Friday, October 23, 2020

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

One common mistake made in the area of magisterial interpretation is the texts are not considered in the totality of what they say. As a result, most folks who have recourse to said texts{1} usually miss important nuances in a text that they then presume say one thing when in actuality, they say something if not significantly differently then at least differently enough to undermine those citing said texts. In essence, words mean things and words matter. 

When seeking to correctly interpret a presumed magisterial statement{2}, it is important to consider every word in the text or statement because omitting even a mere word or two can change the manifested meaning. I wrote in detail on the subjects of the magisterium and the obedience required earlier in the year{3} and will reference from that work at this time a pertinent part of it for the point I am making here. To wit: 
It helps to remember at the outset of treating on this subject matter that "a simple sentence, even spoken by the Sovereign Pontiff, is not an act of the Magisterium; we know that all statements have different degrees of authority."[...] So those who conflate airplane interviews[...], purported statements of non-dogmatic fact[...], speeches on geopolitical matters[...], or musings on economics particulars[...] are going outside what the Church requires. This also applies to those who make too much out of statements about historical events,[...] personal opinions on various subject matters from papal exhortatory comments,[...] as well as papal empirical surmises.[...]{4}
There are a variety of possible mediums basically. And as not everything in an unquestionable magisterial source is ipso facto magisterial, one needs to be particularly careful with sources that are of a more questionable nature.

Hopefully this brief treatment on the subject of interpretation{5} can be of assistance for those of good will who strive honestly and humbly to properly understand and interpret various sources of varying degrees of potentially magisterial nature.


Notes:

{1} Usually in a critical or apologetical context. 

{2} I say "presumed magisterial statement" because there is a habit by most people to equate virtually anything said by the Pope, a bishop, or another cleric as automatically magisterial. It is of course not that simple. 


{4} See the source in footnote three.

{5} For the first installment thread on this topic, see the following post:


Thursday, October 22, 2020

On Positive Arguments For Voting For Biden/Harris in 2020:

My words will be in regular font. Without further ado...

So far I've managed to detect only two positive arguments for Harris/Biden from left-leaning Catholics: he's "minimally rational," and he'd aim to raise taxes. All the other arguments are fulminations against Trump and/or against the ASP.  Not a bad endorsement of voting for somebody other than Harris/Biden.

I dealt with the American Solidarity Party (ASP) earlier in the year so I am not going to reinvent the wheel here. As for the rest, raising taxes is never a positive argument. It is instead the lazy politicians attempt to avoid exercising fiscal discipline. If Biden was to push for zero based budgeting coupled with sequestration automatically cutting 5% of all essential and unquestionably constitutional programs every year{1} until the budget was balanced then the creation of a sinking fund to pay down debt{2}, that would be a great combination of reasons. But raising taxes is both lazy as well as deceptive because "only the rich" is the camels nose in the tent to raise taxes on everyone and is always what happens. So point one is a highly negative reason not a positive one and ergo stands debunked.

So you only have one and if "minimally rational" is the argument, Trump meets that low threshold so it is a wash/push.

Notes:

{1} And 10% of all non essential or constitutionally controversial programs.

{2} See this thread for more details:

A Plan To Pay Off The National Debt (circa August 14, 2020)



Hunter biz partner confirms email, details Joe Biden’s push to make millions from China

This is confirmation of the claims made in previous exposes by the New York Post published to this humble site over the past seven days.

Wednesday, October 21, 2020

Sonnet XIX:
(Requiem For Summer Past)

Having another birthday today, this sonnet from Shakespeare came to mind. It is not just a requiem for summer past but for 47 summers past. Without further ado...

Devouring Time, blunt thou the lion's paws,

And make the earth devour her own sweet brood;

Pluck the keen teeth from the fierce tiger's jaws,

And burn the long-liv'd phoenix, in her blood;

Make glad and sorry seasons as thou fleet'st,

And do whate'er thou wilt, swift-footed Time,

To the wide world and all her fading sweets;

But I forbid thee one most heinous crime:

O! carve not with thy hours my love's fair brow,

Nor draw no lines there with thine antique pen;

Him in thy course untainted do allow

For beauty's pattern to succeeding men.

Yet, do thy worst old Time: despite thy wrong,

My love shall in my verse ever live young.

Tuesday, October 20, 2020

On the Modern Media Monolith:
(With Christopher Blosser)

This is in response to my recent musings published on social media as well as HERE. My words will be in regular font. Without further ado...

