#semper-spes-est

[shymile]

semper-spes-est said: Beauty is always fragile. The male body is more harsh and crude.

Now that’s the silliest thing I’ve ever read.

[straightpopery]

What is "a Bishop"? There is a (largely Anglophone) ecclesiastical underworld populated by what are often called "Episcopi vagantes", "Wandering Bishops". These are persons who have privately secured for themselves technically 'valid' episcopal orders. Many people suspect that their motive for doing this has been personal vanity, because these are 'bishops' who are not surrounded by the serried and serious ranks of their presbyterium, nor ministered to ad altare by their cheerful bustling Deacons, and who lack the boisterous, sometimes disorderly, mob of 'their' Laity, laos. And they are not, these Episcopi vagantes, in peace and communion with the Apostolic, or indeed with any other, See. Far from it. Per contra, in Catholic (and Orthodox) ecclesiology, a Bishop is a man who discharges the functions of the high Episcopal office in the context of the structured Church life of People, Deacons, and Presbyters. A gathering of Christians so structured is known as a "Particular Church". Like any other Diocesan Bishop, the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, is a Bishop with a Presbyterium, a Diakonia, a Laos. He is not a lonely isolated individual with technically valid orders and a technically valid Electio in Summum Pontificem tucked into his back pocket.

Fr. John Hunwicke

[the-acton-tocqueville-society]

Since I've seen a lot of discussion on my dash about the various factions of traditionalist dissenters from Vatican II, I'll chime in with some of my thoughts.  First, I will say that I am not equipped to refute any part of their readings of canon law, doctrine, and the sacred Tradition. Second that, in light of my own examination of conscience, I cannot judge myself fit to rebuke their faith, obedience, or virtue. Oftentimes they seem to be incredibly pious. But third, that I may be able to offer some observations on part's of the intellectual and social character of the movement that I find troubling. I have seen, amongst all of the dissenters (as groups, not individuals) from Vatican II, a curiously high correlation between membership in one of these groups and the holding of a very wide variety of beliefs about geopolitics, science, and the arts that I can only describe as both contrarian and having an oddly high overlap with the beliefs held by what one might call the far right wing of global politics. This similarity holds regardless of whether those right wingers are Vatican II dissenting Catholic, conservative Catholics, atheist neo-reactionaries, neo-pagans, or even on occasion a Hindu and every once in a great while a Buddhist or Muslim. Being both by disposition inclined to contrarianism and being a contributor to a political movement infamous for it's contrarian elements, I believe I can recognize the signs of a movement that is overrun with a knee jerk contrarian attitude.  This of course is minor, in the grand scheme, except for the fact that a great many of these dissenters that I have seen also feel obliged to offer opinions on a great many of subjects. These subjects are often quite complex, but I have not seen the zeal for upholding the Catholic tradition matched by the kind of intellectual rigor necessary to provide plausible justification for many contrarian positions on science, politics, and the arts. In fact, most criticism I have seen on various "orthodoxies of opinion" in these areas appear to be done in a drive-by manner. I should note that this is the same manner in which they seem to approach recent popes, putting them under microscopes. While a distinctly modern phenomena, the practice of laymen and women carefully scrutinizing the papacy seems licit, and something the papacy itself paved the way for with Vatican I. However, I choose the word "microscope" carefully, because in addition to shoddy sourcing and removing facts from context for many of these claims, there seems to be a very deliberate effort to look for any sort of error whatsoever and only speak of those and almost never anything else.  This makes me wonder about the structure of the community the dissenters have. I have observed that I have yet to meet, and I have seen or spoke to hundreds, a Vatican II dissenter that is not both more educated and more intelligent than average. That is in some ways heartening in light of the tendency of the educated and intelligent to be leading the charge to modernize the Church, whether from the inside or the outside, these days. But I do wonder what kind of Church can be built on those foundations. The reason I point this out is because of the attitude I have encountered amongst the dissenters, which seems to commonly be that they are a tiny congregation in the light in a hostile time. Taking evil seriously means a willingness to see unhappy truths that may sour your times to you, but I wonder at the seeming unwillingness to level with and take the time to reach out to those who quite a few in their ranks are willing to drop "knowledge bombs" on but not engage with, seemingly for fear of compromising spiritual health by associating with those of potentially heterodox faith. 

Nonetheless, it seems to me that reconciliation with these factions should be important for orthodox Catholicism. I find myself in agreement with semper-spes-est that they have qualities more valuable for the renewal of the Church than do liberal reformers and that therefore not only should no Catholic take a harder line on them than liberal reformers, but they should be much sooner given a seat at the table than the liberal reformer. Now it's true that perhaps some, perhaps even many, of them will never be satisfied and will never even reconsider any of their dissents and will always remain convinced that the visible Church isn't pure enough to represent the Church eternal, as strangely acquiescent to the claims made by many previous dissenting and ultimately recognized as schismatic factions as that is. Perhaps any deviation from a strict rigorism will inevitably always be viewed by the dissenters as a total laxism or a foot in the door for it. But I know that I should be happier to see open liberal heretics subject to formal discipline by denial of sacraments or excommunication, a great driving out of modernizers from consideration for holy orders, a cracking down on increasingly heterodox Catholic schools and universities, and demands that the old Mass be made more widely available than I would be to see the Church stiffen it's back against the accusations of the Vatican II dissenters and listen more to the cries of the world for change the the cries of it's much closer kin. 

[the-acton-tocqueville-society]

This blog currently gets about 30% of it's content from bellicosta, 15% from semper-spes-est, 20% of it's content from priceofliberty and eltigrechico combined, 10% of it's content from timlebsack, profitimaximizer, and libertartariantaoist combined, and the other 25% from various sources with less than 2% a piece. 

[acatholicvibe]

semper-spes-est replied to your post:Everytime I try to upload audio something goes...

Sometimes you have to refresh the page and try again. Other times tumblr is being the inconsolable incompetent it is by nature.

Yes, I had to back out of the first try and do it again. It finally worked. Ugghh.

[wheretheroadnarrows]

semper-spes-est said: I’m not sure there’s much to get, honestly.

No, I get the plot of Aliens, it's just half way through that I lose track of how they got there or what happened 

[classicalliberalleague]

Every movement has its group of radicals who just don't understand it. Being gay in no way disqualifies you from being a conservative. The Republican Party is a party for everyone, and one bruncle who's stuck in the nineteenth century doesn't change that.

Exactly. 

[classicalliberalleague]

As a Catholic even I know that government is not meant to control morality. That is not the point of it. That is the job of your parents, if you mess up its on your head. Morality, decency, and living your life correctly starts with the family not the government. It is not there to be the morality police and looking at how corrupt it is I don't want it to be either.

Exactly! Conservatism is just about preserving the freedom for people to live as they wish, as long as they don't hurt anyone. If the way you want to live is strictly religious that's up to you, but conservatism isn't about enforcing a strictly religious morality onto others.