Amy Klobuchar, Tom Steyer couldn’t name Mexican president in interview

This is not a good optic for these two second tier candidates but instead resembles Gary Johnson's "What's Aleppo?" gaffe from 2016.

On Papal Claims of Magisterial Authority:
(Musing of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

Disclaimer: The material presented below was originally written as part of a longer project but excised due to the project running overlong. It is presented here in a revised form with a few small additions.

The papacy underwent a development in its earliest years; however, there are clues to be had as to how the popes conceived of their magisterial authority from the earliest days. Without further ado, we start with the late first century and Pope Clement I who in his Epistle to the Corinthians admonished the rebellious Corinthians as follows:

[Y]e therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue.{1}

The Anglican church historian Dr. T. G. Jalland explained the significance of this intervention as follows:

If it is true to say of the Roman intervention that ‘the authority is implicit, it being left to subsequent generations to make explicit the reasons which prompted an instinctive action’ (Lowell Clark, First Epistle of Clement pg. 20), we are still left with the question as to the source from which the instinct itself was derived. Instincts are usually traceable to habits of past generations. Was the source in this case merely the habituation of the Roman people to the government of others: or was it not rather, as the whole tone of the epistle would suggest, some custom which could claim a sanction apostolic or even Dominical in origen?{2}

From the late first century, we move into the late second century and a controversy surrounding the celebration of the feast of Easter. The Lutheran church historian Dr. Adolph Harnack explained what happened in the following way:

[Victor] ventured by an edict (one might say a pre-emptory edict) with reference to the arrangement of ecclesiastical feasts to proclaim the rule of the Roman practice as a general rule of the Church and to announce that any local church would be excluded as heretical from the fellowship of the one Church, if it did not adopt the Roman arrangement. How could Victor have ventured upon such an edict (still less to put it into actual effect, even if he had the strength to do so) unless it was established and recognized that in the decisive question of faith it was eminently the function of the Roman church to determine the conditions of the "common unity"? How could Victor have made such an unheard-of demand to the independent local churches, unless, as Bishop of Rome, he had been recognized as the guardian of the "common unity."{3}

Moving to the third century, we find arguably the first example of the Roman Pontiff making an explicit reference to the power of the keys to modify a significant part of church discipline.{4} Dr. Adolph Harnack explained the situation as follows:

Callistus was the first who emphasized the consequences [of the supposition that Paul and Peter founded the church at Rome]. If Tertullian names him scornfully ‘pontifex maximus’, ‘episcopus episcoporum’, ‘benedictus papa’, and ‘apostolicus’, these [appellations] are so many allusions to the fact that Callistus has already claimed a primacy for himself, or rather that he has annexed to his person as bishop the primacy which the Roman church possessed…From the motivation, in so far as Callistus appealed (for the first time in history) to Matt. xvi. 18ff to justify his action; and from Tertullian’s opposition, for Tertullian treats this edict not as directed locally to Rome, but one which is pregnant with consequences for all of Christendom.{5}

It was only a matter of time before a pope would come about who would tie together and embody explicitly everything that was implied in the increasingly regular claims of the popes.{6} This happened in the fifth century with Pope St. Leo the Great:

Leo is credited with asserting the authority and primacy of the successor to St. Peter in all Church matters, even enlisting the help of the current Roman emperor, Valentinian III, who issued an edict to the bishop in Gaul mandating “that nothing should be done in Gaul contrary to ancient usage, without the authority of the bishop of Rome, and that the decree of the apostolic see should henceforth be law.” When St. Leo’s position on Christ’s natures prevailed at the Council of Chalcedon, it helped launch the papacy into the position of dominance it has enjoyed ever since.{7}

From that point, it was a small step towards a sixth century pope settling a church schism by basically ordering eastern churches as a condition for his communion the swearing of a Profession of Faith containing the following explicit formulation:

The first means of safety is to guard the rule of strict faith and to deviate in no way from those things that have been laid down by the Fathers. And indeed the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: "Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church" cannot be disregarded; these things which were spoken are demonstrated by the results, for the Catholic religion has been preserved ever immaculate in the Apostolic See.{8}

