Dave Armstrong's Blog, page 32

Dialogue on Whether it is Improper or Disrespectful to Bring up the Abortion Holocaust in the Context of School Massacres

 [ source ]
I had the following exchange with a fellow Catholic on my Facebook page (which is public). His words will be in blue.
* * * * *
One correction: he said [someone who wrote an article on our culture] 400 babies a day are murdered. It's actually 4,000+. Abortion is 9-11 every day; a Connecticut slaughter x 143 every day, and all perfectly legal and of no apparent concern to the vast majority of Americans, who are willing to sit idly by and let it happen, and vote for people (e.g., our illustrious President) who want to slaughter and murder even children who survive a botched abortion outside the womb.

. . . why, when something bad happens (Columbine, Connecticut, 9/11, whatever), we immediately have to go, "Yeah, but abortion!" and then show how abortion = Tragedy A x 1,000 or whatever. Yes, we know abortion is horrific, but we can grieve and express horror at other tragedies without having to refer every single thing back to abortion.

I do it, myself, because it is clear that there is not the same outrage about abortion as there is about any massacre that occurs. If the whole society is abject with grief over 9-11 or about these horrific massacres, why is it not outraged at the legal slaughter taking place each and every day?

In other words, one makes no sense without the other: we don't accept illegal acts of terror, but legal ones are perfectly fine. Or to put it another way, if the massacre grieves and disturbs us, then so must also abortion. And if the latter did, then we would be expressing about abortion what we do when these massacres happen. But our society doesn't; therefore it must not be outraged about abortion, and/or clearly regards preborn human beings as not human. Therefore, this same society must be reminded. I'm basically preaching to the choir on my page, but it is also public, and some pro-aborts may also read it.

I would ask you, why do you even make such a comment, and what is it about the points I just made that you disagree with? If you agree with them, then the comment was unnecessary. If you don't, why? Is this essentially the old tired "one-issue" canard: as if abortion is not the leading moral issue that we have to deal with today?

Dave, I do not disagree with any of your factual information, but I do disagree, or rather feel that it is not proper, to approach one outrage by always pointing out that bigger outrages exist.

It is when rank hypocrisy and ultra-selective outrage is in play. We pro-lifers are outraged by any violence like this, because that is what abortion is about, too. We oppose all of it, whereas the pro-abort position opposes murder of those outside the womb but not in it.

It's like, suppose you are talking about the 1890 Massacre of Wounded Knee, about how horrible it was, etc. and then a Holocaust survivor in the audience stands up and says, "Yeah, but it wasn't as bad as the Holocaust!" Well, that technically may be true; 300 Indians versus 6,000,000 Jews? No doubt the Holocaust was a "bigger" disaster; but I think the comment would still be objectionable and awkward on the grounds that there seems to be something improper about utilizing one tragedy to draw attention to another -- utilitarianizing one horror in order to draw attention to some other horror.

I think there is a limited sense in which this is true. It is only valid if there is an ignoring of one sin, while trumpeting the other. The Nazi Holocaust has been well-acknowledged and lamented. Therefore, the best reason for bringing it up in this context is not present. But there is often selective outrage with regard to the Holocaust as well, with so many people concentrating on Jews only, when in fact there were many millions of non-Jewish victims in the camps as well (Polish, Catholics, Protestants, Gypsies, homosexuals, handicapped, mentally ill, political prisoners, resisters, etc.). Even such a great Jewish man as the "Nazi Hunter" Simon Wiesenthal noted this. He refused to draw arbitrary lines where murder was concerned.

There seems to be a propriety in treating each of these terrible acts in their integrity without using them to compare to others -- to simply grieve without having to say, "Yeah, but this and this is also going on..."

Okay, so what would you think if two buildings were burning: In one, 28 children were killed; in the other 4,000 children were. Both are literally happening. Yet should we be grieved and outraged at the one with 28, with news stories all over the place, while ignoring the other? Would that make any sense? We both know that the only "difference" here is that the children in the school massacre are born, whereas the ones murdered every day in abortion mills are hidden and preborn. There is no essential difference at all. Yet our society acts as if there were. If a pro-life group dares to have a funeral ceremony for the slaughtered abortion victims, or puts crosses on a church lawn, it's considered wide-eyed radical or "one-issue": somehow abnormal and obnoxious. Why? It's because we make distinctions where there are none: as if a preborn human being is not a human being, and has no right to life.

All we're saying when we do this is, "we agree that it is a huge tragedy that 28 people (mostly children) were murdered by a madman. Now what about the 4,000 every day that are legally tortured and murdered by abortionist madmen? Why do you grieve the one but not the other far greater crime?"

A Native American who heard the statement would rightly be offended that someone was trying to "use" his community's unique tragedy to draw attention away from it to something else.

He or she might feel that way, but I think it is ultimately irrational, because if violence is opposed over here, it is consistently opposed over there, too. We can't close our eyes to one instance (a far greater one) while decrying another. This is the key. This is why I brought it up, and to me it makes perfect sense. When I visited a Holocaust museum in the Detroit area, I visited the rabbi there and talked about abortion. I wasn't minimizing the Holocaust of the Jews in the slightest; what I was saying was, "Obviously, all decent people must decry what happened in Nazi Germany; abortion is our current Holocaust that we need to also confront, on the same basis." He responded, not by being offended on your basis (not at all), but by agreeing. Then he said that if he talked about pro-life, the women who worked in the place would give him misery. Case in point. This is why pro-lifers are so often silent or silenced by our society.

If individual human life is truly and utterly unique and unrepeatable, then are we amiss in suggesting one tragedy is worse than another just because more quantities of humans are killed? Is four humans killed "worse" then three killed?

Yes. I should think that perfectly obvious.

We can't quantify human life like we do money, where having ten dollars is "better" than having five. Not that abortion is not the preeminent moral outrage; it is -- but not simply because "more" are killed. Killing even one human being is a terrible act that deprives the universe of something utterly unique; from our point of view, it is a crime of eternal magnitude.

All the more reason to scream from the rooftops about 4,000 instances a day of "depriving the universe of something utterly unique". The more the outrage occurs, the more we should be alarmed and driven to do something about it. But America wants this murder to continue. We just re-elected the most bloodthirsty President ever.

Even a single death of an innocent is worthy to be grieved and anguished over without needing to refer it to something else. Because each human life is unique, each tragedy is unique. So, I do not contest your points, and I understand the desire to use the tragedy as a means to creating awareness about abortion, which people are so numb to. Why aren't Americans outraged about abortion? Well, millions of Americans are outraged; we're called Pro-Lifers, so it's not that there is not adequate awareness. It's that the other side doesn't care. But I do feel uncomfortable with "using" this tragedy to "make a point."

I do not: not once my reasoning is fully understood, and I have laid it out. It makes perfect, eminent sense. By your reasoning, we should cry and lament the burning building with 28 people, while not mentioning the one down the street with 4,000 burning to death, because that would supposedly undervalue the 28 dying in the first building. That's crazy. The very fact that we value life means that we should talk about both: and the one with the greater carnage proportionately more, because those grave sins are multiplied every time another murder is committed.

Lastly, my purpose was not to highlight abortion. I merely wanted to correct the numerical error in the article, which was off by a proportion of ten [it said 400 babies a day were murdered]. Then I gave my thoughts. I'm glad you commented, because it gives me a chance to explain further. I think your view is basically a sophisticated variation of the "one-issue" thing that is brought up times without number. It never does have any valid justification, and I don't think it does here.

I do actually agree, at the same time, with your main point that every tragedy has validity in its own right. What I disagree with is the notion that mentioning another tragedy in the same context, of the same thing (murder), somehow undermines or minimizes the first. I don't think so, because they are both of a piece, and to condemn one is to (consistently) automatically condemn the other. But our society refuses to do so.

That's all I'm getting out -- each tragedy is unique and valid in its own right. Don't read too much into my reasoning; it was more of a gut reaction than a well-thought out position. I just thought, "If I were to try to make this point to a parent of one of the kids killed, what would they say?" Granted, that person would have a very myopic view of the situation at that point. I grant your points.

I agree with that. I disagree that it is "improper" to mention abortion in the same context.

I wouldn't make the point to a grieving parent. That would be obscene and truly callous and cruel. But that's not the case in a public article written for the public.

I appreciate your openness to what I am saying.

[another woman in a more private discussion objected on the same basis, and stated that "lives lost are not 'points' in a debate about abortion or gun control."]

My replies do not require any lives lost to be " 'points' in a debate." That has nothing to do with anything I am saying. Rather, it is about our society's differentiation between the value of one life (preborn) and another life (born): as if the former is less valuable: hence we don't hear the same outrage about 4,000 a day as we do about 28. The latter (in a morally sane world) would presuppose the former. But it doesn't.

Abortion doesn't even need to be debated, strictly speaking, because it is so self-evidently wrong (i.e., once one truly knows what it is). It's intuitive moral knowledge. If every person were forced to actually see an abortion take place, it wouldn't be legal for a second. The question then becomes: how is it that so many do not immediately see that it is intrinsically evil?

Nor is it merely "emotionally charged" to apply biblical injunctions (key to the abortion rescue movement itself: that I was part of) such as:

Psalm 82:2-4 (RSV) "How long will you judge unjustly
and show partiality to the wicked? [Selah]
[3] Give justice to the weak and the fatherless;
maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.
[4] Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked."

Proverbs 24:10-12 If you faint in the day of adversity,
your strength is small.
[11] Rescue those who are being taken away to death;
hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter.
[12] If you say, "Behold, we did not know this,"
does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?
Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it,
and will he not requite man according to his work?

Jeremiah 22:3 Thus says the LORD: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place.

This is the "prophetic" function of Scripture, that we Christians ought to exercise in cases such as abortion. It's passionate but it need not be some out-of-control "emotionally charged" thing. One can be passionate and rational and controlled at the same time. Again, that's what the rescues were about.


