Friday, September 24, 2010

Bellisario Swings and Misses

Matthew Bellisario has a new post up (link to post). It purports to respond to an earlier post I provided (link to my post).

The title of the post is "Another "Expert" on Catholicism Misrepresents Church Teaching." The person he's referring to as "Expert" is me. I'm flattered! No, I jest. I'm not really flattered, because those little quotation marks are being used by Bellisario to indicate sarcasm.

But sarcasm is just the opening. The first sentence claims I'm someone "often misrepresents Catholic teaching" (no evidence provided). The second sentence calls my post my "latest rant."

You might think he'd met his quota of negative assertions with those two sentences and the title, but you'd be wrong. He's just getting started. In the third sentence, Bellisario says both that my argument "is based on pure fallacy" and then questions whether you can call my article an argument.

That third sentence is a set-up for the fourth sentence where Bellisario states: "Lets [sic] take a quick look at how this pretended "Reformer" misrepresents the Catholic Church here regarding infallibility." This sentence combines the sarcasm quotation marks, with the negative adjective "pretended," and a further negative assertion that I misrepresent "the Catholic Church" - a three-for-one special!

That concludes his opening paragraph. One might expect that he's about to unleash some demonstration of how I misrepresent his church.

But his very next sentence acknowledges that I quoted two documents from Cardinal Ratzinger from when he was prefect of the CDF and that I characterized the situation as "pretty clear." Bellisario's next sentence, remarkably, agrees that it is pretty clear!

Bellisario writes:
Yes its [sic] pretty clear, and dissent has no bearing on whether it is infallible or not. In fact, the reason why they were restating the Ordinary infallible teaching is because idiots in the Church were not following it.
At least it is nice to know that Bellisario's negative words are not reserved for us pretended reformers! And nothing that Bellisario has said here actually disagrees with what I wrote - in fact the one place it interacts, it explicitly agrees with me!

Bellisario then provides another block quote from and responds:
The document itself does not have to be "infallible" since the Church has long taught the doctrine as being infallible. In order for a doctrine to be considered infallible it does not have to be proclaimed formally by the Pope in any one given document. So a Catholic who understands how the Church defines doctrine does not care if the document itself is infallible, it merely becomes part of the same Ordinary and Universal Magisterial teaching that has always taught it as being infallible.
And, of course, nothing of what Bellisario has said disagrees with what I wrote. In theory, as Bellisario has said, something can be "considered infallible," even though no pope or council has defined it as dogma.

But, of course, the only way that these allegedly infallible teachings are known are through fallible means. In other words, someone could try to do personal research to see whether this teaching is really something that has been promulgated by the universal and ordinary magisterium, or one could rely on the CDF, but both of those techniques are fallible. One relies on private judgment, and one relies on a fallible authority. One could even rely on one's own interpretation of Scripture to conclude that male-only ordination is an infallible teaching. But one could be wrong. Neither one's private judgment nor the CDF has the charism of infallibility in Romanism.

Bellisario then provides another block quotation from me and comments:
No it is not even possible that a future Pope [sic] could change the doctrine, and only someone like Turretin Fan with limited knowledge about the Catholic Church would ever make such a statement like this. It is impossible for a Pope [sic] to come along and change Ordinary Infallible doctrines of the Church. It is not like Protestantism where teachings on contraception can change virtually overnight. The fact that there are dissidents in the Church who are active despite the Church's infallible teaching, again has no bearing on the argument at hand. There have always been dissenters in the Church despite the fact that the doctrine they oppose has been defined infallibly. We see this fact clearly with the heretical theologians who call themselves Catholic, who still do not accept the infallible teaching on Transubstantiation. No one cares, and it has no bearing on the infallibility of the teaching.
Finally, Bellisario says he disagrees with something! But note how he goes about it. First, he states the fact that he thinks he disagrees. Then, he makes a negative comment about me. Neither of these sentences is actually an argument, so we'll pass over them.

Getting to his argument, Bellisario alleges: "It is impossible for a Pope [sic] to come along and change Ordinary Infallible [sic] doctrines of the Church." But here we see the problem - the reason why Bellisario has disagreed: he has not understood what I wrote! I didn't say that it is possible for a pope to come along and change an infallible doctrine. I said it is possible that the pope could come along and define a doctrine that is contrary to what the CDF has claimed is an infallible doctrine. After all, the CDF is fallible. Consequently, the fact that the CDF claims that something is an infallible doctrine doesn't make it an infallible doctrine, just like Bellisario asserting that something is infallible doctrine doesn't make it so.

Bellisario's next sentence is an irrelevant aside on his disturbingly favorite topic of contraception. I'll leave it aside in the interest of time.

Bellisario's next assertion is that "The fact that there are dissidents in the Church who are active despite the Church's infallible teaching, again has no bearing on the argument at hand." Part of the problem, as noted above, is that Bellisario hasn't grasped the argument at hand. Another part of the problem is that "dissidents" are the way that something avoids being universal.

Let's try to help out Bellisario with an example. If we look at the Western church from Augustine to Aquinas, excluding the heretics, one will find that almost everyone acknowledged the universality of original sin, with Christ being the one exception because of his virginal conception. Yet, nevertheless, at some point folks (you could refer to them as "dissidents" or simply as "a vocal minority" if you like) began to allege that Mary was an additional exception.

This is not something that "change[d] virtually overnight." It is something that was very gradual. It took a long time from when Bridget of Sweden and Catherine of Sienna were having conflicting alleged private revelations to when Pius IX defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

It happens in Romanism - sometimes what was the viewpoint of a tiny minority becomes an allegedly infallible dogma later. That's why appeals to the "ordinary and universal magisterium" are illusory.

Bellisario provides a counter-example regarding theologians who deny transubstantiation. Suffice to say that this counter-example doesn't undermine what I've said. The dogma of Transubstantiation was defined at Trent. It's not something that's defined by the "ordinary and universal magisterium." So, even if Bellisario's characterization of the situation with them is accurate, it's not particularly relevant.

To put it another way: Bellisario has no consistent way to distinguish between a true dissident and a minority voice prior to an exercise of the extraordinary magisterium.

Bellisario concludes his post with the same kind of non-argumentation that characterized his opening:
Ordinarily I would not waste my time with such things, but pointing out this post gives us an example of how little the opposition truly understands about Catholicism. Let the buyer beware before they believe anything they read on Turretin Fan's website that pertains to Catholicism.
After seeing how Bellisario failed to rebut or refute anything that was said, spending his time arguing against a position not expressed in my article, perhaps a different moral emerges: understand what the critic of your church is saying, before you accuse the critic of not understanding your church's teaching, particularly when the critic quotes at length from your church's official documents.

Or you can just slap a lot of negative assertions together and call it a response!

-TurretinFan

59 comments:

Audrey said...

