Author Topic: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D. (Read 19437 times)

Miseremini · « **on:** July 18, 2014, 09:59:41 PM »

Number CCCLXVI (366) July 19, 2014

Tradition’s Priority

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The word “Magisterium,” coming from the Latin for “master” (“magister”), means in the Church either the Church’s authoritative teaching or its authorised teachers. Now as teacher is superior to taught, so the Magisterium teaching is superior to the Catholic people being taught. But the Catholic Masters have free-will, and God leaves them free to err. Then if they err gravely, may the people stand up to them and tell them, however respectfully, that they are wrong? The question is answered by truth. It is only when most people have lost the truth, as today, that the question can become confused.

On the one hand it is certain that Our Lord endowed his Church with a teaching authority, to teach us fallible human beings that Truth which alone can get us to Heaven – “Peter, confirm they brethren.” On the other hand Peter was only to confirm them in that faith which Our Lord had taught him – “I have prayed that thy faith fail not, and thou being converted, confirm thy brethren” (Lk. XXII, 32). In other words that faith governs Peter which it is his function only to guard and expound faithfully, such as it was deposited with him, the Deposit of Faith, to be handed down for ever as Tradition. Tradition teaches Peter, who teaches the people.

Vatican I (1870) says the same thing. Catholics must believe “all truths contained in the word of God or handed down by Tradition” and which the Church puts forward as divinely revealed, by its Extraordinary or Ordinary Universal Magisterium (one recalls that without Tradition in its broadest sense, there would have been no “word of God,” or Bible). Vatican I says moreover that this Magisterium is gifted with the Church’s infallibility, but this infallibility excludes any novelty being taught. Then Tradition in its broadest sense governs what the Magisterium can say it is, and while the Magisterium has authority to teach inside Tradition, it has no authority to teach the people anything outside of Tradition.

Yet souls do need a living Magisterium to teach them the truths of salvation inside Catholic Tradition. These truths do not change any more than God or his Church change, but the circuмstances of the world in which the Church has to operate are changing all the time, and so according to the variety of these circuмstances the Church needs living Masters to vary all the time the presentation and explanation of the unvarying truths. Therefore no Catholic in his right mind disputes the need for the Church’s living Masters.

But what if these Masters claim that something is inside Tradition which is not there? On the one hand they are learned men, authorised by the Church to teach the people, and the people are relatively ignorant. On the other hand there is for instance the famous case of the Council of Ephesus (428), where the people rose up in Constantinople to defend the divine Motherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary against the heretical Patriarch Nestor.

The answer is that objective truth is above Masters and people alike, so that if the people have the truth on their side, they are superior to their Masters if the Masters do not have the truth. On the other hand if the people do not have the truth, thay have no right to rise up against the Masters. In brief, if they are right, they have the right. If they are not right, they have no right. And what tells if they are right or not? Neither Masters (necessarily), nor people (still less necessarily), but reality, even if Masters or people, or both, conspire to smother it.

Kyrie eleison.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #1 on:** July 22, 2014, 02:19:43 AM »

.

Quote

If the people have the truth on their side, they are superior to their Masters if the Masters do not have the truth.

Quid est veritas?

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #2 on:** July 22, 2014, 02:34:40 AM »

.

Quote

And what tells if they are right or not? Neither Masters (necessarily), nor people (still less necessarily), but reality, even if Masters or people, or both, conspire to smother it.

And how, exactly, does reality "tell" whether anyone is right?

Is it ever possible that somehow someone might find reality to have been wrong?

Has reality ever testified in a courtroom? Can reality be sworn in at the witness stand?

Which language does reality speak? Is it verbal?

When reality tells something, does it make a sound?

Does reality require a person to interpret it? If so, how does the interpreter of reality not become the entity that holds all the power?

(There are a LOT more questions.)

.

JMacQ · « **Reply #3 on:** July 22, 2014, 10:27:41 AM »

It would appear that you are patronising His Excellency. I rather read his always solid and simple writings than your alarmingly frequent ramblings. You seem to be everywhere in this forum, all the time. It's not normal.

