On Ecumenical Council Statements of Papal 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.

It seems appropriate after considering papal claims to review what various ecumenical councils have said on the subject. Let us begin with a speech delivered to the Council Fathers by a priest at the Council of Ephesus (431 AD) who was there as the legate of Pope Celestine I:

For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood.{1}

Moving on to the Council of Chalcedon, the following can be found in the acts of that synod:

After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers.{2}

From Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451), we move to Constantinople III (680-81) where in a letter to the Emperor on the proceedings of the Council, the Fathers stated the following:

[B]eing inspired by the Holy Ghost, and all agreeing and consenting together, and giving our approval to the doctrinal letter of our most blessed and exalted pope, Agatho, which he sent to your mightiness...[t]he highest prince of the Apostles fought with us: for we had on our side his imitator and the successor in his see, who also had set forth in his letter the mystery of the divine word (θεολογίας). For the ancient city of Rome handed you a confession of divine character, and a chart from the sunsetting raised up the day of dogmas, and made the darkness manifest, and Peter spoke through Agatho.{3}

One of the most significant statements comes from an unexpected source. Nicaea II (787) was an ecumenical council called to discuss religious images and iconoclasm. In the second session, the papal legates presented a letter from Pope Hadrian. While this does involve papal claims, I am putting it here because Pope Hadrian's letter was approved by the Nicaea II council. Among the passages pertaining to papal primacy claims were this lengthy extract:

If you persevere in that orthodox Faith in which you have begun, and the sacred and venerable images be by your means erected again in those parts, as by the lord, the Emperor Constantine of pious memory, and the blessed Helen, who promulgated the orthodox Faith, and exalted the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church your spiritual mother, and with the other orthodox Emperors venerated it as the head of all Churches, so will your Clemency, that is protected of God, receive the name of another Constantine, and another Helen, through whom at the beginning the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church derived strength, and like whom your own imperial fame is spread abroad by triumphs, so as to be brilliant and deeply fixed in the whole world. But the more, if following the traditions of the orthodox Faith, you embrace the judgment of the Church of blessed Peter, chief of the Apostles, and, as of old your predecessors the holy Emperors acted, so you, too, venerating it with honour, love with all your heart his Vicar, and if your sacred majesty follow by preference their orthodox Faith, according to our holy Roman Church. May the chief of the Apostles himself, to whom the power was given by our Lord God to bind and remit sins in heaven and earth, be often your protector, and trample all barbarous nations under your feet, and everywhere make you conquerors. For let sacred authority lay open the marks of his dignity, and how great veneration ought to be shown to his, the highest See, by all the faithful in the world. For the Lord set him who bears the keys of the kingdom of heaven as chief over all, and by Him is he honoured with this privilege, by which the keys of the kingdom of heaven are entrusted to him. He, therefore, that was preferred with so exalted an honour was thought worthy to confess that Faith on which the Church of Christ is founded. A blessed reward followed that blessed confession, by the preaching of which the holy universal Church was illumined, and from it the other Churches of God have derived the proofs of Faith. For the blessed Peter himself, the chief of the Apostles, who first sat in the Apostolic See, left the chiefship of his Apostolate, and pastoral care, to his successors, who are to sit in his most holy seat forever. And that power of authority, which he received from the Lord God our Saviour, he too bestowed and delivered by divine command to the Pontiffs, his successors.{4}

With Constantinople IV (869-70), though much of the synod was disciplinary and later repealed, a key portion of the synod was retained; namely, the incorporation of the Formula of Hormisdas into a solemn profession of faith. The First Vatican Council explained it as follows:

So the fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: 

The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the apostolic see preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion{5}

The same First Vatican Council also published the following on the Council of Lyons II (1274):

[W]ith the approval of the second council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession: 

"The holy Roman church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole catholic church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled."{6}

Then there is the definition of the Council of Florence (1439) which the First Vatican Council rendered as follows:

The Roman pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church.{7}

After encapsulating prior definitions of ecumenical councils, the First Vatican Council prior to issuing a solemn definition on papal infallibility{8} had this to say about the magisterial authority of popes:

"[T]heir Apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers, and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: ‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren’.