I'm not as knowledgable on the Catholic church as many others who read these blogs are, and I don't want my comment to deviate away from the topic, but I would like to say something if I may:

I understand that under pressure things can get a bit sarcastic or snarky, but for one who wishes to defend the faith of his church, insults isn't the way to go. After all, Christ did speak out against it:

James 3:8-12 But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God; from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way. Does a fountain send out from the same opening both fresh and bitter water? Can a fig tree, my brethren, produce olives, or a vine produce figs? Nor can salt water produce fresh.

Ephesians 4:29 Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear.

It's not just in my opinion, but God teaches that when you talk, or even debate, don't insult.

In Christ,
Audrey

Turretinfan said...

Audrey:

I share your position. I recall from recent dialog with Bellisario that he does not.

I'd rather that he not debate you on that in this comment box.

-TurretinFan

Audrey said...

No worries TF, I do not respond to insults. I just forgive them. Then move on. No debate will happen. =)

natamllc said...

TF, it need not be said but should be for context anyway.

What do you expect when your foundation is on sand?

When sand is heated up it becomes glass.

They do make bullet proof glass by synergistic means!

Now, I have a lot I could say about carbon and it's opposites!

Diamonds have been a part of my livelihood at times. On one end of the scheme carbon is soft and makes for good writing. On the other end of the scheme carbon is diamond and it too makes for good writing!

Thanks for your good writing! :)

Turretinfan said...

NatAmLLC:

It is interesting how carbon and silicon, so close on the periodic table, can both be transformed into clear solids: but one is glass, and the other diamond!

-TurretinFan

natamllc said...

TF,

also, in my training with an untrained eye, I had this happen.

On a table.

One pile, sand.

One pile, diamonds.

Both piles looked identical in sum and substance.

Yet, both looking alike, I couldn't tell the difference until I was trained.

Both were made utilities.

The one sandpaper.

The other a much better abrasive that sandpaper could not match!

Both are applied to their tasks at hand similarly.

So goes the battle in knowing which is which and who is who when one is polishing!

Only the Elect can smooth out the bumps and edges of their own substance!

Sand away my friend! :)

Oh, and by the way, ironically, when you are panning for diamonds alluvially and not in kimberlite pipes, you pick out the diamonds out of a pan full of sand!

I have never seen a diamond pick itself out of a pile of sand! Have you? Ha!

natamllc said...

TF,

also, in my training with an untrained eye, I had this happen.

On a table.

One pile, sand.

One pile, diamonds.

Both piles looked identical in sum and substance.

Yet, both looking alike, I couldn't tell the difference until I was trained.

Both were made utilities.

The one sandpaper.

The other a much better abrasive that sandpaper could not match!

Both are applied to their tasks at hand similarly.

So goes the battle in knowing which is which and who is who when one is polishing!

Only the Elect can smooth out the bumps and edges of their own substance!

Sand away my friend! :)

Oh, and by the way, ironically, when you are panning for diamonds alluvially and not in kimberlite pipes, you pick out the diamonds out of a pan full of sand!

I have never seen a diamond pick itself out of a pile of sand! Have you? Ha!

natamllc said...

hmmmm,

what happened there?

Blogger seeing double?

Enterprise24 said...

TF - 1
MB - 0

Turretinfan said...

Thanks, E24.

NatAmLLC:

Panning for diamonds must be rough work!

But it is hardness or durability that distinguishes the diamond from the quartz crystal.

But these elements of ours, beautiful though they are, will one day melt in a fervent heat.

We need something more durable than the product of the kimberlite pipes - the grass withers and the flower fades but what endures forever?

natamllc said...

E24, maybe you should have patented that? 1s and 0s, isn't that the language computers speak to each other with? :)

TF, you asked: the grass withers and the flower fades but what endures forever?

Ah:

2Pe 3:13 But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

Paul Hoffer said...

Dear Anonymous, such comments are uncharitable, ill-chosen and most importantly off topic. 1 Peter 3:15-16 states, "Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who defame your good conduct in Christ may themselves be put to shame."

While you may intend to shame Mr. Fan by your taunts, you only shame yourself in doing so.

I hope and pray you consider your words more carefully in the future.

God bless!

Enterprise24 said...

In my experience, the old Internet slogan "Don't feed the trolls" is actually wise advice. It's best to ignore "Anonymous"; and I'm sure TF will delete his comments in short order :-)

misterkellywilson said...

Hello everyone.

I would just like to identify that this conversation between TF and MB has motivated me to offer, as a Roman Catholic, as a graduate student, as a Seminarian, my own understanding of the Church's ecclesiology on the matter.

I leave it in your judgment, as to who is accurately representing the Church's ecclesiology. I also invite your feedback.

I should add (although this doesn't make me right), that in a few short years I will very likely make the Profession of Faith which was revised in 1989 by the CDF. As a result, it's in my interest to correctly understand it.

I have a post at my blog, briefly outlining what is commonly thought of as the first gradation of Church teaching.

While it's not directly relevant to the woman's ordination debate (an issue the Ratzinger-Bertone Commentary on John Paul II's Ad teundam fidem believe is relevant to the second gradation), I raise what I feel are a number of important issues.

Turretinfan said...

Thanks for the offer, KW.

Thanks for the support, PH and E24.

And, of course, yes - I deleted the troll.

abidingtruth said...

But sarcasm is just the opening. The first sentence claims I'm someone "often misrepresents Catholic teaching" (no evidence provided). The second sentence calls my post my "latest rant."

This seems to be a stock RC defense that I hear frequently. The other one is "You're quoting that Father out of context."

I'm glad to see that you still engage debate opponents in a respectful fashion. It's very refreshing.

You may remember me as 'Machaira' on the Cross Daily Forums where we had a rather extensive debate with Arminians on Acts 13:48. :)

Turretinfan said...

Machaira/AT: Thanks!

natamllc said...

Pastor King,

should we not already know upon what we stand from whence we speak?

The Rock or sand?

I assert the affirmative!

And, just a bit of personal privilege now. I comment, you be some ["lucky"] in my book to have been and to be able to be in his home to personally know TurrentinFan!

natamllc said...

TF,

oh, and another thing I was thinking about our particular string of thoughts above as it relates to Matthew's swinging with his polished quartz bat is quartz on the Moh scale has a hardness of 6 to 6.5 most while diamond, as you know already is a perfect 10! You polish quartz with something of that hardness and strength. You don't have to polish them with something harder.

Granted diamonds come in several rough shapes, generally 5, primarily; and when finished the most expensive stones are flawless, then flawless internally while others are not flawless completely going downhill from there to very included stones or having a glets, inclusions or blemishes. And their weight varies and so does their cut and color! A D Flawless diamond is the most expensive when it comes to clarity.

At the end of the day, duplicators were used using a fine quality quartz for duplicating the important diamonds for insurance purposes when publicly displaying a duplication of the important stone for fear the covetousness would get the best of the coveter and they would steal the stone on display! They thought they stoled the real thing but were duped instead!

I heard a true story about a friend's brother who was so duped by a con just outside a jewelry store in Arkansas. This story goes to the heart of the debate between what is the Truth and Who He is as opposed to what is the false religions of the world that dupe people into thinking they have the Truth when they truly don't have Him!

