"Lie to Me" Dept.

The Democrats are going to try to claim that President Bush has a credibility problem. Here is just a taste before I really blow my stack:

The ad continues, "a year earlier, that claim was proven false. The CIA knew it. The State Department knew it. The White House knew it."

Not only does the e-mail solicit money so the party can buy television time to air the ad, it urges Democrats to push for an independent, bipartisan investigation of Bush's claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

"It's time to tell the truth," the ad said... For more, go here...

Let me get this straight, after all the crap of the Clinton years - including Filegate and Chinagate - both of which were far and away more credibility-challenged than any possible gaffes on the war as conducted by Bush, now it is time to "tell the truth"???

Where were these nitwits during Filegate when Clinton and his wife pilfered over 1,000 FBI files on political opponents??? Chuck Colson went to jail for a while in the 1970's for possessing just ONE of these kinds of files. But Clinton??? Nope, he and Moloch Hillary got off scott free because there is a clear and unmistakable double-standard here.

What about Chinagate where the safety of our nuclear secrets were sacrificed for re-election funds??? Anyone who thinks THIS can possibly be less problematical than any war mismanagement by the current president is in need of a SERIOUS reality transplant.

What about all the lies about reducing rates of budget increases being "cuts"??? Examples like THIS are legion.

What about how the Democrats lied to people like my late grandmother who were fooled by these lies to vote for the Devilcrats Democrats in elections??? Neither I nor my father could reason with her in her later years because these Devilcrat Democrat lying sons (and daughters) of bitches scared the hell out of her. (Pardon my French please people, the mere recalling of this is making my blood boil.)

Only an absolute idiot with an Arctic Circle IQ believes that reductions in increases constitutes a "cut".{1} But then again, we have a lot of idiots in Washington who call themselves "Democrats" and not a few who call themselves "Republicans."

What about the lie that abortion is a "Constitutional right??? I could go on and on but I think my point is adequately maintained.

"Time to tell the truth" they say??? Where have they been for the past few decades??? Fess up to your own lies and distortions before you start griping about this current president. He could be doing better in many areas but he is not remotely in the camp of these hypocrites.

A Brief Summation of the Crap of the Clinton Years (aka "No time for the truth" Dept)

Note:

{1} Or a person who has been so scared by lies that they cannot see the forest for the trees. (Because their emotions override their reasoning faculties.)

"The Drudgeford Files" Dept.
(A Rerum Novarum Triple Double Slam)

I am going to post the originally planned third part in a separate post. - ISM

It has been a while since we have checked in with Drudge. First we have news on the EU front:

EU constitutional convention signs final draft

I doubt this requires a "taste" to whet the appetite to read it so I will refrain. According to the article, the proposed Constitution for the EU is slated to take effect by the end of 2005.

"NostraShawnus" predicts that within forty years of that time, America will be at war with the EU: just in time to commemorate the one hundredth anniversary of us bailing Europe out of the WW II. If memories are short over there at this time, there is no reason to presume that they will remember this in four decades time.

In other news, Senator Rick Santorum (aka "the Prophet" after the recent Supreme Court Abomination) proposes a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage as a bulwark of our civilization. Here is the link:

USA Today Op-Ed for 7/09/03

In light of the termites and the weasely whores who passed down that ruling,{1} it seems that something of this sort will be needed. Heck, previous generations saw it necessary to institute and then abolish Prohibition by amendment. Surely this is far more significant to the survival of our great nation than whether or not someone imbibes a few spirits here and there.

Note:

{1} This was one that transcends Roe v. Wade for the utter incongruity between the actual Constitution and the intention of its Framers.

"It is About Damn Time" Dept.

He is not registered at the parish yet but give him time. Yes indeed The Secret Agent Man has finally gotten off of his secret keister and dusted off the old weblog and began posting. Did you know that he even HAD a weblog??? Of course not, its existence up until now was a secret. But no longer.

So let me welcome him to the blogosphere with a little friendly interblog blog war. (Patience SAM, you will get the lingo down before long.) One of his first posts since deciding to finally start this process can be read HERE. Here is the text with his words in shale font. My words will be in regular font:

SecretAgentMan Begins Blogging

For several months now, acquaintances and friends have been telling me I should have a blogspot. I. Shawn McElhinney was even kind enough to set this one up for me, since all I can do is type, and typing has no relationship to using a computer. They've been very kind in urging me to do this, especially since they've refrained from telling me all the reasons for their entreaties, which (I'm sure) include these: "Don't clog up our message board!" "Stop emailing me!" "Not again!" and "Go play in the street!"

Part of it is that SAM writes some very good stuff and it eventually will get lost on a message board. This format gives a wider audience for his musings. It is also a more enjoyable means IMO because one can let their hair down and discuss what they want without feeling constrained to adhere to a particular board "subject thread."

Since I'm a little slow on the uptake, the usual geologic age has passed between their suggestion and my response.

The jury is out on whether SAM is actually faster in policymaking than the Vatican is ;-)

But my Ice Age of contemplation has ended, my neanderthal ideas are venturing out into a new and brighter dawn, and I feel confident enough to display my attempts at flint-knapping to public view. So I am blogging.

About damn time...

What my kind friends don't realize, however, is that I take so much pleasure in discourse that I will no doubt continue to clog their message boards and pester them with jarringly-irrelevant emails. It has to be, unfortunately: How else can they publish a multi-volume edition of my Collected Works if I reduce my output of verbiage?

SAM, now we have gone over the artificial prot/trad dichotomy of "either/or" on message boards in the past. This is not an "either/or" but a very Catholic "both/and." As in you can blog on a subject and then post the link to a message board with a simple "I responded to you on my blog, here is the link" kinda response. That is what I tend to do now whenever I am involved in message boards.

Anyway, welcome to the list. I would add your blog link to my template but the new software is not allowing me to update this blog template. (Or the Lidless Eye blog template which I have revised and saved the new template to my notebook for later posting.) Any fellow St. Blog parishoners who know when the new blogger format will allow for template alterations, please let me know. But in the meantime, welcome The Secret One to the blogosphere in general and St. Blogs parish in particular.

Excerpts from Cardinal Newman's Letter to the Duke of Norfolk on the Subject of Divided Allegiences:
(Part III of III)

The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. To start from the beginning of the thread, please go HERE.

Mr. Gladstone asks us whether our political and civil life is not at the Pope's mercy; every act, he says, of at least three-quarters of the day, is under his control. No, not every, but any, and this is all the difference—that is, we have no guarantee given us that there will never be a case, when the Pope's general utterances may come to have a bearing upon some personal act of ours.

In the same way we are all of us in this age under the control of public opinion and the public prints; nay, much more intimately so. Journalism can be and is very personal; and, when it is in the right, more powerful just now than any Pope; yet we do not go into fits, as if we were slaves, because we are under a surveillance much more like tyranny than any sway, so indirect, so practically limited, so gentle, as his is. But it seems the cardinal point of our slavery lies, not simply in the domain of morals, but in the Pope's general authority over us in all things whatsoever.

