:: The Lidless Eye Inquisition ::

:: Friday, January 23, 2004 ::

Solidarity Request:

LINK

:: Shawn 1:37 PM [+] | ::

************************************

Brief Announcement of New Member:

If you see someone posting as "Greg3" or some equivalent, that is neither Gregg the Obscure nor Greg Mockeridge but instead is Gregory Rossi our newest member whom I invited yesterday. He has not been "incardinated" yet but he has faculties to post from me until he is officially incardinated.

:: Shawn 1:06 PM [+] | ::

************************************

Motu Proprio:

Though not an official update of the sort I occasionally do to this weblog, I nonetheless decided to add two links to the side margin of this weblog. They are the Culture of Christ BLOG -under the Ecumenical Jihad criteria I utilize at Rerum Novarum{1} and my latest essay The 'Tradition is Opposed to Novelty' Canard.

As webmaster of The Lidless Eye Inquisition I declare that these links are to remain in perpetuity thus affixed to this weblog's side margin all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Note:

{1} With only the most minor of adjustments.

:: Shawn 12:48 PM [+] | ::

************************************

Miscellaneous Musings:

I would be remiss if I did not note with approval today that Kevin Tierney deserves commending for distancing his apostolate from Novus Ordo Watch (NOW). Every journey starts with a step and this was an important one in keeping with the Traditional moral principle of "the end does not justify the means." Not that I in any way endorse the end of NOW philosophically{1} but at the very least if the means were respectable then one would have at least some sympathy for the end of said site. But I digress.

Some more points to note here from Restore the Church:

One of the many Neo-Catholic arguments for the Novus Ordo Missae was to get us out of liturgical formalism, that a "unity by uniformity" was in the Catholic Church, and this was a dangerous thing.

Again, it depends on what kind of unity you are referring to.

While there were some instances where there was intregrism, our way or the high way, I find this problem is all too often overhyped, as a trick to demonize the past. The faithful simply didn't see all these dangerous problems(in general) until they were told such problems were there.

Maybe I need to get my friend Art in here to write on the manner of celebration of the liturgy in the 1950's and 1960's. There were many problems and they were hardly imperceptable. But Kevin does not seem to realize that his argument here can be turned on him because the same can be said for the parishoners in the churches where the Revised Missal is not celebrated with due respect.

Most of the problems that those who pay more than token attention to would point out are not seen as such by the parishoners -or even in many cases by the priests themselves. But I digress.

Now we see once again, the Vatican returning to "liturgical formalism" by "fine-tuning" all these changes.

Kevin has bought into the media headline of the article as if it is explaining correctly the intricacies of this subject matter. I remind him (if he is not aware) of McElhinney's Media Dictum which states essentially the following:

The media's propensity for error is in direct proportion to the intricacies of the problem present. Hence, the more complex the variables, the less the media can be trusted to be reliable.

The same is the case with this article Kevin referenced. What we see here is the Vatican being much more directly involved in setting forth the prescribed rubrics.

What they are fine tuning I think is devestating to the claims of the ilk of Shawn McElhinney and the Lidless Eye Inquisition as to how things are going.

I fail to see how. No one on this weblog is a Pollyanna but at the same time, we are not Chicken Little's either. I have taken public stands on the need to properly enforce existing rubrics or modify existing rubrics to restore a sense of sacredness to the sacred liturgy. And no one who contributes to this weblog disagrees with this stance.

These changes are the very least which traditionalists have called for,

We at Lidless Eye have called for changes like this for years. Guess by Kevin's reckoning we are "traditionalists" now. I prefer "Christian is my name, Catholic my surname."

and amongst many of the faithful here, there is an obvious scandal.

Because they have had it pointed out to them.

In other words, celebrating Mass by the rubrics of the NOVUS ORDO causes this kind of difficulty(that a priest receive communion first, that he alone break the bread, etc), how can one say with a straight face that those who adhere to the Pre-Vatican II Traditions have it so good in the Church today?

I will not at this time go into the difference between the apparent confusion here of Tradition and tradition -as I have written on it many times before. As far as breaking of the bread goes, the 1975 GIRM is reasonably clear on this.

c. Breaking of the bread: in apostolic times this gesture of Christ at the last supper gave the entire eucharistic action its name. This rite is not simply functional, but is a sign that in sharing in the one bread of life which is Christ we who are many are made one body (see 1 Cor 10:17).

d. Commingling: the celebrant drops a part of the host into the chalice.