The story goes this sophisticated con had an important diamond he was peddling on the street near that store. My friend's brother walked out of the jewelry store and this con walked up to him and handed over to him a diamond and asked if he was interested in buying it for a very good price? He said he might be if it was a diamond and he was selling it for a good price.

He asked the con if he could have his jewelry friend who was a gemologist take a look at the stone and give his evaluation of it's clarity, color, cut and carat weight? The con gladly agreed. The man said if it is what the con represents it to be, he would buy it for the several thousand dollar asking price.

They went inside the jewelry store and he handed it over to the gemologist for inspection and evaluation.

As the gemologist was studying the stone he leaned over to his friend who might buy it and asked him what the guy was offering it for sale?

He told him to which the gemologist replied, "well, if you don't buy this stone, I will"!

Great he thought and then turned to the con and said to him to wait right there as he was going to go withdraw funds from his bank just down the street and would come back and buy the diamond.

He goes and comes back to the store where the man is standing now just outside the store waiting for him to return with the money. They exchange and the con walks away while the buyer takes the stone back into the jewelry store with some glee. The gemologist asks to see the stone again and when he looks it over suddenly goes, "oh no, you have been duped! This isn't the diamond you showed me earlier"!

Oooops!

Paul Hoffer said...

Hello Mr. Fan, I posted an article on my blog that I believe addresses your posts on IOR.


http://capriciousness.blogspot.com/2010/09/revealing-mystery-behind-magisterium.html

God bless!

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"Or you can just slap a lot of negative assertions together and call it a response!"

I have seen a lot of responses from Catholic commenters that follow this M.O.

Matthew Bellisario is just a prime example, but far from the only one.

Turretinfan said...

Mr. Hoffer:

In your article, you wrote: "I thought I would focus on the issues presented by Mr. Fan on his speculations over the possibility of some future pope overturning an infallible teaching of the ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church"

But in my article, I wrote: "I didn't say that it is possible for a pope to come along and change an infallible doctrine."

Did you somehow overlook this? Or ... what?

-TurretinFan

Paul Hoffer said...

Mr.Fan, I will clarify the statement. What I was focusing on was the fact that you believed that a doctrine which is held to be infallible by the IOR could be changed by a future pope on the grounds that the doctrine was never infallibly defined in a formal way. You had written:

"So it is possible (whether or not it is likely), that some future pope's prefect may decide that Ratzinger erred. The practice of non-ordination of women is just something culturally conditioned and a long-standing discipline ... and hey-presto, this document ceases to have any authoritative weight against the new document."

One could derive from the above statement the summary of your view that I presented. However, your comment here provides further clarification of your view and in the interests of fairness I shall so amend what I wrote (probably this evening). Would that be satisfactory?

God bless!

Turretinfan said...

Hoffer:

For clarification, the CDF's document could go to zero value. That's what I said and meant by: "So it is possible (whether or not it is likely), that some future pope's prefect may decide that Ratzinger erred. The practice of non-ordination of women is just something culturally conditioned and a long-standing discipline ... and hey-presto, this document ceases to have any authoritative weight against the new document."

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"The practice of non-ordination of women is just something culturally conditioned and a long-standing discipline ... and hey-presto, this document ceases to have any authoritative weight against the new document."

Here's a recent article in Time: The Push to Ordain Female Priests Gains Ground.

Excerpt: "Officially, of course, the Catholic Church's Canon Law 1024 says that only baptized men can receive holy orders. But there is a movement against the no-women rule; it began eight years ago when a cluster of renegade male clerics (including a European bishop whose identity the female priests won't reveal in order not to risk his excommunication) ordained the first women. Now, in Jacko's hometown of Chicago, three women have entered the priesthood.

If God called me, why wouldn't God call a woman?"

It is a question that more and more members of the flock are asking. Many have begun to publicly challenge the church's stance, especially after the Vatican decreed in July that ordaining female priests was a "grave" crime, on par with pedophilia. Biblical passages refer to female clergy, including an apostle named Junia in Romans 16:7. On Sunday, Sept. 26, thousands of Catholics around the world plan to protest, either by boycotting Mass or by showing up wearing green armbands that say "Ordain Women." "Women are tired of being treated as second-class citizens in the church," says Jennifer Sleeman, an Irish Catholic who turns 81 on Sunday and is helping champion the Sunday Without Women demonstration organized by Women's Ordination Worldwide (WOW).

"We are disobeying an unjust law," says Barbara Zeman, 62, Chicago's first ordained Catholic female priest, who serves as a hospital chaplain at Northwestern Memorial Hospital; she will protest Sunday at St. Nicholas Catholic Church in Evanston, Ill. "Many male priests have told me to go for it and that they can't wait until the church changes its attitude ... It's a movement whose time has come."

The WOW movement was showcased in the recently released documentary Pink Smoke over the Vatican, which aired Sept. 18 at Chicago's Irish American Heritage Center before an audience of hundreds of Catholics, both ordained and lay. The filmmaker, Jules Hart, said she had originally turned down the opportunity to do the documentary — "I'm not even Catholic," she says — but reconsidered after hearing the ordeals of several female Catholic priests, including Jacko.

But Jacko adds, "There are a lot of Catholic priests who are helping the women priests. You'd be surprised."

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"The practice of non-ordination of women is just something culturally conditioned and a long-standing discipline ... and hey-presto, this document ceases to have any authoritative weight against the new document."

Here's a recent article in Time: The Push to Ordain Female Priests Gains Ground.

Excerpt: "Officially, of course, the Catholic Church's Canon Law 1024 says that only baptized men can receive holy orders. But there is a movement against the no-women rule; it began eight years ago when a cluster of renegade male clerics (including a European bishop whose identity the female priests won't reveal in order not to risk his excommunication) ordained the first women. Now, in Jacko's hometown of Chicago, three women have entered the priesthood.

If God called me, why wouldn't God call a woman?"

It is a question that more and more members of the flock are asking. Many have begun to publicly challenge the church's stance, especially after the Vatican decreed in July that ordaining female priests was a "grave" crime, on par with pedophilia. Biblical passages refer to female clergy, including an apostle named Junia in Romans 16:7. On Sunday, Sept. 26, thousands of Catholics around the world plan to protest, either by boycotting Mass or by showing up wearing green armbands that say "Ordain Women." "Women are tired of being treated as second-class citizens in the church," says Jennifer Sleeman, an Irish Catholic who turns 81 on Sunday and is helping champion the Sunday Without Women demonstration organized by Women's Ordination Worldwide (WOW).

"We are disobeying an unjust law," says Barbara Zeman, 62, Chicago's first ordained Catholic female priest, who serves as a hospital chaplain at Northwestern Memorial Hospital; she will protest Sunday at St. Nicholas Catholic Church in Evanston, Ill. "Many male priests have told me to go for it and that they can't wait until the church changes its attitude ... It's a movement whose time has come."

