatians 2 incident as they do is from a position of defense. Protestants love to seize on it as proofread against papal primacy and papal infallibility whereas Catholics point out that nothing St. Peter did would have involved papal infallibility and papal primacy does not mean popes cannot be scolded at times for their own good. I am reminded of the US general who told Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap "you know, you never once defeated us on the battlefield" and Giap's response was "that is true but irrelevant." Likewise, however true the common Catholic response is to Protestant claims, it too is irrelevant. And while St. Thomas Aquinas is usually a good guide on any subjects, there are exceptions and a strong biblical argument can be made that this is one of them. 

To be clear, I cannot claim credit for the original thrust of this argument, for that would go to my friend Dr. Art Sippo. Essentially, St. Paul was out of line in Galatians 2. He was not wrong in principle but the early Church was much more sensitive pastorally to the scruples of weaker brethren. St. Peter did the right thing in Antioch for pastoral reasons and St. Paul was being both tiresome and legalistic. Despite his pastoral insensitivity however, St. Paul outlined why St. Peter should not have had to do what he did. But make no mistake, St. Peter was the better man in this instance. How do we know this? Because St. Paul admitted as much later on. 

Read 1 Corinthians 10:23-31 then read Romans 14: 1-23. St. Paul masterfully expounds in both places exactly what St. Peter was doing in Antioch and recommending a more pastorally sensitive approach to our brethren. The same principle was utilized in Acts 21:20-26. If St. Peter was wrong in Galatians 2 then St. Paul was wrong in 1 Corinthians 10:23-31 and Romans 14:1-23 and he was wrong to act as he did in Acts 21:20-26. St. Paul by his later words and statements vindicated St. Peter in Antioch. 

If one reads the Pauline corpus of epistles and Acts, you can see quite clearly a spiritual growth in St. Paul. After his conversion, he was on fire for the Lord but like Sts. John and James in the Samaritan incident (cf. Luke 9:52-56), St. Paul at this point in his life lacked both tact and pastoral sensitivity. He would learn these over time of course as in his journeys and struggles and the legalistic Pharisee would give way to a man of profound pastoral sensitivity, one who would "become all things to all" (cf. 1 Cor. 9:19-23). St. Peter did not possess St. Paul's book learning. Nonetheless, the unlettered fisherman understood the principle of pastoral sensitivity to weaker brethren better than than the learned but fanatical former Pharisee at the time of Galatians 2 in keeping with Jesus' words "My Father, Lord of heaven and earth, I am grateful that you hid all this from wise and educated people and showed it to ordinary people" (Matt. 11:25).

 

10 WW I Battles That Killed Christianity

I have long believed that the death knell for Christendom was World War I (WWI) after a couple centuries of ever weakening understanding of Christendom as a moral order. The above article substantiates this hypothesis and approaches it from the angle of major battles in WWI that were instrumental in snuffing out the Christian moral order in Europe.

In a certain sense, we all lived the past century plus in the ruins of the WWI destruction of what remained of the old Christian moral order.

Extremists on Both Sides Are Enabling Violence | Opinion

The above article was written by my old Jaded Politics amigo Darvio "The Kingpin" Morrow. Here is just a sample...

"...Bail reform efforts can be commendable. But they should never be applicable to people accused of violent felonies, something most reasonable, rational people who support bail reform understand. The problem is when elite academics and political morons who live in online echo chambers hijack the discourse. That's when the conversation devolves from 'Police Accountability' to 'Defund the Police' to 'Abolish the Police.' That's when bail reform for people arrested on low-level crimes like marijuana possession turns into 'bail reform for anybody accused of anything'..."

Conservative Support for Andrew Coffee IV Is Opportunistic Hypocrisy

Here is just a sampling from the link above...

"...This brand of conservatives is so laser-focused on opposing the left that they are willing to sacrifice truth and justice at the altar of 'owning libs.'  Instead of taking a look at the facts of cases and making their own determination as to what 'justice' looks like, they look to the left to see what they are doing so that they can do the exact opposite.  Instead of taking a moment to acknowledge that we are failing at 'liberty and justice for all,' they are busy googling 'black guy self-defense acquittal.' They aren’t choosing what to support.  They are choosing to oppose BLM and the left at all costs.

Both of these cases are tragedies.  Both of these cases are examples of injustice.  Both deserve our support and outrage and not just when it serves our narrative.  If anything, the Breonna Taylor case is more of an injustice and something for which we should be more outraged, but I guess there were no white kids recently acquitted of self-defense at the time..."

On Old, Tired, and Often Refuted Trad Nonsense:

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

A tremendous TV segment on Vatican II...its not just the Mass...this is in Spanish with English subtitles and it absolutely worth the time to listen to. I found that the English subtitles sufficiently and accurately translate the words spoken.

If by "tremendous" you mean essentially the same boring trad iterations that have been addressed and rebutted not a few times except this time they are in Spanish with English subtitles, then yeah its "tremendous." 🙄

--------

Shawn McElhinney someone responded and that means it was adequately addressed got it...dominus Jesus was literally written to address deficiencies in the conciliar texts lol

--------

MTK,

someone responded and that means it was adequately addressed got it

I could rebut with "trads whining about yet something else and that means their whining has merit...got it" but I will refrain from such things 😉

As for the Dominus Iesus retort, you act as if the Church has never had to clarify misunderstandings of Magisterial texts before. If you actually think that, I have (with apologies to George Strait) some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you and if you buy that, I will throw the Golden Gate in free 🙂

--------

Someone didn’t listen to the interview and is critical of a strawman of his own creation.

So, my doctoral work was in patristics and maybe they didn’t teach this in Rome or maybe there’s a medieval example of which I’m ignorant: when were things going so well on the exterior, with no grave magisterial misunderstandings but after a “pastoral” (John xxiii and Paul vi used the term. Not new with me) council, both mass confusion, mass exodus and - for good measure - a new mass show up ...just in case the aggiornamento wasn’t yet thorough enough?

I know. That’s a tall order. What’s the closest historical example you can think of - since you seem to be mocking Michael’s supposed ignorance of past examples. You know, ceteris paribus and all that.

I’d double your offer ;)

-------

JA, 

I saw the video and I stand by what I said: it is mostly an unoriginal rehash of the same trad drivel that has been making the rounds for eons. And no matter how often this stuff is rebutted in detail, the Usual Suspects just post it anew ad infinitum and act as if it is some profound new revelation. That tactic might fool folks with little to no familiarity with the Trad Shuffle but not those who have been around the block more times than we can count.

