My Patches is gone

Off to sleep amongst the stars

My heart is broken

💔😭  

Lying awake now

Petting my lovely Patches

My last night with her

😪

Points to Ponder:

Always choose silence with liars, cheaters, cowards or spineless people. Don't ask them any kind of questions, you don't have to give them any kind of answers or explanations.

Ignore, avoid, stay away. [Jyoti Patel]

On Atheists, Theists, and Reasoning:

In doing a web search recently, I stumbled upon something I wrote in a comments box more than fifteen years ago that I had forgotten about. This would have been October of 2006. As it would not be useful for various reasons to repost the original thread, I will simply post my comment box response below typos and all with my interlocutor's words in dark red font. Without further ado...

Hello Whizler:

I don't accuse Christian apologists of deliberate falsehood. Instead, their falsehood grows from the dubious, unlikely and unproven premises they accept as true.

These are not problems unique to theists. The very act of reasoning itself presupposes certain unproven assumptions which are required for even being able to exercise rational thought. So the question is not one of the theist having "faith" and the atheist relying only on reason. Reasoning abilities themselves in order to be recognized require a faith of their own. If all sides recognized this from the get-go, it would make discussions a lot more civil generally speaking.

At some level, I'm sure you're aware that argument based on them is not really convincing to the putative non-Christian target, because they don't accept your premises, yet they nonetheless serve as the foundation of your argument.

See my previous comments.

Understood, but from the non-Christian standpoint, a lot of Christian apologetics consists of weak argument, ad hoc rationalizations, and inconsistent methodology. The modus operandi is "any explanation will do," no matter how far-fetched or strained.

As a Catholic Christian, I will probably shock you by noting that I actually agree with this observation Whizler but with a caveat: this is prevalent with people of any outlook -be it atheist, theist, or whatever. The lions share of arguments for any side are less-than-solid and all of them argue from certain foundational presuppositions. The idea of a tabula rasa is as much a myth as de Leon's fountain of youth.

A lot of this was evident in your critique of Loftus's deconversion story. Your discussion of his objections to the Genesis account is a good example. (One wonders, what other Biblical accounts are really "metaphorical narrations," to use Stek's words.)

I will not comment on the "deconversion story critique" except to note that when it comes to the subject of biblical accounts there is an interesting pattern I see with atheists who deal with them. In all cases I can recall over the years when dialoguing with atheists, when biblical citations come up, the atheist presumes without warrant that they understand the correct context of what they cite without sufficient warrant for doing so.

I am not in saying this making an argument for or against any particular interpretation except to note that the methodology of the atheist is so often one that they never stop to consider. Instead, they presume that they understand things without any indepth study of the intricate factors involved and thus (without realizing it) often take the same approach that fundamentalist Christian sorts do with science.

On the latter, it is downright embarrassing to see the way many fundamentalist sorts treat scientific subjects but they jump in and presume they can handle the subjects without concern for studying the factors of the discipline at hand with greater care. They then juxtapose them with their interpretation of the Bible and never ask if it is possible that they do not understand the Bible they are quoting.

The same is the case with many if not most atheists Whizler: they do not ask themselves if they are misappropriating the Bible themselves in trying to posit "scientific errors" and the like. Instead, they presume that they can understand texts written thousands of years ago in different original languages, in different cultures, different modes of understanding, and different operative presuppositions by merely reading a translated paraphrase in a vernacular text.

We know that even in today's world there is often misunderstandings of key elements of contemporary societies or philosophies that do not get accurately translated from other languages or (at the very least) are potentially not translated in the best possible way.

And even when the translations are perfect, there are often certain underlying factors which we may misunderstand when trying to make sense of the text as translated from other languages and other cultures, etc. But with the Bible, that the additional factors of more ancient languages, societies long past, world views of long ago, etc. on top of the normal hindering factors noted earlier in this posting potentially impacting our understanding of the text is irrelevant: everyone can just open the book and easily understand it and whatever appears questionable must be an "error in the text" rather than a possible error on the part of the one reading the text. Can you not see how ludicrous such a presumption really is Whizler??? I trust you can but perhaps it helps to spell it out a bit because I see it as much of a problem as with scientifically ignorant fundamentalists presuming to tell you and your fellow atheists how to interpret science.

Consider the example of cooking and the Constitution. It would seem strange if I said that I could bake good brownies simply from reading the Constitution of the United States. If you were to respond that the Constitution was not a baking recipe, what would you think if I said you were "just trying to explain away the text" but indeed the Constitution was actually a cooking recipe and I was going to use it to make some brownies. I would not be recognizing the Constitution in the the context it was written and in accordance with the intentions of its writers; namely, as a document outlining the laws and principles of a sovereign nation.

