Dawn Eden Speaks Sanity

As she writes of, “An evil not even tolerated among the pagans

She warns:

I would like to continue to urge other concerned lovers of the Extraordinary Form (traditional Latin) Mass to speak out so that the world does not judge us by those who spew hatred against Judaism and the Jewish people.

In that, she says from *within* the ranks of Traditionalists exactly the same thing I was trying to say from outside those ranks yesterday when I concluded a post about the umpteenth eruption of anti-semitic nuttery from self-styled Traditionalists by saying:

Sane and healthy Traditionalists have far far more to fear from the public scandal created by these people than they have from anybody singing “Anthem” at some suburban OF Mass.

To be sure, *some* of the readers responded to my words in the vein that Dawn does: they simply and plainly agree that, yes, Jew-hatred is evil, belittlement and denial of mass murder is wrong, and… period. Nothing else, because nothing else needs to be said. Some of them can be seen in other fora simply and plainly making war on this filth. They can tell from the fact that Dawn is herself a lover of the EF and that I make an extremely clear distinction between “sane and healthy Traditionalists” and the Jew-hating lunatics flying under cover of Traditionalism that neither of us are saying “Traditionalism = anti-semitism.”

But, an *awful* lot of the responses to the denunciation of anti-semites poisoning the image of Traditionalism consisted, not of denunciations of anti-semitism, but of stuff like this:

Mark Shea, I don’t understand why you attack Catholics wanting to respect, glorify, & revere the Sacramental presence of our Lord Jesus at His Holy Mass Sacrifice (as our ancestors of our faith did before us). Why don’t you instead expose those who want to use Holy Church for their own selfish political ends (like “Catholic” supporters of women “priests”, liberation theology socialism, pro-War, pro-Abortion, etc.)? Traditionalists aren’t anti-Semitic.

Multiply responses like this by a factor of a hundred and you get *most* of the responses to the filthy spectacle of Holocaust Denialism on display from Rorate Coeli’s “cherished friend”. Instead of seeing the filthy spectacle of rationalization for Jew-hatred as the problem, lots of respondents declare the person pointing out the Jew-hatred to be “sowing division”. In other words, “don’t make us look bad by commenting on the lunatics in our ranks” is more important than denouncing the lunatics.

Add to this are such head-shake-inducing responses as:

There are two sides to this fight. Jews get all upset when holocaust deniers come along and shout out their BS and rightly so, but why is it a sin to point out that the Talmud says Jesus was a demon possessed sorcerer who is boiling in his own feces and that Mary was a whore? I have never understood why Catholics are supposed to change our beliefs yet the Jews can keep their anti-Christian trash. double standard much…?

To which the sane reply is: “Do feel free to let me know where, in this entire discussion–except for anti-semites themselves–-any person at all has said, “Well, we *do* have to consider the reality that medieval Jewish polemicists really have a point about Jesus being a demon possessed sorcerer who is boiling in his own feces and that Mary was a whore.” In short, *nobody* is citing medieval Talmudic polemics except people looking for excuses to hate modern Jews and justify or belittle murdering them.” It’s *only* Catholic anti-semites who are paying attention to these footnotes from obscure medieval sources. It’s like the mentality of anti-Catholic fundamentalists who believe that all Catholics are carefully poring over the salacious details of the Malleus Maleficarum, searching for rationales for burning witches. It tells us much more about the mentality of the anti-Catholic than it tells us about how the average Catholic lives his life.  Incredibly, the vast majority of Jews do not pore over obscure Talmud passages so they can spit in Catholic eyes and call Jesus a sorcerer and Mary a whore, just as Catholics don’t ruminate on the best ways to dismember suspected witches.

Again and again, I am told that anti-semitism is a fringe phenomenon in Traditional circles. And at the parish level, I have no doubt this is true. Hence my reference to “sane and healthy Traditionalists.” But the pretense that Traditionalism is not profoundly rooted in and enabled by the Internet is just that, a pretense. The truth is that, on the Internet, Jew-hatred and self-identified Traditionalist Catholics are like peas and carrots and it is leaching out into the bloodstream of Internet Catholicism.

Again, not *all* Traditionalists subscribe to this filth. But on the internet, if you meet a Jew-hating Catholic, odds are in the high 90th percentile that he will tell you he is a Traditionalist. Odds are also very high that he is a warmly welcomed (“cherished” is the word Rorate Coeli used to describe their Holocaust Denier) contributor to a Traditionalist web.community. You *constantly* run into it all over the place all the time. And the absolutely worst way to deal with it is to shout “Stop talking about it” at their opponents when these people invade your comboxes, or get mainstreamed by puff piece interviews conducted by massively-popular-with-Traditionalists Real Catholics[TM] in which we are encouraged to roll our eyes about those silly “liberals” who think your interviewee’s conspiracy theories about Jews are toxic and dangerous. That’s called “mainstreaming” and it’s the dead opposite of keeping this filth on the fringe.

Nobody is asking sane and healthy Traditionalists to “rid the Internet” of anti-semitic nutjobs who run around spewing this stuff in the name of Authentic Catholic Tradition. I’m just saying that when such nutjobs turn up and somebody tells them they are enemies of the Faith, a scandal who disgrace the Church, and in grave danger of their souls–it would really help if Traditionalists would not choose that moment to throw a pity party and denounce the person opposing the anti-semite as “divisive” but would instead tell the anti-semite to repent. Neither Dawn, nor I, nor Fr. Anthony, nor any other faithful Catholic who opposes the infestation of anti-semites in Traditionalism is your enemy. The Jew-haters are your enemy and they do more to damage and destroy the Benedictine reforms than anyone on planet earth.

  • Stu

    Nobody is asking sane and healthy Traditionalists to “rid the Internet” of anti-semitic nutjobs who run around spewing this stuff in the name of Authentic Catholic Tradition. I’m just saying that when they do so and somebody tells them they are enemies of the Faith, a scandal who disgrace the Church, and in grave danger of their souls–it would really help if Traditionalists would not choose that moment to throw a pity party and denounce the person opposing the anti-semite as “divisive” but would instead tell the anti-semite to repent.
    —————
    On behalf of all so-called Traditionalist, I state categorically and strong, “Anti-semites, REPENT!”

    Now, let’s move on. Or is there some other bar to jump to end this cycle?

    • Mark Shea

      Believe it or not, Stu, it’s not All About You.

      • Stu

        Yes, Mark we agree.

        But since we are looking for so called “Traditional Catholic” community” to act, I have taken it upon myself to speak for the entire community. I hear or see no objections. We hear your call and have complied. We are ready to do more. Just need to know what more you want of all of us on the Internet.

        If this is not adequate, then I would ask you to objectively quantify what is adequate. What is your standard for determining when the so called “Traditional Catholic” community is meeting the challenge head-on in your opinion? Overall page counts? Replies to certain posts of your selection? Do I need to get more so called “Traditional Catholics” online to combat these people? You did at least say we don’t have to rid the entire Internet of these folks, but what level is acceptable?

        • contrarian

          Stu,
          Exactly.
          You rock, man.

        • http://commonsensecatholicism.blogspot.com Kevin

          I’d like to join Stu’s reasonable requests with one of my own:

          Help put the sane ones over. You note that sure, some trads realize jew-hatred is evil. Well quote their words. Show others that these kinda people exist. why only quote the words of the bad guys?

          Don’t even have to use our names. Just say “may their kind increase” and use it to point out a real example of an alternative. Granted, that won’t generate as much web traffic, but it might actually do a bit of good. You might even make people hate you less when they see that you are willing to give the fair sane ones respect. Most don’t get far enough to have a private conversation with you to realize the distinctions you at least are trying to make.

          So let’s put our cards on the table. We want anti-semite trads to be reduced in number, or do we want to retain our ability to mock them?

          • ivan_the_mad

            Dawn Eden doesn’t count? She’s been quoted not infrequently in relation to this brouhaha.

            • http://commonsensecatholicism.blogspot.com Kevin

              It’s a good first step. And Dawn Eden is a good friend. yet it’s something that is worth continuing to push for. If nothing else, they are engaging interesting writers, not just engaging and interesting traditionalists/traditionalist sympathizers.

              So Mark deserves credit for it. Just moar pleze.

        • http://socrates58.blogspot.com Dave Armstrong

          “What is your standard for determining when the so called “Traditional Catholic” community is meeting the challenge head-on in your opinion?”

          Nothing all that hard. How about, for starters, Rorate Coeli renounces Marcelo Gonzalez as a source and utterly denounces his Holocaust denial? That seems straightforward enough. Instead, they are choosing to retrench, refuse to even mention his name in their “reply” to Dawn, and dig in, now implying mental illness and a motivation of filthy lucre. Here is a recent comment from “New Catholic” over there:

          “Much worse, of course, are those who have misgivings about post-conciliar events, but demonize traditional Catholics with even more vigorous hatred, either to sell books, or to ingratiate themselves with publishers, or with those who would despise them otherwise. It is impressive how they write and speak insane and violent words to earn ‘respect’ from the wrong side, ‘that they may be honoured by men: Amen I say to you, they have received their reward.’ Of course, the answer from us is the same we advise others to do: do not engage, never engage, we should not engage with those in need of a certain kind of help.”

          They’re gonna have hell to pay for this. The sooner it is dealt with, and the less cover-up, the better (as is the case in all scandals). Dawn and Mark are writing about it; I put up a long article on my blog; others are writing about it. It ain’t gonna go away and we are NOT gonna be intimidated and shut up about this, by 3rd-grade tactics and recourse to epithets. It’s too serious of an issue.

          “Traditionalists” stand to suffer the most if this is tolerated, but it reflects on all Catholics, and apologists like Mark and myself, who defend the faith have to deal with it. It is Catholics, after all, who are spewing this garbage. None of us have denied that they are that. So it’s in OUR house, too (since it is one house and one Church), and we feel a responsibility to do something about it by speaking out and condemning it.

          • Stu

            Who says RC speaks for the so-called “Traditional Catholic” community? You?
            Sounds like your issue with that blog and it’s owner.

            Speak up all you want. Just learn to focus your fire correctly instead of opting for a rhetorical scorched Earth policy. You might actually gain more allies in doing so. If that is what you want.

            • http://socrates58.blogspot.com Dave Armstrong

              I didn’t say they did. I said, for *starters* they can denounce the sewer scum hatred. They don’t have to speak for “ALL” trads: not my argument at all. The movement to clean this up has to start somewhere, and they are (I think we all agree) a prominent online voice in the movement. Dawn dared to criticize them. She was entirely right to do so.

              You wanna play games and talk about hypotheticals and “infinite regress”-type arguments. In the real world, people need to fess up to mistakes they have made (in public). So if you truly care about the issue, why not agree with us and call for RC to retract and renounce this “cherished friend”?

              My so-called “fire” is entirely focused. Outrageous claims were made and I am calling them on it, along with Mark and Dawn and others. If you call that “rhetorical scorched earth,” I call it “tough talk against extremely serious sins.” There is a time for that. The prophets did it; Jesus did, the apostles and Fathers and Doctors of the Church all did. We need to do it today, too.