And of course we have Pope St. Agatho I in a later controversy explaining his view of the papal primacy in these words to Emperor Constantine IV:

I beseech you with a contrite heart and rivers of tears, with prostrated mind, deign to stretch forth your most clement right hand to the Apostolic doctrine which the co-worker of your pious labours, the blessed apostle Peter, has delivered, that it be not hidden under a bushel, but that it be preached in the whole earth more shrilly than a bugle: because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it, while the heretics have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred.{9}

It is not hard from that point to make the trajectory to a pope flat out claiming that not only is the Apostolic See the highest authority but that no one could judge the pope but God.{10} As one can readily see, the view of the popes of their Apostolic prerogatives is quite clear. It just so happens that a similar understanding was also shared by the early and later ecumenical councils as well.

Notes:

{1} Pope St. Clement I: From His Epistle to the Corinthians (circa 96 AD) as Quoted in the Rerum Novarum Post More on Popes, Heresy, Theology, Church History, Etc. (circa February 11, 2019)

{2} Dr. T. G. Jalland: From His Work The Church and the Papacy (c. 1944) As Cited in B.C. Butler’s The Church and Infallibility pgs. 129-30 (c. 1954) Quoted From the Writing The Ante-Nicene Development of Papal Primacy (circa February 2, 2002) extracted from material originally published on February 21, 2001.

{3} Dr. Adolph Harnack: From His Work Dogmengeschichte, 4^th ed., pp. 489f (c. 1904) As Cited in B.C. Butler’s The Church and Infallibility pg. 140 (c. 1954) Quoted From the Writing The Ante-Nicene Development of Papal Primacy (circa February 2, 2002) extracted from material originally published on February 21, 2001.

{4} Arguably what Pope St. Callistus I did in 220 AD or thereabout is a far more significant alteration of presumably inalterable tradition than what Pope Francis did with Amoris Laetitia in the controversial Chapter Eight.

{5} Dr. Adolph Harnack:  From His Work Dogmengeschichte, 4^th ed., pp. 492 (c. 1904) As Cited in B.C. Butler’s The Church and Infallibility pg. 140 (c. 1954) Quoted From the Writing The Ante-Nicene Development of Papal Primacy (circa February 2, 2002) extracted from material originally published on February 21, 2001.

{6} The "increasingly regular claims of the popes" to which I refer here is to a particular primacy of authority in the Church.

{7} Stephen Beale: Excerpt From His Catholic Exchange Article Why Pope Leo Was Great (circa November 13, 2012)

{8} Pope St. Hormisdas I: Excerpt From His Formulary of Hormisdas (circa 517 AD) as Quoted in the Rerum Novarum Post More on Popes, Heresy, Theology, Church History, Etc. (circa February 11, 2019)

{9} Pope St. Agatho I: Excerpt From His Letter to Pope Constantine IV (circa 681 AD) as Quoted in the Rerum Novarum Post More on Popes, Heresy, Theology, Church History, Etc. (circa February 11, 2019)

{10} "The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon." [Pope St. Nicholas I: From His Letter to Emperor Michael (circa 865 AD) as Paraphrased by the First Vatican Council Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus (circa July 18, 1870)]

Briefly...

The magisterium project I noted in a recent posting was somewhat derailed as to its original publication timeline for various and sundry reasons. I am glad to report that it is back on track for its originally scheduled publication date. It has gone through some review and is more than ninety-five percent ready. I am confident that it will debut in final form on Ash Wednesday of 2020.

For the seventh time in recent months, I will post an update on the Democratic presidential field which has expanded as well as contracted since the last update of this nature. As of this writing, it is at 9 8 candidates.{1} Here is a brief list of those who have dropped in and dropped out so far:


In the Race -Listed By Declaration Date:

Tulsi Gabbard (January 11, 2019)
Elizabeth Warren (February 9, 2019)
Amy Klobuchar (February 10, 2019)
Bernie Sanders (February 19, 2019)
Pete Buttigieg (April 14, 2019)
Joe Biden (April 25, 2019)
Tom Steyer (July 19, 2019)
Michael Bloomberg (November 24, 2019)


Out of the Race -Listed By Suspension Date:

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)
Tim Ryan (October 24, 2019)
Beto O'Rourke (November 1, 2019)
Wayne Messam (November 19, 2019)
Joe Sestak (December 1, 2019)
Steve Bullock (December 2, 2019)
Kamala Harris (December 3, 2019)
Julian Castro (January 2, 2020)
Marianne Williamson (January 9, 2020)
Corey Booker (January 13, 2020)
John Delaney (January 31, 2020)

Michael Bennett (February 11, 2020)

Andrew Yang (February 11, 2020)

Deval Patrick (February 12, 2020)

Note:

{1} Well technically there are others but the above listed ones are the only ones with a snowballs chance in hell of being nominated.

