On our way to a post on the wider implications of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, your humble blogger stumbled upon the above video.
Since it will no doubt provide a very important component of our understanding of what constitutes OBJECTIVE REALITY and how best to recognize it, it’s only fitting that we side track to this material and present it here and now.
What is of the utmost of importance to take away from this video, is the understanding of the difference between materialism and dualism. Here are two good working definitions:
Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions. … Materialism is closely related to physicalism—the view that all that exists is ultimately physical.
Dualism in Metaphysics is the belief that there are two kinds of reality: material (physical) and immaterial (spiritual). In Philosophy of Mind, Dualism is the position that mind and body are in some categorical way separate from each other, and that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical in nature.
Understanding the difference between these two… let’s call them approaches… allow us to now watch the video.
Of specific importance to note is the predictive accuracy of the medieval dualists…
More today on the Visibilium Omnium and those things as known through the “natural light of human reason from the things that are made”, i.e. one of the two sources of the Catholic Faith.
As to why this humble blogger has started the post vacation season off with this thread, the answer is as follows: Watching this Amazon Sin-nod developing with a sense of horror, chronicling the aberration, i.e. identifying the problem is simply not enough. There has to be a rational explanation for why this is happening and why it is happening now.
Therefore a HYPOTHESIS is needed.
So here goes:
The disintegration of the post-conciliar church is increasing, in direct relation to the increasing body of evidence that the Holy Roman Catholic Church is the ONE TRUE RELIGION, i.e. the ONLY SOURCE of a complete explanation of not only how His creation has found itself on planet Earth, but also why.
And to explain this PHENOMENON in greater detail, your humble blogger will enlist the second law of thermodynamics to help…
But not today…
Today, you dear and humble readers are asked to watch the above video. The subject of the video is Dr. Michael Behe and the larger issue is that of the scientific proof for the SCIENTIFIC theory of Intelligent Design.
What’s important to note in the video is the similarity between the situation within the Catholic Church and the situation within the academic discipline that scientists and “scientists” are researching that is known as the Origin of Life problem.
Your humble blogger will have more to say on this in upcoming posts…
Have a great mid-summer weekend…
PS I think this video by Dr. Peterson is also helpful to understand the issue…
But first an aside: a nice chilled bottle of Pinot Grigio would work well with this post…
As the entire world is focused on Dr. Jordan B. Peterson and his promotion of what is commonly labeled as the God Hypothesis, there is a much large revolution brewing in the biological and physical sciences. Dr. Meyer opens up this universe for you dear and humble readers. And you humble blogger is chronicling it for your ease of reference.
The specific reason for this continuation was a DATA POINT that appeared in another interview that Dr. Meyer gave, this time to Eric Metaxas. This interview is presented (on the youtube website) as:
“Eric Metaxas interviews Stephen C. Meyer about the ultimate mystery of the universe as drawn from recent scientific discoveries in physics, cosmology, and biology.”
First the DATA POINT. At the 1:00:00 hour mark of the video (please go to this point in the video), Dr. Meyer makes the following claim:
SM: To the new cosmology is moving in a decidedly anti-materialistic direction. Because if you want to explain the origin of the universe as a singularity in matter, space, time and energy, you need a different kind of cause outside of matter, space, time and energy. Many cosmologists and astronomers, Sandidge being one, recognize that that had frankly theistic implications. That we were now painting a profile of a cause that really only God, in a way that Jews and Christians have portrayed Him, has the qualifications.
This statement comes on the back of the Dr. Jordan Peterson, from the social sciences, claim that:
One manner in which to interpret this PHENOMENON is that we are witnessing that which this humble blogger has defined as ORGANIC GROWTH of the Catholic Faith. Once again, here is the definition:
Organic Growth:reconciliation of reason with revelation, of science with faith and of philosophy with theology, SUBJECT TO: that source of our Faith that comes from divine Revelation.
Which brings this humble blogger to chronicle the essence of Dr. Meyer’s claim that the God of science, i.e. the REAL GOD is a Judeo/Christian (read Catholic) God. Here is how Dr. Meyer came to this conclusion (starts at 13:40): (emphasis added)
EM: Ok, so you had an affinity to ask the big question, you obviously had an affinity for science, as an undergraduate what did you think you wanted to do? At what point did you decide to go in the direction that you’ve gone in?
SM: After I graduated, I came to Dallas, I got a job in the ‘80s when the oil market was up and I worked as a geophysicist for Atlantic Richfield company, a big, major oil company back in the ‘80s. And then in the mid-80’s it was down. I had applied for a Rotary Scholarship and I didn’t get it the first time. But I got it the second time and it was able to go to Britain and the big event that occurred for me here was an extraordinary conference, much like this one, but it was about the issue of how science and faith go together. And the conference was at the Dallas Hilton and there were representatives of what was called scientific materialism, what we would call the new atheists and scientists who were theists. And they were discussing the big questions, the origin of the universe, the origin of life and the origin and nature of human conciseness. And I heard about it the night before and I attended as just a walk up. I was just blown away by what I heard. This very first session, one of the most famous astrophysicists in the history of astronomy was there, his name was Alan Sandidge. Sandidge was an agnostic Jew well known for that point of view for most of his career, worked with Edwin Hubble, the great astronomer who had verified that the universe had been expanding, which was crucial to explain that the universe had a beginning and Sandidge shocked everybody by sitting with the other theists, though he was thought to be one of the materialists and in his talk, explained how the evidence for both the beginning of the universe and its exquisite fine tuning, had convinced him that there must be something more than a strictly materialistic account of the universe. And then he proceeded to reveal how he realized that the evidence was pointing in a frankly theistic direction and he didn’t like it. And he was trying to suppress it. And finally he confronted himself and said “wait a minute”, I’ve prided myself my whole life on my scientific objectivity. Now the evidence is pointing toward the God Hypothesis, what is it in me that does not want that to be true. And I was incredibly taken by that honesty.
EM: Well, that’s one incredibly honest man. And that’s rare…
And just to provide CONTEXT to the above, at about the same time this conference in Dallas in 1985 was taking place, or to be more precise, one year later, the post-conciliar church held its Meeting of Prayer for Peace, on October 27, 1986. For those not familiar with the official title of this event, it is better known as Assisi I. (see here)
Don’t know about you dear and loyal reader, but this humble blogger can’t identify any scientists in this get together…
But back to the Meyer interview…
SM: The origin of life discipline by the middle of the 80’s has reached an impasse. There’s been no progress since.