              Any healthy movement is perfectly capable of self-policing and self-criticism. It’s only when a movement is so self-centered and weak that it thinks it can never admit mistakes, that it refuses to do so.

              • Stu

                First off Dave, the blogosphere is not the “Real World.” Something that is increasingly lost on many. Whether you like it or not, most people don’t know or care what RC (or you for that matter) post on your blog. Further, RC no more speaks for so called “Traditional Catholics” than you do for Catholic converts. So your assertion that they are a “prominent online voice” is your assertion. I’ll at least agree that they are an online voice. In fact of all of the Catholic blogs out there, they are…one of them.

                Mark seemingly wants actions from the so called “Traditional Catholic” community. Fine. I asking him for something by which we can measure those results. Seems fair to me.

                • Mark Shea

                  Mark seemingly wants actions from the so called “Traditional Catholic” community.

                  No. As Mark made clear repeatedly, all Mark is asking is that when somebody calls out an anti-semite, I’d appreciate it if Trads would either a) join in calling out the anti-semite or b) be quiet and do whatever it is you are doing. Just don’t start whining that calling out an anti-semite is mean to Traditionalists.

                  • Stu

                    And what some of your fans, you know the people who actually want to frequent your blog and read your books (falls under category b) in your choices above), are asking you to do is simply go after ideas instead of broad-brushing entire groups.

                    Yep, all a bunch of whiners.

                    • Mark Shea

                      I have not broad-brushed an entire group.

                    • Stu

                      Sure you do. Probably not intentionally. But your methods do just that.
                      I’m attempting to help you get your message out better. You take offense at that. I suspect most English majors don’t like editors. But bottom line, your rhetoric and daily posting on what you see as the problems with traditionalism aren’t building any useful coalitions. They are simply adding to the churn. Seems to me that you have a few so called “traditionalists” here telling you just that.

                      I guess the question to be asked is who is your audience when you write these posts and what are you trying to achieve? Are you trying to change the minds of people at RC? You won’t. Are you addressing me? You keep saying you aren’t? I believe you. So who then are you addressing? And has your message been effective?

                      I think speaking out again anti-semitism is indeed warranted. But as a Catholic, I don’t feel the need to state that I am against anti-semitism everytime some other supposed Catholic says something stupid along those lines anymore than I need to condemn terrorism because Timothy McVeigh was Catholic. They are fringe elements and I simply reject the guilt by association tone. Much better is simply attack the ideas and not groups of people. In fact, many more people will get onboard with you then. If that is your goal.

                      You, an others, will go to great lengths to speak about how you aren’t talking about all so-called “Traditionalists.” Well that talks wears thin. As I might have shared before, I am in a mixed marriage. I once was part of a conversation where an individual was railing against a certain minority group in my presence and realizing that he had dug himself into a hole, he tried to recover with, “Of course Stu, I don’t mean your wife. I’m talking about other people.” What a bunch of BS. That’s exactly how ““sane and healthy Traditionalists” comes across. Right up there with “non-racist Southerners” or “clean and articulate black men.” The generalization is implicit in the language.

                      Again, the answer is to simply address deficient ideas and not groups of people. Much more surgical in precision and serves to actually promote your cause. If that is your goal.

                  • GM

                    Regarding the links imbedded to “Traditionalist” communities:

                    There’s an excellent book titled: Not By Scripture Alone–Mark Shea contributed Chapter 4. The editor is Robert A. Sungenis and can be bought from his website. Where does he promote anti-Semitism? The book mentioned even has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. Another book of his, Not By Bread Alone has the Nihil Obstat from Bishop Fabian W. Bruskewitz. Are we to associate this honorable Bishop with anti-Semitism?

                    Also, is the following true about Sungenis? “…This past year the bishops of the United States voted to take out a heretical sentence from the 2006 United States Catholic Catechism for Adults. Page 131 had stated that the Mosiac covenant was still valid for the Jews. I was the only Catholic in the world to point out this error. I wrote to the Vatican and the US bishops two years prior. Finally, in June 2008, the bishops voted 231 to 14 to eliminate the sentence.” (See Sungenis’s Questions about Charges Plagiarism Q&A). If that is true, is this evidence of Sungenis’s anti-Semitism?

                    Has Mark read E. Michael Jones’s 1200 page The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History? Or Jones’s 662 page Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control? Both these books are heavily footnoted, have extensive bibliographies and well organized indexes. I have not read anything anti-Semitic in Jones’s material.
                    In the introduction to the former book Jones quotes from Jacob Neusner, “Defining Judaism” p.5 collected in The Blackwell Companion to Judaism, ed. Jacob Neusner & Alan J. Avery-Peck (Blackwell Publishing 2003) and writes:

                    The renowned Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner, makes clear a distinction between Judaists and Jews, when he says, : “The ethnic group does not define the religious…All Judaists–those who practice the religion, Judaism–are Jews, but not all Jews are Judaists. That is to say, all those who practice the religion, Judaism, by definition fall into the ethnic group, the Jews, but not all members of the ethnic group practice Judaism.”
                    However , Neusner adds, tellingly, that Christianity plays a special role in defining who counts as a Jew either ethnically or religiously: “the ethnic community opens its doors not by reason of outsiders’ adopting what is not ethnic but religious…. While not all Jews practice Judaism, in the iron-clad consensus among contemporary Jews, Jews who practice Christianity cease to be a part of the ethnic Jewish community, while those who practice Buddhism remain within.”
                    Without knowing it, Neusner is simply restating the thesis of this book: when Judaism rejected Christ it rejected Logos as well. In rejecting Christ, Judaism took on a negative identity, something that many Jews have realized at one time or another. ”
                    E. Michael Jones pg. 18 The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit (Fidelity Press 2008)

                    Are we to associate people willing to deal with the topic of Jews and Catholicism as anti-Semitic by merely grouping people into traditionalist web.community? The topic is critical and very important because it is tied to other important areas. Sungenis writes an interesting article titled Catholic Answers: Still Bowing to Gideon’s Idol–is it true that there are no articles critical of Jews or Judaism in their publications? If so, Why Not? Doesn’t the Catholic Faith teach that Modern Judaism is a false religion? Why can’t Catholics learn why this is true without being labeled anti-Semites?

                    St Thomas Aquinas pray for us!

                    • Rosemarie

                      +J.M.J+

                      As to your first point, Not By Scripture Alone and Not By Bread Alone were both published before Sungenis started promoting anti-Semitic stuf (which began in 2002). Mark repudiated Sungenis after that happened. Here’s the link from the archives:

                      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2002/09/29322.html

                    • GM

                      Mark, I tried to post a comment a couple of times now. The content did not seem irrelevant to the topic or responses in the comment box. This is the first time I have posted on your blog.

                      First, I see you mention E. Michael Jones and when you do in context I get the impression you consider him an anti-Semite. Help me understand if I am interpreting your comments about him correctly.

                      Second, a good traditional priest recommended two of his books by name to understand better what the priest was talking about.

                      Third, since this priest recommended the above mentioned books I wonder what’s wrong with reading this author’s work. It was recommended reading after all from an official representative of the Roman Catholic Church.

                      Is this priest promoting anti-Semitism for recommending Jones’s books for reading?

                    • Mark Shea

                      I don’t know if the priest is promoting anti-semitism, but Jones is: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2012/04/michael-voris-attempts.html

                    • GM

                      The priest I referred to is Fr Ripperger Ph.D. FSSP and his website is chock full of traditional Catholic homilies. After listening to many of the homilies from Sensus Traditionis I know he does not promote anti-Semitism. He’s a Roman Catholic Priest after all. I noticed you use the word “mainstreaming” to describe what Voris does with regards to Jones.

                      Is Fr Ripperger “mainstreaming” Jones by recommending Modern Degenerates and Libido Dominandi for further understanding?

                      Does taking the advice of this priest
                      and reading those books make one guilty of “mainstreaming” anti-Semitism?

                    • Mark Shea

                      You’re asking me to pass judgment on the actions of a man I know nothing about?

                    • Franciscan

                      I think there are very good reasons to have a problem with E. Michael Jones’ treatment of Jewish issues.

                      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2012/04/since-various-people-have-shown-up-in-the-comboxes.html

                • http://socrates58.blogspot.com Dave Armstrong

                  “Whether you like it or not, most people don’t know or care what RC (or you for that matter) post on your blog.”

                  All of which is perfectly irrelevant and a matter of complete indifference to me. If I positively affect one person today — entirely by the grace of God, as are all good things — then I go to bed a happy man, content that I have done something good for the day, according to the lights God has chosen to grant me.

                  You continue to play games. This is a terrible wrong, and I and others are denouncing it. You refuse to join us in doing so. I understood that RC was a prominent website and “voice.” Perhaps it isn’t. I don’t know; I’ve never followed it (this is what I’ve heard). But that’s a total non sequitur, too, as to whether it can or should be criticized when it is warranted.

                  In this instance, it is warranted, and so we do it, whether one person or 10,000 read their site. Obviously, though, the more who read it, the more harm is done.

                  • Stu

                    Dave, have you ever posted a criticism on their site? Ever gone on “their turf” to make your stand?

                    I don’t feel compelled to answer for every single extreme voice out there that may have some other common interest for me. Do you?

                    • jeremy dobbs

                      You mean there are nuts on the internet? What’s next?

                    • http://socrates58.blogspot.com Dave Armstrong

                      Dave, have you ever posted a criticism on their site? Ever gone on “their turf” to make your stand?

                      I heard that they delete many criticisms in the combox, and I have no patience for that. Besides, they’ll catch wind of my blog paper soon enough. If they care to rationally respond, they will. From how “New Catholic” has responded to Dawn and Mark, however, with implied charges of mental illness, lusting after filthy lucre, and hatred, I don’t expect much.

                    • Stu

                      Dave,

                      They don’t give a shit about your “blog paper.” And nor should you care. Further, what good comes of adding to the churn? Weren’t you the one talking about 3rd grade tactics? This manner of tit for tat is exactly that.

                      I think you all need to go clap erasers for an hour after school.

                    • Stu

                      And BTW, I can tell you from actual personal experience that they do moderate all comments.

              • Stu

                And let me add.

                Mark already asked that I show my allegiance by asking anti-semites to repent. Which I happily complied.

                Someone else here asked me, “Why not go post your call to repentance over at Rorate Coeli, et al?”

                Now you ask, “So if you truly care about the issue, why not agree with us and call for RC to retract and renounce this “cherished friend”?

                Perhaps you guys can all get together and set one bar by which we measure so called “Traditional Catholic” compliance. I already jumped over Mark’s bar but now new bars keep appearing.

                • Mark Shea

                  Mark already asked that I show my allegiance by asking anti-semites to repent.

                  Mark did no such thing.

                • http://socrates58.blogspot.com Dave Armstrong

                  They don’t give a shit about your “blog paper.”

                  As predicted. But they clearly do about Dawn’s, since they are so threatened they have to resort to charges of insanity, hatred and moneygrubbing. I wasn’t born yesterday. Nor were you.

                  And nor should you care.

                  I care about human beings and I care about truth.

                  Further, what good comes of adding to the churn?

                  It’s always good to tell the truth and fight for the good. Oftentimes, people will reject that. Like that’s some big surprise? DUHHHH!!!

