I should have quit youuuu
A long time agoooo
I should have quit you baaabyyy
A long time agoooo
I should have quit you yeah
And went on to Mexico...{1}

It is official now, your humble servant at Rerum Novarum will be spending Christmas this year in Mexico -roughly a week in the sun, surf, and other amenities. Last Christmas was simply awful in light of all the deaths that took place the previous two years - even worse than in 2001 which was the hardest hit year.{2} But the lifelong cycle was broken with the various traditional gathering holiday's in 2002{3} and Humpty Dumpty thus far has not been put together again. (Not that it ever will be the same again of course.)

An attempt will be made with Thanksgiving this year -which will be spent with a part of the family that I have never celebrated holidays with.{4} But this is a case of my sister and I deciding to placate my mother on this one. I have no idea what to talk about with people so diametrically opposite my views on practically every subject under the sun{5} but we are going for mom if you will. But Christmas will be in Mexico and only the immediate family will be going. How things will shape up in 2004 on this front is anyone's guess at this point.{6}

Anyway, I will probably not blog for about a week prior to the trip and about a week after it so I wanted to let the faithful readers know when they see a long gap from roughly December 15th through January 4th or so. I will update this site probably around the thirteenth of December and will begin the blog sabbatical on the fourteenth or so. I may even extend the sabbatical past January 4th but at this time I am not sure one way or the other.{7} But I will resume blogging sometime in January of the new year so worry not my friends, like General MacArthur, I shall return -after I leave of course. (And the interim period will not approximate Battan for you.)

[Note: An update on the Thanksgiving situation can be read HERE. -ISM (12/10/03)]


Notes:

{1} First verse from the song "Killing Floor" written by Chester Burnett.

{2} At least there was a family get together that year and several of us cooked the traditional Ukrainian Christmas food -though we did not have grandma's help that year -dying as she did the previous September.

{3} Referring to Easter, Thanksgiving, and Christmas -particularly the latter. Christmas of 2001 was spent at my Uncle Dave's place. Easter of 2002 was spent basically knowing that my Uncle Dave was going to die -as he did on May 19th. (Something that four months prior would have been inconceivable.) May he and the others rest in peace.

{4} People we used to see once a year at a large gathering of the McElhinney's, Kanski's and various related families. In its heyday -which was about 1978-1989- these were quite vigorous gatherings. But when someone on my mothers side of the family took over the coordinating from my dad around 1993, it ended up becoming just my mom's side of the family by default and I stopped going to these gatherings in 1997 for various reasons.

{5} Basically these are liberal Catholic social activist types (of the secular sort) who are big on travelling all over creation, heavily Democratic, members of "Washington Ceasefire" (think gun control), and an entire plethora of other subjects which do not resonate with me in the slightest. Almost no matter what I say an argument will ensue so it will really be fun if you know what I mean. But I digress...

{6} Neither my sister nor I have spouses or children -and the extended family situation has both of us at odds with various cousins and the like. And my sister is still going through the "mad at God" bit of the past few years so it is all up in the air after this Christmas.

{7} Though there is a slim chance that I will blog from Mexico, this is not likely.

"Argumentation Fallacy" Dept.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

This is called arguing ad ignorantiam. Arguing to the other person's ignorance, and supposing that this suffices to win the debate. Just make the other person look like a fool, and save yourself the trouble of actually making a substantive argument. It's a logical fallacy.

It is correct that argumentum ad ignorantium is a logical fallacy. However, your utilization of this term is erroneous. It is not argumentum ad ignorantium to argue to another person's ignorance. Rather, argumentum ad ignorantium is an argument that asserts the truth of a proposition on the basis that it has not been proven to be false.

My appeal to your ignorance of certain points was of course (in part) to discredit the veracity of your arguments. But this policy does not ipso facto prove that my arguments are true.{1} The very fact that you think this is the case is actually a logical fallacy whether you know it or not.{2} And the fact that you are unaware of this does not in any way make my argument invalid any more than me arguing that something cannot come from nothing by natural means is invalidated simply because I may not be familiar with the latest fancy dancy secularist evolutionary theory. Indeed this very reasoning on your part is a non-sequitur in and of itself but I digress.

Notes:

{1} Nor have I ever argued in this fashion -at least not since high school anyway. (And my study of the writings of Senator Barry M. Goldwater, RIP.) I am quite clearly not deficient in the propounding of substantive argument department. And this is not a statement which lacks the possibility of falsification because it is one that anyone familiar with my writings is well aware. (Whether they agree with all of my arguments or not.)

{2} It is the fallacy of false dilemma often propounded in the form of "either/or" assertions where such a dilemma is treated as present whether it actually is or not.

"Ecumenical Jihad" Dept.
(Courtesy of TCR)

Here is the unsettling news from Stephen Hand's area of the country...

Mass SJC Decision Against Marriage, Natural Law Means Time for Ecumenical Action

Christians and Non-Christians can act together and also pray for those who would eliminate the Natural Law

The decision means that "within 180 days same sex marriage could be allowed in Massachusetts and that could lead to court cases throughout the country. This is the trigger we knew was coming so now is the time for action". This past summer the Vatican in a document, entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, set out a battle plan for politicians opposed to legislation permitting gay marriage and adoption by gay people. Catholic politicians have a "moral duty" to publicly oppose such legislation and to vote against it in parliament, it says. "To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral." Now we are all in it. Christians and Non-Christians must stand together.

In light of these developments; mindful of Our intentions to set forth fundamental principles solid enough to confute the forces of the culture of death{1} and also the need to affix these principles firmly into the psyche of those who believe in traditional principles{2}; aware of the necessity of upholding the public order of society in both religious contexts as well as contexts which are of the natural order; We declare anew this weblog's opposition to the Culture of Death and exhort Our readers to immerse themselves anew in the principles long enunciated and often inculcated on this weblog and in other mediums by your humble servant. (Supplemented with prayer and reflection of course.)

Even those of you who are not religious, I have through ressourcement set forth principles that are beneficial for maximizing freedom within the boundaries of societal order. So do not feel that my arguments cannot be applied by you. Indeed if there is any doubt that they can, I exhort you to look into the matter because trust me: this is as much in your interest as it is anyone else's if you truly care about upholding the fundamental tenants of civilization.{3} And that is the bottom line really...

Notes:

{1} And yet adaptable to changing circumstances as well.

{2} Whether they are Catholic Christians, are not Catholic Christians, or even if they are not Christian necessarily at all.

{3} Those who do not believe in religion, I exhort you to consider my defense of private property rights (see "Traditional Moral Principles") and how this defense ties solidly into a defense of the right to life (see the Terri Schiavo links). But this even involves such cherished natural principles as rights and free speech.

It all connects together my friends and as I have noted before: there are three fundamental rights which must be defended or all is lost.

Contingent to these rights -or any ancillaries derived from them which are proclaimed as "rights"- is a requirement for said rights to not be detrimental to the just public order of society as well as the common good of its citizenry. This is where same-sex marriage runs aground in the natural sphere: it erodes the public order of society and thus civilization. And for this reason, it is in your best interests to uphold traditional understanding of marriage (as between a man and a woman) for the preservation of civilization or in short: for the common good.

Points to Ponder:

The trap of improper compromise differs from proper compromise, which is an approach taken to get half a loaf rather then none at all. The latter is used by those who are not in power or who do not have the power to get all of what they are seeking at the present time. (An example would be voting for a bill that restricted abortions — evil is thereby reduced — versus the purist who would vote against anything that is less than their ultimate agenda.) Unacceptable is the policy that insists on all or nothing when it comes to limiting evil. Politicians who are capable of realistically achieving their entire agenda improperly use this policy of half a loaf. When applied to areas that are either evil in and of themselves or which are conducive to opening or expanding a realm of greater evil, they move into the forefront of the improper compromise. [I. Shawn McElhinney: excerpt from Opening Pandora's Box, Yet Again (c. 2001)]

On the November First Things Issue:
(Musings of your humble servant of Rerum Novarum)

[Update: I added an extra footnote and a couple more links to this entry as well as making a couple of other modifications of a very minor nature. - ISM (11/20/03 4:17 pm)]

I readily admit to having a thrifty side to my nature - perhaps realized quite clearly in the fact that I have never prior to today actually been "caught up" on the issues of First Things.{1} But today when I was at a book store a few miles from home{2} checking up on books, the opportunity to "catch up" presented itself rather unexpectedly. For you see, before leaving the store, I stopped at the magazine rack to briefly look for one of the few magazines I read on occasion{3} and (when looking for it) spotted instead the latest issue of First Things on the rack. Fr. Martin Rhonheimer's article on the Holocaust caught my eye and after allowing myself to "sneek a quick peek", the devouring nature of reading the article{4} took over and I had to buy the issue -particularly after scanning the Public Square section and seeing the comments on a recent collection of writings by one Cardinal Walter Kasper.

