Points to Ponder:
(On the Manipulation of Pictures, Etc., In the Absence of Actual Argument)
[A] visceral reaction is not an argument. Ever. Good things *can* be unpleasant to look at. I eat sausage with a perfectly clear conscience. I send gifts to friends' children without any need for pictures of how the child came about. So a person's resort to pictures designed to evoke a visceral reaction immediately causes me to suspect him, on all subjects. [Victor Morton (circa September 28, 2006)]
Monday, December 17, 2018
More on Conservative Judicial Activism:
This to a certain extent continues the thread topic located HERE.
Roberts invented a farcical excuse to rule the unconstitutional law constitutional -- changing his vote from one to strike down the unconstitutional law to one to preserve it
Actually, that is not true. Roberts did not go along with the absurd notion of the minority that they could not sever the mandate and therefore had to strike the entire statute. (Talk about judicial activism!) He was willing to strike the Medicaid expansion and the mandate but when told it was all or nothing, he sided with the backup argument of the government that the mandate could be read as a tax -incidentally, something the Senate themselves made clear before they passed the statute to begin with.
I do not see SCOTUS going along with the "it is not severable" nonsense this time around any more than they did previously. However, they could very well rule the mandate is no longer constitutional since it cannot be read as a tax anymore and has already been ruled unconstitutional under the commerce clause. (And thus sever it from the statute which would make the statute an unworkable mess.) If I was to guess offhand, that is what I suspect they will do with two of the most ardent (and in this case, hypocritical!) "it cannot be severed" folks from 2012 no longer on the court.
This to a certain extent continues the thread topic located HERE.
Roberts invented a farcical excuse to rule the unconstitutional law constitutional -- changing his vote from one to strike down the unconstitutional law to one to preserve it
Actually, that is not true. Roberts did not go along with the absurd notion of the minority that they could not sever the mandate and therefore had to strike the entire statute. (Talk about judicial activism!) He was willing to strike the Medicaid expansion and the mandate but when told it was all or nothing, he sided with the backup argument of the government that the mandate could be read as a tax -incidentally, something the Senate themselves made clear before they passed the statute to begin with.
I do not see SCOTUS going along with the "it is not severable" nonsense this time around any more than they did previously. However, they could very well rule the mandate is no longer constitutional since it cannot be read as a tax anymore and has already been ruled unconstitutional under the commerce clause. (And thus sever it from the statute which would make the statute an unworkable mess.) If I was to guess offhand, that is what I suspect they will do with two of the most ardent (and in this case, hypocritical!) "it cannot be severed" folks from 2012 no longer on the court.
Sunday, December 16, 2018
The funeral for The Weekly Standard has not even happened yet and Ace of Spades is already desecrating the corpse!
Friday, December 14, 2018
On Conservative Judicial Activism:
This is a continuation of sorts from the material located HERE. My words will be in regular font here.
If we get ideologues who happen to vote the way we like, then we are as guilty of using the Court to pass laws by fiat as the other side. No, thank you.
There are two ideologues on the court right now on the conservative side{1} and possibly a third.{2} On balance they are all good folks and rule as I think is appropriate 90-95% of the time but they also have activist tendencies here and there and as one who has spent literally decades railing against judicial activism,{3} it really makes me bristle when conservatives suddenly stop condemning activism on the court when it touches their pet issues.
The bulk of the conservatives did it on NFIB in 2012 when they sought to portray the bullshit that the mandate could not be severed from the ACA; ergo, they should strike the whole statute{4} and they did it here by cosigning a written dissent on a denial of ceriatori here: something that next to never happens because decisions to take a case or not are not supposed to be ideological. But because Planned Parenthood was on the case names here, the ideologues on the right just had to try and get it before them. While not the only two examples I could mention, they are two fairly notable ones, the former because it took the mask off the facade of conservative opposition to judicial activism as a matter of principle,{5} the latter because it seeks to make ideological a routine denial of ceratori which happens roughly 7920 out of 8000 times every term{6}or to put it in mathematical terms, 99% of the time.
Notes:
{1} Referring to Justice Thomas and Justice Alito.
{2} The jury is still out on Justice Gorsuch in that area.
{3} Here is just one example of many I could pull from the archives on this subject for anyone interested:
On the Previous Audiopost and Our Final Post on the Miers Nomination (circa October 27, 2005)
{4} This happened when the present website was suspended but I wrote elsewhere on my displeasure with this at the time.