                  Weren’t you the one talking about 3rd grade tactics?

                  Yep.

                  This manner of tit for tat is exactly that.

                  I’m sorry you feel that calling out someone for shoring up a Holocaust revisionist is that. You’ve revealed that you are arguing this merely on emotional grounds, so I shouldn’t be surprised that I’ve gotten nowhere with you. Your mind was made up before you started and you weren’t about to let reason get in the way.

                  • Stu

                    Well, I’m sorry that you have chosen to take the tone you have and attempted to make this personal.

                    You have mistaken the folks at RC “responding” to what is written by others with them actually “caring” about what is written by others. I repeat, they don’t give a shit about your blog paper. Further, I would recommend a healthy dose of reality for you in that regard because you come across as thinking it is much more important that it really is.

                    The gent at RC is, objectively speaking, much more shrewd at this than you are. Because you play into his hand. He controls the debate at his blog given he moderates all comments. He uses comments from Mark and Dawn, maybe even you one day, to whip up all of his usually suspects. So yes, he responds to the writings of others but only when it serves his purpose in furthering his cause. It is often said by people here that folks like you find at RC are the so called “Traditional Catholics” worst enemy. Maybe. But your method of attempting to confront them is their gold mine.

                    Caring about the truth is indeed a good thing. Whether you want to acknowledge it, I care about such things as well. However, I ALSO care about employing smart tactics and actually achieving my goals. And that remains my point in how Mark, and perhaps you, are going about things. You lack focus, you don’t know who your audience is and you aren’t achieving anything except whipping all of your usual crowd into a frenzy from time-to-time. No minds changed. Truth isn’t furthered and ultimately a lot of insults are thrown. What an accomplishment.

                    Stop with the rhetorical trench warfare. It’s not working for you. Time to reconceptualize your tactics. You might want to start by realizing that I am not your enemy.

                    • http://socrates58.blogspot.com Dave Armstrong

                      I ALSO care about employing smart tactics and actually achieving my goals. And that remains my point in how Mark, and perhaps you, are going about things.

                      Thanks for your advice. I am doing quite well in my apostolate, thank you, judging from feedback I receive all the time, from folks saying that I played some role in bringing them to or back to the Church or helping them learn about this, that, or the other. Praise be to God; ALL glory to Him. This includes many notes from people who inform me that I helped them out of SSPX or sedevacantism or radtrad attitudes.

                      So (just an eccentric quirk of mine) I figure I must be doing something right, by God’s grace. Then occasionally I get feedback from folks like you, who seem to think I am doing little right at all. Sorry: when the ratio is 200 to 1, most people will tend to favor what the 200 are saying, over the naysayer. That’s reason; that’s reality.

                      He controls the debate at his blog given he moderates all comments.

                      Ah, but he can’t control what I write on my blog.

                      You lack focus, you don’t know who your audience is and you aren’t achieving anything except whipping all of your usual crowd into a frenzy from time-to-time.

                      Right. My “crowd” is quite calm. If you think otherwise, you are free to visit my Facebook page or blog and come document here, what you see that is other than calm and collected. You seem to be quite the expert on what I do. You should tell this to the six publishers who — for some inexplicable reason — seem to think that my writings are worth publishing.

                      No minds changed.

                      Really? So now you read all the letters that I receive and all the notes I get on Facebook, and know that none of them ever communicate to me that I have helped persuade people in any way at all? Or maybe you are omniscient like God (or, barring that, have angel-like qualities of superior knowledge, above us other mere mortals)? You have extraordinary knowledge of the inner workings of other people’s lives and motivations: even their experiences!

                      Truth isn’t furthered and ultimately a lot of insults are thrown. What an accomplishment.

                      Thanks for your assessment. Nothing “personal” in any of this, of course. All I mentioned was that you were approaching this emotionally. You were the one (not us) who brought up your “mixed marriage” and applied it to the analysis of trads vs. radtrads: as if that has anything to do with any of this at all. That’s a fact that you introduced; it’s subjective psychobabble mush, not rational, and you’ve been mostly “preaching” since then, as if you know everything that needs to be done, and we’re a bunch of clueless ignoramuses.

                      You clearly have some sort of animus against apologetics as well. You think I can’t sniff that from a mile away: having experienced naysayers like yourself on many occasions? It doesn’t change what I do in the slightest, because it comes from a fallacious premise and hostility to what I do before you analyze any particular thing.

                      And so you say stupid things about me and my work (and Mark and his), showing that you don’t have a clue as to what I do, why I do it, or how much influence the work of this poor sinner may have, by God’s grace, for good or ill.

                      Stop with the rhetorical trench warfare. It’s not working for you. Time to reconceptualize your tactics.

                      I’m quite comfortable with what I’m doing. All you’ve proven is that YOU don’t like what I’m doing (i.e., your warped caricature of what you mistakenly think it is) and that YOU think you know what I should do with my work far better than I do, myself.

                      I learn and take advice all the time. I have done that in this very thread. I change my mind. I’m a convert, for heaven’s sake. You think someone can do that with a totally closed mind? But surely your sort of condescending, omniscient, sanctimonious “method” is not gonna persuade me, so go try it with someone else.

                      No; I don’t think you’re my enemy. I just think you don’t have the slightest idea of what you’re talking about when you start going after the work of others and making ridiculous, utterly unfounded claims about that and about the persons doing the work. If there is any futile “method” here, it’s that.

                      Lastly, Mark and I aren’t clones, simple because we’re apologists. Not every criticism made of him automatically applies to me, and vice versa.

                    • Stu

                      Dave,
                      You clearly have much to be proud of. Maybe if we meet one day, we can compare “scars” and count people who have come back home because we have been instruments in their conversion. You might be surprised by my personal experience. I do wish however, you would perhaps consider conversation without all of the insults. It would be more useful and would reflect better on you as a person.
                      All the best,
                      Stu

                    • ivan_the_mad

                      “perhaps consider conversation without all of the insults” LOL@Stu. This from the guy who considers answering insults with insults educational, constructive, and “but a small bit of push back”. Physician, heal thyself.

                    • http://socrates58.blogspot.com Dave Armstrong

                      I do wish however, you would perhaps consider conversation without all of the insults.

                      Luke 6:42 (RSV) Or how can you say to your brother, `Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother’s eye.

                      Romans 14:4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Master is able to make him stand.

                    • Stu

                      Oh Ivan,

                      When I don’t really mean them and state as much, yes it is to simply prove a point.

                      One that apparently was lost on some.

              • http://commonsensecatholicism.blogspot.com Kevin

                Okay children, simma down, simma down.

                Stu can correct me if I’m wrong, but here’s how I see it.

                Why should faithful traditionalists be repsonsible for what the internet says every single time? We don’t condone their crap, and we call it crap. We say we aren’t responsible for their crap. Yet everytime said crap happens, we see on Mark Shea’s blog that traditionalists need to speak up and err….. denounce the crap that’s already been denounced.

                Yet if we spend too much time on this, that’s too much time spent on people irrelevant and less time spent on things that matter to us…. you know, like the traditional liturgy, devotion to the sacraments, homeschooling networks, and helping to foster networks of traditionalist communities throughout the Church.

                It might come across as trolling, but I think it’s more of an exasperation. What more is needed? Do we need to respond every day to something some scrub says in a combox or blog?

                Let’s state this clear for the record: Anti-Semites have no business being in our sandbox. We don’t want them there.

                So what else has to be done?

                • Stu

                  You got it 20/20 on the vision and 5×5 on the transmission.

                • contrarian

                  WIN

                  Again, I say: WIN.

                  • http://commonsensecatholicism.blogspot.com Kevin

                    By my count, I’ve noticed between 5 or 6 traditionalists (depending on how you keep score) in this thread saying what anti-semitism, holocaust denial/trivializing and a lot of the U&V stuff in trad blog comboxes is a bunch of crap.

                    We gonna get that recognition? Even if just in a way “of course, readers of this blog are cool, as they will no doubt tell you by bombarding my comment boxes. These are the kind of trads you should look up to.” You get to tip your hat, we trads get denounced by Rorate as sucking up, the comboxes over there fill with hate for sellouts, and they all feel better stating how traditionalists who oppose them were never true, which helps others realize there is a traditionalism that doesn’t rely on this crap, everyone wins.

                    Then I say pox on all your houses, go grab an Great Lakes IPA and goto bed.

                    I need to become Emperor of the Internet for a day.

                • http://socrates58.blogspot.com Dave Armstrong

                  Why do you keep showing up in all these types of threads on Mark’s site then, Kevin, if it is an irrelevance and a ho hum? Just don’t show up! Lead by example! :-) If what Mark says is so unnecessary, then trads can get together and decide not to respond to him anymore, if you don’t want to.

                  I suspect he will continue anyway because he feels (as I do) that it is the right thing to do, and that remains true despite popularity or unpopularity or insults, etc. . But you’ll be able to consistently convince yourself that you couldn’t care less about the Internet (as you keep saying), because it is only0.0000000000078% of the populace and 0.00000000000000000000000000000012% of the trad movement, etc.

                  That ain’t rocket science, either. If you argue that the Internet ain’t real life (we all agree), then go do your real life and leave the Internet! But if you stay here and comment, then accept that it is of some small significance and stop saying that no one cares about anything on the Internet. They do!

                  I’ve seen very few ever leave, though. The only ones I recall are Gary Hoge (Catholic) and Eric Svendsen (anti-Catholic). I don’t see that you are gonna be in that group, especially given the fact that you took a year off and are now back writing some sort of post almost daily.

                  It’s okay! Mark likes what you are saying, and I increasingly do as well (which is amazing, given our past history). I’ve linked to your articles twice now on my blog, and will keep doing so if I keep liking what you write. I encourage you to keep doing it. YOU’RE the one who keeps saying that it is a worthless endeavor to write online, while you keep doing it.

                  what else has to be done?

                  Get up a petition drive or some other kind of pressure to get Rorate Caeli to renounce this garbage. If that happens, then Mark and I will agree (I think he would) that this is a positive sign that it is being rejected from “traditionalism” in a serious way. Next time it happens (with Voris or Sungenis or whomever else loves to carp on about the Jews), do the same thing again. 2 or 3 times are a trend.

                  Then we won’t feel that *we* have to do it, and we’ll be happier (I’d love to do 10,000 other things, believe me), and so will you. It’s remarkably simple: shut down the trash and have zero tolerance for it. It’s not on Mark’s site, or mine, or Dawn’s. It doesn’t have to be on any mainstream “trad” site, either. It IS possible to clean this up. But you guys don’t seem to want to because you keep saying you don’t HAVE to: as if a group is able to slither on by without internal policing and quality control.

                  Any human group (I don’t care what it is: even including Holy Mother Church herself) has to do that or it’ll be in big trouble.

                  • http://commonsensecatholicism.blogspot.com Kevin

                    Let’s be real here….

                    Even if you don’t feel you have to do it, your going to do it. You NEED to do it. You guys love the controversy. That isn’t a bad thing. You can get involved, write some interesting stuff, do some interesting angles, etc. Yet if we are calling a spade a spade here….

