Restore the Church

Friday, December 05, 2003

An "Exclusive" Response to Shawn 

A Lidless Eye Exclusive

I must admit, Shawn has me beat on the creative titles in our rounds of responses. For one he dismisses so easily, I do receive a lot of time at their weblog. So indeed, let us continue the responses, following the standard system readers of this blog have become accustomed to.(I format different than Shawn only because I have always hated using colors in my writings.)

Shawn:
I suppose I could title this response of mine "Ever Learning, and Never Attaining to the Knowledge of the Truth" Dept. but I will resist the temptation to do so{1} :) Being new to the "traditionalist" movement, Kevin is still to some extent in the "honeymoon phase" -something that no amount of reasonable argument will dissuade him from for some time to come.{2}

Kevin:

You don't, but you do title it that. In other words, I could be nice and not try and stack the deck by defaming my opponent's age, the time he has spent being a traditionalist, and a host of other things, but I won't. But to make everyone think I'm actually not doing these things, I'll add this little disclaimer in. Sorry Shawn, do you honestly think I haven't become quite familar in that debating tactic against Protestants all the time, in which they try to subtly defame their opponent so as to imprint in the mind of the audience just how dumb he is?

Shawn:

While I am not one to play the "youth card"{3} -having hated it when people did it to me in my younger days- I do believe that emotionally the lure of a supposed "stability" in this outlook is what most attracts young people to it -particularly converts. And while I could write pages on this subject, I will save the readers the type and keep my response here as brief as possible.

Kevin:

If you are not one to play the "youth card" my good friend, then WHY EVEN MENTION IT! So you can seem nice and charitable to those who honestly won't examine your works critically, but for those who are unbiased(and these should be our true respective audiences) they realize what a spade is Shawn. Again, how about we stop with the personal insults, and trying to find creative ways to defame your opponent, and just simply go to each others arguments. Indeed, this is why I said I had no intention of dialoguing with you before, something which in charity I reniged on. I seriously hope that isn't a mistake. I note that at his weblog Rerum Novarum, Shawn talks about how my errors in the previous round were typical of those rad-trads make. We shall see my good friend, we shall see.

KT2: What was the name of that Protocol where Hoyos effectively gutted the original agreement the FSSP had with Rome Shawn?

SME3:I presume you are referring to Protocol 1411. This provision did nothing of the sort. What it *did* do (and does) is effectively smoke out the so-called "traditionalists" who pay lip service to the validity of the Revised Missal but in reality do not recognize its validity at all. Further still, it reinforces that (i) the Revised Missal -as the normative liturgy of the Catholic Church- does not require any permission to be celebrated and (ii) no superior of any religious apostolate can forbid their priests from celebrating this liturgy or from concelebration according to the Revised Missal should they desire to do so pace the erroneous presumptions otherwise by some within the FSSP and other apostolates. That is the "infamous" Protocol 1411 in a nutshell.

As a lot of prevaricating by supposedly "traditional" organization has taken place over this issue, it may help to recall these points in brief:

---There is nothing in Protocol 1411 that requires a priest to celebrate the Revised Missal.

---There is nothing in Protocol 1411 that requires a priest to concelebrate the Revised liturgy.

Protocol 1411 simply recognizes that all priests of the Catholic Church have the right to celebrate the Revised Missal -either in Latin or in the vernacular- and this right cannot be taken from them by any superiors of whatever rank and dignity they may happen to be. That is all.

KT3: Of course the point here was, this adds something to the agreement. This sounds like saying there is nothing in the constitution of the U of M College Republicans that bars Democrats from joining. Of course there isn't, but why would a Democrat join the CR's? Or why would a university force this to happen.(As Dr. Mike Adams has outlined so graciously over at townhall.com of numerous instances of such. Okay, enough political promotions!) The FSSP was intended for those who did not wish to associate with the SSPX, be within the visible Vatican apparatus, and celebrate the Traditional Roman Liturgy. The fact that this protocol pointed out these things, and the commission went a good amount of way to see that people who liked the Novus Ordo were in the FSSP, shows that the Traditional Mass does not have a very positive view by many of those still in high position. This protocol is very relevant to our discussion as to whether or not traditionalism is allowed in the Church in a "unity in diversity." I still stand by my original statement that it isn't. It is a type of Protestant unity. Everything goes, as long as you laud Vatican II, and wish no real restoration of the Traditional Mass.