The WOW movement was showcased in the recently released documentary Pink Smoke over the Vatican, which aired Sept. 18 at Chicago's Irish American Heritage Center before an audience of hundreds of Catholics, both ordained and lay. The filmmaker, Jules Hart, said she had originally turned down the opportunity to do the documentary — "I'm not even Catholic," she says — but reconsidered after hearing the ordeals of several female Catholic priests, including Jacko.

But Jacko adds, "There are a lot of Catholic priests who are helping the women priests. You'd be surprised."

Paul Hoffer said...

Mr. Fan:

If that is your view, then you must have not recognized the significance of this sentence:

"The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, APPROVED this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ORDERED IT to be published." (Emphasis added)

This Responsum ad Dubium was not the former Cardinal Ratzinger's work, but Pope John Paul II's. The form is different from what you may be used to, but nevertheless, Pope John Paul II left no room for dissent here. He affirmed what the IOR taught within the parameters of LG 25 which is as infallibly held as the canons of Trent or the pronouncement of the dogma of the Assumption in Munificentissimus Deus. To analogize this to a legal decision, this would be like the Supreme Court affirming without comment a lower court's decision. It would still be irreformable and have binding effect.

Your last comment affirms that what Mr. Bellisario wrote after trimming away the excess was accurate. Thus, what I wrote with the changes which I made out of deference to you stands. No matter how many women dress up and play priest, there will never be women Catholic priests because there can never be women priests because the universal ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church has infallibly taught that women can not be ordained priests. It did not work of the gnostics or the Collyridians, it did not work for the Waldensians, it will not work now.

Mr. TUAD, since you are so in favor of women priests in the Catholic Church, does this mean that you are going to renounce your Calvinist views and start to go to services they conduct straightaway and begin calling yourself a Catholic? Is there something about women priests that make Catholicism more attractive to you?

BTW, Shielding that male European bishop (if he really exists which I doubt) from excommunication is a futile act. If he participated in the pretend ordination of women priests, he already excommunicated himself latae sententiae. I guess they don't teach canon law at the seminaries these women go to. After all, why learn about something that you are going to ignore 24/7?

And as for my opinion of the TIme Magazine, one would find more intelligent reading from something that a monkey typed than the drivel that appears in that magazine. I would find a Jack Chick comic more authoritative and factual than the litter box liner known as Time Magazine.

God bless!

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Hi Paul Hoffer,

I utterly abhor the idea of priestesses in the Roman Catholic Church.

Anathema Sit!

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

But Jacko adds, "There are a lot of Catholic priests who are helping the women priests. You'd be surprised."

Paul Hoffer, wazzup with that?

She might be exaggerating. Let’s hope so.

BUT suppose that there are Catholic priests who are helping the women priest movement. What if the following happened:

Priest: “I’ll show you how to confect the Elements.”

Would-be Priestess: “Can I do that?”

Priest: “Probably not. But you’re going to have to so let me show you.”

Would-be Priestess: “Hey, that’s not too bad. I know I can do that. Let me do it for the next time.”

Priest: “Okay.” (She does it the next time).

Would-be Priestess: “All done.”

Priest: “Thanks. I’ll use these for my parish.”

Would-be Priestess: “Wait! You’re not supposed to do that!”

Priest: “That’s okay. The parishioners will never know that you ocnfected the Elements. They won’t know and they won’t care. If anyone says anything, I’ll mention something about the Donatist heresy. It always works.

Again, thanks for doing this and I’ll see you next time.”

(The parishioners proceed to eat elements confected by the would-be priestess.)

Of course, I don’t think this would ever happen. But on the off-chance it ever did, how do you think people would feel about partaking of Elements confected by a priestess and finding out about it later?

Or more realistically, what if you found out through the grapevine that your own local parish priest was helping out the Women’s Ordination movement?

What do you do?

Let’s say he’s popular and well-beloved by the parishioners. You lovingly confront him one-on-one. He acknowledges your concern, but continues assisting anyways.

You take it to the bishop. Again, nothing happens. The popular priest continues helping out the WO movement within the Church.

What do you do now, if anything (besides prayer)?

Paul Hoffer said...

Hello Mr. TUAD,

The scenario you posed reminded me for some reason of being in law school once more.

Here is my response.

You wrote: The parishioners proceed to eat elements confected by the would-be priestess.)

Me: The elements are not confected because the woman was never a priest. Can. 900 §1. The minister who is able to confect the sacrament of the Eucharist in the person of Christ is a validly ordained priest alone. Moreover, Canon 927 states: "It is absolutely forbidden, even in extreme urgent necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the eucharistic celebration." So the act of "confection" was a nullity.

You wrote: Of course, I don’t think this would ever happen. But on the off-chance it ever did, how do you think people would feel about partaking of Elements confected by a priestess and finding out about it later?

Me: As I stated before, since the woman could not confect the elements because she was not a “priestess,” the folks who took the hosts in took in unconsecrated hosts. As far as the latter question, I do not how others would feel, and frankly since Catholics do not believe in consubstantiation, our feelings do not enter into the equation. If it were me in this situation, I would be mortified as participating in a Mass that held up unconsecrated bread amounts to an act of idolatry. I would be going to confession.

You wrote: Or more realistically, what if you found out through the grapevine that your own local parish priest was helping out the Women’s Ordination movement?

What do you do?

Me: I would attempt to gather up as much information as possible before discussing the matter with the priest, meet with him to remind him of the infallible teaching of the Church in this matter, and if I did not receive a satisfactory response, I would take the matter up with the bishop.

You wrote: Let’s say he’s popular and well-beloved by the parishioners. You lovingly confront him one-on-one. He acknowledges your concern, but continues assisting anyways.

You take it to the bishop. Again, nothing happens. The popular priest continues helping out the WO movement within the Church.

What do you do now, if anything (besides prayer)?

Me: Under this unlikely scenario, I would bring the matter up to proper authorities (I believe it is the papal nuncio in Washington DC) after consulting a canon lawyer about how to do that properly.

I hope that answers the questions you asked.

God bless!

Turretinfan said...

PH wrote: If that is your view, then you must have not recognized the significance of this sentence:

"The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, APPROVED this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ORDERED IT to be published." (Emphasis added)


Actually, Mr. Hoffer. The shoe is on the other foot. I saw and properly recognized the significance of the statement.

"This Responsum ad Dubium was not the former Cardinal Ratzinger's work, but Pope John Paul II's."

It is the work of Ratzinger. It was approved by John Paul II.

"The form is different from what you may be used to, ..."

The form is essentially the same was what I am used to. It's about the same as other responses (example 1)(example 2). Perhaps the form was new to you?

"... but nevertheless, Pope John Paul II left no room for dissent here."

If there were room for it, it wouldn't be dissent, at least on some level. But JP2's approval does not convert the CDF's work into an exercise of papal infallibility.

"He affirmed what the IOR taught within the parameters of LG 25 which is as infallibly held as the canons of Trent or the pronouncement of the dogma of the Assumption in Munificentissimus Deus."

Perhaps this is a lesson for a different day, but LG is also not an infallible document.

"To analogize this to a legal decision, this would be like the Supreme Court affirming without comment a lower court's decision."