                    And to be honest, I’m not here to convince you or Mark. I appreciate Mark giving the open forum. Yet I know I’ll never convince you guys. We can agree that each other do some relevant things, we can blurb each other here and there, but we will never see eye to eye on this stuff. And that’s cool, we don’t have to.

                    I think there are others who I can reach however. And I know I already have, judging by the thanks I’ve gotten here, email, etc. Even started some good fellowship with a few trads and non-trads alike here. For reasons I don’t care to drudge up in public (but I sent to you in private), i feel we have handled our business in the past. not that we ever got any recognition for that, but such is life.

                    We keep hearing how we need to do better. We come out here, we argue our case, we do what we can here and there, etc. We got a variety of workers. Sometimes you gotta fight these battles. I got the free time. :)

                    • http://socrates58.blogspot.com Dave Armstrong

                      Let’s be real here….

                      I have been doing that all along. I’m glad you have joined us. The water’s warm!

                      Even if you don’t feel you have to do it, your going to do it.

                      You have it exactly backwards. I do it precisely because I feel I have to, that it is a duty to speak out, as an apologist, but beyond that, as a concerned Catholic. I don’t want to do this. I said last time I’d rather do 10,000 other things, and that is almost literally true. That is MY report of MY internal motivations (that I am the world’s leading expert on). You can choose to believe it or not.

                      You NEED to do it.

                      We “need” to insofar as we care about the truth and Holy Mother Church.

                      You guys love the controversy.

                      I loathe controversy. I love good dialogue or debate. The two are usually quite separated in practice. You’re simply following the Shawn McElhinney playbook here. He can’t get it through his thick skull that apologists do things because we think they are right, and because we think it is valuable and important to either defend a good thing or critique a bad one. It’s really as simple as that. I don’t get any glory or pats on the back for doing this. I certainly don’t get any significant money. I just finished my second book on “traditionalism” in December and I can assure everyone it ain’t #1 on the NYT bestseller list. I get all kinds of criticism and frustration.

                      That isn’t a bad thing. You can get involved, write some interesting stuff, do some interesting angles, etc.

                      I’m involved because I think it’s the right thing to do. PERIOD.

                      Yet if we are calling a spade a spade here…. And to be honest, I’m not here to convince you or Mark. I appreciate Mark giving the open forum. Yet I know I’ll never convince you guys.

                      That’s absurd. I just wrote a few minutes ago, “Mark likes what you are saying, and I increasingly do as well.” You’re having an impact. You’re writing good things. I told you this privately, too. So you can’t sit there and say you’ll never possibly convince me. You very well might: in some areas, anyway. I’m not likely to become a “trad” . . . I’ve already been considerably influenced by you and a number of mainstream “traditionalists” in the last five years or so. I learned a TON from Pete Vere in what he has been writing about lately. I wanna keep hearing from you guys:esp. good reports of goings-on.

                      We can agree that each other do some relevant things, we can blurb each other here and there, but we will never see eye to eye on this stuff. And that’s cool, we don’t have to.

                      You agree that anti-Semitism should be called out. Thus, we agree on the topic at hand. The only thing at issue is how often to do it and exactly how to go about it. I gave a few suggestions that I think are perfectly reasonable and do-able.

                      I think there are others who I can reach however.

                      Go knock yourself out. If you want to ignore acknowledged success, I don’t understand it, but it’s your call.

                      And I know I already have, judging by the thanks I’ve gotten here, email, etc.

                      Glad to hear it, because (I agree with Mark) your moderate message is exactly what needs to be heard far and wide.

                      Even started some good fellowship with a few trads and non-trads alike here.

                      Excellent.

                      For reasons I don’t care to drudge up in public (but I sent to you in private), i feel we have handled our business in the past. not that we ever got any recognition for that, but such is life. We keep hearing how we need to do better. We come out here, we argue our case, we do what we can here and there, etc. We got a variety of workers. Sometimes you gotta fight these battles. I got the free time. :)

                      Hey, it’s your movement. If you want to be regarded by many (including lots of bishops) as extremists and wingnuts (because they lump you in with the radtrad fringe) that’s your choice. It’s an image and perception problem. I know that you are concerned about that very much, because I see what you are writing about lately.

                      But the non-trads are not totally free from this responsibility, either, as I alluded to earlier, because we’re all Catholics, and this is in the Church; therefore, we feel we need to address it too. But I’m not in the sub-group where it is prevalent (radtrads) or even the larger group that contains the smaller one (trads).

                      Nevertheless, I do have affinities with many aspects of “traditionalism” and want to see it succeed as a positive, healthy movement. As I said to you in private, I was advocating Pope Benedict’s position in his Motu Proprio back when you were learning your times tables. I get no credit for that, either; still get attacked regularly (there’s enough “no credit” to go around!). A good number of “trads” ridiculously think I am *against* them. I guess they can’t trouble themselves to read just a few of my articles with an open mind. I’m not. I oppose the *radtrads.*

                    • steve5656546346

                      “I loathe controversy.”

                      I’m sorry, Dave, but I just can’t believe you. I am not calling you a liar: I presume that you are self-descieving if I am correct.

                      But the fact is that you have gotten in too many unnecessary and pointless conflicts with traditionalists. I do take my hat off to you in that you have often later admitted that you had gone too far: but you went too far in the first place for a reason.

                      Perhaps the reason is other than a love of controversy?

                    • http://socrates58.blogspot.com Dave Armstrong

                      Kevin and I were writing privately (we’ve been doing that lately, after a very difficult past history — which I think is great) and he brought up an excellent example of internal policing among trads: the “Sungenis and the Jews” website.

                      I readily agreed that this was indeed an example of a concerted effort at quality control: run almost exclusively by trads, as I recall. I’ve been working for several years now with David Palm, who writes many critiques of Sungenis (mostly about his wacky geocentrism), giving them all the exposure I can on my blog and Facebook page.

                      So I DO recognize that effort and give tons of credit where it is due, there. Duly chastened in that respect, I would dust myself off, get up, and say now that there could be more such efforts. That one seemed to have had a fair measure of success. Now perhaps others of the same sort are the way to go.

                      If that is brought up as an example to emulate, then I say, emulate it and apply it to some of the extremists out there besides Baghdad Bob: the ones who are having the most influence. Sounds good to me!

                      But definitely, credit where it is due, there. Hats off, kudos, bravo; and I mean that sincerely.

                  • Stu

                    “If what Mark says is so unnecessary, then trads can get together and decide not to respond to him anymore, if you don’t want to.”

                    If I may, I would like to answer this.

                    I continue to give Mark feedback because I like Mark, care about him and would like to see him succeed. Thus, I take my time in an effort to tell him he is trying to drive a steamroller up a muddy hill. The wheels are spinning, but we aren’t getting anywhere and everyone is covered in dirt.

                    When and if I ever think it is a lost cause, I will move on.

                  • steve5656546346

                    I’m not responsible for Argentina. This Argentine is know by me, and many others, through ONLY two sources: Dawn Eden and Mark Shea.

                    The issue is not this Argentine, who should be ignored if he is a nut. The issue is the state of the Extraordinary Form in Argentina–and then only because the Bishop became the Pope–and whether or not Rotare Caeli is an evil site…and it is not.

                • Half Heathen

                  Kevin,

                  I don’t see anywhere that Mark is demanding that “faithful traditionalists be responsible for what the internet says every single time.” I gather his main thrust is that, when Mark refers to some anti-semite that is somehow associated with traditionalists, other people who think of themselves as traditionalists should EITHER not complain that he is picking on traditionalists AND/OR join him in denouncing the anti-semite.

                  Now, as to the picking on traditionalists part, one could make some kind of argument that Mark should know that many people really don’t read his posts carefully and so he should not point out the anti-semites so often or, when he does, somehow shout louder that he is distinguishing the nut jobs from sane people. I know myself that I often prefer not to read blog posts very carefully because it is much more fun to attack what I imagine someone is saying rather than doing the hard work to figure out what he actually saying. I go into blogs like some people go into bars, looking for some excuse to fight (it’s less painful and saves on medical bills). I am not alone in this. What responsibility does a blogger have for that?

                  • steve5656546346

                    Problem: Mark misrepresents the positions of others. Very frequently. (In his spare time from attacking Live Action.)

          • steve5656546346

            Dave, what you seem to have missed is that Dawn was simply wrong. She claimed that the Argentine was wrong about the status of the Extraordinary Form there, but he was factually correct! The fact that he wrote totally different article in a totally different place is totally irrelevant.

            She appears to be blaming Rotare Caeli for referencing him at all: but she has not established that they did so knowingly before she attacked. She condemned the site which really is one of the more responsible, and least inflammatory ones around (speaking in generalities).

            Now, I have not the slightest objection to her attack of the author himself, nor of his article. But I do think that she could have waited until she got better than a Google translation before doing so. I might well join her if I thought that some guy in Argentina who I’ve never heard of warranted me spending a lot of time trying to understand exactly what he was trying to say.

            I do not see myself as a police man for the whole world, and I think that giving nuts attention is a bad idea.

            • chezami

              Are you calling Dawn Eden a nut?

  • rachel

    I am also a Traditionalist and I also say that anyone who calls themselves a trad and are an anti-semite or a racist, please stop! Now! Not later, NOW! It is wrong. It is vile. It causes scandal and wounds the Body of Christ and His bride, Holy Mother Church. Please stop! The Church does not have room for that sort of thing. Its sick.

    • marye

      Thank you, Rachel. That helps much more than you may realize.

    • steve5656546346

      I agree completely. However, my experience is that those that you are talking about simply don’t exist–except on the internet. Now, I do admit that if they exist in the internet, they must exist is real life. But is such small numbers as to be insignificant: and i’m not sure that we should be giving them any attention. It may only encourage them, since they seem to thrive on offending.

  • Jeff

    Mark,
    Amen, brother!

  • Art

    I am not a traditionalist, but I have been to a Tridentine mass. All I can say is that I was extremely attracted to this mass. There was more reverence from the people that attended that mass. I also noticed the lines to confessions were longer….

    • contrarian

      Hi Art,
      So glad to hear of your positive experience. If you get a free day or weekend, you might do a little experiment. Take a copy of the Magnificat for any given month, and compare the prayers for any given day (collects, communion antiphons) with the prayers of the traditional Latin Mass on any given day (you could find them in various places, including this very cool hymnal: http://www.ccwatershed.org/Campion/)

      What you’ll find is that it’s not just about reverence. Skim through the prayers of the older mass over the course of a few weeks, and then skim through the corresponding prayers offered in the Magnificat. You’ll notice that the prayers of the NO mass have been alarmingly sanitized. Shockingly so.

      *This* is where the real issue is. Yes, reverence is very important, but it’s parasitic on the content. :)

      Me thinks, moreover, that since this is where the real issue is, that much of this other stuff (including the subject matter of this thread) is mere smoke and mirrors.

      • http://redcardigan.blogspot.com/ Erin Manning

        See, Contrarian, this is where some of the Trads (not all) lose me completely.