{5} As opposed to a matter of convenience.
{6} And is being spun that way by clownservatard activists who are downright shameless in what they are doing.
This is a continuation of sorts from the material located HERE. My words will be in regular font here.
If we get ideologues who happen to vote the way we like, then we are as guilty of using the Court to pass laws by fiat as the other side. No, thank you.
There are two ideologues on the court right now on the conservative side{1} and possibly a third.{2} On balance they are all good folks and rule as I think is appropriate 90-95% of the time but they also have activist tendencies here and there and as one who has spent literally decades railing against judicial activism,{3} it really makes me bristle when conservatives suddenly stop condemning activism on the court when it touches their pet issues.
The bulk of the conservatives did it on NFIB in 2012 when they sought to portray the bullshit that the mandate could not be severed from the ACA; ergo, they should strike the whole statute{4} and they did it here by cosigning a written dissent on a denial of ceriatori here: something that next to never happens because decisions to take a case or not are not supposed to be ideological. But because Planned Parenthood was on the case names here, the ideologues on the right just had to try and get it before them. While not the only two examples I could mention, they are two fairly notable ones, the former because it took the mask off the facade of conservative opposition to judicial activism as a matter of principle,{5} the latter because it seeks to make ideological a routine denial of ceratori which happens roughly 7920 out of 8000 times every term{6}or to put it in mathematical terms, 99% of the time.
Notes:
{1} Referring to Justice Thomas and Justice Alito.
{2} The jury is still out on Justice Gorsuch in that area.
{3} Here is just one example of many I could pull from the archives on this subject for anyone interested:
On the Previous Audiopost and Our Final Post on the Miers Nomination (circa October 27, 2005)
{4} This happened when the present website was suspended but I wrote elsewhere on my displeasure with this at the time.
{5} As opposed to a matter of convenience.
{6} And is being spun that way by clownservatard activists who are downright shameless in what they are doing.
Thursday, December 13, 2018
Wednesday, December 12, 2018
Briefly...
I am reminded from time to time as with the responses from many on the right viz the SCOTUS denial of ceratori in two cases tangentially related to abortion that the right can be just as judicially activist as they frequently squawk about the left being.
Its as if many on the right see Planned Parenthood and are blinded to everything else. This case had to do with Medicaid and Medicaid funding which cannot by law be used for abortions.{1} So how on earth even taking the case would come within 10,000 miles of touching Casey is quite the Scooby Doo mystery. The more conservatives pull this activist crap, the less I trust them as a group to call fair balls and strikes.
I am reminded from time to time as with the responses from many on the right viz the SCOTUS denial of ceratori in two cases tangentially related to abortion that the right can be just as judicially activist as they frequently squawk about the left being.
Its as if many on the right see Planned Parenthood and are blinded to everything else. This case had to do with Medicaid and Medicaid funding which cannot by law be used for abortions.{1} So how on earth even taking the case would come within 10,000 miles of touching Casey is quite the Scooby Doo mystery. The more conservatives pull this activist crap, the less I trust them as a group to call fair balls and strikes.
Note:
{1} See The Hyde Amendment for details.
What Straight-A Students Get Wrong
A poignant bit from the link above:
"...If I could do it over again, I’d study less. The hours I wasted memorizing the inner workings of the eye would have been better spent trying out improv comedy and having more midnight conversations about the meaning of life..."
A poignant bit from the link above:
"...If I could do it over again, I’d study less. The hours I wasted memorizing the inner workings of the eye would have been better spent trying out improv comedy and having more midnight conversations about the meaning of life..."
Thursday, December 06, 2018
"One From the Vault" Dept.
(On Dialogue)
The following was originally planned as a column for Where Peter Is when I was still involved in that project.{1} It seems appropriate at the present time to revisit it with a few minor tweaks considering the material to be forthcoming on this humble website in the coming months. Without further ado
[It] seems appropriate before delving into the most controversial material that I have involved myself in for some time the importance generally speaking of how dialogue should be conducted yet almost never is -even among those of good faith. The principles are ones we can all benefit reflecting upon particularly when the matters of discussion are ones where emotions can override reason and logic: a problem that in this day and age is nearly an epidemic both within and without the Church.
With those factors in mind, the following is a flashback to the archives and material from a Joint Statement on Dialogual Principles that preceded a written dialogue on a controversial subject matter back in 2008...