I must note upfront an agreement with Fr. Neuhaus that at his best, [Kasper's] writing advances the goal of the Second Vatican Council, aggiornamento through ressourcement -renewal through a reappropriation of the fullness of the tradition. The problem is, I see much of a mixed bag in Kasper's stuff -at least what I have read which admittedly is not expansive enough to form a definitive judgment.

Further still, there are enough people who pontificate ignorantly on Kasper's statements publicly to give me a general disinclination to add to the criticisms{5} except of course for the occasional aside comment.{6}

I will simply note here that Kasper has a lot of general principles correct from what I can tell but often IMO draws conclusions from them that are of a questionable import. This is not to say that he makes bad arguments pe se only that (to quote Neuhaus) Kasper has a sympathetic appreciation of liberal "discontents" with church structures. It is true that Kasper (to again quote Neuhaus) [has a] conviction that a deeper understanding and living out of apostolic meaning of those structures is the path to renewal -and that this also touches on the ecumenical initiative. However, it would seem to this writer that Kasper's position (perhaps because of too much emphasis on the first point) leans noticeably more towards the Concilium school than towards the Communio school. And for those of us familiar with the personages that inform both sides of this division in approach, this leaves room for viable concerns.

Many people who are mildly aware of the history of the Council are aware that theologians on both sides of this divide were censured by the Curia or by the superiors of respective religious orders prior to the Council.{7}However, those who know their history of the Council properly -which alas is not many it seems- are aware that while the Concilium theologians (who leaned towards the aggiornamento principle as primary to ressourcement){8} received a lot of the headlines and were credited with a lot of the Council that they did not deserve. In reality, it was the Communio theologians -who placed the emphasis of the aggiornamento on ressourcement methodology-{9} who as periti to the bishops -or bishops- were the primary influences on the content of the Council's texts.

I am making a somewhat anachronistic division here admittedly{10} but it is necessary to properly understand the dynamics involved. More on this later on if I am inclined but for the moment hopefully these somewhat disjointed musings provide some points to ponder for you the reader.

Notes:

{1} As all issues except the most recent one are available at their website, I tend to wait and read them as they appear online -thus by default being "a month behind."

{2} Third Place Books for you Seattle (and vicinity) dwellers.

{3} My view of magazines for the most part is akin to the view of TV among the "kill your television" crowd.

{4} It is not exactly an alcoholic with his bottle but I have been admittedly a bit of a voracious reader all my life with a diversity of subjects. (Some more than others of course.)

{5} I will not name names at this time for the sake of not throwing fuel on the fires but will note it briefly to the discredit of those who frequently carp on Kasper.

{6} Or a thread formed as a result of the same or similar correspondences.

{7} I will avoid for the sake of brevity going into the politics involved in this. For a brief explanation see this entry blogged to Rerum Novarum about a year ago.

{8} To give some examples, the Concilium crowd included names such as Karl Rahner SJ, Hans Kung, Edward Schillebeeckx OP, and de Chardin. Their influence on the Council has always been exaggerated but that is another story altogether.

{9} The Communio crowd included Louis Bouyer, Christopher Butler OSB, Marie-Dominique Chenu OP, Yves M. Congar OP, Jean Danielou SJ, Henri de Lubac SJ, Joseph Ratzinger, Hans Urs von Balthazar, and Karol Wojtyla. All of the above except Butler and Wojtyla were peritus to bishops at the Council rather than having a direct voice in things as the latter two (as bishops) did.

{10} I say "anachronistic" in that the journals that bear these names -while attesting to the division in the outlooks now- were not the case initially. After all, those who founded Communio (in 1972) originally were also contributors to Concilium before the latter (founded in 1965) was essentially dominated by the aggiornamento primary people. Hence, the word "anachronistic" applies here but not in a negative way.

Miscellaneous Musings:
(On Church Architecture)

It is impossible these days to do virtually anything without a permit or some kind of license. Why therefore would this not apply to the building of churches and shrines???

Please tell me I am not the only one that believes that any proposed architect for a church building should have to pass an "aesthetics test" and be given some certification indicating that they understand the importance of art, architecture, and the like before they are allowed to renovate any churches. (Or have a hand in their design or building.)

For the first time I can ever recall it,{1} I constructed a blog post and right before posting it deleted the text. The main reason was in rereading it I noticed that one could much too easily read things into what I was saying that were not my intentions. There was also criticism of a rather prominent member of the blogosphere - a name that I believe has never crossed the pages of this humble weblog before. Just as the post itself could have too easily (in retrospect) have been misconstrued, my criticisms of the personage in the piece{2} might be construed incorrectly as some form of envy.

Thus to avoid these misperceptions, a blog entry for the first time that I can recall in a long time (if ever){3} was deleted. Hopefully this will not become a pattern.

Notes:

{1} The first time with the weblogs that is. I did do this on rare occasions with message board posts in the past but very rarely.

{2} Who admittedly does not impress me an iota.

{3} I have postponed entries, updated entries previously posted at times, and even slightly revised entries previously posted at times. But I cannot ever recall deleting a planned blog entry -particularly moments before publishing it. I hope I am not reading too much into this action but I digress...

Responsum ad Palmum

[Update: Subsequent to this post it was determined that this writer wronged David Palm on the subject matter pertaining to what was once referred to as the "Palm Desert Dept." post. For this reason, an apology was issued which can be read here. - ISM (12/22/03 12am)]

The following is a response to David Palm. His words in all three emails will be in light red font. His quoting of my previous words from either previous emails or a discussion list will be in blue font italicized. His words from the same list will be in blue initalicized font. My quotes of his previous words (from another source) will be in purple font. My sources (if any are used) will be in dark blue font.

Hi Shawn (et al.):

Hello David:

I decided to exercise the Welborn Protocol with this series of emails since (i) everyone you emailed the first time was a member of the Inquisition and (ii) nothing in the email you sent me privately is requiring of confidentiality.

Email #1 (circa 10/27/03):

Thanks for writing.

You are welcome.

I'd like to address some of the points in your post, but there is one central one that needs resolution before anything else.

Okay.

You wrote:

In the meantime, I responded some time ago on Rerum Novarum to your assertion that Vatican II"did not address the errors [outlined in Humani Generis] in any meaningful way."

Yes, I did.

I note that in those blog entries you cite seven sentences plucked from some unspecified source. They are devoid of any context and there is no way for the reader to obtain any. Would you please forward me the entire e-message in question that shows those sentences in their entire context? Thank you.

This is a reasonable request. When I comment on a source, I tend whenever possible to utilize the entire source. The context of your words can be discerned by stringing all the black parts of the text together. The reason my comments took up so much space is because you made statements that I sought to address in detail. There is no context therefore which is missing from what I responded to.

You also wrote:

I for one have experienced the David Palm shuck and jive on discussion lists and frankly it gets old really fast.

This is very interesting, Shawn. On the CatholicTheology list just about one year ago you made a similar statement:

Considering how adeptly you have evaded several questions which appear to make you "uncomfortable" David, I find this characterization rather interesting.

In light of you asking me for context to the source I used -and again this is a reasonable request- I formally request the same in this case.

To which I replied:

You'll have to be more specific, Shawn. As I've said, I don't always catch what others consider the most salient of their queries. And Peter just likes to bait me, so I generally ignore his pokes. Please restate what I have evaded and I'll do my best to answer directly.

I presume the "Peter" in the above was Pete Vere. (I cannot recall offhand any other Peter's on that list.)

You did not bring forth any specifics at that time, Shawn, so I chalked up your prior statement as mere posturing (or perhaps "shucking and jiving", if you please). If you have some specific questions now, however, I'd would seek to address them as best I can.

We had a number of threads going as many discussion lists do.{1} I cannot recall which thread in particular you are referring to with the above quote. Further still, if I recall correctly (and I may be mistaken here) not long after I made the comments you quote, I also made protests to the moderator about a certain participant to the thread{2} who was poisoning the discourse and another who was constantly making abrupt challenges to others only to be smacked down again and again.{3}

I specifically told the moderator that if the former personage was not ejected from the forum that I would leave. As the moderator did not do this, I kept my promise and unsubscribed from the list. What I had wanted from the list was later realized in a new list to which I was invited upon its launching. And I have been a contributor to that list's discussion environment ever since -albeit the degree of involvement has varied over the months depending on many factors -particularly time constraints.