* * * * *

Books by Dave Armstrong: The Quotable Summa Theologica

  Manuscript of the Summa Theologica: copy by Peter Schöffer, 1471
[to be published sometime in early 2013]

[see also the companion piece, The Quotable Aquinas ]


Introduction
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was without question the greatest theologian in the history of the Catholic Church, and the Summa Theologica (1271-1274) was his masterpiece and one of the most influential theological books ever written.The goal herein is to make the thought and reasoning of this marvelous compendium of the Angelic Doctor more accessible and able to be referenced quickly. My overwhelming emphasis in collecting excerpts will be on theology itself; with far less on the topics of spirituality, ethics, and other areas. Many times, frankly, I have been too lazy, myself, to “barrel through” the Summa Theologica to find an answer as to what St. Thomas thought on thus-and-so. Sometimes even those of us who love Aquinas, have neither the time nor desire (in the course of a busy day) to read through the reasoning chain that he uses in the Summa to come to his conclusions. This is, of course, a defect in us, and not at all in Aquinas, but it is what it is.St. Thomas’ style in the Summa is a wonderful method and fabulous teaching device, but I think there are a lot of people like me who would also like to see concise, easily obtainable “answers” from Aquinas: in a more or less “catechetical” format (rather than apologetic or philosophical: with more elaborate explanations). I hope you, the reader, will benefit from my true labor of love. I’ve immensely enjoyed learning from this fabulous teaching, as I compiled the “quotable” excerpts. May this work be used by God to send further grace upon many, via St. Thomas Aquinas. 

 Source Information and Abbreviations
Summa Theologica (1271-1274), literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province; second revised edition (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947; now in the public domain).


Abbreviations used:
The first part (prima pars): 1
The first part of the second part (prima secundae partis): 1-2
The second part of the second part (secunda secundae partis): 2-2
The third part (tertia pars): 3
The supplement (supplementum tertiae partis): suppl.   Examples:
ST 1, q. 3, a. 2c = First part, Question 3, Article 2, corpus: i.e., Thomas’ solution in the body of the article.
ST 2-2, q. 75, a. 1, ad 3 = Second part of the second part, Question 75, Article 1, reply to third objection. 

ST 3, q. 10, a. 3, sed contra = Third part, Question 10, Article 3, argument in opposition to objection(s): “on the contrary . . .”
ST suppl., q. 17, a. 3, ad 2 = Supplement, Question 17, Article 3, reply to second objection.
 
Excerpts[all posted to Facebook, unless indicated otherwise]
On Apologetics and Reason and Faith

Brilliant Short Proof of Monotheism

On God's Middle Knowledge (Scientia Media)

On the Sabellian Heresy (aka Modal Monarchianism)

Application of Vatican II Advice 700 Years Early (Effective New Methods of Sharing Ancient Truths)

x

x


Updated on 15 January 2013.


* * * * *

Radio Interview Thursday (3-4 PM ET): Meet the Author with Ken Huck

We'll be talking about two of my books, published by Sophia Institute Press: The Quotable Newman (Oct. 2012) and The Catholic Verses (2004). Past guest authors on this show include: David B. Currie, Amy Welborn, Marcus Grodi, Dr. Diane Moczar, Teresa Tomeo, Dr. Paul Thigpen, Kevin Lowry, Rod Bennett, Brandon Vogt, Bruce Sullivan, and many others.

You can hear it via live streaming on the show's website: Radio Maria (click the "Listen Live" icon); also as a podcast afterwards.

My last time on the radio was June 2012, on Catholic Connection with fellow Michigander Teresa Tomeo. That can be listened to also (it runs from 14:30 to 31:00 on the audio file):

Books by Dave Armstrong: The Quotable Aquinas

Painting by Carlo Crivelli (c. 1435 - c. 1495)
[in progress; just beginning to collect quotations, as of 9 January 2013]

Introduction
 

My emphasis will (as usual in my collections) again focus overwhelmingly on theology, and relatively little on spirituality, devotional literature, philosophy, morality and ethics, liturgy, etc. This narrows the subject matter considerably, yet with a saintly genius like St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): without question the greatest theologian in the history of the Church, and one of the most profound thinkers, there still remains a massive treasure-trove to delve into.Like my other quotations books, this will be drawn from all public domain sources. The goal herein is to make the theological work of the Angelic Doctor more accessible and able to be referenced quickly. Many times, frankly, I have been too lazy, myself, to “barrel through” the Summa Theologica to find an answer as to what St. Thomas thought on thus-and-so. Sometimes even those of us who love Aquinas, have neither the time nor desire (in the course of a busy day) to read through the reasoning chain that he uses to come to his conclusions. His usual style is a wonderful method and fabulous teaching device, but I think there are a lot of people like me who would like to see concise, easily obtainable “answers” from Aquinas: in a more or less “catechetical” format (rather than apologetic or philosophical: with more elaborate explanations). I hope you, the reader, will benefit from my true labor of love. I’ve immensely enjoyed learning from this great teaching, as I compiled the “quotable” excerpts. May this work be used by God to send further grace upon many, via St. Thomas Aquinas.

Bibliography and Abbreviations

[all works are in the public domain]


BT The Trinity and the Unicity of the Intellect(chapters 1-4 of Commentary on Boethius’‘The Trinity’), translated by Sister Rose Emmanuella Brennan, S. H. N. (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1946)  

CI  Catechetical Instructions, translated by Rev. Joseph B. Collins (New York: J. F. Wagner, 1939).


CT Compendium of Theology, translated by Cyril Vollert, S. J. (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947)

H Ninety-Nine Homilies of S. Thomas Aquinas Upon the Epistles and Gospels, translated by John M. Ashley (London: Church Press Co. Ltd., 1867)
M Meditations of St. Thomas Aquinas, translated by E. C. McEniry from the 1905 Latin edition of P. D. Mezard (Somerset, Ohio: The Rosary Press, 1938). 



PG On the Power of God, translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province (London: Burns, Oates & Washbourne Ltd., 3 volumes, 1932–34). SG Summa Contra Gentiles(Treatise on the Truth of the Catholic Faith Against Unbelievers) (1258-1263), literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province from the latest Leonine edition (London: Burns, Oates & Washbourne Ltd., 1924).  

ST Summa Theologica (1271-1274), literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province; second revised edition (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947).



Abbreviations used for the Summa Theologica:
The first part (prima pars): 1
The first part of the second part (prima secundae partis): 1-2
The second part of the second part (secunda secundae partis): 2-2
The third part (tertia pars): 3
The supplement (supplementum tertiae partis): suppl.   Examples:
ST 1, q. 3, a. 2c = First part, Question 3, Article 2, corpus: i.e., Thomas’ solution in the body of the article.
ST 2-2, q. 75, a. 1, ad 3 = Second part of the second part, Question 75, Article 1, reply to third objection.


ST 3, q. 10, a. 3, sed contra = Third part, Question 10, Article 3, argument in opposition to objection(s): “on the contrary . . .”
ST suppl., q. 17, a. 3, ad 2 = Supplement, Question 17, Article 3, reply to second objection.
 
Excerpts[soon to come]
* * * * *

Exchange on Whether I am Wrong to Prohibit "Traditionalists" (or Radtrads) from Bashing the Pauline Mass on My Facebook Page (vs. Three "Traditionalists")

[image error]
[ source ]
This took place on a recent Facebook thread. Eugene Cunningham's words will be in blue, Marko Tilošanec's in green, and Jeff Kantor's in purple.

* * *
As usual on this topic, if the thread gets derailed into long rabbit trails and controversies and overall foolishness, I still control the delete button on my Facebook page. And I still determine the direction and content and "impression to readers" of this page: what I want it to be for the best of all.

Dave: I have not followed your threads on this issue. I am no sede v. or 'radtrad' but indeed believe what was done to liturgy post VII was a disaster and a mistake. I read Michael Davies and think his findings are correct. Are you familiar with him, and if so, have you an opinion?

Yeah, I am. I think the Pauline Mass itself is fine; abuses of it are not. The Church (notably the pope in 2007) says that both forms of the Mass are equally sanctioned and approved. That should be significant and noteworthy enough to end the discussion.

Everyone has a right to worship as they wish, and should cease blasting the Mass they prefer less (stick to criticizing real abuses). Worship and let worship. Live and let live. A simple enough concept, but lots of folks don't want to comply.

I have to disagree with a few of those principles . . . 

I don't allow bashing of the Pauline Mass on my Facebook page (just so all are aware).

Not 'bashing' but valid legit. disagreement/ critique based on facts - I hope you allow that.

No, I don't allow here what the pope says ought not to be done. One either accepts the judgments of the Church or not. We can agree to talk about abuses in the Mass and lack of reverence, which are somewhat widespread.

Then I opt out. Its not a real discussion when one party tells the other side what it can/ cannot say. I'll start my own thread on my page.

I'm simply abiding by what the Holy Father and the Church desire, as a teacher in that same Church. If someone thinks that is censorship, so be it. Catholics get accused of all kinds of things. It's not censorship. It's responsible stewardship of my time and what is presented on my page, with nearly 5,000 potential readers (actually more, because all my stuff is public). You know I don't want this discussed here. So why do you try to push it? Like you said, you could do a post on your site.

Wow, I greatly overestimated you.

That's fine. I wasn't living for your approval anyway.

You want to have a discussion with traditionalists and people who are inclined that way. But you don't want to hear anything at all about what they think. Or why.

Hogwash. All I said was that the New Mass will not be allowed to be bashed on this page (while abuses of it and lack of reverence can be). I just got through writing a book on the topic, that contains no less than six dialogues, based on actual encounters with real "traditionalists" (at least two of them, my personal friends). They are constructive and useful (or else I wouldn't have included them). So you have no idea what you're talking about.

Of course it's not forbidden for Catholics to discuss whether or not the New Mass was a good or a bad idea.

It is on my page, because thousands of people come by here, and I don't want anyone to be led astray. That's my responsibility under God. I tried to present the reason why. It's perfectly legitimate. Yet two "trads" have gotten peeved about it. I can't help that. It's just the way it is. My call; my page; my life under God. If someone doesn't like that, they can lump it. If it were at my house, with just a few people present, it'd be entirely different.

Or whether Popes can abuse their authority.

Of course they can (and many through history have in fact). I said nothing about not writing about that.

Or how Catholics should respond when they do. If you don't want to discuss those ideas freely then you don't really want to talk to traditionalists.

Right; which is clearly why I have six respectful dialogues with them in my book . . .

You just want to grandstand.

And you obviously want to judge wrongly.

And don't hide behind the Pope's skirts as an excuse.

I'll gladly do that anytime, thank you (and be proud of it, too).

He doesn't act that way and didn't before he was Pope.
He doesn't run this page, either; nor do you.

So that's all just self-serving bs which you know to be untrue.