KT2: Why is it the FSSP is allowed the Benediction in Washington DC, but not allowed to actually say Mass in some of the bigger chapels?

SME3:You will have to ask the local ordinary in Washington DC or perhaps the FSSP themselves. I do not know the answer nor am I inclined to presume that there are "evil machinations afoot" simply because a few points are at a glance troubling. I refer the readers back to the passage from St. Francis de Sales on rash judgment in this post. What is covered there anticipates in part your response to the mea culpa thread. (Something to be dealt with briefly in the epilogue to this post.)

KT3: Shawn, let's keep our eye on the ball here. You've mentioned just how great the FSSP had it, in order to show that us Traditionalists really don't have it so bad within the present Church. If one is denied from celebrating a Mass, but is allowed to do other things, well, that sort of shows things are not as rosy as you paint them out to be.

KT2: I would also note a few things about increased acceptance. First, the Novus Ordo Liturgy has declining attendance, as many are sick and tired of the innovations and abuses.

SME3:Attendance had been reasonably consistent for a while now in most dioceses.

KT3: And pray tell Shawn, what is that "consistent figure"?

KT2: Many are beginning to call for something the Church is known for, stability. And in the Vatican II\post-Vatican II world, stability is something that simply does not exist.

SME3:Well, throughout most of history it did not exist. But with "security" comes both comfort in some areas and also discomfort in others.

For example, most of the two centuries prior to Vatican II were a period of increasing legalism, increasing centralization of church structures, increasing attempts to curb legitimate intellectual freedom, and a general increasing of isolation from the world.{5} When the Church again sought to confront the world, there was bound to be problems and there have been many. Thank God the worst of them appear to be behind us now.

KT3: I somehow find it hard to believe one can accuse Pontiffs like Leo XIII and Pius XI to a lesser degree of "isolation from the world." Then again, there is a difference between isolation, and integration into the world. That is something we see nowadays, whereas the Church attempts to become like the world, appeal to the world, talk about how great the world is, in an attempt to accomplish their goals. Now some will say St. Paul did this, but I would say he only did this to a point. Whereas many before, Popes, and those individual Catholics, called for setting up a genuine Catholic counter-culture, to butress the growing liberalism of this world. In other words, set up something to act as it's counterweight, since the Catholic Church and it's plans are the truest way one can serve their country.

KT2: Surely Shawn remembers this story (though when you're so busy making excuses for everything, I guess you forget the occasional one, eh my friend. :-) )

I will accept in good humour the ribbing on "making excuses for everything." But as far as your facts go viz the story, let us look at them briefly.

SME3:First of all, it was not "people" as in a whole congregation (or even most of one Kevin), but instead some people. Apparently three dozen protesters picketed before and after a mass celebrated by Fr. John Perricone and attended by about 200 people. Whether any of those who picketed this mass attended it also is unknown by the article I read. Some of them may have attended another of Fr. Perricone's masses and then brought others with them to their little protest. They all may have attended the mass and protested before it and after it.{6} I do not know nor am I going to speculate on the matter in the absence of actual knowledge one way or the other. Nor for that matter should you.

KT3: I don't honestly need to speculate Shawn. All we know is that a group of Catholics were in protest over this issue, during Corpus Christi, about a Mass actually being celebrated according to the Rubrics, and they claimed they wanted "NO VATICAN II ROLLBACK!"

SME3:The errors in this paragraph are as follows:

---The Second Vatican Council did not banish the Latin usage from the mass.

---The Revised Missal is in Latin and actually was intended originally to be said at least partly in Latin. The vernacular pemission did not invalidate this intention in the slightest; ergo while almost all priests today use the vernacular, they are allowed to celebrate this liturgy in Latin (wholly or in part) without needing permission from the local ordinaries to do so.

Really? Somehow I have an incredibly strong feeling if a priest just decided one day to say the Novus Ordo in latin, all the way, he'd be in quite a bit of trouble. Indeed, that's why there's a subcategory of the Novus Ordo, the Latin Novus Ordo(in other words, a legitimate option is essentially treated as sub-par!)

