:: The Lidless Eye Inquisition ::

:: Saturday, December 30, 2006 ::

"Hassan Chop" Dept.

Yes folks, we have a third note{1} from Henrik Hassan to post. Rather than duplicate it here as with previous threads, I will merely link to the Rerum Novarum thread with this notification.

Note:

{1} The first two notes can be read here and here for those who have not seen them yet.

:: Shawn 2:28 PM [+] | ::

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

"None Dare Call It A Zionist Conspiracy" Dept.
(With no apologies to Gary Allen)

With that title, we have a resumption of a thread started here and a followup note from someone accusing me of "zionist complicity: or whatever. I will let them explain it in their own words so here goes...

Mr. McElhinney,

One could only wish that you were as concerned about the heinous Zionist influence in the Catholic apologetics community and Church in general as you are about the spelling of your name! But I will at least give you credit for putting up my letter. I did not think you had the guts to do it. Maybe you are not completely brainwashed, a mind-numbed robot working for the Zionists in their filthy drive to rebuild the insane profanity known as the "Jewish Temple". We shall see.

But rest assured, Mr. McElhinney, I have the proof and you and everyone in the apologetics world is going to be rocked by the proof I will provide. It will be iron-clad and only those living in the Zionist fool's paradise will be able to ignore it. It will be completed soon and only then will the world see whether you are a buffoon and coward. Will you have the guts to print it, Mr. McElhinney? Will you have the fortitude to be Catholic?

These are the questions to be answered.

Henrik Hassen

In short, no proof yet from "Mr. Hassen" so we must wait a bit longer it seems. I wonder if Mr. Hassen realizes that the whole idea of "cliffhangers" be it in books, television shows, or whatever is an invention of the Zionists to distract people from reality and fixate their attention on unimportant minutiae while the cabal of semitic globalists move their agenda for world domination along outside of the public eye. Or perhaps he has not gotten that far along in the "conspiracy theorist manual"??? ;-) We shall see I suppose...

To be Continued...

:: Shawn 4:11 PM [+] | ::

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

"None Dare Call It A Zionist Conspiracy" Dept.
(With no apologies to Gary Allen)

Right when I think I am content to let this weblog remain in archive form and not add to it any longer, something like this comes my way:

Mr. McIlhenny,

I am aware that you and others like you are either in a deep state of denial about the Jewish conspiracies that abound world-wide or you are yourselves directly cooperating in them.

Now, before you cut me off as a lunatic, I insist that you hear me out. I have proof that Jews are basically into EVERYTHING and that you and your friends are all pawns and dupes (at best). There are even some among you who are masquerading as gentiles, while I have come into the possession of irrefutable evidence that some are Jews. One of your colleagues even has ties to the Israeli Mossad.

I am dead serious, Mr. McIlhenny and I will be coming forth with the evidence shortly. I must insist that you publish it, unless your pro-Jew, pro-Zionist sycophancy will not allow it.

We will all see, Mr. McIlhenny and the world will know whether you tried to cover this up or not.

Sincerely,

Henrik Hassen

Why do people continue to think I am related to the Avery Island crowd of tabasco makers??? Look, it is not as if my name is absent this site or any other that I run so at the very least, my name should be spelled correctly. That minor issue aside, I am left wondering where people presume somehow that I am so "pro-Zionist" but I will get to that in a moment too.

My remarkable consistency over the years{1} includes a constant trackrecord of expecting at a minimum that those who either disagree with me or who kvetch about some issue over and over again that they (i) be reasonably civil and not not act like a pompous asshole, (ii) define their terms, (iii) make viable arguments, and (iv) document their sources. I have little patience with those who cannot meet this minimal threshold by my own admission.{2} But I am accustomed to being called a panopoly of names from "modernist" to "liberal" to "fascist" to "neo-con" to "Bush sycophant"{3} to "Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde", to "Satan's bedfellow", etc over the years. This is done (of course) by a consortium of carping cowards who demonstrate in their own words that they are intellectually dependent sorts who cannot meet the minimal requirements for a proper dialogue grounded in logic and reason as I noted above.

Now certainly, I have had no problems dispatching with such people's pitiful excuses for "arguments" with the only challenge being finding the time to do such things amidst my constantly-insufficent extra time for these matters. So in that respect, I see little different from this letter except the person involved actually claims they have "irrefutable proof" of their position. So for that reason (and despite no small degree of profound misgivings I have about what I am about to do), I will play along here and see what this Henrik Hassen fellow has to offer in the weeks ahead (if anything).

To be Continued...

Notes:

{1} Modesty aside for a moment.

{2} It reminds me of those who think I am some kiss up to the Bush Administration when I mention an area or three where I agree with them at least to a macro extent. For every agreement I can think of with the Bush Administration, there is a disagreement if not two and I have not been shy in pointing many of them out over the years at Rerum Novarum. Of course to actually have the integrity to admit to this is something that the contingent of carping cowards and intellectually dependent sorts cannot do lest they admit that they are lying like a carpet about what they say about me. But that is neither here nor there.

{3} And (of course) those who make arguments will have what they offer scrutinized and those who provide documentation of positions they take can expect to have their sources fact-checked. If the work is shoddy, I will not mince words or irenic tonalities saying so -particularly if it is someone whom I know can probably do a better job.

:: Shawn 5:59 PM [+] | ::

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

"U Thant Touch This" Dept.

[Note: This thread was posted earlier today at Rerum Novarum. -ISM 9/28/06 7:05pm]

I wanted to note here briefly that the posting from September 9th has been updated in light of two more recent developments. For those who are interested in the whole Sungenis saga, I refer you to that subject here where some of the subsequent developments can be noted. For those who do not find these subjects of interest, consider the other threads posted earlier today and what will follow this one.

Those who do find this subject of interest, I hope they approach it with the regret that such episodes should entail as watching a mental meltdown is not (and should never) be treated as something to be celebrated.{1} It is quite disturbing to see the sorts of illogic and outright contradictions which agenda provocateurs of an apologetics mindset will go through to avoid admitting when they have bitten off more than they can chew. Noted in that update is a public statement by Bob Sungenis which originally looked promising and I hold out the hope that it is genuine though and that what we are seeing is the slow agonizing process of Bob seeking to revise a previously revised worldview. However, now -in light of Jacob Michael's solid logic and reasoning- that public statement is one that can unfortunately be called into question.

Note:

{1} I only use the post title I do as a kind of playful jab at Jacob as it was a rhetorical device used by this writer in the past when the waters between us were a lot colder (metaphorically speaking). In light of the seriousness of what is involved here, a little levity somewhere is in order even if it is (admittedly) somewhat half-baked.

:: Shawn 7:08 PM [+] | ::

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

On Ecumenism and Clearing Up Certain Presumed Inconsistencies:
(A Response to John TOP)

This was posted to Friends of La Nef yesterday. -ISM]

Prefatory Note:

In light of Joe's recent piece on ecumenism and catechesis, I decided to respond to someone in the comments box of that thread by digging into my writing archives and pulling up some of the material I wrote years ago on the whole subject of presumed "magisterial inconsistencies" viz. Unitatis Redintegratio and Mortalium Animos. The material excepted below is from an essay drafted in early 2001 and published in September of that year. The words of my interlocuter in that writing (Fr. Chad Ripperger, FSSP) will be in fire coloured font whereas any sources I quoted in the text will be in darkblue with source citations noted and hyperlinked where applicable. My other words will be in blue font.

This has had several effects on the members of the Church. The first is that those things, which pertain to the extrinsic tradition and do not touch upon the intrinsic tradition, are ignored. This manifests itself in the fact that some ecclesial documents today do not have any connection to the positions held by the magisterium prior to the Second Vatican Council. For example, in the document of Vatican II on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, there is not a single mention of the two previous documents which deal with the ecumenical movement and other religions, viz. Satis Cognitum by Leo XIII or Mortalium Animos by Pius XI. The approach to ecumenism and other religions is fundamentally different from the approach of the Vatican II document or Ut Unum Sint by Pope John Paul II. Moreover, the problem is not just with respect to magisterium prior to Vatican II but even with the magisterium since the Council.

The approach to evangelization and inculturation before the Council of Trent was different than it was afterwards. The Church historically has made paradigm shifts in emphasis before and thus to postulate this as it occurs today as some kind of "problem" is to not be completely consistent. Ecumenism is conducted today differently for a reason: the Church is again in the mode of evangelizing nations and no longer playing the "Fortress Catholicism" mentality which set in after the Council of Trent. We no longer live in the sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, or nineteenth centuries. As circumstances and situations change, the Church adapts her approach. This is by no means a novelty despite how it might appear. The pope has the right to set the tone for what is proper in our day and age as far as the approach that will be undertaken (much as his predecessors did before him in their respective periods). The self-styled 'traditionalist' though does not seem to understand this as they often confuse policy with doctrine consistently — which it seems at times that Fr. Ripperger does in this essay.