Charlotte NC Bill · « **Reply #4 on:** July 22, 2014, 09:45:56 PM »

His Excellency is obviously appealing to common sense ( which isn't so common these days ) and the Sensus Catholicas ( sic? if so help ) that we're supposed to have...This kind of essay is very helpful at times...getting into specifics won't help people with hardened hearts..

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #5 on:** July 23, 2014, 01:41:23 AM »

Quote from: JMacQ

It would appear that you are patronising His Excellency. I rather read his always solid and simple writings than your alarmingly frequent ramblings. You seem to be everywhere in this forum, all the time. It's not normal.

It seems you do not comprehend my two posts, JMacQ.

Can you answer the questions or are you embarrassed of your inability to answer them?

I'm sure that +W can answer them, but did not do so in this EC. Maybe you didn't know that.

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #6 on:** July 23, 2014, 01:43:58 AM »

Quote from: Charlotte NC Bill

His Excellency is obviously appealing to common sense ( which isn't so common these days ) and the Sensus Catholicas ( sic? if so help ) that we're supposed to have...This kind of essay is very helpful at times...getting into specifics won't help people with hardened hearts..

That would be sensus catholicus. (In Latin the capitals are unnecessary.)

Getting into specifics is what these threads are supposed to be for. Maybe I'm expecting too much.

.

JMacQ · « **Reply #7 on:** July 23, 2014, 02:13:42 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: JMacQ
It would appear that you are patronising His Excellency. I rather read his always solid and simple writings than your alarmingly frequent ramblings. You seem to be everywhere in this forum, all the time. It's not normal.

It seems you do not comprehend my two posts, JMacQ.

Can you answer the questions or are you embarrassed of your inability to answer them?

I'm sure that +W can answer them, but did not do so in this EC. Maybe you didn't know that.

.

It would appear that you are patronising me. I am in good company.

JPaul · « **Reply #8 on:** July 23, 2014, 07:28:06 AM »

Neil Obstat,

Quote

Getting into specifics is what these threads are supposed to be for. Maybe I'm expecting too much.

For those who are warmed by any utterance of the good Bishop, generalizations suffice, but for those who look for strategic direction, they sometimes disappoint.

You will not get specifics when the author's intent is to nibble at the edges and avoid a conclusory inquiry.

Specifics lead to conclusions, and many times conclusions demand actions. H.E. has made clear that he has no desire to assume any role of command. And so his E.C.'s really are just reflections of his musings, and I would think that they are more in the way of excerpts of his lines of thought.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #9 on:** July 23, 2014, 10:47:40 AM »

.

I read this interesting one-page letter from Bishop Williamson, and I saw a list of topics here that I'd like to discuss with someone, and I thought,

"Gosh, I wonder if anyone on CathInfo would like to talk about these things?"

Maybe I was overly optimistic.

But you would never suspect I had any "optimism" by the replies alone...

Incidentally, this EC was posted in the wee hours of Saturday morning (American time) and then lay in the tomb of NO COMMENT for THREE DAYS. Then I made two posts to discuss it and whammy -- several replies, but to what effect?

Quote from: Miseremini

Number CCCLXVI (366) July 19, 2014

Tradition’s Priority

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The word “Magisterium,” coming from the Latin for “master” (“magister”), means in the Church either the Church’s authoritative teaching or its authorised teachers. Now as teacher is superior to taught, so the Magisterium teaching is superior to the Catholic people being taught. But the Catholic Masters have free-will, and God leaves them free to err. Then if they err gravely, may the people stand up to them and tell them, however respectfully, that they are wrong? The question is answered by truth. It is only when most people have lost the truth, as today, that the question can become confused.

On the one hand it is certain that Our Lord endowed his Church with a teaching authority, to teach us fallible human beings that Truth which alone can get us to Heaven – “Peter, confirm they brethren.” On the other hand Peter was only to confirm them in that faith which Our Lord had taught him – “I have prayed that thy faith fail not, and thou being converted, confirm thy brethren” (Lk. XXII, 32). In other words that faith governs Peter which it is his function only to guard and expound faithfully, such as it was deposited with him, the Deposit of Faith, to be handed down for ever as Tradition. Tradition teaches Peter, who teaches the people.