Note:
{1} On My Resignation From Where Peter Is, General Concerns For The State Of Public Discourse There and Elsewhere, Etc. (circa August 6, 2018)
(On Dialogue)
The following was originally planned as a column for Where Peter Is when I was still involved in that project.{1} It seems appropriate at the present time to revisit it with a few minor tweaks considering the material to be forthcoming on this humble website in the coming months. Without further ado
[It] seems appropriate before delving into the most controversial material that I have involved myself in for some time the importance generally speaking of how dialogue should be conducted yet almost never is -even among those of good faith. The principles are ones we can all benefit reflecting upon particularly when the matters of discussion are ones where emotions can override reason and logic: a problem that in this day and age is nearly an epidemic both within and without the Church.
With those factors in mind, the following is a flashback to the archives and material from a Joint Statement on Dialogual Principles that preceded a written dialogue on a controversial subject matter back in 2008...
It is with no small degree of chagrin that we take a jaded view of the lacuna in modern life of genuine dialogue. The latter when properly understood is both difficult and also potentially rewarding. Most definitely it is not aimless bantering or a series of monologues as much of what passes today for "dialogue" actually is. Instead, dialogue properly conceived and carried out contains a dynamic constituent to it.
As Catholics we are the beneficiaries of ancient truths which to some extent admit of variations in application depending on particular times, circumstances, etc. However, there are also core principles which do not admit of an expiration date and which sadly we see given little if any accounting these days in much of what passes for public discourse. The degree of ignorance of people (some of whom considering what they claim for themselves should know better) of fundamental principles of proper conduct is appalling. There are however two ways to deal with this. We can either curse the darkness or try and light a few candles. With this statement of joint principles as well as the dialogue to follow, we intend to aim at the second approach.
We have an interest both for ourselves individually as well as to assist the common good generally in handling this matter in accordance with principles that are at the core of how Catholics should conduct themselves when confronting another person with opposing views. But these are not principles which are strictly speaking matters of faith only. We believe faith and reason cannot contradict and that reason is a natural light given to us all by the Creator as one way we are made in His image. It is therefore a crime to denigrate reason the way many people do and sadly, not a few Catholics fall prey to this.
We intend in this dialogue to show a proper respect for the rigours of proper logic and reasoning while doing our best to set an example for others of how a dialogue should be conducted. We trust that readers will see if they are of good will that in the sources about to be cited, while of an authoritative character for Catholics, the principles being touched on are and should be by logical extension universal. For example, there should be a general principle of what is and is not a dialogue and how one is properly conducted. We intend to propose one in this thread which will serve as a point of reference for us in the following undertaking but which has an applicability which we believe is universal.
The ancient concept of dialogue was codified by Pope Paul VI in his inaugural encyclical letter as "[the] internal drive of charity which seeks expression in the external gift of charity" (Ecclesiam Suam). It therefore must have charity at its core which St. Paul declared was "patent, kind, not jealous, not pompous, not inflated, not rude, seeks not its own interests, is not quick tempered, kind, not jealous, not pompous, not inflated, does not brood over injury, does not rejoice in wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth." (cf. 1 Cor. xiii,4-6).
So if dialogue has at its core charity and all that term encompasses, this by logical extension means that the parties actually listen to one another. Clarifications if requested by one party are complied with by the other. If in the process, someone encounters a principle, an argument, an approach to something different than what they have seen before, it involves considering that information and seeking as far as possible to assimilate it into the matrix of their own view to the extent they can. It may even require modifying one's view either in part or wholly.
Dialogue is indeed all too rare today because it takes genuine effort and shuns the kinds of strawman caricatures, sound-bytes, etc. that play into what passes for much of modern discourse. Pope Paul noted that the following characteristics should accompany a dialogue and we note them here as principles that we will endeavour to follow at all times on the subject before us as much as any other.
First of all, dialogue requires by its very nature clarity or as Pope Paul noted "the dialogue demands that what is said should be intelligible" (Ecclesiam Suam 81). We will strive at all times to be intelligible to both each other as well as the readers of what we will present.