        Because what you seem to be saying is that the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite has been sanitized to the point of liturgical deficiency. Even though the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite is, you know, the *Ordinary* Form. Even though the Ordinary Form has been the Mass prayed by the last several popes every day of their papacies. Even though there is no movement at all anywhere in the Church to get rid of the Ordinary Form and replace it with the Extraordinary Form, wishful thinking aside. Even though the view of the Church is that the reform of the Mass was a good thing even if the reform was poorly implemented in many places, including the poor translation into English which has, thank God, been rectified in a mere forty years, which is the blink of an eye in Church time.

        How do you make that claim without saying, in effect, that the Ordinary Form is a deficient Mass which should be abolished and that every pope since Vatican II has been completely wrong in praying this Mass–or, at the very least, seriously and perhaps sinfully negligent in not immediately suppressing the deficient and bad Ordinary Form and replacing it with the Extraordinary Form? To me, you can’t–and that’s a very problematic sort of belief for a Catholic to hold.

        • contrarian

          Hi Erin,
          Really good points here!
          Perhaps we can agree that we both, in our own way, are making use of a certain cognitive dissonance.
          Mine:
          1) The old and new Masses present shockingly different sets of prayers, and there’s no way to avoid concluding that the newer Mass presents a more sanitized and therefore a deficient version of the faith, one which eases up on the insistence on: a propitiatory sacrifice, perdition, purgation, the war of angels and demons, our hatred of this world and our longing for the next, the wickedness of sin, the wickedness of heresy, the need of heretics to convert, the angels as our guides in spiritual warfare, etc.
          2) The new mass has been used by the last few popes and there doesn’t seem to be any clamoring by those in charge to get these older prayers disseminated among the faithful.
          3) [Cognitive dissonance]: everything is legit, but things need to change.

          You:
          1) The old and new Masses present shockingly different sets of prayers, and it certainly seems to be a reasonable thing to conclude that, vis a vis the content of the faith, the older mass is less sanitized, etc.
          2) The new mass has been used by the last few popes and there doesn’t seem to be any clamoring by those in charge to get these older prayers disseminated among the faithful.
          3) [Cognitive dissonance]Therefore, the new Mass, despite LOOKING deficient relative to the content of the Faith, is NOT deficient. The new mass is NOT sanitized, despite appearances. It might LOOK that way, but I’m wrong here. What prima facie looks like a sanitized mass really isn’t.

          I suppose, though, that you could deny the psychological premise I’m giving to you. I don’t think, however, that you can deny the differences in the masses, in that the differences are empirical.

          I certainly don’t mean any of this in a mean spirited sort of way. We’re on the same team here. :)

          Cheers,

          Nate

          • ivan_the_mad

            “there’s no way to avoid concluding that the newer Mass presents a more sanitized and therefore a deficient version of the faith”

            Sure there is. It goes like this:

            “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.” — Pope Benedict XVI

            http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html

            Guess who I believe about the worth of the OF, the pope and the magisterium of the Church which promulgated the form, or a combox critic?

            • http://redcardigan.blogspot.com/ Erin Manning

              Ivan, I’m so glad you posted this.

              Contrarian, let me just add that I reject the word “sanitized.” The Ordinary Form was not “sanitized.” Here is a quote from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (before his elevation to the papacy) in which he says that the Mass was: “rather like a fresco [in the early 20th century]. It had been preserved from damage, but it had been almost completely overlaid with whitewash by later generations. In the Missal from which the priest celebrated, the form of the liturgy that had grown from its earliest beginnings was still present, but, as far as the faithful were concerned, it was largely concealed beneath instructions for and forms of private prayer. The fresco was laid bare by the Liturgical Movement and, in a definitive way, by the Second Vatican Council. For a moment its colors and figures fascinated us. But since then the fresco has been endangered by climatic conditions as well as by various restorations and reconstructions. In fact, it is threatened with destruction, if the necessary steps are not taken to stop these damaging influences. Of course, there must be no question of its being covered with whitewash again, but what is imperative is a new reverence in the way we treat it, a new understanding of its message and its reality, so that rediscovery does not become the first stage of irreparable loss.” (From The Spirit of the Liturgy, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, copyright St. Ignatius Press, 2000.)

              I don’t see how you get, “The Mass was sanitized…” out of a clear desire on the part of the Council to reform and restore and rediscover.

              • contrarian

                Hi Erin,
                Again, nice to quote Ratzinger, because he’s awesome. My word choice stems simply from doing an empirical study. One simply lines up the texts and notices that certain teachings have been cleansed in the NO Mass. Vis a vis what was there previously, certain teachings have been blunted. Now, one can say that what was there previously was too baroque or what have you (I don’t quite understand the imagery used in the text quoted) and that there needed to be reform. Great! The resulting reform simply *removed* references to important Catholic teachings.
                Again, we can dispense with metaphors and explanations. Just *do the experiment.* Line up the texts and notice the differences.

                Erin, I love your writing and I love your blog. On your blog, you have in your side bar the prayer to St. Michael. You know how often St. Michael is mentioned in the old prayers? You know how often he’s mentioned in the new prayers?

                Perhaps this small example is neither here nor there. But perform the same experiment on various teachings and what emerges is a very different looking religion. Is it a different religion? Nope. But are certain teachings blunted in the new version? This is simply indisputable.
                What, pray tell, was rediscovered in these new prayers?

                • http://redcardigan.blogspot.com/ Erin Manning

                  Nate, thanks for the blog compliment. I have a special devotion to St. Michael, so I’m not saying this lightly, but if you’re referencing the prayers at the foot of the altar at the end of Mass, weren’t those simply added on, in the way that Pope Emeritus Benedict was describing when he was writing before his papacy? And if you’re referring to the fact that the Propers have been changed, well, so were the readings–a three-year cycle which covers the whole Bible (if you are able to attend daily Mass or to follow the readings every day) instead of a single year cycle repeated every year–and the calendar itself, with feast dates and other things changed. Does it make sense to leave the Propers alone when the readings for the Mass and the calendar had changed?

                  I don’t think any teachings were changed or blunted or downplayed. In fact, I think that the Ordinary Form of the Mass is especially suited to the task of evangelization, but it would take much more than a single comment box for me to expand on that. The Mass is still called the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (at least where I’m from). Repentance from sin, conversion of heart, and the need to follow Christ through His Church is still expressly called for in the prayers at Mass. And I trust the Church to be doing the work of the Holy Spirit, because she’s really good at that.

                  • ivan_the_mad

                    “but if you’re referencing the prayers at the foot of the altar at the end of Mass, weren’t those simply added on”

                    Correct, the Leonine prayers do not constitute a part of the Mass, you’ll find them in no missal.

                    • marytoo

                      Just for the record, there are other important references to St. Michael in the Extraordinary Form. He is mentioned during the incensing of the Offerings at high Mass: “May the Lord, by the intercession of blessed Michael the Archangel, who standeth at the right side of the altar of incense, and of all His elect…”

                      And he is among those the priest appeals to during the Confiteor – “I confess to almighty God, to blessed Mary ever Virgin, to blessed Michael the Archangel, to blessed John the Baptist…” , said at every Mass throughout the year. It’s so beautiful. The priest faces the tabernacle in a deep bow of supplication and publicly acknowledges his sins (we of course repeat our own Confiteor after the priest’s). It’s actually labelled the Public Confession in my missal. It positively amazed me the first time I saw it and it drove home, in no uncertain terms and right at the start of Mass, how and to whom our hearts should be directed. Not to overstate it, but it truly changed my understanding of the Mass.

                  • contrarian

                    Hi Erin, no need to circle back to this, but I figured I’d add one last thing. Don’t mean to cheaply ‘leave the last word’ here, so feel free to be the last person here.
                    You say: “And if you’re referring to the fact that the Propers have been changed, well, so were the readings–a three-year cycle which covers the whole Bible (if you are able to attend daily Mass or to follow the readings every day) instead of a single year cycle repeated every year–and the calendar itself, with feast dates and other things changed.”

                    Well…exactly! It was ALL changed! The new mass is certainly *internally* consistent here–the new prayers match up with the new lectionary and the new calendar . Everything…was…changed!
                    Certainly, the problems of the three-year lectionary (though there are several in circulation) are well documented, and the ways that the ‘hard sayings’ of scripture have been edited out are widely spoken of. Many argue that it is simply false to say that ‘the whole Bible’ gets gone through in these three years. It’s a rather–sorry to say it–sanitized set of readings. To use one small example: I Corinthian 11:29 is now *optional*. It does not have to be read.
                    Neuhaus’ Law has been most certainly applied in my parish vis a vis this passage (and its corresponding idea). Perhaps not yours. But why, pray tell, should this crucial, crucial passage be left optional to read? How does it help evangelize when we downplay this important doctrine spoken of by St. Paul? Should not the lector be required to read this passage when it comes up in the cycle?
                    That’s all I’ll say. You can have the last word. Thanks for the exchange.

                    Cheers.

                    • http://redcardigan.blogspot.com/ Erin Manning

                      Well, not trying to have the last word, but your argument seems to be: it changed, therefore it is bad. It is the conclusion that seems unsound to me. I say: it changed, and in about 500 years our descendents will be just starting to gauge the impact accurately. And, in all probability, some of them will be fighting to restore the Sign of Peace, which will have been moved to the beginning of Mass, then moved to before the Entrance Chant (that is, before Mass actually begins at all), and then quietly dropped–and our “Traditionalist” descendents will claim all sorts of dark and irreverent motives for this “loss.” Sigh…

                      As for the long form-short form reading thing, I’ve been in plenty of parishes where the long form was read, and it’s never the lector’s decision to read the short form anyway–it’s the pastor’s, and largely depends on such factors as what he’s planning to preach about and what time the next Mass starts. But in the old cycle of readings, there are many OT readings that never came up at all–did that mean the old Mass was “sanitizing” those things or “deficient” for not mentioning them? I don’t see it that way; in fact, I see each of the Forms of the Roman Rite as being equal, even though they are different.

                  • marytoo

                    Erin – FYI – since you have a special devotion to St. Michael – there are other important references to St. Michael in the Extraordinary Form. He is mentioned during the incensing of the Offerings at high Mass: “May the Lord, by the intercession of blessed Michael the Archangel, who standeth at the right side of the altar of incense, and of all His elect…”

                    And he is among those the priest appeals to during the Confiteor – “I confess to almighty God, to blessed Mary ever Virgin, to blessed Michael the Archangel, to blessed John the Baptist…” , said at every Mass throughout the year. It’s so beautiful. The priest faces the tabernacle in a deep bow of supplication and publicly acknowledges his sins (we of course repeat our own Confiteor after the priest’s). It’s actually labelled the Public Confession in my missal. It positively amazed me the first time I saw it and it drove home, in no uncertain terms and right at the start of Mass, how and to whom our hearts should be directed. Not to overstate it, but it truly changed my understanding of the Mass.