Between pre and post-Vatican II doctrinal teachings on ecumenism, there is nothing contrary. The difference is in emphasis. The Church handled herself as she always has done when approached with new philosophies and movements. The first step is negative in the sense that she outlines what is not acceptable within the given philosophy. This is usually in the form of condemning erroneous core doctrines in various philosophical approaches. (Pope Gregory XVI, Bl. Pope Pius IX, Vatican I, Pope Leo XIII, St. Pope Pius X, and Pope Pius XI all did this.) Once the areas of a philosophy that are not acceptable are outlined, it is from there that the Church looks at what is acceptable. In doing this, she incorporates the acceptable elements along with principles that enable the good elements of the particular erroneous philosophy to be harnessed in the service of the Gospel. (Pope Pius XII, Bl. Pope John XXIII, Vatican II, Pope Paul VI, and Pope John Paul II have all done this.) As this writer noted in his treatise on the subject of ecumenism:

Vatican II (VC II) defined the term "ecumenism" and outlined an acceptable policy for Catholics to follow in this endeavour: embracing what was good in the previous errors while reaffirming what was condemned. The core doctrinal teaching of Pope Pius XI's Encyclical Letter Mortalium Animos (MA) - that reunion cannot come at the expense of truth - was reaffirmed in the Decree. The errors outlined in MA §7 are worth noting in brief. Among them include (i) the idea that Our Lord's prayer for unity was merely an expression or desire that still lacks its fulfilment (ii) the opinion that the unity of faith and government, has hardly ever existed and does not currently exist (iii) that the unity of faith and government may one day be attained but in the meantime can only be regarded as an ideal. Further still, (iv) the Church either itself or its nature is divided into sections comprising of several churches or communities that remain separate, and though there are agreements on some doctrines and disagreements on others, that all of them enjoy the same rights (v) that the Church was one until the first Ecumenical Councils. Not only that but (vi) controversies must be entirely set aside and (vii) of the remaining doctrines "a common form of faith drawn up and proposed for belief, and in the profession of which all may not only know but feel that they are brothers" (cf. MA §7). Since every single one of these errors is directly opposed to the teaching of the Decree Unitatis Redintegratio, there is no reason to quote that encyclical letter in the Decree itself. (The policies of MA were modified because the Church unlike in the time of Pius XI was becoming an active partner in the ecumenical movement. However, the methodology of the Decree Unitatis Redintegratio was far removed from the methodology of the Pan Christian methods condemned by Pope Pius XI.)

The Second Vatican Council marked a definitive turning point in the realm of ecumenism wherein the Catholic Church "committed herself irrevocably to following the path of the ecumenical venture" (Ut Unum Sint §3) and outlined the principles that would guide her in directly involving herself in the ecumenical movement. Pope Pius XI did not set any sort of policy but was instead aiming to condemn certain errors at the heart of the Pan Christian movement for unity. The core error of course was indifferentism - an error that Unitatis Redintegratio declared was "foreign to the spirit of ecumenism" (UR §11). However, Unitatis Redintegratio sought to formulate an active policy for working towards Christian unity. By contrast, Mortalium Animos took the approach of reiterating the same "come back to Rome" speech which is hardly an approach that had any hope of working as long as every jot and tittle of orthopraxy was treated as immutable. (Not to mention the clergy of the Church continuing the charade of blaming the non-Catholics for leaving without taking any responsibility for the schisms herself because of certain actions committed by prelates in the past.)

As long as self-styled 'traditionalists' continue to prooftext documents instead of actually reading them, they will continue to tilt at windmills ala Cervantes' "Don Quixote" and fight a figment of their own imaginations. [I. Shawn McElhinney: "A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism'" (c. 2000)]

The major paradigm shift at the Second Vatican Council on the subject of ecumenism was to take the ecumenical movement seriously after watching its progress for some time. That many have disregarded what the Council actually taught is unfortunate; however the recent Declaration Dominus Iesus was issued to correct these misunderstandings and assert the authentic understanding of VC II’s Decree on Ecumenism. Not surprisingly, the response to this reaffirmation was that the Vatican was "abandoning the ecumenical movement" for "pre Vatican II policies". Of course this was not true at all. Nonetheless, such outbursts did highlight just how far from the straight path that many people had actually tread. (Some of good will and others of repute that is more dubious.)

To touch on a pre-Vatican II example of ecumenism, the 1595-96 Treaty of Brest with the Ruthinian church comes to mind. Here was an Eastern church which presented their own "requirements" for reunion which Pope Clement VIII accepted. Consider some of those "requirements" as compiled by the Ruthinians:

3. That the Mysteries of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ should be retained entirely as we have been accustomed until now, under the species of bread and wine; that this should remain among us eternally the same and unchangeable.

4. That the Mystery of Holy Baptism and its form should remain among us unchanged as we have served it until now, without any addition…

7. That we should not be compelled to take part in processions on the day of Corpus Christi - that we should not have to make such processions with our Mysteries inasmuch as our use of the Mysteries is different.

8. Likewise that we should not be compelled to have the blessing of fire, the use of wooden clappers, and similar ceremonies before Easter, for we have not had such ceremonies in our Church until now, but that we should maintain our ceremonies according to the rubrics and the Typicon of our Church.

9. That the marriages of priests remain intact, except for bigamists…

22. That the Romans should not forbid us to ring bells in our churches on Good Friday, both in the cities and everywhere else.

23. That we should not be forbidden to visit the sick with the Most Holy Mysteries, publicly, with lights and vestments, according to our rubrics.

24. That without any interference we might be free to hold processions, as many as are required, on holy days, according to our custom. [Treaty Of Brest Document: "Articles Concerning Union With The Roman Church" (c. 1595)]

Now Fr. Ripperger would probably claim that these were eastern "extrinsic traditions". However, any knowledge of Church history would reveal to him that these matters of western practice were still ones in which some in the west sought to impose on the east. (An example of untraditional theological and disciplinary uniformity which they sought to impose on the east for which the west should be ashamed.) This is one of the elements that led to the schism between east and west. It also fed into the polemical attitudes of many of our eastern brethren who speak so derisively of the traditions and practices of the west. They did not like having their liturgical, theological, and disciplinary "extrinsic traditions" expunged by the Latins and the resentment has reverberated as a result for over nine hundred years. (And it was a strong undercurrent behind the failure of the General Councils of Lyons II and Florence to reunite the west and east.)

And now we deal with the Latin obsession with legalities and find that since the Popes possessed the authority to make modifications to the various parts of the ceremonial (mass, sacramental forms, etc.) we find that the west modified the forms in accordance with the times, circumstances, and places. The east never saw this policy as a viable one for to them the "extrinsic tradition" was part and parcel to the Great Tradition as a whole. Consider the irony here for a moment.

The modification of various customs over time played no small part in the rift between west and east because in the east there is often not a distinction made between doctrine and practice. (Much akin to the problems in the self-styled 'traditionalist' movement as few make the kinds of distinctions that Fr. Ripperger is seeking to make here.) Bearing that in mind, we must apply these principles consistently. If the current magisterium is at fault for this than consistency demands that the magisterium in previous eras be chastised as well. Of course this will not be done by the self-styled 'traditionalist' for whom consistency is a foreign concept.

It does not take too long to unscramble these eggs if one reads with the eyes of faith and trusts that even if they do not fully understand the rationale that God protects the Church in these instances. That does not mean that the judgments made are necessarily the best ones but that can be said about any period in history where such modifications were made. There is no justification for presuming that the Tridentine modifications were the apex of disciplinary manifestation. And thinking that today's disciplinary provisions are superior would not constitute a de facto getting into bed with the Modernists either. On the topic of ecumenism this principle of altering the policy while reaffirming the doctrine comes to mind. Ecumenism as Vatican II defined the term was practiced at Brest. This differs markedly from the kind of Pan-Christian false ecumenism which the popes before Vatican II condemned (and which Vatican II and the subsequent popes have likewise condemned). [I. Shawn McElhinney: Excerpt from the Essay Distinctions of Outlook (c. 2001)]

Epilogue:

I later on dealt with the issue of ecclesiology with greater precision in writing on various ecclesial models but at the time the above material was written, I did not have as precise an understanding in this area as I would later have. Nonetheless, what is revisited above hopefully dispels with the notion that there is any kind of doctrinal "reversal" or "correction" by Vatican II of post magisterial teaching.

:: Shawn 12:39 PM [+] | ::

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

A Post of Possible Interest for Lidless Eye Inquisition Readers:
(From Rerum Novarum)

On Robert Sungenis and the Jews

:: Shawn 2:21 PM [+] | ::

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

"One From the Vault" Dept.;
(Dialogue with Fr. Thomas Carleton on the Rosary and Private Prayer)

The following text was completed in October of 2005 but for reasons I cannot recall at the moment was not published. Anyway, since nothing has been posted to this weblog in a while, it seems appropriate to tweak the thread and post it now since the subject involved (prayer and how to pray) is hardly one that will be obsolete anytime soon. (The subject referred to in the posting was a then-recent guest editorial on the rosary and private prayer which was written by Fr. Thomas Carleton and formatted/posted to this weblog by yours truly.)

On the subject of the rosary and private prayer, I advanced the following question to Fr. Thomas Carleton[.] in the message boxes below. As I think the advice he offers could get lost in the comments box shuffle, I want to transpose it to the main weblog; ergo the purpose of this posting.

Fr. Tom:

Do you have a particular recommendation viz. praying the rosary in one sitting vs. praying a decade here and there throughout the day??? And to what extent should we use addon prayers???

I ask because generally when I pray the rosary, I tend to add on the decade prayer, the Hail Holy Queen, a prayer to St. Joseph, the Prayer of St. Michael, etc. Do you think that is wise or should it be built up to if you will (the decade prayer excluded of course since it is so short and does not add really to the time factor in reciting the rosary)???

Father responded to my questions in the following manner:

Hi Shawn,

Naturally the important thing is that we are trying to pray, trying to listen to God, trying to speak to God, trying to follow Our Blessed Lord's wishes:

"And (Jesus) spoke also a parable to them, that we ought always to pray, and not to faint".