This count in his indictment Mr. Gladstone founds on a passage in the third chapter of the Pastor aeternus, in which the Pope, speaking of the Pontifical jurisdiction, says,—"Towards it (erga quam) pastors and people of whatsoever rite or dignity, each and all, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in matters which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and the regimen of the Church spread throughout the world; so that, unity with the Roman Pontiff (both of communion and of profession of the same faith) being preserved, the Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme Shepherd. This is the doctrine of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation."

On Mr. Gladstone's use of this passage I observe first, that he leaves out a portion of it which has much to do with the due understanding of it (ita ut custodita, &c.) Next, he speaks of "absolute obedience" so often, that any reader, who had not the passage before him, would think that the word "absolute" was the Pope's word, not his.

Thirdly, three times (at pp. 38, 41, and 42) does he make the Pope say that no one can disobey him without risking his salvation, whereas what the Pope does say is, that no one can disbelieve the duty of obedience and unity without such risk. And fourthly, in order to carry out this false sense, or rather to hinder its being evidently impossible, he mistranslates, p. 38, "doctrina" (Haec est doctrina) by the word "rule."

But his chief attack is directed to the words "disciplina" and "regimen." "Thus," he says, "are swept into the Papal net whole multitudes of facts, whole systems of government, prevailing, though in different degrees, in every country of the world," p. 41. That is, disciplina and regimen are words of such lax, vague, indeterminate meaning, that under them any matters can be slipped in, which may be required for the Pope's purpose in this or that country, such as, to take Mr. Gladstone's instances, blasphemy, poor-relief, incorporation, and mortmain; as if no definitions were contained in our theological and ecclesiastical works of words in such common use, and as if in consequence the Pope was at liberty to give them any sense of his own.

As to discipline, Fr. Perrone says, "Discipline comprises the exterior worship of God, the liturgy, sacred rites, psalmody, the administration of the sacraments, the canonical form of sacred elections and the institution of ministers, vows, feast-days, and the like;" all of them (observe) matters internal to the Church, and without any relation to the Civil Power and civil affairs.

Perrone adds, "Ecclesiastical discipline is a practical and external rule, prescribed by the Church, in order to retain the faithful in their faith, and the more easily lead them on to eternal happiness," Pr?l. Theol., t. 2, p. 381, 2nd ed., 1841. Thus discipline is in no sense a political instrument, except as the profession of our faith may accidentally become political.

In the same sense Zallinger: "The Roman Pontiff has by divine right the power of passing universal laws pertaining to the discipline of the Church; for instance, to divine worship, sacred rites, the ordination and manner of life of the clergy, the order of the ecclesiastical regimen, and the right administration of the temporal possessions of the church."—Jur. Eccles., lib. i. t. 2, § 121.

Thus, as I hope it is adequately made clear, the notion that submission to ecclesiastical authority is somehow an "infringement on our liberty" or an "infringement on our ability to think or reason" is nothing but a bunch of sophistic drivel. Catholics of ANY stripe (so-called "progressivist" or so-called "traditionalist") who seek to defend their dissidence with recourse to such arguments, well as Newman makes eminently clear, that dog does not hunt.

Excerpts from Cardinal Newman's Letter to the Duke of Norfolk on the Subject of Divided Allegiences:
(Part II of III)

The previous installment of this series can be read HERE.

So little does the Pope come into this whole system of moral theology by which (as by our conscience) our lives are regulated, that the weight of his hand upon us, as private men, is absolutely unappreciable. I have had a difficulty where to find a measure or gauge of his interposition.

At length I have looked through Busenbaum's Medulla, to ascertain what light such a book would throw upon the question. It is a book of casuistry for the use of Confessors, running to 700 pages, and is a large repository of answers made by various theologians on points of conscience, and generally of duty. It was first published in 1645—my own edition is of 1844—and in this latter are marked those propositions, bearing on subjects treated in it, which have been condemned by Popes in the intermediate 200 years. On turning over the pages I find they are in all between fifty and sixty.

This list includes matters sacramental, ritual, ecclesiastical, monastic, and disciplinarian, as well as moral, relating to the duties of ecclesiastics and regulars, of parish priests, and of professional men, as well as of private Catholics. And these condemnations relate for the most part to mere occasional details of duty, and are in reprobation of the lax or wild notions of speculative casuists, so that they are rather restraints upon theologians than upon laymen.

For instance, the following are some of the propositions condemned:—"The ecclesiastic, who on a certain day is hindered from saying Matins and Lauds, is not bound to say, if he can, the remaining hours;" "Where there is good cause, it is lawful to swear without the purpose of swearing, whether the matter is of light or grave moment;" "Domestics may steal from their masters, in compensation for their service, which they think greater than their wages;" "It is lawful for a public man to kill an opponent, who tries to fasten a calumny upon him, if he cannot otherwise escape the ignominy."

I have taken these instances at random. It must be granted, I think, that in the long course of 200 years the amount of the Pope's authoritative enunciations has not been such as to press heavily on the back of the private Catholic. He leaves us surely far more than that "one fourth of the department of conduct," which Mr. Gladstone allows us. Indeed, if my account and specimens of his sway over us in morals be correct, I do not see what he takes away at all from our private consciences.

But here Mr. Gladstone will object, that the Pope does really exercise a claim over the whole domain of conduct, inasmuch as he refuses to draw any line across it in limitation of his interference, and therefore it is that we are his slaves:—let us see if another illustration or parallel will not show this to be a non-sequitur.

Suppose a man, who is in the midst of various and important lines of business, has a medical adviser, in whom he has full confidence, as knowing well his constitution. This adviser keeps a careful and anxious eye upon him; and, as an honest man, says to him, "You must not go off on a journey today," or "You must take some days' rest," or "You must attend to your diet." Now, this is not a fair parallel to the Pope's hold upon us; for the Pope does not speak to us personally, but to all, and, in speaking definitively on ethical subjects, what he propounds must relate to things good and bad in themselves, not to things accidental, changeable, and of mere expedience; so that the argument which I am drawing from the case of a medical adviser is à fortiori in its character.

However, I say that though a medical man exercises a "supreme direction" over those who put themselves under him, yet we do not therefore say, even of him, that he interferes with our daily conduct, and that we are his slaves. He certainly does thwart many of our wishes and purposes; and in a true sense we are at his mercy: he may interfere any day, suddenly; he will not, he cannot, draw any intelligible line between the acts which he has a right to forbid us, and the acts which he has not.

The same journey, the same press of business, the same indulgence at table, which he passes over one year, he sternly forbids the next. Therefore if Mr. Gladstone's argument is good, he has a finger in all the commercial transactions of the great trader or financier who has chosen him. But surely there is a simple fallacy here.

To be Continued...

Excerpts from Cardinal Newman's Letter to the Duke of Norfolk on the Subject of Divided Allegiences:
(Part I of III)

These are some passages that dissidents love to pass over when I bring them up in discussion. In light of an email received last night, these seem appropriate to post at this time.