Let us see, if the priest drops part of the broken host into the chalice then it stands to reason that he is the one who broke the host. There is no logical reason to draw from this that anyone *but* the priest breaks the host since (i) no one else is mentioned in the vicinity of this rubric as having ministerial function and (ii) it is illogical to assume that the person who comingles the species is not the same person who broke the host. And of course if there is any doubt whatsoever, recourse can be had to the custom in the older liturgy since silence as a rule presumes continuity of function in light of expressed contrary differences.

We can in retrospect fault the 1975 GIRM for perhaps not being clear enough here but the compilers were going on the principle that this point was self-evident in light of previous practice.

As far as when the priest receives, the GIRM again witnesses to the fact that he receives first as it mentions the priest first in every rubric dealing with the communion rite. Plus there is this point as well:

i. During the priest's and the faithful's reception of the sacrament the communion song is sung. Its function is to express outwardly the communicants' union in spirit by means of the unity of their voices, to give evidence of joy of heart, and to make the procession to receive Christ's body more fully an act of community. The song begins when the priest takes communion and continues for as long as seems appropriate while the faithful receive Christ's body. But the communion song should be ended in good time whenever there is to be a hymn after communion.

There is no merit whatsoever to the claim that celebrating the Revised Missal by its prescribed rubrics leads to the problems that Kevin and his associates assert. As far as "have it so good" I wish I could acquire a wayback machine and take Kevin back to the 1980's and 1970's. If he thinks it is bad now, he has no idea. The liturgy is celebrated a lot better now than it was in the 1980's or the 1970's. That however does not mean that it is where it needs to be though but then again: I was unaware that anyone said that it was. One final point:

Another argument for the supremacy(or at least reason why we should have) the Novus Ordo Missae is because it speaks to "modern man" whatever that means.

Let me see: modern man is generally more intelligent than his predecessors as a result of receiving formal education to a degree previously unprecedented historically. Also, modern man does not relate in any way whatsoever to Latin as a language pace in the period of Church history where Latin was either (i) the vernacular tongue of the west or (ii) the root of many languages where the speakers of said languate had a reasonable understanding of liturgical Latin. (Due to language similarities.) Other points could perhaps be noted but these are two significant ones worth noting.

Other than being a slap in the face to every Pope before John XXIII for failing to accurately speak to the people around them, I find this idea patently false.

What is this "every pope before John XXIII" stuff??? Latin was reasonably understood by people in countries with romance languages{2} even after it was no longer the west's vernacular tongue. Indeed all the way through to the Rennaissance this was the case. And though this started declining after that point, Latin was still considered the language of learning all the way into the eighteenth century. And as the modern liturgical movement started in the nineteenth century, that leaves a gap of about two hundred years at the most (from the waning of Latin to Missale Romanum). This is hardly "every pope prior to John XXIII" by any stretch unless Kevin claims that the papacy started in the late-seventeenth/early-eighteenth century!!!

Here we see that the Mass which is truly speaking to "modern man" today' generation, the youth, are actually beginning to flock to the Traditional Mass.

Celebrate it as it was in the '50s and '60s and see how few people come a flocking Kevin. Likewise, celebrate the Revised Missal as prescribed and see how few people even care about the Tridentine movement. Until either of these happen, it will have some degree of popularity -particularly with the very elderly and the very young. (The former for nostalgia reasons in part and the latter because of the illusion of liturgical sanity.)

The Churches updating to the world seems to be rejected by today's youth, who are looking for the days when the Church was not integrated into the world, her liturgy not very similar to Protestantism, and the idea that God does not change.

I cannot count the number of times these canards have been addressed yours truly and many of his fellow inquisitors over the years. I recently released an essay on the central theory of novelty as espoused by David Palm in an article for that Weekly World News of so-called 'traditionalist' sources (referring to The Remnant) which can be read at this link:

The 'Tradition is Opposed to Novelty' Canard

Hopefully that essay will lay the axe to this canard once and for all for anyone who reads it and is of good faith.