This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.”{9}

Finally, we have the Second Vatican Council where this matter was refined further still.{10} The historical record is clear however one wants to try and nuance it. In a nutshell: there was an understanding in the Church from its earliest days by first the popes themselves and later on by ecumenical councils of the Magisterial prerogatives of the Roman Pontiffs over the universal church.

*Update: Though I closed Rerum Novarum nearly two years ago, I was unaware at the time this piece was first published of the papal claims of Pope Hadrian I which were read out in his Letter to the Second Council of Nicaea II. As this ecumenical council is one of the seven accepted by both the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches, it seemed appropriate upon further reflection to revisit this piece, write a brief transition paragraph, insert the pertinent material in chronological order, renumber the remaining sources, and publish an updated version. -SM (circa 11/20/23)

Notes:

{1} Philip the Roman Legate: Speech at the Council of Ephesus on Behalf of Celestine I Quoted From First Vatican Council Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus (circa July 18, 1870)

{2} Excerpt From the Catholic Encyclopedia Article The Council of Chaldedon (circa 1913)

{3} Excerpt From the Catholic Encyclopedia Article Third Council of Constantinople (circa 1913)

{4} Pope Hadrian I: Excerpt from his Letter to the Second Council of Nicaea (Migne, Pat. Lat., Tom. XCVI., col. 1217) as quoted in the Catholic Encyclopedia Article Second Council of Nicaea (circa 1913)

{5} Council of Constantinople IV Quoted From First Vatican Council Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus §4,2 (circa July 18, 1870)

{6} Council of Lyons II Quoted From First Vatican Council Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus §4,2 (circa July 18, 1870)

{7} Council of Florence Quoted From First Vatican Council Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus §3,1 (circa July 18, 1870)

{8} And while I am not about to go into it at this time, I will merely note in passing that the actual scope of papal infallibility is not very well understood by most Catholics today.

{9} First Vatican Council: Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus as Quoted in a Rerum Novarum Post On Papal Heresy, Dissent, Argumentation Fallacies, Etc. (circa February 9, 2019)

{10} This subject will be covered in an upcoming project.

Points to Ponder:

I am tired of talk that comes to nothing. [Chief Joseph]

Biden Gets Busted for Denying the Obama Admin Had ‘Kids in Cages’; He Loses It Big Time

This is one area I never understood from the left: the complaints about "kids in cages", the use of tear gas at the southern border, etc. Why? Because these exact same things happened in prior presidencies and the folks who suddenly cannot shut the hell up about these things did not bat an eye or raise a whisper about them then! Whatever one thinks of Donald Trump, these circumstances were hardly unique to him and props to Jorge Ramos for grilling Joe Biden on the Obama Administration doing the same damn thing that Biden and others whine about the Trump Administration doing.

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]

The Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous site has been updated for the first time in over a decade!

Today Was The 4th Annual Women’s March…Does It Still Matter?

Just a few bits...

Out front, a climate-themed phoenix showing animals rising from the ashes of a burning forest.

...

Pink-hatted women have parked a big cage with a doll wrapped in a space blanket behind the media riser.

...

Chilean feminist collective Las Tesis are going over the lyrics to A Rapist in Your Path, their viral anthem denouncing violence against women.

“The oppressive state is a macho rapist,” they sing.

In a nutshell, we need more mental hospitals for folks like this!

Points to Ponder:

So what if games-people turn away business. They add flavor. Chess and Go are assets to a coffeehouse. [Irv Cisski]

Considering trades, the Clowney inevitability & more

Briefly on the Newest Impeachment "Smoking Gun:

My view is summed up well in the following Twitter comment by Sean Davis...

Sean Davis
✔
@seanmdav

An undated note from a guy indicted on multiple federal charges of fraud and conspiracy who's already fabricated evidence in a desperate attempt to get an immunity deal from Schiff and Pelosi so he can avoid prison? That's the new smoking gun? LOL.

6:41 PM - Jan 14, 2020

Pelosi’s Blunder: How The House Destroyed Its Own Case For Impeachment

Warren Rejects Peace Pipe Offered By Sanders

Briefly...

As I take a brief detour from reviewing and revising the magisterium project, I have been perusing the drafts and notes folder from Facebook for materials either posted there or prepared for posting in the time period when this website was suspended. Some of those materials will be published here in the coming months at various intervals whenever I can be motivated to format them for doing so.