Right. Now you have become a mind-reader, too, huh, besides being a harsh judge of Holy Mother Church and her teachings and policies . . .

It's not censorship of course. It's your own page.

A rare truth amidst the bilge of your comment . . .

It's just cheap and small and wearisome. Have a nice life.

You, too. [Jeff unfriended me; I promptly blocked him, since anyone can post on my page unless they are blocked]

But small success to you with projects like this until you grow up!

God bless you and very best wishes for a glorious 2013. We did have some good conversations in the past two years. I'll try to remember those, and not this farce.

As for my willingness to discuss and dialogue with "traditionalists" (Jeff ludicrously claimed that I have no such desire), it should also be noted that I did so just a few days ago, again, to my satisfaction and also my dialogue partner's. Unfortunately, the dialogue had to be taken down for extraneous reasons (by his request), but it still happened, thus putting the lie to the accusation I have received today. 

Dave -thanks for deleting my reasonable post there (good payback for buying, reading your books, reading your site). It might be a good idea to distinguish between 'radtrad' schismatic/sede types, and faithful RCs (like me) 

I've been doing that for many years and spent a great deal of effort making it clear in my book, in this chapter (online in its entirety). It would be nice if folks would actually read what I wrote about the very things I am accused of. Wouldn't that make it a lot easier to talk intelligently? Cut me a little slack!

. . . who have legit and well-founded gripes, who spent decades being miserable at moonwalk masses, etc. longing for something reverent and holy, only to be told we need to shut up, accept the non-sense placed before us as correct worship. As one friend of mine said, we are the Church's "house ni**ers", the folks who are faithful to the massa, amen everything he says, stay in his house defending him, and for 'rewards' get table scraps (indult masses, occasionally, in holes-in-the-wall chapels at odd hours once a month), but are still treated with contempt.

I delete anything that bashes the Pauline Mass, Eugene. It was a simple rule and easy to understand (agree or disagree). You disagree. Great. That's why you have the freedom to write about whatever you want to on your blog.  

As for your freedom to worship as you please, I've favored that for 22 years. That's why I attend the cluster parish which is one of just two or three in the Detroit area that offers Latin Masses: both Novus Ordo and Tridentine (the midnight Mass at Christmas in my parish was TLM). If you want to go after at me, even in those areas where I am in full agreement with you, you can do so, but it accomplishes little that I can see.

I defend those who want to worship at the TLM just as vigorously as I do the opposite, and had a vigorous run-in with a regular on this page about that topic.

Jeff was classy enough to apologize on my blog. Here it is:

I owe you an apology for speaking to you harshly and uncharitably on Facebook. I don't think we'd probably enjoy each other much on Facebook for a while--something about our attitudes on this subject is apt to make for rancor. But you are my brother in Christ and that matter more than acres of irritation. I am sorry! God bless.

I replied:

Hi Jeff,

Fair enough. I appreciate it and accept your apology. I'll unblock you. You defriended me, so that's up to you, what you want to do with that. If you're unblocked, you are still able to post on my page, because all posts are open to the public. I'll also post your apology on Facebook, which is only fair to you.

God bless you too, and all the best.

Again, round and round we go. Yes, yes, yes, you have a 'rule' to not 'bash' the Pauline mass. I'm sorry, but valid, intellectual critique over a non-theological, non-doctrinal issue is not 'bashing.'

I decide the policy and how to implement it, and what constitutes definition (it being my page). Even if some of that discussion were acceptable, it is still the case that it becomes a free-for-all, and less sophisticated "trads" will come in and wreck the entire post. It's already happened several times. One tires of that. If you guys can't muzzle the weirdos and fringe elements of your own group, then don't expect me to put up with them trying to hijack my threads.

[replying to someone else] Where did I say any rites where 'not valid'? That's what's implied here. Also -Dave -so-and-so 'at least had the decency to apologize' -implying I should, didn't. What to apologize for here?

Of course you don't have to apologize for simply being difficult and crabby lately. Nothing implied anything. Chill out.

Dave, only a short comment for now [ha ha!]. I was a bit surprised by this move of deleting whole discussion and posting of only your own comments. 

Yeah, me too. I thought adults should be able to act sensibly. But as it was, the first thread reached a point where it was more harmful than constructive (in terms of a pedagogical function): at which point it was taken down. In the case of a recent posted dialogue, however (and the thread preceding it, where it initially occurred), extraneous factors required that they be taken down (by the direct request of my dialogue opponent). It had nothing whatsoever to do with me wanting to shut down discussion (which he can confirm, if it comes to that). To the contrary, I spent significant time preparing the dialogue last Saturday, and intended to continue it in further installments (so did my "trad" friend), but we were not able to do so. It was a good and worthy reason: just vastly different from your conspiracy theories.

But now your comments have been posted and remain! Life is inexplicable, isn't it? Maybe one day you'll even figure me and my motivations out, and figure out that I have acted in perfect consistency with my consistent Catholic principles.

This could make an impression of sophisticated tactic for an attempt of mental and psychological winning the case instead of a real theological confrontation with arguments, which in my opinion weren't answered so I'll try to post them again. 

Nice try. It's fascinating how different reality actually is, compared to cynical conspiracy theories that give a person the least benefit of the doubt as to motives and intentions. But I've come to expect insults from "traditionalists." It's nothing new, and nothing (like all the other insults I receive from various predictable groups whose views I critique) that will ever sway me from my apologetic task, my mission, and calling. Many have tried to shut me up and/or shut me down. All have failed, and I am still pressing ahead with more vigor than ever.

Meanwhile, my general predisposition, as I've mentioned many times (surely you saw at least one of those) is not to go round and round with "traditionalists". I made an exception in the case of the fated dialogue that now won't take place, but that's just it: it was an exception to the rule.

I'm now occupied with my new book, The Quotable Aquinas: a project I trust that most "traditionalists" will appreciate without controversy.

At first I shall comment some of your thoughts expressed in the article: Definitions: “Traditionalist” vs. “Radtrad” / Supposed “Neo-Catholics”.

Most "traditionalists" accept the validity of the Novus Ordo or “New” or Pauline Mass (…) whether they regard it as valid or not. 

I believe you should do more distinction in terms here, because the only people who reject the validity of the Novus ordo are sedevacantists. Actually this two things are inseparately connected, so when one rejects the validity of novus ordo, ipso facto must become a sedevacantist because no real priest or bishop could celebrate an invalid mass and as such have the authority in the Church. So there is a possibility of misconception in your statement, that real traditionalists who accept authority of all the popes could consider the novus ordo invalid, which is de facto impossible.

I and most credentialed Catholic apologists I know of, treat "traditionalists" as fellow Catholics. Yet they (especially the radtrads) often refer to us with the highly insulting description, "neo-Catholic." 

In your post you have made a synthesis of the term (based on some sources which you go on interpreting), with connotations which I do not agree, or rather, think that aren't complete and as such do not give an insight in the real meaning of the term. So I shall expose here my own vision of things which I believe is common for most Traditionalist (at least the ones [‘’rad-trads’’] which you confront with). I myself consider a Neoconservative Catholic the one who is orthodox, and accepts all or most of the post-Council reforms as something that should be accepted without reservation, i. e., a faithful development of Council teachings and Church tradition. So the component of ‘newness’ implies this acceptance of the new content, or practices, which are (this at least I believe is indisputable) objectively different from the state of things before the Council, while the conservativism implies the same attitude of keeping the Church teaching and tradition (although in this case, a new or ‘novel’ one). So the second element is as such positive and indisputable, while the trads and neo-cons dispute about the nature and consequences of reforms. And that’s it – I personally see here no insult or a suspicion (let alone an implication) of ones unorthodoxy.

and (as I wholeheartedly agree) often subjected to the grossest abuses in practice. I agree that all abuses ought to be eliminated, but the Church allows and encourages liturgical diversity within a proper observance.

And this is really a heart of the matter. Which do you think that there are the real causes of all-prevailing, less or more extensive and grave abuses and deviations from tradition? Do you consider that all the multiple options and ‘flexibilities’ which are built in the novus ordo, as such favor the mentality of even more, self-styled ‘adaptations’? I believe this is indeed true and that the reality is a best proof for the fact. You often emphasize the fact that you attend a parish where novus ordo is celebrated in the most reverent matter – ad orientem, in Latin, with Gregorian chant, communion received on a communion rail etc. This is really great and I would appreciate that we all could have this opportunity, but the reality is that parishes and churches where the novus ordo is celebrated in such reverent manner are rare as needle in the hay and could be found only in 0.001 % of Catholic world. So if the reform was designed that the mass should be celebrated in the most reverend manner according to the rubrics, why did it then prevail that almost all of the bishops in the world do the opposite – use no Latin in regular Church and parish life, celebrate versus populum, permit female readers and altar servers, communion in hand, build new modernist and formless churches, tolerate and they themselves do the abuses? And not only bishops, but even the postcouncil Popes until, Deo gratias, Benedict XVI., have themselves been actively permitting this things in their Papal liturgies! We know of a canon-law precept that a custom is the best interpret of the law, and if we take this into account, I think that it should be a plain fact that the new liturgy just wasn’t designed (or as you say – that it wasn’t a mind of the Church) to fit the scheme which do you have in your parish, but the other, progressive and discontinuited one which is dominant today in the Church.

Meanwhile my policy remains: no bashing of the Pauline Mass. You're skirting the edge and barely avoided deletion with this one. If you cross over the line, those posts will be removed. Whoever doesn't like that can go jump in the lake (in the wintertime!).

I must say that I find it more than a little humorous that since I mentioned that no bashing of the New Mass is allowed, "trads" have had almost nothing to say anymore in this thread. That proves my point as to their leading discussion points and "disproportionate" mentality better than almost anything else I can imagine.

Meanwhile, two became quite ticked off, with one defriending me as a result (but he later apologized: to be fair to him), and now you are neck-deep in conspiracy theories trying to rationalize away actions of mine that you don't care for (and understand even less, because you didn't have all the facts). I get a big kick out of it.

Dave: me being crabby and difficult. Well, putting out an invite to a discussion, then eliminating one side's ability to actually discuss the subject, yeah that could make someone 'crabby'

No, taking away one stinkin' topic! But if that's the only thing you can ever talk about, well, that's another problem now, ain't it? You do your trash-talking on your page. You're not gonna pollute mine with that bilge.