The last time I mentioned the magisterium project I was working on was as a brief aside from about a month ago while the last significant update was almost six weeks ago. There has not been much to report on as it was undergoing some private reviewings and still is but time and life have a way of detouring the best of intentions. I am still aiming for an Ash Wednesday 2020 publication as I noted back in November and hopefully, developments in recent days will get things back on track for that originally intended timeline.

Points to Ponder:
(From the Rerum Novarum Archive)

People today are programmed to look outward for peace of mind and soul and they will never find it exteriorly. They either have it interiorly or they do not. [Circa November 30, 2002)]

What I Really Think About Donald Trump

I concur with a lot of what is noted at the above link.

I'm really into ghost towns. I've driven cross-country the past few summers, and I would stop at some ghost towns along the way. They're like a microcosm of America as a whole. [Hong Chau]

Ghost towns exist in a variety of ways. For example, late last month, I found myself recalling with fondness the days of St. Blogs when there was once a vibrant writing community which for various reasons has disappeared. It has been replaced by a proverbial ghost town these days. A variety of reasons likely explain this phenomenon. For example, some members have passed on. Others perhaps had a combination of life circumstances as well as some burnout out as I did{1} and disappeared never to return. Others stayed on in some capacity however reduced{2} while a handful of others never seem to have left.{3} Certainly the proliferation of various social media formats such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc played I am sure no small role in this. In some respects, it may be better but in others it is surely not.

I think in particular at this time of some who have passed on such as Gerard Serafin whose websites were always ones I enjoyed visiting and from which I learned a good deal. Unfortunately, only one of his sites{4} remains online since his passing in 2004. Another was Karen Marie Knapp of From The Anchor Hold who passed on back in 2007. It really says something about someone such as David Alexander whose Man With Black Hat site started prior to my own and in all that time has never ceased production to at least some degree.{5} And while more could be noted, these few will have to suffice for now.

Rest in Peace Gerard and Karen.

Notes:

{1} Notification of Suspension (circa December 19, 2009)

{2} For example, Jeff Miller's The Curt Jester site.

{3} For example, G. Thomas Fitzpatrick's Recta Ratio site.

{4} The other is his old Praise of Glory website from which I learned so much about my eastern roots.

{5} It would seem his site has slowed some in recent years but considering my own was dormant for nearly eight years before resuming operations, it is still no small feat I have to say.

On Amoris Laetitia, Argumentation Fallacies, The Eye Beams of Some More Faithful Than Thou Folks, Etc. 

This is taken at least partly from a social media interaction recently. My words will be in regular font. Without further ado...

A bishop gives Holy Communion to public sinners at Mass in the Vatican...gee...that’s a mighty nice Familiaris Consortio and Book of the Holy Gospels you have there...it would be a shame if someone Amoris Laetitia’ed them...

Priests give communion to detractors, caluminators, and slanderers all the time whose sins in these area are of a public nature. Somehow that gets passed over though in the whole Animal Farmish "all public sin is bad but some public sin is more bad than others" mantra sadly more prevalent today amongst folks on the right than it once was.

Shawn...is this a real comment?

Yes MMMMMMM, it is.

The left makes this argument all the time...

That is a variation of the red herring fallacy known as the association fallacy. Something is not right or wrong based on who says it but instead by more objective criteria. And the argument is valid irrespective of who makes it.

one doesn’t live in a state of detraction...one lives in a state of adultery...

It is easier to commit regular and frequent calumny and false witness than it is to commit adultery.

one doesn’t live in a state of bank robbery...