As far as the old list goes, I can barely remember all the threads on the lists I am on now which are ongoing -how am I going to remember divers stuff from a list of over a year ago??? I have some of the emails from the older list only because I saved them for blogging later on.{4} Other then those, I cannot remember much of anything in particular about the list you refer to.

The next two emails will be without greeting and closing:

Email #2 (circa 11/03/03):

I'm wondering if you could please send me the entire e-message you excerpted for your six-part commentary entitled "Palm Desert Dept."? Thank you.

Email #3 (circa 11/10/03):

I'm wondering if you could please send me the entire e-message you excerpted for your six-part commentary entitled "Palm Desert Dept."? I know how important it is to you to have things read in their entire context, so I would very much like to see the sentences you excerpted in their entire context. Thank you.

Since you asked more than once, here is the entire source. It is an email you made to Albert's old list. Albert posted it on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 10:55 am - presumably you wrote it a day or two prior to that. Here is the full text:

Assuming Shawn's historical claim is true (that problems perdure for 40 to 60 years after a possibly apply this standard to Vatican II? When Bl. John XXIII first called the Council, he did not do so to address any problems; rather, he attested to the health of the Church at the time. That there were errors and corruption in the Church at the time has now been established beyond any doubt -- but the Council was not called to address them and in fact did not address them. For example, consider the errors that Pope Pius XII sought to address in Humani Generis.

Did the Council address these errors? How about the issue of contraception, once again threatening the Church because of the invention of the Pill. Did the Council address this issue? How about Communism? What about the issue of the Chinese Church?

Saying historically that problems persist for 40 to 60 years after a Council has sought to address them is evading the issue. THE PROBLEMS OF TODAY WERE NOT ADDRESSED BY THE COUNCIL IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY. Moreover there is not the slightest indication that the Church's problems are going to go away in 2 or even 20 years.

Pax tecum,
David

That is the entire thread I responded to.{5} Breaking it down section by section in my response, you will see the following divisions utilized.

Part I addressed these parts of the email:

Assuming Shawn's historical claim is true (that problems perdure for 40 to 60 years after a possibly apply this standard to Vatican II? When Bl. John XXIII first called the Council, he did not do so to address any problems; rather, he attested to the health of the Church at the time.

The rest of Part I and all of Parts II, III, and IV addressed the next two pieces of the email in detail.{6}

That there were errors and corruption in the Church at the time has now been established beyond any doubt -- but the Council was not called to address them and in fact did not address them. For example, consider the errors that Pope Pius XII sought to address in Humani Generis.

Did the Council address these errors?

Part V addressed these points of the email:

How about the issue of contraception, once again threatening the Church because of the invention of the Pill. Did the Council address this issue? How about Communism? What about the issue of the Chinese Church?

Saying historically that problems persist for 40 to 60 years after a Council has sought to address them is evading the issue. THE PROBLEMS OF TODAY WERE NOT ADDRESSED BY THE COUNCIL IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY. Moreover there is not the slightest indication that the Church's problems are going to go away in 2 or even 20 years.

Part VI was a summation of the thread and additional bits for pondering from the wellspring of the Catholic tradition of spiritual instruction. In short, there was no prooftexting involved here. Instead, it was a detailed interaction with one of your emails where you made a bunch of (to put it nicely) "factually-challenged statements."

Hopefully that suffices to respond to your inquiries.{7}

IC XC

Notes:

{1} Heck, a list that was formed about a month after I left the list you refer to will celebrate its one year anniversary tomorrow. At the moment it has almost 4350 posts to it and a membership of about 35 people. (About half of which are regular contributors.)

{2} The name of which will not be mentioned to protect the guilty person.

{3} Neither of these people was you lest the readers wonder.

{4} Some of which I have blogged and some of which I have not. (At least not yet.)

{5} Sans the closing of course.

{6} With a commentary on the various parts of the encyclical Humani Generis so commonly misunderstood (and misappropriated) by the self-styled "traditionalist" crowd.

{7} To review the threads of which David refers, see this link.

On "Traditionalism", "Antisemitism", and Mel Gibson:

In a recent post, Bill Cork continues to employ the kind of approach to Mel Gibson and his movie The Passion that he criticizes in others who do this with USCCB subcommittee documents. The intention of this entry is to try to provide a bit of balance to this subject from one who spent a good part of his life affiliated with the same kinds of theological outlooks that Gibson has. As a former Lutheran (and a pastor), Bill has at times been critical of the approaches that non-Lutherans take towards the theological stances of Lutherans. Hopefully he therefore will understand that I approach the subject of "traditionalism" the same way and for similar reasons.

For despite these jabs at Gibson's movie, the reader needs to understand that Bill has not seen it whereas those critical of a certain USCCB subcommittee document from last year did see the document even if most people did not necessarily understand its manifested intention. Anyway, without further ado, let us interact with this entry a bit:

Touching a raw nerve

Why have so many rightwing commentators rushed to defend Mel Gibson from the charge of antisemitism? Some, I think, must feel the charge is correct, and are uncomfortable because it exposes their own attitudes. Not all, of course, but enough that we should be concerned.

Presumably amongst the people he is labeling as "right wing" would include your humble servant at Rerum Novarum who not only drew people's attention to commentaries on the reactions to the movie from two Orthodox Jewish commentators{1} but who also has weighed in on the Mel Gibson movie subject. But let us return to Bill's thread and address the attempt to put this into context that he supplies.

Let's put this in context. Many rightwing Catholics defended one of their own who went so far as to plagiarize Nazis and well-known white supremacists.

As my track record well indicates, I have consistently not defended the person Bill refers to. In fact, I was critical of that person behind the scenes for a couple of years prior to the debacle of last year. But rather than belabour that point, let us move onward.

Others, while embarrassed by his extreme statements, were equally blunt in attacking the US Bishops Conference for recent statements on the Jews.

Again, not this writer. That is not to say that I was pleased with what the conference said. However, I was deliberately hesitant to comment too much on this subject early on except very briefly. And of course when reading the comments of others, I was not shy to point out whose positions were problematical and whose were not from a theological standpoint.{2}

Were they just using theological criteria in doing so? I'm not so sure.

Presumably charitable criteria is out of the question here.

An adminstrator on one conservative Catholic message board today said that if Jews like the movie, "The Gospel of John," something must be lacking in its presentation. And if Jews dislike Gibson's passion, that is a point in its favor.

No comment.

I've tended to say that I think such statements are merely evidence of ignorance of the consistent Catholic teaching since Nostra Aetate. I think I was being naive.

When I first heard of Gibson's movie, I thought it sounded intriguing. When I heard Jim tell of seeing the trailer at the Atlanta Eucharistic Congress, I shared the enthusiasm of many others. When I heard of the questions that were being asked based on a copy of the script obtained by a group of respected scholars, I began to be concerned, but I supposed that once some people were able to see the film, we would have some answers.

Of course since Bill has not seen the film yet the readers should take that into account when reading his comments on it.

I wrote in June, I want to like this movie. In light of the comments that have been made by those who have seen the trailer or the rough cut, it sounds like an impressive piece of film making.

Michael Medved says that it is the best biblical epic film he has ever seen. And Medved has probably seen more films than the entire St. Blogs contingent combined. And as an Orthodox Jew who takes his faith seriously, if he saw problems with the film -technically or otherwise- it would be unlike him to not comment on them.

My alarm bells started ringing when one person who saw it and invited questions refused to answer even the simplest, and used terms like "demonic," "vile and disgusting," "absurd and frivolous" to describe the questions raised by some of the leading Catholic and Jewish scholars in the field of interfaith relations.

Of course these are many of the same people who raise nary a voice about the reams of movies that impugn Catholic teaching or practices. When these people apply this kind of criticism across the board, then I for one will take them seriously. But not until then.{3}

People began to refer to the film as "inspired" and "a source of theology." Others, even evangelical Protestants, saw the film and were so caught up in the emotion that they couldn't distinguish between those scenes that are faithful to Scripture and those that are additions from questionable sources.

Of course the idea that Mel Gibson might be trying to create a primarily devotional film or a film that will prompt people to reflect upon the event of the crucifixion itself is not admitted as a possibility. Movies have different aims and the best source for determining the intentions of a particular film is to ask the filmmaker.

Most Christians who have seen it have been so caught up in their own positive experience that they can't imagine how anyone could possible have a different experience. And they patronizingly tell Jews they have nothing to worry about.

For some reason I doubt that Bill has conducted a poll of "most Christians" on this or any other matter. And of course any film about Jesus of Nazareth is bound to get the skivvies of some Jews in a bunch.