If you have a way that fits your situation, I would not want to argue with it.

I believe that the Pope's Letter is basically saying the same thing, offering various ideas that each may feel free to utilize or not.

Since the Rosary is often used in group prayer, obviously there must be a somewhat standardized form, but even here various communities and families have differing customs.

Not every time I say the Rosary, do I feel that I did it well.

When you nail down the daily habit, that always gives you the opportunity to do better tomorrow.
The supernatural origin of the Rosary seems to be generally accepted by traditional Catholic spiritual writers and that on a number of different grounds: Lourdes, Fatima, Saint Dominic, the many miracles granted in reply to the Rosary etc. etc.

Our Blessed Mother's request that we "Say the Rosary every day" repeated at each of the 5 apparitions, leads me to believe that its particular form best conforms to the needs of man's prayer life.

It has more or less a set amount of time: anywhere from 15 to 25 minutes. None of us feel that we "pray always" or as much as we should, but it is comforting to be able to say to ourselves: I did follow my heavenly Mother's wishes which must, in some sense, imply an acceptable amount of specific daily prayer. Likewise we know that not only explicit vocal prayer is needed, so is meditation. For most people not practiced in meditation, that would be difficult without the Rosary's form of "Aves" that can fade into a type of background music the more our meditation takes off and can support the pray the more our meditation faints away, or stumbles.

The decade prayer is in fairly common use. The Hail Holy Queen at the end of the 5 decades is standard (although in Italy, they are more apt to add the Litany, at least when it is said in Churches before the daily Mass -which it almost everywhere is and lead usually by the Pastor! - practice what you preach!).

I myself add after that the Saint Michael prayer. I do believe that there is always the danger of "mission creep", the tendency of holy people to keep adding on, sometimes with the danger that average people may at some point throw the whole thing up - so that is a distinct danger that we have to guard against. It would obviously be counter-productive.

Pray is very necessary. Like the apostles we must learn how to do it. It is, as studies on meditative prayer now show, very helpful to our mental health as well as it's primary purpose, our spiritual health. Twenty minutes a day to withdraw into our heart to be with God is not a beyond anyone, and maybe the best eternal and temporal investment one ever makes.

I notice a very thoughtful and well researched piece there on the words of Consecration. Let me take this opportunity to "enter into the record" what I passed on about that for the benefit of many troubled by the new Mass. How this fits into what your new inquisitor has come up with, I'll let others work on...

At that point, Father wanted to point Keith to a piece he did on Pro Multis. As that piece was posted in guest editorial form at Rerum Novarum over two years ago, I will note the link here for the benefit of Keith and the others.

Oh, and thankyou for the response to my question Father. I am trying to recultivate a pattern here and your advice will be helpful in that area.

:: Shawn 5:54 PM [+] | ::

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

Myths or Misperceptions on the Liturgy:
(With Kevin Tierney)

[Prefatory Note: This text (except for a few minor tweaks) was written on or before June 28, 2006. -ISM]

Recently, Kevin decided to respond to a response I wrote to one of his pieces some time ago. This will be an interaction with his latest response...his words will be in black font, my previous words (as quoted by him) in blue font.

Popular Traditionalist Myths on the Liturgy
Posted: Friday, June 02, 2006
Last Update: Friday, June 02, 2006

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. The law of prayer determines the law of belief. If there is one law in the Church worth preserving, it is this law. Prayer is not just discussion with God. Prayer calls to mind certain tenets of the faith that we reflect upon as we pray. This rule holds especially true with the Christian liturgy. Not only do we worship God, but the faithful are edified by instruction, and most importantly the Blessed Sacrament. The Council of Trent, when ruling against the vernacular, still noted that the Mass “contains great instruction for the faithful people.” (Session 22, Chapter VIII). This was confirmed by Vatican II in Sacrosanctum Concillium, chapters 14-20.

I agree with everything in the above paragraph.

The reason this is important is because since the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae, a sharp decline has been evidenced in many things pertaining to the Catholic faith. Devotion to angels, strength of belief in purgatory, and Eucharistic piety took a steep decline, despite the constant affirmations (especially about Eucharistic piety) from Popes Paul VI and John Paul II. Some of these things also happened to be those things eliminated from the Classical Roman Rite when the New Mass was implemented.

This is true but (I would argue) a bit misleading. To unscramble this egg properly, one has to touch on more than just the liturgy since it can be argued that a lot of what we have seen would have happened anyway even if the liturgy remained untouched from what it was in the 1962 Missal. But that is a subject for another time and if Kevin would like to discuss it, he knows how to contact me.

Now to what degree this is the cause is debatable.

Agreed.

But to deny it is even a cause is to I think be blind to reality.

Not necessarily. There were deeper issues involved and the liturgical modifications were if anything pretty minor factors by comparison. Again, if Kevin wants to discuss this in more detail later on, I would gladly oblige him.

My colleague I. Shawn McElhinney is one who tends to favor this view, when he says such things as:

There is this tendency towards viewing the Mass as some kind of verbal theological treatise and feeling that if certain doctrines were more explicit in the rite that the problems of today would be corrected. With this view it is not uncommon to proclaim that a decrease in belief in the Real Presence or in other doctrines are the fault of the Council or of the Revised Missal. Unfortunately, the blame should go squarely on the shoulders of poor catechizing programs and the secular humanism of today which have had devastating effects on the Church. It is there that our focus should be, not the "tilting at windmills" approach where the naïve assumptions are made that if we just reinstate the Tridentine Missal and impose communion by mouth that all problems would subside. No matter how simplistic or complex a liturgy is, there will always be complexities that the text is capable of arousing. With the TM, many of its ambiguities were covered over by the Latin and properly explained through a prudent catechizing program. The PM, because it is predominantly in the vernacular, tends to have its ambiguities more readily noticable.

Those words were written by me over five years ago and I still stand by them in the context they were written in. For readers to assess that, they can read the essay in its entirety HERE.

While elsewhere Shawn has affirmed to this writer that his view is a bit more nuanced than this, I think the sentiment he expresses here is a rather common one in those who give critiques of the traditionalist movement. However, at the same time, I have never heard it seriously argued that the Mass is some sort of verbal theological treatise.

It is an argument that is made by implication Kevin, not one that is explicitly made. And everytime someone argues about the Classical Roman Rite{1} and tries to argue against its replacement with language that bemoans the supposed "reduction" of one doctrine or another in the liturgical text, the argument I noted is logically implied.

In regards to the second one (reinstate these things and the problems will go away) one is reading traditionalist critiques far too simplistically.

It depends on whom we are talking about. I remind my good friend that it is no more possible to define one particular viewpoint on this among the so-called "traditionalists" than it is to define pne particular viewpoint amongst any other group. If Kevin wants to claim that the so-called "traditionalists" should not argue in that fashion then fine but not a few who use that term to describe themselves do precisely that. Others are more nuanced but certainly it is not the "all or nothing" situation that Kevin presents it to be.

Simply judging by the content of the prayers, the Latin mass does more substantially touch upon several factors of the Catholic Faith.

Yes and it also obscures other factors. ALL liturgies do this.

However, the way in which it does this is a bit more subtle, precisely because most people are either not going to understand a theological treatise, or will simply be bored out of their mind in attempting to do so.

The reader is reminded that Kevin will now show the value of proper catechesis in his analysis which proves the very point I have made for many years now...

For example, constantly throughout the Latin Mass one is taught about the intercession of the saints. This is not done by explaining a Biblical basis for such a belief, or how they intercede, but by constantly imploring their intercession.

But the Classical Roman Rite fails to make a clear demarcation between hyperdulia and dulia. Whatever one says about the Revised Roman Missal, it does make this distinction clearly in a few spots.

Also, certain saints are named, as ones which the Roman Rite holds of special prominence. St. Peter and Paul are invoked numerous times throughout the classical liturgy. As the founders of the Roman Church, the first pontiff and “the apostle to the gentiles” the faithful are reminded of the very special and prominent place they hold in Christian thought. Today, they are not mentioned in the Revised Missal, unless the traditional Roman Canon is used. (And realistically speaking, this is maybe 5% of masses if one is lucky.) One goes from hearing about them every Sunday, to never hearing about them at all. Does the person holding the position outlined above mean to tell this writer with a straight face that there is no correlation whatsoever?

If Kevin wants to argue that the Roman Canon should be featured more prominently in its usage, I would not disagree. However, it is also important to remember that the Revised Roman Missal is more than just the mass of the city of Rome (which is what the Missal of Pius V was prior to 1570) but indeed is a universal liturgy. It embraces elements of all streams of the Great Tradition and not just the practices from the Roman dioceses prior to the Council of Trent. Readers who read my essay from which Kevin quoted above will see that I was making this same argument in that writing -albeit in much more detail than I intend to do here.

When the critic states that the fault lies with catechesis, not the liturgy, that position is more telling then they seem to realize. If the problem exists with the catechesis level and not the liturgy, did this problem exist before Vatican II? Everyone agrees this was the case. Then why were catechesis mainly ignored, and so much attention given to changing the liturgy?