What I note above pertains to both sides in part because a lot of atheists are former fundamentalists and while they have shed the theist affiliation, they have not shed the foundational presuppositions that they had as fundamentalists. Numerous times in dialogue with atheists in years gone by I found this to be the case and the former theists express amazement in considering another way of approaching the issues than their old fundamentalist ways.

In other words, often former theists who were fundamentalists never stop to reassess their foundational presuppositions and if their move from theist to atheist was not because of a flaw in how they approached the evidences to begin with.

This is not an accusation of bad faith on my part so please do not interpret it in that way. It is only a way to point out what a lot of theists would possibly be trying to say if not for a poor choice of words used to do it. And as you noted Whizler in your own posting that you used a poor choice of words (in referring to “Fatal flaw” when speaking to Dave Armstrong), I trust you recognize that we all can occasionally not choose the right words to convey something.

I am not saying that there is lacking some theists who would make the claims you are asserting of course and not due to a poor choice of words on their part, only that things are not always what they may appear to be at first or second glance. (Or sometimes even more glances than that.)

I think the tone of your critique was dismissive and failed in large part to answer his objections. Perhaps caricatured his objections is a better description. Much of your critique can be summed up thusly: “You were never a true Christian and you just didn’t properly understand Christianity, John.”

I trust you recognize that this happens on all sides Whizler. I have heard numerous atheists say the same thing about former atheists -indeed look at how Antony Flew was treated by many of his former positional allies. It should stand to reason that anyone convinced of their position (whether they are convinced on solid ground, shaky ground, or some admixture of the two) will view former allies who later diverge from them as somehow missing a key ingredient or two in the makeup of their former outlook.

After all, that is almost a given be it with the view of John Lofus amonst theists or Antony Flew amongst atheists. This is hardly as one-sided as it appears you are presuming. (Emphasis on "it appears.")

I don’t think that’s a fair charge, but it does help keep the sheep in the fold. :)

Again, this works both ways. I cannot speak for Dave's intentions -and as he and I have had significant disagreements before I am hardly saying this as a cheerleader of his by any means- but as a rule he does not in my experience presume bad faith on the part of anyone.* Anyway, the bottom line of this posting is to note that a lot of accusations made by one side against another go both ways. Would that people of good will on all sides recognized this principle but I digress.

*Disclaimer: I must say in lieu of what I have seen over the past fifteen years that I cannot in good conscience say the this anymore and that is most unfortunate.

Points to Ponder:

Roche: Experiment to Reconcile with SSPX via Old Liturgy Failed

I would be remiss if I did not note that the comments section here has some great contributions from Todd Flowerday, Paul Inwood, Aaron Tham, Alan Griffiths, Anthony Ruff OSB, Matthew Nelson amidst the usual vapid tradbabble. 

Dealing Briefly With Another Asshole Apologist:

There is something so nauseating about so many of those with an apologist mindset. My words are in regular font below.

What Shawn means

Spoken by someone who ASSumes what someone means rather than asking them first. And when such ASSumptions run so flatly afoul of traditional Catholic spiritual instructions from Doctors such as St. John of the Cross, St. Francis De Sales, etc., it points out clear as crystal the fugazi nature of so many (thankfully not all!) of those who claim to be More Traditional Than Thou. 

is that he made some very ignorant statements

Actually, the real ignorance is in what follows.

in favor of the very non-traditional neoconservative Catholic position

None of these terms applies to me but xxxx might actually know that if he actually read what I wrote and furthermore, if he actually understood it. But alas, that was not to be. I suppose when someone makes a complete mishmash of doctrine, discipline, and history all to basically pay lip service to obedience while basically playing cafeteria with what magisterial teachings and directives they supposedly will follow, I should not expect my own statements to receive any greater courtesy. But at the very least, I expect someone who respects such things as reason, logic, and ethics to demonstrate in a reply that they practice what they would purport to believe.

got called on them, then immediately descended into personal insult

If failing to understand what someone writes and responding to them with laughably deficient content constitutes "[getting] called on" than your use of the term is correct.

I'm just going to make one very short post here

What a crock! For someone who whined about me supposedly making a treatise length response, xxxx then posts his own scroll response here. 

As for demanding someone leave a response up, that is the surest way to get a request denied.

and then go away.

Until you come back. It is not an infrequent refrain for asshole apologists to claim they are "going away", "finished responding", or whatever only to reappear later on as if nothing happened. Then they have the temerity to wonder why those who take reason, logic, and ethics seriously treat them with such contempt.

Shawn, in my thread, with my emphasis:

What followed was xxxx egregiously making a half-baked quote parsing whereby he confused concepts pertaining to matters of doctrine, discipline, magisterial matters history, theological concepts, etc. all in a sad attempt to try and force someone else's comments into a prepackaged box to thereby lazily label it in a fashion to try and get out of doing any actual learning. When he decides to actually start listening and having a real conversation, I will be here. Until then, no dice as we do not entertain Sola Traditio nonsense here.

