Saturday, October 12, 2002
We Have Our First D'artagnan!!!
(May many more follow)
I Athos was recently informed by Aramis that he, Porthos, and I have an ally now in Alan Phipps. Forsooth, he is the first D'artagnan. May the tribe increase.
(May many more follow)
I Athos was recently informed by Aramis that he, Porthos, and I have an ally now in Alan Phipps. Forsooth, he is the first D'artagnan. May the tribe increase.
"And Now, A Public Service Announcement From Rerum Novarum" Dept.
What would a "campaign" be without some "ads" right??? ;-)
As Pete Vere noted recently on his weblog Canon Lawyers Oppressing Gnomes:
I need to raise some quick cash. Therefore, since I often get emails from single young Catholic ladies looking for a good Catholic guy, I've decided to auction off my bestest internet buddy Shawn.
To recap, I met Shawn during the tail-end of our integrist days. We were having serious second doubts, and ended of up discussing them together. Despite my having an Italian last name, and he Irish, we became quick friends on the Internet. Through the grace of God, we ended up leaving hard-line traddydom together for a more ecclesiologically orthodox Catholicism -- namely one faithful to the Roman Pontiff and the Diocesan Bishop in communion with him. We would both now describe ourselves as Catholics with a deep attachment to our Latin liturgical Tradition, although we also feel called to explore Eastern Catholic theology as well. But getting back to the West, Shawn and I have even co-authored an article advancing a moderate approach to the Ecclesia Dei movement together.
Now if this isn't good enough, here's the real good news ladies: Coincidentally, there are two Shawns who fit this description! So please go here to bid on Shawn Tribe, and here to bid on Shawn McElhinney...
A well intentioned gesture to be sure but two implies that there is a choice to be made. Now there appear to be similarities here but they are merely surface ones be assured of that. We ask that you consider the following sober facts:
With regards to liturgical issues, where do the candidates stand??? Shawn McElhinney has endorsed organizations such as Adoremus, Opus Dei, Ecclesia Dei, Institute of Christ the King, the Society of St. John, the Saint Athanasius Society, and the Fraternal Society of St. Peter. He has also endorsed groups such as the Anawim society (which is more charismatic) and Second Exodus which is affiliated with the Association of Hebrew Catholics. In short, Shawn McElhinney has manifested this traditional "unity-in-diversity" explicitly; not only in his writings - both essays and also message boards - but also many of the links at his weblog. Where does Shawn Tribe stand on these issues???
Well there is no links to St. Peter's Fraternity, Opus Dei, The St. Athanasius Society, or the Institute of Christ the King at his webblog. There is also no mention of the Anawim community, Second Exodus or the Association of Hebrew Catholics. Indeed has Shawn Tribe ever mentioned that he supports these organizations??? We are unaware that he ever has. Thus we can safely say with a good degree of certitude that Shawn McElhinney is *the* choice for true Catholic unity-in-diversity.
(Paid for by "The Committee in Support of Shawn McElhinney")
There will be more "ads" if you will. (At least two more.) The ladies after all have a right to know the "truth" ;-)
What would a "campaign" be without some "ads" right??? ;-)
As Pete Vere noted recently on his weblog Canon Lawyers Oppressing Gnomes:
I need to raise some quick cash. Therefore, since I often get emails from single young Catholic ladies looking for a good Catholic guy, I've decided to auction off my bestest internet buddy Shawn.
To recap, I met Shawn during the tail-end of our integrist days. We were having serious second doubts, and ended of up discussing them together. Despite my having an Italian last name, and he Irish, we became quick friends on the Internet. Through the grace of God, we ended up leaving hard-line traddydom together for a more ecclesiologically orthodox Catholicism -- namely one faithful to the Roman Pontiff and the Diocesan Bishop in communion with him. We would both now describe ourselves as Catholics with a deep attachment to our Latin liturgical Tradition, although we also feel called to explore Eastern Catholic theology as well. But getting back to the West, Shawn and I have even co-authored an article advancing a moderate approach to the Ecclesia Dei movement together.
Now if this isn't good enough, here's the real good news ladies: Coincidentally, there are two Shawns who fit this description! So please go here to bid on Shawn Tribe, and here to bid on Shawn McElhinney...
A well intentioned gesture to be sure but two implies that there is a choice to be made. Now there appear to be similarities here but they are merely surface ones be assured of that. We ask that you consider the following sober facts:
With regards to liturgical issues, where do the candidates stand??? Shawn McElhinney has endorsed organizations such as Adoremus, Opus Dei, Ecclesia Dei, Institute of Christ the King, the Society of St. John, the Saint Athanasius Society, and the Fraternal Society of St. Peter. He has also endorsed groups such as the Anawim society (which is more charismatic) and Second Exodus which is affiliated with the Association of Hebrew Catholics. In short, Shawn McElhinney has manifested this traditional "unity-in-diversity" explicitly; not only in his writings - both essays and also message boards - but also many of the links at his weblog. Where does Shawn Tribe stand on these issues???