Also, for someone accusing me of "a strawman creation", your comment contains some not insignificant argumentation fallacies. I will note them briefly now in sequential order.

First, you begin by playing the credentials fallacy as if somehow your lack of a substantive rebuttal can be compensated for by references to supposed doctoral studies. At least if you had not shared that information (presuming it is accurate for a moment), one could charitably conclude that you simply did not know, and thus no harm no foul as everyone makes mistakes. But instead, by tut tutting about higher education studies at the outset of your reply, you open yourself up to tougher scrutiny. You can apply all the doctoral lipstick you want but it will not rescue a poor argument. If anything, it makes the bad argument look worse because one has to wonder how someone so presumably lettered could botch things so badly 🤣 But enough on that point.

Second, you utilized the standard (and ignorant) trad "pastoral council" shtick which involves an either/or fallacy so elementary that it calls into question the quality of your supposed doctoral studies. (Basically I could reiterate verbatim the paragraph from the first point here.) Seriously, this is like going to court with a lawyer who does not know what discovery is or how to voire dire a witness 🙄

Third, you utilized the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc (contrary to your protestations otherwise elsewhere) with the claims of mass confusion and mass exodus being because of Vatican II and the revised Roman Missal. This one is a bit more complicated so I will address each point separately.

To start with the former, historically there is almost always some unsettling (call it confusion if you like) after general councils that lasts for some time. (I did the math once and 40-60 years is hardly irregular, sometimes longer.) It is the rule. For every Vatican I that went off almost without incident (emphasis on almost), there were at least five to six other general councils that took some time to sort out. This is such elementary church history knowledge that once again, I cannot imagine how someone who presumably went so deep into doctoral studies and patristics (and in Roma no less!) could possibly miss it 🤔

As for the "mass exodus" argument, there were actually studies done on the matter and the reasons for the mass exodus were not because of either Vatican II or the revised Roman Missal. There were a few key reasons (incidentally to be fair, the guy in the video briefly noted one of them!) but the biggest one is almost always never acknowledged by trads. If I was uncharitable, I would say they deliberately ignore it because it really wrecks their entire line of argumentation and exposes the utter waste that their fifty odd years of ecclesial masturbation has been. But truthfully, it is not an obvious one until it is pointed out so I will in charity presume it has simply not been sufficiently pointed out to them yet 🙂

I could continue to respond to the rest of your comment but nothing of substance really remains when you built your argumentation house on the sand of argumentation fallacies and historical obtuseness instead of the solid rock of factually sound and rational discourse (cf. Matthew vii,24-27; Luke vi,46-49).

Team Biden and its media apologists blame you for supply shortages the White House refuses to fix

Chris Carson, Dee Eskridge trending up for Seahawks Sunday in Green Bay

Why Facebook’s Metaverse Is Dead on Arrival

The Fall of the Knights Templar

Pope praises group helping married couples overcome crisis

Points to Ponder:

[T]he discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority." [Pope Gregory XVI: Encyclical Letter Mirari Vos §9 (circa August 15, 1832)] 

The Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous site has been updated with the latest five threads posting on Traditionis Custodes. This site for those who may have forgotten is on rare occasions used as [a] site for covering things I have no intention whatsoever of rehashing at Rerum Novarum.

With the inclusion of the above link there, I am finished discussing the subject of Traditionis Custodes in perpetuity unless at some point the one with the power of the keys decides to loose what has now been bound.

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Five Threads on Traditonis Custodes:

I compiled them all in one place for easy perusal. Without further ado...

On the Latest Traditionis Custodes Themed Traditionalist Outrage Porn (circa October 9, 2021)

Notice of Intention to Finally Respond to the Traditionis Custodes Controversy (circa October 16, 2021)

Thirty Pieces of Evidence In Support of the Decision in Traditionis Custodes (circa October 17, 2021)

On Traditionis Custodes and the Circumstances That Motivated Its Promulgation (circa October 21, 2021)

Some Further Thoughts on Traditionis Custodes and the Current State of Traditionalism (circa October 31, 2021)

BREAKING: Feds arrest Steele dossier figure

Purgatory Project Names 2021:

Richard Dunn McElhinney
Margaret Dianne McElhinney
Anna Maria McElhinney
Shawn McElhinney
Teresa Marie McElhinney
Frank D. Barone
Raffaelina Barone

Silvana Barone

Bobby Kanski

Sean Donovan

Harry Kanski
Mary Kanski
Paul McElhinney
Mildred McElhinney
Mark Usher
Virginia Usher

Joan Lucas

James Dunn McElhinney
David Kanski

Mark Cribbs

Ed Flynn
Cecilia Flynn
Hugh Dunn

Mel Denny
Hattie Denny

Sharon Colson

Ginny Riley

Steve Paul

Don Hellstrom

Leta Allen

Fr. John Rizzo
Marlene Eiden

Natalie Holderness

Gail Kanski

Ann Ripplinger

Alice Romanick

Sharon Yotter
Lisa Yotter
Bob Kanski

Jessie Kanski

Brent McElhinney 

Denise Leese

Jody McElhinney

Judy Spence

Ann Spence 

Jack Spence 

Claudia McElhinney

Jerry Usher

Larry Usher

Pat Kane

Chris DiSomma
Mic Greubel
Jim Greubel
Cindy Greubel
Kathy Hanks
Shane Rasmussen
Tim Tull
Charles Tull
Dennis Rasmussen

Alicia Chimenti

Bill Walkling

Pauley Perrette
Mike Mentzer
Ray Mentzer
Jack DeLisle
Larry Gonczy
Keith McDonald
Mona McDonald
Michelle Crawford

Melody Walkling

Yvonne Goodwin
Diana Louie Taylor
Marc Taylor
Beth Cleaver
Kender McGowan
Misha Lynn Nicastro
Miki Odendahl
Bob Klaus
Deborah Klaus
Art Sippo

Michael Lopez
F John Loughnan
Fr. Robert Taft SJ
Don Hale

Betty Hale
Linda Hale
Dave Altier
Vangie Altier
Fr. Augustine Hartmann
Fr. Christopher Hunter

Emilio Barone
Fr. Angel Sotelo

Mike Kanski

Mary Jane Kanski
Gwen Stefani
Fr. John Rizzo
Albert King
Albert Collins
Freddie King
Rick Wright

Some Further Thoughts on Traditionis Custodes and the Current State of Traditionalism:

There is not much more to say about supposed traditionalism than what I have said in recent weeks when responding to the predominant reaction from these circles to Traditionis Custodes. The responses of that nature can be read here:

Thirty Pieces of Evidence In Support of the Decision in Traditionis Custodes (circa October 17, 2021)

On Traditionis Custodes and the Circumstances That Motivated Its Promulgation (circa October 21, 2021)

Reason, logic, and documented evidence however expansive can only get you so far. The reason? Experience has shown that for those of a cultic mindset, it is akin to a conspiracy theorist insofar as like the latter, reason and logic are usually not the roads taken into such endeavours. For this reason, expecting them to take those paths out can not infrequently be disappointing. There are emotional factors at play here and when someone is guided by emotions, their reason and logic can become very foggy if non-existent. So for those kinds of folks, consider the following analogies:

---The Tridentine liturgy is akin to the plump juicy animals King Saul spared from the Amalekites to make sacrifices to God. What did God think of King Saul's actions? From the words of Samuel the prophet:

Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in heeding the voice of the Lord? Behold, obedience is better than sacrifice, being attentive is better than the fat of rams. Rebellion is like the sin of witchcraft, arrogance like the evil of idolatry. [1 Samuel xv,22-23]

Those who think the Lord is pleased with their purported resistance to Pope Francis' restrictions on the Tridentine liturgy are no different than King Saul and in like manner, God is not pleased with them.

---The Tridentine liturgy is analogous to the Bronze Serpent, made by command of God:

The Lord sent seraph serpents among the people. They bit the people, and many of the people of Israel died. The people came to Moses and said, “We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord and against you. Pray to the Lord so that he might save us from the serpents.” So Moses prayed for the people. The Lord said to Moses, “Make a seraph serpent and put it upon a pole. Whoever has been bitten and looks upon it will live.” [Numbers: xxi,6-8]

Even if some today would claim that the Tridentine liturgy was commanded of God{1}, so too was the Bronze Serpent. And what was the fate of the Bronze Serpent?:

Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, the king of Judah began to reign during the third year of the reign of Hoshea, the son of Elah, the king of Israel...He eliminated the high places and he broke down the pillars. He cut down the Asherah and he broke into pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for up to those days the Israelites had burned incense to it and they called it Nehushtan. [2 Kings xviii,1;3-5]

In other words, even if Pope Francis was abolishing the Tridentine liturgy{2} and even if the Tridentine liturgical form was literally decreed by God{3} there is biblical precedent for such an action. For Pope Francis is acting similar to King Hezekiah and restricting what has become a source of literal idolatry in the traditionalist movement by a not-insignificant number of those folks. They have become like the modernists who according to Pope Pius X sought to "try in every way to diminish and weaken the authority of the ecclesiastical magisterium itself."{4} Or as St. John Henry Newman noted of the defect in faith of Protestants in one of his Discourses to Mixed Congregations not long after his conversion:

[I]n spite of so much that is good in them, in spite of their sense of duty, their tenderness of conscience on many points, their benevolence, their uprightness, their generosity, they are under the dominion (I must say it) of a proud fiend; they have this stout spirit within them, they determine to be their own masters in matters of thought, about which they know so little; they consider their own reason better than any one's else; they will not admit that any one comes from God who contradicts their own view of truth. What! is none their equal in wisdom anywhere? Is there none other whose word is to be taken on religion? Is there none to wrest from them their ultimate appeal to themselves?{5}

This is the reality of what we are seeing here: a movement that whatever value it may have had at one time is shot through with serious problems including the problem of idolatry. If it was only an issue of serenely observing the pre-reformed liturgy, then Pope Francis would not have had to do what he did. But far too often there is a discernible pattern that takes place over time amongst those of a traditionalist inclination. It starts with mere preference for the Tridentine liturgical form. From there it inexorably moves towards denigrating the revised Roman liturgy, speaking contemptuously of the Pope who promulgated it{6}, often moving onto his predecessor{7} and successors prior to Pope Francis{8} to say nothing of what they have done to Pope Francis the past eight years, running down the last ecumenical Council in various ways{9}, and not infrequently lionizing schismatics{10}, and eventually at some point along the way, imbibing forms of antisemitism.{11}

The suppression of the Tridentine liturgical form by Pope Francis{12} in other words did not happen in a vacuum. It is being done to chasten those with a superficial understanding of the faith. They are spiritual infants who whine and cry over external liturgical forms whereas those with the eyes of faith see Christ in every mass because the externals are literally the least important factor.{13} And rejection of the so-called "Novus Ordo" by those traditionalists who do so is a rejection of Jesus Christ himself{14} and that is the bottom line really.

Notes:

{1} Which it was not.

{2} Which he is not.

{3} Which it is not.

{4} Pope St. Pius X: Encyclical Letter Pascendi Dominici Gregis §42 (circa September 8, 1907) as Quoted in the Rerum Novarum Postings On the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, Obedience, and the Requirements of Faithful Catholics (circa February 26, 2020) and On the Controversy of Amoris Laetitia Amongst The More Faithful Than Thou Crowd (circa December 5, 2019)

{5} St. John Henry Newman: Excerpt from his Discourse On Faith and Private Judgment (circa 1849)

{6} Pope St. Paul VI

{7} Pope St. John XXIII

{8} Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI

{9} For example, the attempt to create a dichotomy between the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council as a "pastoral council" and other synods as "dogmatic councils." I first dealt with this false dichotomy nearly twenty years ago but it is still a tired canard trotted out by the theologically ignorant.

{10} For example, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, other clerics given prominence by movement partisans, as well as various and sundry writers for traditionalist themed websites and periodicals.

{11} I could fill a footnote with link upon link involving traditionalist groups and the obsession not a few of them have with antisemitic views, both overtly as well as covertly. Rather than take up too much time with that, I will note here only a few of many such examples which could be noted:

Italian bishop condemns “anti-Semitic regurgitations” in Church after “traditionalist” Catholic unveils blood libel painting

Saint Simon of Trent (1475)

Traditionalist SSPX leader calls Jews "enemies of the church"

The traditional Latin Mass is not the problem with traditionalist communities

Traditionalists' Expert on Pope Francis Is A Holocaust Denier

The Synthesis of All Catholic Conspiracy Theory (Part 1)

The Synthesis of All Catholic Conspiracy Theory (Part 2)

The Synthesis of All Catholic Conspiracy Theory (Part 3)

Non Possumus

{12} It is worth noting that nothing in Traditionis Custodes annuls any of the privileges that Pope Francis has granted to the SSPX. Nor does this text appear aimed at the FSSP who have long had good relationships with many of the local ordinaries.