Points to Ponder:

Censors are not virtuous but cowards, virtuous people can debate ideas that upset them and not demand opposing thoughts or words be expunged. [C.A.A. Savastano]

 

Excerpts from the Forgotten Vatican I Relatio:

By Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser of Brixen

Delivered on July 11, 1870

Most eminent presidents, eminent and reverend fathers.  I get up to speak today with great sadness and even greater fear. With great sadness, since the treatment of the center of ecclesiastical unity has become the occasion of discord among the reverend fathers, such discord that we are able to say with the prophet: "Seeing this, they will cry out in the streets, and the messengers of peace will weep bitterly" (Is. 33:7). I rise to speak with even greater fear, lest a great cause be ruined by its advocate.  Nevertheless, I proceed, counting on divine grace and your good will...

The office of the Apostles consisted in this: they would be the authentic ocular and auricular witnesses to the word of God, witnesses preordained by God and sent by Christ to all nations: and to this office, proper to the Apostles, there was added the corresponding gift of personal infallibility.  The bishops succeeded the Apostles not as succeeding to a universal apostolate but rather to an episcopate as rulers of individual churches.  And thus it happened that the prerogative of personal infallibility, joined in an extraordinary mode to the apostolate, would not pass on to the bishops.  The bishops by power of their office are guardians of the deposit which the Apostles - as witnesses preordained by God - committed to them.  It is as Paul says to Timothy: "Hold to the form of sound teaching, which you heard from me in faith and in the love of Christ Jesus.  Through the Holy Spirit who dwells in you guard the worthy deposit" (2 Tm. 1:13-14).  This same thing is said to all the bishops.  In this duty of guarding, communicating and defending the deposit as a treasure of divine truth, the bishops also are helped by the Holy Spirit.  But this infallible aid of the Holy Spirit is not present in each of the bishops but rather in the bishops taken together and joined with [their] head, for it was said to all generally and not each individually: "Behold, I am with you all days until the end of time" (Mt. 28:20).

This prerogative granted to St. Peter by the Lord Jesus Christ was supposed to pass to all Peter's successors because the chair of Peter is the center of unity in the Church.  But if the Pontiff should fall into an error of faith, the Church would dissolve, deprived of the bond of unity.  The bishop of Meaux speaks very well on this point, saying: "If this Roman See could fall and be no longer the See of truth but of error and pestilence, then the Catholic Church herself would not have the bond of a society and would be schismatic and scattered - which in fact is impossible."

LET NO ONE SAY: "Yes, the See of Peter is the center of unity, but from that there only follows the office which the Roman pastor has of confirming and of preserving his brothers in the faith. But the office is one thing, the authority, especially an infallible authority, is something else."  I REPLY: how would the Roman Pontiff be able to fulfill this office which was divinely and especially given to him if he did not have a special authority which all others - even the bishops whether dispersed throughout the world or gathered together - should recognize as unassailable?...

We now come to the arguments from tradition, and this is the argument from the public documents of the councils which can be found in the proposed Draft itself.  However, before I make a few reflections on these documents, let me say a little bit in a general way about the argument from tradition as it is brought forth to prove the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff.  Generally speaking the argument comes from tradition but it can be construed in different ways.  Let me say it as I will (for now I will omit  things for the sake of time); let me say how I would construct this argument from tradition and the way I was led to use this method.

One day when I was praying on my knees at the "confessio" of St. Peter's, I lifted up my eyes and saw the words inscribed there which say: "From this place one faith shines on the world."  At these words I recalled all those things which, from the earliest ages of the Christian religion down to our own day, the holy Apostolic See has done and suffered in order to preserve the authority of the faith in the Church of Christ and to repair that authority where it has been harmed.  While I was thinking about this, the deep conviction held me that the Holy See would not have been able to fight so strenuously, so constantly and so successfully for the truth unless it had always been persuaded of the gift of inerrancy, promised, in the person of Peter, to Peter's successors, and unless the Church had offered its assent to this conviction of the Holy See.  

Thus, most reverend and eminent fathers, the traditional argument which I want to present to you.  As I have already said, I now abstain from proposing it.  In order to strengthen the first part of this argument, I read again and again the genuine epistles of the Roman Pontiffs as edited by Coustantio and by Andrea Thiel, his recent continuator.  As often as I read them and the more I considered them, the more did I become convinced that the Roman Pontiffs, as they descended into the arena as witnesses, doctors and judges of the universal Church to fight for the Christian truth, were incapable of erring, through the power of a divine promise.  Don't let anyone say that the Roman Pontiffs, commending the dignity of their own See, speaking, that is, on their own behalf, should not be believed.  For if the testimony of the Roman Pontiffs is weakened for that reason [viz., because they speak on their own behalf], then indeed the entire ecclesiastical hierarchy is called into question: the authority of the teaching Church is not able to be proved except through the teaching Church.