Second, dialogue requires a degree of humility because as Pope Paul noted "[i]t would indeed be a disgrace if our dialogue were marked by arrogance, the use of bared words or offensive bitterness. What gives it its authority is the fact that it affirms the truth, shares with others the gifts of charity, is itself an example of virtue, avoids peremptory language, makes no demands. It is peaceful, has no use for extreme methods, is patient under contradiction and inclines towards generosity" (Ecclesiam Suam 81).
We will certainly strive to persuade others to give consideration of our positions as they will be outlined. We will also in recognizing these principles not make a demand on each other or others -viewing what we will say and how we shall say it as either standing or falling on its own merits or lack thereof.
Third, dialogue requires a confidence by both parties "not only in the power of one's own words, but also in the good will of both parties to the dialogue" (Ecclesiam Suam 81). We expressly recognize in each other the good will to dialogue and would ask of those reviewing what we will present the same courtesy as well.
Fourthly, dialogue requires adaptation to the characteristics of the audience or "allowances for the psychological and moral circumstances of his hearer, (Mt 7.6.) particularly if he is a child, unprepared, suspicious or hostile" (Ecclesiam Suam 81). This is a difficult areas to navigate because people's understanding can vary significantly; we will however do our best which is all anyone can do really. Having noted the principles and procedures we intend to follow, a bit needs to be said on the subject of criticism itself.
Society today has an overly critical component to it that often seems to want to criticize as if the latter is an end in and of itself instead of a means to an end. Fundamentally and in principle, neither of us has a problem with criticism -indeed we intend to criticize the positions of the other on the subject in question. But we do not intend criticism for the sake of criticism as that is of no value. In a dialogue, criticism can suit a useful purpose to enable people to explain themselves better, to account for weaknesses in one's position, etc. and therefore be of a constructive nature. It can also give people cause to reassess their views and (in the words of Benjamin Franklin) "question a bit of their own infallibility."
We are both willing to consider the possibility that we may be wrong and indeed it would seem strange for us to expect either each other or anyone reading what we write to reconsider their views where ours may be different if we somehow were unwilling to do the same thing ourselves.
Another problem of modern life is the loss of a habit of mind that allows differentiation of arguments from quarrels with the result that disagreements or attempts at correction tend to be destructive rather than constructive. This is a trap we intend to avoid to the best of our abilities. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 10, 2008)]The above material can be viewed as a formalization of how I approach the subject of dialogue on all subjects now as it serves to weed out a lot of pretenders who merely talk about these matters but have no intention of actually engaging them in a rational and ethical manner.
Note:
{1} On My Resignation From Where Peter Is, General Concerns For The State Of Public Discourse There and Elsewhere, Etc. (circa August 6, 2018)
Wednesday, December 05, 2018
Points to Ponder:
(On Obedience)
Now I wish you to see and know this most excellent virtue in that humble and immaculate Lamb, and the source whence it proceeds. What caused the great obedience of the Word? The love which He had for My honor and your salvation. Whence proceeded this love? From the clear vision with which His soul saw the divine essence and the eternal Trinity, thus always looking on Me, the eternal God. His fidelity obtained this vision most perfectly for Him, which vision you imperfectly enjoy by the light of holy faith. He was faithful to Me, His eternal Father, and therefore hastened as one enamored along the road of obedience, lit up with the light of glory. And inasmuch as love cannot be alone, but is accompanied by all the true and royal virtues, because all the virtues draw their life from love, He possessed them all, but in a different way from that in which you do. Among the others he possessed patience, which is the marrow of obedience, and a demonstrative sign, whether a soul be in a state of grace and truly love or not.
Wherefore charity, the mother of patience, has given her as a sister to obedience, and so closely united them together that one cannot be lost without the other. Either you have them both or you have neither. This virtue has a nurse who feeds her, that is, true humility; therefore a soul is obedient in proportion to her humility, and humble in proportion to her obedience. This humility is the foster-mother and nurse of charity, and with the same milk she feeds the virtue of obedience. Her raiment given her by this nurse is self-contempt, and insult, desire to displease herself, and to please Me.
Where does she find this? In sweet Christ Jesus, My only-begotten Son. For who abased Himself more than He did! He was sated with insults, jibes, and mockings. He caused pain to Himself in His bodily life, in order to please Me. And who was more patient than He? for His cry was never heard in murmuring, but He patiently embraced His injuries like one enamored, fulfilling the obedience imposed on Him by Me, His Eternal Father. Wherefore in Him you will find obedience perfectly accomplished. He left you this rule and this doctrine, which gives you life, for it is the straight way, having first observed them Himself. He is the way, wherefore He said, 'He was the Way, the Truth, and the Life.'For he who travels by that way, travels in the light, and being enlightened cannot stumble, or be caused to fall, without perceiving it. For he has cast from himself the darkness of self-love, by which he fell into disobedience; for as I spoke to you of a companion virtue proceeding from obedience and humility, so I tell you that disobedience comes from pride, which issues from self-love depriving the soul of humility.
