Weekly Roundup, November 9 Edition

Thank you for reading Tradition & Sanity. If you enjoy and benefit from the articles Julian & I publish here, please take out a paid subscription today! Help this Substack to continue long into the future (Deo volente):

If you’ve already subscribed and would like to contribute to the ever-flowing hot beverage that powers my typing, consider leaving a tip in my jar:

America

How many readers here were shocked by Trump’s landslide victory? How many calmly called it ahead of time? I myself did not know what to expect, and I suppose I was inclined to put some credence in reports that the race was “neck and neck.” The embarrassing wrongness of most of the polls even led one writer to ask: “After Trump’s Massive Victory, Why Should We Bother Listening to Pollsters Again?”

My article this past Monday garnered mostly appreciative comments but there were a few who attacked me privately or stormed away from this Substack in a huff. I understand that politics are divisive. I’ve been working in the realm of ecclesiastical politics for decades, and it’s just as divisive, if not more so — and the stakes are much higher. Nevertheless, how I wish it were possible for Catholics who disagree about either Trump or the Latin Mass (or any other “big” question) to hold a civil conversation with one another. Alas, that kind of courteous discussion/debate seems rarer all the time.

I suspect the reason the liberal media are not going nuts about the Trump victory (at least, not as much as they could be) is that (a) they were never very excited about Harris to begin with, and so at some level they’re not surprised that she lost, and (b) all they really care about is abortion, which is their unholy grail, and in this regard unfortunately the pro-life cause has taken major hits this voting day, with giant gains for Moloch on the state level. When I’ve listened to MSM, it seems like all they care about is abortion. This is their golden calf. If you want to see what idolatry looks like in a postmodern context, here’s your exhibit. Or, more accurately, it is the modern solipsistic ego, the unholy trinity of “me, myself, and I,” that is the idol, and abortion provides it with the sacrificial victims a religion demands.

The overthrow of Roe v. Wade has shown what many already suspected, namely, that under decades of abortion access thanks to Roe, the hearts of many have been hardened. This is why we see that many people voted both for Trump and for liberalizing abortion access at the state level. They want the losers out of Washington DC, but they also want their late-modern cult of self. Boy, do we have our work cut out for us at the state and local levels!

A few articles I enjoyed reading on the election:

• Eric Sammons, “Trump Wins: Let the Work Begin”

• Sven R. Larson, “America’s Moral Victory Over the War Machine”

• Regis Martin, “The Left Will Not Go Quietly”

Liturgy Conversations

Robert Moynihan of Inside the Vatican invited me once again to do an interview with him, this time occasioned by my new book Turned Around: Replying to Common Objections Against the Traditional Latin Mass. As usual, our conversation was far-reaching, and at one point Bob shared — for the first time in a public forum! — that a Russian Orthodox friend of his, also close to Pope Francis, reached the pope on the phone this past summer and persuaded him not to sign the document canceling the TLM (!):

My colleague at New Liturgical Movement, the unsurpassable fountain of knowledge Gregory DiPippo, did an interview with Jan Bentz on the future of the TLM, the reason why it’s being attacked by some within the Church, the cultural implications of the liturgical reform, and lots more:

Speaking of New Liturgical Movement, an extremely important essay on the history of the psalter in the Divine Office down to the creation of the Liturgy of the Hours was published there in two parts, last week and this week: “From the Complete Psalter to the Easier Psalter: An Insight into the Dynamics of Liturgical Reform in the 20th Century” (part 1 and part 2), written by the highly esteemed Polish philosopher Paweł Milcarek, founder and editor-in-chief of the journal Christianitas. Everyone interested in the sacred liturgy should take note of it and its impressive analysis. It is gratifying to see work of this quality on an understudied area.

Luce Briefly Revisited

I don't agree with everything my friend Darrick N. Taylor says in his latest at Crisis, but am deeply moved by the excerpt he shares from the poet Larkin and his comments on it:

“A serious house on serious earth.” One could not devise a better description of Holy Mother Church, for she is built on the most serious earth there is, that of Calvary. Though Larkin could not believe, he could still sense there was something in that dusty old church building worthy of respect. That is always how I have thought of the Church, as a bulwark of seriousness in a world of triviality and meaninglessness.