I will note as Shawn continues(for the sake of not repeating myself) there are numerous instances where Shawn appeals to his Missal, which has these things. That's all well and fine, but that which the people PERCEIVE is that when a priest celebrates a Mass facing the altar, that's "Imposing the Traditional Mass" he uses Latin that's "Imposing the Traditional Mass" he celebrates a major feast day with such reverence he's "Rolling back Vatican II." This was my point Shawn, something in your endeavor to embarass me, you completely missed. Again, you did a "ready, fire, aim approach", the same thing you condemn your enemies for doing.

KT2: Now since I do have a factual basis for this, let's see if Shawn practices his oft quoted "Spiritual maturity" and retracts.

SME3:The readers can judge based on the glitches in your statement whether a retraction should take place on my part or yours. I remind the readers that even the claim that I had to pay for the article on your part was false. As for the rest, review the text above, my response to Kevin's original post, and even Kevin's original post.{11}

Those who try to look objectively will see that Kevin snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by having a reasonable point to make which he then shrouded in the standard self-styled "traditionalist" exaggeration which I was able to easily dispatch with. But I digress.

KT3: Not really, but I appreciate your sense of drama Shawn, makes things a lot more interesting. :-)


Thursday, December 04, 2003

Beware of the Traditional Mass? 

Archbishop Warns of Liturgy Nostalgia



I must note a few things here that are truly stunning. First, the arhcbishop here is warning people not to go to what Tradition has given us, a stunning admission there. Second, he talks about how the Traditional Mass was just the "preserve of the clergy." In other words, it's the priest's playtool, or as Shawn McElhinney stated, it was the priest as a one man show.

Well, the Novus Ordo is far worse! It is the priest who could have 27 different ways to say One Novus Ordo Mass, just follow the rubrics. All the different starting options, greetings, gospel readings, everything is completely at the whim of a priest. So if this is an argument against the Traditional mass, well it's a devestating argument against the Novus Ordo, which is 100 times worse in this regard.

He furthermore brings up the old canard about Latin. I would venture to say very few understand the Mass in the vernacular! This really isn't up for dispute, as it is really beyond dispute that combined with horrible catechesis, most "Catholics" don't know what the Mass is, have no clue what propitatory even means, and a host of other bad issues. Furthermore, the missals had the English translations strongly translated, so people did understand. And of course there's symbolism, there's just so much to say about this statement.

Of course, this bishop is paying tribute to one of the primary players in ICEL, the now defunct commission which gave us highly skeptical vernacular translations, so skeptical that the Pope essentially did away with the commission. In other words, let's consider the context of events. Those who praise ICEL major players should already be taken with a grain of salt in their remarks on the liturgy.

Monday, December 01, 2003

Beginning of Latest Response to Shawn 

Shawn McElhinney over at The Lidless Eye Inquisition has written quite a bit about your humble journalist over the past week or so. Some of it will merit a response from myself, some will not, either because I feel it need not be responded to, or because(as in the case of the Fatima report) other members of the Restore the Church team have issued their response, which I believe suffices.

Now then, let us move onto Shawn's writings. The first round will be noted with KT1 and SME1. The Second Round will be noted with KT2 and SME2, with my responses being KT3.

SME1:"As the Church has struck out in another direction since Vatican II -a more traditional direction actually- to some extent certain elements of the period before Vatican II are not applicable anymore. But lest this be misunderstood, let me clarify what has not changed."

KT1:Well of course the entire debate was if it was actually a "Traditional" strike or not

SME2:Those who know their pre-"reformation" history are aware that it is.

KT2: This is one thing that just aggrivates me about my good friend Shawn. It is impossible to respond to such snide remarks. Yet as far as "Pre-Reformation" history, let me try and go with that.

SME3:The intention here is not to aggravate Kevin. On the one hand there is the complaint that I wrote too long a text.{1} Then when I try to economize, the summary statements required to do this get criticized as being "aggravating." Obviously people cannot have it both ways here.

KT3: My complaint before was not neccessarily that you wrote too much, but that when you wrote too much, it was about things absolutely irrelevant, or indeed, directly contrary to my position. Furthermore, one need not be snide and arrogant in a short response, as in saying the other side is simply stupid for not agreeing with you, which is a far more blunt way of putting such words.(Sometimes I wish such bluntess would just be there.)

KT2: It seems Shawn would just like to ignore the past developments of 500 years of history, civilization, etc when taking into account ecclesial matters.