Not every exercise of papal power is an ex cathedra exercise. Hopefully you're aware of that.

"It would still be irreformable and have binding effect."

The responses to dubia are not irreformable in-and-of-themselves. The binding effect isn't really an issue. If the teaching were really a teaching of the U&O Magisterium, then it would be irreformable.

"Your last comment affirms that what Mr. Bellisario wrote after trimming away the excess was accurate."

No.

"Thus, what I wrote with the changes which I made out of deference to you stands."

I haven't yet taken a look at what changes you made. Hopefully you have deference for the truth, regardless of your personal opinions of me.

"No matter how many women dress up and play priest, there will never be women Catholic priests because there can never be women priests because the universal ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church has infallibly taught that women can not be ordained priests. It did not work of the gnostics or the Collyridians, it did not work for the Waldensians, it will not work now."

I guess we'll see! I think the women priests would simply say that JP2 and B16 were mistaken in thinking that it was an infallible teaching, and assert instead that it was a widespread and long-standing discipline instead, like celibacy or fasting on Fridays.

-TurretinFan

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Paul Hoffer: "If it were me in this situation, I would be mortified as participating in a Mass that held up unconsecrated bread amounts to an act of idolatry."

So you're basically saying this:

You partaking of unconsecrated bread = idolatry.

You partaking of consecrated bread = not idolatry.

Whether the bread is validly consecrated makes all the difference for you as to whether you're committing idolatry, is that right?

"I would attempt to gather up as much information as possible before discussing the matter with the priest, meet with him to remind him of the infallible teaching of the Church in this matter, and if I did not receive a satisfactory response, I would take the matter up with the bishop."

Hi Paul, and you then go on to write about additional steps you'd take if it wasn't resolved at the level of bishop.

Very fine and commendable that you'd take such steps to uphold, defend, and affirm Church dogma, and the outworking and application of Church dogma.

Let me then ask you this. Let's say you ask your local parish priest whether he's been helping the Women's Ordination movement. He says no. You thank him and you then ask him if he knows of any priests who are helping with the Women's Ordination movement. He frowns and grits his teeth. He then softly says that he does know who some of the fellow priests are who are helping the WO movement. You ask him what he's done about it. He basically indicates that he's essentially done nothing about it, invoking various carefully worded explanations on why he WILL NOT DO what you, Paul Hoffer, would do. Nor will he reveal the identities of the priests he knows who are helping the WO movement.

Now what do you do, Paul Hoffer, law student?

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Paul Hoffer: "If it were me in this situation, I would be mortified as participating in a Mass that held up unconsecrated bread amounts to an act of idolatry."

Suppose an Anglican participated in Holy Communion in their Anglican parish. The Roman Catholic Church does not recognize Anglicans as having valid apostolic succession. From your perspective which I believe is also the RCC's perspective, the Anglicans are partaking of unconsecrated bread and thus, according to you, they are committing idolatry.

Or would you back off, and say that for them, they are not committing idolatry, even though they don't have valid apostolic succession and they don't have consecrated bread?

Paul Hoffer said...

Hello Mr. Fan,

You wrote: Actually, Mr. Hoffer. The shoe is on the other foot. I saw and properly recognized the significance of the statement.

Me: Then you understand that this statement was Pope John Paul II’s affirmation of infallible doctrine...

After quoting me, you wrote: "This Responsum ad Dubium was not the former Cardinal Ratzinger's work, but Pope John Paul II's."It is the work of Ratzinger. It was approved by John Paul II.

Me: If the pope approved it, it is his work.


You wrote: The form is essentially the same was what I am used to. It's about the same as other responses (example 1)(example 2). Perhaps the form was new to you?

Me: Looks like you forgot the fact that Pope John Paul II also wrote in Ordinatio Sarcedotalis:

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

The two documents must be read in conjunction with each other.

As for the other two doctrines discussed in the Responsum ad Dubiums you referenced, both deal with understandings with aspects of doctrines that have already been infallibly defined or held. It is interesting that you didn’t address Evangelium Vitae.

TBC

Paul Hoffer said...

Cont.

Hello Mr. Fan,

You wrote: Actually, Mr. Hoffer. The shoe is on the other foot. I saw and properly recognized the significance of the statement.

Me: Then you understand that this statement was Pope John Paul II’s affirmation of infallible doctrine...

After quoting me, you wrote: "This Responsum ad Dubium was not the former Cardinal Ratzinger's work, but Pope John Paul II's."It is the work of Ratzinger. It was approved by John Paul II.

Me: If the pope approved it, it is his work.


You wrote: The form is essentially the same was what I am used to. It's about the same as other responses (example 1)(example 2). Perhaps the form was new to you?

Me: Looks like you forgot the fact that Pope John Paul II also wrote in Ordinatio Sarcedotalis:

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

The two documents must be read in conjunction with each other.

As for the other two doctrines discussed in the Responsum ad Dubiums you referenced, both deal with understandings with aspects of doctrines that have already been infallibly defined or held. It is interesting that you didn’t address Evangelium Vitae.

You wrote: But JP2's approval does not convert the CDF's work into an exercise of papal infallibility.

Me: It does when you include Ordinatio Sarcedotalis.

You wrote: Perhaps this is a lesson for a different day, but LG is also not an infallible document.

Me: that is an interesting statement. Here you are commenting on Catholic doctrine putting yourself in the shoes of a Catholic individual so you can comment on it and then when I point out to you that Lumen Gentium § 25 teaches that there are three ways for doctrine to infallibly taught in the Church, you dismiss it without so much as a fiddledeedee with a statement that it is not an infallible document. Now if you were writing from a Protestant perspective I guess you could say that, but then you run into the problem of undercutting the point of your article. But perhaps you are secretly a sedevacantist or a SSPX adherent, yet you would not be talking about a “Pope” John Paul II or “Pope” Benedict. Now if you were an Old Catholic, we wouldn’t have this talk at all since they do allow women priests. The darn thing is titled as a “Dogmatic Constitution,” as a Catholic how much more infallible does it have to be for me to consider it is an infallibly promulgated particularly when one considers it in pari materia with the language of the Closing Brief of Pope Paul VI?

You wrote: Not every exercise of papal power is an ex cathedra exercise. Hopefully you're aware of that.

Me: Yes I am aware of that, but we are not talking about papal power here, we are talking about the universal and ordinary magisterium and when its teachings are considered infallible. The pope merely added an ‘Amen’ to the fact that the teaching is part of the deposit of faith.

You wrote: The responses to dubia are not irreformable in-and-of-themselves. The binding effect isn't really an issue. If the teaching were really a teaching of the U&O Magisterium, then it would be irreformable.

Me: I never said otherwise, but we are talking about this particular Responsum ad Dubium which confirms an infallible teaching.

TBC.

Paul Hoffer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul Hoffer said...

You wrote: But JP2's approval does not convert the CDF's work into an exercise of papal infallibility.

Me: It does when you include Ordinatio Sarcedotalis.

You wrote: Perhaps this is a lesson for a different day, but LG is also not an infallible document.