It might sound misplaced, but it is this that bothers me most about the current leadership in the Church. I expect heresy and moral scandal to blight the Church from time to time. The pages of its history are filled with both. What distresses me more is the utter lack of seriousness, the lack of appreciation for the awesome responsibility which they bear.

I think this is what bothers me most about Luce. Not that she couldn’t be a cute figure in a children’s book (though why our children’s books have to look like that, instead of being filled with illustrations by Arthur Rackham or N.C. Wyeth together with lofty English language, is quite beyond me). But what the creation of this doll by the Vatican suggests is the following message: “We’re a corporation just like every other corporation. We have our logo, our mascot, our slogans, our products, our sales pitch, our agenda. We are in the world and of the world and for the world. And at the end of the day, we’re not all that serious. Please don’t take us too seriously! Boys and men especially.”

Someone remarked: “Jesus didn’t come to found a religion for teenagers.” Of course, He loves people of every age, but He came to bring us divine wisdom, divine love, divine transformation — something childlike, not childish. I do not really see how gimmicks like Luce fit into this picture. The fact that it now looks downright cranky for a person to object to marketing gimmicks introduced by the successors of the apostles shows how far gone we are; the humanization or horizontalization of the Church has been so successful that the incoherence is, to some people at least, no longer visible.

Perhaps something else is at work here. What happens when you abandon rich symbolism? What are you left with? Phillip Campbell has a powerfully-worded short essay about this over at Unam Sanctam Catholicam:

It is becoming increasingly clear to me how vehemently our modern culture loaths symbolism. Our society is so ridiculously analytical, so bull-headedly rationalistic, that we can have no patience for the subtle communication of the economy of symbolism. That's not to say we don't like visual representations; we love those, but only if they are rationalized, corporatized, and utilitarian. We are a society obsessed with logos and mascots but cannot abide signs and symbols.

(Read the rest there — well worth it.)

Speaking of incoherence… Recent months have seen the deployment of online AI platforms for all the religious denominations. No surprises there. Yet here’s a twist. The website Whispers of Restoration documents how most of the Catholic AI platforms will deliver Protestant or indifferentist answers. This, to my mind, is a very apt demonstration of the nature of the crisis: Who do you trust? Who speaks on behalf of Christ and His Church? Just because something has a Catholic logo, or even a Catholic mascot, doesn’t mean it has anything to do with “the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).

In a recent email someone asked me, Is there any way to know which authors are trustworthy to read, and which ones aren’t? I told him that one is best off reading Scripture, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, well-reputed commentators thereupon, and, in general, pre-Vatican II authors, especially the preconciliar papal and conciliar magisterium. In addition, one may profitably read traditionalist authors, albeit with critical alertness.

Circling back to where I started: it was gratifying to see a lot of people instinctively repulsed by Luce, as well as a fair number of “spoofs” and “retro” revisions to Luce, which of course is the very last thing Fisichella would have in mind when unveiling the cutesy blue doll.

Papal Ruminations

I think there’s a temptation to roll one’s eyes and say “Why bother at this point with more in-depth analysis of the current pontificate (I had almost said, Bergoglian captivity)? It’s a total disaster. No two people agree about what’s going on. We just have to wait it out and pray for better days.”

Admitting that it can be beneficial for certain individuals to not pursue certain questions, and that not everyone has the time or obligation to pursue them (that’s a matter for prudence to discern), all the same, the attitude summarized above is anti-philosophical and anti-theological, one that is not consistent with faith seeking understanding. We do need in-depth analysis, bringing to bear the best tools of the tradition.

This is what Dr. John Lamont has done in his latest essay at Rorate, which is lengthy but well-argued, with copious references to Scripture, scholastic commentators, and canon law. (A PDF may be downloaded here.)

Lamont admits he has changed his mind about the possibility of a pope being removed from office by bishops or cardinals, and/or the need for any official process at that level. He maintains that a pope who, beyond reasonable doubt, is a public heretic, must fall from the papacy because heretics are no longer actual members of the Church, and he argues that Francis more than sufficiently meets this description. Along the way, he endeavors to refute the positions of Bishop Schneider and Roberto de Mattei.