Fox News has been the mirror image of MNSBC/CNN for as long as I can remember. I suppose Twitter/FB’s leanings are a new thing.

At the same time, where and when, for example, a social media company has the technical capacity to identify clear instances of foreign actors influencing an election (ex. paid advertising, deletion of dummy/bot accounts, obvious “fake news” postings which have no basis in fact or overt propaganda campaigns) I’m not necessarily opposed to increasing vigilance or countermeasures (as when FB took active measures against the Russian disinformation campaigns in 2019 and more recently the Chinese this year). 

Ex. https://www.bloombergquint.com/technology/facebook-removes-fake-account-network-based-in-china

Though this is probably a separate issue altogether it is occasionally perceived as being “on behalf of” a specific candidate.


If we consider CNN and MSNBC a wash with Fox News{1}, that still leaves ABC, NBC, CBS, Reuters, almost all significant newspapers, Facebook, and Twitter very clearly and unmistakably backing a truck up on the scale for Biden.

Unlike in the old days when this stuff was usually more coy or at least not blatant, there is no pretence of evenhandedness.

This has all the hallmarks of an American Pravda network. I am extremely troubled by this, particularly the thought that a Biden win means it would only worsen.

Note:

{1} Which considering there are no Chris Wallace types on those stations shivving Biden so it is not apples to apples.

Monday, October 19, 2020

'Unverified' is a (false) excuse for ignoring The Post’s Hunter Biden scoops

This article is spot on. The same sources using the "inverified" excuse here have used a trove of anonymous sources to supposedly "verify" their stories in the past where President Trump is concerned. 

Considering that many of these have been exposed as false{1} you will have to pardon those of us who roll our eyes hard at the idea of the mainstream media having any credibility in this area. They have unambiguously shown their hands in recent years that it calls into question why they should be believed on anything at all.

Note:

{1} To give one such example, see this link.
Points to Ponder:

The fundamental principle is that no battle, combat, or skirmish is to be fought unless it will be won. [Ernesto "Che" Guevara]

Sunday, October 18, 2020

Miscellaneous Musings:
(On the Increasingly Troubling Media Monoliths)

Apart from anything else in this election, I am particularly troubled by the way the mainstream media and big tech who run social media platforms are so obviously and evidently in the bag for one of the presidential candidates. The difference in how the two are treated cannot be more obvious and I am troubled by the fact that not only do the favoured candidates supporters generally not see it but of those that do, none of them seem to care.

Totalitarian regimes of the past got their starts in similar kinds of environs and a lot of folks who would criticize the public's complacency in those circumstances do not see how they are going along with or (in some cases) defending the very same thing themselves completely oblivious (it seems) to the irony involved.

Wednesday, October 14, 2020

WHAT COULD ACCOUNT FOR THIS? (Instapundit)

I concur completely with this analysis and the sources quoted therein.

Tuesday, October 13, 2020

Points to Ponder:

The purpose of human law is to lead men to virtue, not suddenly, but gradually. Wherefore it does not lay upon the multitude of imperfect men the burdens of those who are already virtuous, viz. that they should abstain from all evil. Otherwise these imperfect ones, being unable to bear such precepts, would break out into yet greater evils: thus it is written (Ps. 30:33): "He that violently bloweth his nose, bringeth out blood"; and (Mt. 9:17) that if "new wine," i.e. precepts of a perfect life, "is put into old bottles," i.e. into imperfect men, "the bottles break, and the wine runneth out," i.e. the precepts are despised, and those men, from contempt, break into evils worse still. [St. Thomas Aquinas]

Monday, October 12, 2020

Texts on the Sacrament of Penance:

The following was either composed or finished on May 30, 2018 for a Facebook discussion thread that got lost in the shuffle the way many of those things can. I decided since the material could be of some use to post it here in tract form sans the original names included in the text and the usual footnote format. Without further ado...

For all this talk about Scripture, as usual I see this passage is never brought up. I wonder why?
"On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’ When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained'." [John 20:19–23]
Catholics along with all Apostolic Christians believe that the Apostles as the first bishops sent others as they were sent, etc down to the present day.