Me: that is an interesting statement. Here you are commenting on Catholic doctrine putting yourself in the shoes of a Catholic individual so you can comment on it and then when I point out to you that Lumen Gentium § 25 teaches that there are three ways for doctrine to infallibly taught in the Church, you dismiss it without so much as a fiddledeedee with a statement that it is not an infallible document. Now if you were writing from a Protestant perspective I guess you could say that, but then you run into the problem of undercutting the point of your article. But perhaps you are secretly a sedevacantist or a SSPX adherent, yet you would not be talking about a “Pope” John Paul II or “Pope” Benedict. Now if you were an Old Catholic, we wouldn’t have this talk at all since they do allow women priests. The darn thing is titled as a “Dogmatic Constitution,” as a Catholic how much more infallible does it have to be for me to consider it is an infallibly promulgated particularly when one considers it in pari materia with the language of the Closing Brief of Pope Paul VI?

You wrote: Not every exercise of papal power is an ex cathedra exercise. Hopefully you're aware of that.

Me: Yes I am aware of that, but we are not talking about papal power here, we are talking about the universal and ordinary magisterium and when its teachings are considered infallible. The pope merely added an ‘Amen’ to the fact that the teaching is part of the deposit of faith.

You wrote: The responses to dubia are not irreformable in-and-of-themselves. The binding effect isn't really an issue. If the teaching were really a teaching of the U&O Magisterium, then it would be irreformable.

Me: I never said otherwise, but we are talking about this particular Responsum ad Dubium which confirms an infallible teaching.

TBC.

Paul Hoffer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul Hoffer said...

You wrote: But JP2's approval does not convert the CDF's work into an exercise of papal infallibility.

Me: We are not talking about papal infallibility. We are talking about a pope that put a limitation on himself and his successors from ever teaching anything different than what he affirmed was a part of the deposit of faith.

You wrote: Perhaps this is a lesson for a different day, but LG is also not an infallible document.

Me: that is an interesting statement. Here you are commenting on Catholic doctrine putting yourself in the shoes of a Catholic individual so you can comment on it and then when I point out to you that Lumen Gentium § 25 teaches that there are three ways for doctrine to infallibly taught in the Church, you dismiss it without so much as a fiddledeedee with a statement that it is not an infallible document. Now if you were writing from a Protestant perspective I guess you could say that, but then you run into the problem of undercutting the point of your article. But perhaps you are secretly a sedevacantist or a SSPX adherent, yet you would not be talking about a “Pope” John Paul II or “Pope” Benedict. Now if you were an Old Catholic, we wouldn’t have this talk at all since they do allow women priests. The darn thing is titled as a “Dogmatic Constitution,” as a Catholic how much more infallible does it have to be for me to consider it is an infallibly promulgated particularly when one considers it in pari materia with the language of the Closing Brief of Pope Paul VI?

You wrote: Not every exercise of papal power is an ex cathedra exercise. Hopefully you're aware of that.

Me: Yes I am aware of that, but we are not talking about papal power here, we are talking about the universal and ordinary magisterium and when its teachings are considered infallible. The pope merely added an ‘Amen’ to the fact that the teaching is part of the deposit of faith.

You wrote: The responses to dubia are not irreformable in-and-of-themselves. The binding effect isn't really an issue. If the teaching were really a teaching of the U&O Magisterium, then it would be irreformable.

Me: I never said otherwise, but we are talking about this particular Responsum ad Dubium which confirms an infallible teaching.

TBC.

Paul Hoffer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul Hoffer said...

Cont.

You wrote: But JP2's approval does not convert the CDF's work into an exercise of papal infallibility.

Me: This is an affirmation that the doctrine was already held by the univeral ordinary Magisterium. It is not about the pope's infallibility, it is about his recognition of doctrine that is already infallibly determined.

You wrote: Perhaps this is a lesson for a different day, but LG is also not an infallible document.

Me: that is an interesting statement. Here you are commenting on Catholic doctrine putting yourself in the shoes of a Catholic individual so you can comment on it and then when I point out to you that Lumen Gentium § 25 teaches that there are three ways for doctrine to infallibly taught in the Church, you dismiss it without so much as a fiddledeedee with a statement that it is not an infallible document. Now if you were writing from a Protestant perspective I guess you could say that, but then you run into the problem of undercutting the point of your article. But perhaps you are secretly a sedevacantist or a SSPX adherent, yet you would not be talking about a “Pope” John Paul II or “Pope” Benedict. Now if you were an Old Catholic, we wouldn’t have this talk at all since they do allow women priests. The darn thing is titled as a “Dogmatic Constitution,” as a Catholic how much more infallible does it have to be for me to consider it is an infallibly promulgated particularly when one considers it in pari materia with the language of the Closing Brief of Pope Paul VI?

You wrote: Not every exercise of papal power is an ex cathedra exercise. Hopefully you're aware of that.

Me: Yes I am aware of that, but we are not talking about papal power here, we are talking about the universal and ordinary magisterium and when its teachings are considered infallible. The pope merely added an ‘Amen’ to the fact that the teaching is already part of the deposit of faith.

You wrote: The responses to dubia are not irreformable in-and-of-themselves. The binding effect isn't really an issue. If the teaching were really a teaching of the U&O Magisterium, then it would be irreformable.


Me: I never said otherwise, but we are talking about this particular Responsum ad Dubium which confirms an infallible teaching.

Paul Hoffer said...

Cont.

You wrote: I haven't yet taken a look at what changes you made. Hopefully you have deference for the truth, regardless of your personal opinions of me.

Me: Whether you find my characterizations of your writing accurate, I hope you are not taking my comments as an attack on you personally. I have not done so here nor do I intend to do so. As far as my “opinions” of you go, here they are: I believe that you are an intelligent Christian gentlemen who sincerely believes in the Gospel of Jesus Christ as do I. We may disagree (a lot) on how best to proclaim that Gospel but then given how close Calvinism is to Catholicism in so many respects, we are like Irish twins tending to emphasize our differences rather than our similarities so strangers can tell us apart. That said, such doesn’t prevent me from praying for you and yours or from considering you as a separated brother in Christ. How you view me is of no consequence to me. If you treat me poorly, that is your shame, not mine. It if you treat me honorably that is to your credit, not mine.

Besides, how can I attack you personally anyways? I don’t believe we have ever met, have we? The phone book doesn’t have a section for pseudonymous e-bloggers that lists your address and phone number. Heck, I couldn’t even spit in your general direction even if I wanted to because I don’t know which direction to face. Your pseudonymity used to bug me, but that was a character defect that I needed work on to overcome and use to grow in my faith. That said, I have no problem commenting on it if I think that you are using it as a shield or a sword. In the end, whether you exercise pseudonymity for a valid reason is between you and Our Lord, solus cum sola, and not for me to speculate about. It does interest me though that lately you folks on the other side of Lake Geneva seem to want to cast yourselves as implacable foes that I am supposed to tilt at. However, the point of this for me is not beat the “other guy,” but to learn more about my faith by sharing the few insights I might have about my faith in the Jesus Christ and the Church He founded and testing my beliefs in the marketplace of ideas so that when I am truly called to do so I can give the reasons for my hope in Christ.