EM: (…) by the mid 80’s, they (scientists) got to the point… scientists were understanding that even though they had been saying since the Miller experiment decades earlier, they were saying that there was this primordial soup and lightning struck and the next thing chemicals arranged themselves and became cells. They were saying in the mid 80’s, suddenly they had gotten to the point of wondering why they didn’t have evidence for this hypothesis.
SM: Like in Apollo 11 ‘Houston we have a problem’ and the problem was, the many problems, but the fundamental problem was discovery of the information bearing properties of DNA and the other large, what they call bio-macro molecules in the cell. Watson and Crick in 1953, they elucidate the structure of DNA, 1957 Crick realizes that the chemical subunits along the interior of that double helix are functioning just like alphabetic characters in a written language. Or digital characters like the 0’s and 1’s in a machine code and that they are directing the construction of the proteins and the protein machines that all cells need to stay alive.
So you have digital information directing the construction of the crucial components of the living cells … and this is all elucidated in the 60’s. And people begin to reflect on this and the origin of life guys say ‘To explain the origin of life, you have to explain this complicated information processing system.’ And that’s where it got really sticky.
EM: Because nobody wants to work that hard…
JM: I mean, how do you get chemistry to produce code?
It turned out to be a really difficult problem. And I first learned about this at this same conference.
(…) I was working in industry, in geophysics doing digital signal processing, which was an early form of information technology and I got absolutely fascinated with the idea that the key to the mystery of the origin of life was actually information; it was code.
And a couple of minutes later, we get this from Mr Metaxas:
Everybody who cares about life, the meaning of life, we think about these things. And we think about how do we know what we know and so on and so forth. So what you’ve just said … you know, most of us here grew up in a world where the Miller experiment, that said that life was created out of the primordial soup with no touch from God or anything like that, we all were taught this in schools. And it was accepted. And when in the 1980’s there were questions about this, nobody contacted us by mail, or phoned and said ‘by the way, that thing that was on the test, we no longer really know if that’s true. We just want you to be clear on that’. (…) That never happened. And that to me is interesting since that’s how as a culture we process stuff. Stuff gets out there… I was always taught that Darwin,… you know Darwin was right and the idea of natural selection and we did this and it’s how it all happened. No one ever contacted me to say ‘by the way, there are a lot of big questions that have come up and even evolutionists like Steven J. Gould at Harvard is asking questions’. That informatioon never gets out.
Now please keep in mind that this is all taking place from the mid 1960’s to the mid 1980’s, which gives the scientist priests a decade (from the mid 1950’s) to get their heads around this big issue.
For further CONTEXT, please note that the Pontifical Academy of the Sciences was established in 1936“and thriving with the blessing of the Papacy ever since.”
So this above dialogue quite neatly explains the state of play in Catholicism, as in Catholicism that the scientists are developing and as the instigator of Assisi once noted:
Oh well!
Another mystery of the “new springtime of the spirit of Vatican II”…
It’s as if they really didn’t believe in the science…
35 years and an entire generation or two of scientists and scientific discovery later, what is the state of play in the “headquarters” of “catholicism”, i.e. in the cranial cavities of those who resides behind the Sacred Vatican Walls?
This… from our friends at Novus Ordo Watch: (see here)
And what is happening in the wider FrancisChurch of the new springtime of the new whatever of the new spirit of the new Vatican II?
For the answer to that question, below is a post from the Campus Reform website which appeared at our favorite catholic secular blog Zero Hedge. (see here) Aside, just to give you dear reader an indication of the serious nature of the Zero Hedge blog and its other readers, see here.
Concluding, here are the money quotes from Dr. Meyer which come at the 1:06:00 mark:
I would say that we can infer a God with those attributes; transcendence, intelligence, great power, and a God who is active in the creation on the basis of the evidence we have in the natural world. We can move from that evidence to that HYPOTHESIS as a best explanation for the EVIDENCE itself.
(…)
(…) There’s a different type of scientific reasoning that we are using and it’s sometimes called the method of multiple competing hypotheses, or the method of inferring to the best explanation. It’s the method Darwin used, and it’s the method we use first to make the case for Intelligent Design and the method that I use to argue that the best candidate for that designing intelligence is actually a God who has the attributes that Jews and Christians have long affirmed.
All this humble bloggers would add here is the observation that this EVIDENCE for this Catholic God Hypothesis is something the Catholic scientists, especially those in Pontifical Academy of Sciences should have known back in those heady days of the mid 1960’s.
Which then begs the question: How did this (below) happen?
And one more thought. Dr. Meyers will most likely never be invited to become a member of the Pontifical Academy of Science in the foreseeable future…
… since the “intellectual” wherewithal of the “spirit of the new springtime of VII” is making a b-line straight for the stone age.
*****
You Can ‘Major’ In Social Justice At This Nearly $70,000/Year California College
Dominican University in California has added a new major, wholly focused on social justice that will begin accepting students in the fall.
The school created the major after a “growing number” of students became interested in social justice careers, according to a university news release. Dominican will be combining courses from its minors entitled “Performing Arts and Social Change” and “Community Action and Social Change” for the major.
Students who major in social justice will have the chance to “examine the links between well-being, social justice, and diverse worldviews.”
Additionally, students will “analyze social injustices and work toward positive social change.”
The major starts off with a class titled “Theory and Practice for Community Action and Social Change,” which “provides foundational frameworks for analyzing oppression, power, and privilege.”
Other courses that students can take range from “Prophets, Psalms, & Social Justice” to “Liberation Theologies.”
Dominican University suggests that possible careers for those studying social justice include “Journalist/Photographer/Filmmaker,“ ”Community Organizer,” “Educator,” “Political Campaign Staffer,” and even a “Socially Engaged Artist.”
The new major is being funded in part by a $30,000 grant from the Wabash Center for Teaching and Learning in Religion.
A spokesperson from the California Federation of College Republicans commented on the major to Campus Reform.
“While we feel this program is for psuedo-educational purposes and pushes a certain political agenda, students will be spending $67,385 each academic year ($269,540 after four years) on a bachelor’s degree in social justice,” the spokesperson said.
“The United States is on the precipice of our $1.5 trillion student loan debt bubble bursting; therefore, it is clearly not wise for students to take out nearly $300,000 in student loans just to study social justice.”
The $67,385 per year cost cited by the CFCR spokesperson includes tuition, room and board, books, and other fees.
Dominican University is not the first school to push social justice initiatives, as Campus Reform has reported.