I noticed some were counting opinions on this thread as if this is a matter to be settled democratically. If [the author] does not mind, I would gladly submit opinions from ten early Christians which do not countenance the prevailing view on this thread.
"In church confess your sins, and do not come to your prayer with a guilt conscience. Such is the Way of Life...On the Lord's own day,assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins,so that your sacrifice may be pure.” [Didache, 4:14,14:1 (circa 70 AD),in ACW, 6:18,23]
The Didache is quite possibly the oldest Christian non-New Testament writing and is even older than some of the books of the Bible. It was used as a catechesis text from very early on. It speaks of confessing one’s sins which implies they were confessed to someone.
"For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ." [St. Ignatius of Antioch: Letter to the Philadelphians 3 (circa 110)]
How were they to know what penance was assigned to them? Through confession to a bishop or priest of course. Ignatius of Antioch was the third Bishop of Antioch and a student of the Apostle John. Obviously, Ignatius took the Gospel of John at face value on this matter.
"O God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Father of mercies and God of all comfort, Who dwellest on high yet hast respect unto the lowly, who knowest all things before they come to pass; Who didst give ordinances unto Thy church by the Word of thy grace; Who didst foreordain from the beginning the race of the righteous from Abraham, instituting princes and priests and leaving not Thy sanctuary without ministers; Who from the foundation of the world hast been pleased to be glorified in them whom Thou hast chosen; And now pour forth that Power which is from Thee, of the princely Spirit which Thou didst deliver to Thy Beloved Child Jesus Christ, which He bestowed on Thy holy Apostles who established the Church which hallows Thee in every place to the endless glory and praise of Thy Name. Father who knowest the hearts of all grant upon this Thy servant whom Thou hast chosen for the episcopate to feed Thy holy flock and serve as Thine high priest,that he may minister blamelessly by night and day,that he may unceasingly behold and propriate Thy countenance and offer to Thee the gifts of Thy holy Church. And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority to forgive sins..." [Hippolytus of Rome: Apostolic Tradition,3 From Prayer for the Consecration of a Bishop (circa 215 AD), in AT, 4-5]
The prayer for the consecration of a bishop as recorded by Hippolytus of Rome specifically mentions the grant of authority by the Holy Spirit to the bishop being consecrated to forgive sins.
"The Pontifex Maximus--that is, the bishop of bishops--issues an edict: 'I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.' " [Tertullian of Carthage: Modesty,1 (circa 220 AD), in ANF, IV:74]
The issue that Tertullian had was not the Pontifex Maximus (Pope Callistus I) forgiving sins but the specific sins involved. (A topic for another time perhaps.) Tertullian’s witness from Africa (specifically the region of Carthage) is more of a hostile one but it still shows how widespread the practice of confession to bishops and priests was back in the early third century.
"There is also yet a seventh, although hard and laborious, the remission of sins through penitence, when the sinner 'washeth his bed with tears, and his tears become his bread day and night', and when he is not ashamed to declare his sin to the priest of the Lord, and to seek a remedy; according to him who says: 'I said, I will confess against myself mine injustice to the Lord, and Thou hast forgiven the wickedness of my heart.' (Psalm 31:5) In which that also is fulfilled, which the Apostle James says: 'But if any one is sick amongst you, let him call the priests of the Church.' (St. James 5:14). [Origen of Alexandria: Homilies on Leviticus,2:4 (circa 248 AD), in JUR, I:207]
The above text is self explanatory and is a witness from the region of Alexandria in Egypt.
"God cannot be mocked, nor deceived, nor deluded by any deceptive cunning. Yea, he sins the more, who, thinking that God is like man, believes that he evades the penalty of his crime if he has not openly admitted his crime. Christ says in His precepts, 'Whosoever shall be ashamed of me, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed.' And does he think that he is a Christian, who is either ashamed or afraid to be a Christian? How can he be one with Christ, who either blushes or fears to belong to Christ? He will certainly have sinned less, by not seeing the idols, and not profaning the sanctity of the faith under the eyes of a people standing round and insulting, and not polluting his hands by the deadly sacrifices, nor defiling his lips with the wicked food. This is advantageous to this extent, that the fault is less, not that the conscience is guiltless. He can more easily attain to pardon of his crime, yet he is not free from crime; and let him not cease to carry out his repentance, and to entreat the Lord's mercy, lest what seems to be less in the quality of his fault, should be increased by his neglect of atonement. I entreat you, beloved brethren, that each one should confess his own sin, while he who has sinned is still in this world, while his confession may be received, while the satisfaction and remission made by the priests are pleasing to the Lord." [Cyprian of Carthage: To the Lapsed, 28-29 (circa 251 AD), in ANF, IV:445]
The above text is a second witness from the Carthage region in Africa of confession of one’s sins and remission of sins being made by a priest of the Lord.