Since June, I've read the scholars report, and have been able to speak with many Jews and Christians who have seen the film, and so have been able to develop a pretty good understanding of what is in the film now and what changes were made from the original script.

All films go through changes in the script. Rent any DVD of a recent movie and you will generally see lots of extras such as deleted scenes, alternate takes, and the like. I fail to see why we should expect that Mel's movie would be any different in this regard.

I've been able to see how it affects people. I've spoken to people who have seen both "The Passion" and "The Gospel of John," and it has been fascinating to hear the comparisons and contrasts.

I've waited to hear the defenders of "The Passion" mention "The Gospel of John," which, unlike Gibson's film, is truly a faithful telling of the gospel story.

I have seen neither film. But then again, I am not inclined to rail against films I have not seen. However, others who have are apparently not taking the position that the Gospel of John film is as faithful to the Gospel as Bill says it is.

But they say nothing, all the while lifting Gibson above the evangelists themselves, and canonizing his Traditionalist take on the passion.

This is really the meat of the matter: Bill is so sensitive to the views of Jews and even of Lutherans -which in and of itself is fine- but those whom he has never had an affiliation (the so-called "traditionalists") are of course not accorded the same respect.

Besides, it seems that Bill is quite quick to hang any incongruities between the Gospel of John (Mel's main template) and the movie with visionary stuff rather than go to the three most obvious secondary sources. Here is one example{4} of him doing this:

There's also a scene in it from Emmerich in which the earthquake at the death of Jesus strikes the temple in divine retribution; this didn't appear to be in the script they saw.

Of course this has to be from Emmerich. After all, Mel being a "traditionalist" has never seen a Bible in his life.{5} Perhaps Bill should open his Bible to the Gospel of Matthew and read along with us for a moment:

Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, la'ma sabach-tha'ni?" that is, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" And some of the bystanders hearing it said, "This man is calling Eli'jah." And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave it to him to drink. But the others said, "Wait, let us see whether Eli'jah will come to save him." And Jesus cried again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit. And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook, and the rocks were split; the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. [Matthew xxvii,45-53 RSV]

Mark's Gospel also refers to the curtain in the temple being torn in two as does Luke's Gospel (see Mark xv,38 and Luke xxiii,45). Matthew's Gospel it is true is the only one that speaks of the earthquake taking place but it seems to this writer that the scene above was taken from Matthew's Gospel, not the works attributed to Anne Catherine Emmerich. And lest Bill think that as a former "traditionalist" that I am an "apologist for Emmerich" I was critical of some of her stuff before I disassociated myself with the radtrads.{6}

Now then, is it at all possible that Gibson was supplementing his epic with material from the other Gospels??? A dialogue partner of mine even noted that one scene (of a Jewish mob "brutalizing" Jesus) has a very close parallel in the Gospel of Luke and "[t]he men who held Jesus in custody ridiculing and beating him" (cf. Luke xxii,63-65).

Of course as the Gospel of Luke notes, this preceded these same men taking Jesus before the Sanhedrin. Mark's Gospel actually has this event happening after the visit to the Sanhedrin and after the high priest accused Jesus of blasphemy (see Mark xiv,65). Likewise, Matthew's Gospel has this scene after the visit to the Sanhedrin (see Matthew xxvii,67-68).

This is not the place to go into informal controlled formats of oral tradition so for the moment merely recognize that three Gospels relate this same event and the Gospel of John is silent on the matter. Bill would probably chalk this up to a "vision of Emmerich" also -which seems to this writer to be a reinforcement of the stereotype that "traditionalists" never read their Bible.{7} Otherwise, I am left asking why Bill would presume a priori that Gibson must have gotten the material not in the Gospel of John from non-biblical sources.

They expect miracles of the film, and conversions, and this only hardens their belief that any questioning of it must be rooted in unbelief.

How about this novel concept: let Gibson make his movie, watch it, then criticize it (if you feel inclined to).

They've turned Gibson's movie into a Sacrament; those who question it take the role of the scourgers of Christ, and they become Simon of Cyrene. And then it comes. Then they say, "What do you expect? This is what they did to Jesus 2000 years ago."

All of this is what is referred to in a court of law as "hearsay."

In closing, Bill Cork as a former Lutheran minister as well as (if I recall correctly) someone with Jewish ancestry has a natural sensitivity towards these groups of people. However, he is quite clearly more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt than he is the so-called "traditionalists."

Nonetheless, as he set his entry up with a contrast between (i) the approach taken towards the public antisemitism of Robert Sungenis (ii) the approach taken by many of the same people towards the USCCB and (iii) the approach most Catholics have taken towards the accusations leveled at The Passion, it is clear that Bill sought by default to discredit the criticisms of anyone who was inconsistent in the above scenarios. And as one of the only Catholics who has not been inconsistent on the above matters,{8} it seemed to this writer that a response was needed.

Hopefully Bill will recognize that in this response that as a former self-styled "traditionalist",{9} my criticisms of him here are in the same vein as his criticisms of non-Lutherans pontificating with dogmatic authority on the theological positions of Lutherans. For the casualty of consistency here is not on my side but instead it is on his.

Notes:

{1} Referring here to movie critic and talkshow host Michael Medved and Rabbi Daniel Lapin of Toward Tradition. (Who is a weekend talkshow host as well as a substitute host at times for Michael Medved and Medved's rabbi.)

{2} This does not mean that I necessarily agreed with the stances of those whom I pointed out were approaching this subject correctly -either fully or for the most part.

{3} And yes, this is the position I have consistently taken over the years -even when doing so makes me "unpopular."

{4} From the link located HERE. Notice if you will that Bill misses the entire thrust of Rabbi Lapin's article which was directed towards the critics of the Passion, not the uncompleted film itself.

{5} Many do not this is true. However this is a stereotype and for one who rightfully decries stereotypes against the Jews, it is amazing that Bill seems to imply that what is good for the gander is in this case not good for the goose.

{6} And readers of Envoy Encore can attest to, I am no fan whatsoever of the Emmerich-attributed visions: at least 90% of which are inauthentic.

{7} Like most stereotypes it has some foundation in reality but that is still no excuse.

{8} Bill is certainly not unaware of my stances on the Sungenis situation. However, my criticisms of the way most Catholic commentators handled the USCCB situation -being fewer in number and less frequent- may not be as known to him. Nonetheless, like the war subject -another one where many gung ho Catholic types have had to backtrack on- I have been consistent in my stances all along.

{9} And as no one can accuse me of a lack of criticism viz the so-called "traditionalists", Bill cannot chalk this up as a blind defending of them on my part. (As he could do with numerous others who might seek to defend them.)

Points to Ponder:
(Early Understandings of Communio Ecclesiology)

It will be remembered that from 1921-1925 Cardinal Mercer, approved by Benedict XV and Pius XI, had received Anglican Church delegates in loyal dialogue. The surprise at these conversations was the reading of a memorandum by Dom Beaudouin on the matter in which an English Church united to the See of Rome could remain herself...

The Anglican Church has had, since its origins, a strong attachment to the See of Peter. Vested with the symbolical cloak of the Prince of the Apostles, the Archbishop of Canterbury shares in the apostolic jurisdiction , not only over the faithful but also over the pastors. The truth is that an Anglican Church separated from Rome is above all a historical heresy. In short an Anglican Church absorbed by Rome and an Anglican Church separated from Rome are two equally inadmissible premises. The true formula must be found in the via media, the only historical way: an Anglican Church united with Rome.

There exists a catholic formula for union between churches, which is not an absorption., but which saves and respects the interior, autonomous organization of the great historic churches, while maintaining their perfect dependence with regard to the universal Church. Indeed if there is one Church which by its origins, its history, the habits of the nation, has a right to concessions of autonomy, it is certainly the Anglican Church. Practically, the Archbishop of Canterbury would be reestablished in his traditional and effective rights as the patriarch of the Anglican Church. After having received his investiture from Peter's successor, by the historic imposition of the pallium, he would enjoy his patriarchial rights over the whole Church of England.

The Canon Law of the Latin Church would not be imposed on the Anglican Church, but the latter in an interprovincial synod, would determine its own ecclesiastical law.

It would also have its own liturgy, the Roman liturgy of the seventh and eighth century, as was in use at that time.

Obviously, all the ancient historic sees of the Anglican Church would be maintained and all the new Catholic sees created since 1851 would be suppressed. [Jean Guitton: Dialogues of Paul VI with Jean Guitton pgs. 195-96 (c. 1966)]

"Tales From the Mailbag" Dept.