Points to Ponder:

[There was a] long, slow secularization of Western civilization, so that by the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, much had been drained away from the heart of the Christian life. Increasingly, this life consisted of a series of virtuous habits shored up not so much by interior conviction as by social expectations devoid of active spiritual judgment. Every period has its own problems; remember that I am talking here about pervasive cultural trends. A common approach to the spiritual life in those days has been famously captured in a stock question which really was often asked: "Just tell me what I need to do to get to purgatory." The first half of the twentieth century has been justly described as a period in which Catholicism tended to be lived "prescriptively", with little immersion in the mystery of God’s life within. [Fr. Joseph A. Komonchak (circa August 18, 2015)]

A Reiteration and Revision of My Correspondence Policy:

With the advent of social media and its increasing relevance, a reiteration and clarification of this site's correspondence policy is in order. Previous to involvement in social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, correspondence was limited to things like message boards, comments boxes at websites, and email. However, in the new environment, there are other potential mediums of communication to consider. So with that in mind, I first want to reiterate at this point the site correspondence policy as it was publicly posted to this website prior to the overhaul of the site template:

Any correspondence will be presumed eligible for blogging unless the sender otherwise specifies. This is referred to as the Welborn Protocol and is a policy that will be followed at Rerum Novarum. (Though name and email information will as a rule not be posted without explicit request to do so by the sender.) 

*Rerum Novarum is properly understood to be copyrighted in accordance with other writings of Shawn M. except with regards to Guest Editorials to the extent necessary for the authors of said pieces to thereby retain all rights to their work thereof. 

*My approval of a website, weblog, or essay is to be properly understood as approval of a macro nature and not necessarily a micro one and the macro approval pertains to the general theme so categorized not necessarily to micro elements not pertaining to said theme thereof.

While the precise formulation of the correspondence policy has undergone some additions, subtractions, and variations over the seventeen plus years since this website was first formed{1}; at the same time, the above parts were in some form or another in every iteration of the site's correspondence policy. So with a few tweaks, the above site policy will as of this posting be renewed as the current and future site policy here at Rerum Novarum in the following form:

Any correspondence will be presumed eligible for publication unless the sender otherwise specifies. This is referred to as the Welborn Protocol and is a policy that will be followed at Rerum Novarum. (Though name and email information will as a rule not be posted without explicit request to do so by the sender.) 

*Rerum Novarum is properly understood to be copyrighted in accordance with other writings of mine except with regards to Guest Editorials to the extent necessary for the authors of said pieces to thereby retain all rights to their work thereof. 

*My approval of a website, web link, essay, etc. from someone else is to be understood as only of a macro nature and not necessarily a micro one unless explicitly stated otherwise. 

I intend at this time to clarify for the record that the phrase any correspondence above includes correspondence on Facebook, Twitter, Instant Messenger, or any other social media format that I participate in with the exception of phone conversations or phone texting. So if you correspond with me in any of those mediums, the material could appear here at some point unless it is explicitly requested otherwise. That is not to say that it will appear here mind you, only that it could and this clarification is one made in perpetuity.

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Note:

{1} Including by the middle of the last decade being expanded into five rather ponderous paragraphs prior to later redactions.

Benedict and Sarah back Francis’s position on priestly celibacy. Media storm ensues

For the fifth 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 12 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:

John Delaney (July 28, 2017)
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)


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.

"One From the Vault" Dept.

The following is a flashback to the archives of this website from 2004...

...When I exchange the sign, I envision those who have wronged me whom I struggle to forgive in my heart despite doing so in either words or in theory. (I also envision those I may have wronged.) The heart is deeper than we think and we can hold those grudges deep which we are supposed to rid ourselves of. Hence, at the apex of the mass, when the Lamb is to be consumed, we are to be pure of heart in order to be worthy of the Lamb who was slain before the foundation of the world (cf. Rev. xiii,8).

And this purity of intention can be symbolized in our exchanging of the sign with those around us -envisioning in them those who have wronged us or those we have perhaps wronged (either in reality or perhaps whom we believe this may apply to). Our Lord referred to this principle in the Gospels in the following words:

You have heard that it was said to the men of old, `You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, `You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire. So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. [Matthew v,21-24]

That is the value of the kiss of peace as I have come to see it: it enables me not to have to leave mass to reconcile with those who have wronged me (or whom I may have wronged) before partaking of the sacrifice. Instead, I am able to see in those around me proxies if you will for such people and respectfully "reconcile" through exchanging the sign before receiving the gift from the altar... [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 2, 2004)]

For the fourth 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 13 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:

John Delaney (July 28, 2017)
Andrew Yang (November 6, 2017)
Tulsi Gabbard (January 11, 2019)
Corey Booker (February 1, 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)

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.