Man, if I had met you guys who are always running down Holy Mother Church when I was an evangelical, I certainly never would have become a Catholic. Why would I? To join a bunch of miserable naysayers; nattering nabobs of negativism? I was perfectly happy where I was.

It's not rocket science:

1) Church sanctions and approves both forms of the Roman Rite.

2) So do I (since I follow the teachings of the Church in their entirety).

3) Because of that, I disallow comments that trash either form (my page not being a platform for unlimited ranting and raving for everyone who has some gripe about the Church).

The EF / TLM is offered in my own parish. We offered it at midnight Mass at Christmas.

I completely agree with complaints and discussion about abuses, as long as it doesn't carry over into criticism of either form of the Mass itself (intrinsic, essential elements of either). Abuses of a thing are not the thing. I am as merciless against abuses as any "trad" on the face of the earth. I absolutely detest; loathe them. They are disgraceful and outrageous.

If folks could simply read my one paper / chapter about the definition of "radtrad" and the Introduction to my new book, a lot of misery and frustration could be avoided. 

Dave: "its the only thing you can talk about" -no, but on a post inviting people to talk about one topic, should I talk about other topics?

Eugene, you are amazing. The topic is "traditionalism" (i.e., my paper with many thoughts on same). If you agree that all there is to "traditionalism" is moaning and groaning about the New Mass (which would spectacularly confirm my comment that this is all you folks seem to ever talk about), you refute yourself; also if you don't assert that, because then you would be conceding that "traditionalism" is about much more than that (which is the actual truth of the matter), and then you annihilate your comment above about "one topic." Either way, you render your own droning comments in this thread ridiculous and self-refuting.

You invite to a post about 'traditionalism', and don't give traditionalism-inclined folks the right to defend their position because you remove the major component of their rightful objections. Kinda like having a trial and not allowing the defense to take the stand. As for your principle of 'no matter what the Church approves, that's it, no discussion, the end' well, we look ridiculous as RCs doing that because bad policy (such as torture) have been 'approved' of by the Church, and we sully papal infallibility, the real definition of it, when we say 'no matter what the leaders do, you must accept it.' Again, RATZINGER has made that abundantly clear in recent years.

The essence of the best, most legitimate expression of "traditionalism" is advocacy for reverence, solemnity, pious Masses, and detestation of abuses (as well as orthodoxy and traditional, apostolic, biblical morality). With this I am 110% in agreement. What you seem to advocate, however, is the absolute necessity of having to run down the Pauline Mass (itself, not just its abuse).

In doing so, you make the essence of your "traditionalism" merely bitching and negativity and endless bashing, rather than the pro-active notion of championing liturgical freedom and traditional worship. The legitimate "traditionalist" can (or should) simply extoll the glories of the TLM and all things associated with it, without having a need to run down something else (other than an abuse).

This amounts to you thinking far more like a Protestant ("either/or" dichotomous mindset of pitting things against each other harmfully and unnecessarily) and a Pharisee (legalism and missing the forest for the trees) and a "Catholic" modernist dissident (picking and choosing what you like and don't like in the Church) than like a Catholic in line with the Mind of the Church (tolerance of different rites and forms of rites and "both/and" outlook).

If you insist that you absolutely cannot advocate traditional worship without having to bitch and rant and rave, then you are a textbook, classic example of what I call a radtrad. All you can do is run down: your enterprise is essentially negative and reactionary, rather than positive and pro-active.

This goes back to the historic scourge of rigorist sects like the Montanists, Donatists, Puritans, Jansenists, and others, who thought they were better than everyone else. This is a lack of charity, and spiritual pride (the essence of separatism, schism, and sectarianism). Not a good place to be, spiritually . . .

By the way, "RATZINGER" happens to be our present Holy Father, so why don't you address him that way, or as pope? Now you talk exactly as anti-Catholic Protestants do: some of whom deliberately refuse to call him Pope Benedict XVI, precisely because they detest Catholicism and the office. You're revealing your spirit at every turn. How I wish that you could feel the joy and peace of being Catholic, and not have to be so miserable.

Dave -funny how you have not even heard a word I have to say, and you presume/ assume/ pre-judge to know what my views are. It is an entire field of legit. debate/ discussion (what occurred to liturgy post VII, which again, CARD. RATZINGER is the leading Churchman on this topic), and your words are nasty and uncharitable.

Readers can judge who is listening and interacting and who is uncharitable in the new dialogue of all this I have just put up on my blog.Calling me names (Protestant, rigorist, etc.): that's charitable and valid debate?"

Can't you ever get it right regarding what I say? I called you nothing except quite possibly a radtrad. You are not your opinions. What I said was that in this respect: how you are arguing now, you "think" like these groups. You exhibit a spirit that is very much like theirs, or analogous to them.

You probably know nothing about my church life -where I attend, etc.

That's quite correct, but also quite irrelevant to my comments, since they don't depend on that at all; rather, on what you are saying in this thread.

yet presume these labels about me.

Learn about what an analogical argument is. I don't have time to walk you through it (especially with your present hostile attitude). Cardinal Newman specialized in it, and he is my hero, and has profoundly influenced me in that respect. I use analogical arguments all the time, as he did.

If we want to lecture about name-calling (real or imagined), I could write a book on that: "trads" have called me a modernist, liberal, Novus Ordo Catholic, neo-Catholic, neo-conservative (Catholic), half-Protestant, and many others,in all likelihood, in private. I've "called" you exactly one (radtrad) and even qualified that a bit: not showing absolute certainty at all. I wrote (above):

If you insist that you absolutely cannot advocate traditional worship without having to bitch and rant and rave, then you are a textbook, classic example of what I call a radtrad.

Marko [who again tried to post a comment that included bashing of the Pauline Mass: that I quickly deleted],

See my "traditionalism" page for dozens of dialogues with "trads" and radtrads. As I said, I have six in my new book. Your mistake lies in assuming that I must do so with everyone (including yourself), that I have nothing else far more pressing to do (presently, The Quotable Aquinas), or that I must debate these things indefinitely.

My present policy of not debating "trads" (for the most part) dates back to the year 2000 at the latest. At times I make an exception to my rule. That, too, is for me to decide, not you or anyone else. I proceed as my judgment and discernment deems best for the furtherance of my apologetic and pedagogical goals. It's worked pretty well for me so far (even you say that you like all the rest of my apologetics), so I'm not gonna change my methods at this late date, after now 32 years of apologetics.

This very day I haven't gotten a blasted thing done with my new book, that I'm dying to get to. Instead, I'm bogged down with this nonsense that never ends.

You are very articulate, nuanced, make your case well, and are charitable. I readily grant all that, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with how I decide to spend my time: what I will debate at any given time, and my policy as to Facebook discussions. 

I am (or 'am like') a rigorist, montanist and Pharisee....yet "you must accept everything, sans exception, the Church and popes decree or do or else I'll delete you." As for my referring to Pope Benedict in these posts as 'Ratzinger' or 'Card. Ratzinger', Dave, you know or should know what my point is -that he, as Card. Ratzinger, was the most outspoken churchmen on the issue of the liturgy, which means, unlike what you claim (that 'the pope says we cannot discuss this' or however you phrased it), it is perfectly 'ok' for RCs to discuss it. You're implying that because I didn't call him 'Pope' that voila! I must be a sede/ radtrad, which makes you look ridiculous to assume these things of me. 

Are you really this clueless about what I think? I didn't say one has to accept everything the Church or popes do, without exception. Never said such a thing; never thought it. I myself dissent from the pope's and Church's stated positions on the war in Iraq; also (slightly) on the death penalty. I advocated universal availability of the TLM before it was allowed in 2007. In other words, I held the pope's stated position then, for 17 years before he expressed it, so in that sense I dissented from the policy prior to 2007, though I didn't run around squawking about it or making it my life's purpose, as radtrads do. So that refutes your ridiculous charge right off the bat. Do you think I'm an idiot? Since you bought my books, I assume not. If you now do, then take my books and go line your bird cage with their pages.

If you continue acting in an obnoxious fashion and distorting what I say over and over, then you'll be blocked. I have certain standards of rudimentary discourse here.

Once again, you distort my reasoning (or don't understand it in the first place: take your pick). What I objected to was your statement: "Again, RATZINGER has made that abundantly clear in recent years." That is a statement about the present, pretty much. He's been pope for over seven years.

Now you're trying to connect that complaint of mine to an alleged direct charge of sedevacantism (!!!): never remotely dreamt any such thing. Nor did I tie your use of "Ratzinger" to possibly being a radtrad. I quoted my words again regarding that. They were very specific and precise. Here they are for the third time: "If you insist that you absolutely cannot advocate traditional worship without having to bitch and rant and rave, then you are a textbook, classic example of what I call a radtrad."

You're simply not thinking logically anymore about what is being discussed here, and some of your comments are literally paranoid. It's obvious in how you report back what I supposedly argued or believed or concluded. I suggest you cut your losses and cease now. My patience is wearing very thin at this point, having basically wasted my entire work day bantering about things that I consider patently obvious and beyond serious dispute (my prerogative to simply disallow one topic on my page).

If you mention this again, you'll be blocked as a troll (just so you know). My patience has completely exhausted itself now. You've offered a textbook example of the obnoxious and ludicrously contentious tendencies of certain (and sadly numerous) "trads": the nature of which is precisely the sort of thing that St. Paul repeatedly warns Christians to not engage.

Ok, Dave, thanks for the clarifications. I shall try reading your main posts about this topic (and order books) asap, and in this way, thoroughly examine your arguments. I wish you God's blessing in your apostolate, and I assure you of my prayers.

Thanks so much for your prayers and wishes, brother. I'll send you my latest book in PDF for free.

"I don't allow here what the pope says ought not to be allowed." That was in your original posts. What, specifically, does this refer to? The discussion of this issue? Go ahead and block me - really, I'd welcome it at this point. My view of you has hit ocean deep.

Your wish is granted. 


[discussion about this exchange can be engaged in at the Facebook cross-posting of it]

* * * * * 
 

Dialogue with a Catholic "Traditionalist" on Premises and Foundations in the Discussion of "Traditionalist" Concerns (vs. Benjamin Baxter)

This came about in a spontaneous Facebook discussion regarding my most recent collection of thoughts on "traditionalism": cross-posted there. Ben was previously an acquaintance of mine. His words will be in blue.
* * * 
There is a way to engage something other than the lowest common denominator. If in any argument you're at the point where you don't understand how someone can come to a particular wrong conclusion, you always need to take five steps back, take a breath, and stop shouting. Because shouting back 9 times out of 10 adds more heat than light, and most "anti-traditionalist" screeds are exactly this.