I would not post this email if not for the fact that mailerdaemon returned it. As I am not sure whether the person emailing me has seen this weblog or my "miscellaneous writings" list (where there is a link to this weblog), I will post the email here so that they will hopefully see it. Their words will be in blue font.


Dear Mr. McElhinney,

Hello XXXXX:

Many thanks for a most useful site! I'm taking a break from attending our local indult due to family duties and am using the time to study up on some concerns I've always had re: Trads. To put it as briefly as possible: I really love the Mass of Pius V, but am most uncomfortable in the average Trad milieu, with its underlying assumptions- even at our indult Mass. I'm finding your site, and pertinent links, very helpful in answering many of my questions. Not the egregious "uber-Trad" assertions, but the more subtle areas of discussion.

There is a spectrum involved here certainly.

May I ask if there are any discussion groups for persons who are attracted to Traditional forms of piety, but at the same time, reject the errors of the self-styled "traditionalists"? If you have to spend a lot of your time going "Um, NOT what he said.", you begin to wonder if you're in the wrong place!

I am unaware of any that deal specifically with what you mention that are completely free from the crackpot types.

Again, many thanks for the obvious effort and time you must expend on your site.

I assume you are referring to Rerum Novarum and yes I do spend a bit of time on it. But it is much more than simply traditionalist stuff. Nonetheless, if you have any specific questions in the latter area, let me know and I will try to respond accordingly.

Pax Domini Sit Semper Vobiscum,

Shawn

Completion of Previous Weblog Update:

I mentioned in the last major update that there was more to tend to than I had time to do last time. I just got around to it and will at this time update you the reader on the matter.

First of all, I reclassified Greg the Obscure's Vita Brevis BLOG to inactive status as I noted this morning I would do. I also reclassified the Association of Students at Catholic Colleges BLOG -something I was hesitant to do for a while because of the thought that it may well resume activity in the fall quarter. Well as today it has not so it has been deemed inactive for the time being. Anne Wilson's blog will remain on active status even though she indicated months ago it would be inactive for the summer. Apolonio Latar need not think I am snubbing him any longer with not having his weblog up at the site. (I have intended to add it for months but kept forgetting to do so.)

With regards to archive additions, the final two installations intended earlier in the week were tended to. Here they are by respective category:

On 'Traditionalism' (Properly So-Called)

"Serendipity On Ice" Dept. (On Catholic Involvement in Ecumenism and Other Subjects)

On Controverted Subjects

Discussion List Musings on Common Problematical Catholic Approaches to the Ordinary Magisterium

Anyway, this post is properly interpreted as a conclusion to the aforementioned update from Monday the tenth of November.

Courtesy of Jeanetta's De Fidei Oboedienta BLOG comes a rather stunning announcement about the US Bishops. Apparently the recent crisis is having the effect that I predicted a while back might happen -though granted I viewed this somewhat jadedly. But the bishops now appear to be realizing that they have to actually lead and that includes upholding Catholic teaching in the public arena.

Anyway, in the one area that I least expected this to happen appears to be about to happen -as the US Bishops are apparently going to reaffirm the stance on birth control. See Jeanetta's BLOG for details as she provides just enough of a teaser to entice you to read the entire article. (Hence there is no reason for me to do so here.)

The Obscure One terminates blogging at Vita Brevis. We at Rerum Novarum send him our best and hope he returns to blogging when circumstances are better for him to do so.

On Ressourcement and Recapitulation:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

This is a followup to the recent TCR update post located HERE.

Stephen's work, as well as the response to Jeff Culbreath -which was posted a couple of hours ago after more than a week of reflection on the matter- provide two sides to the multifaceted dimension that is Rerum Novarum. Another is the post on disagreements with Fr. Fessio brought about by an inquirer who asked about an offhand comment I made a few months back in a weblog post. And of course there is a subject that in my mind is of significant importance but which I have to pick my spots on talking about lest this weblog degenerate into the kind of ideologizing that grates on me when others do it.

I say this upfront but not as an attempt to knock the concept of principles of course -as Lord knows I have them. It is simply a recognition that like all endeavours it is vital to maintain one's bearings and pick one's spots to emphasize certain key points of one's respective weltanschuauung for the best possible effect. (Both short and long term.) For this is the procedure that works most successfully in war strategy as well as engaging in successful diplomacy. And both elements of this equation need to be kept in mind or else the result will be imbalance -something that history reveals to those who study it only so acutely.

Surely the trackrecord of this weblog -not to mention the manner whereby I have sought to approach writing on various subjects in web essays or print periodicals- indicates that whatever differences do exist amongst those of good will -against whom I will stridently defend my view as much as the next fellow- there is an intention on my part to contribute to and facilitate a bringing together of diverse viewpoints and find ways of seeing such views cohere as much as possible.

Instinctively I believe it has always been my desire to build bridges rather than create islands - even in my earliest days of pre-Rerum Novarum message board forays and debates on divers subjects (religious, political, social, philosophical, theological, ethical, etc). Granted, sometimes this means being less than irenic with people -particularly those who seek either to divide based on irrelevant points or ones of such minutiae that they amount to "straining the gnat and swallowing the camel" (Matt. xxiii,24).

Likewise at times it involves stridently opposing those who seek to bring people together but in a kind of "least common denominator" way which sees principle as something to be sacrificed to achieve this aim. I will not put labels on these kinds of people at this time -indeed anyone who follows my weblog knows the sorts to which I speak- but settle for simply mentioning this in passing.

Rerum Novarum is if nothing else an ongoing project of ressourcement and recapitulation. The ressourcement is in a sifting of various outlooks (theological, philosophical, historical, devotional, political, social, etc) and trying to isolate from them all whatever noble aspirations can be found.

From this process there has been the proposition of certain theses at times which aim to recapitulate through the building of bridges to others of good-will while respecting legitimate differences. However, at the same time, in order to celebrate legitimate differences there is a need to separate wheat from chaff. Thus the importance of the dialogue format that I employ with those of good-will -which becomes a fisking format for those I see as being of ill-will.{2}

Anyway, all of this came to mind when reviewing the entries noted above on the front page of the weblog and finishing the response to Jeff which was blogged earlier today. It took a couple of days, some patience on my part, and some spare moments of musing to bring them together as a coherent statement; nonetheless the processes noted above is not something that works well when one attempts to utilize it in haste.

Notes:

{1} I believe that I have remained true to the founding intentions of this weblog -first elucidated in part HERE.

{2} To post some representative examples of each of these from my weblog archives.

Dialogue on Liturgy and "Restoration":
(El Camino Real vs. Rerum Novarum)

This is a response to Jeff Culbreath's response to my previous offhand comments to one of his weblog entries. Worry not gentle reader, you do not really need a program to keep up -it only appears that way ;-) In this response, Jeff's words will be in shale font with his previous words italicized. My previous words will be in blue font.

A reply to Shawn McElhinney:

"Authentic Traditionalism is not found in externals Jeff. It is akin to an authentic observation of the Law which Our Lord commanded and which those who were obsessed with external rituals (i.e. Pharisees) did not react to well."

Catholicism requires externals, Shawn. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

I do not disagree with you there. Externals are needed in that they are intended to make the intangible perceptable to us. But externals are and always have been subject to change as Church history amply demonstrates. The essence of our faith though is and must be internal.{1}

Our Lord's condemnation of the Pharisees was because they went through the motions of the rituals and did not internalize the law. It is important to always be on guard against this tendency as it is prevalent amongst those of a more rigorist mentality. (And the latter applies as much to the "traditionalist" as the lax mentality does to the "progressivist."){2}

But I don't recall anyone here advocating a restoration in externals alone. Indeed, the compromised externals we are living with today signify a catastrophic decline of belief.

The problem Jeff is that for too long, people did not make a correct distinction between the substance of the faith and the accidents. The blending of the two in the polemic against Protestantism was bound to create problems when the accidents were stripped away.

But the accidents needed to be stripped away in many respects because the Catholic faith had come to be seen in the context of "obligations" ala the Mosaic Law in Our Lord's time and the exterior trappings had become a crutch. As the spiritual masters of the Catholic tradition teach, this is a sign that the sensual part of the soul is in need of purgation.{3} Pope Paul in his dialogue with Jean Guitton expressed this sentiment quite acutely. I recommend obtaining that book if you can and reading it.

This is not to say that those attending the Latin mass are Pharisees of course; however, the attachment to externals to the extent many of them have is not spiritually healthy.

Shawn, you've got to get out of the habit of arguing with some un-named SSPXer in your past when you're talking to me. I know scores of traditionalists, and I can't think of one who has an "unhealthy attachment to externals" at the expense of spirituality or the life of grace.