Points to Ponder:

[T]hose who have comments boxes are capable of manipulating the content there to suit their own agenda including banning people who raise strong enough arguments against the "prevailing orthodoxy" at a given weblog. You would be surprised at how often those who laud their "willingness to interact with others" will put censors on their comments boxes that would make the monitors at Pravda in the days of the old Soviet Union blush and as we do not believe in unnecessary censorship, that means we would inexorably leave out there potentially a variety of assertions that our lack of time to respond to would give the unintended perception of being "unanswerable" by us. Those are the main reasons for our refusal to use comments boxes in a nutshell. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 1, 2008)]

There's a place in the world for the angry young man
With his working class ties and his radical plans
He refuses to bend, he refuses to crawl
He's always at home with his back to the wall
And he's proud of his scars and the battles he's lost
And he struggles and bleeds as he hangs on the cross
And he likes to be known as the angry young man

Give a moment or two to the angry young man
With his foot in his mouth and his heart in his hand
He's been stabbed in the back, he's been misunderstood
It's a comfort to know his intentions are good
And he sits in a room with a lock on the door
With his maps and his medals laid out on the floor
And he likes to be known as the angry young man

I believe I've passed the age of consciousness and righteous rage
I found that just surviving was a noble fight
I once believed in causes too
I had my pointless point of view
And life went on no matter who was wrong or right

And there's always a place for the angry young man
With his fist in the air and his head in the sand
And he's never been able to learn from mistakes
So he can't understand why his heart always breaks
But his honor is pure and his courage as well
And he's fair and he's true and he's boring as hell
And he'll go to the grave as an angry old man
[Billy Joel]

Points to Ponder:

It is probably not possible to filter out all elements of gonzoism from one's work but the idea of falsifying facts and events is not ethical as far as I am concerned. Unfortunately, such things are common among journalists these days. Another annoyance is the common approach these days of before asking a question prefacing it with a mini-editorial of sorts which is presented as if it is the truth when in reality it is often just a showcase of the journalist's own biases. [Circa October 17, 2008]

The following is a posting to Pete Vere's Patheos website Orthodoxy In Communion With Rome and my response to it circa April of 2018. Some material that was in the process of either pre-publication revision at the time,{1} projects in composition at the time{2}, or was an idea only for a future project at most are in retrospect inferred in my words below.{3} Nonetheless...

Time for a New Catholic Apologetics Movement? Four Ideas for Renewal

We discussed this very subject a while back ago if memory serves and much of what you write above looks familiar. Though dropping terms like "Protestant" and "Protestants" was not specifically discussed, I nonetheless agree with what you wrote on this. (Its also why I think as a rule all generalized terminology should be avoided.)

One important idea to add to your list of four is addressing a serious defect of no small magnitude in almost all apologetics circles I have observed over the years; namely, the actual study and conscious inculcation of the principles outlined in the Catholic spiritual tradition. I concluded a long time ago that if Catholic spirituality principles were studied prior to anything else, it would fix so much of what is wrong with not only the apologetics movement but with general online communication as well. (Not to mention the adversarial predisposition towards conflict so inherent in almost all who involve themselves to any degree in apologetics would be significantly reduced!)

Notes:

{1} I have in mind here the three threads pertaining to the so-called Correctio Filialis.

{2} I have in mind here among other things the thread on the infallibility of the canonization of saints.

{3} Around the time I penned those words, I had a project in mind that will be published in about eight weeks time. It was I believe around the time of June of 2018 when drafting my inaugural piece for the aborted WherePeterIs collaboration when I first mentioned privately intending to write on the subjects of dialogue and on the magisterium. The aforementioned inaugural piece was published to WPI on June 16, 2018 and can be read HERE.

Briefly on Vigano:

My words are in regular font.

nowhere does Fr. Angel point out what Vigano says is not true

That is a pretty loaded statement since Vigano has said a lot of things. The goal of Fr. Angel's posting would seem to be not to go through the scroll of various things that Vigano said but to instead point out a common theme to Vigano's entire approach that underscores its lack of authenticity. I can understand how those for whom Vigano seems to be the sun around which their world rotates would find that sort of stuff sticking in their craw but that is neither here nor there.