Is there then such a duty at all as obedience to ecclesiastical authority now? or is it one of those obsolete ideas, which are swept away, as unsightly cobwebs, by the New Civilization? Scripture says, "Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God, whose faith follow." And, "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy and not with grief; for that is unprofitable for you." The margin in the Protestant Version reads, "those who are your guides;" and the word may also be translated "leaders." Well, as rulers, or guides and leaders, whichever word be right, they are to be obeyed.

Now Mr. Gladstone dislikes our way of fulfilling this precept, whether as regards our choice of ruler and leader, or our "Absolute Obedience" to him; but he does not give us his own. Is there any liberalistic reading of the Scripture passage? Or are the words only for the benefit of the poor and ignorant, not for the Schola (as it may be called) of political and periodical writers, not for individual members of Parliament, not for statesmen and Cabinet ministers, and people of Progress? Which party then is the more "Scriptural," those who recognize and carry out in their conduct texts like these, or those who don't? May not we Catholics claim some mercy from Mr. Gladstone, though we be faulty in the object and the manner of our obedience, since in a lawless day an object and a manner of obedience we have?

Can we be blamed, if, arguing from those texts which say that ecclesiastical authority comes from above, we obey it in that one form in which alone we find it on earth, in that one person who, of all the notabilities of this nineteenth century into which we have been born, alone claims it of us? The Pope has no rival in his claim upon us; nor is it our doing that his claim has been made and allowed for centuries upon centuries, and that it was he who made the Vatican decrees, and not they him. If we give him up, to whom shall we go?

Can we dress up any civil functionary in the vestments of divine authority? Can I, for instance, follow the faith, can I put my soul into the hands, of our gracious Sovereign? or of the Archbishop of Canterbury? or of the Bishop of Lincoln, albeit he is not broad and low, but high? Catholics have "done what they could,"—all that any one could: and it should be Mr. Gladstone's business, before telling us that we are slaves, because we obey the Pope, first of all to tear away those texts from the Bible...

Mr. Gladstone says that "the Pontiff declares to belong to him the supreme direction of Catholics in respect to all duty," p. 37. Supreme direction; true, but "supreme" is not "minute," nor does "direction" mean "supervision" or "management." Take the parallel of human law; the Law is supreme, and the Law directs our conduct under the manifold circumstances in which we have to act, and may and must be absolutely obeyed; but who therefore says that the Law has the "supreme direction" of us? The State, as well as the Church, has the power at its will of imposing laws upon us, laws bearing on our moral duties, our daily conduct, affecting our actions in various ways, and circumscribing our liberties; yet no one would say that the Law, after all, with all its power in the abstract and its executive vigour in fact, interferes either with our comfort or our conscience.

There are numberless laws about property, landed and personal, titles, tenures, trusts, wills, covenants, contracts, partnerships, money transactions, life-insurances, taxes, trade, navigation, education, sanitary measures, trespasses, nuisances, all in addition to the criminal law. Law, to apply Mr. Gladstone's words, "is the shadow that cleaves to us, go where we will." Moreover, it varies year after year, and refuses to give any pledge of fixedness or finality. Nor can any one tell what restraint is to come next, perhaps painful personally to himself. Nor are its enactments easy of interpretation; for actual cases, with the opinions and speeches of counsel, and the decisions of judges, must prepare the raw material, as it proceedsfrom the Legislature, before it can be rightly understood; so that "the glorious uncertainty of the Law" has become a proverb.

And, after all, no one is sure of escaping its penalties without the assistance of lawyers, and that in such private and personal matters that the lawyers are, as by an imperative duty, bound to a secrecy which even courts of justice respect. And then, besides the Statute Law, there is the common and traditional; and, below this, usage. Is not all this enough to try the temper of a free-born Englishman, and to make him cry out with Mr. Gladstone, "Three-fourths of my life are handed over to the Law; I care not to ask if there be dregs or tatters of human life, such as can escape from the description and boundary of Parliamentary tyranny?" Yet, though we may dislike it, though we may at times suffer from it ever so much, who does not see that the thraldom and irksomeness is nothing compared with the great blessings which the Constitution and Legislature secure to us?

Such is the jurisdiction which the Law exercises over us. What rule does the Pope claim which can be compared to its strong and its long arm? What interference with our liberty of judging and acting in our daily work, in our course of life, comes to us from him? Really, at first sight, I have not known where to look for instances of his actual interposition in our private affairs, for it is our routine of personal duties about which I am now speaking. Let us see how we stand in this matter.

We are guided in our ordinary duties by the books of moral theology, which are drawn up by theologians of authority and experience, as an instruction for our Confessors. These books are based on the three Christian foundations of Faith, Hope, and Charity, on the Ten Commandments, and on the six Precepts of the Church, which relate to the observance of Sunday, of fast days, of confession and communion, and, in one shape or other, to paying tithes.

A great number of possible cases are noted under these heads, and in difficult questions a variety of opinions are given, with plain directions, when it is that private Catholics are at liberty to choose for themselves whatever answer they like best, and when they are bound to follow some one of them in particular.

Reducible as these directions in detail are to the few and simple heads which I have mentioned, they are little more than reflexions and memoranda of our moral sense, unlike the positive enactments of the Legislature; and, on the whole, present to us no difficulty—though now and then some critical question may arise, and some answer may be given (just as by the private conscience itself) which it is difficult to us or painful to accept.

And again, cases may occur now and then, when our private judgment differs from what is set down in theological works, but even then it does not follow at once that our private judgment must give way, for those books are no utterance of Papal authority.

To be Continued...

Since it has gone into the Encore archives now, perhaps many people who follow those threads missed my response to the lies of Brian "Herr" Mershon. Here is the relevant text in the event that Encore again has an archives problem. (I will add the links here that I could not add there.):

In light of this question, what theological education or background does "I. Shawn" have? I have asked this question repeatedly, and have receive NO response.

Actually Brian, I responded to you in detail on my weblog and also emailed you the link. This was back in April of this year. Amazingly you have again become as silent as a mime.

Since we cannot link to stuff here anymore, the readers can go to my weblog Rerum Novarum and search the margin for the link titled The Fisking of a Self-styled "Traditionalist". That link was a response to the overly cocky (and profoundly rude and ignorant) Brian Mershon.

I explain in that response (and in detail) why Brian's claim of interest in my credentials is not genuine. (And why it is an attempt on his part to avoid the very trenchant nature of my arguments.) For those who have difficulty locating it that way, they can click on the April 20-26 archive link.

In summary, stop lying to people Brian. It is not what a true Traditionalist worthy of the name would do.

Clarification on SecretAgentMan vs. Rerum Novarum Thread:

The initial response from The Secret One to my multipart response to his note was the following subtext. To those who have not read that thread yet, please read this note first as it provides an important nuance to the discussion. Those who read that thread, please interpret my response in light of what I will note here.

Shawn:

One subtext in my discussion with this fellow is that when he and I are saying "standing to during communion" we're referring not only to the Bishops' campaign against kneeling to receive the Host, but his order that no Catholic is to kneel and pray **at any** time during Communion. We are **ordered** to remain standing when we return to our pews and sing hymns. No private prayer is to be tolerated during this time. That's not clear from my letter...