The presumption seems to have been that things were generally speaking on a more solid footing than they turned out to actually be. To explain the liturgical changes it helps to remember that the liturgy had been the focus of a lot of critical studies over four centuries (post-Quo Primum) and there were areas which became clearer over time were deficient and needed to be tended to. I do not say "deficient" as if to imply that the liturgical usage was dangerous to souls or any of that garbage; however, there were some points which were not completely correct theologically viz how they were expressed. There was also the recognition of the problems of evangelization in areas of the world where the Classical Roman Rite and the use of Latin was foreign to the understanding of a large percentage of the world's population. Again, I dealt with this subject in the aforementioned essay and recommend giving the essay a read in its entirety to see what one of the motivating factors behind the liturgical reform was.{2}

While catechesis should never be ignored, this starts with the liturgy, and is continued elsewhere for more instruction.

The liturgy is easily misunderstood without proper catechesis.

Catechesis classes not everyone can attend. But Sunday Mass everyone will be at.

I hate to bring this up again but back in the "good old days" probably most people did not understand what was going on during the liturgy. This is one reason why using the liturgy as the first point of catechesis is never a wise idea unless one seeks to do so by implication at best.

When Pius XI wanted Christians to call to mind the doctrine of the Social Kingship of Christ in an increasingly secularized society, did he call for massive catechesis programs?

I will get to this in a moment.

While he did call for more learning on the subject, the primary way he did this was through the sacred liturgy, as he tells us in Quas Primas:

That these blessings may be abundant and lasting in Christian society, it is necessary that the kingship of our Savior should be as widely as possible recognized and understood, and to the end nothing would serve better than the institution of a special feast in honor of the Kingship of Christ. For people are instructed in the truths of faith, and brought to appreciate the inner joys of religion far more effectually by the annual celebration of our sacred mysteries than by any official pronouncement of the teaching of the Church. Such pronouncements usually reach only a few and the more learned among the faithful; feasts reach them all; the former speak but once, the latter speak every year -- in fact, forever. The church's teaching affects the mind primarily; her feasts affect both mind and heart, and have a salutary effect upon the whole of man's nature. Man is composed of body and soul, and he needs these external festivities so that the sacred rites, in all their beauty and variety, may stimulate him to drink more deeply of the fountain of God's teaching, that he may make it a part of himself, and use it with profit for his spiritual life…. The festivals that have been introduced into the liturgy in more recent years have had a similar origin, and have been attended with similar results. When reverence and devotion to the Blessed Sacrament had grown cold, the feast of Corpus Christi was instituted, so that by means of solemn processions and prayer of eight days' duration, men might be brought once more to render public homage to Christ. So, too, the feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus was instituted at a time when men were oppressed by the sad and gloomy severity of Jansenism, which had made their hearts grow cold, and shut them out from the love of God and the hope of salvation.

Of course this was a reference to a new feast day in the calendar which is not (of course) limited only to the liturgy.

The most effective way to reach man is through the liturgy, according to Pius XI.

Pius XI was referring to the institution of feasts in the Church's calendar with the above phrasing. The word "liturgy" or its equivalents was used only four times in the encyclical and on all occasions it spoke of the insertion of the feast into the calendar for celebration on a Sunday during the liturgical year. Furthermore, Pius XI seemed to think the inclusion of this feast in the calendar would accomplish a lot of things and I know I need not remind Kevin that papal opinions are different from papal teaching.{3}

One doesn’t need advanced catechesis to understand the basics that the liturgy should be giving.

It depends on how basic a teaching we are talking about. Even the notion of Christ the King has more to it than meets the eye -as Pius XI noted in devoting an encyclical of moderate length to the subject.

Furthermore, could we not also argue that emphasizing these things briefly in the liturgy will spark man’s interest to attend additional instruction in regards to these things?

Yes we could. Lest there is misunderstanding here, I am hardly saying there is no educational value in the liturgy. My point is that the liturgy is subject to misunderstanding in not a few areas for those who are not properly catechized. And if not for the appearance of denigrating the Classical Roman Rite, I would use it to illustrate this point in spades.{4}

No doubt this is the case. When the feast of Corpus Christi was instituted, Eucharistic piety amongst the faithful soared, and learned theologians began to give wonderful developments on the teaching of such an august sacrament.

This is true.

Had they waited for catechesis programs, chances are they would still be waiting today.

It is not an issue of wait[ing] for catechesis programs as much as it is recognizing that the liturgy is not the perspicuous source of education that many presume it is. One can also consider how Pius XI in writing a lengthy encyclical on Christian education four years after Quas Primas devoted less than a sentence to mentioning the liturgy but mentioned other subjects pertaining to education far more frequently in that encyclical letter. The reason of course is that there are many ingredients that go into baking the cake of a solid Catholic education including the liturgy as well as art. But proper catechesis is indispensible if one is to understand the liturgy properly. I do not even see how this point is debatable but (of course) it apparently is in the minds of some people.

For those who likewise caricature traditionalist arguments by saying “you guys just think that if we restore the Latin Mass the problem will be solved” they are guilty of grossly oversimplifying the issue.

It depends on the party in question. Kevin is aware that there are a panopoly of self-styled "traditionalist" views and statements on this matter. With some this is not a caricature at all whereas with others it undoubtedly is.

The fact is, this argument has not been said.

See my previous comments.

What has been said is that either a greater promotion/restoration of the Latin Mass would be an important and prudent step in eliminating some of these problems.

This is probably true. However, it would reintroduce others that previously existed.

Some would be eliminated outright.

See my previous comments.

By restoring the discipline of the priest only distributing communion, the plethora of “Eucharistic ministers” (frowned upon by the Vatican) would vanish overnight.

I for one favour intincture for reasons I have stated more than once over the years. I also favour the re-establishment of the acolyte and the imposition of it only onto married men: something I will gladly explain my reasons for later on.

From there, we can work to what is proper participation on the basis of the faithful. One can agree or disagree with these sentiments. Such straw men serve no purpose in a fruitful discussion however.

I agree with Kevin except for the idea that straw men were introduced into this by me in anything I have written. Hopefully what is noted above amply explains my reasons for this.

Notes:

{1} I do like that terminology a lot better than the Traditional Latin Mass one: far less deceptive and far more exact.

{2} And one I might add which in my experience has rarely if ever been recognized or dealt with by those who claim to be "traditionalists."

{3} What methods are or are not best and most effective are by their very nature normative and therefore largely subjective.

{4} Not that the Revised Missal is free from such things of course: this is germane to all liturgical forms that have existed (or ever will exist).

:: Shawn 5:09 PM [+] | ::

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

Points to Ponder:
(On Church Infallibility Extending Beyond Matters of De Fide Dogma)

"The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments."

"If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible." [P. Herrmann, Institutiones Theol. Dogm., Rome: 1904, 1:258]

:: Shawn 7:02 PM [+] | ::

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

Kevin Tierney writes an open letter to Jacob Michael taking issue with the latter's ambiguous stance viz. the Society of St. Pius X

Hopefully, Jacob will make the time to respond to Kevin's questions to him.

[Update: Jacob has since this writing seen the errors of his previous position and has resumed full communion with the Catholic Church. -ISM 12/30/06]

:: Shawn 7:04 PM [+] | ::

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

"Ready, Fire, Aim" Dept.
(Correcting A Misrepresentation of My Position)

It was pointed out to me that the following was said about me and this weblog in an email sent from some Thomas Herron fella to Matthew Anger. Having no time nor desire to fight their battles for them (since they are more than capable of it themselves), I will reproduce and comment only on the part where I am mentioned trusting that Matthew Anger and Christopher Blosser --who are the main focuses of Mr. Herron's criticisms-- can deal with the rest if they feel so inclined to. Without further ado, let us get to it now...

(e)As to Thomas Woods do you reject his dissent from Catholic moral teachings on economic and social questions as contained in his The Church and the Market?

To start with, labelling anyone's views on economics issues as "dissent from Catholic moral teachings" is something that a wise person would tread carefully on. These kinds of rash denunciations are commonly utilized by those who are partisans for the so-called "distributivist" view of economics. I have explained more than once why distributivism is not only internally contradictory but further still, that distributivism does not even meet the most essential critieria for being a valid theory{1} to begin with. For more on the latter, see the audiopostings contained in the second footnote of this posting.{2} Moving on...

Do you think Christopher Blosser was wrong to link to Woods' dissenting book in his blog on Catholic economic questions as Mr. Blosser claims to be an orthodox Catholic and fan of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI?

Of course Mr. Herron does not demonstrate that Mr. Woods' positions as espoused in his book are actually "dissenting" ones but he merely says that they are. This is of course a pretty elementary fallacy of argumentation called begging the question and reiterating it as Mr. Herron does in the followup to the original assertions does not make it any more credible or substantiated assertion than it was the first time he said it.

Do you know why bloggers like Mark Shea and Shawn McIllhenney The Lidless Eye Inquisition (April 8, 2006) are just citing Mr. Ferrara as the author of The Great Facade and giving Dr. Woods a free pass?

The only posting from April 8, 2006 at this humble weblog is this one and there is no mention whatsoever of the book Mr. Herron refers to in that thread. There is a few mentions of Chris Ferrara but I was unaware that he and Mr. Woods were akin to the proverbial "Chester-Belloc" on each and every issue.

As it is, with the above posting (which is the text of an I-Chat with Kevin Tierney and thus is a bit disjointed in spots compared to a standard blog posting), reference is made to Ferrara only because the material Kevin mentioned (to my knowledge) only involved him. Hopefully Mr. Herron is not usually this sloppy in his research of facts before deciding to write on a given issue.

Scanning his weblog, it seems that he has an obsession with the so-called "neo-cons" so (perhaps) he will take up the pen and answer the challenge I have issued on how these so-called "neo-cons" are identified -the series threads thus far in this sequence will be listed in the third and final footnote of this posting.