Vatican I (1870) says the same thing. Catholics must believe “all truths contained in the word of God or handed down by Tradition” and which the Church puts forward as divinely revealed, by its Extraordinary or Ordinary Universal Magisterium (one recalls that without Tradition in its broadest sense, there would have been no “word of God,” or Bible). Vatican I says moreover that this Magisterium is gifted with the Church’s infallibility, but this infallibility excludes any novelty being taught. Then Tradition in its broadest sense governs what the Magisterium can say it is, and while the Magisterium has authority to teach inside Tradition, it has no authority to teach the people anything outside of Tradition.

Yet souls do need a living Magisterium to teach them the truths of salvation inside Catholic Tradition. These truths do not change any more than God or his Church change, but the circuмstances of the world in which the Church has to operate are changing all the time, and so according to the variety of these circuмstances the Church needs living Masters to vary all the time the presentation and explanation of the unvarying truths. Therefore no Catholic in his right mind disputes the need for the Church’s living Masters.

But what if these Masters claim that something is inside Tradition which is not there? On the one hand they are learned men, authorised by the Church to teach the people, and the people are relatively ignorant. On the other hand there is for instance the famous case of the Council of Ephesus (428), where the people rose up in Constantinople to defend the divine Motherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary against the heretical Patriarch Nestor.

The answer is that objective truth is above Masters and people alike, so that if the people have the truth on their side, they are superior to their Masters if the Masters do not have the truth. On the other hand if the people do not have the truth, ~~thay~~ [they] have no right to rise up against the Masters. In brief, if they are right, they have the right. If they are not right, they have no right. And what tells if they are right or not? Neither Masters (necessarily), nor people (still less necessarily), but reality, even if Masters or people, or both, conspire to smother it.

Kyrie eleison.

..Therefore I made a couple of posts regarding one paragraph among these six paragraphs, and what are the replies?

(I'm glad there were some replies, don't get me wrong. Replies are better than no replies, I suppose.)

Quote

It would appear that you are patronising His Excellency. I rather read his always solid and simple writings than your alarmingly frequent ramblings. You seem to be everywhere in this forum, all the time. It's not normal.

To me, this says, "Hey buddy, don't disturb my Nirvana. I like to read +W's ECs like I read the funny page, and then fuggedaboudit! Know-what-I'm-sayin'? Gimme my quiet (quite misspelled) corner of subjective reality and gitoutahmahface."

Well, okay, go on back to your cave and pretend this is not real. (Cf. "... if the people have the truth on their side,... what tells if they are right or not? ...reality, even if ... [other] people... conspire to smother it..")

Translation: When you have the truth on your side, you have the right to ask questions and to hope for a substantive discussion, and even intelligent answers, according to truth properly defined [which it is not, in this EC, but it could easily have been, in exactly 8 (eight) words -- do you know what those 8 words are?]. Nor should you be afraid of the impropriety of malicious hecklers who would attempt to shout you down, or even less noisily, by conspiracy, attempt to ignore your reasonable comments and/or questions by smothering them with group nattering or even avoidance (cf. Pascendi domenici gregis).

Quote

His Excellency is obviously appealing to common sense... getting into specifics won't help people with hardened hearts..

But, "getting into specifics" is what these threads are supposed to be for.

Am I expecting too much, or what?

Quote

...you are patronising His Excellency... your... you... [i.e., ad hominems]

Correction: If you don't mind, I was hoping for a substantive discussion regarding the objective material in the EC. Is that a foreign concept?

Quote

It would appear that you are patronising me. I am in good company.

Why, did you write an EC somewhere of which I would somehow be a patron? Do you have something to discuss here? Or do you use the ECs as a bird cage liner and FUGGEDABOUIT?

"Can you answer the questions, or, are you embarrassed of your inability to answer them?" It would appear "the truth" would be in the latter. Speaking of "the truth," which see.
(For new readers, I didn't want to repeat the questions here, but you can read them here and here.)

It seems to me that the Bishop would be flattered to know that readers are using his ECs to have productive and fruitful discussions, even if it is only on the Internet. Is that possible here? Did you ever think that maybe, JUST MAYBE, H.E. omitted any definition of "the truth" to see JUST SEE, whether there is one soul, JUST ONE SOUL on planet Earth who dares to sit up straight and take notice of the conspicuous omission of same, and raise the question, and, after having so raised it, whether there's perhaps one other soul -JUST ONE- on planet Earth who might rise to the occasion of answering the question?