Well there is no links to St. Peter's Fraternity, Opus Dei, The St. Athanasius Society, or the Institute of Christ the King at his webblog. There is also no mention of the Anawim community, Second Exodus or the Association of Hebrew Catholics. Indeed has Shawn Tribe ever mentioned that he supports these organizations??? We are unaware that he ever has. Thus we can safely say with a good degree of certitude that Shawn McElhinney is *the* choice for true Catholic unity-in-diversity.
(Paid for by "The Committee in Support of Shawn McElhinney")
There will be more "ads" if you will. (At least two more.) The ladies after all have a right to know the "truth" ;-)
A Possible "D'artagnan"???
Hopefully we will find out soon as The Mighty Barrister has given tacit acknowledgment and support to the Profession of Faith. However, to be a Musketeer you must post the text at your weblog. Here is where you can locate the text for that. And let no one think we want to limit our number, all who make the profession on their weblogs or web-sites are our brothers and sisters and stand in solidarity with us. (Yes, this is not a "male only" club.)
Hopefully we will find out soon as The Mighty Barrister has given tacit acknowledgment and support to the Profession of Faith. However, to be a Musketeer you must post the text at your weblog. Here is where you can locate the text for that. And let no one think we want to limit our number, all who make the profession on their weblogs or web-sites are our brothers and sisters and stand in solidarity with us. (Yes, this is not a "male only" club.)
"And Now, A Public Service Announcement From Rerum Novarum" Dept.
(aka "Campaign Commercial Corner")
If Pete Vere's auctioning off of Shawn Tribe and myself was handled as a political election, how might Rerum Novarum's "campaign ads" run??? Well, stay tuned for the "Public Service Announcement" Department where such "ads" will be run...
(aka "Campaign Commercial Corner")
If Pete Vere's auctioning off of Shawn Tribe and myself was handled as a political election, how might Rerum Novarum's "campaign ads" run??? Well, stay tuned for the "Public Service Announcement" Department where such "ads" will be run...
"Some-times I Won-derrr...Would a Match-box Hold My Clooothes???" Dept:
The source I am quoting can be read here.
Not only does I. Shawn
Shawn please, my friends call me Shawn :)
enjoy the occasional fine double corona, he's also a fan of the blues.
"If you do not dig the blues.......you've got a hole in your soul." - Albert King
If this guy also likes single malt scotch, well, then, I think I've found my long lost twin. :-)
My preference is kahlua or a red wine with double caronas - or water as I am currently restricting myself to. I do not drink much anymore - particularly when I am in weight loss mode as I am now - but yes, I do like scotch too. (When back to my fighting weight I will ease up on that restriction a tad.)
I also enjoyed catching up with the G-Man's post on Papal infallibility. Understanding the basis for infallibility necessarily entails a history lesson on primacy, and Mr. McElhinney comes through again with a nice primer on the issue of Papal primacy. Worth your time.
Thankyou. That is part of a larger essay written in late 2000 and published in early 2001. My intention was to start from the wider parameters of Christian disunity and then move slowly in the direction of unity. And before one can get to infallibility (and to avoid infinite regress) they have to tackle the issue of authority. For if you recognize a visible Church then that Church has to have authority. And further still, that authority must be able to command assent to teaching even when it is not speaking infallibly or appearing to manifest that intention - presupposing for a moment that the Church is gifted with such a charism.
There are about three or four discourses on the subject on my weblog alone. Not that I am "eager" to discuss it but it seems there is no shortage of artificial restrictions placed on the principle based on a falsely legalistic presupposition. There are no "magic words" for infallibility - no required solemn expressions, no incense, no peppermints, etc. Until that understanding is better grasped, there will continue to be misunderstandings by the score on this theme. If traditional obedience was practiced it would not be as problematical as it is but alas the number who can honestly call themselves Traditionalists today is a minority of professed Catholics. (And most who do call themselves "traditionalists" are counterfeit coins if you will: Caveat Emptor/Lector if you will.)
The source I am quoting can be read here.
Not only does I. Shawn
Shawn please, my friends call me Shawn :)
enjoy the occasional fine double corona, he's also a fan of the blues.
"If you do not dig the blues.......you've got a hole in your soul." - Albert King
If this guy also likes single malt scotch, well, then, I think I've found my long lost twin. :-)
My preference is kahlua or a red wine with double caronas - or water as I am currently restricting myself to. I do not drink much anymore - particularly when I am in weight loss mode as I am now - but yes, I do like scotch too. (When back to my fighting weight I will ease up on that restriction a tad.)
I also enjoyed catching up with the G-Man's post on Papal infallibility. Understanding the basis for infallibility necessarily entails a history lesson on primacy, and Mr. McElhinney comes through again with a nice primer on the issue of Papal primacy. Worth your time.
Thankyou. That is part of a larger essay written in late 2000 and published in early 2001. My intention was to start from the wider parameters of Christian disunity and then move slowly in the direction of unity. And before one can get to infallibility (and to avoid infinite regress) they have to tackle the issue of authority. For if you recognize a visible Church then that Church has to have authority. And further still, that authority must be able to command assent to teaching even when it is not speaking infallibly or appearing to manifest that intention - presupposing for a moment that the Church is gifted with such a charism.
