The LMS of England gives their Rorschach Option

In the movie Watchmen, the character Rorschach gives an excellent opening monologue which I think plays well with the current situation:


"Dog carcass in alley this morning, tire tread on burst stomach. This city is afraid of me. I have seen it's true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout "Save us!"... ...and I'll look down, and whisper "no."'

If the spats with the FFI and the Order of Malta have shown us anything, it should make us recognize the time and prep for likely ends.  The Latin Mass Society of England has put out a series of how the ancient liturgy can be a true bulwurk against the modern nominalists and modernists alike:


"The advantages the Traditional movement has in the current crisis are both tactical and strategic; I shall give two examples of each. Consider the tactical ones first.


"The recent history of the FFI and the Order of Malta illustrate two important tactical realities. One is that the Traditional Mass is a de facto rallying point for orthodoxy on a wide range of issues. (This has been the fear of opponents of the ancient Mass from the beginning.) The other is that internal divisions, including divisions about the liturgy, provide both an excuse and a point of leverage for attacks on an organisation (/ group / parish). It follows from these two undeniable facts that the Traditional movement has an obvious advantage. It is by definition united around this banner of orthodoxy.

...


The second tactical advantage is that the Traditional movement is not dominated by any one organisation: the blogs, priestly Institutes, lay groups, periodicals and so forth all exist among a good number of others of their kind. The suppression of one or another would not be the same kind of disaster as is the suppression of the FFI or the Order of Malta, because resources and support can be transferred between them far more easily than between non-traddie conservative organisations. Traditional groups are not interchangeable, but the fact that they support the Traditional Mass is a decisive reason for nearly everyone who supports them, to support them, and these supporters are, normally, already very familiar and friendly with other Traditional Catholic groups and organisations, and would be highly likely to find another group to support instead, were their current favourite to disappear. The orthodox Catholics who support the Order of Malta (as with other worthy conservative bodies) do so for all sorts of complex reasons, and if the Order were, for practical purposes, to disappear, they would be scattered to the four winds. As a force for good the Order would be gone, and no similar organisations would be proportionally strengthened. This is not a criticism of the Order, but in the current crisis it is a disadvantage.

...

The first strategic reason is this. As the cases of the FFI and the Order of Malta illustrate, internal struggles over teaching and liturgy are endemic within conservative Catholic organisations, and within the broadly understood ‘conservative Catholic movement’, if we want to call it that. The tactical consequence, of offering an opening to the enemy, has already been noted. The strategic consequence is that this makes them a terrible front in the war in which to invest resources, not just because of this tactical vulnerability, but because so much of one’s efforts will be spent on internal, organisational conflict. You might say: these internal battles need to be fought. Well, that is a judgement each person needs to make on the spot. The organisation at issue may be in a great position to make a valuable contribution to the struggle if only X, Y, and Z internal battles are won by the good guys, and that may be a realistic prospect. In my experience such prospects are never as rosy as one imagines. Nevertheless, if you really judge that to be so, good luck to you, but remember this: while this battle is going on, the efforts going into the internal battle are not going into the apostolate. They are not doing the work the organisation is supposed to be doing. In the meantime, you are helping to keep an organisation afloat which may be doing bad things as well as good ones. And finally, in my experience internal battles are disproportionately exhausting and demoralising, whereas work ad extra can be very rewarding and energising...."

You can read the rest of this rest of this series HERE

LMS and Fr. Murray on the Rigid Trad Fiasco

There are days I wonder what exactly he was trying to accomplish with such magnanimous humility

"It is very interesting that the Pope should say, one day, that Tradition is a unhealthy fashion which has swept overly impressionable young people off their feet. And then, a few months later, after
further reflection, that Tradition is a refusal to follow fashion, a refusal to adapt to the times, a refusal to receive impressions from outside.

Could it in some way be both? Young traddies fail to have the right principles, so they are swept up by a fashion, and they acquire the wrong principles, which they then stick to in an unreasonable way. This diagnosis is just about possible for one person, who undergoes a surprising change of personality halfway through the process, but it couldn't work for as an explanation of a whole movement. The idea, after all, is to explain traditionalism in terms of a particular character trait which traddies have. Is that trait the trait of being impervious to fashion, or being too open to it? It really can't be both.

