DOBBS AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA

Quickening and human intuition on abortion

For Preserving the Historical Record:

(Against Comment Box Censorship)

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

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

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

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

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

As enough has been said about Leila’s garden variety tradbabble, it seems appropriate to end this by admonishing her with the words of Pope Leo XIII:

“[I]t is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.

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

Shepherding the Flock Out of the 1962 Missal

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

Comment #1:

Tyler, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Points to Ponder:

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

Miscellaneous Musings:

(On A Potential Petrine Apologia For Galatians 2)

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

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

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

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

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

 

10 WW I Battles That Killed Christianity

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

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

Extremists on Both Sides Are Enabling Violence | Opinion

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

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

Conservative Support for Andrew Coffee IV Is Opportunistic Hypocrisy

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

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

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

On Old, Tired, and Often Refuted Trad Nonsense:

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

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

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

--------

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

--------

MTK,

someone responded and that means it was adequately addressed got it

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

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

--------

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

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

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

I’d double your offer ;)

-------

JA, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Facebook’s Metaverse Is Dead on Arrival

The Fall of the Knights Templar

Pope praises group helping married couples overcome crisis

Points to Ponder:

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

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

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

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Five Threads on Traditonis Custodes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

BREAKING: Feds arrest Steele dossier figure