{13} [T]hey have not realized that the least of the benefits which come from this Most Holy Sacrament is that which concerns the senses; and that the invisible part of the grace that it bestows is much greater; for, in order that they may look at it with the eyes of faith, God oftentimes withholds from them these other consolations and sweetnesses of sense. [St. John of the Cross: From The Dark Night of the Soul, Book I (circa ante-1582) as Quoted in the Rerum Novarum Note On Traditionis Custodes and the Circumstances That Motivated Its Promulgation (circa October 21, 2021)]

{14} The revised Roman Missal was promulgated by Pope Paul VI who possessed the power of binding and loosing. And that "Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam; and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same" (Pope Pius XII: Mystici Corporis Christi §40), this teaching has not insignificant ramifications for the current situation. For as "Christ and His Vicar constitute only one Head", logically "[t]hey, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth" (Mystici Corporis Christi §41). Concretely, what Peter in the person of the Pope binds or looses is bound or loosed by Christ. So those accusing Pope Francis of immorality in issuing Traditionis Custodes are engaging in a form of blasphemy toward Christ. 

To be clear, disagreement with a decision is not an issue of course as long as that disagreement does not denote either disobedience or treating the judgment with contempt. However to those traditionalists who have spent years running down in various ways the revised Roman Missal, they run afoul of Church teaching which expressly condemns such conduct. For "the discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority" (Pope Gregory XVI: Mirari Vos §9). Those who in any way try to diminish Traditionis Custodes or treat the so-called "Novus Ordo" with contempt are only treating with contempt the Vicar of Christ but Christ as well. This is why Pope Leo XIII cited with his approval the following words of St. Maximus the Confessor:

He speaks in vain who tries to persuade me of the orthodoxy of those who, like himself, refuse obedience to his Holiness the Pope of the most holy Church of Rome: that is to the Apostolic See. [Pope Leo XIII: Excerpt from the Encyclical Letter Satis Cognitum §13 (circa June 29, 1896) as Quoted in the Rerum Novarum Points to Ponder series (circa October 14, 2021)] 

High Stakes in Virginia

Dr. Thomas Sowell occasionally comes out of retirement for the occasional one off column or two. The governors race in Virginia was the occasion of his most recent appearance and as is usually the case, is worth a read.

On Traditionis Custodes and the Circumstances That Motivated Its Promulgation:

(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

You will find that many of these persons are very insistent with their spiritual masters to be granted that which they desire, extracting it from them almost by force; if they be refused it they become as peevish as children and go about in great displeasure,  thinking that they are not serving God when they are not allowed to do that which they would.

For they go about clinging to their own will and pleasure, which they treat as though it came from God; and immediately their directors take it from them, and try to subject them to the will of God, they become peevish, grow faint-hearted and fall away. These persons think that their own satisfaction and pleasure are the satisfaction and service of God. 

This is to judge God very unworthily; they have not realized that the least of the benefits which come from this Most Holy Sacrament is that which concerns the senses; and that the invisible part of the grace that it bestows is much greater; for, in order that they may look at it with the eyes of faith, God oftentimes withholds from them these other consolations and sweetnesses of sense. [St. John of the Cross: From The Dark Night of the Soul, Book I (circa ante-1582)]

I have a few thoughts on the July 16, 2021 motu proprio Traditonis Custodes and the stated reasons for it in the accompanying letter to the bishops to follow on the brief ones mentioned some time ago. Some of what I say in this thread could very well anger many people including a few longtime friends. I am also aware that not everything I say here will apply to everyone who in some form or another identifies with the movement that calls themselves traditionalist. 

There are reasons it took some time to finish drafting a response. Life in general has its ways of imposing on our available time for one. But I also have mixed emotions about this. It really bothers me that some very good people are going to be hurt by this. But unfortunately, for reasons I will detail in this text, this action was in a certain sense inevitable based on how things had been going for quite some time, particularly in recent years.

To begin our exposition on the aforementioned apostolic letter, it was made clear in an accompanying letter that a major reason for Traditionis Custodes was that the generosity of Pope St. John Paul II and particularly of Pope Benedict XVI was badly abused:

Regrettably, the pastoral objective of my Predecessors, who had intended "to do everything possible to ensure that all those who truly possessed the desire for unity would find it possible to remain in this unity or to rediscover it anew," has often been seriously disregarded. An opportunity offered by St. John Paul II and, with even greater magnanimity, by Benedict XVI, intended to recover the unity of an ecclesial body with diverse liturgical sensibilities, was exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.

This is unfortunately quite on point. For those observing these matters over the years, a cottage industry developed around Summorum Pontificum which rather than being useful for promoting ecclesial unity was instead regularly showing "neglect of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself"{1} instead of "due reverence and submission."{2} Its contributors trafficked in doctrinally defective idiocy that ran the gauntlet from questioning the integrity of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and the recent pontificates to a kind of yellow journalism that took relish in painting in the worst possible way various papal teachings and directives. 

With the pontificate of Pope Francis, these folks were particularly similar to "sounding brass or tinkling cymbals" (cf. 1 Cor xiii,1). In fact, the entirety of that biblical chapter is quite germane to this matter because it highlights the core flaw of so many in the traditionalist cottage industry: the absolute and fundamental lack of charity. This can be seen in particular over the past seven plus years where these folks have treated the Successor of Peter with contempt at every turn. You can see this not only in the numerous articles cranked out by the Traditionalist Outrage Porn contingent but also from those who both comment on said pieces in comments boxes as well as circulate them to others.

These sorts of people were described in a rather prophetic way in an allocation of Pope St. Pius X over one hundred years ago: 

Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her...But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments..., then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20)." [Pope St. Pius X: Allocution (circa May 10, 1909)]

This quote precisely encapsulates the attitudes of the lions share of vocal traditionalists and conservatives over the current pontificate. And these once problematic (but somewhat containable) matters have unfortunately gotten much worse since Pope Benedict XVI's motu proprio was promulgated. What was intended to be a healing action and a magnanimous gesture was instead horribly abused. And as of July 16, 2021 these graceless brats used up the last of the papal goodwill:

In defense of the unity of the Body of Christ, I am constrained to revoke the faculty granted by my Predecessors. The distorted use that has been made of this faculty is contrary to the intentions that led to granting the freedom to celebrate the Mass with the Missale Romanum of 1962. Because "liturgical celebrations are not private actions, but celebrations of the Church, which is the sacrament of unity," they must be carried out in communion with the Church. Vatican Council II, while it reaffirmed the external bonds of incorporation in the Church — the profession of faith, the sacraments, of communion — affirmed with St. Augustine that to remain in the Church not only "with the body" but also "with the heart" is a condition for salvation.