As far as the second part of the traditional argument is concerned, viz., the assent of the Church which is offered to the faith of the Roman Pontiffs concerning the gift of Inerrancy of their See, the Church has well manifested this assent indirectly (i.e., by reason of its mode of acting) as well as directly and by explicit words.  Passing over in silence the explicit testimonies by which the holy Fathers and the councils have manifested their assent, I ought to spend a little time on the indirect testimony which is drawn from the Church's mode of acting, since doing so will offer me the opportunity of removing some of the difficulties which have been raised by some of the reverend fathers.  This indirect testimony rises from the rule of faith which the most ancient Fathers have handed down...

I now come to the second part of our proposed chapter, that is, to the definition of papal infallibility itself.  This is contained in the second part of chapter four.  In the general relatio on this second part, it seems to me that two things are necessary: 1. to determine accurately the state of the question, and, 2. to illustrate the formula of the definition by a brief commentary.  First of all, therefore, the state of the question.

When we attempt a more accurate determination of the state of the question, we first come upon the words which have already so many times been ordered into exile from this hall, but which have not yet gone into exile.  Those words are: infallibility which is personal, separate, and absolute.  In reality the question hinges on these words. Let us see, therefore, as briefly as possible, what the sense of these words is.

In what sense can the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff be said to be personal?  It is said to be personal in order to exclude in this way a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the Roman Church.  Indeed, infallibility is said to be personal in order thereby to exclude a distinction between the See and the one who holds the See.  Since this distinction did not acquire any patrons in the general congregations, I shall refrain from saying anything about it.  Therefore, having rejected the distinction between the Roman Church and the Roman Pontiff, between the See and the possessor of the See, that is, between the universal series and the individual Roman Pontiffs succeeding each other in this series, we defend the personal infallibility of the Roman Pontiff inasmuch as this prerogative belongs, by the promise of Christ, to each and every legitimate successor of Peter in his chair.

Having said this, the notion of papal infallibility is not yet sufficiently defined.  The personal infallibility of the Pope must be more accurately defined in itself in the following way: it does not belong to the Roman Pontiff inasmuch as he is a private person, nor even inasmuch as he is a private teacher, since, as such, he is equal with all other private teachers and, as Cajetan wisely noted, equal does not have power over equal, not such power as the Roman Pontiff exercises over the Church Universal.  Hence we do not speak about personal infallibility, although we do defend the infallibility of the person of the Roman Pontiff, not as an individual person but as the person of the Roman Pontiff or a public person, that is, as head of the Church in his relation to the Church Universal.  Indeed it should not be said that the Pontiff is infallible simply because of the authority of the papacy but rather inasmuch as he is certainly and undoubtedly subject to the direction of divine assistance.  By the authority of the papacy, the Pontiff is always the supreme judge in matters of faith and morals, and the father and teacher of all Christians. But the divine assistance promised to him, by which he cannot err, he only enjoys as such when he really and actually exercises his duty as supreme judge and universal teacher of the Church in disputes about the Faith.  Thus, the sentence "The Roman Pontiff is infallible" should not be treated as false, since Christ promised that infallibility to the person of Peter and his successors, but it is incomplete since the Pope is only infallible when, by a solemn judgment, he defines a matter of faith and morals for the Church universal.

In what sense can the infallibility of the Pope be said to be "separate"?  It is able to be called "separate," or rather distinct because it rests on a special promise of Christ and therefore on a special assistance of the Holy Spirit, which assistance is not one and the same with that which the whole body of the teaching Church enjoys when united with its head. For since Peter and his successor are the center of ecclesiastical unity, whose task it is to preserve the Church in a unity of faith and charity and to repair the Church when disturbed, his condition and his relation to the Church are completely special; and to this special and distinct condition corresponds a special and distinct privilege.  Therefore, in this sense there belongs to the Roman Pontiff a separate infallibility.  But in saying this we do not separate the Pontiff from his ordained union with the Church.  For the Pope is only infallible when, exercising his function as teacher of all Christians and therefore representing the whole Church, he judges and defines what must be believed or rejected by all. He is no more able to be separated from the universal Church than the foundation from the building it is destined to support.  Indeed we do not separate the Pope, defining, from the cooperation and consent of the Church, at least in the sense that we do not exclude this cooperation and this consent of the Church.  This is clear from the purpose for which this prerogative has been divinely granted.