Hamline University in Minnesota has a social justice major boasting classes like “gender politics” and “sexuality, gender identity, and the law.” Tuition for the 2019-2020 academic year at that school is $41,734.
The University of Michigan took the issue further and opened up an entire “social justice-themed” high school where UMich grad students will have the opportunity to teach.
So your humble blogger is back from a long and well deserved vacation.
To get the post-vacation season off to a proper start, I provide you, dear and humble reader with a video which I came across and strongly feel should be watched…
… and watched by all!
Will have more to say when I catch up with the office work.
Enjoy…
UPDATE 03:20 6 August 2019
Today more on a striking PHENOMENON that your humble blogger has been following for quite some time. Actually, since the inception of this blog.
What is important to this blogger’s understanding of what is the OBJECTIVE REALITY at present, and how this will affect the Holy Roman Catholic Church going forward, is a general understanding of where Western Civilization is on the below layed out developmental continuum. The continuum itself was initially set out by Cardinal Newman and is presently contained in an article written by Dr. Peter Kwasniewski (on the relationship between antiquarianism and modernism)here:
Cardinal Newman perceived this connection (Ed. note: between antiquarianism and modernism) when he claimed that dogmatic Protestantism, which took as its justification the proclamation of the “original uncorrupted” Gospel, has a tendency, due to hermeneutical subjectivism, to degenerate into liberal Protestantism, which in turn tends to degenerate into ethical rationalism, agnostic naturalism, and atheistic secularism.
And with respect to secular atheism, we know how that manifests itself on an individual level: NIHILISM.
And as we can see from the tweet above, a Civilization (culture) grounded in NIHILISM is neither stable nor is it sustainable.
Therefore, the above Newman continuum needs to provide a way back to “sustainability”.
And it is this “way back to sustainability”, that this humble blog has been chronicling over the last 5 years.
On an aside, this is the point of Dr. Kwasniewski’s article linked to above. But I digress…
With respect to the state of Western Civilization, given the video at the top of this post and the EVIDENCE in the below republished article from the American Thinker blog, this humble blogger suspects that as a whole, Western Civilization is somewhere between “ethical rationalism” and moving to an informal sort of “liberal Protestantism”.
The anecdotal proof supporting this claim is the worldwide PHENOMENON that is Dr. Jordan Peterson and specifically the growing informal group that follows him known as the “Christian atheists”.
Further proof (mathematical in nature) is provided in the Meyer/Berlinski/Gelernter video above.
Gallup recently announced that forty percent of all Americans believe in creationism. A better storyline to its recent polling data might be that only one in five Americans believes in Darwinism, which was a wobbly theory when first proposed almost two centuries ago and which has become an increasingly improbable explanation for the origin of life and species during the last two hundred years. That would be a better storyline, but it is not the storyline presented by Gallup.
Darwinists are invariably the product of an educational system that has as little to do with free thought as the educational systems of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Groupthink, instead, is what these institutions create and nurture. There are no longer “schools of thought,” but simply “settled science” and its detractors (those with free and thinking minds).
It is Darwinism, not its alternative theories, that is an intolerant system of blind faith that brooks no reconsideration, no conflicting scientific opinion, and no independent thought. This shows up not only in the purging of academicians who hold politically incorrect views in life sciences, which Ben Stein exposed in his 2008 documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, but in deliberate mischaracterization of the debates about the origin of life.
Consider creationism, one strain which comprises the theory that life developed literally according to the Bible. Darwinists dishonestly pretend creationism is presented as the only non-Darwinian explanation for the beginning and development of life and any theory that conflicts with Darwinism is in fact creationism.
In fact, creationism is one explanation for the origin and development of life. Anyone who suggests that no true scientist could believe in creationism shows ignorance of the scientific opinion of practically all the great scientists who gave us the Scientific Revolution. Lord Kelvin, whose Second Law of Thermodynamics was considered the most important law in all science by Einstein, and who lived well into the twentieth century, was a creationist.
Intelligent Design is a second explanation for the origin and development of life. The premise of that theory — that a Creator made a universe in which life would develop and grow — is “unscientific” only to those who find the idea of God “unscientific” as well, again something that virtually none of the fathers of modern science believed.
Sir Isaac Newton, the greatest scientist in history, devoted the latter part of his life almost exclusively to biblical studies and was considered by contemporaries as one of the greatest biblical scholars alive. This was pre-Darwin, and the attitude of prominent atheists of the time, like Voltaire, was that Newton had gotten silly in his old age. Voltaire based this upon his own anti-theistic bigotry and nothing else.
There is a third body of scientific opinion that rejects Darwinism as an old, failed explanation theory that merited serious consideration until we began to understand the breathtaking complexity of life at its lowest levels without embracing any theological opinion on the origin of life.
Sir Fred Hoyle, without whose work in determining how heavy elements could be formed in the universe Darwinism would have collapsed decades ago, began to calculate how probable the development of life by accident would be an concluded that it is impossible: life could never develop randomly, as proposed by Darwin, whose theory Hoyle in the 1980s called “nonsense of a high order.”
Forty years ago, the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Physiology held a symposium of mathematicians and biologists. The conclusion of the mathematicians, after calculating all of the many wildly improbable layers of assumptions necessary for Darwinism to work, was that the origin and development of life according to Darwin’s old, worn out theory was simply impossible. What was the response of the Darwinist biologists? Simply this: The calculations of the mathematicians must be wrong since evolution happened. No evidence or analysis could disprove Darwinism.
What that means is that Darwinists are too lazy and too dumb and too corrupt to look for a more workable scientific theory for the origin and development of life. They view as “science” what props up their creaky ideology, just as Marxists consider their prophets’ failed musings as “science” and Freudians ignore all the utterly unproven assumptions in Freud’s theories as “science” and global warming disciples rewrite old temperature data to conform to their phony theory and consciously suppress data that disproves it.
Scientism is the enemy of science. The triumph of scientism is the death of science. Scientism forecloses alternative theories and demands totalitarian groupthink. No task ahead is more vital than exposing and debunking the invented pseudo-science of scientism. Indeed, if we fail in this task, we are doomed.
Today we pivot to a more solid, “concrete”… one could say… theme, i.e. construction.
As you dear and loyal readers know, whenever this humble blogger comes across news of a “Restoration of all things in Christ” EVENT taking place, this OCCURENCE is duly noted on the pages of this humblest of blogs.
So today, good news is at hand.
And it comes from the Society of St. Pius X.