As I have said on numerous occasions, I find the period we are living through to be terribly confusing, even baffling for traditional theological categories. I have read convincing arguments on all sides: that Francis was never validly elected; that he was elected but has fallen from his office due to heresy; that, though a heretic, he still remains pope and a formal process would be required for his deposition; that he is too confused and mentally challenged to be able to be a heretic; and so forth. Lamont always makes one think carefully, as his argumentation is at a much higher level than that of most others who engage these questions; and that is why I recommend his essay, even if I cannot yet say that I hold all of his conclusions.

Dr Joseph Shaw wrote a response to Dr Lamont’s essay. While praising Lamont’s arguments about the weaknesses in Cajetan’s and John of St Thomas’s positions, Shaw maintains that Lamont’s view (and that of sedevacantists in general) collapses into irrecoverable anarchy.

Roberto de Mattei argues against the traditionalists whom he sees as weakening the papacy. I have to admit that, while I’m no sympathizer with the “anarcho-vacantists,” his argumentation seems poor and inconclusive.

William Kilpatrick, meanwhile, argues that “something must be done now” about Francis as an anti-pope — but never says what exactly is supposed to be done (a rather major lacuna). In my opinion, he leaves no room for divine intervention or for the power of prayer to move mountains. I think this is true of anyone who says “Francis has stacked the deck and pretty soon his revolution will be unstoppable.” Tell that one to the Almighty!

Normally I enjoy Casey Chalk’s work, but in this article, “Answering Protestant Objections to Pope Francis,” he seems to have missed the mark by downplaying (or perhaps not even recognizing?) the magnitude of the problem Francis poses for a coherent theology of the papacy and of the magisterium.

To conclude this subsection, I can’t refrain from quoting a different piece by Roberto de Mattei:

The final document of the Synod [October 27] and the encyclical Dilexit nos [on the Sacred Heart, October 24] seem to come from two different planets, but contradiction has been and remains the hallmark of this pontificate. It would be a futile exercise to look for good in the Synod Document or bad in the papal encyclical. How should the Catholic adjust when faced with two such contrasting documents? Common sense suggests this: Ignore the Synod’s Final Document, which moreover has no normative value. Reading it can only confuse the ideas of the all too bewildered faithful. Respond positively to the call to the Sacred Heart of Jesus through the practices that Francis recommends.

Among these recommended practices are… the First Friday devotion and Thursday Holy Hours!

Yes, we have a pope of endless contradictions. This is not good, in any way, shape, or form, and the Church will be wrestling with this scandal for decades to come.

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

Additional Favorite Reading/Listening

Why the Sky Is Blue

What is a Prince Elector?

• Michael Schmiesing, “Inflation and Theft”

• Cristián Rodrigo Iturralde, “Indigenism is an artificial conflict created by a completely false narrative”

• I strongly recommend Sebastian Morello’s and Brian Scarffe’s Gnostalgia Podcast. The conversations are very interesting. This week they hosted Jason Baxter, Director for the Center for Beauty and Culture at Benedictine College, and the translator of a new version of Dante’s Inferno, just published by Angelico Press:

Last Call for Sicily

As mentioned here before, I’ll be leading a pilgrimage to Sicily, February 3-15, a collaborative effort of Regina Magazine and St Charles Catholic Pilgrimages. Fr Thomas Crean will offer a daily traditional Latin Mass.

We will arrive in Sicily in time for the grand celebration of the island’s patroness St. Agatha in Catania, then tour the island's magnificent churches and ancient sites in Acireale, Taormina, Syracuse, Ortigia, Noto, Ragusa, Modica, Scicli, Donnafugata, Ragusa Ibla, Agrigento, Sciacca, Marsala, Saline di Nubia, Erice, Segesta, Monreale, Cefalù, and Palermo. It will be an unforgettable trip!

There are TWO double/twin rooms left, i.e., four seats. (NB: these rooms must be booked by a pair of pilgrims, that is, no single registrations are possible at this stage.)

To view the itinerary and to register, go here.

Thanks for reading and may God bless you!