The purpose of this prerogative is the preservation of truth in the Church.  The special exercise of this prerogative occurs when there arise somewhere in the Church scandals against the faith, i.e., dissensions and heresies which the bishops of the individual churches or even gathered together in provincial council are unable to repress so that they are forced to appeal to the Apostolic See regarding the case, or when the bishops themselves are infected by the sad stain of error.  And thereby we do not exclude the cooperation of the Church because the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff does not come to him in the manner of inspiration or of revelation but through a divine assistance.  Therefore the Pope, by reason of his office and the gravity of the matter, is held to use the means suitable for properly discerning and aptly enunciating the truth.  These means are councils, or the advice of the bishops, cardinals, theologians, etc.  Indeed, the means are diverse according to the diversity of situations, and we should piously believe that, in the divine assistance promised to Peter and his successors by Christ, there is simultaneously contained a promise about the means which are necessary and suitable to make an infallible pontifical judgment.

Finally we do not separate the Pope, even minimally, from the consent of the Church, as long as that consent is not laid down as a condition which is either antecedent or consequent. We are not able to separate the Pope from the consent of the Church because this consent is never able to be lacking to him. Indeed, since we believe that the Pope is infallible through the divine assistance, by that very fact we also believe that the assent of the Church will not be lacking to his definitions since it is not able to happen that the body of bishops be separated from its head, and since the Church universal is not able to fail.  For it is impossible that general obscurity be spread in respect to the more important truths which touch upon religion, as the Synod of Pistoia held.

Note well.  It is asked in what sense the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is "absolute."  I reply and openly admit: in no sense is pontifical infallibility absolute, because absolute infallibility belongs to God alone, who is the first and essential truth and who is never able to deceive or be deceived.  All other infallibility, as communicated for a specific purpose, has its limits and its conditions under which it is considered to be present.  The same is valid in reference to the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff.  For this infallibility is bound by certain limits and conditions.  What those conditions may be should be deduced not "a priori" but from the very promise or manifestation of the will of Christ. 

Now what follows from the promise of Christ, made to Peter and his successors, as far as these conditions are concerned?  He promised Peter the gift of inerrancy in Peter's relation to the Universal Church: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it ..." (Mt. 16:18).  "Feed my lambs, feed my sheep" (Jn. 21:13-17).  Peter, placed outside this relation to the universal Church, does not enjoy in his successors this charism of truth which comes from that certain promise of Christ. Therefore, in reality, the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is restricted by reason "of the subject," that is when the Pope, constituted in the chair of Peter, the center of the Church, speaks as universal teacher and supreme judge: it is restricted by reason of the "object," i.e., when treating of matters of faith and morals; and by reason of the "act" itself, i.e., when the Pope defines what must be believed or rejected by all the faithful.  Nevertheless, some of the most reverend fathers, not content with these conditions, go farther and even want to put into this constitution conditions which are found in different ways in different theological treatises and which concern the good faith and diligence of the Pontiff in searching out and enunciating the truth.  However, these things, since they concern the conscience of the Pontiff rather than his relation [to the Church], must be considered as touching on the moral order rather than the dogmatic order. For with great care our Lord Jesus Christ willed that the charism of truth depend not on the conscience of the Pontiff, which is private - even most private - to each person, and known to God alone, but rather on the public relation of the Pontiff to the universal Church.  If it were otherwise, this gift of infallibility would not be an effective means for preserving and repairing the unity of the Church.  But in no way, therefore, should it be feared that the universal Church could be led into error about faith through the bad faith and negligence of the Pontiff. For the protection of Christ and the divine assistance promised to the successors of Peter is a cause so efficacious that the judgment of the supreme Pontiff would be impeded if it were to be erroneous and destructive of the Church; or, if in fact the Pontiff really arrives at a definition, it will truly stand infallibly.

BUT SOME WILL PERSIST AND SAY: there remains, therefore, the duty of the Pontiff - indeed most grave in its kind - of adhering to the means apt for discerning the truth, and, although this matter is not strictly dogmatic, it is, nevertheless, intimately connected with dogma.  For we define: the dogmatic judgments of the Roman Pontiff are infallible. Therefore let us also define the form to be used by the Pontiff in such a judgment.  It seems to me that this was the mind of some of the most reverend fathers as they spoke from this podium.  But, most eminent and reverend fathers, THIS PROPOSAL SIMPLY CANNOT BE ACCEPTED because we are not dealing with something new here. Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See; where is the law which proscribes the form to be observed in such judgments?

Perhaps someone will say: if we don't have a law, let us make one.  But let us not do this lest we run up against that already condemned law which said that the council was above the Pope.  Furthermore, of what use would be such a law? Would it not be completely useless, since it would never be able to be verified by the faithful and the bishops scattered throughout the world?  Even more, it would be a very dangerous thing since it would offer the opportunity for innumerable foolish objections and anxieties.  Therefore, let Peter gird himself according to the word of our Lord Jesus Christ, since Peter does not grow old while the world grows old but rather renews his powers like the eagle...