            • contrarian

              Hi Ivan,
              Nice quote, and certainly, it is always a smart thing to quote Ratzinger/Benedict.
              We might say a few things in response:
              1) Ratzinger/Benedict is awesome, but many smart and charitable people see as dubious these claims. Yes, we are having this argument on the internet, but my ‘combox critique’ is not sui generis. And anyway, while I’m certainly happy with arguments by authority (i.e., I don’t know the details, but smart people do, and they say it’s kosher), the argument here does nothing to *show* why there hasn’t been a sanitization. You you seem to be saying, “Yes, I see sanitization, but smart and holy people say that’s ok. And that’s good enough for me.”
              Ok, fine. But this is not an argument in and of itself.
              2) If there is such continuity, why the thousands upon thousands of words in defense of the continuity, not just by His Holiness, but by countless others? Certainly, this shows that the continuity–at the very least!–is not obvious.
              3) This the main point: What you quote actually confirms sanitization. The author mentions that the NO holds as dear and ‘sacred’ the same things that were spoken of explicitly in the texts of the older mass, *even if the NO makes no mention of them.* That was Benedict’s point. Agreed! The claim here is not that the NO *rejects* the propitiatory sacrifice of the mass, the waring angels, the wickedness of heresy, but that the NO texts have been sanitized of these teachings. One might be a stickler and talk about the heresy of omission, but I see no need to do this. In fact, I lament the changes precisely because the opposite is true: faithful Catholics of the NO mass do not have the fullness of their faith iterated, and do not have all that they hold as ‘sacred’ made explicit, during the course of a year’s worth of prayers in the new mass.

              • ivan_the_mad

                Tell you what. You find me a source with magisterial authority backing up what you say and we’ll talk. Until then, I consider this your opinion against the teaching and promulgation of the magisterium, which doesn’t find anything lacking in the OF. Again, guess who I believe.

                • contrarian

                  Hold on: are you saying that in order for this discussion to continue, that I need to cite something from a document of the post-VII Holy See, discussing the changes made to the mass, that takes my position? Isn’t that like saying that in order for a criticism of the Obama administration’s HHS mandate to continue, that I need to find a source from Whitehouse.gov that agrees with me?
                  I’m afraid that, in that case, our discussion will have to end. :(
                  Well, it’s getting late anyway. I wish you well.

                  • ivan_the_mad

                    Why no, it’s not a bit like that. I don’t owe the Obama administration assent in order to be good citizen; I do owe the magisterium my assent in order to be orthodox.

                    “post-VII Holy See”??? I’m sorry, there is no break in continuity that permits such a term. You aren’t merely “discussing the changes made to” a form of the Mass, you say that “faithful Catholics of the NO mass do not have the fullness of their faith iterated”. That is false and beyond a discussion of the changes, it is in opposition to what the magisterium teaches. There’s a word for that. Tread carefully.

                    • contrarian

                      Hi Ivan,
                      You don’t need to circle back to this, so no worries, but in case you are still checking.
                      If I am allowed to cite pre-Vatican II documents, I’d be able to cite quite a bit, as you know. If, however, I’m to cite a source critical of the new mass by the very post-Vatican II church that promulgated the new mass, then my job is impossible.
                      So, perhaps we could continue this way. I have confessional Lutheran friends (which is to say, ‘conservative’ Lutherans loyal to the Augsburg confession, etc.) who find modern Catholicism rather laughable because they see severe discontinuity between the pre and post Vatican II Church. As one of my Lutheran pastor friends recently said “if our standard for orthodoxy is the ideas promulgated in a year’s worth of prayers of the Tridentine Mass, then the prayers in my Lutheran church (adding up the yearly Lutheran collects and antiphons and prayers in daily vespers, etc.) are far closer to the bar than the prayers of your post-Vatican II Catholic church (adding up all the prayers in daily masses). I mean, the differences are night and day.”
                      We cannot argue with him by talking about a seamless garment, nor can I imply that he’s a sede or a heretic for rejecting certain post-Vatican II councils. He rejects the Council of Trent, let alone Vatican II! He rejects from the get-go the authorities that say everything’s legit.
                      So how do I argue against my Lutheran friend? If I just respond, “Look, Ratzinger/Benedict says it’s legit, and that’s good enough for me,” that’s not going to convince a Lutheran of anything. He has no reason for seeing anything by Ratzinger/Benedict as being legit to begin with. He respects Benedict as a great thinker, but says that he’s clearly wrong *in this* point.
                      My Lutheran friend is looking at the inconsistency of the data itself as written (the prayers and new scripture readings throughout the year/three years) and quite happily *begins* by rejecting the authority that says there is no in-consistency. So are we then to say that there’s simply no way to argue against my Lutheran friend here? Is there no *neutral* argument here to be had?

                      Cheers

                    • steve5656546346

                      I have to disagree with you here: Cardinal Ratzinger has said some very strong things criticizing the way the new mass was written and promulgated. An he promulgated SP, and celebrated the traditional Latin mass, as Pope over the protests of many bishops. Certainly, Ratzinger/Benedict seems to disagree with Ivan.

            • Longinus

              No need to be that harsh, he’s being quite respectful. And while there’s no question about the validity and holiness of the OF, wouldn’t you agree that it lacks a certain richness of tradition, not to mention much of the symbolism of the EF? The priest facing the people, for instance; instead of appearing as a representative of the people, standing just ahead of us and offering to God the Sacrifice of the Mass on the altar, it now puts more of a focus on the congregation, from an aesthetic standpoint. Now, paying attention to the people isn’t bad, of course! However, the symbolism aspect is still pretty important, especially when it comes to giving the proper reverence to God and the Divine Presence. Kneeling > standing during the Consecration, and so forth. The same goes for language: Latin, now a “dead” language, doesn’t change or evolve anymore the way the vernacular does, so the words have a greater sense of timelessness and ritual, fitting for the ritual of the Mass. Music, too, and the design of the Church–shouldn’t we offer God the best we have during the Mass? A king would surely accept and cherish the gift of a few crushed berries from a little girl, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t serve him a sumptuous feast when we have the ability to do so. That’s my perception of the Tridentine Mass, as well as the great cathedrals and glorious imagery and wonderful art and music of the Church throughout history. Give God the best we have. Mozart, not Casting Crowns.

              • ivan_the_mad

                No, going to about one EF for every six OF Masses, I find nothing lacking. I see them simply as “a twofold use of one and the same rite” (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html). Why, you ask? Because I don’t feel the need to second-guess the magisterium or a form promulgated by the Church. You’re welcome to your opinion and to attend the form you find most conducive to your observance, but that’s what it remains – your opinion, your preference.

                • Longinus

                  Fair enough. I wouldn’t want to second-guess them either; I like my hierarchy. Would I prefer if we went back to Latin? Yes, but it’s not happening anytime in the near future, so as long as I can attend a good Tridentine Mass and its use is nurtured, I’m happy. Benedict did a wonderful thing in once again emphasizing the beauty of the EF. We should continue to stress the importance of orthodoxy in the Novus Ordo, though, and the use of proper hymns; liturgical abuse in either EF or OF is unacceptable.

                • steve5656546346

                  So, Ivan, you REJECT some of the statements made by Cardinal Ratzinger? And even some by Pope Benedict?

            • steve5656546346

              Well, you CERTAINLY would not want to believe your own eyes! So, it really is better to not look at the two forms and compare them!

              BTW, your quote does not address Nate’s comments at all.

  • Sheldon

    What about the Armenian Genocide? I guess that doesn’t count.

    • Andy, Bad Person

      What about it? Are there mainstream Catholic blogs relying on people who deny the Armenian genocide or make excuses for those who do?

    • rachel

      What does that got to do with anything? Any genocide is evil. I don’t see any other blogs diminishing the impact of the Armenian Genocide but there are plenty, sadly trad sites, who are trying to diminish the holocaust as well as belittle Jews. Its sick.

    • Mark Shea

      And another despicable Jew-hater heard from.

  • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com JoAnna

    Stu,

    Chances are that not a whole lot of rad-trad anti-Semites hang out here. Why not go post your call to repentance over at Rorate Coeli, et al?

    • Stu

      So if I do that, will we then call it all square and move on? Or is there another bar to jump?

      • Jon W

        I don’t really have a dog in this fight, but it would be good if every time it got brought up on RC, etc, there was a collective eyeroll and some boilerplate denunciation of the crackpot with the tinfoil hat. Because the anti-semitism is intermittent but tenacious, it sane traditionalists are going to have to play Whack-a-Mole with Jew-haters, like Mark has to with doctrinaire libertarianism or jingoistic conservatism on this blog.

        • Stu

          You do know that blog moderates all comments, correct?

          • Andy, Bad Person

            Yes. That’s the whole point.

            RC doesn’t come right out with their opinions regarding the pope or the Jews, but they decide each and every comment that sees the light of day. Reasonable trads and those who disagree with them have their comments blocked, but they post stories from anti-semites and allow comments that (I kid you not), “Hope that Francis is just like John Paul. You know which one I mean.”

            It’s passive-aggressive blogging. Set the bait and filter the comments, allowing commenters to do the dirty work for you.

            • Stu

              We agree.

              That’s why I don’t (can’t) engage them. (And I dd see that one very tasteless comment. But that guy is an asshole by his own words. Nothing more need be said.)

              But I don’t feel compelled to run over to Mark’s blog (or any other blog) and speak out about every stupid thing that is said just to make Mark (or others) feel like so called traditionalists are speaking up.

              • Mark Shea

                And I never asked you to.

                • Stu

                  Me specifically? No, you did not.

                  But you whine about it everytime you write “look what those extremists said and why don’t “sane and healthy traditionalists” condemn them” posts.

                  • Mark Shea

                    No. For the umpteenth time, that is not what I said. What I said was that when somebody calls out a Trad anti-semite, it would be really helpful if other Trads would a) not take it as an attack on them when a very careful distinction is made between the nuts and the healthy Trads and b) would either join in the attack on anti-semitism or be silent. What is *not* helpful is to leap in and start complaining that criticisms of Trad anti-semites are “blanket condemnations” of Trads when they manifestly are not, or to treat a confrontation of anti-semites as though it is *really* a loyalty test directed at you.

                    I did say that sane and healthy Traditionalists have far more to fear from these nutjobs than they do from some liturgist warbling out “Anthem” at an OF Mass and that such nutjobs are the greatest enemies of the Benedictine reform on the planet. That’s because this is true. Nobody makes the EF and TLM subculture of the Church look worse to outsiders than these people. That is not whining. That is a simple fact. That they scandalize somebody as empathetic to Traditionalist concerns as Dawn is a Bad Thing. That Dawn’s sense of scandal is met, in large measure with “Stop seeing the problem. You’re being divisive” is a worse thing. Not every Trad has to rush off to rebuke the anti-semites in Traddery. But it would really help a lot if the response to anti-semites in Traddery were not, “You are mean to all Trads for seeing and protesting the anti-semites.”

                    • Stu

                      The “protest” isn’t ” “You are mean to all Trads for seeing and protesting the anti-semites.”

                      It’s, you go looking for these things on the Internet and when you find them, you scream bloody murder as if it is representative of a much, much larger group. It’s not. But you wouldn’t know that by reading Mark Shea.

                      Why not just condemn anti-semitism? You would build a much larger coalition without going down needless rabbit holes.

                    • Mark Shea

                      No. I don’t go looking for these things. I spend as little time as I can in online Traddery because it is dominated by scary and unpleasant people. However, when one of their main watering holes is fueled by agitprop from a Holocaust deniers and Dawn Eden makes note of it, only to be assailed by a pack of lunatics, I do make note of it. At which point, you have a choice: you can either ignore it or say, “That pack of lunatics are a stain on the Church.” What you’ve instead done is treat the whole thing as though I was somehow giving you a loyalty test and smearing all Traditionalists even though I made super clear I wasn’t.