There are about three or four discourses on the subject on my weblog alone. Not that I am "eager" to discuss it but it seems there is no shortage of artificial restrictions placed on the principle based on a falsely legalistic presupposition. There are no "magic words" for infallibility - no required solemn expressions, no incense, no peppermints, etc. Until that understanding is better grasped, there will continue to be misunderstandings by the score on this theme. If traditional obedience was practiced it would not be as problematical as it is but alas the number who can honestly call themselves Traditionalists today is a minority of professed Catholics. (And most who do call themselves "traditionalists" are counterfeit coins if you will: Caveat Emptor/Lector if you will.)
Well I suppose it would seem rather incongruous for me to not acknowledge that Pete Vere has me and Shawn Tribe being "auctioned off" to the ladies at St. Blogs. As this is election time, I will play along and aid interested parties by publishing three "political commercials" to "highlight" the differences between two guys who would appear by Pete's description to be carbon copies of one another. No ladies, there are distinct differences and we will point them out to you for easier selection in the bidding as a "public service" for the good ladies at St. Blog's parish.
Friday, October 11, 2002
"Des-pite All the Comp-u-ta-tions, You Can Just Dance to a Rock and Roll Staaaaatiooooon" Dept.
A very good article on "rock and roll conservatism" can be read here. I am wondering if the author of the piece realizes just how Thomistic this approach really is.
Oh and btw, those who doubt me on the matter be assured, I can back up this assertion :) Indeed anyone who looks carefully at the methods and principles of the Angelic Doctor - which are and always will be viable - should see precisely what I refer to.
A very good article on "rock and roll conservatism" can be read here. I am wondering if the author of the piece realizes just how Thomistic this approach really is.
Oh and btw, those who doubt me on the matter be assured, I can back up this assertion :) Indeed anyone who looks carefully at the methods and principles of the Angelic Doctor - which are and always will be viable - should see precisely what I refer to.
Oh, before I forget...
If anyone from Washington D.C. would be interested in doing a Guest Editorial on the shootings and the impact they are having on the community of DC, please email me at ismac@lycos.com with suggested pieces. I want to hear from someone in the area who is at the community level if you will; not simply the stories from the big "establishment" papers who often seem to like to glorify violence to sell newsprint. To get an idea of the format I use, here are the last two guest editorials run at Rerum Novarum on non-ecclesial subjects. (We have run 4 total editorials thus far.)
Bipolar Disorder is No Laughing Matter - by Lisa Graas
September 11, 2001: A New Yorker's Ruminations on the Event and its Aftermath - by Bill Bannon
Those are the sort of approaches we are looking for.
If anyone from Washington D.C. would be interested in doing a Guest Editorial on the shootings and the impact they are having on the community of DC, please email me at ismac@lycos.com with suggested pieces. I want to hear from someone in the area who is at the community level if you will; not simply the stories from the big "establishment" papers who often seem to like to glorify violence to sell newsprint. To get an idea of the format I use, here are the last two guest editorials run at Rerum Novarum on non-ecclesial subjects. (We have run 4 total editorials thus far.)
Bipolar Disorder is No Laughing Matter - by Lisa Graas
September 11, 2001: A New Yorker's Ruminations on the Event and its Aftermath - by Bill Bannon
Those are the sort of approaches we are looking for.
Courtesy of The JunkYard Blog
AND NOW, A WORD FROM some idiots.
The Transform Columbus Day Alliance actively rejects the celebration of Christopher Columbus and his legacy of domination, oppression, and colonialism.
By saying NO to Columbus we are saying YES to a new future in the Americas. A future of mutual respect, collaboration and equality.
A future that respects:
the rights of indigenous peoples
the natural environment democratic & economic justice over corporate globalization gender equity over global patriarchy free and equal speech over hate speech
What the #$%% is "equal speech?"
Answer: anything other than what these people do not like. Maybe if these kinds of people were more familiar with Bastiat they would know that there are three rights that precede all legislation. Yet these people would want to legislate against those fundamental rights of man. This is part of the law perverted my friends, I will add a section to the series probably tonight before bedtime or tomorrow morning. But in the meantime, those who have not read the installments thus far please do so. You will see that we have already identified enemies of liberty such as the above - enemies who think socialism is the solution to problems (or preceived "problems").
AND NOW, A WORD FROM some idiots.
The Transform Columbus Day Alliance actively rejects the celebration of Christopher Columbus and his legacy of domination, oppression, and colonialism.
By saying NO to Columbus we are saying YES to a new future in the Americas. A future of mutual respect, collaboration and equality.
A future that respects:
the rights of indigenous peoples
the natural environment democratic & economic justice over corporate globalization gender equity over global patriarchy free and equal speech over hate speech
What the #$%% is "equal speech?"
Answer: anything other than what these people do not like. Maybe if these kinds of people were more familiar with Bastiat they would know that there are three rights that precede all legislation. Yet these people would want to legislate against those fundamental rights of man. This is part of the law perverted my friends, I will add a section to the series probably tonight before bedtime or tomorrow morning. But in the meantime, those who have not read the installments thus far please do so. You will see that we have already identified enemies of liberty such as the above - enemies who think socialism is the solution to problems (or preceived "problems").