For those who have no contact with the Society of St. Pius X, you might not be familiar with their Academy and College in St. Mary’s Kansas.
The skinny is as follows: in 1978, the Society of St. Pius X purchased a small local college in St. Mary’s Kansas from the bankrupting Jesuit order. The ink was not even dry on the purchase contract, when a fire broke out in the main church destroying it completely.
Since then, the St. Mary’s apostolate has been growing rapidly, funds were always deployed to more immediate needs, such as the academy and college.
Well, the time now has come for the rebuilding to begin!
Below is a republication of the building website page of the Society that explains the details of the current state of play. (see here)
And now a word from your humble blogger.
Over the years, my loyal and dear readers have been passing on messages and comments that they enjoy reading this blog. This humble blogger has never asked for any financial support since, frankly, he does not need it. This blog in turn has always been viewed by its humble proprietor as a work of thanksgiving for all the graces that have flowed down from heaven, and those graces have been not only abundant, but significant as well.
Therefore, any sacrifices made in order to write this blog, are offered as a contemporary form of a spiritual work of mercy.
As a quick refresher…
The Spiritual Works of Mercy are:
To instruct the ignorant.
To counsel the doubtful.
To admonish the sinners.
To bear patiently those who wrong us.
To forgive offenses.
To comfort the afflicted.
To pray for the living and the dead.
Therefore, if you dear and loyal reader enjoy reading this blog and would like to make an offering in order show your appreciation for the enjoyment… dare I say accompaniment that you have received from reading these humble pages, please consider making a donation to the Society’s Immaculata Chapel building fund.
Furthermore, if you dear and loyal reader are engaging in acts of “not supporting” the various FrancisChurch collections which tend to go to very unCatholic organizations and support very unCatholic causes, please consider redirecting your offerings to this building fund as well.
From where this humble blogger sits, we must provide financial assistance to keep our Churches operational. Maybe the optimal manner in which to do this is by redirecting our Sunday offerings to specific projects which come with a 100% guarantee that those funds will be put to proper use.
Something to think about.
And now, for a word from the Society of St. Pius X… (see original here)
*****
Designs, Budget, and Timeline Released at the Unveiling of New Immaculata Project
Beyond being the biggest Catholic church in Kansas, this will be the biggest Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) church in the world. With a seating capacity of over 1,500, it will serve the growing community of St. Mary’s for generations to come.
There is an old tradition at a wedding where the father of the bride lifts his daughter’s veil and reveals her to her groom. Many legends and lore sit behind this practice, but from where such a custom comes, who can absolutely and conclusively say? Nevertheless, there it is. “And there came one of the seven angels, who had the vials full of the seven last plagues, and spoke with me, saying: Come, and I will shew thee the bride, the wife of the Lamb” (Apoc. 21:9). The veil is lifted, and the beauty of the bride is revealed to her husband. “And I John saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband” (Apoc. 21:2). Such a lifting of the veil occurred on June 15 at St. Mary’s Academy and College, revealing the new Immaculata, the future Society church in St. Marys, KS.
A Fire Scars the Kansas Prairie
Since a fire, sparked by faulty wiring, destroyed the Immaculata chapel on Nov. 8, 1978, the largest community in the SSPX in the United States has lacked a fully realized church structure. The crown of the campus, the small but stately Immaculata chapel that had been raised with the money of 300 alumni of the old St. Mary’s College; the chapel that had taken into her bosom countless faithful and sent many forth to become priests; the chapel that persuaded Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre that St. Marys, KS should become the flagship of the Society in the United States—that crown burned down almost before the ink had dried on the closing papers. In keeping with the latter analogy, the pride of the U. S. District, the flagship, had suffered the loss of her flag. Now, the hope and the promise of a new flag—a grander and more glorious flag—was unveiled at Ignatius Auditorium on the St. Mary’s College campus.
During the unveiling, Mr. Nicholas Novelly, the head accountant at St. Mary’s College, noted that behind great losses is always the hand of Divine Providence. The insurance money, while originally intended to rebuild the chapel, was used to nourish the infant campus of St. Mary’s. For over 40 years, the school and the campus grew, as did the surrounding community.
Since the fire, Mass and the various liturgical ceremonies have been celebrated in temporary chapels: first, a room in Jogues Hall served as the temporary church for the fledgling campus, and then was moved to the former Jesuit cafeteria which could seat around 500. But as the parish grew from a mere handful of families to over 4,000, filling the Assumption Chapel from wall to wall, larger ceremonies, such as Christmas Midnight Mass, the liturgies of Holy Week, confirmations, and First Communions were held in the auditorium and the altar erected on a stage.
As soon as the fire had been doused, many hoped the chapel would be rebuilt. However, time after time, different rectors had to delay the project as fundraising for the Immaculata took away much needed funds from the day-to-day operations of campus. Mr. Novelly reported that, from former fundraising and donations, just over $15.7 million has been raised, but to complete this project, $14 million more is required. Even so, Mr. Novelly stressed that the donations to the Immaculata cannot come by cutting donations from the operations of the school and the parish.
The Immaculata Will Watch Over Saint Marys
The plans for the new Immaculata will move the building from its original location on the hill beside Bellarmine hall. Due to the lack of space for parking, a new site was chosen on a higher hill, near the cemetery, which could better serve the parish without conflicting with the school. “Our goal too, with this expansion, with a larger church,” Fr. Patrick Rutledge said, “is to give you a chance to come to Mass, to pray at Mass, to not have to stand at the back of a church behind seven rows of people, to be able stay after Mass and make a thanksgiving, to not feel like you have to relinquish your parking spot as soon as you possibly can, as so many of you have to do each Sunday because of our growth.”
The majesty of the church will be evident to all, with two bell towers reaching 111 feet in the air, a 12-sided copula (representing the 12 stars that crown Mary) on which will rise a statue of Our Lady to become the highest point of campus, as well as the town. “Our lady looking over her town,” Fr. Rutledge said, “the Immaculata looking over her town, protecting her town as she has already done.”
A Measured – but Grand – House of God
The Immaculata will become not only the largest Catholic church structure in Kansas but also the largest such building within 350 miles of St. Marys. “We’re not just building a chapel,” Fr. Rutledge said. “We are really building something significant. Especially as our Church, our Catholic Church, is struggling so much, what a breath of fresh air this will be!” It will contain eight confessionals, a reliquary chapel, a baptistry, two side-chapels with seating for 50 people, a cry room with seating for 100, and a choir loft that also can seat 100. The parking lot itself will be able to hold 465 vehicles. “Since there are about 15 people per vehicle,” Fr. Rutledge joked, “it should be enough.”