Indeed it cannot be denied that, in the relation of Peter to the Church, to which Christ willed that the infallibility of Peter be joined, there is contained a special relation of Peter to the Apostles and therefore also to the bishops, since Christ said to Peter: "I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail, and you, once turned, confirm your brothers" (Lk. 22:32).  This, therefore, is the relation of the Pontiff to the bishops which is contained in the promise of Christ.  If these words of Christ are to have their necessary force, then it seems to me that one should conclude that the brothers, that is, the bishops, in order that they be firm in the faith, need the aid and advice of Peter and his successors, and not vice versa...

A figure of speech is not an argument, or, as is commonly said, every analogy limps.  And that this
comparison, applied in this way, really limps, can be shown by the following reason.  Are not the laity, among whom there are very many who are outstanding in knowledge and piety, and, even more, are not the priests who exercise the duty of teaching their parishioners, are not they all members of the Church? Who would doubt it?  Therefore, should these also help the Pope by their advice and aid when he makes dogmatic judgments?  By no means.  And why not?  Is it not because they do not belong to the Church teaching?  All right, but at the same time it is evident that the analogy about the head and members limps.  But now it is asked whether the bishops also - although they are constituted by God as witnesses, teachers and judges of the Christian faith - do not relate to the Pope as disciples to teacher, when he is defining for the whole Church and exercising his duty as universal teacher.  Such is the case. For this is what the words of Christ and the words "supreme judge," "universal doctor," and "pastor of the whole flock of Christ" signify.  So, on that point, too, the adduced comparison limps, and the consequence about the necessity of the advice of the bishops falls...

Furthermore - and this is to be noted well - everyone knows that this rule about the consent of the Churches in their present preaching is valid only in its positive sense and, by no means, in its negative sense.  This means that everything which the Universal Church, consenting to, receives and venerates in its present preaching as revealed is certainly true and Catholic [doctrine].  But, what happens if disagreements arise among the particular churches and are followed by controversies about the faith?  Then, according to Vincent of Lerins, one must recur to the consent of antiquity, that is, to Scripture and the holy Fathers; and, from the consent of antiquity, differences in present preaching are to be resolved...

[W]hoever contends that the Pope, either for his information or for an infallible judgment about faith and morals, totally depends on the manifest consent of the bishops or on their aid has nothing left to do than to establish that false principle which says that all dogmatic judgments of the Roman Pontiff are weak and reformable in and of themselves unless the consent of the Church accrues to them.  But such an outlook is either completely arbitrary or subversive of all papal infallibility. It is arbitrary if it requires the assent of a greater or lesser part of the bishops.  Because, who will decide what number of them is sufficient?  Who will make a choice since, in this respect, the bishops are completely equal among themselves and the assent of some cannot be prejudicial to the assent and judgment of others?  The arbitrary character of this outlook is seen especially when one is dealing with subsequent assent, either tacit or expressed.  History is a witness to what anxieties, commotions and scandals come forth.  But, wait, there is more.  

This system or outlook is completely subversive of all papal infallibility if the consent of the whole Church is required by it.  For then there would exist in reality only one infallibility, that which resides in the whole body of the teaching Church.  But in that case, the decrees of the Roman Pontiff can and should be reformed by a general council inasmuch as, in the meantime, the assent of the Church would not be so manifest that it could not be denied.  And lest we fall again into the infallibility of the Pontiff decreeing by himself alone, the Pope would not be able to confirm any but those decrees of a council which were pleasing to a majority of the bishops or rather to the unanimity of the bishops.  But what if the bishops did not agree among themselves?  It would be the end of judgment in the Church, it would be the death knell of the Church which, according to the Apostle, should be the column and foundation of truth.

Now before I end this general relatio, I should respond to the most grave objection which has been made from this podium, viz. that we wish to make the extreme opinion of a certain school of theology a dogma of Catholic faith.  Indeed this is a very grave objection, and, when I heard it from the mouth of an outstanding and most esteemed speaker, I hung my head sadly and pondered well before speaking.  Good God, have you so confused our minds and our tongues that we are misrepresented as promoting the elevation of the extreme opinion of a certain school to the dignity of dogma, and is Bellarmine brought forth as the author of the fourth proposition of the Declaration of the French Clergy? For, if I may begin from the last point, what is the difference between the assertion which the reverend speaker attributes to Bellarmine, viz., "The Pontiff is not able to define anything infallibly without the other bishops and without the cooperation of the Church," and that well-known 4th article which says: "in questions of faith the judgment of the supreme Pontiff is not irreformable unless the consent of the Church accrues to it"?  In reality there is hardly to be found any difference unless someone wants to call the disagreement of the bishops the cooperation of the Church so that a dogmatic definition would be infallible, even though the bishops dissent, but as long as they had been consulted beforehand. These things are said about the opinion of Bellarmine.  

As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma.  For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls pious and probable, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy.  To say nothing of the other points, let me say that this is clear from the very words of Bellarmine, both in the citation made by the reverend speaker and also from Bellarmine himself who, in book 4, chapter VI, pronounces on the opinion of Pighius in the following words: "It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith."  From this, it appears that the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion.