In honour of the 157th anniversary of Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman's reception into full communion with the Catholic Church, I offer this poem written by him twelve years earlier when he was lost at sea - shortly before he co-founded the Tractarian movement. The actual day was yesterday and I kinda am kicking myself for needing a reminder by Lane Core Jr about it. (Like Lane I owe a lot to this saintly man.) The poem is called "THE PILLAR OF THE CLOUD":
Lead, Kindly Light, amid the encircling gloom -
Lead Thou me on!
The night is dark, and I am far from home -
Lead Thou me on!
Keep Thou my feet; I do not ask to see
The distant scene - one step enough for me.
I was not ever thus, nor pray'd that Thou
Shouldst lead me on.
I loved to choose and see my path, but now
Lead Thou me on!
I loved the garish day, and, spite of fears,
Pride ruled my will; remember not past years.
So long Thy power hath blest me, sure it still
Will lead me on,
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone;
And with the morn those angel faces smile
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile.
- John Henry Newman
Lead, Kindly Light, amid the encircling gloom -
Lead Thou me on!
The night is dark, and I am far from home -
Lead Thou me on!
Keep Thou my feet; I do not ask to see
The distant scene - one step enough for me.
I was not ever thus, nor pray'd that Thou
Shouldst lead me on.
I loved to choose and see my path, but now
Lead Thou me on!
I loved the garish day, and, spite of fears,
Pride ruled my will; remember not past years.
So long Thy power hath blest me, sure it still
Will lead me on,
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone;
And with the morn those angel faces smile
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile.
- John Henry Newman
Revisiting "Authority and Infallibility" in Brief:
The following was an email response to this post.
You said that I need “to make it much clearer that the issue is AUTHORITY and not INFALLIBILITY. The authority of the teacher teaching in the Name of and with the Authority of God Incarnate is what binds, not the subjective opinion of individuals on whether or not a given teaching is infallible or not.”
1) If what constitutes infallibility is “the subjective opinion of individuals,” then the Church’s infallibility is her shell game, not her charism.
My point was that obedience to a teaching handed on by the Supreme Authority is by that fact alone what is determines its binding nature. Infallibility is a corollary if you will. It denotes a degree of certitude and a specific theological qualification. It is not the criterion for the truth or irreformability of a teaching. Too many people object to a teaching of the Church because "it is not infallible". Despite the fact that there are many more infallible teachings than most people are aware of, there is also the element of repetition which hands on a teaching definitively even if some of the teachings individually are not infallible.
The reason I referred to "subjective opinion of theologians" is because those who predicate obedience on infallibility do not understand the principle of obedience as a virtue at all. They also do not understand the principle of an authority that teaches in God's name and with His authority. There is a reason that Jesus told his followers to obey "whatsoever [the Scribes and Pharisees] tell you" and it was not because they were sterling characters to be personally emulated. No, it was *solely* because they "sit on Moshe's seat". Meaning: they teach with authority and are to be heeded. Our Lord even went on to outline areas where they abused their authority but He did not give His followers any excuses to not be obedient: not one. If this principle was to be adhered to in the imperfect precursor to the Lord, then it applies with even greater stress in the perfected covenant. In short, there is no excuse for disobedience in ecclesiastical matters. PERIOD.
2) If the dog of infallibility is wagged by its tail of authority, then the Church is all bark and no bite, an authoritarian organization based upon power and not a rational organization based upon truth.
Well first of all the Church is *not* a "rational organization" though she is not opposed to reason of course.
2) If the dog of infallibility is wagged by its tail of authority, then the Church is all bark and no bite, an authoritarian organization based upon power and not a rational organization based upon truth.
To state that authority has "no bite" without infallibility is ludicrous. By this "logic" we have no need to obey any authority that is not "infallible". Unless you believe God is the Author of chaos, you should banish such a thought from your mind and conform your speculations within the realm of what the Church has specified is acceptable.
I could go on but perhaps reiterating part of the teaching that a Catholic is supposed to hold and profess is in order here. I will refrain from listing the canons as my focus here is on the teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church which at the First Vatican Council taught the following on faith and reason. (Areas underlined are those where you tend to go askew not infrequently.)
Chapter 4. On faith and reason
1.The perpetual agreement of the catholic church has maintained and maintains this too: that there is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards its source, but also as regards its objects object.
2.With regard to the source, we know at the one level by natural reason, at the other level by divine faith.
3.With regard to the object, besides those things to which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, are incapable of being known. Wherefore, when the Apostle, who witnesses that God was known to the gentiles from created things [29] , comes to treat of the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ [30], he declares: We impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification. None of the rulers of this age understood this. God has revealed it to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God [31]. And the Only-begotten himself, in his confession to the Father, acknowledges that the Father has hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to the little ones [32]
4.Now reason, does indeed when it seeks persistently, piously and soberly, achieve by God's gift some understanding, and that most profitable, of the mysteries, whether by analogy from what it knows naturally, or from the connexion of these mysteries with one another and with the final end of humanity; but reason is never rendered capable of penetrating these mysteries in the way in which it penetrates those truths which form its proper object.
