Dave Armstrong's Blog, page 20

Books by Dave Armstrong: The Quotable Mystics

   St. Teresa of Ávila (1515-1582): the portrait that is probably the most true to her appearance. It's a copy of an original painting of her in 1576 at the age of 61.
[book in progress]

MISC.
Introductory Facebook post (7 March 2014)


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication (p. 3):  

To the two female Doctors of the Church included in this volume: St. Catherine of Siena and St. Teresa of Ávila. We love you and profusely thank our Lord for the immeasurably wonderful gifts of your holiness and wisdom and writings.

Introduction (Evelyn Underhill) (p. 5) [link]
Brief Biographical Portraits (p. 24) [link]
Bibliography (p. 45) [see below]
Quotations (p. 51)

Index of Topics (p. ?)

BIBLIOGRAPHY
[chronologically by author]
[all books are in the public domain and available online: St. Bernard, Arndt, and Law: Spirit of Prayer, Way to Divine Knowledgeat Google Books, Julian of Norwich, Comfortable Words,Brother Lawrence, Underhill, and Law: Spirit of Loveat Internet Archive, all others at Christian Classics Ethereal Library]

St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153)
On the Love of God (translated by Marianne Caroline and Coventry Patmore; London: Burns and Oates, 2ndedition, 1884)
St. Bonaventure (c. 1217-1274)
The Mind's Road to God (translated by George Boas; Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Educational Publishing, 1953)
Blessed John of Ruysbroeck (c. 1293-1381)
The Adornment of the Spiritual Marriage (translated by C. A. Wynschenk; edited by Evelyn Underhill; London: J. M. Dent, 1916)
The Sparkling Stone (translated by C. A. Wynschenk; edited by Evelyn Underhill; London: J. M. Dent, 1916)
The Book of Supreme Truth (translated by C. A. Wynschenk; edited by Evelyn Underhill; London: J. M. Dent, 1916)
Blessed Henry Suso [“Suso”] (1295-1366)
A Little Book of Eternal Wisdom (“translated and published for the Catholics of England years ago”; London: Burns Oates & Washbourne Ltd., 1910)
The Life of Blessed Henry Suso by Himself (translated by Thomas Francis Knox, London: Burns, Lambert, and Oates, 1865)
Johannes Tauler (c. 1300-1361)
The Inner Way (translated by Arthur Wollaston, London: Methuen & Co.,2ndedition, 1909)
The History and Life of the Reverend Doctor John Tauler, with Twenty-Five of His Sermons  (translated by Susannah Winkworth, London: Allenson & Co., Ltd., n.d., c. 1905; Winkworth died in 1884)
Walter Hilton (c. 1340/45 -1396)
The Scale [or, Ladder] of Perfection(English updatedby Dom Serenus Cressy, O.S.B., 1659; New York: Benziger Brothers, 1901)
Treatise Written to a Devout Man (unknown translator or updater;London: Art and Book Company / New York: Benzinger Brothers, 1901)
Julian[a] of Norwich (c. 1342-c. 1416)
Revelations of Divine Love (translated by Grace Warrack; London: Methuen & Co., 1901)
Comfortable Words for Christ's Lovers (translated by Dundas Harford; London: H. R. Allenson, Ltd., c. 1911)
St. Catherine of Siena (1347-1380)
The Dialogue (translated by Algar Thorold; London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd., London, 1907; abridged edition)
The Cloud of Unknowing : late 14th century anonymous work
The Cloud of Unknowing (translated and edited by Evelyn Underhill; London: John M. Watkins, 2nd edition, 1922)
Theologia Germanica : late 14th century work by an anonymous priest
Theologia Germanica (translated by Susanna Winkworth; edited by Dr. Peiffer; London and Glasgow: Collins' Clear-Type Press: Golden Treasury Series, 2nd edition, 1893)
Thomas à Kempis (c. 1380-1471)
The Imitation of Christ (translated by Aloysius Croft and Harold Bolton; Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1940)
St. Catherine of Genoa (1447-1510)
Spiritual Dialogues (translated by Charlotte Balfour; New York: Christian Press Association Publishing Co., 1907)
Treatise on Purgatory (unknown translator; New York: Christian Press Association Publishing Co., 1907)  
St. Teresa of Ávila (1515-1582)
Autobiography (translated by David Lewis; London: Thomas Baker / New York: Benziger Bros., 3rd edition, 1904)
The Way of Perfection (translated and edited by E. Allison Peers from the critical edition of P. Silverio de Santa Teresa, C.D., Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image Books, 1964)
The Interior Castle (translated by the Benedictines of Stanbrook; revised by Fr. Benedict Zimmerman, O.C.D., London: Thomas Baker, 3rd edition, 1921)
St. John of the Cross (1542-1591)
Ascent of Mount Carmel (translated and edited by E. Allison Peers from the critical edition of P. Silverio de Santa Teresa, C.D., Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image Books, 3rd revised edition, 1962)
Dark Night of the Soul (translated and edited by E. Allison Peers from the critical edition of P. Silverio de Santa Teresa, C.D., Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image Books, 3rd revised edition, 1959)
A Spiritual Canticle (translated by David Lewis, with corrections by Fr. Benedict Zimmerman, O.C.D., London: Thomas Baker, 1909)
Johann Arndt (1555-1621)
True Christianity (translated by Rev. Anthony William Boehm and printed in London, 1712; revised and corrected by Rev. Calvin Chaddock; Boston: Lincoln & Edmands, first American edition, Books I and II, 1809)
Brother Lawrence (c. 1614-1691)
The Practice of the Presence of God (unknown translator; New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1895)
William Law (1686-1761)
The Spirit of Prayer (London: printed for J. Richardson, 1762 / privately reprinted for G. Moreton: Canterbury, 1893)
The Way to Divine Knowledge (London: printed for J. Richardson, 1752)
The Spirit of Love in Dialogues (London: Griffith Farran & Co., 1893)
Evelyn Underhill (1875-1941)
Mysticism (New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 3rd revised edition, 1912)

* * * * *

Biblical Data Against Contraception: Onan's Sin and Punishment: a Concise "Catholic" Argument

 Moses and the Ten Commandments, by Rembrandt

[note: this is an adult article about sexual morality, and contains somewhat graphic -- though not vulgar -- descriptions, due to the particular subject matter. On that basis, it may be considered "PG-13"] 

* * * * *
The constant tradition of the Catholic Church has been to prohibit artificial contraception. In this we seem to be almost alone today. Yet, historically speaking, all Christian groups opposed contraception altogether until the Anglicans decided in 1930 to allow it for “hard cases” (how sadly familiar that reasoning sounds!).  

It's often thought that the Catholic reasoning behind the prohibition stems from a sort of “anti-sex” or “anti-pleasure” or prudish motivation. The Catholic Church supposedly doesn't “like” sex, so it requires priests and nuns to be celibate, and seeks to take as much pleasure as possible out of the wondrous divine gift of sexuality. This is untrue, but suffice it for now to say that the relevant biblical arguments have been used by Protestants as well, and stand on their own.  

This scriptural basis is perhaps seen most clearly in the passage concerning the sin of Onan (Genesis 38:9-10, RSV):  

. . . when he went in to his brother's wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. [10] And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also.  

The reasoning often used to overcome the force of the passage is to say that Onan was punished by God (with death) for disobeying the “levirate law,” whereby a brother of a dead husband was to take his sister-in-law as his wife and have children with her (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).  

But that can’t apply in this case (or any other) because the law allows the brother to refuse and recommends that the one who does so suffer only public humiliation. Thus we find in Deuteronomy 25:9 that a sister-in-law so refused should “spit in his face,” but there is no mention of any wrath from God , let alone the death penalty.  

Moreover, the passage which teaches about the levirate law (Deuteronomy 25:5-10) is directly from God, as part of the covenant and the Law received by Moses on Mt. Sinai, and proclaimed to all of Israel (see Deuteronomy 5:1-5; 29:1, 12). God Himself did not say that the punishment for disobeying the levirate law was death (in the place where it would be expected if it were true).  

If refusal alone was not grounds to be killed by God or by capital punishment issued by his fellows, then there must have been something in the way Onan refused which was the cause. This was the “withdrawal method,” a form of contraception (probably the one most used throughout history, because it requires no devices or potions). Therefore, Onan was killed for doing that, which in turn means (we can reasonably conclude!) that God didn’t approve of it. 

The levirate law itself confirms the central point on which the moral objection to contraception is based: the evil of separating sex from procreation. It is precisely because the primary purpose of marriage is procreation, that the levirate law was present in the first place. If one married, they were to have sexual relations, which was (foremost) for the purpose of having children.  

If a husband died with no children, it was so important to continue his name with offspring that God commanded the man’s brother to take his wife after he died. But Onan tried to separate sex from procreation. He wanted all the pleasure but not the responsibility of perpetuating his brother’s family. He possessed the “contraceptive mentality” which is rampant today, even (sadly) among otherwise traditional, committed Christians.  

Fr. Brian Harrison wrote an excellent Internet article (“The Sin of Onan Revisited,” Nov. 1996), in which he examined the passage in great exegetical depth, with incorporation of pertinent cross-texting. He states:  

If simple refusal to give legal offspring to his deceased brother were, according to Genesis 38, Onan's only offence, it seems extremely unlikely that the text would have spelt out the crass physical details of his contraceptive act (cf. v. 9). The delicacy and modesty of devout ancient Hebrews in referring to morally upright sexual activity helps us to see this. As is well-known, Scripture always refers to licit (married) intercourse only in an oblique way: "going in to" one's wife, (i.e., entering her tent or bedchamber, cf. vv. 8 and 9 in the Genesis text cited above, as well as Gen. 6:4; II Sam. 16:22; I Chron. 23:7) or "knowing" one's spouse (e.g., Gen. 4:17; Luke 1:34). When the language becomes somewhat more explicit - "lying with" someone, or "uncovering [his/her] nakedness" - the reference is without exception to sinful, shameful sexual acts. And apart from the verse we are considering, the Bible's only fully explicit mention of a genital act (the voluntary emission of seed) is in a prophetical and allegorical context wherein Israel's infidelity to Yahweh is being denounced scathingly in terms of the shameless lust of a harlot (Ez. 23:20). . . .  

The evil of the contraceptive act stems from its willful, unnatural separation of what God intended to be together. It violates natural law. Onan tried the “middle way” (and the “modern way”) of having sex but willfully separating procreation from it. This was the sin, and it's why God killed him.  

Obviously, God is not immediately punishing or judging in this fashion today (or if so, only in the very rarest of cases), but the point of the Old Testament was to make clear what was right and wrong, and to punish evil swiftly and decisively. Therefore, we learn from this passage that contraception is quite gravely sinful and forbidden; and this general principle of morality didn't change with the arrival of the new covenant and Christianity.


* * * * *

Does Pope Francis Think that Jesus was Literally a Sinner in a Sense Beyond Bearing Our Sins on the Cross (Partaking / Entering Into Sin)?

Some are now going after the pope's homily from 15 June 2013. He made a comment on 2 Corinthians 5:21. Here it is from RSV:

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 

In turn this passage reflects the biblical language of, particularly, three other passages:

Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us -- for it is written, "Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree".

Isaiah 53:6 the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

1 Peter 2:24  He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.

As the Lamb of God, in biblical analogical thinking, Jesus was completely innocent (just as a lamb is), but took the punishment on Himself, to die for us and redeem us. According to some lexicons and commentaries, one of the thoughts in 2 Corinthians 5:21 is that He was a “representative” of sin.