You wrote: I guess we'll see! I think the women priests would simply say that JP2 and B16 were mistaken in thinking that it was an infallible teaching, and assert instead that it was a widespread and long-standing discipline instead, like celibacy or fasting on Fridays.

Me: I guess we will see! Frankly, I do not care what women pretending to be priests say. Misuse of private judgment to disregard the authority of the Church Christ founded is self-defeating and sinful regardless of how noble sounding or pious one may attempt to rationalize it. They play pretty music in the abortion chamber during a D & C but that doesn’t change the fact that a baby is being murdered during the act. No matter how pretty the wrapping paper one uses, it doesn’t make the cobra less deadly in the box that got wrapped.

Besides, there is a Grand Canyon size difference between a discipline and something that goes to the very heart of the sacramental life of the Church. Perhaps your particular flavor of Protestantism blinds you to that.

Paul Hoffer said...

Hi TUAD,

Short answer: Yes. As far as the eucharist goes, as it is for St. Augustine, the consecrated host is for me something worthy of latria as I am not worshipping a piece of bread or even a Jesus burger, but I am worshipping Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity.

As for law student Paul, it is one thing to meet with my priest and discuss what I might perceive to be a problem, it is another to interrogate him to name names and take down numbers. I have faith in my pastor that he is dealing with what he knows others are doing and dealing with it well. I know my pastor and the deacon pretty well and I know that they would not participate in such things as women ordination or countenance it. Further, Bishop Lennon has spoken out against women ordination and reaffirmed that teaching as well. I do not believe that the scenario you present could happen to be honest with you.

As far as laying the crime of idolatry at the feet of the Anglican Church, that issue was decided by Pope Leo XIII. Since that time, Anglican Bishops have been ordained by bishops that the Catholic Church does recognize as part of the apostolic succession. So I do not know how to answer your question at this time. I guess I will have to put that on my list of things to do.

God bless and thank you asking these questions!

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"I do not believe that the scenario you present could happen to be honest with you."

Okay. Do you believe that there are priests who are helping out with the Women's Ordination movement within the Catholic Church?

If so, do you believe that there are priests who know the priests who are helping out with the WO movement within the RCC?

Analogously, do you believe that some Catholic clergy are pedophiles?

If so, do you believe that there are priests who aren't pedophiles who knew priests who were pedophiles, and knew that they were pedophiles?

Do you believe that there might be an unwritten "Code of silence" among the clergy to not discuss clergy aberrations?

Do you believe that clergy might not self-regulate or self-police themselves as they should and that significant damage resulted?

Do you believe that lawyers might not self-regulate or self-police as they should and that significant damage resulted?

Paul Hoffer said...

Hello Mr. TUAD, Lots of questions. Here are some off the cuff answers.

Q. Do you believe that there are priests who are helping out with the Women's Ordination movement within the Catholic Church?

A. Yes. Otherwise, Pope John Paul II would not have needed to confirm the doctrine.

Q. If so, do you believe that there are priests who know the priests who are helping out with the WO movement within the RCC?

A. The only ones I am aware of have been excommunicated or lost their right to teach or pastor according to news accounts.

Q. Analogously, do you believe that some Catholic clergy are pedophiles?

A. Yes although from what I have read, most of the priests in questions were actually pederasts or ephebophiles to be more accurate.

Q. If so, do you believe that there are priests who aren't pedophiles who knew priests who were pedophiles, and knew that they were pedophiles?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you believe that there might be an unwritten "Code of silence" among the clergy to not discuss clergy aberrations?

A. There may be something like that but not that I am aware of.

Q. Do you believe that clergy might not self-regulate or self-police themselves as they should and that significant damage resulted?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you believe that lawyers might not self-regulate or self-police as they should and that significant damage resulted?

A. Yes.

I do must suggest that the theme that underlies your questions assumes that the Church is made up of saints only. Christ formed the Church to bring sinners to repentence and to Himself. The fact that members of that Church sin is to be expected due to our fallen natures not due to the Church itself. It does lead one to wonder why Satan would spend so much energy on the Catholic clergy though as opposed to other denominations' clergy? Perhaps he assails them so with such temptations because it is the true Church which he fears the most and thus spends his time accordingly?

History records that Satan focuses his efforts on those who could do him and his goals the most harm. I truly believe that is the case here.

God bless!

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Q. If so, do you believe that there are priests who know the priests who are helping out with the WO movement within the RCC?

A. The only ones I am aware of have been excommunicated or lost their right to teach or pastor according to news accounts.

======

Your answer shows that you have not understood the question. Which could be my fault. Let me re-phrase:

Do you believe that there are priests (who are not directly helping with the WO movement) BUT who happen to know some of the priests who are directly helping out with the WO movement within the RCC?

------

"I do must suggest that the theme that underlies your questions assumes that the Church is made up of saints only."

No, not at all. I am merely responding to what you wrote earlier: "I do not believe that the scenario you present could happen to be honest with you."

I am showing you that such a scenario could happen and your answers to the questions posed are helpful in showing you that such a scenario could happen.

Paul Hoffer said...

Hi Mr. TUAD:

Answer to rephrased question:

Q. Do you believe that there are priests (who are not directly helping with the WO movement) BUT who happen to know some of the priests who are directly helping out with the WO movement within the RCC?

A. Mind you this is purely speculation, but I imagine that there are some priests out there who know priests who are helping out (aiding and abetting as opposed to advocacy-I have heard some liberal priests advocate for it) the WO movement. After all someone who was a priest must have known the Maryknoll priest who was excommunicated.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Paul Hoffer: "Mind you this is purely speculation, but I imagine that there are some priests out there who know priests who are helping out (aiding and abetting as opposed to advocacy-I have heard some liberal priests advocate for it) the WO movement."

This statement modifies or contradicts your earlier statement of: "I do not believe that the scenario you present could happen to be honest with you."

And what was my scenario? To wit:

"Let me then ask you this. Let's say you ask your local parish priest whether he's been helping the Women's Ordination movement. He says no. You thank him and you then ask him if he knows of any priests who are helping with the Women's Ordination movement. He frowns and grits his teeth. He then softly says that he does know who some of the fellow priests are who are helping the WO movement. You ask him what he's done about it. He basically indicates that he's essentially done nothing about it, invoking various carefully worded explanations on why he WILL NOT DO what you, Paul Hoffer, would do. Nor will he reveal the identities of the priests he knows who are helping the WO movement."

Your priest shields the identities of those priests who are helping with the WO movement just like the priestesses do when they shield the identities of the priests who were helping them.

Okay or not okay?

Paul Hoffer said...

Hello TUAD:

I did not contradict myself. Your first questions asked me about my priest, your latter questions were about all priests in general. Your former questions were based on relationship, the latter on knowledge. To my knowledge, my priest has never shielded the identity of any such person. Having known him for a decade, I do not believe that he is the sort of person who would shield priests who engage in the breach of authority you postulated.