Forthe divine mysteries, by their very nature, so far surpass the created understanding that, even when a revelation has been given and accepted by faith, they remain covered by the veil of that same faith and wrapped, as it were, in a certain obscurity, as long as in this mortal life we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, and not by sight [33].
5.Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since it is the same God who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason.
6.God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth. The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.
7.Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false [34] .
8.Furthermore the church which, together with its apostolic office of teaching, has received the charge of preserving the deposit of faith, has by divine appointment the right and duty of condemning what wrongly passes for knowledge, lest anyone be led astray by philosophy and empty deceit [35] .
9.Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth.
10.Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds.
11.Hence, so far is the church from hindering the development of human arts and studies, that in fact she assists and promotes them in many ways. For she is neither ignorant nor contemptuous of the advantages which derive from this source for human life, rather she acknowledges that those things flow from God, the lord of sciences, and, if they are properly used, lead to God by the help of his grace.
12.Nor does the church forbid these studies to employ, each within its own area, its own proper principles and method: but while she admits this just freedom, she takes particular care that they do not become infected with errors by conflicting with divine teaching, or, by going beyond their proper limits, intrude upon what belongs to faith and engender confusion.
13.For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
14. Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding [36].
[29] Rm 1, 20 [30] Jn 1, 17 [31] i Cor 2, 7-8, 10 [32] Mt 11, 25
[33] 2 Cor 5, 6-7 [34] See Lateran council V, session 8 (see above p. 605). [35] See Col 2, 8 [36] Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium (Notebook), 28 (PL 50, 668).
Those are the areas where you need to reflect long and hard upon. I recommend also a letter written to a friend of mine which should also be of assistance. I will finish with some canons from the same Dogmatic Constitution - my commentary interspersed.
5. If anyone says that the assent to christian faith is not free, but is necessarily produced by arguments of human reason; or that the grace of God is necessary only for living faith which works by charity: let him be anathema.
Implication: the grace of God is necessary for proper utilization of reason.
1. If anyone says that in divine revelation there are contained no true mysteries properly so-called, but that all the dogmas of the faith can be understood and demonstrated by properly trained reason from natural principles: let him be anathema.
Implication: philosophy without theology is inadequate. One can through reason demonstrate the existence of God but beyond that one either chases their tail endlessly or they tap into the divine sciences and actually grow in their understanding of the abstract tenants of the faith. But abstract concepts are useless without pastoral application. Unless you think you can show your faith without works that is. If so the Apostle James disagrees with you (cf. James ii,14ff).
The following was an email response to this post.
You said that I need “to make it much clearer that the issue is AUTHORITY and not INFALLIBILITY. The authority of the teacher teaching in the Name of and with the Authority of God Incarnate is what binds, not the subjective opinion of individuals on whether or not a given teaching is infallible or not.”
1) If what constitutes infallibility is “the subjective opinion of individuals,” then the Church’s infallibility is her shell game, not her charism.
My point was that obedience to a teaching handed on by the Supreme Authority is by that fact alone what is determines its binding nature. Infallibility is a corollary if you will. It denotes a degree of certitude and a specific theological qualification. It is not the criterion for the truth or irreformability of a teaching. Too many people object to a teaching of the Church because "it is not infallible". Despite the fact that there are many more infallible teachings than most people are aware of, there is also the element of repetition which hands on a teaching definitively even if some of the teachings individually are not infallible.
The reason I referred to "subjective opinion of theologians" is because those who predicate obedience on infallibility do not understand the principle of obedience as a virtue at all. They also do not understand the principle of an authority that teaches in God's name and with His authority. There is a reason that Jesus told his followers to obey "whatsoever [the Scribes and Pharisees] tell you" and it was not because they were sterling characters to be personally emulated. No, it was *solely* because they "sit on Moshe's seat". Meaning: they teach with authority and are to be heeded. Our Lord even went on to outline areas where they abused their authority but He did not give His followers any excuses to not be obedient: not one. If this principle was to be adhered to in the imperfect precursor to the Lord, then it applies with even greater stress in the perfected covenant. In short, there is no excuse for disobedience in ecclesiastical matters. PERIOD.
2) If the dog of infallibility is wagged by its tail of authority, then the Church is all bark and no bite, an authoritarian organization based upon power and not a rational organization based upon truth.
Well first of all the Church is *not* a "rational organization" though she is not opposed to reason of course.
2) If the dog of infallibility is wagged by its tail of authority, then the Church is all bark and no bite, an authoritarian organization based upon power and not a rational organization based upon truth.
To state that authority has "no bite" without infallibility is ludicrous. By this "logic" we have no need to obey any authority that is not "infallible". Unless you believe God is the Author of chaos, you should banish such a thought from your mind and conform your speculations within the realm of what the Church has specified is acceptable.
I could go on but perhaps reiterating part of the teaching that a Catholic is supposed to hold and profess is in order here. I will refrain from listing the canons as my focus here is on the teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church which at the First Vatican Council taught the following on faith and reason. (Areas underlined are those where you tend to go askew not infrequently.)
Chapter 4. On faith and reason
1.The perpetual agreement of the catholic church has maintained and maintains this too: that there is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards its source, but also as regards its objects object.
2.With regard to the source, we know at the one level by natural reason, at the other level by divine faith.