No, indeed it is not clear from the letter. Nevertheless, the IGMR text on posture read as follows - with the specific amendments for the US dioceses as approved by Rome in bold font:

The gestures and posture of the priest, the deacon, and the ministers, as well as those of the people, ought to contribute to making the entire celebration resplendent with beauty and noble simplicity, so that the true and full meaning of the different parts of the celebration is evident and that the participation of all is fostered. Therefore, attention should be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice.

A common posture, to be observed by all participants, is a sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the Sacred Liturgy: it both expresses and fosters the intention and spiritual attitude of the participants.

The faithful should stand from the beginning of the Entrance chant, or while the priest approaches the altar, until the end of the Collect; for the Alleluia chant before the Gospel; while the Gospel itself is proclaimed; during the Profession of Faith and the Prayer of the Faithful; from the invitation, Orate, fraters (Pray, brethren), before the prayer over the offerings until the end of Mass, except at the places indicated below.

They should, however, sit while the readings before the Gospel and the responsorial Psalm are proclaimed and for the homily and while the Preparation of the Gifts at the Offertory is taking place; and, as circumstances allow, they may sit or kneel while the period of sacred silence after Communion is observed.

In the dioceses of the United States of America, they should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason. Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow while the priest is genuflecting after the consecration. The faithful kneel at the Agnus Dei unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.

With a view to a uniformity in gestures and postures during one and the same celebration, the faithful should follow the directions which the deacon, lay minister, or priest gives according to whatever is indicated in the Missal. [§42-43]

The following is under the heading "mass without a deacon":

The faithful are not permitted to take up the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice themselves, and still less, hand them on to one another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

When receiving Holy Communion standing, the communicant bows his or her head before the sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood. [§160,2]

Interestingly enough, the US Bishops amendment to the text on kneeling after the Agnus Dei refers to the judgment of the diocesan bishop as a possible alternative. But the GIRM itself refers to sitting or kneeling after communion. I may be mistaken but since the bishops did not reserve to themselves in their own amendments the regulation of posture at this point, it seems that they cannot turn around and then claim it for themselves.

My stance here would be the same as it is with the Constitution of the United States: either amend it according to proper procedure or adhere to it.

In the case of the bishops, draw up a rescript and submit it to Rome for recognitio. If such a recognitio was not given, the current prescription prevails. (The right to sit or kneel after communion is in the GIRM.) If such a recognitio was given, then the bishops have a platform for their stance. But they cannot legitimately claim contrary notions in the absence of such a rescript.

And of course there is nothing "pastoral" about what the diocesan paper you referred to had to say about those that kneel. But that is another subject altogether.

Oh, Lest I Forget...

A significant formatting adjustment was made last night to the thread contra David Palm from June 30. (Those who thought they were experiencing a bit of "de ja vu" with parts of the thread: it was due to my editing gaffe.) Go HERE for details. (And please support our "sponsor" as well.)

Eucharistic March in Canada:

Please support my friend John Pacheco as he tries to organize with the consent of his local ordinary a Eucharistic March in October of this year. Please go to his page and sign the petition and do whatever you can to help make this a success.



Tantum ergo sacramentum
Veneremur cernui:
Et antiquum documentum
Novo cedat ritui:
Praestet fides supplementum
Sensuum defectui.

Genitori, genitoque
Laus et iubilatio,
Salus, honor virtus quoque
Sit et benedictio:
Procedenti ab utroque
Compar sit laudatio.
Amen.

SecretAgentMan vs. Rerum Novarum on Communion Posture and the Authority of Bishops:
(Part V of V)

The previous installment of this thread can be read HERE. To start from the beginning of the thread, please go HERE.

The following is a largely verbatim piece of material from a rather lengthy multi-topic thread located HERE. Additional material added specifically for this response will be in brackets.

What is noted below applies to all Catholics in principle. So I ask that the reader not presume that though it was originally pertaining to "trads" that somehow it only applies to them.

***

Liceity is a moveable feast. If the Vatican declares that kneeling for communion is illicit, it is illicit.{1} But this has not to my knowledge happened.

Frankly, recipients should receive in accordance with the particular custom of the church they are attending mass at: if it is standing then receive standing (with an appropriate gesture of reverence). If it is kneeling then receive kneeling.

I realize there are people who kneel when everyone else is standing but this really does not promote any greater reverence. Instead, it is the individual drawing attention to themselves which is akin to the Pharisees "widening their phylacteries and enlarging their tassels" in order to be "seen by men" (cf. Matthew xxiii,5).

It is also true that those who do this think they are being more reverent. However, this is not true at all. Instead, they are falling for the secret sin of pride.{2}

To deliberately go against the manner whereby the particular church administers the sacrament viz standing or kneeling is a sign of hidden pride and manifested spiritual immaturity. As I note in my treatise refuting false "traditionalism", spiritual immaturity is at the root of so much of the problems with their faith weltanschauung.

Notes:

{1} Much as the Vatican declared in the Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum of 1570 that the usage of any missal except the Roman Missal in dioceses where there was less than a two hundred year old continuous usage was illicit. I am sure there were not a few prelates who insulted Pope St. Pius V for this legislation and indeed who "resisted to the face" its implementation. Whatever their personal opinions were, they were as out of line opposing Pius V as the self-styled "traditionalists" are opposing the Second Vatican Council and the authority of the post Pius XII popes.

[To quote Pope Pius XII on appealing to custom over and against decrees of the ecclesial magisterium:

"We are aware that those who thus belittle obedience in order to justify themselves with regard to those functions which they have unrighteously assumed, defend their position by recalling a usage which prevailed in ages past. Yet everyone sees that all ecclesiastical discipline is overthrown if it is in any way lawful for one to restore arrangements which are no longer valid because the supreme authority of the Church long ago decreed otherwise. In no sense do they excuse their way of acting by appealing to another custom, and they indisputably prove that they follow this line deliberately in order to escape from the discipline which now prevails and which they ought to be obeying."{Pope Pius XII: Encyclical Letter Ad Apostolorum Principis §43 (c. 1958)}]


{2} Likewise this is the case for the one who in a church where they administer communion kneeling and on the tongue who stands by the rail and extends their hands to receive. In both cases the principle is the same.

For more reading on the subject of traditional obedience, click HERE.

[Update: In light of a preliminary clarification on this thread by SAM - who has not yet responded to this thread in any detail - a clarification was made which helps in contextualizing the letter I was responding to. This clarification can be read HERE. - ISM (7/6/03 2:20 pm)]

SecretAgentMan vs. Rerum Novarum on Communion Posture and the Authority of Bishops:
(Part IV of V)

The previous installment of this thread can be read HERE. To start from the beginning of the thread, please go HERE.

The Diocesan Paper has in fact claimed that kneeling Catholics are disobeying the direct instructions of the Vatican. That is calumnious.

Agreed.

The Diocesan Paper has in fact claimed that kneeling Catholics are disregarding the personal preference of the Bishop, and doing so in a climate (which its own pages have intentionally created) where that can only bring obloquy and odium to them. That is detracting.

Again, I concur with you.