Dya think?

Why does it so often happen that any question regarding the content of any EC is met by either a chorus of whimpers or else utter silence on this forum?

Is there no one out there who would like to actually talk about these topics? ~ (There is more than one topic in this EC)

P.S. In America we say, "patronizing," while in Britain you say, "patronising." You must be British. Consequently, perhaps you're ignorant of the American way. In America, we have a thing called "freedom of speech," whereby you can actually speak your mind in public and not be hauled off to jail for having done so. Maybe that's a foreign concept to you. This Internet forum (CathInfo) is owned by a fine American who allows open discussion on these Eleison Comments every week for those who would like to discuss their objective content. Thank you, Matthew.

Muito obrigado.

.
.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #10 on:** July 23, 2014, 11:03:55 AM »

.
Post

Quote from: I

Did you ever think

that maybe, JUST MAYBE, H.E. omitted any definition of the "truth"
to see --JUST TO SEE-- whether there is
one soul --JUST ONE SOUL-- on planet Earth
who dares to sit up straight and take notice of the conspicuous omission of same,
and raise the question, and, after having so raised it, whether there's perhaps
one other soul --JUST ONE-- on planet Earth
who might rise to the occasion of answering the question?

Dya think?

Columba · « **Reply #11 on:** July 24, 2014, 11:42:31 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote

And what tells if they are right or not? Neither Masters (necessarily), nor people (still less necessarily), but reality, even if Masters or people, or both, conspire to smother it.

And how, exactly, does reality "tell" whether anyone is right?

Is it ever possible that somehow someone might find reality to have been wrong?

Has reality ever testified in a courtroom? Can reality be sworn in at the witness stand?

Which language does reality speak? Is it verbal?

When reality tells something, does it make a sound?

Does reality require a person to interpret it? If so, how does the interpreter of reality not become the entity that holds all the power?

(There are a LOT more questions.)

Before determining how to perceive reality, one must first determining that it really exists. The currently prevalent subjectivist philosophy does not acknowledge the existence of reality in the objective sense. Your questions boil down to asking what reality is.

The worldly man compiles his belief system by subconsciously absorbing subjective opinions on reality from his milieu. He usually forgets the origin these opinions to pridefully imagine they came from within himself. In reality, he acquires the default worldview of his surrounding community. A few individuals may think for themselves, but even these are highly influenced by their surroundings. The only sure means of consciously choosing a belief is to choose membership in a community where that belief prevails.

Those who imagine they independently develop opinions are thereby blinded to the real origins of their own thinking. Modern propaganda takes advantage this blindness by sending subtle signals expertly designed to trigger what the targeted subject falsely imagines to be spontaneous ideas originating from within himself.

Modern Catholics accept false teaching in the form of subjective opinion from apparent authority because they have lost connection with the principle of objective reality.

I am sure that your questions were provocatively written only to start conversation, but they could be taken as petulant whining in another context. "How can you expect me to believe in reality if you don't tell me how it communicates?" might be one interpretation of those questions.

Reality simply is. It speaks through vectors like mother's intuition, empirical observation, Revelation, long-established folkways, and the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church. Any subjective opinion in conflict with such things is most likely divergent from reality. Man can only perceive reality through the filter of subjectivity, but avoiding delusion requires persistent pruning one's opinion by drawing clear-eyed conclusions upon ongoing circuмstance.

It was once understood by everybody that all opinions of any source differing from observable fact or infallible truth were certainly wrong and that, as a corollary, opinions ambiguous enough to be possibly interpreted as differing from reality were suspect. Modern rejection of this principle betrays disbelief in the existence of reality.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #12 on:** July 24, 2014, 12:02:52 PM »

.

Thank you for a substantive response, Columba.

Quote from: Columba

Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote

And what tells if they are right or not? Neither Masters (necessarily), nor people (still less necessarily), but reality, even if Masters or people, or both, conspire to smother it.

And how, exactly, does reality "tell" whether anyone is right?

Is it ever possible that somehow someone might find reality to have been wrong?

Has reality ever testified in a courtroom? Can reality be sworn in at the witness stand?