3.With regard to the object, besides those things to which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, are incapable of being known. Wherefore, when the Apostle, who witnesses that God was known to the gentiles from created things [29] , comes to treat of the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ [30], he declares: We impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification. None of the rulers of this age understood this. God has revealed it to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God [31]. And the Only-begotten himself, in his confession to the Father, acknowledges that the Father has hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to the little ones [32]
4.Now reason, does indeed when it seeks persistently, piously and soberly, achieve by God's gift some understanding, and that most profitable, of the mysteries, whether by analogy from what it knows naturally, or from the connexion of these mysteries with one another and with the final end of humanity; but reason is never rendered capable of penetrating these mysteries in the way in which it penetrates those truths which form its proper object.
Forthe divine mysteries, by their very nature, so far surpass the created understanding that, even when a revelation has been given and accepted by faith, they remain covered by the veil of that same faith and wrapped, as it were, in a certain obscurity, as long as in this mortal life we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, and not by sight [33].
5.Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since it is the same God who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason.
6.God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth. The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.
7.Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false [34] .
8.Furthermore the church which, together with its apostolic office of teaching, has received the charge of preserving the deposit of faith, has by divine appointment the right and duty of condemning what wrongly passes for knowledge, lest anyone be led astray by philosophy and empty deceit [35] .
9.Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth.
10.Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds.
11.Hence, so far is the church from hindering the development of human arts and studies, that in fact she assists and promotes them in many ways. For she is neither ignorant nor contemptuous of the advantages which derive from this source for human life, rather she acknowledges that those things flow from God, the lord of sciences, and, if they are properly used, lead to God by the help of his grace.
12.Nor does the church forbid these studies to employ, each within its own area, its own proper principles and method: but while she admits this just freedom, she takes particular care that they do not become infected with errors by conflicting with divine teaching, or, by going beyond their proper limits, intrude upon what belongs to faith and engender confusion.
13.For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
14. Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding [36].
[29] Rm 1, 20 [30] Jn 1, 17 [31] i Cor 2, 7-8, 10 [32] Mt 11, 25
[33] 2 Cor 5, 6-7 [34] See Lateran council V, session 8 (see above p. 605). [35] See Col 2, 8 [36] Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium (Notebook), 28 (PL 50, 668).
Those are the areas where you need to reflect long and hard upon. I recommend also a letter written to a friend of mine which should also be of assistance. I will finish with some canons from the same Dogmatic Constitution - my commentary interspersed.
5. If anyone says that the assent to christian faith is not free, but is necessarily produced by arguments of human reason; or that the grace of God is necessary only for living faith which works by charity: let him be anathema.
Implication: the grace of God is necessary for proper utilization of reason.
1. If anyone says that in divine revelation there are contained no true mysteries properly so-called, but that all the dogmas of the faith can be understood and demonstrated by properly trained reason from natural principles: let him be anathema.
Implication: philosophy without theology is inadequate. One can through reason demonstrate the existence of God but beyond that one either chases their tail endlessly or they tap into the divine sciences and actually grow in their understanding of the abstract tenants of the faith. But abstract concepts are useless without pastoral application. Unless you think you can show your faith without works that is. If so the Apostle James disagrees with you (cf. James ii,14ff).
Thursday, October 10, 2002
"Athos, Porthos, and Aramis Seeking D'artagnan[s]" Dept.
Other than Bill Cork and myself we have another who has has made the Professio Fidei. (Referring to Lane Core, Jr.) He did so on the anniversary of his reception into full communion with the Catholic Church which was October 9th. I had not visited his site for about six days so I only became aware of this today.
So we have in essence a "blogosphere Athos, Porthos, and Aramis" now. Is there a "D'artagnan" (or many perhaps) to be found??? The more the better as "all for one, and one for all" is a very Catholic concept when you really get down to brass tacks :)
Other than Bill Cork and myself we have another who has has made the Professio Fidei. (Referring to Lane Core, Jr.) He did so on the anniversary of his reception into full communion with the Catholic Church which was October 9th. I had not visited his site for about six days so I only became aware of this today.
So we have in essence a "blogosphere Athos, Porthos, and Aramis" now. Is there a "D'artagnan" (or many perhaps) to be found??? The more the better as "all for one, and one for all" is a very Catholic concept when you really get down to brass tacks :)
Rerum Novarum Thoroughly Uproots and Destroys Another Perfidious Pseudo-Catholic Apostate and Causes Them To Retract, Humbly Confess Their Errors Under Fear Of Excommunication, Submit To Our Sovereign Authority, and Beg Our Forgiveness On Both Knees In Three Feet of Snow!!!*
Boy life would sure be easy if every disagreement with me was cause to be defrocked and excommunicated, keel-hauled and hung from a yardarm. But of course life is not that easy and I would not want it to be. Simplistic solutions almost never work as well in reality as they do in the abstract. But I digress...
Unlike some so-called "apologists" who think any theological disagreements in areas of free speculation is tantmount to heterodoxy, your blog host is Traditional in the truest sense of the word; this is not in the sense of the so-called "traditionalists". (Who are basically the Catholic Church's version of the Reformed confession's "Truly Reformed".) And apparently upon reading my intention to do lyric analysis of Red Ragtop, The Mighty Barrister went back and looked at the song and has recanted his original position. Thanks Eric as you saved me the time analyzing the lyrics as I had planned to do out of a sense of necessity.