And of course the article Kevin quotes refers to A steady trickle of newcomers in their 20s, 30s and early 40s. Let us see if any of these churches maintain that level of attendance long-term -meaning a couple of years or more after the Indult is at these churches. For if it cannot, then the thesis that the "youth" are "beginning to flock" to it will be set aside as unviable.

I will not waste your time with the drivel from one Plako at that weblog. However, I want to close with two points of (I believe) general agreement with Kevin in principle anyway.

On the Cardinal and condoms issue. Kevin notes the following:

First in this article is the myth that Cardinal Danneels is a moderate during a quarter century of conservative rule. This Cardinal is, and has been, a rank liberal. John Paul II is no conservative. He certainly would not view himself as one. He is conservative on moral issues, and that's about it. He is conservative in the sense he doesn't dissent from any dogma of the Catholic faith. On everything else, he ranges from moderate to the most liberal a Pope has been on a given issue.

As far as what the media says about Cardinal Danieels' position in terms of political terminology and the principle of "double-effect", I remind him of McElhinney's Media Dictum above. As far as JP II being "conservative" or "not-conservative", I remind Kevin that political terms cannot adequately convey theological positions.

Pope John Paul II is a very complex man -easily the most brilliant pope in recent memory. I think Andrew Greeley got it right when he said that Wojtyla "never in his adult life has had an unnuanced thought." For this reason, the media are the last people to be trusted to properly convey his philosophical paradigm as per said Dictum above.

And of course there is the whole idea of defining conservatism - something I have for years thought was right and proper to do but never found the time to do it. However, prodded to do so by Kevin last June, I did just that at my Miscellaneous BLOG posting a working definition of the term as it is properly understood at this link:

The Definition of a Conservative

By that definition, the pope as well as myself are properly understood as being "conservative" since the term is synonymous with ressourcement. I humbly request that Kevin review that thread and in the future try to avoid political labelling when discussing theological subjects. (Or if he must do so then qualify the terms used properly please.)

Finally, I would be remiss to not note something here that pleases me in recent developments. As readers of Rerum Novarum -of which I am pleased to count both Kevin and Apolonio- are aware that I spend the vast majority of my time on that weblog commenting on various subjects and advancing workable models for helping recall society to its Christian foundation.{3}

I also evangelize in the process of course but my interest is and always has been bridge-building to any extent that this is reasonably feasible to do in accordance with Catholic doctrinal principles. Too many people are reactive rather than proactive and I could make a list of those whom I see as in some way contributing to the latter.

It seems that a variation of that theme has been taken up by Kevin and my esteemed fellow inquisitor Apolonio Latar who have joined forces to start a weblog on the subject of Christian culture and applying the Church's teaching to the culture at large. That weblog can be viewed HERE. It shows me that Kevin is interested in more than the kind of lamenting and pseudo-nostalgic manifestos that are so common to many who style themselves as 'traditionalists.'

This weblog will be added via Motu Proprio to my weblog links at Rerum Novarum as it has been added to this one -the principle being supporting good endeavours wherever they can be found. And this is a good one -indeed akin conceptually to some degree to the work of my good friend Stephen Hand whose passion is Catholic social teaching and its implementation in society.

The only reason I do not have TCR linked to at this weblog -as I do at the regular one- is because Stephen does not want to be inundated with this kind of stuff.{4} And while I do not have links here to apostolates that I or the other inquisitors approve of -which may in part explain why we are often misunderstood- I will as an expression of appreciation for this collaboration between Apolonio and Kevin add that weblog to this one and to my other one. As this entry is long enough, that is all I will say on it at this time.

Notes:

{1} Referring to the use of the term here in the context of "ends" and "means."

{2} The "romance languages" include Italian, Spanish, Portugese, and French. If Kevin notices carefully, these were the languages of the countries where the Catholic Church was most predominant in the past.

{3} And hopefully helping in a future Renaissance of sorts viz. the New Evangelization.

{4} And that is probably the reason why of the very few weblogs he promotes, Rerum Novarum is on that ultra-short list and Lidless Eye is not. (And of course if I had to pick one or the other I am happy with how it is in that regard.)

:: Shawn 12:31 PM [+] | ::

************************************

A new kind of weblog (to some extent).