©2003, Appendix D was edited by I. Shawn McElhinney. It is a compilation of texts from a speech presented by Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser of Brixen to the Fathers of the First Vatican Council. (On how the proposed dogma of papal infallibility was to be properly understood.) This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the editor.

DOBBS AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA

Quickening and human intuition on abortion

For Preserving the Historical Record:

(Against Comment Box Censorship)

In the posting from yesterday, I included comments of mine published in response to the linked article. As one of them was taken down while the source being responded to was allowed to remain, I will post here the response censored from the comments thread. Those interested in the piece I was responding to can find the lnk in that comment section for the full context. (I am in no mood to supply such a courtesy now.) Without further ado...

I yawned the moment I saw Leila Lawler resorting to the usual trad drivel and was just waiting for the obligatory Quo Primum reference. There it is, right on schedule even if she is five Pope Pius’ (and thus three hundred plus years) off in historical chronology.

I then waited to see the complaint that Tyler did not write a lengthy tome on liturgical history in an article with probable word and space limits and she did not disappoint there either, how dare he in a single article not cover “all the important issues” (cf. L. Lawler)? Then the trad literary circle where one trad (Peter K) recommends the work of another trad (Leila L) who themselves recommended the work of the one recommending them (Peter K). Nothing like keeping things in the trad echo chamber after all. But we are not done as we have the usual trad claims about supposed “contradictions” which they are either too lazy or disingenuous to see are rarely in substance what they claim. That would of course get in the way of the trad “in short, propaganda” (cf. L. Lawler) and at no time must we allow that.

From there we have the complaint that Tyler “does not grapple with the actual results of the near-universal implementation of the Mass of Paul IV” (cf. L. Lawler) setting aside the fact that (i) Paul IV never promulgated a Missal and (ii) it took some time for Quo Primum to be implemented in accordance with Pius V’s wishes. (In some parts of the world it took a century or more!) Someone needs to introduce Leila and other trads to a Latin saying “abusus non tollit usum.”

From there she gets in a standard trad swipe against Amoris Laetitia manifesting an unfortunate (and arguably vincible if not crass) ignorance of the issue. But it served its purpose for her as a great response padding distraction from the topic of Tyler’s article. Then she wraps up with a standard trad call of disobedience under the guise of being “truly obedient” and she has the temerity to accuse Tyler or others of “obeying contradiction”!

As enough has been said about Leila’s garden variety tradbabble, it seems appropriate to end this by admonishing her with the words of Pope Leo XIII:

“[I]t is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.

On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge.” [Pope Leo XIII: Apostolic Letter Epistola Tua]

Shepherding the Flock Out of the 1962 Missal

I have a few comments posted to the comments section of the link above. As they are approved, I will repost them here.

Comment #1:

Tyler, 

The title of the article should be changed. I think it is too deliberately provocative and that does not serve the cause of authentic dialogue very well. Otherwise, the article is not bad. (Some points could use fleshing out but I understand the nature of space constraints, word limits, and the like.)

I realize there are trad folks griping in the comments section about it but they whine about everything anyway as it is and despite numerous rebuttals over the years, they continue to make the same discredited objections. I highly doubt it is even worth the time and effort to engage the wilfully obtuse at this point but of course as we are called to evangelize so moving forward we must and entrust our efforts to God.

Despite the mountains of absurdities in trad arguments, they are right about exactly two substantive points and the longer those two points go unaddressed throughout various parts of the Church, the more trad resistance will have a flimsy pretense of justification. The first is Church architecture. Churches that look like gymnasiums do not speak to the senses in a way that is uplifting. (To be clear, this is not directed at places in the world where they have no other options but throughout the First World, the iconoclasm directed towards churches in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council was inexcusable.)

The second is Church music. You need not go all Gregorian all the time to have music fitting for liturgical worship but much greater discrimination in songs chosen as well as how they are arranged would go a long way to augment a liturgical celebration rather than hindering it.

I doubt I have witnessed a single liturgical celebration in my life that was wholly absent liturgical abuses and that includes when I attended the Tridentine form. But there are minor abuses and more significant ones. If those promoting the revised Roman Missal do not focus on rooting out abuses and creating an atmosphere conducive to authentic and uplifting liturgical celebrations, they will hinder their cause rather than help it.

But anyway, to get back to the first point I made, please change the title of this article to one less provocative, Tyler. Perhaps something like “On Bishops and the 1962 Missal” or something more innocuous than a title that explicitly denotes taking something away. While it will not placate the Usual crowd of trad gripers at least it will be much less of a proverbial finger in the eye.

As comment #2 was deleted, I will make a separate posting of it on the site and link to it here.