SME3:It depends on what those "developments" are. In many cases they are not "developments" at all -or at least not organic ones from the whole of the Church's Tradition. The Counter-reformation model of the garrison church with its confessional scholarship,{2} its triumphalistic Latinizing,{3} and artificially enforced "uniformity" -coupled with the retreat from confronting the challenges of the world-{4} are a few such post-Trent novelties that I have no interest in seeing revived. They were artificial and deservingly got the axe.

KT3: I would hardly say they "retreated from confronting the world", they simply just didn't embrace it as positively as those of today now do in those positions. But what I was referring to was the fact as much as Shawn seems to not want to realize it, the Reformation happened, and the changes in the way things happened can't be overlooked. This gets us back to such issues as communion in the hand. During the Reformation-Counter-Reformation time frame, there can be no doubt that many of those who stressed communion in the hand, did so to deny transubstantation. Protestants have not changed their view on this, and if anything, regardless of other factors, there has been a decline in Eucharistic piety since communion in the hand became commonplace. I don't deny the fact it was used in the past(while never the "universal" custom, it had some strong support) things do change. As far as stressing the "visible" membership of the Church, Bl. Pius IX cautioned against going too far into invincible ignorance, because it very well could turn into everyone being a Catholic, or noone going to hell(something Shawn knows very well is an acceptable thesis in Church scholarship today.) While we of course should not exclude the fact there are those who are united to the Church who may be outside the visible Church, one must be cautious, and definetly there should be some guidelines, rather than everyone is an anonymous Christian, lest we go into the kind of doctrinal relativism Protestantism descends into.

KT2:Well, the leaders of Vatican II say something refering to modernizing, Shawn interprets it for us to mean traditional. Does anyone think that's a little odd!

SME3:No one familiar with ressourcement methodology finds this odd Kevin. Indeed the fact that you appear to find the notion of authentic "Traditionalism" and authentic "Progressivism" being antonymous rather than synonymous is an example of you accepting uncritically the conventional wisdom viz the usage of these terms. By contrast, I do not do this. But the aforementioned link has details on this as well as some of what you will raise in this response. (Hence I may refer back to it as needed as I am not about to reinvent the wheel here.)

KT3: Nowhere did I really say that authentic progressivism and traditionalism must be set apart from each other. There can be genuine change, progress if you will, firmly grounded in history. That indeed is what development of doctrine is all about. So again Shawn, you read a little too much into my statement, and ended up putting some words in my mouth. Hopefully this clarification helps a bit. I dispute that the New Liturgy, and the new pastoral approaches on ecumenism are indeed traditional and progressive. This is something that you and Apolonio never seem to understand. Disagreeing with the way a premise is applied, is not saying the premise in and of itself is false.

KT2: Something which is traditional is consistently advocated.

SME3:Centuries of practice is adequate to qualify for "consistency."

KT3: Not neccessarily. If something was done up until 600 AD for example, then done away with, and done a different way for 1400 years, one cannot say just because the 600AD thing was done up until that time it is "traditional." Traditional speaks with the consistent voice of the Church. Indeed, this is why Pius XII viewed it not a wise idea to return to the table form, stop wearing black, and strip the Church down. In the end, I would argue this view is absolutely vindicated. It is only a pity we decided not to listen to that Pope.

KT2:The Church does not change for change's sake. While it's open to change, it is not something that should be done easily.

SME3:A change should have the intention of somehow improving the manner whereby the faith is received or put into practice. Further still, it should be sanctioned by the proper authorities -a point that Pope Pius XII of venerable memory reiterated in Mediator Dei.{9}

KT3: Now we go back to what I said before, this is impossible to actually debate, and it shows the utter dishonesty of the system. I want to debate fruitfulness, but when it comes up, it turns into a validity debate. Who cares if the idea that Hell may be Empty is borderline universalism, has had an impact on missionary activity in some sense, and relaxes the Church's evangelizing, it's a valid view to hold. Who cares that the Novus Ordo has proven disastarous in it's implementation, with abuse after abuse never conceived of in the Traditional Mass, "the Eucharist is still there." I reply, so what? Who cares if the program of intreligious dialogue has provided no fruits, we still talk to them, no matter what the benefits, it is valid afterall. These should sound familar to readers of the Lidless Eye blog, since all three arguments have been made in polemics with me. The change cannot be measured as actually successful or not. As long as a legitimate authority ordered the change, the change is somehow traditional and a stroke of genius. This gives an image of the Papacy tradition simply does not give. A Pope is not infallible as an administrator engaging in pastoral approaches.