The Diocesan Paper has in fact claimed that Catholics kneel because we have unworthy motives of rebellion and antipathy for Catholicism. That is suspicion.

I agree again.

I'm sure this scandalous cruelty stems (like all cruelty) from what are thought to be the highest and purest motives, and that the editors would be upset to think they're intentionally driving Catholics out of their parishes in tears (which has, in fact, happened) and provoking animosity and spitefulness between Catholics and their priests (which has, in fact, occurred). But that doesn't make it right, or even sane.

I agree. Few things are more disappointing to me than those who seem to presume the worst motives in others. This is a problem of epidemic proportions in the church today. Is it any wonder that there is so much strife??? And will anyone dare claim that this is not a direct byproduct of such serial suspicion and uncharitable attitudes taken towards others who may not agree with us???

If a campaign to encourage perceptions of schism, heresy, and betrayal is warranted, then surely it is warranted regarding a host of subjects about which the Diocsean Paper has remained oddly and timidly silent.

Indeed. They have a strange way of picking their targets.

There are Catholic politicians in this Diocese who support abortion on demand and receive communion regularly.

There are Catholics in this Diocese who regularly commune despite having divorced and remarried without recourse to the Church's annulment tribunal.

There are Catholics in this Diocese who use contraception and provide it to their children, and there are Catholics in this Diocese who openly condone homosexuality.

All of which is sadly true.

As far as one can tell from the Diocesan Paper's silence, a Catholic who does these things need not fear for his reputation, because he uses a politically-correct posture to "eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." (1 Cor. 11:29).

I will not judge the internal forum of anyone (nor I am sure would you). But in light of what is tacitly passed over compared to what is focused on, there are no shortage of "blind guides who strain out the gnat but swallow the camel" (Matthew xxiii,24) - as you detail well above.

I am put in mind of what Julia told Winston in 1984 -- so long as you keep the little rules, you can break all the big ones. That seems to be the Diocesan Paper's editorial priority as well -- who cares if you put your fourteen-year-old daugher on the pill, so long as you keep her from kneeling to receive communion!

Or to paraphrase another Orwell classic Animal Farm: "all rules are equal. But some are more equal than others."

And isn't it doubly-odd to imagine a fourteen-year-old girl who kneels to receive communion being on the pill to avoid getting pregnant by her fifteen-year-old boyfriends?

I would not make the presumption that kneeling to receive communion would mitigate against what you have noted. I know of some fellow parishoners at SSPX who knelt to receive communion yet who went on to have children out of wedlock. Likewise, there were actually some modernists who preferred the Tridentine liturgy for aesthetic reasons over the Pauline liturgy. One should never consider any liturgy - or form of communion reception - to be a bulwark against error in and of itself. As long as there are flawed people in the equation, no law however sacred is safe from being contravened.

A good way to sum this thought up is with the words of the late French Premier George Clemenceau. The latter noted at Versailles in 1918 when discussion of the Armistice was being worked out that God has given us ten commandments and we have broken every single one of them. Now [President Woodrow] Wilson gives us his fourteen points...we shall see... The same principle applies here.

If you ask me, there's a question far more worthy of the Diocesan Paper's resources than its present affection for twine-and-chewing-gum arguments about the heresy of people who want to immitate St. Padre Pio and kneel whenever God appears.

I agree with you SAM but of course there is also the issue of obedience to lawful authority. I went over the subject of traditional obedience in a recent weblog series and will not reiterate it here. However, it is important to note that disobedience is disobedience even if what we are talking about is in terms of gravity of malice the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony.

I will end this with a quote from an earlier Rerum Novarum entry on the subject of liceity and the entire "kneel or not kneel" subject. Click on the appendix link below for the final installment of this thread.

To go to the Appendix, click HERE

SecretAgentMan vs. Rerum Novarum on Communion Posture and the Authority of Bishops:
(Part III of V)

The previous installment of this thread can be read HERE. To start from the beginning of the thread, please go HERE.

I don't have to obey the Bishops' perceptions of what Catholics do at Mass any more than I have to obey their perceptions of where Catholics eat breakfast after Mass.

It is true that nothing the bishops say about what you eat for breakfast. However, you are in danger of context-switching here in equating what the bishops legislate for liturgical norms and what you eat for breakfast. There is more to this than a mere "perception" as you have opined.

Indeed to take the approach you are advocating would mean that the supreme authority and jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop is functionally made into a doctrine without any meaning whatsoever. What is the point of teaching that bishops have supreme authority and jurisdiction if we can ignore at our own whim their directives and judgments pertaining to matters of faith and morals???

Just because the Holy See did not forbid kneeling in the GIRM does not mean that a local ordinary cannot prescribe a standing posture for communion. The USCCB of course does not have authority by divine right to do this but the individual bishops do. Hence, while the USCCB's prescriptions are not binding on the bishops, if the bishops implement them in their dioceses, the faithful are expected to comply to the extent that this is at all feasible to do.

Obviously there are extraordinary situations that make for possible suspension of the norm but we cannot criticize liberal liturgists for making exceptions into norms and then do the same thing ourselves. Consistency is called for however inconvenient it is for what we may personally want. And besides, there is much more to this than procedure but indeed the principle is closely joined to doctrine. I will try to briefly touch on this so that the connection is easier to spot.

One of the criticisms of Pope St. Pius X against the modernists is that their policies emptied a dogma of its meaning. To quote the Encyclical Pascendi "[t]he formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion. Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and clearly flows from their principles" (Pascendi §12-13 c. 1907).

This same principle outlined by His Holiness above applies to doctrine as well as dogma. And while there is no dogma on the supreme authority of bishops, it is a doctrine constantly taught and was forcefully reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council in a Dogmatic Constitution. Hence, it is just as infallible as a dogma of faith.

In contrast, any custom of more than thirty years' duration among the faithful capable of receiving a law, which is approved by a competent legislator can then have the force of law. Codex Iuris Canonici, Can. 23-27.

Correct. But that is thirty years continuous usage. And if the legislator interrupts that with another implementation, the thirty years starts again from ground zero. Thus, this new GIRM will not to my knowledge allow for a recourse to immemorial custom for at least thirty years from implementation. And while not fully phased in yet, as I understand it, the thirty years will be calculated from 2000 as that was when the IGMR in Latin typical edition was promulgated by the Pope.

Catholics were kneeling at Mass before 1973, and the CDWDS has approved the custom as "completely appropriate" for the celebration of Mass.

Yes but there are issues of papal edicts after Trent which in essence abrogated all contrary customs except those specifically enumerated in Quo Primum. As the latter was either abrogated or obrogated depending on which credible canonist you ask, the functional effect is the same. Thus I am not sure that one can appeal to four centuries of kneeling as a universal practice in the Church since custom was replaced by papal law.

The GIRM for the First Typical Edition of the Roman Missal as revised by decree of the Second Vatican Council was dated 1970. The Second Typical Edition of the Missal - with revised GIRM - was promulgated in 1975. This will be the Third Typical Edition which will soon be promulgated for use in the universal church. Each promulgation as I understand it wipes the slate of any accruing of years to induce a contrary custom.