David Heit, the lead architect from CIVIUM Architects, told the audience that this project was special to him and to his team. “It is not just another design problem, not just another large building, but definitely something unique for us,” he said. “And now we find ourselves (perhaps not in a literal way, but still in a way) offering a brief prayer each day before we set to work, understanding that what we do needs to be divinely inspired.”
And, lest the desire for greater majesty carries away the appropriate measure of material things, David Eddy, the manager of pre-construction for the U.S. District and Preconstruction Director at Fransen Pittman, has set forth a measured budget. Mr. Eddy has been involved in some of the previous conversations on the Immaculata, and now his job is to make sure that the church is both beautiful but on budget, “to make sure we are designing a building that is buildable,” he said, “and a building that matches the needs of the District and of St. Marys.”
A Sign of Tradition’s Growth in America
Fr. Jurgen Wegner, the District Superior, turned the thoughts of the audience from the stone and the windows to the broader vision of what the new Immaculata means not only to St. Marys but also to District and the wider world. First he spoke of the past, the reason for purchasing St. Marys “with the idea of restoration of the Catholic Faith. And a restoration that has to come from the center of the United States,” Fr. Wegner said.
“It was a big sacrifice for many of the pioneers to make the decision to leave a well-established situation elsewhere in the United States and to come to Kansas where you have hot summers, chiggers, and all kinds of awful things,” the District Superior continued. “But it was their faith that brought them here, and really this idea of the pioneer to build. These early years for the faithful and the priests were difficult years.”
“It is the energy, the sacrifices, and the tears of all those who started off here, who made this place the place where other traditionals want to go, who made this place—in a certain way, it in the beginning was just an awful place—now becomes a refuge and a desirable place for every Catholic. We want to say thank you to these pioneers—many of them have left us already, such as Fr. Bolduc, who died two years ago.”
Then he spoke to the future, the future of Tradition. “This day is not just the day where we think about a nice church building out of brick and stone, it is a day where we think about the restoration of the Church. And if in the beginning St. Marys was the place pretty much nobody knew, nowadays the flagship of the District, the biggest parish of tradition in the world—and so is tradition. World-wide tradition started out very small. As soon as it grew, it was attacked. But now the times changed.”
The time has come, with the building of the new Immaculata, “to give back tradition to the church,” Fr. Wegner said. “St. Mary’s—a place where, in the past, over 1,000 priests have been ordained should be a source of priestly and religious vocations. And if you succeed with this church-building project, the building of a church in stone, but also the building of a church in people, in the souls, I’m sure the District will succeed.”
Prayers Will See the Project Completed
Fr. Rutledge closed the unveiling with a plea for prayers. He asked the parishioners to pray as they consider the amount that each can donate to the cause of rebuilding a church worthy of Mary, and to pray throughout the entire build. He asked the parishioners to place their pledges at the feet of Our Lady on August 15—providentially it was 40 ago, on August 15, 1979, when the new cornerstone was laid for the first attempt to rebuild the Immaculata—and “there on the feast of Our Lady,” he said, “to make a commitment to her, for what you will sacrifice and what you will give to her for this project.”
“The biggest thing that we have to do for this project is pray: to pray that the design team builds something that Our Lady wants; we need to pray that all of us working on the project keep the higher principles in mind as we do the work; pray that, humanly speaking, we build something that is reasonable for our budget… We need your prayers.”
The groundbreaking is scheduled for May 31, 2020, 40 years after a strong wind knocked down some of the walls that had remained standing after the fire. “In one year, we will break ground on the Immaculata,” Fr. Rutledge said. “Not only is May 31 the Queenship of Mary, but next year May 31 also falls on Pentecost Sunday.”
Following Fr. Rutledge’s announcements, Fr. Wegner presented a gift from the District to the new Immaculata. “It is something very special,” he said, “something we want to give back to this parish, as a sign of gratitude for our ancestors and as a sign of encouragement to you.” That gift was the relics from the altar of the original Immaculata.
So a lot is being spoken about CIVILIZATIONAL issues these days.
Today’s post is a compilation of some of the EVIDENCE emerging from different and “unrelated” sub-sets of the Visibilium Omnium, et Invisibilium.
Of particular interest, one secondary theme is also emerging, as per the Tucker Carlson monologue. This theme is one that is near and dear to the hearts of not only you dear and loyal readers, but for this most of humble bloggers as well.
This theme is the post-Modernist’s assault on OBJECTIVE REALITY.
And as we know, the nature of reality is such that it exists in and of itself. In other words, real REALITY is ONTOLOGICAL.
In other words, it exists in and of itself.
If the above is a TRUE PREMISE, and by all accounts it is, then what is to be made of this situation where:
(…) it is visibly observable that there are two individuals who live inside the Sacred Vatican Walls. Further, Pope Benedict continues to wear the white tunic, continues to sign himself “Benedictus XVI, pope emeritus,” continues to live “in the enclosure of Saint Peter,” continues to have himself called “Holiness” and “Holy Father.” And finally, Pope Benedict claims that he and Francis, the bishop of Rome “share” the PONTIFICAL OFFICE, “One “Active” and One “Contemplative”. (See here)
… while
… THEREFORE:
One of these two contradictory positions cannot be ONTOLOGICALLY CORRECT.
And it’s just a matter of time before the above violation of one of the three basic rules of thought, i.e. the Law of Contradiction, becomes CONVENTIONAL WISDOM…
… much like it is has become CONVENTIONAL WISDOM during the Francis bishopric of Rome, that it is the Second Vatican Council that is the cause of the distintegration of the post-conciliar church.
It’s trending…
… and the trend is REALITY’S friend! (other Principle of the Lex Armaticus identified?)
Below are two more pieces of EVIDENCE that REALITY, of the ONTOLOGICAL kind is reasserting itself. Along with the MEDIA sub-set as set out by Tucker Carlson in the above example, another comes from Dr. Steven Turley and the HIGHER EDUCATION sub-set of the Visibilium Omnium, while the third is from the ECONOMICS sub-set where the Misis Institute is firmly planted.
There are lots of ways to kill off a civilization. Wars, politics, economic collapse. But what are the actual mechanics? It might be a useful thing to know whether or not we are killing ourselves off.