The Holy Father's critics in this instance have pounced upon his phrases (from the article above): "He became the sinner for us" and later "become the sinner for us." This, they claimed, goes beyond the traditional biblical, Catholic terminology, drawn directly from the Bible: "made him to be sin" (a topic I have written about before). And they argued that it was problematic, because it would entail some heretical Lutheran or Nestorian elements, whereby Christ actually became a sinner and partook of  entered into sin.

As it stands, one might conceivably think there was possibly bad theology here, or a sloppy terminology that was not ideal. For my part, I conceded, in argument with one such critic, that the language was unfortunate and attempted to explain it in part as follows:

My speculation is that the pope is right-brained, and not as concerned with precision as others of us are. Lots of saints were that way, including St. Francis of Assisi, who was quite “unsystematic.” Blessed Pope John Paul II was the opposite: the left-brained philosopher. Pope Benedict was perhaps in the middle, but closer to John Paul II, as a theologian and author; whereas Pope Francis is pastoral and a “popularizer” (somewhat like Blessed John XXIII).

I proceeded to make an argument that the problematic terminology had to be interpreted in light of the more conventional phrases that were also present in the same homily, and that he was using "sin" and "sinner" in a synonymous sense, as comments on 2 Corinthians 5:21. I also found an old quote from St. John Chrysostom (Homily 11 on 2 Corinthians, specifically on 2 Corinthians 5:21) where he said that to say that Christ is "sin" is far more striking than if the Bible had said He was a "sinner." I had actually thought of that as an argument myself, so was pleasantly surprised to find it. As always, I gave the pope the benefit of the doubt (very unlike his numerous strong critics): that he knows his basic theology.

These critics apparently think that the pope is ignorant of various basic Catholic soteriology: that, indeed, Christ not only bore our sins, became sin (biblical terminology) but literally became a sinner in every sense of the word, just as we are. Now, I maintain that that is utterly implausible from the outset, because it would project onto the pope errors of such a magnitude that it would amount to saying he is utterly ignorant of basic theology. That I contend is ridiculous on its face. To establish such a charge would require much more than merely an out-of-context critique of some arguably sloppy, imprecise language. There would have to be ironclad proof beyond all doubt. That is simply not present here.

I assume, on the other hand, that the pope knows basic theology and that the Cardinals knew that he did, therefore elected him, and that his less-clear remarks can be interpreted by the more clear ones that directly correspond to biblical language. That’s sensible, plausible, consistent, involves no second-guessing of the pope’s abilities or orthodoxy, assumes what is routinely assumed (the pope knows theology), and doesn’t involve unwarranted assumptions or hostile ones.

But alas and lo and behold, I spent the better part of my work day in futile endeavors: complete with the obligatory insults and potshots from detractors all along the way: including, today, "Gnostic" (a new one!) and the obligatory "ultramontane" (the inevitable fate of all who defend the pope). I had forgotten for a moment that, so often, the translations we get out of the Vatican are less-than-ideal. I learned that when I wrote my book, Pope Francis Explained .

I had presupposed for the sake of argument that I was working with an accurate translation. So out of curiosity, I did a Babylon translation of the offending phrases in their sentences, since one of the critics provided the Italian version of the "controversial" part of the homily. Here are the results that I found, using three online translators and also in consultation with an Italian friend, Greta Villani:

1) La vera riconciliazione è che Dio in Cristo ha preso i nostri peccati e si è fatto peccato per noi.

a) Vatican translation: "True reconciliation means that God in Christ took on our sins and He became the sinner for us."

b) Babylon translation: "True reconciliation and that God was in Christ took our sins and was made sin for us."

c) Google translation: "True reconciliation is that God in Christ has taken our sins and was made sin for us."

d)  Bing translation: "The real reconciliation is that God in Christ took our sins and became SIN for us."

e) Greta Villani translation: "The true reconciliation is that God in Christ took our sins and he became sin for us."
 
 
2) E a lui piace, perché è stata la sua missione: farsi peccato per noi, per liberarci . . .

a) Vatican translation: "And Jesus likes that, because it was his mission: to become the sinner for us, to liberate us . . ."

b) Babylon translation: "And he likes, because it was his mission: to be sin for us, to liberate us."

c) Google translation: "And he likes it, because it was his mission to be sin for us, to free us."

d) Bing translation: "And he likes to, because it was his mission to be sin for us, to get away from ..."

e) Greta Villani translation: "And he likes it because it was his mission: to become sin for us, to free us . . ."

I asked my friend, Greta: "How lousy was it, then, to translate those sentences as 'became / become the sinner for us'? Is that permissible or possible to do, or is it taking liberties?" She said: "It definitely changes the meaning of the phrase."

With this bit of information, the argument collapsed, and even the person I was primarily disputing about it with, conceded as much. The pope in fact echoed closely if not identically the biblical language and it was yet another tempest in a teapot and bum rap; much ado about nothing, just like all the other instances I have investigated thus far: all in my book except for this alleged “difficulty.”

It has turned out to be entirely a “false alarm.” This should be good news all-around: a win-win: the pope wasn’t heterodox, nor was he sloppy in language. The infallible, inspired Vatican translator (heaven help us all!) was the one who was sloppy, leading to needless suspicions of heresy. If he was truly that stupid, he should be fired.

Pope Francis never even said what it was claimed that he said. I had to devote an entire work day to a non-issue that should have never been raised at all if a translator wasn't asleep or drunk on his job. But I'm delighted that it has been resolved. That's well worth the time spent. If someone runs across this "argument" online they can also find this article, if they look hard enough.


* * * * *

Peter Kwasniewski, Fr. Thomas Kocik and a Growing Chorus Disagree with Pope Benedict XVI Regarding the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite Mass (Or, Reports of the Death of the Reform of the Reform are Greatly Exaggerated): Part Two

Vatican II
* * * * * See  Part One * * * * *
As I've always said, I'm very close in spirit to "traditionalists" in many ways (lots follow me on Facebook, and many are my friends "in real life"). I just think there are very important premises in play here, that, if crossed, might have very dire consequences. The lines in this case (as I see it) are the disagreement with Summorum Pontificum and saying that the NO / OF is intrinsically flawed rather than plagued by abuses (as all agree).

I would say that I'm not the one to judge what the Church wants to do with the Roman Rite Mass. That is the purview of Holy Mother Church, and Pope Benedict XVI has made it quite clear that the NO / OF is here to stay. I don't sit around and figure out what the Church should or shouldn't do. I did that as an evangelical Protestant apologist. I defend, as a Catholic apologist, what I understand to be Church teaching, and have done so in this paper.

Those who have this mindset always have some book or set of books that will "clinch the argument" (if Fr. Cekada helps, they even bring him in; despite his sedevacantism), whereas I follow the Church in her magisterium. The "magisterium of scholars" (or, today, even mere bloggers and folks who write a lot) is, again, a very Protestant rule of faith. That's why our Catholic schools are a mess, because they've been allowed to teach all sorts of heretical and moral nonsense, precisely because they are not "under" the pope and the Church and so decide to teach whatever they please (in their infinite secular wisdom).

I can't be all that far off, since my position is what the men I am criticizing took a few months ago (I presume; don't know for sure) before they gave up in despair of the reform of the [liturgical] reform. So I'm still there; I don't buy these arguments. I'm Dr. Kwasniewski and Fr. Kocik a year ago. I'm standing next to Pope Benedict on this, whereas they think he got it wrong. Even if he is wrong, I don't think God would be displeased with me for agreeing with a pope rather than professors and priests who disagree with him: those who have no magisterial authority at all. When a bishop chimed in at NLM, he did the same. That's Church authority.

As an apologist, I observe trends and what certain opinions tend to lead to. In this case, I have observed that bashing the Novus Ordo Mass (usually the first step) often leads to then attacking Vatican II, and then after that, questioning the popes since Ven. Pope Pius XII.

Those are my three identifiers for what I have called the radical Catholic reactionary position. Rather than simply advocate traditional worship (as I do myself, in both forms), it has to go on to oppose the other. It's the "either/or" mentality, that is highly characteristic of Protestantism (per Louis Bouyer's superb book on them).

Now, obviously it's not inevitable that anyone who rejects the reform of the reform and says the New Mass is intrinsically flawed and beyond hope of reform will follow this path of increasing disagreement with the magisterium (I don't know the future); all I'm saying is that many who in the past talked as Dr. Kwasniewski and Fr. Kocik do now have in fact done so; therefore, who's to say that they won't also do that?

How do they know that they won't end up in the SSPX or in sedevacantism? Mario Derksen and Gerry Matatics (both of whom I dialogued with) would have denied they would end up there 15 years ago. But they did. The problem is that if one decides to cross certain lines that exist in the Church for our protection, and rely more and more on their private judgment (in the sense that Cardinal Newman vociferously condemned), it quickly becomes a slippery slope.

So we see, e.g., sedevacantists in some of the comments for Dr. Kwasniewski's article, doing "I told you so's" and observing that he is now starting to get what they got years ago. So who's to say that he may not "get" that there is no pope five years from now, or that Vatican II stinks altogether and was the victory of modernism? We are what we eat. If he keeps reading these books and talking to people who think as he now does (rather than folks like me who don't), and changing the goalposts as he goes, he may very well end up like them. It's human nature.

This is how I approach the matter: partly from a "sociological" view (my major in college: on rare occasions I actually utilize some of that knowledge).

* * *

Whether the New Mass is valid and licit is not related to my point in this paper at all. Those whom I am criticizing claim it is not organically related to the Roman Rite: not a development of it. Pope Benedict said it was. I agree with him. I submit to him and think he knows what he is talking about, being the pope.

* * * 
 
In my parish, we don't hold hands or do the "orans" posture during the Our Father, usually don't do the kiss of peace (optional in the rubrics), often celebrate in Latin, usually ad orientem, with  altar rails, no eucharistic ministers (hence no overuse), receiving on the tongue, all altar boys, with chant and great traditional music: all in a glorious German Gothic Revival cathedral, with some of the best stained glass and one of the largest bells in North America.

If my choice was between the Novus Ordo Mass in the way it is too often celebrated (with mediocre music, ugly buildings, tabernacle off to the side, etc.) and the Tridentine, I'm at the latter in a heartbeat. But I'm very blessed (speaking just of myself; no one else) to have the best of both worlds: the traditional reverence, beauty, etc., with the renewed liturgy of the Pauline Mass.

 * * *  


I think analogically a lot (I get that from Cardinal Newman). The atheist says following God is a crutch and infantile. Those of the RadCathR mind seem to say that if one follows the pope and accepts what he says (which I would call simply being Catholic), it is simplistic and ultramontane and a fantasy world not in reality. They know better.

It's the same mentality in many respects: a sort of hyper-rationalism and (in the worst cases) lack of supernatural faith that leads people astray both left and right. The excommunicated historian Dollinger had it in the 1870s, Hans Kung and those in the SSPX and the sedevacantists have it today, as do RadCathRs to a lesser but still very alarming extent.

I've observed the dynamic for 17 years online: people moving further and further right: sometimes right out of the Church. Today's "traditionalist" may be tomorrow's radical Catholic reactionary, the next month's SSPX adherent, and the next year's (or decade's) sedevacantist. It has happened, and it could happen to these folks whom I critique now. The devil is always at work, sowing discord and confusion and division and falsehood. He's quite content to work slowly, so people aren't aware that they have crossed crucial, fatal lines (the frog in the boiling water scenario).