I'm not a canon lawyer by any means, nor a "liturgist," but I am a betting man and I'd wager on kneeling being a custom with the force of law before I put money on ¶ 160's "norm" really meaning "a command binding on pain of (even venial) sin."

I will ask Pete if he can comment on this since he is a licensed canonist and you and I are not.

I must say I've been astounded by the Diocesan Paper's public campaign encouraging Catholics in this Diocese to regard their kneeling brothers and sisters as schismatics, heretics, and betrayers of the faith. Calumny, detraction, and suspicion are not things one expects to find in a Diocesan newspaper.

I concur with you SAM. There is nothing heretical about kneeling for communion nor is there anything per se schismatic. This does not mean that one should do it of course if this is contrary to prevailing custom but people who make these kinds of wild accusations about others are not to be suffered lightly. We cannot be critical of "trads" who do this and then allow others to do the same thing. Such is wrong regardless of who does it.

I have gone over the subject and definition of suspicion before and will not reiterate it here. Schism involves a rebellious or obstinate refusal to comply with ecclesiastical authority when the latter governs by divine right.

Most who kneel for communion I would argue do not intend to be disobedient. And of course for those who are attending mass in a church where the prevailing custom is to kneel, they would be obedient to prevailing custom. I will explain this in detail later in the thread but in brief: there is nothing to commend for those who would make the kind of outrageous and uncharitable statements that the diocesan paper you referred to made.

To be Continued...

SecretAgentMan vs. Rerum Novarum on Communion Posture and the Authority of Bishops:
(Part II of V)

The previous installment of this thread can be read HERE.

I'm not sure I can agree with your statement that kneeling to receive communion is "illicit."

I agree with you here SAM. (It is not illicit to receive kneeling.)

Recall that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments ("CDWDS") is the body with final authority over the GIRM and its US adaptations. Even in light of ¶ 43 of the US-GIRM, Bishop X's authority to prefer one posture over another is subject to the CDWDS' ruling.

The CDWDS merely said that it was not forbidden to kneel. That does not mean that kneeling is therefore something that should be encouraged. As St. Paul noted once "[a]ll things are lawful but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful but not all things edify" (1 Cor. x,23). In the liturgical context one could paraphrase this as "all that is lawful is not expedient. All that is lawful does not edify." I will explain why those who go against prevailing customs are not edifying others later on in this thread. In the meantime, let us return to The Secret One's note.

The CDWDS has vigorously condemned the practice (which has occurred in this Diocese) of refusing communion to kneeling Catholics. In its condemnation, the Congregation said:

In fact, as His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has recently emphasized, the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species. -- Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, Protocol #1322/02/L, 1 July 2002. 

The text may be found at this link.

As there is not a prohibition on kneeling from the Holy See, it would not be right to refuse communion to someone who did kneel to receive it. But lest that appear to be a tacit approval by myself for contravening prevailing custom, I will explain my position in more detail later on in this thread.

How can kneeling be "completely appropriate" and "illicit"?

Good question.

Given the fact that Bishop X's actions under ¶43 (as well as the USCCB's actions under ¶ 160) are nothing more than the exercise of personal or local preferences under an authority which itself expressly requires bishops to recognize kneeling as "completely appropriate," I think the word "illicit" is well-nigh calumny, although I know you don't intend it that way.

I would agree with this. Illicit means unlawful. There is no prohibition on kneeling to my knowledge. Hence, the term "illicit" is not appropriate to use here.

I also think that ¶ 160 doesn't lay down any rule at all. It says that the "norm" for the reception of communion is standing. What is a "norm"? It is a thing which may be frequent, or required, or both.

A "norm" means in essence "standard procedure" if you will. (Or what is authorized to be used.) Much as receiving water baptism is a norm for one who wants to be saved. Norms of course can admit of exceptions but one of the problems we have today is people trying to elevate exceptions into the rule.

It is the "norm" for drivers in the United States to exceed the speed limit, but it is not the "norm" that they be required to do so.

I presume SAM means "not to exceed the speed limit." And of course one who does exceed the speed limit will normally - if caught - receive a ticket. However, if one is rushing to a hospital with a pregnant woman, the police will actually provide an escort oftentimes. Again, a norm "do not speed" that admits of an exception.

It is the "norm" for Catholics to avoid contraception, but as all the polls tell us, eschewing contraception is not the "norm" among American Catholics.

I am afraid this example runs the risk of blurring the distinction between ancillaries and primaries. The Church teaches that artificial forms of contraception are always gravely illicit because they are intrinsically opposed to what has traditionally been called "the natural law." They cannot for that reason be made licit.

However, communion posture is not remotely in the same category in that liceity is a movable feast in this regard to some extent. It falls under the realm of regulating the application of the divine law - a principle explicitly recognized by the Council of Trent. To quote from Session XXI which dealt with the Doctrine on the Most Holy Eucharist:

The power of the Church as regards the dispensation of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. [The Sacred Council] furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, (l) it may ordain, or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places."

This principle applies to all matters of discipline and government. And thus it also applies to communion posture.

Is the word a perception, or a command?

A norm is something that people are expected to do.

As the CDWDS has already said, it is not a command. Therefore it is a perception.

A norm is an expectation. It is set down to be followed and should be barring unusual or extraordinary circumstances. (For example, someone in a wheelchair would not have to stand for communion if that was standard protocol.) Having noted that, it will require at least two more installments to finish this thread - possibly three with current Blogger space constraints so I will conclude this part now.

To be Continued...

SecretAgentMan vs. Rerum Novarum on Communion Posture and the Authority of Bishops:
(Part I of V)

It has been a long while since The Secret One and I have sparred on a subject. I received the following from him in a circular email. As this is a good subject and as he argues his points persuasively (as usual), it seemed good to me to blog and interact with the email. His words will be in orange font and his sources will be in fire coloured font.

Oh, lest I forget, this response of The Secret One was not a response written to me but to someone else. The party being responded to was taking some very stringent positions on communion posture. My intention here is to prevent overreach on the part of my friend in trying to draw his adversary away from their error. As for myself, my position on this issue has been articulated not a few times before. I will take this opportunity to restate it again with more detail than previous blog treatments on this issue have contained. (To thereby provide more support for why I take the position I do.) But without any further ado, let us get to it.

Bishop X is wrong when he says the GIRM requires standing during communion, and wrong when he says that to the Diocese in the Diocesan Paper. In view of ¶ 43 of the 2000 US-GIRM, I don't understand how that mistake could be made. Even the 1974 US-GIRM was interpreted by the Vatican to make standing during communion optional:

"Thus it [standing] is a matter of option, not obligation." Notitiae 10 (1974) 407.

I think it is important to recognize what the liturgical intentions of the Vatican have been since the Second Vatican Council. In essence there are two threads here that need to be considered. The first is the Holy See retaining control of the liturgical celebration following in the footsteps of the liturgical reform after the Council of Trent. The second is to return the liturgy to the regulation of the local ordinary where it properly belongs. The former is properly understood as of a macro nature, the latter of a much more micro one.