In summary, Mr. Herron made a pretty elementary error in what I supposedly "said" or did not "say" and all readers need to do is check the thread for themselves to see that he took a "ready, fire, aim" approach to this matter...which leaves one to wonder if this is a rare occurrence for him or instead is a habitual tendency that he has. For the time being I will (to be charitable) presume the former but the jury will be left out on the latter until more evidence to sustain it is forthcoming from other readers. (I certainly will not spend any time looking for it.)

Notes:

{1} [W]hen one is dealing with a theory, they are dealing with both abstract notions as well as coordinating dynamic principles of action. One of the author's intellectual mentors once defined a theory as "a set of non contradictory abstract ideas (or as philosophers like to call them 'principles') which purports to be either a correct description of reality or a guideline for successful action."...

Having established a working meaning of the term theory, it is worth noting also that the word thesis according to the Merriam Webster Thesaurus is related to the word theory. (Both of them having a foundation in the term assumption.) A good way of looking at this in the current context is to view a thesis as "an abstract principle or proposition advanced and maintained by argument" and a theory as incorporating a thesis -or a series of theses -with a guideline for successful action. The reason for this is because a theory by its nature must involve either (i) a correct description of reality or (ii) a guideline for successful action. For this reason, any viable theory involves several principles if you will which work together.

Or another way of looking at it would be to consider that a theory is being conceived of a series of non contradictory coordinative theses or points of presupposition. When viewed in this light, a theory clearly is only as strong as the theses which support it. [I. Shawn McElhinney: The 'Tradition is Opposed to Novelty' Canard Introduction Section (circa January 14, 2004) as quoted at the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa January 14, 2004)]

{2} Here are the two posts I refer to above:

Miscellaneous Musings on Illegal Immigration, Voting Issues, Audioblogger, Fundamental Rights, Activism, Distributivism, Valid Theories and the Criteria Thereof, Etc.--An Audio Post (circa April 8, 2006)

Miscellaneous Musings on Distributivism, Valid Theories and the Criteria Thereof, Illegal Immigration, Activism, Fundamental Rights, Etc.--A Continuation Audio Post (circa April 8, 2006)

{3} Here are the threads in that challenge series thus far:

Miscellaneous Morning Musings on Blogging, the So-Called "Neo-Cons", and the Miers Nomination--An Audio Post (circa October 27, 2005)

The genesis of the idea for the series was set down in the above off-the-cuff audioposting. Only later (when some emails were received where people sought to respond to it) was the idea for a continuing series on the subject actually undertaken:

"Tracking the Ever-Elusive So-Called 'Neo Con'" Dept. (circa December 4, 2005)

"Tracking the Ever-Elusive So-Called 'Neo Con'" Dept. (circa December 6, 2005)

"Tracking the Ever-Elusive So-Called 'Neo Con'" Dept. (circa December 20, 2005)

"Tracking the Ever-Elusive So-Called 'Neo Con'" Dept. (circa January 27, 2006)

"Tracking the Ever-Elusive So-Called 'Neo Con'" Dept. (circa January 30, 2006)

"Vreebird" Dept.: Another Installment in the So-Called "Neo-Con" Tracking Series (circa March 6, 2006)

:: Shawn 5:57 PM [+] | ::

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

On Liturgical Issues, the "Superiority" of Certain Liturgies, Etc.:
(With Kevin Tierney)

This will be an interaction with part of a series that Kevin Tierney is working on at his website. But before getting to the parts I want to critique, it will be necessary to understand a difference in the manner whereby Kevin and I use certain terms. For example, we have obvious differences in how we approach the term "traditionalist" so briefly outlining those differences seems appropriate at the present time so I will do that starting with Kevin's definition as given in the first part of his series. His words will be in black font throughout this post.

...I must define what I mean by “traditionalist.” More importantly, I am going to explain what it isn’t, and I won’t be defending.

I will not be including such people as the schismatic Society of St. Pius X as traditionalists here. It is my firm belief that the only way one can be an authentic traditionalist is unity with the Chair of Peter, the source of all ecclesial unity. Nor will I be talking about those who believe that, based on what they view a coherent theory (I for the record do not find it coherent or permissible to hold) that the Popes since Vatican II are not popes. (I.e. sedevacantists.)

On this matter, there is 100% concurrence between Kevin and myself.

Now that this is defined, we must state what a traditionalist is. A traditionalist is one who seeks either the restoration or the promotion of the “Traditional Latin Mass”, the Mass which existed in almost the same form throughout the Roman Rite for over 400 years before the Second Vatican Council. This is the unifying factor. There are many other common characteristics amongst traditionalists, but they are not as central as that of working for the Classical Roman Rite.

This is where Kevin and I part company viz. what we mean by this term. The manner in which I have always understood and utilized this term was explained in a disclaimer added to my first web writing on these subjects. To show the parallels and the divergences in understanding between Kevin and myself on the matter, I will quote it now before getting to the meat of this posting:

In this work you will see the use of terms such as ‘traditionalist’ and 'traditionalism' used oftentimes. As these terms and others like them have been so badly abused by many groups, I wish to quantify my use of them and their derivatives throughout this essay. I am in using the terms ‘traditionalist’ or 'traditionalism' going to usually preface them with qualifiers such as 'self-styled' or 'so-called' to indicate that I am referring to those who fraudulently apply these terms to themselves. In other situations I will simply refer to 'traditionalists' or some derivative in that manner and when I do that the same principle applies. Any and all attempts to refer to people or organizations who appropriate that term for themselves but who can do so honestly will be referred to either as 'Traditionalists' (note the capitalization) or as 'Tridentine Catholics'.

When I refer to 'traditionalists' I am most assuredly NOT speaking of any society or organization that has received the approval of the Roman Pontiff to offer the Old Roman Rite of Mass (aka Tridentine) and receive the sacraments in the norms which they were prevalent from approximately the fifteenth century until 1975. My reference is to those groups which claim to be ‘independent chapels’ or possess ‘independent priests’ and who in schism from the Apostolic See offer the Tridentine Mass illicitly and administer most of the sacraments illicitly (and some of them invalidly). These groups are not in communion with the Catholic Church although many of them lie and claim that they are to deceive the laity. Individually those properly referred to as self-styled 'traditionalists' would be those whom it could be reasonably deduced were formally adherent to these kinds of groups. (Judged based on their actions, attitudes, and of course their words.)...

In the above description, the reader can note a convergence in Kevin's definition and mine. Here is where we differ in our understanding of the term:

...[A]uthentic Traditionalism does not depend on what rite of Mass you attend, what devotional prayers you use, what theological positions you espouse, or what disciplines you follow. Authentic 'Traditionalism' is much more integral then that and it applies to a frame of mind and a certain attitude. It is not and cannot be found in externals - even those which may have the hallowed sanction of time. Nonetheless there are those who have a preference for the older rite of Mass and that in and of itself is of course just fine. The problem lies in how this preference is handled for it can be handled in an authentically Traditional manner or in a false serpentine 'traditionalist' way. This treatise will make the demarcation of these two terms clear for the reader. [I. Shawn McElhinney: Excerpt from A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' --Part I (circa 2000, rev. 2003)]

As readers can see, there is a significant difference in how Kevin and I apply this term. Essentially, my net is wider if you will because I do not look at the Church as synonymous with the Latin rites as Kevin's definition is. I am sure if pressed, Kevin would adjust it to account for the eastern rites too but once he does that, he has to reconfigure his approach to the term if we take it to its logical conclusion. But that is neither here nor there since this is not a matter of defined dogma or declared doctrine of course. Having noted that, let us move onto the next part of his definition:

Another central factor is their emphasis on tradition, whether ecclesiastical or Apostolic. In far too many circles of today’s Church, we constantly hear what new ideas we need too do, yet never do we hear about those before us.

In this area, Kevin and I agree also. If respect for the Great Tradition means all of its historical manifestations and not just selective slices of the pie (as I believe it does) that would have to include by logical extension the two century plus period prior to the Second Vatican Council too. Now that we have gotten those distinctions out of the way, onto the article itself...

YOU CAN'T SAY THE LATIN MASS IS SUPERIOR!

The source I am taking this text from is located HERE.

As the rallying symbol of traditionalists is the Classical Roman Rite before the Second Vatican Council, it is not surprising that many of the myths about traditionalists are found in this area.

Since I do not concur with part of Kevin's definition of what is and is not a "traditionalist", it should not surprise that I view the liturgical issue in some respects differently than he does.

For example, one very popular Catholic apologist compares even loyal traditionalists to modernist progressives by stating the following:

The liberals/modernists/so-called "progressives" want to de-sacralize the Mass by trivializing it, messing with the language and promoting mediocrity in liturgy, music, and architecture; the fundamentalist/"traditionalists" want to butcher it by denying that the Novus Ordo Mass is valid or vastly inferior to the Tridentine Mass; thus denying indefectibility.

I am confused. Based on the text above the "apologist" being cited appears to say that the so-called "traditionalists" want to butcher the mass by denying that the Novus Ordo (I really hate that term btw) vastly inferior to the Tridentine mass. Unless Kevin mistyped the quote, it seems to me that many who call themselves "traditionalists" assert that very thing if not explicitly than at least by logical inference. Nonetheless, there is an argumentation fallacy in the above statement by attempting to equate a view of the newer liturgical rite being inferior as being a denial of indefectibility. The two do not logically go together at all. Saying that something is free from error does not mean that it is necessarily presented in the best possible way. However, a lot of this is to get into the realm of normative questions and theories which frankly needs to be recognized up front by all parties involved.