Please do not seek to speculate about my priest, He is a good and holy man I deeply respect and try to emulate. Castigate me, disparage me if you wish and I will take such with a smile, but I would appreciate it if you would not attempt or suggest to cast such aspersions on my pastor. It would lead me to an occasion that would require me beg forgiveness later. You should heed the advice of Audrey when she quoted James 3:8-12.

God bless!

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Paul Hoffer,

You misunderstand again. I did not mean your particular parish priest. I meant if you were in such a situation or if you can imagine some other lay catholic being in such a situation.

Sorry if you didn't understand that.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Priests' group says boycott well supported.

Excerpt:

"THE ASSOCIATION of Catholic Priests has insisted that a campaign to boycott weekend Masses received substantial support."

Read the rest.

Paul Hoffer said...

Hi TUAD, I read the article as well as commentaries from other folks about it when I googled the organization the article referenced. Based on what I read from the sources I found, it would appear that this piece of self-promotion as written by Baghdad Bob as opposed to anything factual. However, to the point, if dogmatic expressions were merely a matter of a poll or a popular vote, then the Association of ego-driven catholic priests in Ireland or whatever else they may choose to call themselves might someday matter. But since it doesn't, women will never be ordained as priests in the Catholic Church. And there is nothing they can do about it other than join a different church that has women priests like the Anglicans.

TF, my other comment directed to Mr. TUAD's comments is floating around in the spam-a-verse.

God bless!

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"However, to the point, if dogmatic expressions were merely a matter of a poll or a popular vote, then the Association of ego-driven catholic priests in Ireland or whatever else they may choose to call themselves might someday matter. But since it doesn't, women will never be ordained as priests in the Catholic Church."

There's something else you're missing. A Catholic objection to Protestantism is that Sola Scriptura leads to a situation where everyone is their own Pope. There is no one Infallible Interpreter, whereas Catholics do. Protestants scoff and say that Catholics have just pushed the problem back a step.

This case is an example. RC priests know what current Magisterial teaching is about WO. There are some priests and laity who disagree with that Church teaching or that Church interpretation of Scripture.

Having a Magisterium, an Infallible Interpreter, is not the panacea that Catholics say that it is.

Obviously, I'd much rather have my ultimate Authority be Scripture (which all 3 Faith-Traditions agree is God's Inspired Word) than a fallible, man-made authority like the Magisterium whose claims of spiritual benefits and superiority are vastly overblown.

And it's just WO. There are Catholics who don't trust and who don't believe in the Magisterium's interpretation on the Real Presence, the Magisterium's interpretation on contraception, the Magisterium's interpretation on masturbation, etc.... They have their own interpretation. These Catholics are their own pope. And they are numerous.

Catholics: "We have a Magisterium."

Protestants: "So."

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Correction: The above should read:

And it's NOT just WO.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Paul Hoffer: "Frankly, I do not care what women pretending to be priests say. Misuse of private judgment to disregard the authority of the Church Christ founded is self-defeating and sinful regardless of how noble sounding or pious one may attempt to rationalize it."

Let's substitute a few words and transpose the above to the following:

"Frankly, I do not care what Liberals pretending to be Christians say. Misuse of private judgment to disregard the authority of the Scriptures God provided is self-defeating and sinful regardless of how noble sounding or pious one may attempt to rationalize it."

Paul, whatever you say about the Authority of the Church that Christ founded, a Protestant could probably adapt it in its essence and make the same claim about the Authority of the Scriptures that God provided.

Thank God for the Reformation.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

(Since I just read this)

"For example, a lot of us are worried about whether or not Catholics are Christians -- whether or not we can trust them as brothers and sisters in Christ. This survey says -- as I have said repeatedly for years -- that most American Catholics aren't actually "Roman Catholic", if by that we mean "accepts and receives the teaching of the Magisterium." They're more like potentially-religious people -- which reads to me like the perfect opportunity to evangelize them. No sense worrying about if they are followers of the Pope -- they can't name the things the Pope stands for, and I think that makes them people who can and will listen to the Gospel if you go ahead and offer it to them."

From HERE.

Turretinfan said...

"TF, my other comment directed to Mr. TUAD's comments is floating around in the spam-a-verse."

I checked for it, but I can't find it there. :(

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

(So far, mine are posting fine.)

Here's another recent column about how (in)effective having a Magisterium is: Catholics Sound Off on the Homosexualist Agenda, Modest Dress.

Excerpts:

"I have seen schools where open homosexuals teach and work in the Administration. I have overheard conversations between nuns and students where the language was as disturbing as the topic. My older brother works in higher education and has been fired from a Catholic college for being 'too Catholic.' A dear friend once told me, 'I will not spend money on or make sacrifices to send my children to a Catholic School just so they can loose their faith.'

My point in all of this is simply, you are not alone in this fight. The Catholic Church is under attack from within.

We have six children and have homeschooled in the past because of the liberal nature of Catholic schools.

We are conservative Catholics and adhere to the Church's teachings but we found it a better choice to send our older child to a non-denominational Christian school.

We had to move our kids to a Lutheran school because they had far more respect for parents than the Catholic school. Catholic administrators could care less about what the Church teaches and the principle of subsidiarity."

Having a Magisterium, having an Infallible Interpreter sure solves all the issues that Catholics say that Protestants have with private interpretation.

Turretinfan said...

"Looks like you forgot the fact that Pope John Paul II also wrote in Ordinatio Sarcedotalis:

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."

I'm wondering if you think that JP2 is trying to speak ex cathedra here. If so, can you identify any Roman Catholic scholar who agrees with you?

"The two documents must be read in conjunction with each other."

Reading them in conjunction with each other can yield a very different result than the one you seem to think. Note that JP2 approved Ratzinger's statement that this is a teaching of the U&O Magisterium, not of the extraordinary magisterium exercising the chair of Peter.

"Here you are commenting on Catholic doctrine putting yourself in the shoes of a Catholic individual so you can comment on it and then when I point out to you that Lumen Gentium § 25 teaches that there are three ways for doctrine to infallibly taught in the Church, you dismiss it without so much as a fiddledeedee with a statement that it is not an infallible document."

There are two issues:

1) It is fallible.

2) The issue of there being multiple ways of something being infallibly defined is something I've highlighted in my post. The U&O Magisterium way is the way that is most problematic (hence my post).

"The darn thing is titled as a “Dogmatic Constitution,” as a Catholic how much more infallible does it have to be for me to consider it is an infallibly promulgated particularly when one considers it in pari materia with the language of the Closing Brief of Pope Paul VI?"

a) Infallibility is conceptually binary. There are not degrees of infallibility, in theory.

b) Notwithstanding calling the document a "dogmatic constitution," there are no dogmatic definitions. There's nothing protected against rejection with an anathema.

"we are talking about this particular Responsum ad Dubium which confirms an infallible teaching."

It purports to do that, but it is only a fallible "confirmation" - i.e. it may erroneously call something that is merely a long-standing practice, an infallible teaching. Do you see the difference?

- TurretinFan