Bishop Bruskewitz posed our question about the new GIRM adaptations to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments:

Query: Is it the case that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, by no. 43 of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, [the new 2000 GIRM] intends to prohibit the faithful from kneeling after the Agnus Dei and following reception of Communion?

Response: Negative.-- Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Prot. 2372/00/L, 7 November 2000.

This is correct, there is no prohibition on kneeling.

No one can truly say that the GIRM requires, or that it is even intended to require, the faithful to stand during communion. What the GIRM intends to do, at best, is to consign standing during communion to the personal preference of the Bishop.

Correct. The GIRM is an international governance of the liturgy. Depending on the circumstances, the Holy See wanted to leave this to the judgment of the local ordinary who has supreme direction of the liturgy in his own right in communion with the Holy See. By noting that kneeling was not "forbidden", this would leave the door open for either posture to be recommended at the discretion of the bishop.

That makes the relevance of "obedience" very hazy and uncertain, since Catholics aren't under a moral obligation to conform themselves to the personal preferences of their Bishop. We don't have to drive the same car he does, like the same television shows he does, etc. Certainly posture during Holy Communion is a much more serious matter, but that only means the USCCB's amendments aren't treating the subject as seriously as it deserves, and who owes obedience in that context?

I will get to this in a moment. First though, the USCCB is an administrative entity that can make suggestions but they are not part of the divine constitution of the Church. The latter recognizes the office of bishop and the jurisdiction that a bishop has in his dioceses. The Catholic Encyclopedic Dictionary defines this as follows:

Bishops, Jurisdiction of. Bishops are the successors of the Apostles and by divine institution rule their dioceses with ordinary power under the authority of the pope. They have legislative, juridical, and executive power...[A] bishop can enact those laws which he considers for the good of his dioceses and he is a judge in the first instance in all ecclesiastical trials; he can punish lay people with censures and clerics by deprivation of offices or censures (qv). He has supreme direction of the clergy, the conduct of divine worship, administration of ecclesiastical property, building of churches, etc.[Catholic Encyclopedic Dictionary: Donald Attwater General Editor, tenth edition, pg. 62 (c. 1941)]

In short, the local ordinary possessing the authority to regulate "the conduct of divine worship" would have this authority to the extent that the Holy See allows it. And the practice of the Holy See in the past forty odd years has been to allow the local ordinary to legislate in micro matters as they see fit within due limits. These due limits are specified in the GIRM of 2000 which as of fall will to my knowledge be fully implemented. (Right now they are phasing it in.)

Appeals to the Bishop's authority as "chief liturgist" is self-referential silliness, in my view, since "liturgists" are simply administrative functionaries whose purpose is to facilitate the observation of the rite per the GIRM. In light of ¶ 43 of the US-GIRM, saying the Bishop is "chief liturgist" is merely saying he's chiefly responsible for determining his personal preference about posture for communion.

Not exactly. The term is intended to convey the truth I noted above about the bishop's authority in liturgical matters trumping that of priests and other self-proclaimed "experts" in the dioceses. I think the attempt to speak "liturgeze" in the US GIRM amendments is pretty weak but nonetheless the intention is not to place the bishop in the same lot as the "liturgist." Indeed regulation of the divine worship is the competence of the Holy See and the diocesan bishop. No one else is authorized to do this at all pace the sophisms of so-called "liturgists" who have long illicitly usurped this faculty for themselves.

To be Continued...

Hmmmmmmmm, I would have banked on being "Wolverine". Oh well...


You are Beast!

You are brilliant and extremely clever. You can handle almost any problem swiftly and efficiently. You are devoted to philosophy and are always up for a good discussion. Sometimes, though, your anger gets the best of you and you upset those whom you care about.

Which X-Men character are you most like?
brought to you by Quizilla

In scanning the weblog of my friend Stephen Hand, he had a portion from a May 9, 2003 edition of the National Catholic Distorter Reporter which pertained to a recent lecture on the ecclesial vocation of the theologian. Here is the entry in full:

Dominican Fr. Augustine Di Noia, under-secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, gave an important lecture on "the ecclesial vocation of the theologian" at Rome's Lay Centre on Thursday, May 8. Di Noia, an American, is a distinguished intellectual (he holds a Ph.D. from Yale) and the former chief of staff for the doctrinal committee of the U.S. bishops conference, so his views would be of interest in any case. As a key Vatican policy-maker, however, what he had to say is obviously of special interest.

At the same time, it should be noted that Di Noia was careful to present his reflections as a "personal vision" representing merely "what I think at this point in my life."

The CDF issued a formal document on "the ecclesial vocation of the theologian" in 1990, and Di Noia’s lecture covered some of the same ground.

Pay very close attention traddies and so-called "progressivists"...

Di Noia argued that the post-Vatican II, post-Humanae Vitae idea of a "dissenting theologian," meaning a theologian who sees himself or herself as a kind of "loyal opposition" with respect to church authorities, is unprecedented in the history of Christianity. The theologians who were his teachers, he said, might have disagreed with one or another pronouncement of the magisterium, but the idea of systematic and public dissent was "unimaginable."

Di Noia argued that a "kind of mythology" has grown up since Humanae Vitae that reads back the idea of theological dissent into previous eras.

"One sometimes hears absurd discussions of Aquinas as a dissenting theologian himself, suggesting that if Aquinas could be thought to be heterodox by the theologians of the University of Paris, then somehow I could still be vindicated," Di Noia said. "This is a deeply distorted reading of the history of reactions to the introduction of Aristotle in 13th century Paris."

Are you still paying attention pseudo-"traditionalists" and pseudo-"progressives"???

Di Noia said that the classic understanding of theology took revelation – all of it – as its starting point, and sought to discover its underlying intelligibility. The system was premised on a great confidence in the capacity of the human mind to grasp the truth in divine action. Today, he said, theologians tend to emphasize rationality rather than intelligibility, subtracting items from revelation that don't seem reasonable to them. By that standard, Di Noia said by way of example, some deny the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.

In this context, Di Noia cautioned against a particular reading of the idea of a "hierarchy of truths," found in Vatican II's Decree on Ecumenism. This idea is not meant to establish an "A list" and "B list" of doctrines, the second of which can be freely contested or disbelieved, Di Noia said. It was intended to show how the whole doctrinal system hangs together, illustrating how secondary doctrines depend upon core ideas such as the Trinity.

Di Noia called for an effort to revitalize the classical understanding, while at the same time recognizing that "we can't blink our eyes and pretend that modernity never occurred."

Among the factors that dissolved the classical understanding, Di Noia said, are nominalism, positive theology, specialization, a transformed relationship with the sources of theology under the impact of historical-critical method, the collapse of the Catholic theological synthesis, disagreement over the interpretation of Vatican II, and the phenomenon of dissenting theologians.

One intriguing moment came when Di Noia suggested that the emphasis on whether or not a doctrine is "infallible" that followed the First Vatican Council has in some ways placed the accent on the authority of a teaching rather than its truth. He said that when the New York Times called him upon the release of the papal encyclical Evangelium Vitae to ask if it was infallible, he responded that this was "the least interesting question to ask.