However, I may still do it now as a side project as there are subtle undertones in them that I found very interesting; inferences if you will to a lot of what is wrong with "conventional wisdom" today in the area of male and female intimate relationships. It has been a while since I delved into that subject - quite a long while actually. (That was one realm I used to discuss a lot contemporary to when I was just starting to get involved with religious apologetics and after I had moved away from political-science issues and sports-talk issues.)
In short, from a lyrical standpoint, I can see why there has been so much controversy. My gut instinct told me initially that it had to be a pro-life inference or else the media would not make a big deal about it. Upon examining it closer that intuition was correct. (Shawn's law of inverse application at work in spades.) But there is more to it than just the abortion subject. This will be noted later on if I decide to go into the subject. (Agenda-wise it has moved back to "Defcom 5".)
Nonetheless, The Mighty Barrister in making a mea culpa has increased his stock in my book and not only because he now agrees with me. (Though the latter of course is not primary amongst my "stock market indicators".) Humility is an often lacking virtue amongst apologist sorts - and the lacuna is greater in proportion to two elements (i) the individual's personal insecurities and (ii) the individual's lack of knowledge in certain areas which contributes to the first one. But then those who do not delude themselves into thinking that they know everything do not put themselves into a position where they are insecure. But lest I digress, time to wrap this entry up.
Eric, thankyou for validating my instincts about you which prompted my including your blog in my list back on the September 30th major blog update. Keep up the good work :)
* Not a reference to Petrus Verus to whom a monitum is still out on ;-)
Boy life would sure be easy if every disagreement with me was cause to be defrocked and excommunicated, keel-hauled and hung from a yardarm. But of course life is not that easy and I would not want it to be. Simplistic solutions almost never work as well in reality as they do in the abstract. But I digress...
Unlike some so-called "apologists" who think any theological disagreements in areas of free speculation is tantmount to heterodoxy, your blog host is Traditional in the truest sense of the word; this is not in the sense of the so-called "traditionalists". (Who are basically the Catholic Church's version of the Reformed confession's "Truly Reformed".) And apparently upon reading my intention to do lyric analysis of Red Ragtop, The Mighty Barrister went back and looked at the song and has recanted his original position. Thanks Eric as you saved me the time analyzing the lyrics as I had planned to do out of a sense of necessity.
However, I may still do it now as a side project as there are subtle undertones in them that I found very interesting; inferences if you will to a lot of what is wrong with "conventional wisdom" today in the area of male and female intimate relationships. It has been a while since I delved into that subject - quite a long while actually. (That was one realm I used to discuss a lot contemporary to when I was just starting to get involved with religious apologetics and after I had moved away from political-science issues and sports-talk issues.)
In short, from a lyrical standpoint, I can see why there has been so much controversy. My gut instinct told me initially that it had to be a pro-life inference or else the media would not make a big deal about it. Upon examining it closer that intuition was correct. (Shawn's law of inverse application at work in spades.) But there is more to it than just the abortion subject. This will be noted later on if I decide to go into the subject. (Agenda-wise it has moved back to "Defcom 5".)
Nonetheless, The Mighty Barrister in making a mea culpa has increased his stock in my book and not only because he now agrees with me. (Though the latter of course is not primary amongst my "stock market indicators".) Humility is an often lacking virtue amongst apologist sorts - and the lacuna is greater in proportion to two elements (i) the individual's personal insecurities and (ii) the individual's lack of knowledge in certain areas which contributes to the first one. But then those who do not delude themselves into thinking that they know everything do not put themselves into a position where they are insecure. But lest I digress, time to wrap this entry up.
Eric, thankyou for validating my instincts about you which prompted my including your blog in my list back on the September 30th major blog update. Keep up the good work :)
* Not a reference to Petrus Verus to whom a monitum is still out on ;-)
Updates to Rerum Novarum:
The links and blogs that are being moved from "limbo" to the site today and receiving my magisterial approval motu proprio include:
Websites:
Second Exodus
Opus Dei
Weblogs:
Kevin Miller's "De Virtutibus" BLOG
Lisa Graas "Gen X" BLOG
Shawn's "Eastern Catholic Corner":
Pope Leo XIII's encyclical letter Orientalum Dignitas (On the Churches of the East).
Several others have moved into "limbo" now and those beneath these move up if you will. (With the exception of magisterial documents which do not need my approval of their content of course.) With regards to Opus Dei, I have commented on them very rarely over the years. However, as I noted here the value of the apostolate and the sanctity of its founder are not areas where I can dispute any longer in good conscience. I add the link to the apostolate on this weblog and submit mind and will to the Church as these issues are no longer subject to debate. St. Jose Maria Escriva, ora pro nobis!!!
The links and blogs that are being moved from "limbo" to the site today and receiving my magisterial approval motu proprio include:
Websites:
Second Exodus
Opus Dei
Weblogs:
Kevin Miller's "De Virtutibus" BLOG
Lisa Graas "Gen X" BLOG
Shawn's "Eastern Catholic Corner":
Pope Leo XIII's encyclical letter Orientalum Dignitas (On the Churches of the East).