Fact of the matter is, whatever flaws Abp Vigano has, what he says about Pope Francis is true

This was dealt with back in 2018 when the grave defect of Vigano's original "testimony" was pointed out by yours truly. Also revealed not long thereafter were his true motivations.{1} Furthermore, they were revealed in his own words verbatim but conveniently ignored by the cultists circulating his manifestos.

But as we saw then and likely will continue to now, those engaging in #Viganolatry have shown themselves to be as impervious to reason and logic where he is concerned as any conspiracy theorist and for many of the same fundamental reasons. Also worth noting is the #Viganolators parallel to the dyspeptic AlSheadas of the world and revealing the same spiritual defects.

and that is what really grates on his defenders

Actually, the ones that really seem to have a burr in their saddle that really grates them are the #Viganolators who have sought to defend every utterance of Vigano as if it is inspired and have sought to move the goalposts regularly when certain statements of Vigano were shown to be either false or otherwise misleading. It is too bad because these antics sully any possible valid points he may have raised but I digress.

Note:

{1} For example, many of those pushing Vigano think he was speaking up courageously about the sexual abuse stuff and its coverup but Vigano himself admitted that his real motivations were anything but.

Why the Seahawks’ Jadeveon Clowney and Ezekiel Ansah duo could be a nightmare in the playoffs

Thanks For Asking I Appreciate It

Kenneth Arthur's tenure as lead writer for Field Gulls is coming to an end because of that stupid California law AB5 that takes effect this year.

Briefly...

For those discussing current national budgetary issues, there were trillion dollar deficits under the system pre-Trump. (How do you think the debt doubled under Obama much as it doubled under Bush?) Cutting taxes changes investment behavior in beneficial ways that raise more revenue over time. The real problem is we have no mechanism in place to kneecap government from just spending the excess and then some.

We need mandatory sequestration that cuts 5-10% from every budget item every year until there is balance to within the rate of inflation. Pick a percent and apply it to everything, no sacred cows spared. Until that happens, its all Kabuki theater and deficits and debt will continue to grow.

Points to Ponder:

Time passes so fast. Make time to be still. [Lailah Gifty Akita]

On Magisterial Interpretation:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

One common mistake made in the area of magisterial interpretation is the presumption that a condemnation is broadly based rather than narrowly construed. From this operative presupposition, no shortage of uncharitable bile has been thrown about by "the unlearned and unstable" (cf. 2 Peter iii,16) in whom "the sin of rash judgments is a spiritual jaundice, which makes everything look amiss" (cf. St. Francis de Sales). As so much of this problem outside the spiritual realm comes down to interpretation, it seems appropriate to treat on the latter in brief as a supplement to (and presupposition to) the topic that the forthcoming project will examine in no small detail.

For interpreting the texts of the magisterium, there are parallels in principle to be found in the approach taken to canon law. There has been a longstanding understanding in canonical interpretation going back many centuries that laws establishing penalties, restricting the exercise of rights, or containing exceptions are to be interpreted strictly.{1} In like manner, odious laws are to be interpreted in a sense that will not extend them to cases not covered strictly by the words of the law while favourable laws are to be interpreted more benignly{2} in keeping with the traditional canons of charity.{3}

Transposing these principles to magisterial interpretation by corollary extension, it would mean interpreting condemnations or corrections by the magisterium strictly and not engaging in rash judgment. There can for example be variations of a concept which are similar but one is condemned while the other is not. It would be contrary to longstanding axioms of canonical interpretation{4} as well as fundamental charity{5} to presume in such an example that the condemnation of the one would automatically mean the condemnation of the other.{6} Instead, care should be taken with any reading of a potential magisterial text because they are usually worded pretty precisely and thus, every word matters.{7}

There are sadly too many folks who seem to go out of their way to find something wrong in others in various and sundry ways. This can be either in how they interpret a text, infer nefarious intent without recourse to objective manifestation of criteria, or a variety of other less than honourable means. Hopefully this brief treatment on the subject of interpretation can be of assistance for recognizing this adversarial presupposition in those who have it so they can better combat these harmful tendencies. (Both for their good and for the good of those they come in contact with in general.)