Points to Ponder:

It's better to be part of the process than to stand on the sideline and criticize, although I criticize, too. [Fr. Robert Taft SJ]

Miscellaneous Musings:

(On A Potential Petrine Apologia For Galatians 2)

This material was posted by yours truly in a social media instant messenger thread within the past couple of weeks.

The reason most Catholics approach the Galatians 2 incident as they do is from a position of defense. Protestants love to seize on it as proofread against papal primacy and papal infallibility whereas Catholics point out that nothing St. Peter did would have involved papal infallibility and papal primacy does not mean popes cannot be scolded at times for their own good. I am reminded of the US general who told Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap "you know, you never once defeated us on the battlefield" and Giap's response was "that is true but irrelevant." Likewise, however true the common Catholic response is to Protestant claims, it too is irrelevant. And while St. Thomas Aquinas is usually a good guide on any subjects, there are exceptions and a strong biblical argument can be made that this is one of them. 

To be clear, I cannot claim credit for the original thrust of this argument, for that would go to my friend Dr. Art Sippo. Essentially, St. Paul was out of line in Galatians 2. He was not wrong in principle but the early Church was much more sensitive pastorally to the scruples of weaker brethren. St. Peter did the right thing in Antioch for pastoral reasons and St. Paul was being both tiresome and legalistic. Despite his pastoral insensitivity however, St. Paul outlined why St. Peter should not have had to do what he did. But make no mistake, St. Peter was the better man in this instance. How do we know this? Because St. Paul admitted as much later on. 

Read 1 Corinthians 10:23-31 then read Romans 14: 1-23. St. Paul masterfully expounds in both places exactly what St. Peter was doing in Antioch and recommending a more pastorally sensitive approach to our brethren. The same principle was utilized in Acts 21:20-26. If St. Peter was wrong in Galatians 2 then St. Paul was wrong in 1 Corinthians 10:23-31 and Romans 14:1-23 and he was wrong to act as he did in Acts 21:20-26. St. Paul by his later words and statements vindicated St. Peter in Antioch. 

If one reads the Pauline corpus of epistles and Acts, you can see quite clearly a spiritual growth in St. Paul. After his conversion, he was on fire for the Lord but like Sts. John and James in the Samaritan incident (cf. Luke 9:52-56), St. Paul at this point in his life lacked both tact and pastoral sensitivity. He would learn these over time of course as in his journeys and struggles and the legalistic Pharisee would give way to a man of profound pastoral sensitivity, one who would "become all things to all" (cf. 1 Cor. 9:19-23). St. Peter did not possess St. Paul's book learning. Nonetheless, the unlettered fisherman understood the principle of pastoral sensitivity to weaker brethren better than than the learned but fanatical former Pharisee at the time of Galatians 2 in keeping with Jesus' words "My Father, Lord of heaven and earth, I am grateful that you hid all this from wise and educated people and showed it to ordinary people" (Matt. 11:25).

 

10 WW I Battles That Killed Christianity

I have long believed that the death knell for Christendom was World War I (WWI) after a couple centuries of ever weakening understanding of Christendom as a moral order. The above article substantiates this hypothesis and approaches it from the angle of major battles in WWI that were instrumental in snuffing out the Christian moral order in Europe.

In a certain sense, we all lived the past century plus in the ruins of the WWI destruction of what remained of the old Christian moral order.

Extremists on Both Sides Are Enabling Violence | Opinion

The above article was written by my old Jaded Politics amigo Darvio "The Kingpin" Morrow. Here is just a sample...

"...Bail reform efforts can be commendable. But they should never be applicable to people accused of violent felonies, something most reasonable, rational people who support bail reform understand. The problem is when elite academics and political morons who live in online echo chambers hijack the discourse. That's when the conversation devolves from 'Police Accountability' to 'Defund the Police' to 'Abolish the Police.' That's when bail reform for people arrested on low-level crimes like marijuana possession turns into 'bail reform for anybody accused of anything'..."

Conservative Support for Andrew Coffee IV Is Opportunistic Hypocrisy

Here is just a sampling from the link above...

"...This brand of conservatives is so laser-focused on opposing the left that they are willing to sacrifice truth and justice at the altar of 'owning libs.'  Instead of taking a look at the facts of cases and making their own determination as to what 'justice' looks like, they look to the left to see what they are doing so that they can do the exact opposite.  Instead of taking a moment to acknowledge that we are failing at 'liberty and justice for all,' they are busy googling 'black guy self-defense acquittal.' They aren’t choosing what to support.  They are choosing to oppose BLM and the left at all costs.

Both of these cases are tragedies.  Both of these cases are examples of injustice.  Both deserve our support and outrage and not just when it serves our narrative.  If anything, the Breonna Taylor case is more of an injustice and something for which we should be more outraged, but I guess there were no white kids recently acquitted of self-defense at the time..."