Several others have moved into "limbo" now and those beneath these move up if you will. (With the exception of magisterial documents which do not need my approval of their content of course.) With regards to Opus Dei, I have commented on them very rarely over the years. However, as I noted here the value of the apostolate and the sanctity of its founder are not areas where I can dispute any longer in good conscience. I add the link to the apostolate on this weblog and submit mind and will to the Church as these issues are no longer subject to debate. St. Jose Maria Escriva, ora pro nobis!!!
"Losing My Religion" Dept.
I was having flashbacks to my discussions with the Internet Infidels when I read Dale Price's post on Richard Dawkins. Well...not all the infidels, just the ones that tried to diss theism and elevate the "superiority" of that myth called "free thought". Most of the time the Infidels were reasonably amiable though they had the operative presupposition that any theist - especially a Christian - was defacto dumber than a sack of hammers until the individual demonstrated otherwise. At least that was my experience. (Usually this was with former Christians - particularly former fundys. The truth that nature abhors a vacuum was seldom more vividly illustrated but I digress...)
In a way I cannot blame some of them who on a daily basis had to deal with radical fundys and those who came in and threw around Pascal's Wager smugly as if they had "refuted" the infidel's thinking. It was BRUTAL the way they would rip into such people and decimate their arguments. But those of us who made up the small remnant of five thinking theists versus about a seventy-five infidels and about twenty odd fundys (yeah we did dress down the fundys too at times) we held our own. Considering that later fundy boards either banned us or discontinued the sections whereby they would let us "unwashed" go into (or they started deleting our posts: that was one reason I started saving posts on Word first) the infidels were in a sense more "Christian" than some so-called "Christians" who took extreme positions and acted like little "Ivan the Terribles" when we would point out the inconsistencies in their stated positions. But anyway, here is Dale's post on the subject. Enjoy!!!
I was having flashbacks to my discussions with the Internet Infidels when I read Dale Price's post on Richard Dawkins. Well...not all the infidels, just the ones that tried to diss theism and elevate the "superiority" of that myth called "free thought". Most of the time the Infidels were reasonably amiable though they had the operative presupposition that any theist - especially a Christian - was defacto dumber than a sack of hammers until the individual demonstrated otherwise. At least that was my experience. (Usually this was with former Christians - particularly former fundys. The truth that nature abhors a vacuum was seldom more vividly illustrated but I digress...)
In a way I cannot blame some of them who on a daily basis had to deal with radical fundys and those who came in and threw around Pascal's Wager smugly as if they had "refuted" the infidel's thinking. It was BRUTAL the way they would rip into such people and decimate their arguments. But those of us who made up the small remnant of five thinking theists versus about a seventy-five infidels and about twenty odd fundys (yeah we did dress down the fundys too at times) we held our own. Considering that later fundy boards either banned us or discontinued the sections whereby they would let us "unwashed" go into (or they started deleting our posts: that was one reason I started saving posts on Word first) the infidels were in a sense more "Christian" than some so-called "Christians" who took extreme positions and acted like little "Ivan the Terribles" when we would point out the inconsistencies in their stated positions. But anyway, here is Dale's post on the subject. Enjoy!!!
Wednesday, October 09, 2002
Forget the analysis being done tonight. I got on a roll and had it finished much quicker than I thought and then messed up and lost the text. So look for the analysis of the lyrics of the song tomorrow evening or so. (I am not in the mood to redo it right now and may not even be tomorrow evening either: partly because I actually thought it was really good on the first take and am not sure if the retake will be as good.)
"X Files" Dept.
Have you ever blogged on a subject and then went back to find the entry and it was not to be found??? I was over at the Mighty Barrister and read Eric's take on Tim McGraw's hit song and my view was 180 degrees from his. I can remember writing the entry. I can remember linking to Kevin Miller's weblog, I even posted a link to the song lyrics too. But I cannot find the piece. It was blogged right after the dissertation on the blues so it is not as if I had to dig in my archives for it...Strange...
Nonetheless, I do not like disagreeing with Eric on an issue such as this since it touches on an important subject (abortion). So for my readers, I will try to dig up the lyrics to the controversial song and go over them with commentary before I turn in tonight hopefully. (If not then I will put it on the schedule for first thing tomorrow after my morning chai.)
Have you ever blogged on a subject and then went back to find the entry and it was not to be found??? I was over at the Mighty Barrister and read Eric's take on Tim McGraw's hit song and my view was 180 degrees from his. I can remember writing the entry. I can remember linking to Kevin Miller's weblog, I even posted a link to the song lyrics too. But I cannot find the piece. It was blogged right after the dissertation on the blues so it is not as if I had to dig in my archives for it...Strange...
Nonetheless, I do not like disagreeing with Eric on an issue such as this since it touches on an important subject (abortion). So for my readers, I will try to dig up the lyrics to the controversial song and go over them with commentary before I turn in tonight hopefully. (If not then I will put it on the schedule for first thing tomorrow after my morning chai.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)