The sister given by self-love to disobedience is impatience, and pride, her foster-mother, feeds her with the darkness of infidelity, so she hastens along the way of darkness, which leads her to eternal death. [St. Catherine of Siena OP: Treatise on Obedience from her Dialogues (c. 1370)]
(On Obedience)
Now I wish you to see and know this most excellent virtue in that humble and immaculate Lamb, and the source whence it proceeds. What caused the great obedience of the Word? The love which He had for My honor and your salvation. Whence proceeded this love? From the clear vision with which His soul saw the divine essence and the eternal Trinity, thus always looking on Me, the eternal God. His fidelity obtained this vision most perfectly for Him, which vision you imperfectly enjoy by the light of holy faith. He was faithful to Me, His eternal Father, and therefore hastened as one enamored along the road of obedience, lit up with the light of glory. And inasmuch as love cannot be alone, but is accompanied by all the true and royal virtues, because all the virtues draw their life from love, He possessed them all, but in a different way from that in which you do. Among the others he possessed patience, which is the marrow of obedience, and a demonstrative sign, whether a soul be in a state of grace and truly love or not.
Wherefore charity, the mother of patience, has given her as a sister to obedience, and so closely united them together that one cannot be lost without the other. Either you have them both or you have neither. This virtue has a nurse who feeds her, that is, true humility; therefore a soul is obedient in proportion to her humility, and humble in proportion to her obedience. This humility is the foster-mother and nurse of charity, and with the same milk she feeds the virtue of obedience. Her raiment given her by this nurse is self-contempt, and insult, desire to displease herself, and to please Me.
Where does she find this? In sweet Christ Jesus, My only-begotten Son. For who abased Himself more than He did! He was sated with insults, jibes, and mockings. He caused pain to Himself in His bodily life, in order to please Me. And who was more patient than He? for His cry was never heard in murmuring, but He patiently embraced His injuries like one enamored, fulfilling the obedience imposed on Him by Me, His Eternal Father. Wherefore in Him you will find obedience perfectly accomplished. He left you this rule and this doctrine, which gives you life, for it is the straight way, having first observed them Himself. He is the way, wherefore He said, 'He was the Way, the Truth, and the Life.'For he who travels by that way, travels in the light, and being enlightened cannot stumble, or be caused to fall, without perceiving it. For he has cast from himself the darkness of self-love, by which he fell into disobedience; for as I spoke to you of a companion virtue proceeding from obedience and humility, so I tell you that disobedience comes from pride, which issues from self-love depriving the soul of humility.
The sister given by self-love to disobedience is impatience, and pride, her foster-mother, feeds her with the darkness of infidelity, so she hastens along the way of darkness, which leads her to eternal death. [St. Catherine of Siena OP: Treatise on Obedience from her Dialogues (c. 1370)]
"None Dare Call It Conspiracy" Dept.
My words will be in regular font below.
Rome is going after another religious community...and again...its not about heresy or morals...if you're faithful...these guys in Rome will find you...
My words will be in regular font below.
Rome is going after another religious community...and again...its not about heresy or morals...if you're faithful...these guys in Rome will find you...
I want to focus for a moment on this tidbit.
if you're faithful...
Faithful to what though? It too often sounds like so-called "traditionalists" merely want to do whatever they want whenever they want and have no oversight from Rome whatsoever on anything.
Or to be blunt: basically mouth the words of obedience to the pope but then act like a bunch of little Luthers where the rubber of abstraction meets the road of reality.
#################
What is so false about it? I have yet to hear a supposed "traditional" order which does not bitch and moan every time they are asked to do anything they do not want to. I am reminded of the words of St. John of the Cross when he spoke of spiritual gluttons:
"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...