Notes:

{1} "Laws that establish penalties, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception to the law must be interpreted strictly (c. 18) It is long-standing canonical tradition that restrictive laws must be narrowly applied." [James A. Coriden: Excerpt from An Introduction to Canon Law pg. 202 (circa 1991)]

{2} "Two of the ancient rules of law (Regulae Iuris, compiled in the year 1298) state that 'adverse laws are to be restricted, favorable ones amplified,' and 'penalties are to be interpreted benignly.' Strict interpretation means that the sense of the words of the canon and the scope of its application are limited as much as reasonably possible." [James A. Coriden: Excerpt from An Introduction to Canon Law pgs. 202-3 (circa 1991)]

{3} See the Rerum Novarum Posting Spiritual Instruction on Charity (circa January 24, 2004) for a good brief treatment on this very important subject.

{4} "It has always been an axiom of interpretation of Canon Law that odious laws are to be explained in such a sense as not to unduly extend them to cases not strictly covered by the words of the law, while in favorable laws a more benign interpretation is allowed." [Stanislaus Woywod: Excerpt from The New Canon Law pg. 6 (circa 1918)]

{5} See footnote three.

{6} To note one example, I wrote an essay nearly two decades ago in response to an article by Fr. Chad Ripperger where he was confusing two similar concepts of theological immanence. (Namely, relative immanence as articulated by Maurice Blondel and absolute or vital immanence which was condemned by Pope Pius X in his encyclical letter Pascendi Dominici Gregis.)

{7} This is a point I went over in some detail nearly two decades ago when conducting an essay examination of the Syllabus of Errors and addressing the claims made by not a few supposed "traditionalists" that there were contradictions of a doctrinal nature between the Syllabus and either teachings of the Second Vatican Council and/or the popes subsequent to the Council who sought to implement its teachings.

For the third 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 14 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:

John Delaney (July 28, 2017)
Andrew Yang (November 6, 2017)
Tulsi Gabbard (January 11, 2019)
Marianne Williamson (January 28, 2019)
Corey Booker (February 1, 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)


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.

I have periodically mentioned a project on the Church's Magisterium that I have been working on that will be published early in 2020. Though long pondered, my first outline sketch was made in early November though the final product will be in some respects different than what is in the published outline.{1}

As the various text parts have been revised{2} or undergoing review for potential revisions{3} or otherwise extracted due to project length and made into other standalone writings{4}, I am as of this moment still ahead of my original projections and expect the full magisterium project to be published in final form in eight weeks as of yesterday. However, a thought of one important facet that was overlooked in the larger project came to my mind the other day. As I do not want to make any significant structural or content additions to the magisterium project as it currently is, I will be publishing within the coming days a short stand alone piece to supplement the larger project that will treat on this missing facet; namely, the subject of interpretation. I suppose its fitting that the 3500th addition to this site should be something of weight; ergo, that piece will be published on Saturday around 7am or thereabouts.


Notes:

{1} I also anticipated initially that the project would not be ready for publication until sometime in the spring of 2020 but for a variety of reasons, the work has come together much quicker than I originally presumed.

{2} As of this short note, this applies to parts i and ii of the project which are (barring unforeseen circumstances) completed as of this writing.

{3} As of this short note, this applies to parts iii and iv of the project which are still in second draft form.

{4} Basically, there was more material produced than I anticipated when sketching the outline so for the sake of economy of prose and a more focused product, some originally drafted project material was excised from the text and will be published prior to the project. (Though they will be used as source links within said project.)

Francis: Evangelize by Example, not Pushing Your Faith on Others

"Auld Lang Syne" Dept.
(For 2020)

Should auld acquaintance be forgot
And never brought to mind?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot
And days of auld lang syne?

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne
We'll tak a cup o' kindness yet
For auld lang syne.

And surely ye'll be your pint stoop
And surely I'll be mine
And we'll tak a cup o' kindness yet
For auld lang syne.

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak' a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.

We twa hae run about the braes
And pou'd the gowans fine
But we've wander'd mony a weary foot
Sin' auld lang syne.

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak' a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.

We twa hae paidl'd i' the burn
Frae mornin' sun till dine
But seas between us braid hae roared
Sin' auld lang syne.

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak' a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.