                    • steve5656546346

                      “Traddery…is dominated by scary and unpleasant people.”

                      And you just published an article against ad homeniem arguments on Catholic World Reports.

                    • Stu

                      Why not just condemn anti-semitism? You would build a much larger coalition without going down needless rabbit holes.

      • Mark Shea

        Why do you keep talking as though it’s all about you?

        • Stu

          Because JoAnna prefaced her question with “Stu.”

          Since that is my name, I assumed she was referring to me.

          Seem reasonable.

  • Ignatius

    Mr. Marcelo González, the webmaster of “Panorama Catolico Internacional”, Rorate Caeli’s correspondent here in Argentina and the person who Ms. Eden’s identified as Holocaust denier, has posted a clarification (both in Spanish and in English) at his website entitled “Clarifying Ms. Eden’s Confusion”. The text in English reads as follows:

    “Regarding the confusing turmoil created by the note of American journalist Dawn Eden, which we mention elsewhere, some friends have asked me to clarify my position on the Holocaust.

    I am an adversary of clarifications when what was said is sufficiently clear. That is, when clarifying obscures things. But I am also conscious that the subject is mediatically complex and, above the intentions of Ms. Eden, I am afraid that, if an comprehension effort is not made, sterile polemics end up being stoked.

    For this reason, I clarify, or rather I reiterate that I am convinced that the Holocaust (that is, the death of millions of Jews in concentration camps or on their way to them during the Second World War) is a fact of uncontested historicity. Other aspects – of which I cannot speak, because I am no historian – remain in the academic sphere.

    But since the purpose of Panorama Católico is the defense of the Faith, I reiterate that those who say that “one cannot be a Catholic and deny the holocaust” affirm something erroneous. And that those who say “one cannot be a Catholic and accept it” affirm something equally erroneous. Because whatever one says about the subject is not a matter of Faith. Other aspects were treated in the original article”

    I report. You decide.

    Best regards.

    • Ignatius

      Sorry for the typos above. The link to the publication is: http://panoramacatolico.info/articulo/aclarando-la-confusi-n-de-la-sra-eden-clarifying-ms-edens-confusion

      Best regards.

      • Mark Shea

        You do realize this just makes clear that Dawn is right, don’t you?

        • Ignatius

          Mark, I posted it without passing any judgment. What do I believe about it (having read Mr. González’s blog for a while)? Yes, I do think Ms. Eden is right.

          Best regards,

    • rachel

      I agree with him on one thing and that is that the holocaust is not a matter of faith. Instead, he, who claims he is not an historian, is making a silly ahistorical argument that flies in the face of all the evidence. Seriously, the Nazis documented EVERYTHING, films, files, etc, etc of their disgusting crimes. They indicted themselves. There is no legitimate and reliable evidence to conclude that the numbers were lesser or that they didn’t really use gas chambers, ovens, etc. I simply don’t understand some uber-trad’s obsession with lessening the impact and the carnage of the holocaust. It is a scandal!

    • FM

      “one cannot be a Catholic and deny the holocaust”

      Well obviously one can be Catholic and deny the holocaust… one could be a Jew and (hypothetically) deny the holocaust… if a person was born a Jew he would not be less Jewish by such denial (I do not know if there actually exist any Jewish holocaust deniers, that would be quite weird…)

      Anyway people who deny the holocaust either:

      - deeply ignorant (maybe because they were lied to) about historical facts (and might change their position if educated)
      or:
      - they are committing a sinful action (in my opinion), by denying a painful truth and spreading hatred towards a population (the Jews), probably having deep misconception about the relationship between Judaism and Christianity.

      I think, however, that ‘holocaust deniers ‘ are a minority even among Traditionalist Catholics.

      ‘Holocaust deniers ‘ are anyway very uncharitable in their attitude (unless they are truly ignorant without personal fault, but this is hard to believe and hardly models of Christian virtue.

  • http://www.parafool.com victor

    I think that’s a typo. “Cherished friend” should be “chastised fiend.”

  • deiseach

    Mark, as a counterpoint to all the depressing stuff (bowdlerised that phrase) going on amongst us Catholics here in Ireland, over there in America, internally between the right and the left mutually hair-pulling over our present and former pope and externally with all kinds of scandal and stupidity and nonsense, here’s a link to a story that’s not about bad things for once.

    Nobody caught with their fingers in the till, their trousers down, or judging each other as damned to Hell which – last time I looked – was the prerogative of God Almighty alone. Just a nice story about generosity and the effects just being a presence in the public square can have.

  • Jeremy Dobbs

    Well said, Mark. But I have one sm small issue on a link. You complained about a SSPX-style rant that Jews arew a race, not a religion. Unfortunately, I’m at work and can’t hear what Voris had to say. But i’m a former SSPX Seminarian, and there is (or was when I was in Winona around the turn of the Century) a “SSPX” teaching. There was Bishop Williamson and his followers and their theories, yes. You can see from the fact that he was exepelled what the SSPX thinks of those theories.
    More to the point, the Rector of the Seminary when I was there was teh aforementioned Bishop Williamson himself. Although I am firmly against some of what he said, he did say one thing I think is extremely salient to the discussion. Americans tend to lump Judaism, Jews, the Talmud, Zionism, and the current State of Israel as indistinguishable, which, as I know you understand, is not the case. As Catholics, we must stand against racism. Noone goes to Haeven or hell because he belongs to a particular race. If a man breathes, he is redeemed or redeemeable, and we are obliged to love him. So Anti-semitism (both in the actual sense and as it is commonly accepted) must be rejected.
    Judaism as a religion must be broken down: As the remnant of revealed religion, it is incorporated into the Catholic Faith, and is sacred. Talmudic Judaism, on the other hand, is a religion of man, with truth and error, good and bad points. As such, because it contains error – the most egregious of which is the denial of Christ’s Divinity – it must be rejected and they followers of that religion must be evangelized in charity.
    The nation Israel is a state which has rights and responsibilities, virtues and vices, like any other nation. Their rights as a nation must be protected, but they must be held accountable to their obligations to their citizens and tehir neighbors. They must be neither lionized or condemned only according to their merits.
    Zionism, however, is a sticking point for many. It is a political ideology based on race, which establishes Israel’s political interests as a sacred obligation. It is a form of racism. As such, it must be vigorously opposed.
    This is what I learned in the Seminary, possibly painted by my own experiences and perspective. But I can verify the Seminary and Bishop Williamson himself did emphasize these distinctions.

  • Mike

    What the heck is a trad? I thought there were orthodox Catholics and heretics strictly speaking. Geez, sometimes we can’t see the forest can we.

    BTW Are there really Catholic who deny the Holocaust in the name of Cath.? Really I am serious I’ve never heard of this.

    • FM

      Traditionalism is a movement that is NOT heretic, since they do not refute theological truths, but MIGHT be scismatic (and some traditionalist groups are, like the Society of S. Pius X), i.e. they do not recognize the present visible authority of the Church accusing the Pope of being an anti-Pope.

      “Are there really Catholic who deny the Holocaust in the name of Cath.? ”

      Many traditionalists have… ironically… a very ‘protestant fundamentalist’ view, where they regard as evil everybody who does not share their views (so they are also anti-ecumenical).

      • Longinus

        The majority of Traditionalists recognize the authority of the Pope. Please don’t generalize.

      • Longinus

        The majority of Traditionalists recognize the authority of the Pope, and in fact are quite enthusiastic about such old-fashioned, hierarchical ideas. Please don’t generalize.

  • Kirt Higdon

    Dawn is a beautiful person and I have enjoyed reading her book and essays. Unlike her, I have no particular attraction to the EF (I’m just learning this abbreviated terminology) Mass, although I have been to one on rare occasion since the OF was introduced. Of course, I grew up with the EF so I certainly know what it is like. I’m a bit at a loss to understand the anti-Jewish hostility of so many traditionalists, since when I was growing up, everyone was (in contemporary liturgical terms) a traditionalist and no one I encountered in a very heavily Catholic environment spoke against the Jews. It’s almost as if the traditionalists or many of them decided that the Second Vatican Council was the source of all evil in the Church and hence since the Council said some favorable things about the Jews, the Jews must be evil as well.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com Dave Armstrong

    We see again and again the mentality that “traditionalists” and their radtrad fringe are above all criticism. If we dare to do it, it has to be motivated by either 1) hatred, or 2) heterodoxy and disdain for Catholic tradition, or 3) blind inability to differentiate between extreme radtrad wingnuts and moderate, sensible, mainstream “traditionalists.” None of those things apply to me, nor to Dawn or Mark.

    Some of the more pointed criticisms in this controversy have been made by Fr. Angelo Mary Geiger, F. I., who has been “saying the EF since 1995.” So now he hates *himself*? He’s both orthodox and heterodox at the same time? We aren’t allowed, apparently to utter any criticism of “traditionalists” — just like no one dares criticize Barack Obama for fear of being ridiculously tarred a racist, simply due to mere political criticism.

    In the world of thinking adults, criticism implies exactly an underlying respect and an acknowledgment that the other can be persuaded by reason, because he is an equal and presumably a rational person (or group). But instead when we criticize “traditionalists” we hear 1,508,208 times that it’s because of hatred or heterodoxy or absurd broad-brushing.

    To me this proves that “traditionalists” (as a broad generality) must greatly lack self-confidence or else they would be able and willing to have a normal, constructive discussion about issues that are brought up. Some can do that; many cannot. A long way to go there . . .

  • http://manwithblackhat.blogspot.com/ David L Alexander

    I’m inclined to agree with you, Mark, even though the Talmud really does say that.

    • Mark Shea

      Sure. And St. John Chrysostem has some pretty ripe things to say too. Most Catholics do not set their watch by him though (though I did get a Trad anti-semite sending my Youtubes of his diatribes against the Jews, as well as E. Michael Jones fulminations about the Jewish conspiracy).

      • Jeff

        See this is the kind of non sequitur that you seem to get away with all too often.

        St John Chrysostom is a Father and Doctor of the Church. But NO ONE claims that you SHOULD “set your watch” by everything he says.

        The TALMUD “(Hebrew: תַּלְמוּד talmūd “instruction, learning”, from a root lmd “teach, study”) is a central text of Rabbinic Judaism, considered second to the Torah” as Wikipedia says.

        Does that mean all Jews believe the anti Jesus statements in the Talmud? Of course not. But it’s not a nothing that they are there either.

        Plenty of Jews are anti Catholic in the religious sense. I don’t have any problem with that. Lots of atheists and Baptists and Muslims are too. God bless em!

        • Mark Shea

          The only people who *ever* trot out these Talmud references are Jew-hating nuts, just as the only people who pull out the Diatribes Against the Jews are eitherJew-haters (looking for justification) or anti-Catholics (looking to pin his opinions on all Catholics).

          • Longinus

            ‘Ware of generalizations, Mark…

  • Longinus

    Thank you, Mark, good to have a better clarification. I disagree somewhat with your statement that “Traditionalism is…profoundly rooted in and enabled by the Internet,” but you’re right about the problems. (Stu’s got a good point, too, just saying.) I’ll still be a loyal reader of this excellent blog!