Plenty of folks live lives full of regular slander and calumny. And often those folks do not confess these sins because they do not recognize what they are doing is sinful. But they go to communion anyway and the odds are high that they are not refused communion when they go either.

one lives in a state of abortion support...

One can live in states of heresy or schism in a variety of ways, not just abortion support. And for a lot of folks, perpetual calumny and false witness are as regular to them as the air they breathe. The advent of the Internet and social media have made this a very pervasive problem.

detraction...bank robbery...etc...are singular acts...

It is not that simple. There are at times single acts that is sure but there can also be pervasive patterns of detraction, calumny, slander/libel, and general thievery which are anything but singular acts.

the other thing involves one constant state of life..or constant frame of mind that is also public until it is changed...

That is a very convenient way to excuse one set of very grave sins. The admonion to the Pharisees by Jesus to remove the beam in ones own eye before trying to remove the specks in one's neighbours eye (cf Matt. vii,1-5) comes to mind here.

the Canons are clear...the commentaries on the Canons are clear....the canonists are clear...the moral theologians are clear...the saints commenting on them are clear...

You sound like a Protestant here with the whole "its perspicuous" argument with your particular hobby horses. Plus, the sources you refer to in bulk have a greater variegation to them than you are appearing to claim. By contrast, there is unanimity in the spiritual traditions west and east where issues frequently ignored by the More Faithful Than Thou are concerned. Issues such as the spiritual sickness of rash judgment for example. I could note others but that example is as good as any.

The argument that well there are other sins too is literally a leftist and impoverished one...

Yet more from the red herring fallacy variant known as the association fallacy I see. And actually, it is far from impoverished. The argument that there are grave sins frequently passed over by folks on the right while they bicker about the specks in the eyes of their chosen deplorables is not just a leftist one. There are folks on the left and the right who do the same thing with their pet issues and with the one you mention, its a prevalent problem with folks from the right.

it fails to to take into account the nature of an individual action and the possibility of repentance verses literally wallowing in something...publicly...persistently...obstinently...etc...

With all due respect, the tradosphere does plenty of precisely what you refer to here. They are not alone in this but all general groups have their issues where they ignore or make excuses for some grave sins (usually ones their comrades frequent) while condemning in stark terms the objectively grave sins of others. As I said, its very Animal Farmish.

it’s an apples and oranges comparison if there ever was one...

With all due respect, you are mistaken.

On Broadening the Twitter Tag, Social Media in General, Etc.:

A couple of years ago, I bowed a bit to the realities of the present age and introduced a Twitter sub post tag to this website for posts which deal with or post Twitter related material. I explained my reason as follows:

Twitter first launched to the public if my sources are right in the summer of 2006. I became aware of the phenomenon in 2007 but only launched my own twitter account in December of 2009 roughly around the time that this website was suspended in perpetuity... 

For better or worse, Twitter has become a pervasive force for communication and with a president who makes particular use of it[...], it seems appropriate to me to subtag Twitter themed threads.{1}

In like manner, Facebook has been a pervasive social media communication source for a good decade or more and I have made use of it since mid 2008 for various things. As other social media sources may well come along over time, it seems appropriate to get a bit ahead of the curve here and create a sub tag to cover all of those which exist now and which may exist in the future. With that in mind, with this posting I want to inaugurate the new social media social media sub tag which will read in perpetuity as follows:

• SocialMedia

With the publication of this posting, all prior postings using the latter sub tag have been modified to reflect the new protocol. Consequently, the following sub tag is perpetually obrogated:

• Twitter

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Note:

{1} On Twitter, Website Formatting, and A New Subtag (circa May 13, 2018)

For the sixth time in recent months, I will post an update on the Democratic presidential field which has expanded as well as contracted since the last update of this nature. As of this writing, it is at 11 candidates.{1} Here is a brief list of those who have dropped in and dropped out so far:


In the Race -Listed By Declaration Date:

Andrew Yang (November 6, 2017)
Tulsi Gabbard (January 11, 2019)
Elizabeth Warren (February 9, 2019)
Amy Klobuchar (February 10, 2019)
Bernie Sanders (February 19, 2019)
Pete Buttigieg (April 14, 2019)
Joe Biden (April 25, 2019)
Michael Bennett (May 2, 2019)
Tom Steyer (July 19, 2019)
Deval Patrick (November 14, 2019)
Michael Bloomberg (November 24, 2019)