Ancient Rome is a good place to start. They had an advanced civilization. They had running water, sewers, flush toilets, concrete, roads, bridges, dams, an international highway system, mechanical reapers, water-powered mills, public baths, soap, banking, commerce, free trade, a legal code, a court system, science, literature, and a republican system of government. And a strong army to enforce stability and peace (Pax Romana). It wasn’t perfect, but they were on their way to modernity.
One of my favorite quotes is from Marcus Tullius Cicero, statesman, orator and writer (106-43 BCE):
Times are bad. Children no longer obey their parents, and everyone is writing a book.
If that isn’t a mark of a civilized society I don’t know what is.
But Rome collapsed. I often wonder what would have happened if it hadn’t. Could we have avoided a thousand years of the Dark Ages. Could we have been flying airplanes and driving cars in the year 1000?
What the hell happened to Rome?
Dictators. After 500 years, the famous Roman Republic ended with the dictator Julius Caesar taking power. Four hundred years later his progeny and usurpers ran the Empire into the ground and Rome fell to invading barbarians.
The standard explanation for Rome’s decline and fall is that they devolved into dictatorships (true, but not the cause of their fall). Or they became decadent and corrupt (true, but not the cause of their fall). They fell to barbarian invasions (true, but not the cause of their fall).
Rome fell because the dictators ruined the Roman economy and the institutions that had made it prosperous. Rome was falling apart before the barbarian invasions.
How did the Caesars do that? They were profligate spenders. As emperors with absolute power usually do, they thought big: infrastructure (roads, temples, palaces), a huge bureaucracy, and, as the key to maintaining their power they had a very large, loyal, and well paid army. As a consequence, massive government spending far outstripped revenue. They had what today we call a deficit problem.
They did two disastrous things to solve their deficit.
First, they kept raising taxes which became punitive. Not caring much about the consequences to the merchants, small farmers, and peasants, they came up with new ways to squeeze money out of their citizens. Onerous taxes led to tax evasion. The government’s response was to double down and implement laws that restricted economic freedoms in order to raise even more taxes. Heavy taxes forced property owners, small and large, off the land. Large feudal estates run by political cronies arose in their place. Laws were enacted that forced peasants into virtual serfdom. Business owners and their children were prevented from changing jobs or towns. And, taxes had to be paid either in gold or in kind or they would lose everything. Gold became scarce. Gold money was only lawfully available to the government, army, and bureaucrats.
Second, they debased the currency which led to inflation. It was the equivalent of printing money to pay for things. The resulting bouts of high inflation destroyed much of commerce and agriculture. Like most dictators they thought they could stop rising prices by implementing price controls, but that just led to gold and goods disappearing from the economy. Black markets grew despite threats of capital punishment. Unemployment and homelessness rose. Their large welfare system kept running short of money. Commercial, legal, and moral institutions were falling apart. Corruption was endemic. The resulting booms and busts and depressions were destroying the economy.
By the time the Goth and Visigoth invaders came along, Rome was so weakened that they could not hold back the waves of invasions. At the end, Roman citizens saw the government as the enemy and the invading barbarians as their saviors. Rome fell in 410 CE. What emerged was what we now know as the Middle Ages — it lasted for a thousand years. You know what that was like. They didn’t call it the Dark Ages for nothing.
Much of Rome’s economic history is quite familiar in modern times. Even after thousands of years of evidence of repeated failure, bad ideas simply don’t die. Proponents of bad ideas are either ignorant of history or just ignorant. Or they are politicians (as Mark Twin said, “But I repeat myself.”).
One bad idea with ancient precedents is Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). MMT is the New Thing among Progressives in America. Politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and Bernie are quite excited about MMT. They think they have discovered the Holy Grail of economics.
Progressives believe that government can and should cause economic growth and prosperity. They believe government can do this by various controls, regulations, spending programs, and monetary manipulation. They believe proper government spending will stimulate demand, generate consumer spending, kick-start production, and, voila! we have full employment and prosperity. Along the way we can solve various social problems.
The idea of MMT takes this one step further. They believe that the government can spend/buy whatever it wants and print pieces of greenish paper to pay for it. Government doesn’t need to tax us or borrow money to do this — it can print whatever money it needs to pay for it. Deficits don’t matter because by printing money to pay for stuff they instantly solve the deficit problem. MMTers claim, with no shortage of arrogance, that they, Oz-like, can fine-tune the mechanics of how the economy is to be run and generate prosperity, prevent inflation, end inequality, and save the planet.
In other words, everything will be perfect; “just trust us” to run things. It sounds too good to be true.
AOC and Bernie Sanders and their supporters heartily embrace MMT. They want to break free of old-fashioned concepts such as fiscal integrity, balanced budgets, and monetary stability because they want no limits on their utopian schemes.
MMT is a crackpot idea. It is the monetary equivalent of the Perpetual Motion Machine — it ignores the laws of economics. It’s like asking third graders to invent money. (“I’m gonna print me a bunch of money and buy me a Ferrari an’ a jet an’ all the coolest video games an’ …”). Proponents confuse pieces of greenish paper with wealth and, as history has repeatedly proven, you can’t print your way to wealth and prosperity.
There is nothing “modern” about Modern Monetary Theory. It has been tried many times over the centuries and it has never worked. In every case where governments have printed money to pay for things, the result has been cycles of boom and bust, inflation (and hyperinflation), economic stagnation, and social disorder. MMTers simply don’t understand what money is or the mechanics of the business cycle or the concept ofmalinvestment and the destruction of capital.
Why is it not possible that we could go the way of Rome? Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal resulted in 25 years of economic stagnation. Only post-FDR deregulation, more economic freedoms, capital investment, and fiscal and monetary sanity led to economic growth.
AOC’s Green New Deal plus MMT would be worse than the old New Deal in that it places no limit on government’s ability to spend which means government can command economic resources and control the direction of the economy. History has shown that governments aren’t very good at that. Absolute power in the hands of the few is a bad idea.
How much destruction could MMT and utopian Progressive schemes like AOC’s utopian Green New Deal inflict on our civilization? It is hard to tell, but I hope we don’t have to look back some day and say the end started now.
Greeting to my loyal readers. Still busy so this humble blogger hasn’t been posting much.
Today, more important news coming out of Italy. As you dear and loyal reader will recall, this blog has been writing about the situation in Italy for the longest of time. In our analysis, we have been pointing out that the key to MAKING CATHOLICISM GREAT AGAIN is what happens in the Euro Area and specifically in Italy.
For reasons that I will not go into today, this OBSERVATION and our prediction about what will happen going forward is playing itself out perfectly.