I wish I could say I concurred with this assessment Jeff.

Our liturgy is like the clothes we put on. If I dress like a slob, chances are I think like a slob and otherwise act like a slob. True, one can be fooled by externals -- but in general the exterior signifies the health of the interior.

The essence of Catholic mystical theology is embodied in the purging of the sensual exteriors Jeff. If exteriors signified the health of the interior then the spiritual masters would be running in vain in their exhortations. You will have to excuse me for not believing that -indeed my own experience with liturgical vanities only confirms their assessment much to my own discomfort at times.

The Church has finally returned to a more traditional practice of varying liturgical usages by dioceses -with control of the macro format in the IGMR.

I think we should try to stay focused here.

I am

Varying liturgical usages are not the issue.

But it is since essentially you are endorsing the restoration of a particular usage that is not utilized by the Church at large. The irony is, the very untraditional uniformity policy promoted by many "traditionalists" is precisely the policy that many use to shut them out of the arena of debate.

Now I would argue (and have) that the latter people are being inconsistent with their own calls for diversity; however their insistence on a uniformity in rejecting Tridentism is quite consistent with the paradigm of the "traditionalists." The weapon is the same, the only difference is, the "traditionalists" are on the other side of the barrel now.

I reject completely the fiction of "the unchanging Church" and the notion that catholicity means uniformity.{4} I was lied to for too long on this matter by not only the Lefebvrist apologists but also by confessional scholarship promoting agendas rather than the truth. (Not to mention the polemical works the Lefebvrists recommended as "objective" or "fair" observations which in reality were anything but objective or fair.){5}

For that reason, I hope you understand that I can hardly be expected to endorse such a viewpoint even tacitly. And when I see it being promoted -even by someone such as yourself whose goodwill I do not doubt for an instant- there is the conscious need on my part to set that record straight.

Nonetheless, I am not about to let one extreme lead to another. Many of those who (not without good reason) reacted to the kind of untraditional enforced "uniformity" often go to the other extreme of promoting novelty for its own sake and variety for the sake of variety. However, they then contradict themselves by trying to shut out the Indult people. I am in favour of promoting all approved charisms in the Church -even those which I do not understand or are not my cup of tea. To quote an online associate of mine who was also once in the camp of the "traditionalists":

Holy Mass, offered in the Tridentine manner, bears more fruit in a great many Catholics. The Holy Father has acknowledged this and, therefore, the contiuance and promotion of the Tridentine Mass could not be considered rebellious. Other Catholics are left cold by an unknown Language and much pomp.

This situation is not unusual. The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius bear much fruit in a great many Catholics but they are not for everyone. In some, these exercises can cause scruples and a form of despair. "In my Father's house, there are many mansions." Almighty God has created us with different temperaments and we respond differently to externals, etc.

This is something that I sense a lot of people zealous to promote the Indult do not realize. Until they do, it will be a case of Sysphus endlessly rolling the stone uphill only to have it roll over them and have to start anew.

If the Church, in her pastoral wisdom, permits a diversity of ancient rites in various lands that's fine with me.

Rites are not to be esteemed simply because they are ancient (or rejected simply because they are novel). Every single practice or established method was at one time a novelty.

But there is nothing traditional about varying liturgical usages when one of them is seriously compromised. And of the 29 rites (or thereabouts) in the Catholic Church, only one is thus compromised.

I am not sure if you are referring to the Indult usage here or the Revised Missal when you say compromised.

The problems experienced to some extent include (i) the breakdown in traditional understanding of obedience to ecclesiastical authority -and this is just as much the self-styled "traditionalists" as it is anyone else who ignores the Vatican's directives and (ii) the bishops having to find their feet again as regulators of the liturgy in their dioceses.

I disagree. The problems of the Novus Ordo stem from a crisis of faith, plain and simple.

A crisis in obedience as I noted is right at the heart of the faith. However, there is also a crisis in catechesis. But before that can be addressed, there is another facet that needs to be touched on and it is this: the faithful following of the Tridentine rubrics is not something that was common in the decades prior to Vatican II. But that is not all.

The catechesis in the decades prior to Vatican II was rather rudamentary at best -milk to infants which was almost never built upon into solid food. Thus, the faithful were taught to memorize canned answers as children and seldom ever advanced in knowledge past this level as adults. To anyone with a hint of higher education or the ability to think outside the box, these people were sitting ducks.

Also, I would not mistaken the way the Tridentine liturgy is celebrated today with being ipso facto evidence of a strong faith. A series on the liturgical movement compiled by the Society of St. John's (SSJ) -a society hardly hostile in the slightest towards the older liturgy- was posted recently to my weblog as a four part guest editorial. While not concurring with everything in the thread, I do nonetheless agree with the vast majority of their insights on the issue.

That series -including my prologue can be read in full starting HERE. One key point made in the piece is that the lack of obedience is one of the central issues here. Another is that the liturgy was in decline prior to the French Revolution and even prior to the "reformation."

I happen to concur with both of these assessments; ergo I see the predominent movement of "restoring" the Tridentine liturgy to some uberliturgy in the Church to be both shortsighted and intrinsically faulty paradigmatically. This does not mean that I am opposed to the Indult by any means -as I am quite open about promoting it- however as one option among many.

The liturgy was diluted because the Faith was thought to be too rigorous and exacting.

I disagree. The liturgy was simplified because intelligibility was viewed as more important than blind ritual.{6} The spiritual masters often taught that one must leave the familiar abode to make the first steps towards spiritual growth{7} for ascent in the spiritual life means being stripped of one's habitual garments and being clothed anew. This is a principle that for whatever one wants to say about the liturgical reformation was one that Pope Paul felt Catholics were spiritually capable of doing.

In retrospect, it is pretty clear that there was not enough spiritual maturity to make this transition at that time. Nonetheless, retreat to the past -and to inauthentic "catholicity" coupled with dangerous dualist thinking- is not what will fix the problems we have seen.

The repetitions and the kneeling and the gestures were reduced because they were deemed too ascetic.

The manifested intention of the liturgical reform was ressourcement Jeff. (However well they succeeded in this is of course a matter of legitimate debate.) But one of the laudable goals was the reduction of duplicated parts and unnecessary -or even counter productive- repetition. The norm on this was written as follows:

The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity. They should be short, clear, and free from useless repetitions. They should be within the people's powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation. [Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium §34 (c. 1963)]

This principle applied to all rites including rites of the sacraments. As far as kneeling goes, the faithful stood for the entire mass on Sundays and Holy Days for fifteen centuries. This only changed with the policies of the Counter-reformation. So in a rather ironic twist (and not the only one) those who do not favour kneeling for practically the entire mass have tradition firmly on their side. The true novelty is in the rubric of the Tridentine liturgy but of course since it was done for a period of time, most "traditionalists" accept it unquestionably.

The reformers wanted a religion with less to believe and less to do.

This is a rather broad brush statement Jeff. There was no one "agenda" in the liturgical movement. It was actually quite diverse as the SSJ series I linked to above well outlines.

There is also the authentic understanding of local customs being introduced which is something the Church for four centuries unwisely wanted nothing to do with but is nonetheless a very traditional understanding of unity in plurality liturgical expression.

History seems to tell a different story. The Church converted nations -- even continents -- when she had a comparitively uniform and inflexible liturgy.

History actually tells us the opposite Jeff: that the Church's most successful missions by far were those where she utilized the principles of assimilation and inculturation in her worship and practices. This principle also extended to the sacred liturgy. It was only when this policy was rejected when the missionary fields reaped less fruit as a result.

This was pointed out in an essay I wrote almost three years ago titled Confusing Culture With 'Tradition' where among the issues I took serious issue with was the misunderstanding of many Latins about the true damage of cultural imperialism masquerading as 'tradition.' For the sake of brevity I will not reference that piece at this time. (Nor will I out of charity go over the rather pitiful track record of missionary work in the Third World in the centuries prior to Vatican II whenever the myth of "uniformity" was in sway and governed the approach taken in the mission fields.)

Mission-field results today, with all the supposed benefits of "inculturation", are meager by comparison.

If we examine the true track record of the past, it becomes clear that "success" being measured in baptisms is a misleading source of measurement. I would at this time appear to criticize our forefathers in the faith if I continued this thread so I will not do so except to say: we should learn from them what worked and what did not. And continuing what did not work cannot be viewed by us as a viable option if we are concerned about bringing the Gospel to all nations and peoples. And I see in the weltanschauungs of too many who style themselves as "traditionalists" a desire to go back to what failed so miserably before. This does not show concern for the common good of others over and above the desires of the individual to me: the hallmark of the Dominican Rule of St. Augustine which is grounded in a true Traditional Catholic understanding.