Out of the Race -Listed By Suspension Date:

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)
Tim Ryan (October 24, 2019)
Beto O'Rourke (November 1, 2019)
Wayne Messam (November 19, 2019)
Joe Sestak (December 1, 2019)
Steve Bullock (December 2, 2019)
Kamala Harris (December 3, 2019)
Julian Castro (January 2, 2020)
Marianne Williamson (January 9, 2020)
Corey Booker (January 13, 2020)
John Delaney (January 31, 2020)

Note:

{1} Well technically there are others but the above listed ones are the only ones with a snowballs chance in hell of being nominated.

Briefly...

The whole question of witnesses or not is really not that hard. If the House had called witnesses during their inquiry, the Senate would have to hear from them. Why? They would be part of the House's case. But skipping witnesses during impeachment means the Senate is not required to call any. The Senate's job is to try the case sent from the House, not do the House's homework for them.

Would the Seahawks trade a high pick for Calais Campbell?

Abbas: Trump is a Dog and the Son of a Dog; I Won't Become a Traitor

As longtime followers of this site would be aware, I am not a huge fan of the secular state of Israel.{1} Nor have I been a fan of President Trump for that matter.{2} Nonetheless, the Palestinians can get bent. They are as useless as tits on a bull, front gears on a French tank, a grave robber at a crematorium, a glass hammer, a concrete parachute, etc. I am done giving a rip about two state solutions.

Enjoy dying Abbas.


Notes:

{1} "I am no huge booster of Israel but I have long said I do not accept the validity of dialogue on their part with Palestinians because you cannot dialogue legitimately with those who operate from the presupposition that you should not exist and they would exterminate you if given the opportunity." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 9, 2018)]
{2} The problem here is an overton window of sorts on various things Trump related has moved so dramatically the past few years.

Why the Seahawks will be aggressive this off-season

Ithaka

As you set out for Ithaka
hope your road is a long one,
full of adventure, full of discovery.
Laistrygonians, Cyclops,
angry Poseidon—don’t be afraid of them:
you’ll never find things like that on your way
as long as you keep your thoughts raised high,
as long as a rare excitement
stirs your spirit and your body.
Laistrygonians, Cyclops,
wild Poseidon—you won’t encounter them
unless you bring them along inside your soul,
unless your soul sets them up in front of you.

Hope your road is a long one.
May there be many summer mornings when,
with what pleasure, what joy,
you enter harbors you’re seeing for the first time;
may you stop at Phoenician trading stations
to buy fine things,
mother of pearl and coral, amber and ebony,
sensual perfume of every kind—
as many sensual perfumes as you can;
and may you visit many Egyptian cities
to learn and go on learning from their scholars.

Keep Ithaka always in your mind.
Arriving there is what you’re destined for.
But don’t hurry the journey at all.
Better if it lasts for years,
so you’re old by the time you reach the island,
wealthy with all you’ve gained on the way,
not expecting Ithaka to make you rich.

Ithaka gave you the marvelous journey.
Without her you wouldn't have set out.
She has nothing left to give you now.
And if you find her poor, Ithaka won’t have fooled you.
Wise as you will have become, so full of experience,
you’ll have understood by then what these Ithakas mean.
[CP Cavafy]

Points to Ponder:

[C]harity, as it is written, is not self-seeking (1 Cor 13:5) meaning that it places the common good before its own, not its own before the common good. So whenever you show greater concern for the common good than for your own, you may know that you are growing in charity. Thus, let the abiding virtue of charity prevail in all things that minister to the fleeting necessities of life. [From The Rule of St. Augustine (circa 400 AD)]

Twelve 2020 draft prospects I really like

As today was a rather dubious anniversary, I want to republish at this time an expository musing I wrote on the subjects of fundamental rights, common law principles, and abortion about thirteen years ago. Without further ado...

On Fundamental Rights, Common Law Principles, and Abortion (circa February 1, 2007)

Points to Ponder:

Christianity, and nothing else is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy...We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter. [Jürgen Habermas]