These persons have the same defect as regards the practice of prayer, for they think that all the business of prayer consists in experiencing sensible pleasure and devotion and they strive to obtain this by great effort, wearying and fatiguing their faculties and their heads; and when they have not found this pleasure they become greatly discouraged, thinking that they have accomplished nothing. Through these efforts they lose true devotion and spirituality, which consist in perseverance, together with patience and humility and mistrust of themselves, that they may please God alone. For this reason, when they have once failed to find pleasure in this or some other exercise, they have great disinclination and repugnance to return to it, and at times they abandon it. They are, in fact, as we have said, like children, who are not influenced by reason, and who act, not from rational motives, but from inclination...
These persons who are thus inclined to such pleasures have another very great imperfection, which is that they are very weak and remiss in journeying upon the hard road of the Cross; for the soul that is given to sweetness naturally has its face set against all self-denial, which is devoid of sweetness. [St. John of the Cross: Dark Night of the Soul Book I, Chapter IV (c. 1580)]
I do not see what more I could add to what that Doctor of the Church noted above.
or if you dont you arent paying attention...
Or maybe I am simply not paranoid and automatically distrustful of anything coming out of Rome.
If you stand out in any way because you arent simply status quo for the liturgy or theology as its been since 1965....
There are not two churches, only one. I am now reminded of the words of Cardinal Ratzinger from The Ratzinger Report circa 1985:
"I see no future for a position that, out of principle, stubbornly renounces Vatican II. In fact in itself it is an illogical position. The point of departure for this tendency is, in fact, the strictest fidelity to the teaching particularly of Pius IX and Pius X and, still more fundamentally, of Vatican I and its definition of papal primacy. But why only popes up to Pius XII and not beyond? Is perhaps obedience to the Holy See divisible according to years or according to the nearness of a teaching to one’s own already-established convictions?"
The same principle applies to your choice of the year 1965 as opposed to some trads choice of 1958 or others who choose an earlier point in time. Again, "[i]s perhaps obedience to the Holy See divisible according to years or according to the nearness of a teaching to one’s own already-established convictions?"
they come after you...
As I said earlier, I have yet to hear a supposed "traditional" order which does not bitch and moan every time they are asked to do anything they do not want to.
.they are targeting orders who simply offer the New Mass in Latin...etc...
Something tells me it is not as simple as that.
its not even necessarily about tradition...its about *any* idea that perhaps the liturgical reform went to far...
See my prior comment.
when they did their first or second purge no one could say for sure...
"[P]urge"? You speak of the Vatican with the same language usually reserved for totalitarian despots like Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, or the Soviet Union.
but now...after several...its immediately apparent that this is simply bad will...
See my prior comments.
and the ignoramus joao braz de aviz is often involved...
You mean a Cardinal who was given his red hat by Pope Benedict XVI?
Seriously, I do not see how my original much briefer statement was not spot on. I will close with some words of St. Francis de Sales:
Most people permit themselves absolute latitude in criticising and censuring rulers, and in calumniating nationalities, according to their own opinions and likings. But do you avoid this fault; it is displeasing to God, and is liable to lead you into disputes and quarrels. [St. Francis de Sales: Introduction to the Devout Life Chapter XXVIII (c. pre 1622)]
Or maybe I am simply not paranoid and automatically distrustful of anything coming out of Rome.
If you stand out in any way because you arent simply status quo for the liturgy or theology as its been since 1965....
There are not two churches, only one. I am now reminded of the words of Cardinal Ratzinger from The Ratzinger Report circa 1985:
"I see no future for a position that, out of principle, stubbornly renounces Vatican II. In fact in itself it is an illogical position. The point of departure for this tendency is, in fact, the strictest fidelity to the teaching particularly of Pius IX and Pius X and, still more fundamentally, of Vatican I and its definition of papal primacy. But why only popes up to Pius XII and not beyond? Is perhaps obedience to the Holy See divisible according to years or according to the nearness of a teaching to one’s own already-established convictions?"
The same principle applies to your choice of the year 1965 as opposed to some trads choice of 1958 or others who choose an earlier point in time. Again, "[i]s perhaps obedience to the Holy See divisible according to years or according to the nearness of a teaching to one’s own already-established convictions?"
they come after you...
As I said earlier, I have yet to hear a supposed "traditional" order which does not bitch and moan every time they are asked to do anything they do not want to.
.they are targeting orders who simply offer the New Mass in Latin...etc...
Something tells me it is not as simple as that.
its not even necessarily about tradition...its about *any* idea that perhaps the liturgical reform went to far...
