Seahawks' DK Metcalf is the big receiver Pete Carroll always wanted
Friday, September 20, 2019
For those who need an update on these things, the Democratic Presidential field is down to 19 candidates now. Here is a brief list of those who have dropped out so far:
Richard Ojeda (January 25, 2019)
Eric Swalwell (July 8, 2019)
Mike Gravel (August 6, 2019)
John Hinckenlooper (August 15, 2019)
Jay Inslee (August 21, 2019)
Seth Moulton (August 23, 2019)
Kirsten Gillibrand (August 28, 2019)
Bill de Blasio (September 20, 2019)
Richard Ojeda (January 25, 2019)
Eric Swalwell (July 8, 2019)
Mike Gravel (August 6, 2019)
John Hinckenlooper (August 15, 2019)
Jay Inslee (August 21, 2019)
Seth Moulton (August 23, 2019)
Kirsten Gillibrand (August 28, 2019)
Bill de Blasio (September 20, 2019)
Tuesday, September 17, 2019
Briefly on Sola Traditio and the Magisterium:
As I have seen variations of this problem over the years in various formats and contexts, I am posting here something written by yours truly as a recent response to certain misunderstandings and troubling methods of interpretation posted to the social media site of someone who dabbles in what some call traditionalism.
With all due respect, I do not see how in the above collection of quotes you are not engaging in a form of Sola Traditio whereby you purport to judge what is and is not Tradition or what is or is not properly speaking magisterial in the same way Protestants do with the Bible and Sola Scriptura.
We are supposed to believe the Bible is as St. Peter said "containing many things difficult to understand which the unlearned and unstable wrest to their own destruction" (cf. 2 Peter 1:20ff) but magisterial texts in isolation can be easily understood and do not have the same pitfalls for those who are themselves unlearned in such things as general norms of theological interpretation, understanding historical context, etc? And of course the self-proclaimed "conservatives", "traditionalists", etc are never admitting of their own unlearnedness and instability on these matters!
As for as the "novelty is our out" claim, you then have to explain how a purported "novelty" becomes sufficiently established to no longer be considered such as virtually everything you now consider Traditional or otherwise immutable was at one point in time a novelty. In short, you need a better standard than merely what is and is not a purported "novelty." You would also do well to remember the following words from Pope Leo XIII:
You also focus far too much on what is infallible and non-infallible. Apart from the fact that most Catholics do not understand well the subject of infallibility, "non-infallible does not ipso facto mean "containing errors." If your criteria of what requires assent of any form is what is or is not "infallible", then you run afoul of magisterial teaching on what is and is not requiring of assent.
There are recognized ways to approach areas of difficulty but I see none of them emphasized in what you write above.
As I have seen variations of this problem over the years in various formats and contexts, I am posting here something written by yours truly as a recent response to certain misunderstandings and troubling methods of interpretation posted to the social media site of someone who dabbles in what some call traditionalism.
With all due respect, I do not see how in the above collection of quotes you are not engaging in a form of Sola Traditio whereby you purport to judge what is and is not Tradition or what is or is not properly speaking magisterial in the same way Protestants do with the Bible and Sola Scriptura.
We are supposed to believe the Bible is as St. Peter said "containing many things difficult to understand which the unlearned and unstable wrest to their own destruction" (cf. 2 Peter 1:20ff) but magisterial texts in isolation can be easily understood and do not have the same pitfalls for those who are themselves unlearned in such things as general norms of theological interpretation, understanding historical context, etc? And of course the self-proclaimed "conservatives", "traditionalists", etc are never admitting of their own unlearnedness and instability on these matters!
As for as the "novelty is our out" claim, you then have to explain how a purported "novelty" becomes sufficiently established to no longer be considered such as virtually everything you now consider Traditional or otherwise immutable was at one point in time a novelty. In short, you need a better standard than merely what is and is not a purported "novelty." You would also do well to remember the following words from Pope Leo XIII:
"[I]t is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them."
You also focus far too much on what is infallible and non-infallible. Apart from the fact that most Catholics do not understand well the subject of infallibility, "non-infallible does not ipso facto mean "containing errors." If your criteria of what requires assent of any form is what is or is not "infallible", then you run afoul of magisterial teaching on what is and is not requiring of assent.
There are recognized ways to approach areas of difficulty but I see none of them emphasized in what you write above.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)