It is very sad that a liturgical form that used to be a source of unity now is the domain of those who regularly foster division. It could not have been Pope Benedict XVI's intent to facilitate the growth of groups that to varying degrees are schismatic, heretical, and refuse obedience at every turn. The very same More Moral Than Thou sorts who with Pope Francis' recent decision "when they heard this, they were cut to the quick" (cf. Acts vii,54) are in the end generally not going to act differently than they have in the past seven plus years. That is why it is perfectly justifiable with Traditionis Custodes for the Supreme Pontiff to "cut them in pieces and assign them a place with the other hypocrites where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (cf. Matthew xxiv,51).

My personal view on this as I said earlier is complicated. There are folks who will be hurt by this who are legitimately innocent bystanders. But the smug, self righteous, phylactery-widening, tassel-lengthening Pharisees who brought this on themselves{3} are another story altogether.

For those who are hurt and angry about this, if they are of goodwill, they will seek in this difficulty consolation in the writings of the spiritual masters of the Catholic tradition. And I believe all of goodwill should be both sensitive to these folks' difficulties as well as seek to help them in navigating the waters that lay ahead.

However, of those other folks who have without shame or repentance trafficked in detraction, slander, calumny, sacrilege, idolatry, and written scandalous manifestos against the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and the popes who have confirmed said synod, they deserve only contempt. Most of them are not going to stop now that they have squandered Summorum Pontificum. But hopefully, their influence can be effectively exorcised from the Church and a genuine renewal can take place.

[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 and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.

On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. [Pope Leo XIII: Apostolic Letter Epistola Tua (circa June 17, 1885)]

 

Notes:

{1} Pope Pius XII: Excerpt from his Encyclical Letter Humani Generis §18 (circa August 12, 1950)

{2} Cf. Humani Generis §42.

{3} In the event that some of The Usual Suspects doubt my veracity, it bears noting that is at least one priest within the traditionalist movement (with whom I have had past disagreements) has to his credit outlined these problems in pretty good detail for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

I Saw Two Gospels

This is very much on point and considering a subject we are going over on this site at the moment, rather timely.

Though I noted last week in preparing to publish a multiple post response to Traditionis Custodes that the texts in question were given a final review on October 5, 2021, subsequent to that posting, I made some minor adjustments to the second and third threads in that sequence. The second thread to be published tomorrow is now in final form, the third is likely to have some modifications made to it before it is finalized for publication at some point before the end of the month.

Points to Ponder:

When a wise person debates with a fool, the fool rages and laughs, and there is no peace and quiet.[Proverbs xxix,9] 

Beverage in hand

On my way to the water

Maduro musings

Points to Ponder:

(On Charity)

Always be ready and willing to excuse the faults of your neighbour, and never put an unfavourable interpretation upon his actions. The same action, says St. Francis de Sales, may be looked upon under many different aspects: a charitable person will ever suppose the best, an uncharitable person will just as certainly choose the worst. [RP Quadrupani: From Light and Peace (circa 1795)]

Thirty Pieces of Evidence Pertaining to the Decision in Traditionis Custodes:
(A Rerum Novarum Recapitulation Posting) 

I published a note of explanation yesterday as to why I have decided to start a formal response on the apostolic letter Traditionis Custodes. The thread before you is the first of what will be three planned installments. 

This thread is not of an expository nature. Instead, it comprises content spanning roughly 2.5 years out from the issuance of Pope Francis' motu proprio. So in order from oldest to newest and without further ado, here are thirty pieces of evidence pertaining to the motu proprio of July 16, 2021:

Remembering John and Bill (circa January 7, 2019)

Points to Ponder on the Pope From Cardinal Giuseppe Sarto (circa February 6, 2019)

On Papal Dissent, Argumentation Fallacies, Etc. (circa February 9, 2019)

More on Popes, Heresy, Theology, Church History, Etc. (circa February 11, 2019)

Revisiting the Controversial Dubia -A Lenten Reflection (circa March 21, 2019)

On Certain Pharisee Parallels Amongst the "More Faithful Than Thou" Crowd -A Lenten Reflection (circa March 24, 2019)

On the Subject of Conscience and Sacramental Reception -A Lenten Reflection (circa April 4, 2020)

On Rash Judgments -A Lenten Reflection (circa April 6, 2019)

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)

Points To Ponder On Obedience From Pope Paul VI's Ecclesiam Suam (circa November 14, 2019)

On the Controversy of Amoris Laetitia Amongst The More Faithful Than Thou Crowd (circa December 5, 2019)

On Magisterial Interpretation (circa January 4, 2020)

On Amoris Laetitia, Argumentation Fallacies, The Eye Beams of Some More Faithful Than Thou Folks, Etc. (circa February 4, 2020)

On the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, Obedience, and the Requirements of Faithful Catholics (circa February 26, 2020)

On Clarifying and Retracting Some Prior Statements on the Magisterium (circa March 8, 2020)

Points to Ponder on Obedience From St. Catherine of Siena (circa March 10, 2020)

Briefly on Pope Francis and Traditional Spiritual Instruction (circa June 20, 2020)

On the Inexorable Path of the Intransigent Traditionalist (circa July 10, 2020)

Briefly on "Traditionalist Critiques" (circa July 11, 2020)

On "Traditionalism", the Catholic Spiritual Tradition, and How To Approach Ecclesial Problems (circa July 18, 2020)

More on Magisterial Interpretation (circa October 23, 2020)

On Dogmatic Facts and Pope Francis' Election as Pope (circa December 4, 2020)

On St. Peter's, Private Masses, Traditionalist Complaining, Etc. (circa March 13, 2021)

Points to Ponder on Obedience, the Reverence Due To Bad Priests, and God's View--Part I (circa June 19, 2021)

Points to Ponder on Obedience, the Reverence Due To Bad Priests, and God's View--Part II (circa June 22, 2021)

Points to Ponder on Obedience, the Reverence Due To Bad Priests, and God's View--Part III (circa June 26, 2021)

Points to Ponder on Correcting Or Accusing the Roman Pontiff (circa July 14, 2021)

The reason for this thread compilation will be evident very soon... 

As I have finally decided to respond to the issue of Pope Francis' apostolic letter Traditionis Custodes (TC), the purpose of this posting is to explain in part my reluctance to do so up to this point.