While I would agree with him that one cannot say that the Novus Ordo Missae is invalid, I must strongly object to the idea that one cannot say the Latin Mass is somehow “vastly superior” without denying the indefectibility of the Church.

As I noted above, this position is correct.

First, we must note the patently obvious. In announcing the excommunication of Archbishop Marcel Lefebrve and the schism of the Society of St. Pius X, John Paul II said the following in Ecclesia Dei:

Moreover, respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962.

It is therefore crystal clear that when it comes to the offering of the Classical Roman Rite, when it is performed under the auspices of the Bishop, Rome encourages this. Therefore, faithful Catholics are indeed given a choice between two liturgies. As a result, those faithful Catholics who are so inclined will have to give an examination of the two rites, and ultimately conclude that one is superior to the other for various reasons. Some may even say vastly so.

Provided that they recognize that such speculation is by its very nature generally normative (and thus subjective) certainly.

However, what this apologist does not realize is that the argument cuts both ways. He is forbidden to say that the Novus Ordo Missae is vastly superior to the Classical Roman Rite! Yet would he really want to indict Paul VI, who no doubt believed that the Rite was superior, and vastly so, as he promulgated it and passionately defended the liturgical changes he promulgated? If it’s valid for the Pope to say one is vastly superior to the other, it’s valid for us to say the opposite is.

This is true. As I noted already, these are generally normative issues and thus to a large extent subjective.

Recognizing the claim of the apologist for the utter nonsense that it is, I will now attempt to do precisely what he says I can’t; I’m going to state that the Classical Roman Rite, on the average, is vastly superior to what we currently have, and that I do not think the liturgical reform can be viewed an overall improvement.

Depending on how these positions are approached, I could either agree or disagree with Kevin at least in part. For example, I would agree that the manner in which the Tridentine liturgy is celebrated today is on average better than how the Revised Roman Missal of Pope Paul VI is celebrated. However, at the same time, I would argue (and have) that the liturgical reform on paper and in some parts theologically is a significant improvement in many areas; however, these have often not translated into actual practice yet for various and sundry reasons.{1}

There is something to be said of stability, especially in worship. Stability represents the timelessness of God, and hence the worship of Him is also timeless. It reflects of the transcendent. It is for this reason that the prayers of both liturgies are structured, with many parts of the Mass (known as the Ordinary) never changing, being the same every week.

True.

However, I feel on emphasizing the aspect of transcendence, the Classical Roman Rite far surpasses that of today’s Mass and what is on the books.

In practice this has shown itself to be true today. But when one compares today's liturgies to how the Tridentine liturgy was celebrated in most of the world prior to the Second Vatican Council, the comparison breaks down.

In saying the Novus Ordo Missae, the priest has about 40 options of ways he can lawfully say Mass. This varies from parish to parish, as depending on the options one employs; the Masses will not be similar, except for maybe 5-10 minutes out of the entire hour. This can hardly be said to reflect stability.

But of course this is fairly standard throughout most of history. Different dioceses had variations, different religious orders, even sometimes different parishes. The degree to which the variations existed varied of course: something not assisted much by the propaganda of some so-called "traditionalists" like Michael Davies (RIP) and the counter-propaganda of those who take a view opposing his. But to go into that subject would be to get offtrack so we shall return now to Kevin's article.

(1) Whereas with the Classical Roman Rite, it is the same essentially no matter where one goes.

Which was itself a novelty of the post-Trent period -specifically the two hundred years prior to Vatican II.{2} Furthermore, this whole notion is problematical when one takes into account church history. Or to quote from my favourite western academic orientalist on the problem with the outlook Kevin refers to above:

Unfortunately, the overwhelmingly Western character of Catholicism for over 900 years makes it necessary for us to remind ourselves that variety within the Church is not only a fact, but that any other situation would be deplorable. There was a time not so long ago when some sort of proof for the universality of the Church was found in the false belief that, "Wherever a Catholic goes, he will feel at home when he enters a Catholic church because there he will find the familiar Mass celebrated in the common language of the Church." Not only is this untrue, but if it were true, it would be not the glorious thing we might have once imagined, but a chilling commentary on the narrowness we had imposed on the Body which Christ fashioned for all mankind. To impose one Rite on everyone does not render that Rite, or the Church, more universal. It only impoverishes the catholic expression of the Church’s life. [Fr. Robert F. Taft SJ: Excerpt from Eastern-Rite Catholicism - Its Heritage and Vocation]

This is far more proper and Traditional a view of liturgical issues than what Kevin appears to be proposing -and I say appears because I suspect there is more nuance to his position than his article involves at the present time.{3}

The only difference being that on some days, a priest may choose to follow one feast day over the other, and hence different Propers (those prayers which do change weekly) are used. The beginning is the same, the readings are always the same (2), communion is the same, etc.

Other than the part about the "readings are always the same", what Kevin notes in the above paragraph is correct. (I will deal with the readings issue later on.)

So on the issue of liturgical stability, I believe that the Classical Roman Rite far easily trumps the Novus Ordo Missae.

Perhaps so but the operative presupposition in that statement is that somehow a more uniformed liturgical approach is properly speaking "Traditional." History not only does not countenace this but the notion of a liturgical rigidity being more "authentically Traditional" is the exact opposite premise advanced by Counter-reformation Catholic apologetics against our Orthodox brethren. To quote from a points to ponder segment from The Lidless Eye Inquisition weblog (circa June of 2005):

The growing estrangement between East and West was accentuated by the diversity in national character, language, rites, and discipline. Since the time of Justinian the Great, the Eastern church had sunk into a state of stagnation and rigid adherence to the forms and traditions of the past; and because she adhered to them, she looked askance at those who did not; because she was stagnant, she was suspicious of those who moved. If she had been satisfied to hold onto her traditions, all might have been well; but she insisted on imposing them on the west too. Any ritual or disciplinary practices not in harmony with those in vogue in the East, she declared "contrary to the apostolic tradition" and therefore to be abolished. [John Laux: Excerpt from Church History pg. 291 (c. 1930) with Nihil Obstat from J. Scanlan, STD and Imprimatur from Patrick Cardinal Hayes, Archbishop of New York (circa May 20, 1930)]

The above depiction was a standard one prior to the Second Vatican Council which Catholic apologists used as a kind of apologetical expedient against the positions of the Orthodox. However, when it came to the Protestants, the exact opposite approach was taken.{4} Consistency however would require (if Kevin is to not be purely arbitrary in his approach here) to recognize the approach taken by the Orthodox in opposition to Catholic liturgical innovations as authentically "Traditional" but this writer suspects he would not do that. Furthermore, what the Catholic apologists criticized in the Orthodox (uniformity of rites, rigidity of adherence to past practices) was then used against the Protestants in a classic case of violating the law of non-contradiction. For reasons I allude to in a footnote below, there seems to be a good reason why the garden variety counter-reformational view espoused against the Protestants is not infrequently taken as the truth by Catholic converts from Protestantism without looking at the broader picture and what it reveals.{5} But enough on that point for now.

Another area in which the Mass shines over its modern form is it emphasizes the distinctive “Catholic features” of our faith. The mass is full of invocations of the saints, prayers for the dead in purgatory (the sacrifice is asked to help remit the sins of the dead on two occasions), and strongly emphasizes repentance from sin. The Novus Ordo Missae not only emphasizes these tenets less, but in some areas, decidedly so.

I will deak with this in a moment.

Explicit devotion to St. Michael the Archangel, the Apostles Peter and Paul, and John the Baptist disappears from the New Mass. As Peter and Paul were the founders of the Church of Rome, it is very fitting that the Roman Churches liturgy pays homage to those mention explicitly, giving them special mention apart from the other apostles. Many have had varied reasons for this change, whether it be not wishing to offend our Protestant brethren, or reverting to the second century liturgical practices (when the Church was underground), the change is obvious. I happen to lament this “development”, and I believe even many strong defenders of the Novus Ordo Missae (who view it either superior or vastly superior than the Classical Roman Rite) should agree with me.

I will deal with this in a moment.

The efficacy of the sacrifice for the dead is mentioned only once in the Novus Ordo, and even then only implicitly. (3)

Okay, this seems the appropriate place to deal with this subject in general.{6} And the beauty of past writings is that I can do that without reinventing the wheel by quoting from my essay Confusing Culture With 'Tradition' where I interacted with an essay by Cardinal Alfons Stickler circa three years ago (TM and PM are references to the two liturgies in question here with TM being a reference to the Tridentine ritual):

[It] seems that the Cardinal is falling into a trap not at all uncommon to those who prefer the TM - even among the ones who are faithful to Rome: the misguided belief that Catholicity means uniformity.