"This (forgiving sins), you say, only God can do. Quite true: but what He does through His priests is the doing of His own power." [Pacian of Barcelona: Ep. I ad Sympron., 6 (approx 365 AD) in P.L., XIII, 1057.]
The witness above is from Barcelona in Spain and again speaks of the priest mediating forgiveness of sins through his priests.
“Just as a man is enlightened by the Holy Spirit when he is baptized by a priest, so he who confesses his sins with a repentant heart obtains their remission from the priest. [Athanasius of Alexandria: On the Gospel of Luke 19 (circa 373 AD)]
A second witness from Alexandria, this time Bishop Athanasius one of the champions of orthodoxy against the Arian heretics of the fourth century. He speaks of confession of sins to a priest and receiving remission of sins from a priest.
"It is necessary to confess our sins to those whom the dispensation of God's mysteries is entrusted." [Basil of Caesaria: Rule Briefly Treated, 288 (circa 374 AD), in JUR,II:26]
This witness comes from Bishop Basil of the region of Caesaria in modern day Turkey. He speaks of the necessity of confessing sins to those who God has entrusted to dispense forgiveness of sins. (In short, to a priest of the Lord.)
“Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed.’ Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can only bind the body. Priests, in contrast, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself and transcends the very heavens. Did [God] not give them all the powers of heaven? ‘Whose sins you shall forgive,’ he says, ‘they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’ What greater power is there than this? The Father has given all judgment to the Son. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men [Matt. 10:40; John 20:21–23]. They are raised to this dignity as if they were already gathered up to heaven” [John Chrysostrom of Constantinople: The Priesthood 3:5 (circa 387 AD)]
The above witness is from the region of Constantinople in modern day Turkey. Like all the prior examples,John Chrysostrom of Constantinople takes the Gospel of John and Jesus’ words on these matters literally.
"The Church holds fast its obedience on either side, by both retaining and remitting sin; heresy is on the one side cruel, and on the other disobedient; wishes to bind what it will not loosen, and will not loosen what it has bound, whereby it condemns itself by its. own sentence. For the Lord willed that the power of binding and of loosing should be alike, and sanctioned each by a similar condition. So he who has not the power to loose has not the power to bind. For as, according to the Lord's word, he who has the power to bind has also the power to loose, their teaching destroys itself, inasmuch as they who deny that they have the power of loosing ought also to deny that of binding. For how can the one be allowed and the other disallowed? It is plain and evident that either each is allowed or each is disallowed in the case of those to whom each has been given. Each is allowed to the Church, neither to heresy, for this power has been entrusted to priests alone. Rightly, therefore, does the Church claim it, which has true priests; heresy, which has not the priests of God, cannot claim it. And by not claiming this power heresy pronounces its own sentence, that not possessing priests it cannot claim priestly power. And so in their shameless obstinacy a shamefaced acknowledgment meets our view. Consider, too, the point that he who has received the Holy Ghost has also received the power of forgiving and of retaining sin. For thus it is written: 'Receive the Holy Spirit: whosesoever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.' So, then, he who has not received power to forgive sins has not received the Holy Spirit. The office of the priest is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and His right it is specially to forgive and to retain sins. How, then, can they claim His gift who distrust His power and His right?" [Ambrose of Milan: Concerning Repentance, I:7-8 (circa 388 AD), in NPNF2, X:330]
The above witness is from Bishop Ambrose of Milan in modern day Italy. He also speaks of the office of the priest being one gifted by the Holy Spirit with the right and power to forgive and retain sins.
"All mortal sins are to be submitted to the keys of the Church and all can be forgiven; but recourse to these keys is the only, the necessary, and the certain way to forgiveness. Unless those who are guilty of grevious sin have recourse to the power of the keys, they cannot hope for eternal salvation. Open your lips, them, and confess your sins to the priest. Confession alone is the true gate to Heaven." [Augustine of Hippo: Christian Combat (circa 397 AD)]
Bishop Augustine of the Hippo region of Africa continues with the early church witnesses of the importance of confession of sins to the bishops and priests who possess the keys of binding and loosing sins.
"Just as in the Old Testament the priest makes the leper clean or unclean, so in the New Testament the bishop and presbyter binds or looses not those who are innocent or guilty,but by reason of their office, when they have heard various kinds of sins, they know who is to be bound and who loosed." [Jerome of Dalmatia: Commentary on Matthew, 3:16,19 (circa 398), in JUR, II:202]
Jerome had spent time in Rome and also in Bethlehem but was from the region of Dalmatia in modern day Albania. He makes it eminently clear that the New Testament enjoins bishops and priests with the authority to forgive and regain sins.