When the news of this event first came out, I knew with the absence of context, this move would be ripe for misinterpretation. So before I did anything else, I carefully read the texts involved. I then compiled on July 18, 2021 a list of threads from this site going back 2.5 years prior to TC to point out a longstanding and undeniable pattern of actions and behaviour by various folks both lay as well as clerical claiming to be traditionalists. That list was compiled within days of the motu proprio's publication. 

At that point, an examination of the apostolic letter itself along with the accompanying text was appropriate so a text was drafted in preliminary form on July 23, 2021 and after additional prayer and reflection, extensively revised on August 6, 2021. Finally, I came up with the idea for a third piece to complete the subject and drafted the initial text August 6, 2021. A reread of all three texts took place on August 13, 2021 with modifications being made to all of them at that time, most notably in the introduction of the main response. 

I was considering a late August-early September 2021 publication of the threads but was really demoralized by the fall of Kabul and to be honest, the motivation to finish and publish the texts at that point subsided. I also was hoping that after an initial furor from the Usual Suspects that things would more or less die down and publication of the threads could be put off indefinitely. That unfortunately has not happened.

I have been seeing in the past couple of months not only nothing from the so-called traditionalists and their allies of a truly Traditional attitude on the matter in question, but in general completely tone deaf responses oblivious to the objective reality involved. Therefore, I have decided that there is no point in sitting on these texts any longer. They were given a final review on October 5, 2021 and as nothing of substance was deemed in need of changing, the three texts will be published in sequential order starting tomorrow. 

Points to Ponder:

He speaks in vain who tries to persuade me of the orthodoxy of those who, like himself, refuse obedience to his Holiness the Pope of the most holy Church of Rome: that is to the Apostolic See. [Pope Leo XIII: Excerpt from the Encyclical Letter Satis Cognitum §13 (circa June 29, 1896)]

Points to Ponder:

Convincing someone to change their mind is really the process of convincing them to change their tribe. If they abandon their beliefs, they run the risk of losing social ties. You can’t expect someone to change their mind if you take away their community too. You have to give them somewhere to go. Nobody wants their worldview torn apart if loneliness is the outcome.

The way to change people’s minds is to become friends with them, to integrate them into your tribe, to bring them into your circle. Now, they can change their beliefs without the risk of being abandoned socially. [James Clear]

The truth about Galileo and the Catholic Church

This is one of those things that "everybody knows about" that in reality almost no one does. As the article above adequately covers the subject, in the interest of both reason and ethics, I post it here for the reader's consideration.

Apologists Must Embrace Charity Not Argumentation As The Foundation Of Their Work 

The above piece is well done. To add slightly to what was written above, I have long believed that spiritual instructions should take precedence for anyone wanting to get involved in apologetics. Unfortunately it usually gets neglected and the results are often tragic.  

Democrats Melting Down: GOP Flips Long-Held Blue Seat in Iowa Special Election

Between this and the powerful head of the House Finance Committee deciding to not seek reelection in a pretty safe blue district in Louisville, these would seem to be canaries in the coal mine portending an election bloodbath next year.

BOMBSHELL—New internal CDF information shows Pope Francis flagrantly lying about bishops’ TLM survey

The time for me to fully weigh in on Traditionis Custodes is nearly at hand. That said, the purpose of this posting is to address only the accusation made at the link above. I read the thread and it was more conspiratorial trad outrage porn. However, for the purpose of this posting, let us assume that the claim is true.

If Pope Francis did ignore a report favourable to the Tridentine liturgical form to publish Traditionis Custodes, it would be no different than Pope Benedict XVI ignoring the bishops of the world episcopate in issuing Summorum Pontificum back in 2007. Or Pope John Paul II twice ignoring the world episcopate in issuing Quattuor Abhinc Annos in 1984 and Ecclesia Dei Adflicta in 1988. 

Yet the same people getting their undies in a wedge about Pope Francis supposedly ignoring a favourable trad survey to rule against them were not similarly outraged by Pope John Paul II (twice)  and Pope Benedict XVI (once) ignoring unfavourable episcopal feedback to issue rulings trads liked. You cannot have it both ways without being a flaming hypocrite.

So even if Pope Francis went against episcopal consensus in issuing Traditionis Custodes, so did Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II with their indults of 1984, 1988, and 2007 respectively. And need I mention that Pope Paul VI ignored a nearly unanimous consensus on his Birth Control Commission to side with the 4 commission dissenters in issuing Humanae Vitae? I do not hear conservatives so outraged about that. Or that Pope Leo XIII's commission examining the validity of Anglican orders was split but mostly favouring validity but the Archbishop of Westminster persuaded the Pope to rule in Apostolicae Curae that they were invalid lest a favourable ruling undermine Catholic efforts amongst the Anglicans. I do not hear anyone on the right getting their knockers in a twist over that.

The bottom line is this: the Pope can consult with whomever he wants but he is not required to follow the advice given if he does not want to. Irrespective of what individuals may think about the issues involved, that is his prerogative as Supreme Pontiff.

Points to Ponder:

Sunrise lies beyond the setting sun. It cannot be reborn in the east unless it dies in the west. And once it dies, there's nothing to keep us here. Only darkness remains. Unbelievers rage against the dying light. But for the saints, our light must die below to then ascend to the zenith of meridian glory. Before we rise to light everlasting, our sun must set. [Steve Hays]

I cannot imagine going through life constantly pissing on people while claiming to be some high falutin defensor ecclesia. Unfortunately there are those who do this stuff on at least a weekly (if not seemingly daily) and in the process remind myself and others of "sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal" (cf. 1 Cor xiii,1). And when such folks attack other people under the guise of being a true Christian, they do great harm to Catholic evangelization.

I thought of going against my usual policy of not "answering a fool according to his folly" (cf. Proverbs xxvi,4) but fortunately, Providence intervened and a couple of other folks more or less encapsulated at least to a macro extent what I would have said. Their responses can be read below.{1} As for the fool, they are not even worth acknowledging except in rebuke and the footnote below handles that adequately enough. 

Note:

{1} See these links for details:

I apologize

The substance of my criticism

Points to Ponder:

Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith but in doubt. It is when we are not sure that we are doubly sure. [Reinhold Niebuhr]

Points to Ponder:

Do you really believe what you are proclaiming? Do you live what you believe? Do you really preach what you live? The witness of life has become more than ever an essential condition for real effectiveness in preaching. [Pope St. Paul VI: From Evangelii Nuntiandi (circa 1975)]

I have not mentioned a planned response to Traditionis Custodes in a while. Suffice to say, I have a main response and two subsidiary ones that were more or less completed as of my last mention of them. They need a final review before being published but I simply have not been able to motivate myself to do that yet. I do anticipate getting to that before the end of the month of October with all likelihood.