See my prior comment.
when they did their first or second purge no one could say for sure...
"[P]urge"? You speak of the Vatican with the same language usually reserved for totalitarian despots like Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, or the Soviet Union.
but now...after several...its immediately apparent that this is simply bad will...
See my prior comments.
and the ignoramus joao braz de aviz is often involved...
You mean a Cardinal who was given his red hat by Pope Benedict XVI?
Seriously, I do not see how my original much briefer statement was not spot on. I will close with some words of St. Francis de Sales:
Most people permit themselves absolute latitude in criticising and censuring rulers, and in calumniating nationalities, according to their own opinions and likings. But do you avoid this fault; it is displeasing to God, and is liable to lead you into disputes and quarrels. [St. Francis de Sales: Introduction to the Devout Life Chapter XXVIII (c. pre 1622)]
Tuesday, December 04, 2018
Revisiting the Subject of the SSPX and Their Status:
I am as a rule loathe to talk about the matter anymore either here or elsewhere and have been for a long time because it bores me to tears and life is frankly too short for that. However, since I have in the works a project before this year is out which will unavoidably touch on these matters to at least some extent, it seems to me appropriate to quote here with some modifications the text of an update on SSPX matters originally published in April of 2017 at an now-obsolete weblog when I decided to resume publishing here at Rerum Novarum.
My reason for doing that is there have been a lot of changes in these areas over the years and to a certain extent, my previous involvement in these areas made me in conscience feel I need to note these matters at least briefly and in passing from time to time in the interest of the greatest possible accuracy and fairness. As it was not necessary to previously do so here, I did it elsewhere in an old archived weblog where these matters used to be covered fairly regularly. As it is necessary due to what will be forthcoming to touch on these matters here, I have to do so on this humble website despite my general distaste for such things and that time is the intention of this posting.
--The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) as a result of events from 2009[...] eventually and in a most welcome move expelled Bishop Richard Williamson in 2012.
-- In an ecclesiastical trial involving an SSPX priest back in 2015, the Holy See made SSPX Superior General Bishop Bernard Fellay a judge in the case and possibly other cases pertaining to SSPX priests.
--Pope Francis had during the 2015-2016 Jubilee Year granted faculties to the SSPX for their priests to validly and licitly offer absolution in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
--At the end of the Jubilee Year, Pope Francis extended this faculty indefinitely as of this writing.[...] For that reason, much as with a couple of other subjects like the lawfulness of the 1962 Missal[...], the status of the four bishops of the SSPX as excommunicate[...]: these were all situations where the circumstances have changed from when they were covered by myself and others in various writing projects through roughly July of 2007.[...] Therefore, what is written here on those matters at the time they were written remain as an archival reference source on those subjects but due to changing circumstances and occurrences are no longer per se as valid as they were when originally written.[...]
I have outlined elsewhere{1} how in all subsequent matters of this nature I view these and other related matters will best be dealt with in perpetuity.
All things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Note:
{1} For Preserving the Historical Record (circa September 13, 2018)
I am as a rule loathe to talk about the matter anymore either here or elsewhere and have been for a long time because it bores me to tears and life is frankly too short for that. However, since I have in the works a project before this year is out which will unavoidably touch on these matters to at least some extent, it seems to me appropriate to quote here with some modifications the text of an update on SSPX matters originally published in April of 2017 at an now-obsolete weblog when I decided to resume publishing here at Rerum Novarum.
My reason for doing that is there have been a lot of changes in these areas over the years and to a certain extent, my previous involvement in these areas made me in conscience feel I need to note these matters at least briefly and in passing from time to time in the interest of the greatest possible accuracy and fairness. As it was not necessary to previously do so here, I did it elsewhere in an old archived weblog where these matters used to be covered fairly regularly. As it is necessary due to what will be forthcoming to touch on these matters here, I have to do so on this humble website despite my general distaste for such things and that time is the intention of this posting.
--The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) as a result of events from 2009[...] eventually and in a most welcome move expelled Bishop Richard Williamson in 2012.
-- In an ecclesiastical trial involving an SSPX priest back in 2015, the Holy See made SSPX Superior General Bishop Bernard Fellay a judge in the case and possibly other cases pertaining to SSPX priests.