There is this tendency towards viewing the Mass as some kind of verbal theological treatise and feeling that if certain doctrines were more explicit in the rite that the problems of today would be corrected. With this view it is not uncommon to proclaim that a decrease in belief in the Real Presence or in other doctrines are the fault of the Council or of the Revised Missal. Unfortunately, the blame should go squarely on the shoulders of poor catechizing programs and the secular humanism of today which have had devastating effects on the Church. It is there that our focus should be, not the "tilting at windmills" approach where the naïve assumptions are made that if we just reinstate the Tridentine Missal and impose communion by mouth that all problems would subside. No matter how simplistic or complex a liturgy is, there will always be complexities that the text is capable of arousing. With the TM, many of its ambiguities were covered over by the Latin and properly explained through a prudent catechizing program. The PM, because it is predominantly in the vernacular, tends to have its ambiguities more readily noticable. [I. Shawn McElhinney: Excerpt from Confusing Culture With 'Tradition' (circa March 4, 2001)]

Objectively, it is not the promoting of any liturgy apart from proper catechizing as if it is the solution to the problem. Indeed, Pope Pius V in 1566 (four years prior to the promulgation of his Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum) issued a papal brief authorizing the printing of a catechism called for by the Council of Trent. And popes subsequent to that time and despite the usage of the Missal revised by Pope Pius V nonetheless bemoaned at times the lack of catechesis amongst the faithful. And considering that there are several ambiguities in the older liturgy which are obvious when that text is approached at face value,{7} all this does is sustain the very assertion I am making here about the importance of catechesis and how the kind of arguing that Kevin is making above is problematical to his position.{8} Moving on...

As far as the issue of sin, many say that it was emphasized far too much during the Mass of the classical Roman Rite. I disagree, in that before our reception of the Eucharist, one cannot focus on our sins enough.

As with anything, a proper balance is required. Kevin's statement about "[not] focus[ing] on our sins enough" encapsulates the germ of the heresy of Jansenism.{9}

(It is after the reception of the Eucharist we should be in a mood of profound rejoicing.)

True.

In the area where one confesses their sins, it is only optional to emphasize one’s personal responsibility.

Okay, Kevin makes a good point about the subject of introductory options. The original reason for that was to provide for shorter masses on weekdays but the shorter options are often used today on Sundays and Holy Days where they were never intended to be used.

However, what he does not seem to realize is that there was a serious imbalance in all the ad nausium repetitions on the subject of sin. Or as my good friend Dr. Art Sippo once noted on with regards to a theological virtue that for a long time was not handled in a balanced fashion:

One thing I have to agree with the 16th Century Reformers on is that we need to encourage our Catholic people to be more confident of their salvation and God's good will towards them. The problem with some Catholic spirituality is that after a whole life of piety, it makes it seem like a crap shoot as to our final destination.

Any adult Catholic who has practiced the faith, kept the laws of the Church, made regular use of the sacraments and who dies with the full benefit of the Church's rites is virtually guaranteed to go to Heaven. Such a person does not need to be perfect. After all, Jesus came to help sinners, not the righteous. When we deny ourselves of the confidence that the means of grace gives to us, we do ourselves a disservice and we fail to avail ourselves of the theological virtue of Hope. [Dr. Art Sippo: Excerpt from His Article Catholic Soteriology (circa 2001-2)]

What Kevin sees as a "lessening" in this area could be viewed as an attempt to restore balance...the extent to which this was successful is (of course) a matter of legitimate debate.

(4) Gone is Psalm 42, which was also chanted by the Jews during the time of the offering of the sacrifice for sin.

And in its place was the restoration of the traditional Responsorial Psalm which varies from mass to mass. One of the intentions of the liturgical revisions was to restore the liturgy to "the pristine norm of the holy Fathers" and a liturgical addition in the eleventh century{10} would not generally be viewed as achieving that purpose.

The prayers Suscipe, Sancte Pater and Offerimus tibi, Domine were changed radically, and in that change removed the references to sin and clemency, rather focusing on the bread and wine presented before God, not the reason for that offering.

It is debatable if this is reflected in the underlying Latin text or a product of mistranslation.

Others could be listed but I think one gets the point. When it comes to stressing the reality of sin, it is my contention that those of yesteryear, even if to a fault, definetly gave it better coverage than we see today.

The question remains if they did so to the detriment of certain other teachings which are supposed to be emphasized along with the teaching on sin....see what was noted above about the theological virtue of hope for one example.

So I’ve stated why I believe the Novus Ordo to be inferior, and why I believe in many instances vastly so.

Again, generally speaking Kevin has approached this from a normative standpoint which is subjective.

Now the question, am I within acceptable Catholic parameters by stating so? The answer is yes, for numerous reasons.

He is within his rights to believe that certainly.

1.) I nowhere state that the Novus Ordo denies the things I mentioned above. I do believe the emphasis was wrongly lessened, but that simply is a question of degree, not of kind.

Ok.

2.) I do not believe much of what we see today in the liturgy is what the Council Fathers of Vatican II had in mind.

The same could be said about the revisions to the missal under Pius V: that the final product may not have been what the Council Fathers (of Trent) had in mind either. Either way though, what happened happened and whatever any grouping of Council Fathers (be they the Fathers of Trent or the Fathers of Vatican II) had in mind is not really germane to this issue.

Indeed, when told that after Vatican II the Mass would be completely in the vernacular by a Bishop who was concerned about introducing the vernacular into Mass, the Bishops laughed at their brother Bishop. Within 20 years of him being laughed at, he was proven right.

Perhaps so but there was also lay approval of the vernacular far beyond what the Fathers expected. So much so that bishops began petitioning the Apostolic See for use of the vernacular and the application of the vernacular expanded probably significantly beyond what was originally envisioned.{12}

3.) Organizations such as Adoremus, while their criticisms might not be as strong as the one I outlined, are similar in kind, and hence they advocate a “reform of the reform”, which admits that the first reform was either botched or done in a fashion that was not as good as originally anticipated. (One should charitably favor the second idea.) Very few people would accuse men like Fr. Fessio of denying the indefectibility of the Church.

True.

In the end, while many of these people might mean well, by stating the claim that we cannot assert something is vastly superior, all they are doing is stifling what is a necessary debate on the liturgical reform.

Agreed.

As faithful Catholics have been given a choice in which Mass to attend lawfully, let the discussions be conducted in charity. If anything, people can learn from each other. Many times those who seek to reform the Novus Ordo Missae listen to the criticisms of traditionalists, and attempt to incorporate them into their plans for reforms. Likewise traditionalists listen to the concerns of those who attend the New Mass, and attempt to incorporate their concerns into making the Mass they celebrate better. Far from denying it’s indefectibility, in the end the Churches indefectibility can be emphasized even more.

Well said.

Notes:

1.) Elsewhere I have argued that the way to get around this problem would be to make the permissible options only permissible on the diocesan level, where the Bishop sets the options used, and every parish must follow that option.

This is a reasonable idea and eminently traditional actually. The Bishop of the Dioceses is supposed to have some role in liturgical regulation after all.

2.) I mean the readings are the same in the following manner. Numerous times in the Lectionary of the Novus Ordo Missae (the readings of Scripture), the reader, at his own choice, may choose to omit certain parts of the passage lawfully. Normally brackets are included around the words he has the option to ignore/omit. In the Classical Roman Rite this is not so.

I do agree that the bracketing idea was better in the abstract than it has at times shown to be in reality; ergo, I am in favour of requiring the whole text to be read unless there is a significant reason not to.

3.) One could view this just as easily the prayers of the faithful are just as important if not more important than Christ’s sacrifice for the dead.

I disagree.

However, our prayers are only efficacious because of Christ’s sacrifice. The Classical Roman Rite leaves nothing to chance, since it says “Accept, O holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this unspotted host, which I, Thy unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, for my innumerable sins, offenses, and negligences, and for all here present: as also for all faithful Christians, both living and dead, that it may avail both me and them for salvation unto life everlasting. Amen.” While one could perhaps question the placing of this prayer, it explicitly references one of the effects of the Sacrifice of the Mass is for those souls in purgatory.

I promised I would not go into one of the objective theological problems with the older liturgical form; ergo I will not comment on the "offertory" prayer Kevin refers to above since they would encompass part of the aforementioned objections.

4.) I am also of the opinion that if this was made the one true option, this would be called an improvement over the Classical Roman Rite, as it talks about sins of omission and commission (in what I have done and what I have failed to do), something that the Older Rite did not emphasize clearly I believe.

I appear to be missing something since Kevin refers above to the confiteor whereas the footnote appears to refer instead to Psalm xlii. If I am wrong about this and I may well be--this wording will be changed to reflect what he is referring to at that point of the writing.

Notes:

{1} I have argued this point before to the silence of the Tridentine promoting gallery and do not intend to repeat myself here. Oh and to anticipate one possible objection to this point, this is not contrary to what I said about this issue being "generally normative" since what I am denoting here is an exception to the rule (and the exceptions I have in mind here are quite few and specific).

{2} Yes, I am aware that Quo Primum was promulgated four centuries prior to Vatican II but there was not liturgical uniformity for some time afterward. And though hardly the only place where this was a problem, it was nonetheless particularly acure in France where the decrees of Trent took about a century to be implemented and the post-council papal liturgical reforms longer still.

{3} One of the strengths of Kevin's writing style is its general brevity -and yes, before anyone snidely notes it in the comments boxes brevity is an area of weakness in my writing style admittedly. (Though I have improved in this area considerably over the years.) Nonetheless, a strength in my expository approach is greater nuance and precision which is difficult to achieve with more economical writing approaches.

{4} Perhaps one of the reasons why a significant number of those who prefer the Tridentine liturgy amongst Catholics are converts is this reason: they bought into the apologetical casting of the "uniformity" of the Catholic view vs. the "divergent", "contradictory", or otherwise "anarchic" traits common to the overall view of things expressed by various Protestant communities and theologies.

{5} See footnote four.

{6} More could be noted than this but for lack of time on my part.

{7} It is only for the sake of not wanting to make this posting longer than it already is (as well as time constraints) that I do not delve into these issues yet again at this time.