Anyway, I am just posting this blurb to notify folks who have wondered about that if anything would ever be forthcoming from me. The answer is yes, the question is a matter of when not if at this point.

MOTHER JONES TO THE LEFT: STOP JONESING ABOUT BRETT KAVANAUGH

When extreme liberals have lost Mother Jones...

LIBERAL HYPOCRISY: CHAPTER 12,186

9 high-stakes issues the Supreme Court will take up this coming term

Though written from a left wing perspective, this article is useful in outlining some significant cases on the docket in the upcoming Supreme Court term.

House May Pull Infrastructure Bill as Manchin Deals Knock-out Blow on Reconciliation: "Fiscal Insanity"

This is the second time a vote has been scheduled and postponed.  

Points to Ponder:

A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.[Alexander Hamilton]

New York Post Pens Delicious 'Toldjah So' After Politico 'Confirms' Some Hunter Biden Laptop Emails

They knew this was true last year but tried to bury and/or discredit it for political reasons. The media in this country is even worse than it was sixteen years ago when I referred to "[t]he depravity to which the journalistic profession has fallen since the days of Watergate" and other such statements in a lengthy expository musing on the death of Deep Throat and the problems in journalism that were wrought in the wake of what Woodward and Bernstein did. Here is just a sample: 

The depravity to which the journalistic profession has fallen since the days of Watergate can be to some extent pinned on Woodward and Bernstein...not as much them personally as what they ushered in in the aftermath of the Nixon resignation.[...] The journalistic profession has become one where you "make it" by finding someone whose reputation you can destroy. Ethics are often not a factor, indeed morals and ethics often get the screw from journalists who are trying to "make it" and then (for those who "make it") the same tactics are utilized to try and stay "on top." The same is the case with the legal profession and the political profession: oftentimes those who "make it" do so by screwing other people. So the parallel to prostitution is an apt one. The only difference of course is that prostitutes are somewhat honest about it. But enough on that subject for now. 

To summarize these musings, Woodward and Bernstein by their approach to "Deep Throat" ushered in a new era of journalism which is rotten to the core. It is comprised of people who seek to create news and who are interested in spinning the facts to advance an agenda rather than report on what is happening and letting the readers draw their own conclusions. The ethics in this field are abysmal and a strong reason why the MSM is slowly becoming more and more irrelevant in this new age of alternative media is because they are no longer a monopoly.{1}

If I can criticize myself a bit from the vantage point of more than sixteen years, I was a bit too optimistic back then about alternative media. Yes it does serve to a certain extent as a hedge against the mainstream media but as the coverage of the last election showed, they are just as susceptible to being corrupted as the mainstream media to an escalated degree has been in recent decades. 

The bottom line here is potentially damaging information for the Biden presidential aspirations was deliberately ignored, downplayed, or covered up by the lions share of mainstream media outlets as well as by those running social media platforms. This was done in a coordinated attempt to benefit one political candidate over another with absolutely no possible claim of plausible deniability being possible. For those who wonder why some of us put an asterisk next to President Joe Biden*, it is not without good reasons for doing so.

Note:

{1} Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Posting On the Subject of "Deep Throat", the Correlative Ramifications Thereof, Etc. (circa June 1, 2005)

Points to Ponder:

I am sure there are many things better than a good cigar, but right now, I can't think of what they might be. [Richard Carleton]

Fugees reunite with Lauryn Hill as they announce first tour in 25 YEARS to celebrate critically-acclaimed 1996 album The Score

Cigar Thoughts, Game 2: Derrick Henry kicked our asses, man

Pre-Snap Reads 9/18: Seahawks vs Titans preview

News and notes from the Seahawks’ Friday press conference

Seahawks-Titans preview: 5 Qs and 5 As with Music City Miracles

Cigar Thoughts, Game 1: Seahawks emerge from the darkness of old to blind Colts with bright vision of the future

Russell Wilson dominates, defense gets timely stops in Seahawks’ 28-16 win over Colts

 

Guest Editorial On Masks, Mandates, and Jesus:

MASKS, NO MASKS, or JESUS? 

By Mike Ryan 

Masks to me are not saviors.  Vaccines are not going to save the world.  If they help, they will only help get us to the next plague.  As a Christian I really do not care about the cloth on your face.  I care about the pride and rebellion that keeps us from wearing something so small.  (I am not speaking about those with special medical conditions, as verified by competent medical professionals. You have a reason to refrain from wearing masks.)  

Many Christians refuse to wear masks for political reasons.  Personal rights and freedoms are more important than lives.  Christians refusing expert medical advice from the majority leaves many within wider society feeling there are more deaths than there should have been.  America, the most medically advanced nation, could have knocked out this virus by April of 2020 and showed the world how it is done.  But, we rebelled.  We argued over whether the virus was real instead of being part of a solution.  We pointed fingers at China instead of getting ahead of the pandemic.  We cared more about where the virus came from, whose fault it was, and whether it was a covert military strike, than we cared for our brothers and sisters dying around us.  

I watched as fellow Christians triviliazed deaths as age or pre-conditions.  Many denied it was actually Covid killing people.  There seems to be no sympathy or compassion for those hurt and dying.  Only screaming preachers, pundits, and politicians  declaring at the top of their lungs that we are sheep and masking is the beginning of communism.  

I DON'T care about your mask.  I care about your heart.  

Jesus said the love of many would grow COLD.  I am seeing this before my eyes.  It is the reason Donald Trump was a train that could not be stopped in 2016. We are filled with anger and frustration.  Ready to bash anything.  Give us a target.  Trump gave us targets daily.  

Now we need something new to be angry at.  We christians could choose to be angry at flesh, sin, satan, death, lost lives, lost souls dying without Christ. Instead we are angry that society asks us to wear cloth over our mouth to save lives.  

Why are we CHRISTians upset about saving lives? Paul circumcised Timothy JUST so they could minister to Jews about Christ. These early Christians loved people so much that they allowed a knife to be put to their manhood; yet we modern Chrisitans cry about a cloth mask with our favorite sports team on it?  