As to your [earlier] point, Benjamin, about using ""sugar" rather than vinegar, etc., I have tried to do that, myself, and took the greatest pains to show respect and find common ground in my recent book. I did so by presenting debates that I had with intelligent, sensible, thoughtful "traditionalists": some of whom remain friends to this day. I tried to charitably present the most articulate "traditionalists" I could find: not the wingnuts (though they are out there in great numbers).

So I do that; I give credit where it is due, and I always assume good faith. At the same time, I will not water down any critique of serious, dangerous error, because souls are at stake, and the devil loves to siphon away would-be vocal apologists and evangelists, so that they will spend their time bashing, rather than defending the Church. I see it all the time.

So the purpose of this thread is to bash radtrads? That seems about as helpful as an apologetics group that spends its entire time bashing Protestants.


No, it's not to bash radtrads, but to correct their errors.


As a self-described traditional Catholic, I would find it most helpful if there would be someone who would at least be willing to talk things through with me. I have done a fair bit of reading, and I do not arrive at "traditionalism" by ideology but study and, less often than I should, prayer.

Tradition is here defined a different way than Apostolic tradition. It is used more in the sense of the word "heritage" for liturgy and culture.

Didn't the Holy Father say it ought to be read with a hermeneutic of continuity? Doesn't that mean we should read it in light of everything prior to Vatican II?


I think there is a way to talk intelligently and calmly about it, but it's very tricky, and hard to do in proportion to how many people jump in. I left Internet discussion boards about ten years ago because I was disgusted with them, for many reasons. Blogs and Facebook continue to exhibit the same tendencies. Constructive discussions are as rare as a Democrat balanced budget.


So may I suggest some future revisions?


Revisions and development are not bashing. Of course. But you go beyond that. We know that from what you have already expressed. The complete break with tradition, blah blah blah.

Why can't you simply worship as you please, Benjamin, and let others do the same? Is that so difficult? No one has a problem with that. You go to your TLM, we go to our OF [ordinary form, or Novus Ordo] (my church also offers Latin Mass in both forms). Live and let live. Why is it even an issue?

You know more than Pope Benedict when he declared on the issue in 2007? I'm not trying to be provocative. It is a perfectly sincere, logical, rhetorical question. Why can't you (and who knows how many other "trads") simply accept what he said and move on?

That is a good, sincere, honest question. It also has an answer. First, let's build some common ground.

What did Vatican II ask of the liturgies of the Eastern Rites? Can we agree that it asked them to be true to their own traditions?

(Please be more careful in your accusations. That it is a break from tradition is a reason for future revisions. In fact, that's the implicit charge, reason, and excuse for the revisions done in the name of Vatican II, if you read carefully enough.)

First, the definition of terms, one at a time.

Novus Ordo, as discussed here: the changes made for any and all liturgical prayer done in the name of the Second Vatican Council. This includes the Divine Office, the Lectionary, the Divine Liturgy, &c. Depending on context, the term could include both the first set of books of this kind and/or the most current revision, as appropriate.

Whatever . . . You don't like it; pope says it's okay. And you expect your opinion to have more sway and influence than the pope's: to be accepted as if it were actually on some kind of remote level of parity with official utterances of the Holy Father? Again, not trying to be provocative or insulting; just making the obvious logical observation. Catholics listen to what popes say and accord them the highest respect. It's not robotic obedience to every jot and tittle. It's Catholic ecclesiology, the Catholic Way; honor, obedience, respect, following the Mind of the Church.    

I don't debate based on legalistic distinctions ad infinitum. I am debating the spirit and the "atmosphere" of what we find very often in "traditionalism": getting down to brass tacks. 

So what, then, is the point at dispute?

I dunno. You're the aggrieved party. I love how the Church has developed. I think it's fantastic.  

We both agree that Catholics can disagree with the Pope, so long as he is afforded the highest respect.

I don't agree that a guy like you can dissent against an official proclamation of the pope and expect to be taken seriously. It's not a serious enough issue to dissent upon, and you are not important enough for the criticism to have any weight.  

When I say the pope can be disagreed with, I'm talking mostly about historically important instances like St. Catherine or St. Dominic or St. Francis, or about things that have nothing to do with binding declarations on dogma, faith, or morals. 

So you believe that the liturgy of the Church has developed, that the Novus Ordo is an authentic development of the Tridentine Rite. Briefly, what are the reasons for this?

I gave my reasons in a lengthy paper.  

How does the liturgy have to do with dogma or morals? The true complaint of traditionalists is right there in the name: A break from tradition, defined as "liturgical-cultural heritage." It does not refer to the Apostolic deposit of faith and morals or the sacraments. It refers to the particular, peculiar manifestation of how these are carried out in a given culture. For example, exactly in the same way we can speak of Byzantine traditions separate from Syriac traditions and the like, we can speak of Roman traditions. Tradition here includes the internal rules governing these celebrations, in accord with Sacrosanctum Concilium 23.

Tradition used as "heritage" does not refer to the things that have died but the things that have survived. Those things which have survived ought to be given at least as much weight as the things which have not.

The pope says it's not a break with tradition. But you expect me to go with your opinion over against his, huh? Why would any sane Catholic do that? It's absurd. It's the spirit of Luther and dissent. I believe that is what it literally, logically reduces to. I'm not trying to be insulting at all. I often reduce things to their logical outcomes in argument. And it's usually misunderstood.

"Traditionalists" want us to "feel their pain" and relate to their concerns. Well, it works both ways. You have to realize how utterly repugnant some of your basic ideas are to those of us who simply think of ourselves as orthodox, obedient Catholics.  

You haven't replied to my several comments about the relative infinitesimal weight of your criticisms over against the proclamations of the Holy Father.

Canon c. 212 § 3, incidentally.

Christ's faithful "have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ's faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals."

That's talking about priests, not popes (or even much about bishops). Nice try. It also becomes a much larger discussion about how often this should happen, and on what topics, and how vigorously.

So ... the question is not "Why are we talking" but "why aren't you listening?"

The title, actually, says this: TITLE I : THE OBLIGATIONS AND RIGHTS OF ALL CHRIST'S FAITHFUL.[ link ]

I'm all for lay participation. I'm a full-time lay apologist, after all. I edited Newman's writings, and he is my hero, and he was the big champion of the layman. That's not at issue.

You have to address the issue of your complaints over against the pope's teaching. It's fundamental to everything. I told you I'm not gonna get into legalistic discussion. That is always the "trad" tactic. It doesn't work with me.

I'm just trying to be careful and define my terms. I'm not trying to be a legalist.  

What do you mean by "address the issue of your complaints over against the pope's teaching?"

Just scroll up. I asked repeatedly. You haven't answered yet, and now you say, "what do you mean . . ."

Note how similar your tactics are to Martin Luther's at the Diet of Worms in 1521. The Catholics stated (paraphrase), "the Church teaches thus-and-so. Do you accept it or not?" Luther came back with obscurantism and claims that councils contradicted each other, and that the pope wasn't infallible. Uncannily similar . . .

I've studied Luther in great depth. I used to think very much like he did. He was my hero. I know how that thought works, and I know how "trads" often think in very similar ways and categories.

Please do not accuse me of claims I do not make.

I was drawing an analogy. If the analogy of this discussion is to Worms, clearly you are in the position of questioning, dissenting Luther, and I am the defender of the Church and tradition. It's patently obvious. Analogies are imperfect by definition.

If your question is why should you listen to me, it's because I would like to offer some clarifications on what the traditional Catholic complaint is, and how we come to it, and why it is true. I do not come at you as a crusader but as a brother discussing a particular point of teaching.

I didn't ask you what your reasons for "traditionalism" were (which is a legitimate discussion); rather, why I should give you credence when you directly contradict what the Holy Father proclaimed in 2007?

Are you talking about "in the history of the liturgical reform, there ... is no rupture?"  What the pope actually says is this:

"What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful."

In context, it is clear that the Pope refers to the reforms of Vatican II as being in continuity. I simply hold that the reforms of Vatican II, though dearly needed, have not been fulfilled in the light of tradition. They have been fulfilled in every other way except this metric.

Did you not claim that they were a decisive break with tradition on this page, an hour ago or so?  

Here's the trouble: I hold that the Novus Ordo is a break with tradition, defined as above, not Vatican II. Put cheekily, I hold that the Novus Ordo is a break from Vatican II.  I draw a sharp distinction between the new order and the desire of the Council. Does this distinction help?

I would argue that the Pope's purpose in the letter is not to chastise traditionalists so much as chastise those explicitly against the implementation of SP. After all, the letter is written to the bishops, and the bishops against it are those that need the convincing. Of course, it has wider relevance to us also, and we can read it and benefit from it, but we should also consider the destination. Not just the source.

Over on your other debate page (linked above) you write that the Novus Ordo is "objectively inferior" and "juridically inferior" and that: 

. . . the Novus Ordo was crafted without regard to the living traditions of the Church. It is therefore suspect and deserves serious scrutiny. . . . all but zero care was given to the traditions of the rite. At best, things remained themselves the same but were utterly rearranged. . . . the mixed bag that is the Ordinary of the Novus Ordo is not something the informed should give the benefit of the doubt, at least on the level of fidelity to tradition.

And you think all that squares with what Pope Benedict stated in 2007? You actually think these opinions are consistent with the pope's teaching on liturgy?

Right. Because, again, I draw a sharp distinction between the Novus Ordo and the desires of the Council. This is readily apparent by the fact that Pope Benedict has revised parts of the Novus Ordo already, slowly and carefully. (This is apart from correcting abuses.)

Revision is not the same as a rupture with tradition.

When I critiqued Michael Voris' trashing of the New Mass, I showed how he directly contradicted the pope (as you do) [his cited words in green]: 

We see nothing here of the stark contrast that Voris draws between the two forms of Mass. In fact, the pope decreed that they are "two uses of the one Roman Rite" (extraordinary and ordinary). What Voris separates into wonderful and traditional vs. something that is not "authentic Catholic worship" and "more Protestant" than Catholic: to the extent that the two forms of worship are "two entirely different structures," the Holy Father regards as "two expressions of the law of prayer (lex orandi) of the Church."  The pope refers to the "spiritual richness" and "theological depth" and "holiness" of the New Mass. Voris, on the other hand, thinks (rather Luther-or Calvin-like) that the theology it exhibits is "manipulated and twisted and deformed."  