Indeed, today we find the largest and most vigorous traditionalist groups in the Third World - a witness to the universal appeal of the Tridentine Rite. In retrospect one would have to say that Catholic Church's previous liturgical inflexibility was very wise indeed.

I disagree. And I could fortify this disagreement with copious references to point out the serious lemon that was Latin as a successful tool of evangelization of the Orient. However, the promise of brevity hangs over my head like the Sword of Damcoles. The truth my friend is that evangelization was hindered not helped by the Counter-reformation attempts to propound the myth of the "unchanging Church" and the idea of catholicity being akin to "uniformity." This myth cannot withstand the scrutiny of those deep in Church history - a history that shows a great deal more plurality than confessional Counter-reformation scholarship often admitted to.

The one constant in the Third World apostolates (Tridentine and non-Tridentine) is that they are in a sense being persecuted by their cultures and do not have the same distractions that we in the First World often have. That is one advantage they have over us -probably the only advantage but it is not an insignificant one. We in the First World are in essence being called to live our faith differently than the Third World people are. We have more advantages by far but also more pitfalls.

"I know many people who in reality are functionally ashamed to be Catholic and they manifest this in refusing obedience to the Supreme Pontiff and to the diocesan bishop in communion with him."

When your diocesan bishop is himself ashamed to be Catholic, what's a Catholic to do? Shut up and get to work on that rainbow banner for the inclusiveness workshop? I can imagine that explaining the antics of Fr. Feelgood to one's children gets old after a few years. I'm not defending schism, but a little sympathy is in order here.

I am if anything not lacking in sympathy for those who are anguished Jeff. Indeed, it is impossible to not feel some thorns in the flesh here. However, we have to have recourse to what the spiritual masters of the Catholic tradition teach. And one of the key components is obedience to lawful authority. As lawful authority according to Catholic teaching are diocesan bishops in communion with the pope, the first principle here is that areas where the bishop is not in communion with the pope do not compel our obedience.{8}

"They live their lives in a separation from the universal church in a land of make believe."

I don't judge them so harshly. Their degree of "separation" is not something Rome has been very clear about.

Rome has sought to take an attitude of generosity with these people because of the anguish and confusion involved. And I of course concur with this approach most of the time. However, part of separating the wheat from the chaff means at times being forceful in the sense of speaking bluntly. And when the functional effect of a particular policy is a form of "Neo-Donatism"{9} it is particularly necessary to do.

In the case of some, it may be the only means available of living a recognizably Catholic life.

How exactly do you define a recognizably Catholic life Jeff??? Does it include rosaries and novenas??? No meat on Friday??? Benediction and Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament??? Latin mass??? My Oriental ancestors would fail to qualify here if that is the case. And the fact that there are exceptions made for them cannot be based simply on the fact that their practices are "ancient." For every ancient practice was at one time a novelty.

I would argue that a "recognizably Catholic life" would include:

---Mass on Sundays and Holy Days
---Following the Church precepts
---Frequent reception of the sacraments
---A recognition of the diversity of charisms within the Mystical Body (cf. 1 Corinthians 12)
---Adherence to the disciplinary prescriptions of the Church
---Striving to cultivate a consistent devotional life

However problematical the local ordinary may be, it does not infringe on the ability of the individual (or families) to observe these points. The Church has always had bad bishops. That does not mean that obedience to the bishops is optional of course; however, what the bishop says has very little impact on the day to day life of the average parishoner.

"Reality though is that the Church has been going through a rough period and this is not aided by Donatist-like flights of fantasy into isolation."

Well, the memory of what authentic Catholicism used to look like needs to be preserved somewhere.

As authentic Catholicism in the counter-reformation model was often not acknowledged, you are in essence (and almost certainly subconsciously) endorsing preservation of an untraditional understanding of Catholicism.

"We are called to be salt and light and to put that light on the lampstand (cf. Matt. v,14-16). Unfortunately that is what a lot of even the Indult goers do -they functionally put that light under the bushel basket."

It is important to recognize the severity of the present crisis.

I agree but Church history shows us a Church in constant crisis of one kind or another. What was not allowed to previous generations in coping with their crises cannot be justified in our case. And forms of Donatism were never tolerated --indeed the Fathers castigated such people in very harsh tones. I have no intention of course in doing that; however a spade must still be called a spade in one form or another.

If you're going to put your light on a lampstand, you need to make sure you have a light to begin with and that your flame is not extinguished by the surrounding environment.

This is allowing the environment to affect you rather than you affecting the environment. The spiritual masters would chide you for taking this approach my friend. I though not possessing anything near their stature will merely point out the fact and leave it at that.

You need priests who preach the hard truths.

I do not disagree; however, one of the problems of knowing Church history is knowing what the saints and popes actually did on preach[ing] the hard truths pastorally versus what revisionists will tell you they did. For example:

---Did you know that the Church while on the one hand discouraging "official" involvement in the ecumenical movement early on{10} nonetheless sanctioned involvement in it provided that it was termed as "unofficial"???{11}

---Did you know that during the population explosion in Europe in the nineteenth century that not only did the Vatican not speak out about contraception but that it actually instructed its confessors not to ask married couples about their sexual practices -and St. John Vianney even emphasized this in his spiritual instructions to confessors???{12}

I could point to other examples but these are two significant areas touched on briefly for reflection. The fact is, there is always a balancing act in how you approach people on subjects. Was the Holy Office and Pope Leo XIII simply "shirking from preaching the hard truths" in your view??? Were they "discouraging a zeal of holiness" in confessors??? Or were they instead recognizing the principle that holiness is a process that is best nurtured by those who can empathize for the weaknesses of others rather then reacting in a cold manualist approach to them???

You need confessors who take holiness seriously.

Why do you presume that most confessors do not take holiness seriously??? I used to assume this admittedly but it was based on a faulty understanding of what "taking holiness seriously" actually is.

You should not presume to judge a confessor as "not taking holiness seriously" because he does not react sufficiently enough in your view towards repeat lapses by penitents. Holiness is not achieved overnight nor is it a path that is walked without a lot of falling -even by the just. And the longer a bad habit subsists, the harder it is to root out of the psyche and overcome.

I know several people{13} whose faith was either severely weakened or destroyed by so-called "traditionalist" confessors who over hype the "judge" element of their function in the confessional and downplay the part where they actually have empathy for people's weaknesses. I am not saying excuse them or imply that their sins were "no big deal." But a genuine and balanced approach to spiritual care. These kinds of confessors are no more plentiful among the self-styled "traditionalists" than they are in the mainstream Church.{14}

You need a liturgy that is worthy of the God you adore.

I do not disagree; however one must also recognize the snares that such a position can entail. (I will go over this in an upcoming series on the purgative theology of the dark night.)

You need a community of like-minded Catholics to exert a little peer-pressure when necessary.

Agreed. Peer pressure is not the solely negative thing that it is often portrayed as.

You need all the graces of the Church's sacraments and sacramentals.

Again, no disagreement there.

In short, your "light" depends upon more than just your own personal good intentions.

No disagreement with you there.

The indult-goers understand this and are in the process of giving themselves and their children the formation they never had.

As you are no doubt aware, I am not in opposition to the Indult by any means Jeff. If for some reason you were to doubt my weblog witness, you can ask my local ordinary about my pestering for the Indult from 1999-2001. I have never used it since it arrived (as it did in August of 2001) but I have supported it as a valid and necessary charism within the Mystical Body.

In the meantime, they're not hiding themselves -- but they are sometimes purposely hidden by diocesan functionaries.

There is a lot of talk about "40 acres and a generator" amongst the Indult crowd as much as there is among the SSPX crowd. Now granted, I have my Donatist moments too; however there is at times an inordinate amount of attempting to diseengage from society in this group.

There is also the fact that there are not a few Indult goers who if not for the Indult would be attending SSPX or SSPV. While being in communion with the Church through the Indult, they nonetheless are there by the skin of their teeth in that their theology contains the same poisons as the schismatics.

I believe that these are a minority amongst the Indult but they are often a very vocal minority. And these are the sorts of people who need to be contained lest the diocesan bishops continue to mistaken them as poster children for the Indult. For that often happens unfortunately -as I found out in bugging my ordinaries for the Indult for my friends and family. (And initially for myself as well.)

Jeff: "Expect the liberals and the modernists and the innovators to go on liberalizing and modernizing and innovating with impunity."

Shawn: "If they do, it is more crosses to bear. Compared to the agony of Him who sweat blood in Gethsemanie and died on the cross, the occasional sappy hymn and the like are pretty minor irritants."