This is why we are hated now by the lost.  Our intolerance and anti-science stance makes us look like fools.  And hateful.  We will be declared 'dangerous' soon because we quite literally help cause death. We spread it willy nilly as its preachers and apostles, and we do not care.  

We could have been done with this pandemic months ago.  Because, as many of us claim...its just a little flu...right? We say 'God is in control'.  Yes He is.  He is the one giving us opportunity to love our neighbors.  An opportunity to preach the Gospel by our actions, to the sick and to the lonely. To show the world how to love each other and show the love of God.  

We could be God's helpers in the eyes of the world, willing to place ourselves in danger to help and love others.  We could be God's hands and feet.  Instead we are too caught up in our freedoms and rights to care about how non-believers see us right now. We fear communism--not God.  

We are losing our Christian witness and have for years.  Do you not understand? The world does NOT see us following Christ. The world sees us as hateful and intolerant--not of sin, but of everyone and everything.  

They do not hear us preaching Jesus to the lost and the hurting.  They hear us preaching "CONSPIRACY!"  "FREEDOM!"  "No-MASKS!"  "No Mandates!"  "Vaccines are the mark!"  "Science lies!"  "Government takeovers!"  "Run for your lives!"  "People are not really dying!"  "Your loved ones were going to die anyways!" "Sheep..You are all Sheep!" (And why should Christians be ashamed to be called sheep anyway? Isn't sheep the bilblical image Christ uses to describe His true followers?)  

Mandates.  There should not have to be mandates for a Christian.  We are to be servants of all for the sake of ministering the Gospel. Christ calls us to gladly walk two miles when the government only asks for one.  

But, that day is gone. Our witness is dying.  We have forgotten that Jesus commands us to act a certain way in front of non-believers.  Because if we act unrighteously, no one will hear a righteous message from us. 

Pope Francis is preparing a radical reform of the church's power structures

NBC News Reporter Triggers Leftists After Brutally on-Point Assessment About Afghanistan Legacy

Chief Justice Roberts's Long, Longer, and Longest Games

I have been saying something eerily similar about Chief Justice John Roberts for a long time. One point this article notes that I had not considered is reading the Chief Justice's concurrence on Citizens United as a template for how he would approach cases like Casey and possibly Roe as well. 

Points to Ponder:

No cigar-smoker ever committed suicide. [William Maginn]

Huge study supporting ivermectin as Covid treatment withdrawn over ethical concerns

As I am seeing some in social media tout Ivermectin for Covid, it is worth pointing out that the study often used to endorse Ivermectin has issues of ethics involved.

Court won’t block order requiring reinstatement of “remain in Mexico” policy

I have been telling folks that complain about SCOTUS procedurals that on merits cases when the rubber meets the road, cases like this will usually be at least 6-3. And when the eviction moratorium issue became a case based on merits rather than procedural, I figured when we got past procedurals and to merits it would go precisely this way. 

SCOTUS also refused to hear a Biden administration plea for reprieve on a district court's order requiring it to reinstate the Trump administration's "remain in Mexico" policy requiring asylum seekers to stay in Mexico while they wait for a hearing in U.S. immigration court. That one was also 6-3. I am not surprised there either. I was kinda amused that DHS vs Regents was cited to bolster the ruling since conservatives whined a lot on the Chief Justice John Roberts rationale there; namely, that the Trump administration had not properly explained its decision to end DACA. Well, the court just struck the Biden administration with the same sword ruling that the Biden administration was unlikely to prevail in court in demonstrating that its decision to end the "stay in Mexico" policy was not "arbitrary and capricious" rather than reasonable and reasonably explained. 

I wonder of those cheering the Chief Justice's application of the Administrative Procedures Act on the Trump administration's attempts to end DACA will be similarly euphoric on Biden's administration getting its wings clipped on its attempts to end the Trump era "stay in Mexico" policy. Or if those booing the DACA case and Chief Justice Roberts on DACA will similarly boo on this one. In neither case is that likely since the hyper partisans among us are rarely consistent and non-hypocritical. But I digress. 

Guess who may be the last hope for Roe v Wade

I do not see either Roberts nor Kavanaugh going against gutting Casey's undue burden criteria. Whether they would overturn Roe is another issue but Roe is a toothless symbol now. The power is in Casey and the lynchpin to Casey is undue burden. 

Chief Justice Roberts in a dissent from the 2020 term more or less laid out for the right the way to go about this and it is by going after the undue burden doctrine. Will the right finally get a clue and do this or will they continue to beclown themselves by wasting time and energy on Roe for a symbolic "gotcha" more likely to blow up in their face than not? 

Ignore Roe, focus on Casey, and aim at undermining undue burden or getting it clarified to where it is so strict it is functionally next to useless. That is the smart way to play chess on this. 

Vaccine Refusers Risk Compassion Fatigue

Points to Ponder:

Demoralized and overmastered people think
The quickest way to end a war is lose
Dictatorship ends starting with tyrannicide
You must destroy the cancer at its root. [Dave Mustaine]

Op-Ed: As a doctor in a COVID unit, I’m running out of compassion for the unvaccinated. Get the shot

Between the fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban and the news surrounding Cardinal Burke's battle with covid, I have been delayed on responding to Traditionis Custodes. I am simply not in the mood at the moment. I will however eventually get to it even if I am not at the moment sure when.

Report: Seahawks, Jamal Adams agree to contract extension

Miscellaneous Musings:

(On the Fall of Kabul)

This is a combination of scattered points I made on social media over the past day...

--At least the ARVN held out for two years after we left Saigon, the Afghans did not even make it to Summerslam.

--Well we might as well burn the opium fields in Afghanistan and salt the earth afterward now since the old "if we destroy the fields the farmers will just align with the Taliban" argument is no longer valid.

--It is hard to find a silver lining to Kabul but I will try nonetheless. Here goes...

The disaster in Afghanistan and the Kabul 2021 repeat of Saigon 1975 will hopefully turn the public away from prolonged foreign military adventurism for at least a generation.

This might also mean that Bill Kristol and others of his outlook ultimately become depressed and commit seppuku but such would benefit the common good of society in general at this point.

--Haiti or Afghanistan? Suddenly Haiti has an "at least I am not them" situation.

Points to Ponder:

With respect also to spiritual sloth, beginners are apt to be irked by the things that are most spiritual, from which they flee because these things are incompatible with sensible pleasure. For, as they are so much accustomed to sweetness in spiritual things, they are wearied by things in which they find no sweetness. [St. John of the Cross: Excerpt from The Dark Night of the Soul on Spiritual Sloth, Book I (circa ante-1582)]