Two vastly different and utterly irreconcilable opinions indeed . . . Now whom shall the faithful Catholic believe?: the pope or a vociferous commentator who appears to casually assume that he knows far better than the Holy Father and Holy Mother Church in her judgments? Is it Pope Benedict XVI who is our leader and guide, or Pope Michael XVI?

You think you can correct popes. I think that is manifest hubris, folly, and absurdity.

 I do greatly appreciate your cordiality, though, in the face of my usual hard-hitting critiques. God bless.

 [possibly to be continued and expanded in the future]


 * * * * *

  

More Pensées on Catholic "Traditionalism"

 Beware! This person was once in the place (not long ago) where "traditionalists" and radtrads are now. You may end up where he is now (sedevacantism).

The following comments were made on a recent Facebook thread that I have now decided to delete because it got way out of hand, with wild diversions and rabbit trails and personal remarks thrown about, as well as the obligatory myriad misunderstandings (as usual, unfortunately, with any thread having to do with "traditionalism"). Here are a few of my thoughts that I expressed in the course of the discussion. Take 'em or leave 'em!
* * * * *
Vatican II was relatively less "dogmatic," but the principles of authority remain the same as with other ecumenical councils (as Pope Benedict XVI expressed in 1985). Vatican II had more to do with overall approach and method and worldview (and liturgy) than with dogma per se, but it is not an absolute distinction. But it reiterated infallible doctrines and in fact, it taught conciliar infallibility to an extent greater than the Church ever had before.

It cannot be challenged in the way that SSPX and radtrads routinely challenge and trash and bash it. SSPX denies the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium, which is dogma. That is a fundamentally unCatholic mindset: much more like "Catholic" modernism or Protestant private judgment than like orthodox Catholicism (as I have noted many times). One must give "religious assent" to the Council, per CCC 892:

Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent" which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

This is how Blessed Pope John Paul II in 1997 authoritatively described the Catechism:

With today's promulgation of the Latin typical edition, therefore, the task of composing the Catechism, begun in 1986, is brought to a close and the desire of the aforementioned Extraordinary Synod of Bishops is happily fulfilled. The Church now has at her disposal this new, authoritative exposition of the one and perennial apostolic faith, and it will serve as a "valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion" and as a "sure norm for teaching the faith," as well as a "sure and authentic reference text" for preparing local catechisms (cf. Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, no. 4).

Catechesis will find in this genuine, systematic presentation of the faith and of Catholic doctrine a totally reliable way to present, with renewed fervor, each and every part of the Christian message to the people of our time. This text will provide every catechist with sound help for communicating the one, perennial deposit of faith within the local Church, . . .

The above statement is infallible in the ordinary magisterium. The pope declared by his authority that it was a "sure norm" etc. That's certainly infallibility in the sense of ordinary magisterium.

* * *

It's a lack of faith that occurs in radtrad circles: like theological liberals and Protestants, they can't bring themselves to believe that God could protect His Church and His popes and ecumenical councils to such an extent. Lacking this faith, they then pick and choose what to dissent from. It's a cancer. This was my own biggest objection to Catholicism: infallibility: so I understand from the inside the skepticism and lack of faith and understanding that leads to these sorts of dissenting opinions.

But then again I was an evangelical who had never been a Catholic, when I believed this: not a Catholic, denying it from the inside, which is infinitely more serious, possibly indicating the lack of the supernatural virtue of faith: which is lost (according to Aquinas and Newman) when even one dogma is deliberately denied / disbelieved. 

* * *

The problem I have with radtrads is that their stance is completely indistinguishable from the premises of the dissent and rebellion of Martin Luther. He started with the assumption that ecumenical councils contradicted each other, and went from bad to worse. So now we have the same nonsense today, being believed by who knows how many people, who are, or (in extreme cases) falsely claim to be Catholics, not Protestants. It seems to me they would be much more happy (not to mention consistent) as Protestants.

This is why I constantly compare this mentality to the pick-and-choose mindset of both Protestants and theological liberals. It's precisely the same insofar as it dissents where it wants to: it "knows better" than Holy Mother Church and popes and ecumenical councils. It's a poisonous, spiritually dangerous and deadly attitude and set of opinions.

* * *Individuals in the SSPX fall into heresy if indeed an individual among them actually denies the infallibility of the extraordinary or ordinary magisterium, and indirectly, the indefectibility of the Church. Dissenting from the infallibility of the ordinary or extraordinary magisterium (where it indeed applies) is heresy: it's a denial of conciliar and / or papal infallibility and (even if not technically infallible) authority. I suspect that some SSPX do and some don't believe this, so I am reluctant to make a sweeping assessment. If someone holds to the above errors, it is heresy.

* * *

What "traditionalists" don't get is the notion of giving assent to magisterial teachings, even if something isn't technically infallible. I deal with all these distinctions at the greatest length in one of my papers (citing many others). The contrasts are stark and extreme:

Vatican II: ecumenism is good and the mind of the Church.
Radtrads: ecumenism is bad, is the same thing as indifferentism and in conflict with past Church teaching.

Vatican II: religious freedom and liberty are good and the mind of the Church.
Radtrads: religious freedom and liberty are bad and in conflict with past Church teaching.

Vatican II: liturgical reform is good and the mind of the Church.
Radtrads: liturgical reform is bad and the Tridentine Mass has to stand forever: any conceivable reform is objectively inferior and out of the question.

It goes far beyond whether something is infallible or what level of "binding" authority it may have. Radtrads are diametrically opposed to the direction and Mind of the Church, as seen at Vatican II. They know better. The Church is dead wrong, according to them.

This is what is patent nonsense and a lack of faith and understanding of Catholic ecclesiology, pure and simple. It's Luther redux. Having studied Luther and the Protestant Revolution in depth, and having once been of that mind myself, I'm quite familiar with it.

* * *

No ex cathedra declarations of the very highest level of infallibility were declared in the Vatican II documents. But there are many levels of infallible pronouncements. The serious mistake here is to assume that Vatican II possessed none of that character whatever, simply because it issued no ex cathedra statement, as Vatican I did, and as popes did regarding the blessed Virgin Mary's Immaculate Conception and Assumption. This is the same mistake that flaming modernists make, in attempting to cast off Catholic authority.

* * *

Loss of faith and possible loss of the supernatural virtue of faith always come to us slowly. This is how the devil works. Beware and be careful: anyone who thinks in the fashion of how radtrads think about the Church.

* * *

The radtrad view of the Pauline Mass is quite out of step with how Pope Benedict described the two forms of the Roman Rite in 2007. I knew that "traditionalists" who were quite enamored of and ecstatic about Pope Benedict when he became pope would throw him under the bus, too, if he disagreed with their foregone conclusions. And we see it happening all the time.

* * *

One radtrad has described the defense of Fr. Brian W. Harrison (one of the most brilliant and orthodox Catholic writers today), of  Vatican II's teaching on religious liberty as "utter madness"; a view that  "guts the Church of her divine commission" and "poison to souls" and "treason against Our Lord Jesus Christ." Here he has revealed his true beliefs. He gets past the usual equivocation and double-minded games that radtrads play, and truly speaks his mind. Pretty revealing, isn't it? I've been noting how the radtrad rhetoric plays out for fifteen years now. This is a classic, textbook example of it.
This is what the radtrad mentality leads to: eventually, popes, too, are fair game and almost any criticism is made of them. That's why the radtrad path so often leads to sedevacantism: it's the logical reduction of a position that wants to harshly judge popes, councils and the Church at the drop of a hat.

I have collected many good articles about religious liberty and Vatican II (mostly by Fr. Brian Harrison), on my "Traditionalism" page (see the two sections there).
 
* * *

Radtrads usually decide to devote more and more of their time to anti-Church, anti-papal, anti-conciliar bilge, and less in proportion to the defense of Holy Mother Church (which is what we apologists do, by definition). It's tough to defend the Church and bash her at the same time. Usually, one course or the other prevails, but they don't blend very well: sort of like oil and water.

* * *

I have stated repeatedly that I'm not gonna debate the issue of "traditionalism." I just finished a book on it (my second; the previous one was from ten years ago): and that constitutes my current opinion and what I wish to convey. I also have a web page on the topic, with more material. Going round and round in "debate" regarding these issues is almost always fruitless and a prime example of what St. Paul calls "foolish controversies": a thing he urges us to avoid. It also plays into the common "traditionalist" mindset of an excessive (and often obnoxious and contentious) legalistic take on everything: highly reminiscent of the method of the Pharisees: leading to the result of often "missing the forest for the trees."

That said, I have managed to get into a few halfway decent exchanges through the years, and they were included in my recent book, with my opponents' words accurately paraphrased (copyright considerations; otherwise, I would have directly cited their words, as I do on my blog).

* * * 

Just glancing through a few items at the SSPX website, I quickly found a ridiculous statement such as the following:

It consequently cannot be denied that Vatican II attempts to constitute a new religion in radical rupture with all of Catholic Tradition and teaching, a new religion whose principal purpose is to exalt the natural dignity of the human person and to bring about a "religious" unity of mankind. However, the subtle cleverness of this operation must also be noted. It is the traditional hierarchical structure of the Church, its Mass, its devotions and prayers, its catechisms and teachings, and now even its Rosary that have all been infiltrated with the principles of the new religion. This new religion has been swallowed down unwittingly by many Catholics precisely because it hides, as a caricature, behind the outward appearance of Catholicism. The end result is a strange mixture of Catholicism and the new religion. [by Fr. Peter Scott]

I can only imagine what additional patent nonsense and hogwash could be found with a closer perusal.

* * * 

I have stated many times and have believed for 22 years, since becoming Catholic, following my mentor, Servant of God Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., that modernism is the greatest crisis in the history of the Church. It is its causes, origins, locations, and solutions to it that differentiate my orthodox Catholic view from "traditionalism" and especially the radtrad fringe of same.

* * *


I contend that is easier than ever to find and learn Catholic truth, with the Internet, free availability of Church dogmatic sources (such as Denzinger and Ludwig Ott), the revival of apologetics in the last 25 years, very excellent papal encyclicals for (at least) over 100 years, the treasures of Vatican II, and the Catechism.