Who would have thunk only a few short years ago that a Western Civilization think tank will be established in Italy of all places to “restore all things to Christ”! (see here) And even with the growing pains (see here), the idea whose time has come… you know the rest…
And just as with the re-emergence of Thomism as the philosophical/theological underpinning of the Catholic Faith among the future hierarchs that will need to clean up the mess after the hippie church of the new springtime of the spirit of whatever… the NATRURAL LAW in the sub-set of Economics of the Visibilium Omnium, et Invisibilium is re-establishing itself on the Apennine Peninsula.
Below is our friend Tom Luongo with that information (see here)…
Aside, the part about Gresham’s Law should be of particular interest.
If you dear reader recall, the Italian population has a very high savings rate. This aspect of the economy is unique to the Italians, and allows them to service their domestic debt load with relative ease.
If the Italian government returned to their national currency over one weekend, the savers would be hit hard since their Euros would be renominated to a new Italian Lira and simultaneously devalued. The devaluation that is needed to get the Italian economy to return to proper equilibrated state, as per the below post.
In the Mini-BOT scenario, the savers could purchase this new currency at a reduced rate in order to cover their operating expenses, cover cost of living expenses and pay their taxes. The remaining Euros that they hold would still be worth as much as before.
So this Mini-BOT solution is a win/win for the Italians, which is why the bully-boys of Brussels are dead set against it. As per Mr. Luongo’s observation, Brussels can’t afford to allow this solution to be successful.
*****
Europe Won’t Admit The Mini-BOTs Are Coming
Italy is in serious trouble financially. This is virtually common knowledge at this point. What isn’t common knowledge is its Euroskeptic government led by Lega’s Matteo Salvini and Five Star Movement’s Luigi Di Maio are preparing an assault on the foundation of the European Union itself to save Italy.
And that assault comes with the most innocuous name. Mini-BOT. Mini-BOTs were originally the idea of former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis to assist Greece get out of the stranglehold placed on it by the euro.
What is a mini-BOT? It is a small denomination (mini) Bill of Treasury (BOT) that can be issued by, in this case, the Italian government to act as a domestic currency for settling government debts, paying taxes, etc.
It would be a parallel currency which could circulate freely domestically at a discount to the euro which would work as a medium of exchange to reflect the reality of the Italian economy better than the euro does.
The euro’s value is dominated by Germany’s economy. And, in short, by being so the euro overvalues Italy’s labor pool and undervalues Germany’s. Gresham’s Law states under-valued money is hoarded and over-valued spent. In Italy the euro is hoarded. In Germany it is spent. This is why Germany runs such a massive trade surplus against the other members of the euro-zone.
Italy (and Greece, Portugal, Spain and others) need a currency that can circulate to properly support domestic trade.
By mispricing Italian labor via the euro it keeps the goods produced in Italy uncompetitive on the world market. Italy’s central bank can only issue euro-denominated debt which trades at rates far lower than it should, enhancing Germany’s position.
The Italian economy, like Greece’s, is also strangled by the cost of servicing its national debt denominated in euros. This keeps the demand for money within the economy high for debt servicing purposes and its circulation low.
Low circulation equals low trade and a sluggish economy. The EU’s budget rules favor paying off creditors first and tending to the Italian economy second. The ‘austerity’ imposed on euro-zone members, because of this mispricing of both the debt and the euro itself, becomes doubly harsh when the euro rises, sucking the life out of the debtor nation.
As the currency rises, the value of the debt rises versus the labor it is a claim against also rises. Then the country’s creditors need a bailout, which they get. The debt gets ‘restructured’ to put the debtor on an even-longer dated hamster wheel of repayment and some of it gets paid off in the form of national assets now trading at a fraction of its real value.
The mini-BOT seeks to reverse this process by allowing the Italian treasury to issue them as interest-bearing small bills which can be used to purchase goods and services in the Italian market but which will also be redeemable to pay for government services and taxes.
Doing this bypasses the euro completely and these will trade at a discount to the euro, thereby setting a proper exchange rate for Italy’s economy relative to Europe’s as a whole and increasing money velocity.
This is what Salvini and Di Maio are in favor of and what they will likely introduce soon.
And it is imperative that you understand what this means for the European Union. It is an existential threat to the current Germany-dominated political order. The main purpose of the euro was do to exactly what we have seen since its introduction, create a structural advantage for German industry through which Germany’s political class can dominate the EU itself. It was specifically designed to roll up the wealth of the continent in this way, bankrupt countries less competitive than Germany and keep them that way trapped within this single currency regime.
Laying aside my myriad and sundry libertarian and Austrian economics-based objections to this system of debt-based fiat currency, the current structure of the euro is even more monstrous than that of the individual currencies themselves. But, the Mini-BOT is a stop-gap measure on the road back to monetary and fiscal sanity. Not perfect, but the right first step.
Italy’s sovereignty-focused government, an outgrowth of the desperation of the Italian people, understand this dynamic at a deep level. It is why Salvini and Di Maio have attacked Brussels on the issue of the budget rules, tax cuts and infrastructure spending while soft-pedaling to the Italian people their radical agenda, which is to force a reorganization of power in Brussels or, failing that, take Italy out of the euro completely.
I have been arguing for over two years now since Matteo Salvini came onto the scene as a major player in Italian politics that his best path for success is to always and consistently put Brussels into the position of the bad guy.
Breach a budget rule here, detain some human traffickers there.
Each time the EU responds in the most predictable way, Salvini gains popularity and his arguments against Brussels’ unwillingness to listen gain credence.
And what scares Brussels the most is not what they say do – an increase in Italy’s debt, unsustainable spending, etc. Italy is nearly unsalvageable under a euro-only currency regime. No, what EU leadership fears the most is that this parallel domestic currency system of the mini-BOT actually works.
Because once it does it will show the rest of Europe just how corrupt and vindictive EU leadership is. As if Brexit talks haven’t exposed this fundamental truth to them already. And once that happens, the future of the EU itself comes into sincere doubt.
From what I understand, through anecdotal evidence, Salvini and Di Maio are going to move quickly on the mini-BOT, not just as a threat but as a real thing.
And their problems now lie with who I call the Troika of Technocrats who hold the positions to block their plans – President Sergei Mattarella, Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte and Finance Minister Giovanni Tria.
These are all the epitome of the Italian Swamp. They work for the old guard political order in Italy who, like most of the political establishment in the U.K., work for Brussels.