And here's a hand, my trusty fiere
And gi'e's a hand o' thine
And we'll tak a right good willy waught
For auld lang syne. [Attr. Robert Burns]

Briefly On Faulty Apologetical Arguments:

This posting was written as a result of some things I have seen in social media feeds over the years and in particular, one that I saw earlier today. Basically, I see a number of well meaning folks who treat apologetics arguments as if they are by themselves conclusive. This is a common problem with the apologetics mindset but rather than go into that general subject, let us treat at this time of a common apologetics argument used by Christians. These folks often whip out arguments like Pascal's Wager or CS Lewis' Lord, Liar, Lunatic purported trilemma and use them with a certain smugness as if they contain some magical checkmate to thereby trap others like a spider traps a fly in their web. In reality however, neither of these arguments is as foolproof as the users of them so often presume. I will now briefly dispatch with both to prove my point.

Pascal's Wager

The main outline of this argument is one that attempts to shoehorn the person its presented to with the idea that either God exists or he does not and therefore you only have a few options. Going off of memory{1} the analogy is something akin to this:

• God exists, you believe, therefore you are rewarded

• God exists, you do not believe, therefore you are tormented

• God does not exist, you believe, you lose nothing

• God does not exist, you do not believe, you lose nothing

The gist of the argument is it is better to wager on God's existence should you have any doubt as to whether he exists or not. The flaws in the wager are many but the most significant one is as follows:

It presents false dichotomies to the person it is given to. 

To start with, there is the rhetorical "what if you are wrong?" which of course implicates the person giving the wager because they admit implicitly that they could well be wrong too. However, they never approach this subject with that presupposition in reality while they expect those they interact with to. There are other problems as well including the idea that all potential religions, deities, afterlife scenarios, etc are not for consideration but instead, only the Christian one or some variation of a Christian one. Why should the reader logically do that?

If you consider the various permutations of potential religious possibilities, the Christian conception{2} is merely one of a long list and unless presupposed to be deserving of special consideration is logically no more deserving of it than any other religious claim out there. And that is presuming you can logically narrow it down to one particular variation of the various sometimes contradictory Christian formulations rather than merely presupposing whichever formulation you are particularly partial to (if any). This fact alone dilutes the wager and makes it basically worthless as a genuinely persuasive argument for anyone who does not live in a time or under the assumption that the only religion possibility is the Christian one.{3}


Lord, Liar, Lunatic

In a certain sense, this argument is even weaker while it is probably appealed to with a greater frequency than the wager one.{4} It purports to force the reader into a trilemma of sorts where only one possibility makes logical sense; namely, that Jesus is Lord. If he is not Lord, than the only other possibilities according to the hypothesis is that he is a Liar or a Lunatic. The fundamental weakness to this argument is the claim that Jesus said he was God. Nowhere in the Synoptics does Jesus make such a claim so the only Gospel source where the claim can be somewhat substantiated is the Gospel of John. But herein lies a problem with that source: most Christian theologians who study the Bible claim that the Gospel of John is a more mystical gospel than the others. Also, in all the gospels, Jesus speaks in parables and uses metaphors a lot.

So one could say on the one hand that Jesus need not be a lunatic or liar when he was said to call himself God but could instead be an honest man who made a mistake{5} and that one additional example alone falsifies the presumptive trilemma. But beyond that, one would have to prove in the example where Jesus is said to refer to himself as God that he was to be taken literally in that passage rather than merely assuming he was. Jesus said many things about himself including that he was a vine and the apostles were the branches, he was a door, he was the sheepsgate, he was a shepherd and the followers were sheep, etc. You cannot ignore the numerous ways that Jesus spoke metaphorically and in parables and then state with definitiveness from the text itself that any claims to divinity he was purported to have made were to be taken literally. You have to presuppose the claim you would be trying to prove and that is circular reasoning and thereby is illogical.

As I know what postings like this can do, I will put in a footnote my actual view on this matter so I am not misunderstood.{6} The bottom line to this posting is this: there is no argument one can make rationally for religious belief that does not involve some aspect of acceptance on faith. The degree of acceptance of faith may vary by the given argument except at perhaps the most fundamental level{7} but beyond that, there should be a lot more humility on these matters than many pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists often manifest when interacting with others.

Notes:

{1} I am sketching it out in vague form above from memory so if the formulation is not precise, I apologize in advance.