  • merkn

    What exactly marks you as a “trad”?

    • Chris M

      I usually define it as someone who has an affection or preference for the Extraordinary form of the Mass and also generally includes the practice of traditional pieties, sacred music, etc.

  • Dismas

    It will be interesting and noteworthy to see if and how ChurchMilitantTV(TM), where lies and falsehoods are trapped and exposed, will deal with the issue, if at all?

  • Jeff

    I go to the “Traditionalist parish” that Dawn Eden attends, I’d say “frequently” rather than just “sometimes”. She’s a great person to chat with over donuts and coffee and I love her very much.

    I’ve NEVER heard Dawn adopt the kind of high handed debater’s approach that Mark and Dave both seem to adopt so often, especially in discussions about Traditionalism.

    She’s modest and kind and she LISTENS in a way that obviously communicates love and respect and KINDNESS.

    There are lots of questions, even about anti-Semitism, that I could comfortably put to the Jewish Dawn that I simply can’t discuss with the point-scorers.

    Betcha Dawn would love to sit down with the folks at Rorate Caeli as a fellow Catholic and listen and TALK rather than condemn and lecture. The most transparently and radiantly obvious thing about Dawn is that she’s GOOD.

    • http://socrates58.blogspot.com Dave Armstrong

      Betcha Dawn would love to sit down with the folks at Rorate Caeli as a fellow Catholic and listen and TALK rather than condemn and lecture. The most transparently and radiantly obvious thing about Dawn is that she’s GOOD.

      Absolutely. But that takes two. Since they are on record over there, criticizing her article as motivated by hatred and a desire to smear trads, and imply a profit motive and mental illness, I highly suspect that they would not reciprocate her Christian manners.

      • steve5656546346

        Dave, you are COMPLETELY ignoring that she started it with a hasty, ill advised attack on them.

        You have read into Rotare Ceili attitudes that don’t believe are there, and you have no real reason to believe is true. Indeed, you tend to read too much into traditionalist writings overall.

  • Jeff

    I start out with the idea that people are plumb crazy.

    People believe in Big Foot and the Loch Ness Monster. They believe that George Bush caused 9/11. They believe that aliens made pictures on Mars.

    Can you believe these things and be a good Catholic? Yep, I think so. Seems to me you can.

    Holocaust deniers are idiots. Sometimes they are haters of Jews as well. But sometimes they just think that stuff they find on YouTubes or from unusual sources is cool and interesting and they are no more aware of any “hatred” toward Jews in denying the Holocaust than 9/11 Truthers are aware of hatred toward New Yorkers.

    • Longinus

      A fair point, but be careful. Oftentimes when someone accepts something like that, it really is because of a certain prejudice. A lot of people really are viciously anti-Semitic. I’m sure it’s true in many less-publicized cases, though; some people just don’t bother checking their facts.

      • Jeff

        Yeah people do have their prejudices. And they are apt to be strengthened if the response to, ‘Hmm I read some interesting books and I rather think this Holocaust thing is a bit exaggerated’ is

        HATER HATER JEW BAITER ANTI SEMITIC FILTH NOTHING MORE NEEDS TO BE SAID!

        I have a lovely young Arabian friend raised in the most provincially anti Semitic of environments who told me near the beginning of our friendship, The Jews are our enemies you know, the Quran says so.

        I didn’t respond with !!!!@@@@????!!!! I just said, Hmmm okay, you think so? Wanna meet some? :)

        Now she has Jewish friends and chats happily with ISRAELIS! (gasp! horror!).

        My experience of Traditionalists is that they tend toward paranoia and clannishness and all sorts of fruitcake theories. That happens to most groups that are driven to the fringes and it has some ugly consequences.

        You aren’t supposed to be nice to them. Pope Benedict was one of the few to extend them a hand of friendship and even told them they might be RIGHT about some things! :o And Rorate Caeli (don’t read them! don’t read them!) has some choice quotes from him to the effect that he was quite shocked to discover that even the Pope could be slimed and hated for being nice to Traditionalists.

        BTW, it’s worth pointing out that with the newly fashionable anti Israeli-ism of the political Left, anti Semitism is making a comeback among dissenting Catholics of the theological Left. Very few ask them to explain their unsavory Muslim and Palestinian pals and they don’t seem to find it a problem themselves.

        • Longinus

          Also an excellent point. There’s no good reason for this division; the main cause, I think, was the spat of abuses done “in the spirit of Vatican II” during the ’70s and ’80s. A large part of the Church in America goes hippy, a small part fights back by going super-old-fashioned, and the split just grows from there. If there had been better side-by-side growth of the OF with the EF (better translations and stricter rules would have helped), we probably wouldn’t have anything as large as the divide we have today.

  • LaVallette

    Ps Kenneth:

    Since when did Oscar Wilde and the other famous gays in history fight for gay marriage. Oscar Wilde in fact was married to a ………. woman, Constance, with whom he had two children. There us a distinction between the decriminalization of gay behaviour and gay marriage, the latter only a phenomenon of the last couple of decades, It is the demand for the latter that createds the intellectual dissonance and that inasult the hetrsosexuals because it reduces by law the social concept of marriage, hitherto a strictly heterosexual affair, to a shadow of its former. The legal consequences for those who refuse to accept, using anti descrimination legislation will be dire.

  • bob

    Would the fans of the Latin inchurch be persuaded to write all their blogs *in Latin* so they could make their points clear, especially to themselves?

  • JB
  • http://mudpiemagnet.hubpages.com mudpiemagnet

    Its a nice idea to say that all that really matters is the Presence of Christ. That’s very zen. However, from my outsiders perspective, the polemics going on here are more about defending the truth than about dishing out some holy pie for all to enjoy.

    • Longinus

      Also Christ may still be present while a priest is offering all sorts of heretical ideas in his homily.

      • JB

        Not “may be present”, but “IS present”, regardless of heretical homilies.

        The Church repudiated the heresy of Donatism around over 17 centuries ago.

        • Longinus

          Oops, sorry, never meant to imply anything Donatistic. I was using “may be” in the sense of a hypothetical situation of a Mass with a heretical priest, to show that though the idea of “all you need is the Presence of Christ” is essentially true, but it’s still a very bad thing if the priest is preaching something heretical about it, perhaps even denying the Real Presence. Christ is indeed still there, but people might be led astray by the words of the priest. Again, didn’t mean to imply any heresy myself.

          • JB

            Got it, mate, and agreed.

    • JB

      How dare you refer to the Body of Christ as “some holy pie”.

  • JB

    Further to “Mudpiemagnet” who wrote:

    “Its a nice idea to say that all that really matters is the Presence of Christ. That’s very zen.”

    No, belief in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, is the opposite of Zen.

    • Stu

      And it’s not “Holy Pie.”

      • Longinus

        Indeed. Man does not live on pie alone.

  • JB

    Stu and Longinus, Good on ya!

    And as for “Zen”, “Zen” says that Jesus Christ both is AND IS NOT God. So it was bloody stupid for the prior commenter “Mudpiemagnet” to try to conflate the Eucharist with Zen.

    Dear Mudpiemagnet, HERE is some REAL Zen (which I studied when I was in the Far East for many years):

    Q: “What is the difference between someone who has actually studied the Catholic Church’s magisterium, and a chronically arrested Sophomore who has only read the first few pages of a paperback about Zen assigned to him in college?”

    A: You won’t get an answer until you learn a lot more.

  • http://mudpiemagnet.hubpages.com mudpiemagnet

    hmmm. I was being sarcastic. As a chronically arrested Sophomore, I thought that enlightened individuals would understand irony. The Body of Christ is definitely not just “Holy Pie,” but preaching (via image) about it, smack in the middle of a discussion about anti-semitism seemed rather a distracting technique, to me.

    • http://mudpiemagnet.hubpages.com mudpiemagnet

      ps- I could care less about Zen, per se. It just just seemed like a humorous word to use, frankly.

  • M. Forrest

    Traditionalists could use more statements like this one (below) from Chris Ferrara.

    Also, as seems to be implied in his critique, I think it’s natural to wonder what leads some people to even venture into the area of Holocaust revisionism and denial in the first place. The very fact of being drawn to such a point of view, let alone becoming adamant about it, seems suggestive. And to what end, exactly? One doesn’t just accidentally happen across such material.

    Quote:

    ….Anyone with even a superficial knowledge of the Eichmann trial knows that he did not contest the evidence against him. His defense team did not even cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses, but merely raised the sole defense that their client was “following orders.”

    Eichmann’s estimate of six million aside, consider only the numbers from Poland, where some 3.3 million Jews resided when Hitler rose to power. Given the extermination of 91% of that population by the SS as commonly estimated (including 850,000 victims at Treblinka), in Poland alone roughly three million Jews were exterminated. It is easy to see how Eichmann arrived at the number six million and why that number is generally viewed as an accurate death toll.

    I have no doubt that the Holocaust revisionist beehive on the Internet will be buzzing angrily over what I have written here. If these characters want to swing into action as the legal defense team for the Hitler regime, looking to poke holes in this article, then to put it colloquially they can knock themselves out. Even if I were wrong in some particular, so what? The issue here is why a Catholic bishop in the most sensitive of positions should be venturing into this vexed area, as if there were some moral imperative to set the number of Jewish victims of Hitler as low as possible…..

    Traditionalists have not refrained from critical observations concerning certain statements and actions of the conciliar popes. That criticism is in keeping with the due liberty of the members of the Mystical Body, and indeed their duty to speak out when they believe in conscience that the common good of the Church is being harmed, even should that harm involve acts or omissions of the Supreme Pontiff himself. It would a fortiori be a dereliction of duty for traditionalists not to exercise that same liberty with respect to statements from within our ‘movement’ merely because they come from a fellow traditionalist, even if he were a bishop. For to remain silent in the face of what Bishop Williamson has said would be to endanger the entire cause to which we have dedicated ourselves by allowing it to be attached to his errors.

    Bishop Williamson has eliminated himself —and for no good reason—as a credible public spokesman for the Society in the Catholic or secular communications media, or in any other significant public forums open to other traditional clergy.

    Not only this newspaper, but every journal of traditional Catholic opinion, and above all the Society itself, must clearly and unequivocally declare—as I do here and now—that Holocaust revisionism, wacky conspiracy theories, and other such nonsense will have no part in the traditionalist movement. We must also implore Bishop Williamson to reconsider and personally repudiate the outrageous statements he has published to the world despite the many entreaties that he cease and desist. This is not a question of the Bishop’s freedom of opinion, but rather of the consequences to countless innocent bystanders from a heedless exercise of that freedom. Yes, the Bishop has spoken only for himself; but others, however unjustly, will be made to pay the price for what he has said, and they will go on paying it for a long time to come. The Bishop should have foreseen this, but now it is too late to prevent the damage. All he can do is make amends. If he cares about the Church and the traditionalist faithful, as he surely does, then he will not allow himself to become a stumbling block on the road ahead.

    End quote

    http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-0131-ferrara-triumph_and_tribulation.htm


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X