It just keeps getting more and more extreme. Thus in this instance, what began as a divergence or dissent from clear injunctions of Pope Benedict XVI in his Summorum Pontificum could possibly (though not inevitably) get much worse as time goes on. Every dam that bursts starts with one little crack or weakness. Every flu epidemic starts with one case and then spreads like wildfire. When you change or reject fundamental true premises in exchange for the rotgut of false ones, the entire house is built on sand and a faulty foundation, and will come tumbling down eventually as a result. 

* * *  

I would emphasize again that the radical Catholic reactionary position is characterized precisely for bashing the Novus Ordo constantly, while not denying its validity; the same is done with Vatican II and popes (JPII and Francis, but not, of course, Benedict, who is their hero and darling, even though he expressly disagrees with them on this point, as I have been showing). My own coined term, "radical Catholic reactionary" has "Catholic" in it, and that was quite deliberate, to show how I classify them.

It's all about going right up to the line that ought not be crossed, and playing with it: almost like jumping over it and back. Those who take the step of denying that the New Mass can be reformed, are now "bashing" it, and that has in fact has usually been the first step towards greater departures. That's why those who do it are in more danger of going down that wrong path than I am, because I haven't taken the first step that is often taken on that wrong path.

* * * 

I've now had the famous Cardinal Ratzinger pre-papal "banal" Mass quote thrown at me about 19,864,208 times (well, maybe 19,864,209). It must be in Bartlett's Quotations by now: the most famous words ever uttered by any Christian in 2,000 years, surpassing in high importance, even "I am the way, and the truth, and the life." I already "replied" to that in this paper by citing Dr. Jeff Mirus regarding his pre-papal vs. papal utterances. I'd have to see his earlier words in context. Dr. Mirus has said he had no general antipathy towards the Novus Ordo before he was pope. Not knowing particulars, I accept his word. In any event, we can hardly give his pre-papal views more precedence than his papal ones, if they appear to contradict. But Fr. Geiger argues below that they do not contradict.

* * * 

Dr. Kwasniewski and I have maintained a very cordial private dialogue (so much so that we're virtually becoming buddies), while this paper was still being written, so it is quite possible to talk about these issues without rancor and insult.

* * * 

Fr. Angelo Geiger of Mary Victrix fame (I love his stuff),  has posted an article called "The Reform of the Reform Fights Back". He wrote:

David Armstrong has an excellent post refuting the “death of the reform of the reform” proclamation by Peter Kwasniewski, which I have discussed here.

And thanks be to God, Bishop Peter Elliott has posted a refutation of this premature announcement on New Liturgical Movement.

For a superb, lengthy treatment of Summorum Pontificum and Pope Benedict XVI's liturgical views (which is most welcome, since I am no liturgical expert at all and it isn't even one of my main topics that I write about), see Fr. Geiger's article, "The Spirit of Summorum Pontificum" (11 March 2012).

Fr. Geiger has clearly gone through the same process and frustration I have with regard to the "banal" quote and folks ignoring what Pope Benedict XVI stated as pope (even being called an ultramontanist). He wrote in the comments for this article:

Nice cut and paste out of context quote from Cardinal Ratzinger, . . . You might actually learn something from David Armstrong’s piece. . . . Context doesn’t mean anything? Read Armstrong’s piece and this, [his article above] and then come back and talk to me.

. . .  to show context and the actual nuance of thought of Ratzinger is not prooftexting. It is simply illustrat[ing] that his thought is complex and defies being used as a club, unless of course, one cherry-picks the quotes one likes and disregards those one doesn’t. The trads (not you necessarily) quote Cardinal Ratzinger (not Pope Benedict) out of context from a preface to a book (not a magisterial document) and suggest it proves something, and then when as Pope he speaks magisterially on religious liberty (see, for example 26-27), we are told not to be ultramontanists . . .

In his article on Summorum Pontificum, Fr. Geiger commented on the famous "banal" quote: 

Beyond this Cardinal Ratzinger has leveled qualified criticisms of the way in which the new liturgical books came into existence, saying that they appeared to be “put together by professors,” and not as a result of “a phase in a continual growth process.” He said: “I do regard it as unfortunate that we have been presented with the idea of a new book rather than with that of continuity within a single liturgical history” (Feast of Faith, 87). In his preface to the French edition of The Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Klaus Gamber (1992), Ratzinger’s criticisms are more stinging and appear to support the position of Gamber, which is that the new liturgical books could be revised to reflect more accurately the principles laid down by Vatican II, and hence, be drawn more fully within Tradition. In that preface, he contrasts the Western understanding of liturgical development with the Eastern notion that the liturgy is a “reflection of eternal light,” and then writes:

What happened after the Council was totally different: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We left the living process of growth and development to enter the realm of fabrication. There was no longer a desire to continue developing and maturing, as the centuries passed and so this was replaced—as if it were a technical production—with a construction, a banal on-the-spot product.

This statement might be taken in one of several ways: as pertaining simply to the abuses of the new Mass and not to the new books themselves; as pertaining to the very novus ordo itself as codified in the Missal of Paul VI; as pertaining to the manner of presentation of the books, as the work of professors and not as organic development. I suggest that the meaning of the Cardinal is nuanced, tending toward the third option, because his earlier statements and those of his pontificate suggest that he is not denigrating the novus ordo as such. Again, to be clear, both before and after his 1992 preface for Gamber’s book, his remarks indicate that he favors the new liturgical books, even if he hopes for some revisions.

From the same article, Fr. Geiger shows how Cardinal Ratzinger affirmed historical continuity of the New Mass:

In fact, the principle that motivates his criticisms of the new liturgical books is organic development, and not in any way an argument for a mummified liturgy.  In fact, he suggested in 1981 that those who refuse to accept the liturgical reform mandated by the council are operating on “a faulty view of the historical facts.”  The Cardinal declared that the Missal “both before and after Pius V . . . was subject to a continuous process of purification” and “continued to grow and develop” (“Lecture”).  Furthermore, he said that subsequent editions of the new books

will need to make it quite clear that the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the Church’s earliest history. It is of the very essence of the Church that she should be aware of her unbroken continuity throughout the history of faith, expressed in an ever-present unity of prayer (ibid.).

This is hardly a reason to count the novus ordo as a break with the liturgical tradition; on the contrary, it is an affirmation that the actual books in use in 1981, the Cardinal considered to be in actual continuity with the older books.

* * *

Peter Kwasniewski, Fr. Thomas Kocik and a Growing Chorus of Naysayers Disagree with Pope Benedict XVI and the Mind of the Church Regarding the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite Mass (Or, Reports of the Death of the Reform of the Reform are Greatly Exaggerate

Vatican II
* * * * * See  Part One * * * * *
As I've always said, I'm very close in spirit to "traditionalists" in many ways (lots follow me on Facebook, and many are my friends "in real life"). I just think there are very important premises in play here, that, if crossed, might have very dire consequences. The lines in this case (as I see it) are the dissent against Summorum Pontificum and saying that the NO / OF is intrinsically flawed rather than plagued by abuses (as all agree).

I would say that I'm not the one to judge what the Church wants to do with the Roman Rite Mass. That is the purview of Holy Mother Church, and Pope Benedict XVI has made it quite clear that the NO / OF is here to stay. I don't sit around and figure out what the Church should or shouldn't do. I did that as an evangelical Protestant apologist. I defend, as a Catholic apologist, what I understand to be Church teaching, and have done so in this paper.

Those who have this mindset always have some book or set of books that will "clinch the argument" (if Fr. Cekada helps, they even bring him in; despite his sedevacantism), whereas I follow the Church in her magisterium. The "magisterium of scholars" (or, today, even mere bloggers and folks who write a lot) is, again, a very Protestant rule of faith. That's why our Catholic schools are a mess, because they've been allowed to teach all sorts of heretical and moral nonsense, precisely because they are not "under" the pope and the Church and so decide to teach whatever they please (in their infinite secular wisdom).

I can't be all that far off, since my position is what the men I am criticizing took a few months ago (I presume; don't know for sure) before they gave up in despair of the reform of the [liturgical] reform. So I'm still there; I don't buy these arguments. I'm Dr. Kwasniewski and Fr. Kocik a year ago. I'm standing next to Pope Benedict on this, whereas they think he got it wrong. Even if he is wrong, I don't think God would be displeased with me for agreeing with a pope rather than professors and priests who disagree with him: those who have no magisterial authority at all. When a bishop chimed in at NLM, he did the same. That's Church authority.

As an apologist, I observe trends and what certain opinions tend to lead to. In this case, I have observed that bashing the Novus Ordo Mass (usually the first step) often leads to then attacking Vatican II, and then after that, questioning the popes since Ven. Pope Pius XII.

Those are my three identifiers for what I have called the radical Catholic reactionary position. Rather than simply advocate traditional worship (as I do myself, in both forms), it has to go on to oppose the other. It's the "either/or" mentality, that is highly characteristic of Protestantism (per Louis Bouyer's superb book on them).

Now, obviously it's not inevitable that anyone who rejects the reform of the reform and says the New Mass is intrinsically flawed and beyond hope of reform will follow this path of increasing disagreement with the magisterium (I don't know the future); all I'm saying is that many who in the past talked as Dr. Kwasniewski and Fr. Kocik do now have in fact done so; therefore, who's to say that they won't also do that?

How do they know that they won't end up in the SSPX or in sedevacantism? Mario Derksen and Gerry Matatics (both of whom I dialogued with) would have denied they would end up there 15 years ago, But they did. The problem is that if one decides to cross certain lines that exist in the Church for our protection, and rely more and more on their private judgment (in the sense that Cardinal Newman vociferously condemned), it quickly becomes a slippery slope.

So we see, e.g., sedevacantists in some in the comments for Dr. Kwasniewski's article, doing "I told you so's" and observing that he is now starting to get what they got years ago. So who's to say that he may not "get" that there is no pope five years from now, or that Vatican II stinks altogether and was the victory of modernism? We are what we eat. If he keeps reading these books and talking to people who think as he now does (rather than folks like me who don't), and changing the goalposts as he goes, he may very well end up like them. It's human nature.

This is how I approach the matter: partly from a "sociological" view (my major in college: on rare occasions I actually utilize some of that knowledge).

* * *

Whether the New Mass is valid and licit is not related to my point in this paper at all. Those whom I am criticizing claim it is not organically related to the Roman Rite: not a development of it. Pope Benedict said it was. I agree with him. I submit to him and think he knows what he is talking about, being the pope.

One of the fundamental characteristics of the radical Catholic reactionary (in my definition of it) is that they want to bash without going all the way and denying validity. They do this with Vatican II and popes as well, while others to their right make no such distinctions, and cross the lines and glory in it. Thus I presuppose that they accept validity in classifying them as RadCathRs rather than outright schismatics. I didn't say anyone was a heretic. Radical Catholic reactionaries are still Catholics! But they can often think wildly out of line with the Mind of the Church.

* * * 
 
In my parish, we don't hold hands or do the "orans" posture during the Our Father, usually don't do the kiss of peace (optional in the rubrics), often celebrate in Latin, usually ad orientem, with  altar rails, no eucharistic ministers (hence no overuse), receiving on the tongue, all altar boys, with chant and great traditional music: all in a glorious German Gothic Revival cathedral, with some of the best stained glass and one of the largest bells in North America.

If my choice was between the Novus Ordo Mass in the way it is too often celebrated (with mediocre music, ugly buildings, tabernacle off to the side, etc.) and the Tridentine, I'm at the latter in a heartbeat. But I'm very blessed (speaking just of myself; no one else) to have the best of both worlds: the traditional reverence, beauty, etc., with the renewed liturgy of the Pauline Mass.