Of course this standard is dishonest. When we talk about mere validity, we could just mention the SSPX consecrations. They are valid Bishops, Mr. Vere and Shawn do not dispute that point.(I mention Peter Vere only since he seems to be the resident "expert" at this blog on these issues, and indeed, he references his membership in the Society in past quite a bit.) Why shouldn't we just goto their Masses, they are valid afterall! No, then we get into if this is actually good for the Church or not, which I agree we should.(I don't attend the Society Masses, just giving an example.)

KT2: We Traditionalists hold that there should be evidence before things are just castaway and new things are tried.

SME3:Of course there was ample evidences that liturgical reform was needed. Those who were not around at the time or who do not have a memory of those periods often do not realize this though. This is part and parcel to he failure to interact with what existed in reality versus what the pundits for the so-called "traditionalist" view like to assert. (Either through disingenuous revisionism or some form of misplaced nostalgia.)

If memory serves me my friend, you weren't around at this time either! Am I denying the need for liturgical reform during that time, absolutely not. What I dispute is again the way the reform went. The Liturgical Reform movement was something that began with St. Pius X.(or at least really took off with him.) This was an ongoing movement. Yet I dispute that the Novus Ordo is the product of this movement, as authors like Klaus Gamber and Michael Davies have shown with devestating accuracy, as even one of our top cardinals admits for the former.

KT2: Otherwise, we will continue to push for the former restored.

SME3:How about focusing on the Indult as a viable and valuable charism within the Mystical Body instead??? This is a big Church after all. This kind of single-minded determination to return everything to the days when people pretended that catholicity meant uniformity is not only not going to succeed but you will alienate yourselves from others whom you are expected to be in communion with.

KT3: Well being I attend the Indult, I do push for the indult as something that should be of greater exposure. Yet I readily admit, I look forward to the day when the Novus Ordo is that which needs an indult. As far as "uniformity" in certain things, absolutely, yet on liturgical issues, I readily recognize there are many ways of the liturgy which are beneficial, and believe these should be promoted as viable alternatives, since the Traditional Roman Liturgy, and the liturgies of the East, do take two different aspects. (as a friend said, one is Good Friday every Sunday, the other is Easter Sunday)

KT1:Now in regards to your statements on what has and hasn't changed in the Syllabus issue, here's one serious criticism I have of Neo-Catholics.

SME2: Before moving onto this point, I remind you of the teaching of Benedict XV on such attempts to add qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism.

KT2: I note in passing we only continued what was started by our good friend Shawn.

KT3:The very claim of "traditionalist Catholic" is precisely the kind of qualifiers that Pope Benedict XV was opposed to. In his day it was those who referred to themselves as Integral Catholics and the same presumptions abounded: "We are 'The True Believers'™ and you are not *fully* Catholic." And the term "traditional Catholic" predates by many years any and all counter monikers -whether they be derisive or otherwise- that have developed since that time. However, as not all people who do this are aware of the unCatholic approach, how it is addressed varies with the particular weltanschauung of the person or group in question.

SM3: As Shawn well knows, we do not presume to judge whether or not one is a Catholic as he does with us. We merely disagree with his full support for programs of novelty. We do not judge his state in the Church, showing charity where Shawn and his fellow friends show nothing but viciousness. As I said to him before, someone's state in the Church is for proper authorities to decide, not his private judgement.(Indeed I noticed that with a list of one of his colleagues on some "rad-trad" websites. All you see is "schismatic and excommunicated" when in reality, no such declaration has been issued against them. You also see "disobedience to Vatican II and John Paul II." In what areas? In dogmatics, or pastoral approaches? What is "disobedience" in their circles? So Shawn is trying to dig himself out of something, and I won't let him do it.

SME3:But at the same time, most of those who refer to themselves as "traditionalists" do not conform to the Church's Law in several key areas. For example, Catholics are to preserve their communion at all times -even in their external actions (Can 209). Also, it is necessary to take account of the common good of the Church as well as the rights of others and their own duties to others (Can. 223 §1). Part of the common good involves at times sacrificing one's own preferences at the altar of the common good.