They will try to take down the Italian government before the mini-BOT becomes more than a discussion in parliament. Conte already threatened to resign over this issue. You’ll notice he didn’t do so.
And that to me is a huge tell. Conte bluffed Salvini and lost. Because with Di Maio in charge of Five Star and the poll numbers where they are, the Troika could all easily be removed if they take down the government (see my article linked above for the tactical situation).
If Salvini did it, it would hurt him. But, again, Salvini is way too sharp an operator to fall for that trap. So it will have to come from President Mattarella and Prime Minister Conte, if it comes at all.
They have to move quickly to get the Mini-BOT in place. Europe’s finances are unraveling quickly. The ECB is looking at lowering rates again once Mario Draghi exits the stage to leave the mess for his replacement.
Deutsche Bank is looking to spin off a small portion of its bad assets into a Bad Bank while Germany’s economy continues cratering and a hard Brexit is looking more and more likely.
None of these things are euro positive and none of them help the EU in its fight to keep Italy in the fold.
Italy will need the mini-BOT once this huge move into sovereign debt is over. It is rapidly becoming the most over-crowded trade in history with nearly $12 trillion in debt now carrying a negative return.
For now, Draghi and the rest of the would-be oligarchs in Brussels are in denial about what Salvini and Di Maio are planning. They won’t be once the power struggle for Italy’s government takes center stage in September when the budget is proposed, Brussels tries to impose fines and Salvini starts selling mini-BOTs.
You shouldn’t have to wonder how the markets are going to respond to that.
Aside, your humble blogger has signed up and presently waiting to get accessed to the platform…
*****
Jordan Peterson Close To Launching “Anti-Censorship” Social Media Platform
Psychologist and author Jordan B. Peterson announced this week that progress on Thinkspot, his subscription-based “anti-censorship” social media platform, has the project closer to launch.
Peterson and his team are beta testing the product, which he calls “an intellectual playground for censorship-free discourse”, according to the Washington Times. It comes at a time when social media sites like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Pinterest have been accused of arbitrarily enforcing vague terms of service and overreaching in their left-wing biased policing of their respective platforms.
“Announcing Thinkspot: a new online communication platform (as promised post-Patreon),” Peterson wrote Wednesday on Facebook.
Recall, just days ago, we reported that documents leaked to Project Veritas by a Pinterest insider reveal that the San Francisco-based social media company has blocked links from Zero Hedge and several conservative or religious-based websites – adding them to a ‘porn domain block list’ originally intended to keep the platform free of sexually explicit material.
Peterson began to take a stand against social media when YouTuber Carl Benjamin, aka Sargon of Akkad, was removed from Patreon in December 2018. Benjamin’s “infraction” came as a result of him actually mocking his racist critics on another platform by using a racial epithet.
On the June 9 Joe Rogan podcast, Peterson describes platform by saying: “Once you’re on our platform we won’t take you down unless we’re ordered to by a US court of law.”
Peterson’s fans were ecstatic, leaving comments like:
This is fantastic news and a testament of [sic] the power of the free market to balance things out! Amazing, and truly looking forward to signing up to Thinkspot!”
“This is great news! Alternative free speech platforms are the only way forward so we no longer have to trudge through the mires of increasing corporate censorship.”
“I can already see the media hit pieces lining up and the payment processing companies putting together their press releases.”
“This is what the social scene on the internet needs. Some strict competition to the usual social sites and their censorship garbage. And if it’s backed and headed up by Peterson makes it all the more engaging.”
We will certainly keep an eye out for when the product is launched.
Busy at work so the posting has been rare recently.
Hopefully will return to regular posting soon…
Please keep me in your prayers.
And just to add CONTEXT to above screen grab… (see here)
LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO THE BISHOPS ON THE OCCASION OF THE PUBLICATION
OF THE APOSTOLIC LETTER “MOTU PROPRIO DATA” SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
ON THE USE OF THE ROMAN LITURGY
PRIOR TO THE REFORM OF 1970
My dear Brother Bishops,
With great trust and hope, I am consigning to you as Pastors the text of a new Apostolic Letter “Motu Proprio data” on the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970. The document is the fruit of much reflection, numerous consultations and prayer.
News reports and judgments made without sufficient information have created no little confusion. There have been very divergent reactions ranging from joyful acceptance to harsh opposition, about a plan whose contents were in reality unknown.
This document was most directly opposed on account of two fears, which I would like to address somewhat more closely in this letter.
In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.
This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.
As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.
Pope John Paul II thus felt obliged to provide, in his Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei (2 July 1988), guidelines for the use of the 1962 Missal; that document, however, did not contain detailed prescriptions but appealed in a general way to the generous response of Bishops towards the “legitimate aspirations” of those members of the faithful who requested this usage of the Roman Rite. At the time, the Pope primarily wanted to assist the Society of Saint Pius X to recover full unity with the Successor of Peter, and sought to heal a wound experienced ever more painfully. Unfortunately this reconciliation has not yet come about. Nonetheless, a number of communities have gratefully made use of the possibilities provided by the Motu Proprio. On the other hand, difficulties remain concerning the use of the 1962 Missal outside of these groups, because of the lack of precise juridical norms, particularly because Bishops, in such cases, frequently feared that the authority of the Council would be called into question. Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them. Thus the need has arisen for a clearer juridical regulation which had not been foreseen at the time of the 1988 Motu Proprio. The present Norms are also meant to free Bishops from constantly having to evaluate anew how they are to respond to various situations.
In the second place, the fear was expressed in discussions about the awaited Motu Proprio, that the possibility of a wider use of the 1962 Missal would lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities. This fear also strikes me as quite unfounded. The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often. Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.
It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these. For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.
I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: “Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return … widen your hearts also!” (2 Cor 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.
There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.
In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 22: “Sacrae Liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet quae quidem est apud Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, apud Episcopum”).
Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity. Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the Motu Proprio.
Furthermore, I invite you, dear Brothers, to send to the Holy See an account of your experiences, three years after this Motu Proprio has taken effect. If truly serious difficulties come to light, ways to remedy them can be sought.
Dear Brothers, with gratitude and trust, I entrust to your hearts as Pastors these pages and the norms of the Motu Proprio. Let us always be mindful of the words of the Apostle Paul addressed to the presbyters of Ephesus: “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the Church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son” (Acts 20:28).
I entrust these norms to the powerful intercession of Mary, Mother of the Church, and I cordially impart my Apostolic Blessing to you, dear Brothers, to the parish priests of your dioceses, and to all the priests, your co-workers, as well as to all your faithful.