--Pope Francis had during the 2015-2016 Jubilee Year granted faculties to the SSPX for their priests to validly and licitly offer absolution in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
--At the end of the Jubilee Year, Pope Francis extended this faculty indefinitely as of this writing.[...] For that reason, much as with a couple of other subjects like the lawfulness of the 1962 Missal[...], the status of the four bishops of the SSPX as excommunicate[...]: these were all situations where the circumstances have changed from when they were covered by myself and others in various writing projects through roughly July of 2007.[...] Therefore, what is written here on those matters at the time they were written remain as an archival reference source on those subjects but due to changing circumstances and occurrences are no longer per se as valid as they were when originally written.[...]
I have outlined elsewhere{1} how in all subsequent matters of this nature I view these and other related matters will best be dealt with in perpetuity.
All things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Note:
{1} For Preserving the Historical Record (circa September 13, 2018)
Friday, November 30, 2018
Catholics and Private Revelation Part II: The Voice of Tradition
As I noted previously, when this website was suspended for more than seven years, I occasionally continued to write material for other publishing mediums. One of those projects was a column written five years ago for Catholic Lane, a website Kevin Tierney used to be one of the webmasters of. The aforementioned column can be viewed at the link above.
As I noted previously, when this website was suspended for more than seven years, I occasionally continued to write material for other publishing mediums. One of those projects was a column written five years ago for Catholic Lane, a website Kevin Tierney used to be one of the webmasters of. The aforementioned column can be viewed at the link above.
Monday, November 26, 2018
On Divisive Terms, Dialogue, and Reading "The Signs of the Times"... A Guest Editorial
When this website was suspended for more than seven years, I occasionally continued to write material for other publishing mediums. One of those projects was a guest editorial I wrote about five years ago for Kevin Tierney's now defunct weblog which can be viewed at the link above.
When this website was suspended for more than seven years, I occasionally continued to write material for other publishing mediums. One of those projects was a guest editorial I wrote about five years ago for Kevin Tierney's now defunct weblog which can be viewed at the link above.
Sunday, November 25, 2018
Points to Ponder:
"When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony. Our Lord's regal office invests the human authority of princes and rulers with a religious significance; it ennobles the citizen's duty of obedience. It is for this reason that St. Paul, while bidding wives revere Christ in their husbands, and slaves respect Christ in their masters, warns them to give obedience to them not as men, but as the vicegerents of Christ; for it is not meet that men redeemed by Christ should serve their fellow-men. ‘You are bought with a price; be not made the bond-slaves of men.'
If princes and magistrates duly elected are filled with the persuasion that they rule, not by their own right, but by the mandate and in the place of the Divine King, they will exercise their authority piously and wisely, and they will make laws and administer them, having in view the common good and also the human dignity of their subjects. The result will be a stable peace and tranquility, for there will be no longer any cause of discontent.
Men will see in their king or in their rulers men like themselves, perhaps unworthy or open to criticism, but they will not on that account refuse obedience if they see reflected in them the authority of Christ God and Man. Peace and harmony, too, will result; for with the spread and the universal extent of the kingdom of Christ men will become more and more conscious of the link that binds them together, and thus many conflicts will be either prevented entirely or at least their bitterness will be diminished." [Pope Pius XI]
"When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony. Our Lord's regal office invests the human authority of princes and rulers with a religious significance; it ennobles the citizen's duty of obedience. It is for this reason that St. Paul, while bidding wives revere Christ in their husbands, and slaves respect Christ in their masters, warns them to give obedience to them not as men, but as the vicegerents of Christ; for it is not meet that men redeemed by Christ should serve their fellow-men. ‘You are bought with a price; be not made the bond-slaves of men.'
If princes and magistrates duly elected are filled with the persuasion that they rule, not by their own right, but by the mandate and in the place of the Divine King, they will exercise their authority piously and wisely, and they will make laws and administer them, having in view the common good and also the human dignity of their subjects. The result will be a stable peace and tranquility, for there will be no longer any cause of discontent.
Men will see in their king or in their rulers men like themselves, perhaps unworthy or open to criticism, but they will not on that account refuse obedience if they see reflected in them the authority of Christ God and Man. Peace and harmony, too, will result; for with the spread and the universal extent of the kingdom of Christ men will become more and more conscious of the link that binds them together, and thus many conflicts will be either prevented entirely or at least their bitterness will be diminished." [Pope Pius XI]
Saturday, November 24, 2018
Friday, November 23, 2018
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)