 * * *  

One of the critique comments under this post (later deleted because the person decided to become personally insulting) was very revealing, I think. The guy blasted my article. I then went and checked out his blog and found him savaging pope Francis and comparing him to the worst popes in history (and documented that on my blog). It was a real hatchet job.

That's where this sort of thinking often leads, folks: stupefaction and rank, unjust attacks on the sitting pope. He dissents from Pope Benedict (in effect) by rejecting his papal proclamation on the two forms of Mass. He savages Pope Francis. I, on the other hand, defend Pope Benedict XVI and his Summorum Pontificum and defend Pope Francis in my latest book.

One route is the counsel of despair and dissent; the other is a happy, optimistic, peaceful, joyful faith that accepts the leadership and guidance of the popes and submits to them.

And this guy gets 18,000 + hits for his miserable piece: all those folks thinking that Pope Francis is Attila the Hun. Yet St. Paul says "honor all men" and to honor those who are leaders and teachers: even in the civil government! How much more the pope?! But this is what the radical Catholic reactionary does. Harshly and continually judging popes is nothing: comes with the morning paper and coffee.

 * * * 

I think analogically a lot (I get that from Cardinal Newman). The atheist says following God is a crutch and infantile. Those of the RadCathR mind seem to say that if one follows the pope and accepts what he says (which I would call simply being Catholic), it is simplistic and ultramontane and a fantasy world not in reality. They know better.

It's the same mentality in many respects: a sort of hyper-rationalism and (in the worst cases) lack of supernatural faith that leads people astray both left and right. The excommunicated historian Dollinger had it in the 1870s, Hans Kung and those in the SSPX and the sedevacantists have it today, as do RadCathRs to a lesser but still very alarming extent.

I know I can rarely ever convince the main recipients of papers like this, but I can convince those on the fence to not enter into this error, and I can (by God's grace) help strengthen Catholics in their faith and confidence in same and in the God Who gave us our faith.

Please pray for these men who could possibly (heaven forbid) eventually be the leaders of some sort of schism or nearly so. They don't see what may lie ahead, but I think I can see it. I know where these sorts of things often lead, because I've observed the dynamic for 17 years online: people moving further and further right: sometimes right out of the Church.

Today's "traditionalist" may be tomorrow's radical Catholic reactionary, the next month's SSPX adherent, and the next year's (or decade's) sedevacantist. It has happened, and it could happen to these folks whom I critique now. The devil is always at work, sowing discord and confusion and division and falsehood. He's quite content to work slowly, so people aren't aware that they have crossed crucial, fatal lines (the frog in the boiling water scenario).

It just keeps getting more and more extreme. Thus in this instance, what began as a divergence or dissent from clear injunctions of Pope Benedict XVI in his Summorum Pontificum could possibly (though not inevitably) get much worse as time goes on. Every dam that bursts starts with one little crack or weakness. Every flu epidemic starts with one case and then spreads like wildfire. When you change or reject fundamental true premises in exchange for the rotgut of false ones, the entire house is built on sand and a faulty foundation, and will come tumbling down eventually as a result. 

* * *  

I would emphasize again that the radical Catholic reactionary position is characterized precisely for bashing the Novus Ordo constantly, while not denying its validity; the same is done with Vatican II and popes (JPII and Francis, but not, of course, Benedict, who is their hero and darling, even though he expressly disagrees with them on this point, as I have been showing). My own coined term, "radical Catholic reactionary" has "Catholic" in it, and that was quite deliberate, to show how I classify them.

It's all about going right up to the line that ought not be crossed, and playing with it: almost like jumping over it and back. This is what I have observed over 17 years. I've seen the trends and the thought-processes and the attitudes of those who go down these paths. That's why I'm sounding the warning, to hopefully prevent more of same. 

Those who take the step of denying that the New Mass can be reformed, are now "bashing" it, and that has in fact has usually been the first step towards greater departures. That's why those who do it are in more danger of going down that wrong path than I am, because I haven't taken the first step that is often taken on that wrong path.

* * * 

I've now had the famous Cardinal Ratzinger pre-papal "banal" Mass quote thrown at me about 19,864,208 times (well, maybe 19,864,209). It must be in Bartlett's Quotations by now: the most famous words ever uttered by any Christian in 2,000 years, surpassing in high importance, even "I am the way, and the truth, and the life." I already "replied" to that in this paper by citing Dr. Jeff Mirus regarding his pre-papal vs. papal utterances. I'd have to see his earlier words in context. Dr. Mirus has said he had no general antipathy towards the Novus Ordo before he was pope. Not knowing particulars, I accept his word.

If he held that the New Mass was a complete rupture before he was pope, he certainly did not hold the view as pope, so I presume that he changed his mind. But we can hardly give his pre-papal views more precedence than his papal ones, if they appear to contradict.

I believed in different things in the past, too. I was a Protestant, and a liberal, and pro-choice, and pro-feminist, and a secularist occultist, too! I could compile a long book of things I used to believe that I no longer do. Obviously, Pope Benedict XVI changed a lot less than I did, but this could simply be one instance of that. So I protested above the fact that this quote is always trotted out immediately, while Summorum Pontificum is ignored.

* * * 

Fr. Kocik has indicated he might reply. If so,  I would have been able to dialogue with the two people in the title and another mentioned in the article. It's always good to dialogue and interact. If he replies, I will cite his letter in its entirety below and reply point-by-point, as I usually do (socratic / dialogical method, which is good, I think, for teaching and comparative purposes).

Dr. Kwasniewski and I have maintained a very cordial private dialogue (so much so that we're virtually becoming buddies), while this paper was still being written, so it is quite possible to talk about these issues without rancor and insult.

* * * 

Fr. Angelo Geiger of Mary Victrix fame (I love his stuff),  has posted an article called "The Reform of the Reform Fights Back". He wrote:

David Armstrong has an excellent post refuting the “death of the reform of the reform” proclamation by Peter Kwasniewski, which I have discussed here.

And thanks be to God, Bishop Peter Elliott has posted a refutation of this premature announcement on New Liturgical Movement.

For a superb, lengthy treatment of Summorum Pontificum and Pope Benedict XVI's liturgical views (which is most welcome, since I am no liturgical expert at all and it isn't even one of my main topics that I write about), see Fr. Geiger's article, "The Spirit of Summorum Pontificum" (11 March 2012).

Fr. Geiger has clearly gone through the same process and frustration I have with regard to the "banal" quote and folks ignoring what Pope Benedict XVI stated as pope (even being called an ultramontanist). He wrote in the comments for this article:

Nice cut and paste out of context quote from Cardinal Ratzinger, . . . You might actually learn something from David Armstrong’s piece. . . . Context doesn’t mean anything? Read Armstrong’s piece and this, [his article above] and then come back and talk to me.

. . .  to show context and the actual nuance of thought of Ratzinger is not prooftexting. It is simply illustrat[ing] that his thought is complex and defies being used as a club, unless of course, one cherry-picks the quotes one likes and disregards those one doesn’t. The trads (not you necessarily) quote Cardinal Ratzinger (not Pope Benedict) out of context from a preface to a book (not a magisterial document) and suggest it proves something, and then when as Pope he speaks magisterially on religious liberty (see, for example 26-27), we are told not to be ultramontanists . . .

In his article on Summorum Pontificum, Fr. Geiger commented on the famous "banal" quote: 

Beyond this Cardinal Ratzinger has leveled qualified criticisms of the way in which the new liturgical books came into existence, saying that they appeared to be “put together by professors,” and not as a result of “a phase in a continual growth process.” He said: “I do regard it as unfortunate that we have been presented with the idea of a new book rather than with that of continuity within a single liturgical history” (Feast of Faith, 87). In his preface to the French edition of The Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Klaus Gamber (1992), Ratzinger’s criticisms are more stinging and appear to support the position of Gamber, which is that the new liturgical books could be revised to reflect more accurately the principles laid down by Vatican II, and hence, be drawn more fully within Tradition. In that preface, he contrasts the Western understanding of liturgical development with the Eastern notion that the liturgy is a “reflection of eternal light,” and then writes:

What happened after the Council was totally different: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We left the living process of growth and development to enter the realm of fabrication. There was no longer a desire to continue developing and maturing, as the centuries passed and so this was replaced—as if it were a technical production—with a construction, a banal on-the-spot product.

This statement might be taken in one of several ways: as pertaining simply to the abuses of the new Mass and not to the new books themselves; as pertaining to the very novus ordo itself as codified in the Missal of Paul VI; as pertaining to the manner of presentation of the books, as the work of professors and not as organic development. I suggest that the meaning of the Cardinal is nuanced, tending toward the third option, because his earlier statements and those of his pontificate suggest that he is not denigrating the novus ordo as such. Again, to be clear, both before and after his 1992 preface for Gamber’s book, his remarks indicate that he favors the new liturgical books, even if he hopes for some revisions.

From the same article, Fr. Geiger shows how Cardinal Ratzinger affirmed historical continuity of the New Mass:

In fact, the principle that motivates his criticisms of the new liturgical books is organic development, and not in any way an argument for a mummified liturgy.  In fact, he suggested in 1981 that those who refuse to accept the liturgical reform mandated by the council are operating on “a faulty view of the historical facts.”  The Cardinal declared that the Missal “both before and after Pius V . . . was subject to a continuous process of purification” and “continued to grow and develop” (“Lecture”).  Furthermore, he said that subsequent editions of the new books

will need to make it quite clear that the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the Church’s earliest history. It is of the very essence of the Church that she should be aware of her unbroken continuity throughout the history of faith, expressed in an ever-present unity of prayer (ibid.).

This is hardly a reason to count the novus ordo as a break with the liturgical tradition; on the contrary, it is an affirmation that the actual books in use in 1981, the Cardinal considered to be in actual continuity with the older books.

* * *

Peter Kwasniewski, Fr. Thomas Kocik and a Growing Chorus of Naysayers Disagree with Pope Benedict XVI and the Mind of the Church Regarding the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite Mass (Or, Reports of the Death of the Reform of the Reform are Greatly Exaggerate

Vatican II
* * * * * See  Part One * * * * *
As I've always said, I'm very close in spirit to "traditionalists" in many ways (lots follow me on Facebook, and many are my friends "in real life"). I just think there are very important premises in play here, that, if crossed, might have very dire consequences. The lines in this case (as I see it) are the dissent against Summorum Pontificum and saying that the NO / OF is intrinsically flawed rather than plagued by abuses (as all agree).

I would say that I'm not the one to judge what the Church wants to do with the Roman Rite Mass. That is the purview of Holy Mother Church, and Pope Benedict XVI has made it quite clear that the NO / OF is here to stay. I don't sit around and figure out what the Church should or shouldn't do. I did that as an evangelical Protestant apologist. I defend, as a Catholic apologist, what I understand to be Church teaching, and have done so in this paper.

Those who have this mindset always have some book or set of books that will "clinch the argument" (if Fr. Cekada helps, they even bring him in; despite his sedevacantism), whereas I follow the Church in her magisterium. The "magisterium of scholars" (or, today, even mere bloggers and folks who write a lot) is, again, a very Protestant rule of faith. That's why our Catholic schools are a mess, because they've been allowed to teach all sorts of heretical and moral nonsense, precisely because they are not "under" the pope and the Church and so decide to teach whatever they please (in their infinite secular wisdom).