They are destroyers of souls, not "minor irritants".

It seems that you mistaken the value of prayer with its sensible results here my friend. I have seen very few liturgies looked at objectively which constitute the kind of "desolation" you refer to. This is not to say that there is a lack of problems of course; however one needs to separate the real chaff from illusions.

Jeff: "Meanwhile, find a refuge from the madness and prepare yourselves and your children for the coming restoration."

Shawn: "This is mythology Jeff. The most that can happen is that the Indult will be expanded to every dioceses in the world eventually - and of course this is something we all should pray for."

"The most that can happen"? Says who? If Rome could virtually abolish the formidable Tridentine Rite overnight, it can do the same with a liturgy that is absurdly unstable and barely established. We've seen bigger surprises in the last forty years.

Jeff, the Church since the Second Vatican Council has sought to emphasize the richness of the diversity of charisms within the Mystical Body rather than continue the Counter-reformation charade of the "unchanging Church" and the "one liturgy the same everywhere" myth.

The return to traditional pluralism is a return to authentic catholicity. The problem has been curbing those who recognize the principle of pluralism but not its limits. Your hoped for "restoration" is in essence a hope that the myths of the Counter-reformation be reinstituted. Those who know their Church history and their liturgical history -apart from confessional scholarship which sought as much to defend every jot and tittle of Counter-reformation orthopraxy no matter what- are not about to return to the land of "make believe."

However, in the increased awareness of the diversity of charisms and rites in the Church, there is room for the Indult apostolate. And the Indult apostolate -representing as it does a form of Catholic worship and practice that spanned a few centuries- is worthy of respect as well as promotion.

However, there will be no return to the days of Latinizing or pretending that the Tridentine reforms were a restoration of the "pristine norm of the holy Fathers" as St. Pius V stated in Quo Primum. I point you to the series on the liturgical movement from the Society of St. John for many of the reasons why this will not happen. They accept that the paradigm has perminently shifted and work within it to promote their own Tridentine apostolate. I would recommend that all who support the Indult do likewise.

Still, I do appreciate your prayers for the universal indult. We're beggars and we'll gladly take whatever bones are thrown our way.

I have personal reasons for this as well my friend. See this link from about a year ago and this one for two such examples of what I refer to.

"The kind of restoration you speak of would be tantamount to denying once again the truth that the Tridentine 'restoration' was far from the restoration to 'the pristine norm of the holy Fathers' that Pius V claimed it was."

I don't think that's the issue at all. The Tridentine will be gradually restored in the West because it better represents the immutable Catholic Faith.

Restoration of the Tridentine would be a rejection of the mandate from the last ecumenical council to restore the sacred liturgy. There were many improvements in this area with the Revised Missal but (unfortunately) most of them are on paper only. Only once a restoration of discipline happens will we be able to equitably judge the intrinsic merits of Revised Missal.

Furthermore, the Novus Ordo Missae is still on trial. It isn't working. It is in a state of perpetual "reform". The continual tweaking and fidgeting has Catholics disoriented and confused.

All of this gets back to the crisis in obedience.

At some point, Rome will finally say "enough is enough".

I agree. But the result will be a crackdown in laxity not replacing the Revised Missal with the Tridentine. No one I know who has a recollection of the way the Tridentine was celebrated prior to Missale Romanum would accept this argument of yours as valid Jeff.

"The Revised Missal is a much more authentic restoration to this laudable goal but of course is not without its problems as well."

That is a debate for liturgical scholars, not for me. In any case I think the move to "restore" liturgy to some pristine form of early church worship is misguided at best.

That was the intention of the Tridentine reformers in the sixteenth century Jeff. Likewise it was the intention of the magisterium with the more recent liturgical reform.

More often it is a cover for mischief. The Faith has developed and the liturgy has organically developed with it over the centuries.

In some areas sure but it also degenerated in some areas as well. The calls for liturgical reform were not effects without a cause my friend.

The Tridentine Rite is the crown jewel of this authentic liturgical development. (You do believe in development, don't you?) Yet what we see in the new rite is not liturgical development, but undevelopment. It is a retreat from the orthodox clarity of the Tridentine.

Well, I could posit parts of the Tridentine which are anything but clear without presupposing proper catechesis. I have done this before on message boards but brevity prevents me from doing it here and besides: enough has been touched on here I believe.

Of course, you and I have been at this for some time and pretty much know each other's respective positions. And if I know Shawn McElhinney, you will reply with a massive treatise that would take me a half-a-lifetime to refute.

I have sought to respond reasonably economical here. (I had to delete half the original template to do it.)

I do appreciate and welcome your comments here.

As I do yours. We may agree to disagree at times but it is always I believe with the charity that befits those whose name is "Christian" (and whose surname is "Catholic.")

Thank you, and God keep you.

Thank you my friend and may the Lord keep you and yours as well.

Notes:

{1} The Scriptures define faith as the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews xi,1).

{2} I am using these terms here in the "conventional" sense for the sake of convenience of expression only. I explain why these terms are not properly understood ad antagonistic to one another when discussing the definition of a conservative. (See this link for details.)

{3} For the sake of promised economy, I will not quote references here but be assured that I could do so without difficulty.

{4} Except of course in the area of the one faith which we all must profess.

{5} And what is particularly revealing to me (and not to my own comfort) was how easily I uncritically accepted this for a long time from the trads while simultaneously (and in almost all other areas of my thinking) I prided myself on not uncritically accepting the dictums of others.

{6} Understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed. Participation by the people is worth more--particularly participation by modern people, so fond of plain language which is easily understood and converted into everyday speech.

If the divine Latin language kept us apart from the children, from youth, from the world of labor and of affairs, if it were a dark screen, not a clear window, would it be right for us fishers of souls to maintain it as the exclusive language of prayer and religious intercourse? What did St. Paul have to say about that? Read chapter 14 of the first letter to the Corinthians: "In Church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue" (I Corinthians 14:19). [Pope Paul VI: General Audience Allocution of November 26, 1969]

{7} To quote one example of many, I refer to the opening stanzas of St. John of the Cross' masterpiece:

On a dark night, Kindled in love with yearnings--oh, happy chance!--

I went forth without being observed, My house being now at rest.

In this first stanza the soul relates the way and manner which it followed in going forth, as to its affection, from itself and from all things, and in dying to them all and to itself, by means of true mortification, in order to attain to living the sweet and delectable life of love with God; and it says that this going forth from itself and from all things was a 'dark night,' by which, as will be explained hereafter, is here understood purgative contemplation, which causes passively in the soul the negation of itself and of all things referred to above. [St. John of the Cross: Opening Stanza and Exposition from His Masterpiece Dark Night of the Soul (c. 1591)]

{8} Barring of course those areas where the bishop has by virtue of his position supreme authority in the dioceses. (A subject for another time perhaps.)

{9} No, I am not about to pioneer a new denigrating term (ala "Neo-Catholic") or a denigrating concept (ala "all who claim to be 'traditionalists' are schismatics").

{10} [I]t is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises. [Pope Pius XI: Encyclical Letter Mortalium Animos §8 (c. 1928)]

{11} Involvement in this venture started in the pontificate of Benedict XV and also received the sanction of Pius XI and Pius XII -despite what was "officially" said. (And yes, this can be demonstrated.)

{12} Though the source here is Fr. Andrew Greeley (whom I very seldom agree with), on these points he is 100% correct:

In the nineteenth century, the Vatican resolutely refused to speak out explicitly on contraception, even though France was solving its population explosion by coitus interruptus. "Do not disturb the Faithful," the Holy Office warned, a position which was repeated in his conferences for confessors by St. John Vianney, the Cure of Ars. Leo XIII wrote an encyclical at the time in which there was no mention of birth control...I do not intend that we should return to older policies, I merely cite them as evidence that the posture of a Church which never changes is untenable.

I mentioned the Leo XIII encyclical to Jean Jadot when he was apostolic delegate to the United States. The archbishop's eyes twinkled. "Ah, you know about that, do you?" [Andrew M. Greeley: Confessions of a Parish Priest - an Autobiography pg. 145 (c. 1986)]

{13} Including some friends and even family members.

{14} I am fortunate now to have so many fine Dominican confessors at my current parish. And as one whose own internal sense of sin was destroyed by theologically unbalanced so-called "traditionalist" confessors when I was younger this is no small value to have. Even today I am still prone at times to bouts of scrupulosity as a result of this and have been lightly chastized for this by my confessors. (Scrupulosity is just as bad of a tendency as indifference.)