{2} To the extent that there is or could be a single Christian conception of course.

{3} See footnote two.

{4} Probably in part because more Christians these days are familiar with CS Lewis than they are Blaise Pascal.

{5} Remember, an honest man who makes a mistake is no less an honest man because of it.

{6} To be clear, I am not saying I think this way.

{7} For example, Aquinas' Five Ways which while successful in its intention only purport to prove the existence of God through reason and does not presume to argue for a specific religious formulation of God.

Point to Ponder:

The story of every human life begins with birth and ends with death. In the person of Christ, however, it was his death that was first and his life that was last. . . . It was not so much that his birth cast a shadow on his life and thus led to his death; it was rather that the cross was first, and cast its shadow back to his birth. [Bishop Fulton J. Sheen]

Points to Ponder:

The Sacred Scriptures and Fathers teach us that sometimes the human will is so weakened by the possession of the habit of sin, that the only thing left is for the (enfeebled but called) person to respond to grace and cry out to Jesus Christ for deliverance. We are assured He never fails those who so cry to Him from their hearts. So never, ever, despair. [Stephen Hand]

Beast Mode is back! Seahawks Seahawks sign running back Marshawn Lynch

Pope writes Apostolic Letter on the significance of the Christmas crèche

Keeping the "CH" in Channukkah

The Outrage Continues: Mark Hamill Apologizes for Liking Harry Potter Author’s Tweet Claiming ‘Sex is Real’ – ‘Ignorance is No Excuse’

The Stupid is Strong with folks like old Skywalker!

Points to Ponder:

"If I say that I am a Catholic, I go to Mass every Sunday but then I don't talk to my parents, I don't assist my grandparents, I don't assist the poor, I don't go to see the sick, so it's not a testimony, it's no use...

So one is no other than Christian parrot, words, words, words, who knows if you will remember that song. Christian witness is done with three things: the word, the heart, the hands." [Pope Francis (circa January 16, 2017)]

I found it interesting that on the anniversary of one of my personal favourites from the old web essay writing days{1} is an article that treats to a certain extent on the same subject that work went over; namely, the subject of authentic dialogue. Without further ado...

Pope Francis wants the world to know about his Jesuit spiritual director

Here is just a taste to whet the appetite a bit...

"...He said he first came to know Father Fiorito in 1961 after returning from his Juniorate in Chile. At that time, he was a professor of metaphysics at the Colegio Massimo, the Jesuit house of formation on the outskirts of Buenos Aires, but he gradually began to dedicate himself totally to spirituality and the giving of the Spiritual Exercises.

'From then on, I began to confide in him, he became my spiritual director,' Francis stated. He described Fiorito as 'a man who spoke little, but had a great capacity for listening, a listening [that is] capable of discernment, which is one of the pillars of dialogue.'..."
Note:

{1} I refer to the essay titled On the Intricacies of Dialogue -A Commentary published sixteen years ago today.

Points to Ponder:
(On Bad Priests)

"[It] is my intention that they be held in due reverence, not for what they are in themselves, but for my sake, because of the authority I have given them. Therefore the virtuous must not lessen their reverence, even should these ministers fall short in virtue. And, as far as the virtues of my ministers are concerned, I have described them for you by setting them before you as stewards of... my Son's body and blood and of the other sacraments. This dignity belongs to all who are appointed as such stewards, to the bad as well as to the good.

...[Because] of their virtue and because of their sacramental dignity you ought to love them. And you ought to hate the sins of those who live evil lives. But you may not for all that set ourselves up as their judges; this is not my will because they are my Christ's, and you ought to love and reverence the authority I have given them.

You know well enough that if someone filthy or poorly dressed were to offer you a great treasure that would give you life, you would not disdain the bearer for love of the treasure, and the lord who had sent it, even though the bearer was ragged and filthy... You ought to despise and hate the ministers' sins and try to dress them in the clothes of charity and holy prayer and wash away their filth with your tears.

Indeed, I have appointed them and given them to you to be angels on earth and suns, as I have told you. When they are less than that you ought to pray for them. But you are not to judge them. Leave the judging to me, and I, because of your prayers and my own desire, will be merciful to them." [Catherine of Siena: From The Dialogue (circa 1378) translated by Suzanne Noffke, O.P., New York: Paulist Press, 1980, pp. 229-231]