I can't be all that far off, since my position is what the men I am criticizing took a few months ago (I presume; don't know for sure) before they gave up in despair of the reform of the [liturgical] reform. So I'm still there; I don't buy these arguments. I'm Dr. Kwasniewski and Fr. Kocik a year ago. I'm standing next to Pope Benedict on this, whereas they think he got it wrong. Even if he is wrong, I don't think God would be displeased with me for agreeing with a pope rather than professors and priests who disagree with him: those who have no magisterial authority at all. When a bishop chimed in at NLM, he did the same. That's Church authority.

As an apologist, I observe trends and what certain opinions tend to lead to. In this case, I have observed that bashing the Novus Ordo Mass (usually the first step) often leads to then attacking Vatican II, and then after that, questioning the popes since Ven. Pope Pius XII.

Those are my three identifiers for what I have called the radical Catholic reactionary position. Rather than simply advocate traditional worship (as I do myself, in both forms), it has to go on to oppose the other. It's the "either/or" mentality, that is highly characteristic of Protestantism (per Louis Bouyer's superb book on them).

Now, obviously it's not inevitable that anyone who rejects the reform of the reform and says the New Mass is intrinsically flawed and beyond hope of reform will follow this path of increasing disagreement with the magisterium (I don't know the future); all I'm saying is that many who in the past talked as Dr. Kwasniewski and Fr. Kocik do now have in fact done so; therefore, who's to say that they won't also do that?

How do they know that they won't end up in the SSPX or in sedevacantism? Mario Derksen and Gerry Matatics (both of whom I dialogued with) would have denied they would end up there 15 years ago, But they did. The problem is that if one decides to cross certain lines that exist in the Church for our protection, and rely more and more on their private judgment (in the sense that Cardinal Newman vociferously condemned), it quickly becomes a slippery slope.

So we see, e.g., sedevacantists in some in the comments for Dr. Kwasniewski's article, doing "I told you so's" and observing that he is now starting to get what they got years ago. So who's to say that he may not "get" that there is no pope five years from now, or that Vatican II stinks altogether and was the victory of modernism? We are what we eat. If he keeps reading these books and talking to people who think as he now does (rather than folks like me who don't), and changing the goalposts as he goes, he may very well end up like them. It's human nature.

This is how I approach the matter: partly from a "sociological" view (my major in college: on rare occasions I actually utilize some of that knowledge).

* * *

Whether the New Mass is valid and licit is not related to my point in this paper at all. Those whom I am criticizing claim it is not organically related to the Roman Rite: not a development of it. Pope Benedict said it was. I agree with him. I submit to him and think he knows what he is talking about, being the pope.

One of the fundamental characteristics of the radical Catholic reactionary (in my definition of it) is that they want to bash without going all the way and denying validity. They do this with Vatican II and popes as well, while others to their right make no such distinctions, and cross the lines and glory in it. Thus I presuppose that they accept validity in classifying them as RadCathRs rather than outright schismatics. I didn't say anyone was a heretic. Radical Catholic reactionaries are still Catholics! But they can often think wildly out of line with the Mind of the Church.

* * * 
 
In my parish, we don't hold hands or do the "orans" posture during the Our Father, usually don't do the kiss of peace (optional in the rubrics), often celebrate in Latin, usually ad orientem, with  altar rails, no eucharistic ministers (hence no overuse), receiving on the tongue, all altar boys, with chant and great traditional music: all in a glorious German Gothic Revival cathedral, with some of the best stained glass and one of the largest bells in North America.

If my choice was between the Novus Ordo Mass in the way it is too often celebrated (with mediocre music, ugly buildings, tabernacle off to the side, etc.) and the Tridentine, I'm at the latter in a heartbeat. But I'm very blessed (speaking just of myself; no one else) to have the best of both worlds: the traditional reverence, beauty, etc., with the renewed liturgy of the Pauline Mass.

 * * *  

One of the critique comments under this post (later deleted because the person decided to become personally insulting) was very revealing, I think. The guy blasted my article. I then went and checked out his blog and found him savaging pope Francis and comparing him to the worst popes in history (and documented that on my blog). It was a real hatchet job.

That's where this sort of thinking often leads, folks: stupefaction and rank, unjust attacks on the sitting pope. He dissents from Pope Benedict (in effect) by rejecting his papal proclamation on the two forms of Mass. He savages Pope Francis. I, on the other hand, defend Pope Benedict XVI and his Summorum Pontificum and defend Pope Francis in my latest book.

One route is the counsel of despair and dissent; the other is a happy, optimistic, peaceful, joyful faith that accepts the leadership and guidance of the popes and submits to them.

And this guy gets 18,000 + hits for his miserable piece: all those folks thinking that Pope Francis is Attila the Hun. Yet St. Paul says "honor all men" and to honor those who are leaders and teachers: even in the civil government! How much more the pope?! But this is what the radical Catholic reactionary does. Harshly and continually judging popes is nothing: comes with the morning paper and coffee.

 * * * 

I think analogically a lot (I get that from Cardinal Newman). The atheist says following God is a crutch and infantile. Those of the RadCathR mind seem to say that if one follows the pope and accepts what he says (which I would call simply being Catholic), it is simplistic and ultramontane and a fantasy world not in reality. They know better.

It's the same mentality in many respects: a sort of hyper-rationalism and (in the worst cases) lack of supernatural faith that leads people astray both left and right. The excommunicated historian Dollinger had it in the 1870s, Hans Kung and those in the SSPX and the sedevacantists have it today, as do RadCathRs to a lesser but still very alarming extent.

I know I can rarely ever convince the main recipients of papers like this, but I can convince those on the fence to not enter into this error, and I can (by God's grace) help strengthen Catholics in their faith and confidence in same and in the God Who gave us our faith.

Please pray for these men who could possibly (heaven forbid) eventually be the leaders of some sort of schism or nearly so. They don't see what may lie ahead, but I think I can see it. I know where these sorts of things often lead, because I've observed the dynamic for 17 years online: people moving further and further right: sometimes right out of the Church.

Today's "traditionalist" may be tomorrow's radical Catholic reactionary, the next month's SSPX adherent, and the next year's (or decade's) sedevacantist. It has happened, and it could happen to these folks whom I critique now. The devil is always at work, sowing discord and confusion and division and falsehood. He's quite content to work slowly, so people aren't aware that they have crossed crucial, fatal lines (the frog in the boiling water scenario).

It just keeps getting more and more extreme. Thus in this instance, what began as a divergence or dissent from clear injunctions of Pope Benedict XVI in his Summorum Pontificum could possibly (though not inevitably) get much worse as time goes on. Every dam that bursts starts with one little crack or weakness. Every flu epidemic starts with one case and then spreads like wildfire. When you change or reject fundamental true premises in exchange for the rotgut of false ones, the entire house is built on sand and a faulty foundation, and will come tumbling down eventually as a result. 

* * *  

I would emphasize again that the radical Catholic reactionary position is characterized precisely for bashing the Novus Ordo constantly, while not denying its validity; the same is done with Vatican II and popes (JPII and Francis, but not, of course, Benedict, who is their hero and darling, even though he expressly disagrees with them on this point, as I have been showing). My own coined term, "radical Catholic reactionary" has "Catholic" in it, and that was quite deliberate, to show how I classify them.

It's all about going right up to the line that ought not be crossed, and playing with it: almost like jumping over it and back. This is what I have observed over 17 years. I've seen the trends and the thought-processes and the attitudes of those who go down these paths. That's why I'm sounding the warning, to hopefully prevent more of same. 

Those who take the step of denying that the New Mass can be reformed, are now "bashing" it, and that has in fact has usually been the first step towards greater departures. That's why those who do it are in more danger of going down that wrong path than I am, because I haven't taken the first step that is often taken on that wrong path.

* * * 

I've now had the famous Cardinal Ratzinger pre-papal "banal" Mass quote thrown at me about 19,864,208 times (well, maybe 19,864,209). It must be in Bartlett's Quotations by now: the most famous words ever uttered by any Christian in 2,000 years, surpassing in high importance, even "I am the way, and the truth, and the life." I already "replied" to that in this paper by citing Dr. Jeff Mirus regarding his pre-papal vs. papal utterances. I'd have to see his earlier words in context. Dr. Mirus has said he had no general antipathy towards the Novus Ordo before he was pope. Not knowing particulars, I accept his word.

If he held that the New Mass was a complete rupture before he was pope, he certainly did not hold the view as pope, so I presume that he changed his mind. But we can hardly give his pre-papal views more precedence than his papal ones, if they appear to contradict.

I believed in different things in the past, too. I was a Protestant, and a liberal, and pro-choice, and pro-feminist, and a secularist occultist, too! I could compile a long book of things I used to believe that I no longer do. Obviously, Pope Benedict XVI changed a lot less than I did, but this could simply be one instance of that. So I protested above the fact that this quote is always trotted out immediately, while Summorum Pontificum is ignored.

* * * 

Fr. Kocik has indicated he might reply. If so,  I would have been able to dialogue with the two people in the title and another mentioned in the article. It's always good to dialogue and interact. If he replies, I will cite his letter in its entirety below and reply point-by-point, as I usually do (socratic / dialogical method, which is good, I think, for teaching and comparative purposes).

Dr. Kwasniewski and I have maintained a very cordial private dialogue (so much so that we're virtually becoming buddies), while this paper was still being written, so it is quite possible to talk about these issues without rancor and insult.

* * * 

Fr. Angelo Geiger of Mary Victrix fame (I love his stuff),  has posted an article called "The Reform of the Reform Fights Back". He wrote:

David Armstrong has an excellent post refuting the “death of the reform of the reform” proclamation by Peter Kwasniewski, which I have discussed here.

And thanks be to God, Bishop Peter Elliott has posted a refutation of this premature announcement on New Liturgical Movement.

For a superb, lengthy treatment of Summorum Pontificum and Pope Benedict XVI's liturgical views (which is most welcome, since I am no liturgical expert at all and it isn't even one of my main topics that I write about), see Fr. Geiger's article, "The Spirit of Summorum Pontificum" (11 March 2012).

Fr. Geiger has clearly gone through the same process and frustration I have with regard to the "banal" quote and folks ignoring what Pope Benedict XVI stated as pope (even being called an ultramontanist). He wrote in the comments for this article:

Nice cut and paste out of context quote from Cardinal Ratzinger, . . . You might actually learn something from David Armstrong’s piece. . . . Context doesn’t mean anything? Read Armstrong’s piece and this, [his article above] and then come back and talk to me.

. . .  to show context and the actual nuance of thought of Ratzinger is not prooftexting. It is simply illustrat[ing] that his thought is complex and defies being used as a club, unless of course, one cherry-picks the quotes one likes and disregards those one doesn’t. The trads (not you necessarily) quote Cardinal Ratzinger (not Pope Benedict) out of context from a preface to a book (not a magisterial document) and suggest it proves something, and then when as Pope he speaks magisterially on religious liberty (see, for example 26-27), we are told not to be ultramontanists . . .