It's not a matter of what to believe, but whether one has enough faith to believe it. The problem is located in the will and the mind. "Traditionalists" (mostly the radtrads) have begun to lose faith, and can no longer believe what in most cases they used to. This is very sad, but it need not be. And Fr. Hardon also noted very often (following Aquinas and Newman), that denial of one dogma of the faith leads to the loss of the supernatural virtue of faith.

* * * 

As I have said till I am blue in the face, we're not the ones who began this tendency to label people and put them in a box. We were all simply "Catholics" until all of a sudden we have this group of Catholics who want to call themselves "traditionalists" in order to distinguish themselves from the rest of us peasants, as the alleged cream of the crop.

That was their choice, not mine. I use that word in quotation marks almost always because I reject the need for another word like that, and also the premises of the definition of those who use it. "Radtrad" simply means "extreme of the so-called, self-named 'traditionalists.' " That is a valid distinction.

Again, we were the ones who were labeled, by being designated absurdly as "neo-Catholics" or "neo-conservatives" (that term was used in this thread and applied to me), or "Novus Ordo Catholics," etc.

Since it was, again, the "traditionalists" who have chosen to separate themselves in some sense from other Catholics, so that they have to have a different name, we regular old Catholics were put in a weird position of having to deal with their errors, and hence, a name is useful and necessary.

But I do agree with you that oftentimes the labels are wrongly applied, and all sides need to be very careful to avoid that.

I have sought to clarify at great length how I define the terms, and how I use them myself. If someone is acting differently from my reasoning, I'm not to blame for that, since I have laid out my position very carefully. No one ought to be labelled a "neo-Catholic" or "neo-conservative" or "Novus Ordo Catholic."
 
* * *

 My own definition of radtrad is a little broader than simply the SSPX and sedevacantists, and includes Catholics who moan and groan constantly about the Pauline Mass and run down Vatican II, etc. It's a spirit and a matter of degree, and spirits and mentalities transcend mere technical canonical status. They're more nebulous than that.

* * *

It's always helpful to point out and refute error. That's what apologists do, along with defending truth. Errors on the theological "right" are every bit as dangerous as those on the left, if not more so (because those on the right usually know better and desire to be faithful Catholics, unlike the left).

* * *

 I wish "traditionalism" were simply unlettered and uninformed. There are plenty of educated "traditionalists" of all stripes. The Remnant , Catholic Family News and other faves have plenty of educated people spreading radtrad poison.

I have not the slightest objection to someone who prefers the TLM (my own parish is one of the few in Detroit that offers it). I've attended Latin Mass (Novus Ordo) for 22 years. I have a problem with such people who have to constantly run down the ordinary form as "objectively inferior" (or in extreme cases, invalid), and all the other rotgut said about it: such as my recent critique of Michael Voris' trashing of it.

* * *

Radtrads play games and love to "straddle the line" (of schism and SSPX-like beliefs). My concern is in identifying danger signals that could signify trouble ahead. Running down Vatican II all the time (while saying it is a valid council), running down the Pauline Mass incessantly (while saying it is valid), running down popes constantly (while saying they are valid popes) are three examples of that. It's a matter of degree: how far one goes with that, to be classed as a radtrad.

So, e.g., in the [defunct] thread [where I made these remarks] we observe several people who seem enamored of the SSPX. They all say they aren't in that party, yet they constantly defend it against criticisms (sometimes legitimately, other times not so much). That's potentially on the road to the same thing. It's a matter of warning (on my part) and discernment (for those reading who are on such a path). 

* * * 

 If one gives pious assent to all that Holy Mother Church teaches, they don't constantly run down popes, ecumenical councils, and the ordinary form of the Roman Rite Mass! Those things are included in that, because to be a faithful Catholic is a spirit and an approach: not just a canonical status of "in communion" as opposed to "in schism." The liberal and the "traditionalist" are also guided by specific "spirits" and "worldviews" and presuppositional and interpretive frameworks.

"Traditionalists" seem to want to approach everything legalistically. That's not my approach at all, and it causes the great miscomprehension of many of my critiques of the phenomenon. I have to explain all this stuff over and over: usually to no avail. 

* * *  

I prefer to stick to the ideas, rather than label individuals (though I sometimes do). That's why I don't name any names at all in my book, because that is a side issue and a rabbit trail ("who's in the group, who ain't?"). The real issue are the false ideas.

* * *  

Proponents of one form of the Roman Rite Mass [extraordinary and ordinary] over the other who run down the other form are the problem. The pope in 2007 put both on an equal plane, in terms of the Church's approval. That should have ended the controversy, but of course it didn't, because people don't heed what the pope says (don't respect it as they should) and don't follow the Mind of the Church. What a pity . . . 

* * *

The pope is not equal to the Mind of the Church. But I would say that he is the one individual in whom the Mind of the Church is particularly concentrated or "crystallized": if we can say that one person most typifies it. He's the leader and the spokesman.

* * *  

I am persuading "traditionalists" away from that line of thinking through my first book on the topic; not through endless acrimonious, mostly fruitless debates. I never expect to convince anyone I am debating. Debates (like national elections) are for those on the fence, wondering, confused, with ambivalent feelings (this is one wonderful aspect of the Internet: that has made my entire career possible, and my efforts relatively successful). One can help move some fence sitters or the "mushy middle" out of one opinion and into another. But one can rarely persuade the true believers and zealots. The ones who debate most vigorously are the true believers and most immune to both reason and change.

* * *

"Traditionalists" looked to Pope Benedict as their big hero-reformer in 2005, because he had talked about reforming the liturgy. So they loved that, and loved the fact that he advocated universal availability of the TLM (my own position for the past 22 years). When he became pope they celebrated all night and were beside themselves with ecstatic joy: they were so happy.

They didn't like nearly so much, however, that he continued Blessed John Paul II's ecumenical endeavors (just as I said he would at the time) and made very clear that the ordinary and extraordinary forms are both equally sanctioned by the Church. This is why "traditionalists" repeat endlessly (carefully selected) liturgical statements [preface to Gamber, etc. ZZZzzzzz] that he made before he was pope, while largely ignoring what he proclaimed authoritatively as pope in 2007, regarding the Roman Rite Mass in its two forms.

When he agreed with them they loved it, precisely because he was pope. But when he didn't, his opinion was ditched and disregarded just like anyone else's (as if the office of pope is no different from the baker down the street), because private judgment is king for [many] "traditionalists" (just as with modernists and Protestants): not Catholic ecclesiology correctly understood, and not obedience to the magisterium as traditionally understood. The magisterium (councils, papal encyclicals) goes right out the window as soon as "Trad" Person X disagrees with it. They are thinking (when they do this) more like Martin Luther than like the Holy Father and the Mind of the Church.

* * *

 I am trying (in my own way) to build some bridges, too, by acknowledging much common ground. I think the "traditionalist" vs. so-called "neo-conservative" squabbles are often quite bitter precisely because we are brothers in Christ's Church, and family fights are always the most intense.

I'm trying to show the common ground, and that not only "traditionalists" are concerned with a liturgy (in practice) of integrity and reverence, nor with doctrinal orthodoxy. I have been, my entire Catholic life.

So I try very hard to find common ground, but at the same time I will talk frankly about errors, and if toes are stepped on, they are. I can't avoid that. It's part and parcel of apologetics. If you happen to hit upon something that a person adheres to, and you are saying it is error or false, they don't like it. It's human nature. And then it often gets personal and irrational.

* * *

Here is an excellent comment on cynical labeling of Catholics and how it has derived from "traditionalists", from one "Jordanes551":

"Neocon," short for "neoconservative," is a bit of traditionalist Catholic in-house jargon that refers to orthodox Catholics who fully accept with little or no hesitation the authority and authenticity of Vatican II and the post-Vatican II liturgical revolution, who tend to see Vatican II and its aftermath as generally good things (with the negative things being the fruit of a parasitical "spirit of Vatican II" rather than coming from or required by the council and the post-conciliar reforms themselves), and who tend to oppose theological liberalism/Modernism and liturgical abuses.

If I recall correctly, it was Chris Ferrara and Thomas Woods Jr. who came up with the term "neo-Catholic" in their book "The Great Facade," drawing an analogy from the schism in U.S. political conservatism between so-called "Palaeoconservatives" and so-called "Neoconservatives." Palaeoconservatism retains the traditional U.S. conservative insistence on truly "small" limited government, high tariffs, strict immigration controls, and a cautious foreign policy that eschews foreign entanglements and contemns the UN and international law, while neoconservatism is reconciled to a larger, more expansive federal government (what Pres. George W. Bush called "compassionate conservatism), globalist trade, looser immigration standards, and active involvement in the UN with a readiness to use military force to defend or advance U.S. interests. . . . Palaeoconservatives tend to see neoconservatives as not true conservatives at all, but really crypto-liberals.

Ferrara and Woods, being American Catholics who held to palaeoconservative political views (Woods has since become a libertarian devotee of Ludwig von Mises, but I for one am unconvinced by his attempts to reconcile the classical liberal ideology of von Mises with the Catholic Faith), likened if not exactly equated Catholic traditionalists to American palaeocons, and likened if not exactly equated orthodox "conservative" Catholics to American neoconservatives, with traditional U.S. conservative ideology being like traditional Catholic teaching and liturgy, and neoconservatism being like post-Vatican II Catholic "conservatism." 

Like U.S. neoconservative proponents tended to be "converts" such as Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, and Father Richard John Neuhaus, so traditionalists point to Catholic converts such as Scott Hahn, Father Brian Harrison, Mark Shea, or Dave Armstrong as so-called "neocon" Catholics. 

Just as political palaeocons tend to view political neocons as false conservatives, so too Catholic traditionalists tend to view non-traditionalist orthodox Catholics as crypto-modernists. At times traditionalists even level accusations of false conversion against those that they, since Ferrara and Woods, call "neocons" -- and anti-semitic traditionalist Catholics have sometimes even accused them of being crypto-Jews secretly and intentionally working to destroy the Church from within. (The more virulently anti-semitic traditionalists will even accuse non-anti-semitic traditionalists of being crypto-Jewish "neocons," and, notably, some of them have even been known to make a play on our blogowner's screen name "New Catholic," calling him "Neo-Catholic" just because he doesn't harbor any hatred for Jews and does not tolerate anti-semitic vitriol here.)
 