In short, the early witness of the Church Fathers is universal on this matter and thus, it is those who would deny this truth who are the ones who are both unbiblical as well as inauthentically Christian.

Sunday, October 11, 2020

Signs Saudis are edging towards historic Israel peace

I commented on earlier peace treaties between Israel and the United Arab Emerites and Bahrain HERE. I speculated that Oman would be next but that has not happened yet. But we are seeing a historical process play out in the Middle East right now. 



Briefly...

I propose the definition of a new argumentation fallacy to explain something that has become more prevalent in recent years; namely, the attempted dismissal in a discussion of something said by a man to or about a woman without rational justification metely to distract from the issue at hand. 

Or if you prefer Latin: Argumentum ad Homo Explicate!

Saturday, October 10, 2020

Briefly...

I propose the definition of a new argumentation fallacy to explain something that has become more prevalent in recent years; namely, the appeal to race in a discussion to distract from the issue at hand. 

Or if you prefer Latin: Argumentum ad Genus!

Wednesday, October 07, 2020

Fratelli Tutti

I have not read Pope Francis' latest encyclical letter but I intend to before the year is out. While many documents of varying authority come from the Vatican, encyclical letters in general are among the most authoritative. However, that being noted, there is still usually a diversity of statements of varying magisterial weight in an encyclical latter much as with any document issued either by the pope or in his name. 

I went over the subject of the magisterium in detail earlier this year{1} both in scope{2} as well as the matter of proper interpretation thereof{3} so I see no need to reinvent that wheel. However, I do want to point out at least in passing that there will inevitably be no shortage of pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists who will treat this text as if each part of it is of equal weight.{4}

Too often documents issued by the Vatican are treated as a pretext by self-proclaimed More Moral Than Thou sorts for beating others over the head with parts that appear to support their preconceived presuppositions while ignoring or downplaying parts that appear to oppose said presuppositions thereof. Then there will be those who claim to be a faithful Catholic who will dismiss this encyclical wholesale lest they have to acknowledge something that is contrary to their particular worldview. Neither approach is correct for a faithful Catholic to take.

Having noted these things briefly, one final point: since most folks do not actually read Vatican documents except to prooftext them, be wary of those who seek to make too much or too little of the contents of the new encyclical letter. The truth on these matters is usually more nuanced than most folks either know or care to admit.

Notes:

{1} On the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, Obedience, and the Requirements of Faithful Catholics (circa February 26, 2020)

{2} See footnote one and also this thread:

On Clarifying and Retracting Some Prior Statements on the Magisterium (circa March 8, 2020)

{3} On Magisterial Interpretation (circa January 4, 2020)

{4} This is of course wrong but since when has that stopped those more interested in conflict than in genuine dialogue.

Monday, October 05, 2020

Briefly...

Since I cannot find a balanced and responsible article on President Donald Trump's catching of Covid 19, I will simply note here that (i) I am praying for him and everyone afflicted by this virus and (ii) I have zero respect for anyone who wishes this sort of thing on anyone else for reasons of political disagreement. Sadly, there are some disgusting people out there who do these things and I want nothing to do with them no matter whom they are.

Sunday, October 04, 2020

In perusing an old expository musing for use in a recent posting, I happened to spot this in one of the paragraphs:
Her site is worth reading even if only for the summary of other articles on the matter from Rerum Novarum recommended sources such as Little Green Footballs
Though we have soured some on Michelle Malkin{1} over the years, that is not the purpose of this posting.

For while we pride ourselves in our general and overall consistency over the years, we also try to address issues where our mind has changed and perhaps retractions of prior enunciated points are in order.{2} That is our intention with the present posting where the subject of Little Green Footballs is concerned.

Sometime in 2009, Little Green Footballs (LGF) made a radical swing to the far left. Not long afterwards, this site was suspended indefinitely{3} -a status that remained in effect until April of 2017.{4} As a result, the recommendation of LGF that we expressed in 2005 has not applied for a long time. And as we were reminded of our prior endorsement, we want to at this time formally, unambiguously, and irrevocably retract it.

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Notes:

{1} Michelle Malkin was the her referred to in the paragraph above. (I suppose this can be considered an additional minor clarification of sorts while not a full blown retraction.)