In his article on Summorum Pontificum, Fr. Geiger commented on the famous "banal" quote: 

Beyond this Cardinal Ratzinger has leveled qualified criticisms of the way in which the new liturgical books came into existence, saying that they appeared to be “put together by professors,” and not as a result of “a phase in a continual growth process.” He said: “I do regard it as unfortunate that we have been presented with the idea of a new book rather than with that of continuity within a single liturgical history” (Feast of Faith, 87). In his preface to the French edition of The Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Klaus Gamber (1992), Ratzinger’s criticisms are more stinging and appear to support the position of Gamber, which is that the new liturgical books could be revised to reflect more accurately the principles laid down by Vatican II, and hence, be drawn more fully within Tradition. In that preface, he contrasts the Western understanding of liturgical development with the Eastern notion that the liturgy is a “reflection of eternal light,” and then writes:

What happened after the Council was totally different: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We left the living process of growth and development to enter the realm of fabrication. There was no longer a desire to continue developing and maturing, as the centuries passed and so this was replaced—as if it were a technical production—with a construction, a banal on-the-spot product.

This statement might be taken in one of several ways: as pertaining simply to the abuses of the new Mass and not to the new books themselves; as pertaining to the very novus ordo itself as codified in the Missal of Paul VI; as pertaining to the manner of presentation of the books, as the work of professors and not as organic development. I suggest that the meaning of the Cardinal is nuanced, tending toward the third option, because his earlier statements and those of his pontificate suggest that he is not denigrating the novus ordo as such. Again, to be clear, both before and after his 1992 preface for Gamber’s book, his remarks indicate that he favors the new liturgical books, even if he hopes for some revisions.

From the same article, Fr. Geiger shows how Cardinal Ratzinger affirmed historical continuity of the New Mass:

In fact, the principle that motivates his criticisms of the new liturgical books is organic development, and not in any way an argument for a mummified liturgy.  In fact, he suggested in 1981 that those who refuse to accept the liturgical reform mandated by the council are operating on “a faulty view of the historical facts.”  The Cardinal declared that the Missal “both before and after Pius V . . . was subject to a continuous process of purification” and “continued to grow and develop” (“Lecture”).  Furthermore, he said that subsequent editions of the new books

will need to make it quite clear that the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the Church’s earliest history. It is of the very essence of the Church that she should be aware of her unbroken continuity throughout the history of faith, expressed in an ever-present unity of prayer (ibid.).

This is hardly a reason to count the novus ordo as a break with the liturgical tradition; on the contrary, it is an affirmation that the actual books in use in 1981, the Cardinal considered to be in actual continuity with the older books.

* * *

Peter Kwasniewski, Fr. Thomas Kocik and a Growing Chorus of Naysayers Disagree with Pope Benedict XVI and the Mind of the Church Regarding the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite Mass (Or, Reports of the Death of the Reform of the Reform are Greatly Exaggerate

Vatican II
* * * * * See  Part One * * * * *
As I've always said, I'm very close in spirit to "traditionalists" in many ways (lots follow me on Facebook, and many are my friends "in real life"). I just think there are very important premises in play here, that, if crossed, might have very dire consequences. The lines in this case (as I see it) are the dissent against Summorum Pontificum and saying that the NO / OF is intrinsically flawed rather than plagued by abuses (as all agree).

I would say that I'm not the one to judge what the Church wants to do with the Roman Rite Mass. That is the purview of Holy Mother Church, and Pope Benedict XVI has made it quite clear that the NO / OF is here to stay. I don't sit around and figure out what the Church should or shouldn't do. I did that as an evangelical Protestant apologist. I defend, as a Catholic apologist, what I understand to be Church teaching, and have done so in this paper.

Those who have this mindset always have some book or set of books that will "clinch the argument" (if Fr. Cekada helps, they even bring him in; despite his sedevacantism), whereas I follow the Church in her magisterium. The "magisterium of scholars" (or, today, even mere bloggers and folks who write a lot) is, again, a very Protestant rule of faith. That's why our Catholic schools are a mess, because they've been allowed to teach all sorts of heretical and moral nonsense, precisely because they are not "under" the pope and the Church and so decide to teach whatever they please (in their infinite secular wisdom).

I can't be all that far off, since my position is what the men I am criticizing took a few months ago (I presume; don't know for sure) before they gave up in despair of the reform of the [liturgical] reform. So I'm still there; I don't buy these arguments. I'm Dr. Kwasniewski and Fr. Kocik a year ago. I'm standing next to Pope Benedict on this, whereas they think he got it wrong. Even if he is wrong, I don't think God would be displeased with me for agreeing with a pope rather than professors and priests who disagree with him: those who have no magisterial authority at all. When a bishop chimed in at NLM, he did the same. That's Church authority.

As an apologist, I observe trends and what certain opinions tend to lead to. In this case, I have observed that bashing the Novus Ordo Mass (usually the first step) often leads to then attacking Vatican II, and then after that, questioning the popes since Ven. Pope Pius XII.

Those are my three identifiers for what I have called the radical Catholic reactionary position. Rather than simply advocate traditional worship (as I do myself, in both forms), it has to go on to oppose the other. It's the "either/or" mentality, that is highly characteristic of Protestantism (per Louis Bouyer's superb book on them).

Now, obviously it's not inevitable that anyone who rejects the reform of the reform and says the New Mass is intrinsically flawed and beyond hope of reform will follow this path of increasing disagreement with the magisterium (I don't know the future); all I'm saying is that many who in the past talked as Dr. Kwasniewski and Fr. Kocik do now have in fact done so; therefore, who's to say that they won't also do that?

How do they know that they won't end up in the SSPX or in sedevacantism? Mario Derksen and Gerry Matatics (both of whom I dialogued with) would have denied they would end up there 15 years ago, But they did. The problem is that if one decides to cross certain lines that exist in the Church for our protection, and rely more and more on their private judgment (in the sense that Cardinal Newman vociferously condemned), it quickly becomes a slippery slope.

So we see, e.g., sedevacantists in some in the comments for Dr. Kwasniewski's article, doing "I told you so's" and observing that he is now starting to get what they got years ago. So who's to say that he may not "get" that there is no pope five years from now, or that Vatican II stinks altogether and was the victory of modernism? We are what we eat. If he keeps reading these books and talking to people who think as he now does (rather than folks like me who don't), and changing the goalposts as he goes, he may very well end up like them. It's human nature.

This is how I approach the matter: partly from a "sociological" view (my major in college: on rare occasions I actually utilize some of that knowledge).

* * *

Whether the New Mass is valid and licit is not related to my point in this paper at all. Those whom I am criticizing claim it is not organically related to the Roman Rite: not a development of it. Pope Benedict said it was. I agree with him. I submit to him and think he knows what he is talking about, being the pope.

One of the fundamental characteristics of the radical Catholic reactionary (in my definition of it) is that they want to bash without going all the way and denying validity. They do this with Vatican II and popes as well, while others to their right make no such distinctions, and cross the lines and glory in it. Thus I presuppose that they accept validity in classifying them as RadCathRs rather than outright schismatics. I didn't say anyone was a heretic. Radical Catholic reactionaries are still Catholics! But they can often think wildly out of line with the Mind of the Church.

* * * 
 
In my parish, we don't hold hands or do the "orans" posture during the Our Father, usually don't do the kiss of peace (optional in the rubrics), often celebrate in Latin, usually ad orientem, with  altar rails, no eucharistic ministers (hence no overuse), receiving on the tongue, all altar boys, with chant and great traditional music: all in a glorious German Gothic Revival cathedral, with some of the best stained glass and one of the largest bells in North America.

If my choice was between the Novus Ordo Mass in the way it is too often celebrated (with mediocre music, ugly buildings, tabernacle off to the side, etc.) and the Tridentine, I'm at the latter in a heartbeat. But I'm very blessed (speaking just of myself; no one else) to have the best of both worlds: the traditional reverence, beauty, etc., with the renewed liturgy of the Pauline Mass.

 * * *  

One of the critique comments under this post (later deleted because the person decided to become personally insulting) was very revealing, I think. The guy blasted my article. I then went and checked out his blog and found him savaging pope Francis and comparing him to the worst popes in history (and documented that on my blog). It was a real hatchet job.

That's where this sort of thinking often leads, folks: stupefaction and rank, unjust attacks on the sitting pope. He dissents from Pope Benedict (in effect) by rejecting his papal proclamation on the two forms of Mass. He savages Pope Francis. I, on the other hand, defend Pope Benedict XVI and his Summorum Pontificum and defend Pope Francis in my latest book.

One route is the counsel of despair and dissent; the other is a happy, optimistic, peaceful, joyful faith that accepts the leadership and guidance of the popes and submits to them.

And this guy gets 18,000 + hits for his miserable piece: all those folks thinking that Pope Francis is Attila the Hun. Yet St. Paul says "honor all men" and to honor those who are leaders and teachers: even in the civil government! How much more the pope?! But this is what the radical Catholic reactionary does. Harshly and continually judging popes is nothing: comes with the morning paper and coffee.

 * * * 

I think analogically a lot (I get that from Cardinal Newman). The atheist says following God is a crutch and infantile. Those of the RadCathR mind seem to say that if one follows the pope and accepts what he says (which I would call simply being Catholic), it is simplistic and ultramontane and a fantasy world not in reality. They know better.

It's the same mentality in many respects: a sort of hyper-rationalism and (in the worst cases) lack of supernatural faith that leads people astray both left and right. The excommunicated historian Dollinger had it in the 1870s, Hans Kung and those in the SSPX and the sedevacantists have it today, as do RadCathRs to a lesser but still very alarming extent.

I know I can rarely ever convince the main recipients of papers like this, but I can convince those on the fence to not enter into this error, and I can (by God's grace) help strengthen Catholics in their faith and confidence in same and in the God Who gave us our faith.

Please pray for these men who could possibly (heaven forbid) eventually be the leaders of some sort of schism or nearly so. They don't see what may lie ahead, but I think I can see it. I know where these sorts of things often lead, because I've observed the dynamic for 17 years online: people moving further and further right: sometimes right out of the Church.

Today's "traditionalist" may be tomorrow's radical Catholic reactionary, the next month's SSPX adherent, and the next year's (or decade's) sedevacantist. It has happened, and it could happen to these folks whom I critique now. The devil is always at work, sowing discord and confusion and division and falsehood. He's quite content to work slowly, so people aren't aware that they have crossed crucial, fatal lines (the frog in the boiling water scenario).

It just keeps getting more and more extreme. Thus in this instance, what began as a divergence or dissent from clear injunctions of Pope Benedict XVI in his Summorum Pontificum could possibly (though not inevitably) get much worse as time goes on. Every dam that bursts starts with one little crack or weakness. Every flu epidemic starts with one case and then spreads like wildfire. When you change or reject fundamental true premises in exchange for the rotgut of false ones, the entire house is built on sand and a faulty foundation, and will come tumbling down eventually as a result. 

* * *  

I would emphasize again that the radical Catholic reactionary position is characterized precisely for bashing the Novus Ordo constantly, while not denying its validity; the same is done with Vatican II and popes (JPII and Francis, but not, of course, Benedict, who is their hero and darling, even though he expressly disagrees with them on this point, as I have been showing). My own coined term, "radical Catholic reactionary" has "Catholic" in it, and that was quite deliberate, to show how I classify them.

It's all about going right up to the line that ought not be crossed, and playing with it: almost like jumping over it and back. This is what I have observed over 17 years. I've seen the trends and the thought-processes and the attitudes of those who go down these paths. That's why I'm sounding the warning, to hopefully prevent more of same. 

Those who take the step of denying that the New Mass can be reformed, are now "bashing" it, and that has in fact has usually been the first step towards greater departures. That's why those who do it are in more danger of going down that wrong path than I am, because I haven't taken the first step that is often taken on that wrong path.