KT3: Sorry, but this is just more of Shawn's arrogance, especially with Canon 223. Us Traditionalists have little care for anyone else in the Church, we just like to shout and cause trouble. As far as sacrificing one's own preferences, I'm pretty sure most of us in the Indult would like to have the time where Church is only 5 minutes away in heavy traffic. I'm sure we would like to worship as our fathers did without being declared schismatics. Trust me, in order to promote this, we are sacrificing on the altar of common good our preferences.

SME3:It is not difficult to point to scores of so-called "traditionalists" who write articles or have recourse to the media to air views which give any reasonable person cause to doubt their adherence to the traditional principles enshrined in the canons of the law above. And of course in the event of an external violation, imputability of fault is to be presumed (Can. 1321 §3).

KT3:And of course, it never seems to cross the mind of my "so called Neo-Catholic" friends that the scandalous actions of prelates and bad pastoral approaches are indeed what is the true problem. Those who focus too much on traditionalist resistance are missing the big picture. We are witnessing a plague from which Traditionalist resistance is only a symptom. Yet of course, we will never hear about these things. No, it is lonely voices such as myself which are the real problem.

KT2: He's yet to really show that we are "opposed to the magesterium of the Church."

SME3:I should have nuanced my statement better. What was intended was to note that I have read no convincing arguments from the "trads" many of which are not faithful to the magisterium of the Church. I was not intending to say that everyone at your weblog is opposed to the magisterium of the Church.{15} Yet again the brevity bug bites me, please accept my apologies for this.

Apology on that area accepted. Yet, you're not off the hook yet. As far as "trads" not faithful to the magesterium of the Church, I think this is another canard you guys simply never prove. Me and Apolonio, and also Gregg the Obscure went back and forth on this area, when I pointed out on a whole, while traditionalists might be a little aggressive, polemical, and overzealous at times, we do not dissent from anything that the Magesterium requires our assent. This is why you guys are indeed the true intregrists. You demand we assent to something the Church doesn't.

KT2: Does that "Proper Catholic mindset" include calling the Novus Ordo a "Fabricated Liturgy" or praising a book which called it the Roman Rite's "Destruction."

SME3:This depends again on the context of the statements. Remember Kevin, a text without a context is a pretext. Having noted that, it is also worth pointing out that there is no compelling by the Church for anyone to prefer one particular liturgy over another. And any liturgy has its merits and its demerits -which in and of themselves admit of discussion provided that it is done charitably and without appearing to have a malicious intention.

KT3: I must disagree. There have been far too many prelates in todays Church who have essentially done all they can to make sure the Traditional Mass is not offered, to the point of where pious charitable people asking for it have been scoffed. Now I'm sure you believe there are reasons. That's not the point. The point is that there are those, and you well know this, who have gone out of their way to make sure this liturgy, which the Holy Father wishes we be provided with, is hidden from us.

KT2: Was George Weigel being "opposed to the living Magesterium" when he cited several reasons the Anglican Dialogue was doomed, when in reality Traditionalists have been making these same arguments for years and being dismissed by Wiegel's ilk as "prophets of doom" and "Rad-trad schismatics"?

SME3:Of course not. However, you are treating this as a parity situation when it is not. George Weigel (i) from everything I have read of him takes into account the common good of the Church over his own opinions (ii) is obedient to the teachings and directives of the bishops of the Church (iii) has never manifested in his words or actions any reason to doubt his fidelity to the Church and (iv) as a result of these, he has the strong presumption of fidelity on his side a priori. By contrast, I could make a biblical scroll of candidates who do not fit this profile -indeed F. John Loughnan of Lidless Eye did this a few years ago.{16}

KT3: Yet again we see Shawn presuming to know the minds and souls of those he disagrees with. Those he agrees with, have the best interests of the Church in mind over themselves. Those he disagrees with, well, they are arrogant whiners who only think about themselves. Furthermore, even if they were, that doesn't miss the point that the arguments they have made for years, are now beginning to be proven right. One can separate an argument from the person making it. Apolonio knows all about this, as he would use Protestant sources to make his points, while disregarding their questionable or heretical views. This in and of itself is not bad, but you cannot allow him to do it, while disallowing those you disagree with that same right. That's being grossly inconsistent.

That's about it for now. I do love how both me and Shawn being "Brief" is for everyone else reading a novel. So having the concerns of our respective audiences in mind, I will begin the next round of responses tomorrow, maybe Wednesday. Until next time....

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?