When one meets this kind of incoherent account of a person't personality, it is an indication that the person giving the explanation hasn't grasped something. If your explanation of why Napoleon invaded Russia is psychologically incompatible with your explanation of why he signed a Concordat with the Church, then you need a new one.

What is it that Pope Francis can't understand? I am sure it would help him in his 'digging' if he actually met some young traditionalists, spent some time with them, and listened to them. As far as I know he has never done this. What might he discover?

He might discover that young Catholics who find out about the recent history of the Church, and of the liturgy, frequently have the impression that they have discovered something rather exciting, something rather glorious, which has been hitherto hidden from them. This is not about succumbing to a fashion, and it is still less about refusing to move with the times. It is an authentic, personal response to newly available information, and a newly discovered liturgical experience. "

Read the rest from Dr. Shaw HERE



"As regards Pope Francis’ statement that “to speak of a ‘reform of the reform’ is an error,” this notion is something that has been widely discussed and, in some ways, already put into effect (e.g., the 3rd edition of the Roman Missal and the new accurate translation of it into English) precisely because, as Pope Francis told Fr. Spadaro “Vatican II and Sacrosanctum Concilium must go on as they are.”

The reform of the reform is an effort both to implement the reforms of the Mass that the Conciliar Fathers voted for when they approved Sacrosanctum Concilium, and, as needed, to undo the innovations and accretions they never dreamed of, and that were introduced into the Roman Missal or became standard practice with the new Missal.

Those who love the EF Mass are serious, sane Catholics who seek God in the beauty of sublime worship. They deserve a sympathetic hearing from their shepherds. "

Read the rest of Fr. Murray HERE

Edward Feser on William Lane Craig's erroneous take on Divine Simplicity

For those of you Thomists out there, and for Catholic's that promote Dr. Craig's books and theories

"A number of readers have called my attention to a recent podcast during which William Lane Craig is asked for his opinion about theistic personalism, the doctrine of divine simplicity, and what writers like David Bentley Hart and me have said about these topics. (You can find the podcast at Craig’s website, and alsoat YouTube.) What follows are some comments on the podcast. Let me preface these remarks by saying that I hate to disagree with Craig, for whom I have the greatest respect. It should also be kept in mind, in fairness to Craig, that his remarks were made in an informal conversational context, and thus cannot reasonably be expected to have the precision that a more formal, written treatment would exhibit.

Having said that…

I was surprised at how many basic mistakes Craig made in his characterization of the views of his opponents, and at how little argumentation (as opposed to mere assertion) was offered in response to those views. Let’s walk through the various issues Craig addresses and dissect his comments. (A side note on the most minor mistake: The man interviewing Craig mispronounces my name. The correct pronunciation is “fay-zer,” like the word “phaser” in Star Trek.)

(…)

Divine simplicity

In characterizing the doctrine of divine simplicity, Craig gives the impression that the doctrine involves, among other things, the claims that we can only make negative predications of God, that we can make only analogical predictions of God rather than univocal ones, that analogical predications are non-literal, and that we not only have to be agnostic about God’s nature but that God has no essence. None of this is correct.

First, while some adherents of the doctrine of divine simplicity (such as Maimonides) are committed to a purely negative theology, most are not. Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, et al. certainly agree that we can make positive as well as negative affirmations about the divine nature.

Second, while Thomists hold that all language about God has to be understood in an analogical rather than univocal way, not all classical theists or adherents of the doctrine of divine simplicity would say that. For example, Scotists both affirm divine simplicity and hold that theological language is univocal. Of course, we Thomists regard this Scotist position as unstable, but the point is that it is (contrary to the impression given by Craig) simply not the case that the debate over divine simplicity is as such a debate over whether theological language ought to be understood in an analogical rather than univocal way." (…)

You can read the rest of the post HERE

--------------------------------

Bonus item for the day from the Latin Mass Chairman of England engaging with modernity on the BBC. CLICK HERE