* * * 

I've now had the famous Cardinal Ratzinger pre-papal "banal" Mass quote thrown at me about 19,864,208 times (well, maybe 19,864,209). It must be in Bartlett's Quotations by now: the most famous words ever uttered by any Christian in 2,000 years, surpassing in high importance, even "I am the way, and the truth, and the life." I already "replied" to that in this paper by citing Dr. Jeff Mirus regarding his pre-papal vs. papal utterances. I'd have to see his earlier words in context. Dr. Mirus has said he had no general antipathy towards the Novus Ordo before he was pope. Not knowing particulars, I accept his word.

If he held that the New Mass was a complete rupture before he was pope, he certainly did not hold the view as pope, so I presume that he changed his mind. But we can hardly give his pre-papal views more precedence than his papal ones, if they appear to contradict.

I believed in different things in the past, too. I was a Protestant, and a liberal, and pro-choice, and pro-feminist, and a secularist occultist, too! I could compile a long book of things I used to believe that I no longer do. Obviously, Pope Benedict XVI changed a lot less than I did, but this could simply be one instance of that. So I protested above the fact that this quote is always trotted out immediately, while Summorum Pontificum is ignored.

* * * 

Fr. Kocik has indicated he might reply. If so,  I would have been able to dialogue with the two people in the title and another mentioned in the article. It's always good to dialogue and interact. If he replies, I will cite his letter in its entirety below and reply point-by-point, as I usually do (socratic / dialogical method, which is good, I think, for teaching and comparative purposes).

Dr. Kwasniewski and I have maintained a very cordial private dialogue (so much so that we're virtually becoming buddies), while this paper was still being written, so it is quite possible to talk about these issues without rancor and insult.

* * * 

Fr. Angelo Geiger of Mary Victrix fame (I love his stuff),  has posted an article called "The Reform of the Reform Fights Back". He wrote:

David Armstrong has an excellent post refuting the “death of the reform of the reform” proclamation by Peter Kwasniewski, which I have discussed here.

And thanks be to God, Bishop Peter Elliott has posted a refutation of this premature announcement on New Liturgical Movement.

For a superb, lengthy treatment of Summorum Pontificum and Pope Benedict XVI's liturgical views (which is most welcome, since I am no liturgical expert at all and it isn't even one of my main topics that I write about), see Fr. Geiger's article, "The Spirit of Summorum Pontificum" (11 March 2012).

Fr. Geiger has clearly gone through the same process and frustration I have with regard to the "banal" quote and folks ignoring what Pope Benedict XVI stated as pope (even being called an ultramontanist). He wrote in the comments for this article:

Nice cut and paste out of context quote from Cardinal Ratzinger, . . . You might actually learn something from David Armstrong’s piece. . . . Context doesn’t mean anything? Read Armstrong’s piece and this, [his article above] and then come back and talk to me.

. . .  to show context and the actual nuance of thought of Ratzinger is not prooftexting. It is simply illustrat[ing] that his thought is complex and defies being used as a club, unless of course, one cherry-picks the quotes one likes and disregards those one doesn’t. The trads (not you necessarily) quote Cardinal Ratzinger (not Pope Benedict) out of context from a preface to a book (not a magisterial document) and suggest it proves something, and then when as Pope he speaks magisterially on religious liberty (see, for example 26-27), we are told not to be ultramontanists . . .

In his article on Summorum Pontificum, Fr. Geiger commented on the famous "banal" quote: 

Beyond this Cardinal Ratzinger has leveled qualified criticisms of the way in which the new liturgical books came into existence, saying that they appeared to be “put together by professors,” and not as a result of “a phase in a continual growth process.” He said: “I do regard it as unfortunate that we have been presented with the idea of a new book rather than with that of continuity within a single liturgical history” (Feast of Faith, 87). In his preface to the French edition of The Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Klaus Gamber (1992), Ratzinger’s criticisms are more stinging and appear to support the position of Gamber, which is that the new liturgical books could be revised to reflect more accurately the principles laid down by Vatican II, and hence, be drawn more fully within Tradition. In that preface, he contrasts the Western understanding of liturgical development with the Eastern notion that the liturgy is a “reflection of eternal light,” and then writes:

What happened after the Council was totally different: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We left the living process of growth and development to enter the realm of fabrication. There was no longer a desire to continue developing and maturing, as the centuries passed and so this was replaced—as if it were a technical production—with a construction, a banal on-the-spot product.

This statement might be taken in one of several ways: as pertaining simply to the abuses of the new Mass and not to the new books themselves; as pertaining to the very novus ordo itself as codified in the Missal of Paul VI; as pertaining to the manner of presentation of the books, as the work of professors and not as organic development. I suggest that the meaning of the Cardinal is nuanced, tending toward the third option, because his earlier statements and those of his pontificate suggest that he is not denigrating the novus ordo as such. Again, to be clear, both before and after his 1992 preface for Gamber’s book, his remarks indicate that he favors the new liturgical books, even if he hopes for some revisions.

From the same article, Fr. Geiger shows how Cardinal Ratzinger affirmed historical continuity of the New Mass:

In fact, the principle that motivates his criticisms of the new liturgical books is organic development, and not in any way an argument for a mummified liturgy.  In fact, he suggested in 1981 that those who refuse to accept the liturgical reform mandated by the council are operating on “a faulty view of the historical facts.”  The Cardinal declared that the Missal “both before and after Pius V . . . was subject to a continuous process of purification” and “continued to grow and develop” (“Lecture”).  Furthermore, he said that subsequent editions of the new books

will need to make it quite clear that the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the Church’s earliest history. It is of the very essence of the Church that she should be aware of her unbroken continuity throughout the history of faith, expressed in an ever-present unity of prayer (ibid.).

This is hardly a reason to count the novus ordo as a break with the liturgical tradition; on the contrary, it is an affirmation that the actual books in use in 1981, the Cardinal considered to be in actual continuity with the older books.

* * *

“Tradition” Is Not Always a Bad Word! It Only is Sometimes

[this article is written specifically for young people and beginners in theology: maybe of middle school age or a little younger]
* * * * *
Catholic tradition is the group of teachings and beliefs that were given by our Lord Jesus to His disciples, then passed on to the great Church fathers of the early Church, and down through history to our own time.
The Catholic Church, protected by the Holy Spirit, Who is God, watches over these teachings, so that Catholics can be sure (in faith) that they are true.
Sometimes people say that the Bible and tradition are against each other (with tradition being the “bad” thing). But the Bible itself teaches that tradition was already around before the Bible was put together. In fact, the Bible itself is part of the Christian tradition, just as the Catholic Church also is.
The Bible at the same time teaches that there is also such a thing as a false “tradition of men”: things that people come up with that go against the Bible and the truths of Christianity. So there is a true and good tradition, or what is called “apostolic tradition” and also false teachings.
Some people think that no tradition has authority like the Bible does. They believe that only the Bible is infallible, or unable to fail in teaching, and they don't believe that the Catholic Church is infallible, either. Those who believe these things think that whenever the Bible talks about tradition, it is in a bad sense, as if tradition is always “bad” or even “evil.”
Sometimes things are made more clear by picturing some sort of image for them. For Catholics, authority is like a stool with three-legs. The three “legs” are Bible, Church, and tradition. These all agree with each other. The Bible teaches a lot about true, apostolic tradition. Here are some of the main passages where we see this:
1 Corinthians 11:2 (RSV) . . . maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 . . . stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
2 Timothy 1:13-14 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; [14] guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.
2 Timothy 2:2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
Jude 3 . . . contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
When the Bible talks about bad tradition, it reads differently. Jesus often scolded the Pharisees, a religious group of His time, for being too into laws without also teaching them in terms of love. They believed in some false traditions.
So Jesus would say things to them like, “why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?” (Matthew 15:3). Here, the true tradition is called “commandment of God” and the false one is called “yourtradition” (that is, against God'stradition).
In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus givesthe same thought: “You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men. . . . You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition! . . . thus making void the word of God through yourtradition . . .” (Mark 7:8-9, 13)
St. Paul, the great apostle, writes in a similar way in Colossians 2:8: “. . . according to human tradition, . . . and not according to Christ.” Thegood, true tradition was the one “according to Christ.”
Paul also wrote: “If you put these instructions before the brethren, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and of thegood doctrinewhich you have followed. [7] Have nothing to do with godless and silly myths. . . . (1 Timothy 4:6-7)
The spoken gospel and the writings of the apostles that eventually became the Bible were part of the totally good, authentic Christian tradition.
When the first Christians went out and preached the Good News (the gospel) of Jesus Christ after Pentecost, this was a tradition of preaching, or the spoken word. Some of this preaching made itinto the Bible (for example, in Acts 2) but most did not (see John 20:30; 21:25).
This is what “turned the world upside down,” not so much the words of the New Testament (most people couldn't read in those early days of the Church, anyway).
We must conclude, then, that theword “tradition” is not always a “badword” in the Bible. It's a “good word” more often than it is a bad one. There is a famous saying: “don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.” When we find some bad things about something that is mostly good, if we act sensibly, we get rid of the bad parts of it but not all of it. It would be like finding some fat on a chicken leg and throwing away the whole leg.
Tradition works the same way. Because some people distort it and start false traditions, doesn't mean there are no good traditions. Both the Bible and the Church teach us this, and we can and should always rely on them.
In Catholicism, Scripture and tradition (along with Church authority) are bound up together, just as smaller cords can combine to make a very strong rope. They have been described by the Church as “twin fonts of the one divine well-spring” (revelation, or God's inspired message to us), and cannot be separated, any more than two wings of a bird or two sides of a coin can be separated.
 * * * * *

One-Line Descriptions of All My Books

Wearing my reading glasses, in my home library / office (January 2013).

I had to write one sentence (160 characters) for each book in preparation for my upcoming new bookselling website, so I thought I would share that as a handy summary all in one place. I also include the date of publication. The numbers indicate order of writing. The titles are linked to the extensive book page for each title:
* * * * *
A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (#1; completed in May 1996; self-published: Oct. 2001; Sophia version: June 2003)Demonstration of the unique harmony of Catholic doctrines  with Holy Scripture; includes Bible passages from 229 of the 260 chapters in the New Testament.
More Biblical Evidence for Catholicism (#2; Feb. 2002)
Biblical arguments in support of distinctively Catholic doctrinal positions, with an emphasis on informality and dialogue; mostly drawn from real discussions.

Bible Conversations: Catholic-Protestant Dialogues on the Bible, Tradition, and Salvation (#3; June 2002)
Perhaps the three "hottest" topics in Catholic apologetics are dealt with in a dialogue format, from actual discussions engaged in online with Protestants.
Development of Catholic Doctrine: Evolution, Revolution, or an Organic Process? (#4; June 2002)
Why does the Catholic Church and her doctrines appear different in many ways from the early Church? Development of doctrine is a crucial explanatory key.

 Mere Christian Apologetics (#5; Sep. 2002)
A work of general Christian apologetics, without Catholic "distinctives": intended as an introductory treatment of many of the basic apologetics issues.
Christian Worldview vs. Postmodernism (#6; Sep. 2002)
Devoted to an apologetic of general Christianity, over against secularism, agnosticism, and atheism; demonstrating that Christianity is rational and plausible.
The Catholic Answer Bible (#7; Sep. 2002)
My 44 "inserts" only, from this Bible. Each devotes one page to common apologetics issues, with explanation, and Scripture and Catechism passages.
Family Matters: Catholic Theology of the Family (#8; Dec. 2002)
Catholic and biblical analyses of the family-related issues of abortion, contraception, extramarital sex, divorce, homosexuality, and radical feminism.
Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries (#9; Dec. 2002)
Critique of “traditions of men falsely made out to be the only proper traditions of the Church”: the faulty and erroneous use of dogma and private judgment.

Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic (#10; May 2003)
Multi-faceted commentary on the various flaws and errors of Protestantism, in the style of Pascals "Pensees": categorized brief thoughts or sayings.
Twin Scourges: Thoughts on Anti-Catholicism & Theological Liberalism (#11; June 2003)
Critique of two very serious errors: that Catholicism is not truly Christian, and that one can pick and choose or modify Catholic doctrines as they so choose.
Orthodoxy and Catholicism: A Comparison (#12; July 2004)Examination of key differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy (especially in its anti-Catholic form), due largely to the split in the eleventh century.
The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants (#13; August 2004)
A critical look at how Protestant apologists deal with (or try to dismiss) Bible passages used by Catholics in defense of doctrines that Protestants reject.
The One-Minute Apologist: Essential Catholic Replies to Over Sixty Common Protestant Claims (#14; May 2007)
Two-page standardized treatments of sixty-one major issues that divide Protestants and Catholics; somewhat like the format of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Catholic Church Fathers: Patristic and Scholarly Proofs (#15; Nov. 2007)
Collection of writings from the Church fathers that exhibit support of distinctively Catholic doctrines and rejection of distinctively Protestant ones.
Martin Luther: Catholic Critical Analysis and Praise (#16; April 2008)
Examination of the founder of Protestantism and critique of errors in his thinking; also includes a lengthy section enumerating agreement with Catholicism.
The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton (#17; Oct. 2008; published Dec. 2009)
Collection of quotations from the great writer who is widely considered the preeminent Christian and Catholic apologist in the first third of the 20th century.
Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths: A Source Book for Apologists and Inquirers (#18; April 2009; published in August 2009)Over 2,000 Bible verses presented in their entirety and specifically categorized in order to provide abundant biblical support for various Catholic doctrines.
Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin (#19; March 2010)Point-by-point critical analysis of Book IV of John Calvin's magnum opus, "Institutes of the Christian Religion." Includes a section of areas of agreement.
"The Catholic Mary": Quite Contrary to the Bible? (#20; Sep. 2010)Devoted to demonstrating the abundance of biblical support for the many areas of Catholic Mariology that are considered "unbiblical" and "controversial."
Science and Christianity: Close Partners or Mortal Enemies? (#21; Oct. 2010)
By massive linking to Wikipedia science articles and biographical treatment of great scientists, Christianity and science are shown to be entirely compatible.
Biblical Catholic Salvation: “Faith Working Through Love” (#22; Oct. 2010)
The theology of salvation from a Catholic perspective, overwhelmingly emphasizing biblical arguments. Includes 100+ pages critiquing the Calvinist TULIP.
Biblical Catholic Eucharistic Theology (#23; Feb. 2011)
A treatment of many important aspects of Catholic beliefs regarding the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, with strong emphasis on biblical argumentation.
 
The Quotable Newman: A Definitive Guide to His Central Thoughts and Ideas (#24; Aug. 2011; published Oct. 2012)Collection of quotations from this giant of 19th century Christianity: a brilliant thinker, preacher, apologist, teacher and famous convert to Catholicism.
100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura (#25; Nov. 2011; published May 2012)It's all summed-up in one "powerhouse" of relentless biblical critique of one of the "pillars of the Reformation": that amazingly lacks any biblical support. 
Classic Catholic Biblical Apologetics: 1525-1925 (#26; Feb. 2012) Arguments from 12 great apologists: More, Erasmus, Suárez, Francis de Sales, Bossuet, Pascal, Wiseman, Ullathorne, Benson, Gibbons, Prat, and Adam.
Biblical Evidence for the Communion of Saints (#27; Feb. 2012) Biblical arguments garnered in support of invocation, intercession, and veneration of saints, images, relics, purgatory, prayer for the dead, and penance.
Biblical Proofs for an Infallible Church and Papacy (#28; March 2012) The controversial beliefs of papal primacy, headship, and infallibility, are examined in-depth from Scripture, showing their complete harmony with the Bible.
The Quotable Wesley (#29, May 2012; published April 2014)  Quotations from the wise and spiritual Anglican founder of Methodism, and zealous Christian reformer and evangelist; many affinities with Catholicism. 
Beatles, Motown, Beach Boys, Etc.: Classic Rock Discographies, Commentary, and Mono vs. Stereo Analysis (#30; May 2012) A fun non-theological book that delves into various aspects of classic rock music, especially the Beatles and Beach Boys and their remastered songs.
Pillars of Sola Scriptura: Replies to Whitaker, Goode, & Biblical "Proofs" for "Bible Alone" (#31; July 2012)
Critical analysis of the biblical arguments(or lack thereof) in favor of "sola Scriptura" from the two men who are considered its very best historical defenders.
The Quotable Augustine: Distinctively Catholic Elements in His Theology (#32; Sep. 2012)
Quotations from St. Augustine: widely considered the greatest Church father, and often claimed as the direct forerunner of Reformed Protestantism.
A Biblical Critique of Calvinism (#33; Oct. 2012)Critical analysis of various questionable aspects of Calvinist or "Reformed" theology, including many lengthy replies to Books I-III of Calvin's "Institutes."
Theology of God: Biblical, Chalcedonian Trinitarianism and Christology (#34; Nov. 2012)Thorough presentation of biblical arguments in favor of trinitarianism, the divinity or deity of Christ, and classic orthodox theism. Bible verses in their entirety.
Mass Movements: Radical Catholic Reactionaries, the New Mass, and Ecumenism (#35; Dec. 2012) A look at dubious beliefs on the extreme "right" of the Catholic theological spectrum, and why its "quasi-schismatic", pharisaical, rigorist views are wrong.
The Quotable Summa Theologica (#36; Jan. 2013) A helpful alphabetical summary of the theological ideas and arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas' masterwork, designed to make his thought more accessible.
Biblical Catholic Apologetics: A Collection of Essays (#37; March 2013)Selection of some of the best Dave Armstrong's numerous theological and apologetic arguments, on a wide variety of issues: always emphasizing the Bible.
Catholic Converts and Conversion (#38; April 2013)Many aspects of the journey to Catholicism examined, conversion stories, and the most extensive account of Dave Armstrong's own conversion (75 pages).
The Quotable Eastern Church Fathers (#39; July 2013) Writings of 8 Church Doctors: Basil, John Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen, Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, Ephraim, Cyril of Jerusalem, & John Damascene.

  The Quotable Newman, Vol. II (#40; Aug. 2013)290 more pages of quotes on a wide variety of topics from the 19th century Churchman, with emphasis on his personal letters, and lesser-known topics.
Revelation! 1001 Bible Answers to Theological Topics (#41; Oct. 2013)A "biblical catechism." The idea is simple but unique: 1001 questions are "answered" with a Bible passage: with 18 broad categories and 200 sub-topics.

Debating James White: Shocking Failures of the “Undefeatable” Anti-Catholic Champion (#42; Nov. 2013) 
A series of critical in-depth analyses and debates with the leading anti-Catholic apologist today (especially online): the Reformed Baptist James White.

Pope Francis Explained: Survey of Myths, Legends, and Catholic Defenses in Harmony with Tradition (#43; Jan. 2014) 
A look at how the media frequently misrepresents the pope as a supposed dissenter, and how Catholics on the far right are also unnecessarily suspicious.  

[more added as they come out!  I plan on at least four more in 2014 . . .]


* * * * *

The One-Minute Apologist: Information for the Massively Hyper-Linked Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet File

My good friend John O'Connor has created an excellent e-book version of The One-Minute Apologist in Microsoft Excel spreadsheet format (xls). It contains many hundreds of convenient hyper-links and many other impressive features unlike all my other e-books.

The e-book version contains material that is not included in the paperback at all, such as source information for the citations (which I have documented on my blog). It also corrects some textual errors (some rather glaring) that occurred in the first edition. The hyper-linking creates an ease of access that is far more convenient than the paperback. John has also even added links to online Bible study aids. This is an amazing piece of computer technology: as user-friendly as it gets. It looks super-sharp too (I think, even better than the paperback book itself). One can go right to any section immediately, and find any of the 1300 Bible passages instantly in the text.

Here is a somewhat abridged version of the Instructions that come as part of the package, and also specific directions for extracting the zip file, and for downloading the entire package: all written by the creator of this version, John O'Connor:

Instructions For Use of The E-Book

In 2007, I purchased a copy of Dave Armstrong’s new book, The One-Minute Apologist. I was very taken by the concise format of the book and the potential it held for effectively educating people quickly on the basic tenets of the Catholic faith—especially in matters commonly misunderstood by Protestants. I conceived an electronic version of this book to be a wonderful tool for sharing the Catholic faith with interested people. If, for example, someone wanted to know why we call Mary the “Mother of God,” a simple two-page apologetics response could be provided easily to demonstrate the Scriptural basis for our belief.

Structurally, my electronic version of this book parallels the hard-copy book almost exactly. An attempt was made to lay the text out in a manner as similar to that of the book as possible, including page numbering. Although the textual page breaks do not correspond exactly to that of the book, each apologetics argument is—just like the book— only two pages in length. Ultimately, the 141 pages of the book are represented in the 61 files that comprise the body of the electronic version of The One-Minute Apologist.

The primary “enhancement” to the original book that this electronic version provides is found in the Excel spreadsheet file named “One-Minute Apologist.xls”. This file arranges the 1,300 Scripture references used in the book in such a way that they can be easily accessed electronically. Any Bible reference used in the book can be located across the entire work at the click of the mouse. Page-numbered hyperlinks provide clues for hard-copy reference if so desired. Additionally, “comments” in each hyperlinked reference cell provide clues to the greater context of the subject to which that Scripture reference refers. Finally, every reference is linked to an online Bible reference work called the “Blue Bible,” which allows the user to explore the Scriptural reference itself in the original Hebrew or Greek.
Zip File Extraction Instructions

Unlike Dave's other electronic books (each contained in a single file), The One-Minute Apologist consists of a total of 65 files that have been bundled together into a single .zip file. When this .zip file has been downloaded, a special utility program will be needed to open the .zip file and extract its contents.

If you do not have such a utility program on your computer, a free download of the WinZip program is available on-line:

Free download of WinZip.

Explanation for how to use the WinZip program.

Once the files have been extracted, open the "One-Minute Instructions.doc" file for a brief explanation and guide to how this hyperlinked version of the The One-Minute Apologist functions.

You can also download an Excel Viewer or Word Viewer from Microsoft if your computer has trouble opening this file; or see an additional article about reading Excel files.
  
John later added new features to the already dazzling file:

Over the past couple months, I have been working on making the e-book version of The One-Minute Apologist even better. Briefly, here's what I've done:

1) Throughout all of the files, I have hyperlinked all of the footnotes in the text to their corresponding place at the bottom of each page. Now, you can just click on the footnote number to see the footnote references.

2) Additionally, I have created a stand-alone "source" file for each of the 61 apologetics arguments that contains the full text of all the Scripture references used in each argument. All of the Scripture references in the apologetics argument (i.e., in the footnotes as well as throughout the text) are now hyperlinked to their full text. My reasoning for taking this exhaustive step is this: By having a "source" file for each apologetics class, the reader can now print off not only the two page argument from the book, but the full text of all the scriptures as well. That will make it easier, I feel, to share the material with others.

3) In the process of going through this a second time, I have corrected some of my own errors in the text as well as discovering a number of errors in the published book version.

Enjoy!