{8} The sacred liturgy...does not decide or determine independently and of itself what is of Catholic faith. [Pope Pius XII: Encyclical Letter Mediator Dei (circa November 20, 1947)]

{9} This in no way whatsoever is an accusation of heresy either directly or proximately on the part of Kevin so readers are kindly asked to not waste my time, Kevin's time, or comments box space trying to make that connection.

{10} Before the Introit the Psalm "Judica me," the "Confiteor," the versicles "Aufer a nobis," the "Oramus te, Domine," were added; and, in Solemn Masses, the censing of the altar.

Psalm xlii. is indicated in the ancient Missals as a preparation for Mass since the eleventh century. It is well chosen for such an office; and the anthem "Introibo ad altare Dei," taken from the text of the Psalm,
emphasizes, as is intended, the principal verse which usually determines the use of a Psalm.

The Confession of Sins before Mass is mentioned in the "Didache," and other ancient liturgical books. It is an apostolic practice. The formula here employed was the "Confiteor," in the form which prevailed from the tenth- eleventh centuries, and which had been used ever since, though with numerous variations. [Rt. Rev. Dom fernand Cabrol: From The Mass of the Western Rites from Ch. IX (circa 1934)]

{12} I am not about to go into the subject of whether or not this was a good thing: a subject which is by its own nature far too normative anyway.

:: Shawn 4:12 PM [+] | ::

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

Briefly on the Armenian Decree:

As this text was judged as too long for putting into the comments boxes, I am posting it here as a thread. Jim Scott's words will be in black font and any sources I cite in darkblue.

The prohibition against observing Old Testament ceremonies is found in session 11 of Florence however a brief reading of the Catholic Encylopedia will revieve ONLY session Six considered infallible.

One might instead say that the church is infallible in all matters that pertain to the deposit of faith either explicitly or implicitly. And following this criteria, only session six is ecumenical in the proper sense of being universal. The other sessions involved reunions of individual churches with the Roman Church. In the case of the Copts, as I noted earlier:

[T]he Copts being Alexandria based were probably in close contact with the Alexandrian Jews. The Alexandrian Jews were among the most cultured peoples in the world and probably because of this the Copts were to some extent seduced to a degree into involving themselves in their ceremonies to the point where their observance was viewed as a necessity. That is what the text seems to allude to if we look at the broader context. [Excerpt from The Lidless Eye Inquisition (circa March 6, 2006)]

There was a lot of anachronism in the Decrees of Florence pertaining to individual churches reuniting with the Roman Church. This does not mean that the decrees lacked authority of course, only that certain elements of them were not perminent and others (such as the reiterating of EENS in the Coptic reunion decree) were. And certainly the sacramental rites as outlined by Florence in the Armenian decree were not as history is more than amply a witness to.

I should note that Jim was quoting the 1913 CE and that is normally a reliable source. But on the subject of infallibility it often fudges and is not reliable in my experience. For there is no way the Armenian decree could have been seen as infallible because it noted as part of the form of sacraments certain elements that the eastern churches never followed. Reflect for a moment upon what I just said before continuing to read this post please because it is of no insignificant factor here.

If the Armenian decree was infallible, the Roman Church would have had to require reordination of eastern bishops since the traditioning of the paten and chalice was never part of the eastern ritual. It therefore was never considered a requirement as history amply demonstrates by the Roman Church not making this a requirement of the eastern churches in the reunion synods (i.e Constantinople IV in 869, Lyons II in 1274, Florence in 1439-1445) and separate reunion brought about outside of ecumenical synods (i.e. the Treaty of Brest in 1596 between the Ukrainian and Ruthinian Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church under Pope Clement VIII). All of these agreements would have required the eastern churches to revamp their sacramental formularies if what was outlined to the Armenians at Florence was actually a matter of infallible declaration or definition. History shows us though that the Roman Church never made this requirement; ergo there is nothing more to say on the fact that the Armenian decree was never seen as universal and therefore definitive. What remains to explain is the why which I will not attempt to do in brief.

Essentially, with the Armenians, it was a very complicated matter unlike with the Copts. For you see, the Armenians had split from Roman communion after Chalcedon (451) and therefore care needed to be taken to insure that their faith was not questioned in this reunion. Note what precedes the statements on the sacraments from the Armenian decree:

To avoid even the slightest delay in this holy project, we nominated from every rank of this sacred council experts in divine and human law to treat of the matter with the envoys with all care, study and diligence, closely inquiring of them about their faith in respect of the unity of the divine essence and the Trinity of divine persons, also about the humanity of our lord Jesus Christ, the seven sacraments of the church and other points concerning the orthodox faith and the rites of the universal church.[Council of Florence: Bull of Union with the Armenians (circa 1443)]

As you can see, this was much more than simply saying "welcome back" with some disciplinary restrictions as in the case of the Copts. Instead, this was a church which was 1,000 years behind the Roman church and the other eastern churches. The orthodoxy of their Christological understanding as well as understanding of the sacraments was something that was at issue here. The same synod noted this after the part I quoted above in these words:

So, after many debates, conferences and disputations, after a thorough examination of the written authorities which were produced from fathers and doctors of the church, and after discussion of the questions at issue, at length, so that in future there could be no doubt about the truth of the faith of the Armenians and that they should think in every way like the apostolic see and that the union should be stable and lasting with no cause for hesitation whatsoever we judged it advantageous, with the approval of this sacred council of Florence and the agreement of the said envoys, to give in this decree a summary of the truth of the orthodox faith that the Roman church professes about the above. [Council of Florence: Bull of Union with the Armenians (circa 1443)]

From there the synod made several decrees of a doctrinal nature and prudential judgments of a disciplinary nature -starting with the former:

In the first place, then, we give them the holy creed issued by the hundred and fifty bishops in the ecumenical council of Constantinople, with the added phrase and the Son, which for the sake of declaring the truth and from urgent necessity was licitly and reasonably added to that creed, which runs as follows: I believe . . . I We decree that this holy creed should be sung or read within the mass at least on Sundays and greater feasts, as is the Latin custom, in all Armenian churches.

In the second place, we give them the definition of the fourth council of Chalcedon about two natures in the one person of Christ, which was later renewed in the fifth and sixth universal councils. It runs as follows: This wise and saving creed ...

Thirdly, the definition about the two wills and two principles of action of Christ promulgated in the above-mentioned sixth council, the tenor of which is This pious and orthodox creed, and the rest which follows in the above-mentioned definition of the council of Chalcedon until the end, after which it continues thus: And we proclaim, etc.

Fourth, apart from the three synods of Nicaea, Constantinople and the first of Ephesus, the Armenians have accepted no other later universal synods nor the most blessed Leo, bishop of this holy see, by whose authority the council of Chalcedon met. For they claim that it was proposed to them that both the synod of Chalcedon and the said Leo had made the definition in accordance with the condemned heresy of Nestorius. So we instructed them and declared that such a suggestion was false and that the synod of Chalcedon and blessed Leo holily and rightly defined the truth of two natures in the one person of Christ, described above, against the impious tenets of Nestorius and Eutyches. We commanded that for the future they should hold and venerate the most blessed Leo, who was a veritable pillar of the faith and replete with all sanctity and doctrine, as a saint deservedly inscribed in the calendar of the saints; and that they should reverence and respect, like the rest of the faithful, not only the three above-mentioned synods but also all other universal synods legitimately celebrated by the authority of the Roman pontiff. [Council of Florence: Bull of Union with the Armenians (circa 1443)]

From there the decree gets into matters not of doctrine but of discipline. Observe the language used:

Fifthly, for the easier instruction of the Armenians of today and in the future we reduce the truth about the sacraments of the church to the following brief scheme. [Council of Florence: Bull of Union with the Armenians (circa 1443)]

From there the synod outlined the theology of the sacraments and the disciplines of administration as practiced by the Roman Church. The reason for making the rites as the Roman Church administered them a requirement is outlined earlier in the decree and boils down to this: the faith of a people separated from the Roman Church for nearly 1000 years was amply ripe for questioning otherwise. The reunion of the Roman Church with the major eastern churches was effected six years earlier (at least on paper) and therefore the common apostolic faith was recognized there. For that reason, if the Armenians accepted the various professions of faith, accepted Chalcedon and venerated St. Leo the Great, etc., it might not be seen as enough by some people. But if the Armenians administered the sacraments using the rituals of the Roman Church (whose faith was not questioned), that would "seal the deal" essentially. It was not a universal decree either in law or fact and those who claim it was need to reconcile their view with what history both outlines as well as omits -points I touched on briefly in this note above.

Also session 9 contains teaching to the Armenians regarding the valid matter of the sacrement of orders which was later abrogated by a more difinitive ruling from the magesterium.

Or more correctly noted, the disciplinary injunctions set down for the benefit of the reuniting Armenians of the fifteenth century were recognized explicitly (as opposed to previously by implication) as not definitive.

Thus the Pope can in theory abrogate session eleven if it wanted too. Session Six & the dogma of EENS are however forever (as understood by Pius IX, Vatican II, John Paul IIetc... & NOT by that twit Feeney).

Um, I am not sure I would take it that far...it suffices to say that certain parts of the individual reunion sessions were highly anachronistic and could be loosed by the same keys as they were previously bound. But the doctrinal principles behind them (i.e. that the old testament rituals are in no sense required for salvation) remains intact stable and valid and always will.

:: Shawn 11:01 AM [+] | ::

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