I've never had any use for the Ferrara/Woods transfer of these terms to discourse on the Catholic Faith, because they unconsciously set 20th-century Anglo-political ideology as the lens through which to view the unadulterated and perennial faith of the Apostles, which transcends and trumps all human politics. The analogy is understandable, but is very limited and consequently misleading. But then, as I've previously mentioned, I don't even like the label "traditionalist," even though most liberal/Modernists probably think that's what I am, while many traditionalists think I'm a "neocon" or worse. 

Whatever. Call me what you like. I'm just a sinner who is grateful beyond any ability to express in words for having been brought into the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, trying my darnedest to cooperate with God's grace so I can escape hell and attain heaven and bring as many people along with me as my pitiful efforts can capture in my nets in need of mending. (As an aside, the very term "neoconservative" was coined by a Socialist critic of the "founding fathers" of neoconservatism -- Irving Kristol subsequently embraced the epithet. Kind of funny to me that a word coined by a Socialist is now part of the Catholic traditionalist lexicon, . . .

* * *

I don't hold that a pope can never be criticized. I've had papers on my website for 15 years stating the opposite.

My point is that "traditionalists" routinely do what should be a fairly rare event: almost in a knee-jerk fashion, and often (quite humorously) in inverse proportion to their age and experience in and with Catholic thought and the Mind of the Church. "Traditionalists" (esp. radtrads) do so with ridiculous and farcical regularity: to such an extent that it implies that they have little respect for the office at all, or awareness of or faith in the special guidance from the Holy Spirit that the pope has (in a non-legal sense): God is with him in his exalted office.

This is why I and many other critics so often compare "traditionalism" (again, esp. radtrads) to the mentality of modernists and Protestants: they're the folks who specialize in running down and rejecting the wisdom of popes and councils.

* * * 

Take, for example, a certain Catholic "apologist's" outlandish trashing of both Blessed Pope John Paul II and the present Holy Father. When I called him on it and exposed the outrageous slanders, he removed them, but without any retraction that I know of (therefore, my papers documenting what he wrote remain online). He seems almost embarrassed by his own excesses of verbal diarrhea, or else he would rather conceal his contempt for purely pragmatic reasons: hide his deeper motivations and convictions from the peasants and the masses. I suspect the latter.

* * *

Radtrads seem to think it is fine and dandy for anyone to moan and groan about the pope night and day as if he is little different from any other person. That is what I oppose, not all criticism of popes whatever. But if we point that out or make other arguments and criticisms, radtrads relentlesssly come back with obscurantist legalism: a Pharisaical, hyper-legalistic approach: the quintessential and ubiquitous method of the radtrad that is virtually impossible to rationally, sensibly interact with.

* * *

Many radtrads are enamored of various goofball, wacko conspiracy theories, all the way up to and including rank anti-Semitism. Certainly no one can deny that? More sensible "traditionalists" (several of whom I consider friends and apologetic allies) can always fall back on the "well, the nutcases ain't us " defense (again, very much as Protestants perpetually do). I saw a person do this last night on my blog. To an extent, that is true, and we must make distinctions; however, the fact that the excesses and wingnut tomfoolery are so very prevalent in "traditionalist" circles (and often decried by "trads" themselves) ought to tell us something. It's not insignificant.

The overall worldview lends itself to these kinds of things because it is a negative enterprise of incessant criticism and bashing (often based largely in ludicrously self-important, chest-puffing adolescent angst, sophomorism, and testosterone). Because the analysis of the roots of and solution to modernism are wrong, conspiracy theories often provide a bogus "causational" framework in (shall we say) "less developed" minds.

                                                                  
                                                                             * * *

My Most Popular Blog Posts, Judging by Numbers of Hits

 [all figures come from Site Meter, as recorded on 11-17-12]
1. Biblical Evidence for an Eternal Hell [32,024 hits; posted on 12-21-06]

2. Dialogue on the Relationship of Reason, Logic, and Supernatural Faith, with a Christian "Pluralist" (i.e., Theological Liberal) [22,816 hits; posted on 1-19-10]

3. Biblical Evidence for Purgatory: 25 Bible Passages [9,311 hits; posted on 2-27-08]

U2 Concert: 26 June 2011 in East Lansing, Michigan (HD 1080 Videos), + More HD Videos from U2's "360" Tour in 2011

.
.
.
[image error]
I attended this concert, along with my sons Michael and Matthew. It was the best concert (of many) that I've ever been to. U2 is the favorite current band of all three of us. Here is the setlist, according to setlist.fm (the leading concert data site on the Internet):

1. Even Better Than the Real Thing 
2. The Fly 
3. Mysterious Ways 
4. Until the End of the World 
5. I Will Follow 
6. Get On Your Boots 
7. I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For 
8. Stay (Faraway, So Close!) 
9. Beautiful Day  
10. Elevation 
11. Pride (In the Name of Love) 
12. Miss Sarajevo 
13. Zooropa 
14. City of Blinding Lights 
15. Vertigo 
16. I'll Go Crazy If I Don't Go Crazy Tonight 
17. Sunday Bloody Sunday 
18. Scarlet 
19. Walk On 
20. One 
21. Where the Streets Have No Name 
22. Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me 
23. With or Without You 
24. Moment of Surrender 

What I've done is to collect HD videos (1080) of all these songs, from You Tube.  These were excellent videos with audio far above average for a "non-official" concert recording. The songs in blue color above (12 of 24) were all recorded at the concert we attended. The ones in regular black color are from the concert in Anaheim, California on 6-18-11: three concerts before ours, and the one in purple is from Anaheim on 6-17-11. The way they were performed was similar to our concert. I preferred to have high-quality videos of concerts similar to ours, rather than low-quality junk videos from our concert (for half the songs).

I've also included, to start, footage of the band entering the stadium, and after Moment of Surrender, I include five additional songs / videos from June and July 2011. Our concert started out in daylight. We were sitting behind the band, about 15 rows or so down from the top, below the right side of the scoreboard. The photograph above gives a good idea of where we were.

For further recordings from this historic tour (the highest-grossing ever), I highly recommend the following:

U2: 360 at the Rose Bowl (two-DVD set, recorded on 25 October 2009)

U22 (limited edition / fan club type 2-CD set with recordings from different venues on the tour: between July 2009 and July 2011). 

#2 on the latter set (The Fly) was recorded at the concert we went to. Enjoy the extraordinary videos! They truly capture the excitement of being there yourself. See also my Facebook photo album of the concert: photographs by Matthew.

Entrance into Spartan Stadium (East Lansing, Michigan: 6-26-11)



The following twelve songs are from the concert in East Lansing, Michigan (6-26-11):  

1. Even Better Than the Real Thing  
2. The Fly  
3. Mysterious Ways   
4. Until the End of the World   
5. I Will Follow   
6. Get On Your Boots   
7. I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For   
8. Stay (Faraway, So Close!)  
13. Zooropa   
14. City of Blinding Lights  
16. I'll Go Crazy If I Don't Go Crazy Tonight   
17. Sunday Bloody Sunday  

Link to You Tube Video of the East Lansing Concert with the 12 songs above, + additional concert videos of lower audio quality  
9. Beautiful Day  (Anaheim, California, 6-18-11)



10. Elevation (Anaheim, California, 6-18-11)



11. Pride (In the Name of Love) (Anaheim, California, 6-18-11)



12. Miss Sarajevo (Anaheim, California, 6-18-11)



15. Vertigo (Anaheim, California, 6-18-11)



18. Scarlet (Anaheim, California, 6-18-11)



19. Walk On (Anaheim, California, 6-18-11)



20. One (Anaheim, California, 6-18-11)



21. Where the Streets Have No Name (Anaheim, California, 6-18-11)



22. Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me (Anaheim, California, 6-17-11)



23. With or Without You (Anaheim, California, 6-18-11)




24. Moment of Surrender (Anaheim, California, 6-18-11)



BONUS MATERIAL

Magnificent (Anaheim, California, 6-17-11)



One Tree Hill (Chicago: 7-5-11)



Ultraviolet (Light My Way) (Anaheim, California, 6-18-11)



Stuck in a Moment (Anaheim, California, 6-18-11)



Bad (Pittsburgh: 7-26-11)




* * * * *

St. Nicholas Speaks (My 11th Christmas Poem)

St. Nicholas "Lipensky" (Russian icon from Lipnya Church of St. Nicholas in Novgorod): dated 1294

My name is St. Nicholas; and from the 4th century I do hail;I was Bishop of Myra, on the southwestern coast of Turkey.I spent time in the Holy Land, and also in Diocletian's jails;Fought the Arian heretics at Nicaea, but my history is murky.
I was most known for helping the poor, under cover of night;Dropping gifts down a chimney, landing in stockings drying.I loved children and sailors: by grace aiding all whom I might; Once multiplied wheat, to save many in a famine from dying.
My feast day is December 6th: the day I departed this earth;My relics still exude sweet myrrh-like rose water every year.Christians around the world celebrate the day with great mirth;Lots of stories of my life, young and old alike do annually hear.
I was named Nikolaos the Wonderworker due to many prayersAnswered often through my intercession, with miracles as well. The Dutch called me Sinterklaas, adding on legends by layers;They say I leave coins in wooden shoes; maybe so: I won't tell!
The tales and fables grew through the centuries, far and wide;Mostly in the countries where German and English are spoken.As Christkindl or Kris Kringle: to Jesus' holy name I was tied; Now I'm largely called Santa Claus: in long tradition unbroken.
In America my legend, through Washington Irving and others,Spread in folklore, "Twas the night before Christmas," and such.Thomas Nast drew me as a jolly old soul, of all men a brother;Of reindeer, North Pole, red suits, and elves were heard much.
At length, the fables became so secular, commercial, and obscureThat their initially Christian contents became shallow and hidden.It's not Santa who sees all and rewards children good and pure;But God the Father: the source of all graces and gifts we're given.
It's Jesus Who, dying for us, gave life such deep meaning and hope;I am just His messenger, spreading His gospel of salvation and peace. Without His sustaining power and love, surely none of us could cope;This true joy of Christmas, till the end of the world will never cease.

Written on 8 December 2012: the feast of the Immaculate Conception.
[my other ten Christmas poems and many other articles are found on my Christmas web page]

* * * * *