:: Shawn 10:59 AM [+] | ::

************************************

The Aggiornamento of The Lidless Eye Inquisition:
(For the Period Spanning October 7, 2003 - December 31, 2003)

The first task was an extension of the archives out to March of 2004. After that, the following adjustments were made by respective category.

Inquisitors

I added Dr. Art Sippo's name and email under this section. I also corrected SecretAgentMan's email address.

Affiliated Weblogs/Websites

Under this section, I added the link to Dr. Art Sippo's Website.

Specialty Weblinks

Under this section, I added the link to a piece I wrote and released back in December titled On the Intricacies of Dialogue - A Commentary

Site Intention, Disclaimer, and Copyright

With this section, I changed the title of this heading to Site Intention, Disclaimer, Copyright, Etc. and added the following link:

Exhortation to Those Who Participate in the Message Boxes (I. Shawn McElhinney)

The Remnant

Commending Christopher Ferrara (I. Shawn McElhinney)

Yeah, you read that right. I felt then (and still do) that for the sake of Terri Schiavo, the legal work of Mr. Ferrara on her behalf was worth noting. Theological disputes take a back seat to these kinds of situations and Mr. Ferrara, may you receive a reward from the Lord fof Hosts for your service on behalf of those (Terri) who cannot help themselves.

The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX)

Bishop Rifan the Prophet (Pete Vere)

Is the SSPX Still Lefebvrist? (Pete Vere)

Under the Controverted Apostolates main heading, the following links were added by subcategory:

Kevin Tierney and His Apostolate

Brief Response to Kevin Tierney (I. Shawn McElhinney)

Miscellaneous Musings on Diversity (I. Shawn McElhinney)

An Example of the Honesty That Must Accompany Dialogue (I. Shawn McElhinney)

I had a limited amount of time to adjust the template earlier today. Hopefully later in the week I can insert into that link title something along the lines of "With Kevin Tierney" because in all fairness, the above link was not solely of my own doing.

Miscellaneous Muttering On Many Subjects (I. Shawn McElhinney)

A Detailed Response to Kevin on The Revised Missal, Corpus Christi, Church Attendance, Church Forms, Protocol 1411, Etc. (I. Shawn McElhinney)

Jacob Michael's Lumen Gentleman Apostolate

With four responses to Jacob in the November archives thread, it seemed fitting to group them together. Here they are in sequence from oldest to newest.

Response to Jacob (Apolonio Latar)

"Ready, Fire, Aim" Dept. (I. Shawn McElhinney

An Argumentation Fallacy (I. Shawn McElhinney)

Another Brief Response to Jacob (Apolonio Latar)

Controverted Subjects and People in General

Points to Ponder - From Pope Benedict XV (I. Shawn McElhinney)

Traditional Moral Principles and Other Miscellaneous Mutterings (I. Shawn McElhinney)

On Charles de Nunzio (Gregg the Obscure)

For Those Interested (Apolonio Latar)

Points to Ponder - From Fr. Andrew Greeley (I. Shawn McElhinney)

Refuting Mike's Errors (Apolonio Latar)

A Response to Mike Tucker (I. Shawn McElhinney)

Points to Ponder - From Fr. Andrew Greeley --Parts I-II (I. Shawn McElhinney)

Will it Merely Be More Uncatholic "Business As Usual"??? (I. Shawn McElhinney)

Points to Ponder - From St. John Bosco (I. Shawn McElhinney)

Points to Ponder - From St. Irenaeus of Lyons (I. Shawn McElhinney)

Dialogue/Debate on Pascendi (Apolonio Latar)

Points to Ponder - From Cardinal Ratzinger on the Revised Roman Missal (I. Shawn McElhinney)

Guest Editorials

On the Liturgical Movement (Guest Editorial by the Society of St. John; Prologue by I. Shawn McElhinney)

Jacinta's Vision (Guest Editorial by Fr. Thomas Carleton)

Frankly I am shocked that the first guest editorial did not receive any comments at all except one. The second one has received some thus far but very few of them pertain to the substance of Fr. Thomas' commentary. Maybe with noting this publicly that will change.

Nonetheless, all of the links above -added to the margin by virtue of this motu proprio- are promulgated in perpetuity all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

:: Shawn 8:28 PM [+] | ::

************************************