"The better question is, is it true?" he said.

In the end, he said, the role of Church authorities is to establish the rules of the game. "In the classical understanding, the definition of a doctrine did not set up blocks, but it created a space in which something could happen," Di Noia said.

"It seems to me this is a more helpful way to think about the magisterium, even when it has to be critical of the work of a given theologian," he said.

The temptation to say to critics "see, I told you so" on virtually all of the points covered above will be resisted...

"The Framers Know Best" Dept.

It seems with the stupidity coming from the highest court in the land on what is and is not a "constitutional right" that we need to consider the "general norms of interpretation." And no, this time I am actually not referring to theology or canon law with that expression. Instead, I refer to the papers that outline what the Framers actually thought about what should go into the very Constitution that we now have. If the Framers do not show any recognition of a supposed "right" then it is a lie to assert that the Constitution actually contains that "right" - whatever it happens to be.

I will quote other Framers from the Federalist Papers but right now I want to focus on Alexander Hamilton. {1} Here are a couple of excerpts for musing from Mr. Hamilton on the Judiciary. I quote from Federalist #78:

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.

The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated.

The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like.

Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.

Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power.

It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.

There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. ...

Though I trust the friends of the proposed Constitution will never concur with its enemies, in questioning that fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness, yet it is not to be inferred from this principle, that the representatives of the people, whenever a momentary inclination happens to lay hold of a majority of their constituents, incompatible with the provisions in the existing Constitution, would, on that account, be justifiable in a violation of those provisions; or that the courts would be under a greater obligation to connive at infractions in this shape, than when they had proceeded wholly from the cabals of the representative body.

Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act.

Let me see, it would seem according to Alexander Hamilton the Framer that if the Constitution is supposed to be limited by its nature that one cannot logically presume that whatever is not mentioned by the Constitution as a right is therefore sanctioned as one. Further still, without a solemn act of authority to annul or amend the Constitution, it remains binding on the people collectively as well as individually.

In short, [t]he Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.{2} It is worth noting how the Court's view of the Constitution has changed over time - and not for the better I might add.

Notes:

{1} And no, the reason I started with Alexander Hamilton is not simply because - according to the Founding Father Quiz - I most resemble him amongst the Founding Fathers.

{2} South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905)

"Empty Spaces" Dept.

Whaaat shaaall we uuuse...
To filllll...the emp-ty...
spa-ces...where...we used to taaaalk?
Howwww...shall I fillll...the fin-alll...spa-ces...
Howwww shall I.......com-pleeeete the wall?

This post originally comprised the seventh part of a series referred to as "Palm Desert" Dept. However, it came to my attention that in formatting that series I had a good amount of overlap in two of the sections material-wise. In making the necessary adjustments, the series was shortened to six parts and can be read in its entirety HERE.

Thus, there is an empty space here now to fill. I will do so with an advertisement for my good friend Dave Armstrong's books. Click HERE for details. If you mentally replace the references to Christmas with "post Fourth of July" or some other equivalent, everything else falls into place nicely.

[Posted 7/5/03]

Some More Errors by a Self-Proclaimed 'Traditionalist'
(Part II of II)

This is a continuation of sort from the thread located read HERE. If interested, you can go HERE to start from the very beginning of this sequence.

[This final section is basically a summation of the preceding parts of the thread with some points for pondering thrown in for the benefit of those who are sympathetic with the positions espoused by David Smith - ISM]

What is supposed to be so "beneficial" about the "trad" solutions to the problems??? I frankly see nothing whatsoever that benefits the Church as a whole. Now if their ideas{1} were proposed as one charism within the Church - and indeed there are apostolates which do just that - there would be of course be no viable objections that could be raised. However, it is very clear with most of them that there is not concern for the universal church in reality.

It is instead an attempt to impose their own whims onto the populace exactly as certain unsavoury elements of the neo-modernist "we are church" types try to do. This is not the mark of spiritual maturity but instead it is spiritual immaturity. It is as my good friend Dr. Art Sippo has noted, a refusal to embrace the Dark Night and be purged of our sensual desire for consolations so that we may follow God by faith, in hope and through love without the need to be affirmed beyond our trust in Him. That is the crux of the issue really.

I have run various spiritual instruction threads on the subjects of spiritual direction, a two part series on zeal, a seven part series on prayer (which spanned a few months) all from an eighteenth century spiritual manual. I did this because they all highlight in spades how the so-called "traditionalists" are so far afield of true Traditionalism that it is not even funny. For the same reason, I recently ran a fourteen part series on traditional obedience.

The primary contributors to the instruction on traditional obedience were the so-called "liberal" Cardinal Mariano Rampolla del Tindaro, the so-called "conservative" Pope St. Pius X, and the Dominican Doctor of the Church St. Catherine of Siena. The verdict of course is that these are all areas where the "trads" have a near-complete disconnect with what could be properly styled as Traditional. There is also the element of spiritual maturity and the true Traditionalist is spiritually mature - or at least on their way there - and not spiritually immature. Let me touch briefly on this subject as it is of crucial importance.

You see, the first mark of Traditionalism (properly so-called) is that the welfare of the Church is what is important, not individual whims. This is why the "trads" are so untraditional: they promote such things as the Tridentine liturgy for selfish interests and yearnings for spiritual sweetness. They claim it is for the "good of the Church" but then have to face the fact that most people do not want what they are peddling - at least not in the manner they peddle it.

If pressed, they will prove that it is for soothing their own psyches more than any actual concern for the Church. (I have noticed this to some degree even in the responses of many of those whom I would consider authentically Traditional and whose sincerity I do not question.) They fall to varying degrees into the very traps that St. John of the Cross outlines in his Dark Night treatise on the spiritual journey to God. Are there ways of mitigating this and at the same time retaining many of the key elements of the "trad" agenda??? Yes there are. But one of them involves a degree of sacrifice that many (such as Albert) are unwilling to make.

For Traditional Catholicism properly practiced takes into account the welfare of the entire Church and places individual wants in sacrifice on the altar of the common good. To quote from the Rule of St. Augustine as observed by the Dominican Order:

[W]hen we find it written of charity, that she "seeks not her own," we should thus interpret the words, namely, that the common good is to be preferred to our own selfish interests, and not our own interests to the common good. Judge, therefore, your progress by this rule: whether or not you more and more prefer the welfare of the community to your own private interests, so that in all the needs of this life which pass away that charity may reign which abides forever. [The Rule of St. Augustine used by the Order of Preachers]

I have almost never seen examples of "trad" theorizing that is not integrally of selfish import - whether its propagators are aware of it or not. This does not mean that there is none of course; only that it is as rare as water in a desert to find it. And even those apostolates which are legitimate expressions often have those who if not for such arrangements would probably no longer be in the Church at all. Thus, it is clearly not because of spiritual maturity that these apostolates are endorsed by such individuals. But this response is already overlong so I will leave it at that point as there is ample material here for spiritual reflection.

Note:

{1} Referring to liturgical and devotional but also those areas of discipline which were not contrary to currently prescribed forms. (Along with theological speculation that was not contrary to teachings of the Magisterium.)