Which language does reality speak? Is it verbal?

When reality tells something, does it make a sound?

Does reality require a person to interpret it? If so, how does the interpreter of reality not become the entity that holds all the power?

(There are a LOT more questions.)

Before determining how to perceive reality, one must first determining that it really exists. The currently prevalent subjectivist philosophy does not acknowledge the existence of reality in the objective sense. Your questions boil down to asking what reality is.
[Very good! -- and there is more!]

The worldly man compiles his belief system by subconsciously absorbing subjective opinions on reality from his milieu. He usually forgets the origin these opinions to pridefully imagine they came from within himself. In reality, he acquires the default worldview of his surrounding community. A few individuals may think for themselves, but even these are highly influenced by their surroundings. The only sure means of consciously choosing a belief is to choose membership in a community where that belief prevails.
[Very good, again!]

Those who imagine they independently develop opinions are thereby blinded to the real origins of their own thinking. [The effect of pride.] Modern propaganda takes advantage this blindness by sending subtle signals expertly designed to trigger what the targeted subject falsely imagines to be spontaneous ideas originating from within himself.
[Astute and perceptive! Excellent!]

Modern Catholics accept false teaching in the form of subjective opinion from apparent authority because they have lost connection with the principle of objective reality.
[Yes!]

I am sure that your questions were provocatively written only to start conversation, but they could be taken as petulant whining in another context. "How can you expect me to believe in reality if you don't tell me how it communicates?" might be one interpretation of those questions.
[Interesting: I have to admit, I didn't think of that!]

Reality simply is. It speaks through vectors like mother's intuition, empirical observation, Revelation, long-established folkways, and the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church. Any subjective opinion in conflict with such things is most likely divergent from reality. Man can only perceive reality through the filter of subjectivity, but avoiding delusion requires persistent pruning one's opinion by drawing clear-eyed conclusions upon ongoing circuмstance.
[This one paragraph could be another thread!]

It was once understood by everybody that all opinions of any source differing from observable fact or infallible truth were certainly wrong and that, as a corollary, opinions ambiguous enough to be possibly interpreted as differing from reality were suspect. Modern rejection of this principle betrays disbelief in the existence of reality.

You have touched on the fundamental platform upon which the whole of the Conciliar revolution is built. The unclean spirit of Vatican II entirely relies on this false principle you have described in this last paragraph. Thank you!

.

Frances · « **Reply #13 on:** July 24, 2014, 02:13:00 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

You will not get specifics when the author's intent is to nibble at the edges and avoid a conclusory inquiry.
And so his E.C.'s really are just reflections of his musings, and I would think that they are more in the way of excerpts of his lines of thought.

:dancing-banana:

So what? The bishop can make his blogs say anything he wants.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #14 on:** July 24, 2014, 05:58:11 PM »

.

You're reliably a cut above, J.Paul.

Quote from: J.Paul

Neil Obstat,
Quote

Getting into specifics is what these threads are supposed to be for. Maybe I'm expecting too much.

For those who are warmed by any utterance of the good Bishop, generalizations suffice, but for those who look for strategic direction, they sometimes disappoint.

You will not get specifics when the author's intent is to nibble at the edges and avoid a conclusory inquiry.

Specifics lead to conclusions, and many times conclusions demand actions. H.E. has made clear that he has no desire to assume any role of command. And so his E.C.'s really are just reflections of his musings, and I would think that they are more in the way of excerpts of his lines of thought.

It could be thought of as sweet and sonorous to hear the soothing tones of such utterances that nibble at the edges, as it may have been to hear the wafting, distant tones of his violin as Rome burned and Nero played it.

But just as that's not what emperors are for...

It's up to us then, to put in a word where there is one missing, or eight, that is.

I asked a question, and no one yet has the answer. Columba made a reasonable jab at it, and that was nice to see. What was the question, you might ask?

It is found here.

.
.
.
.

Quote from: I

Thank you for a substantive response, Columba.

Quote from: Columba

Before determining how to perceive reality, one must first determining that it really exists. The currently prevalent subjectivist philosophy does not acknowledge the existence of reality in the objective sense. Your questions boil down to asking what reality is.
[Very good! -- and there's more!*]

You have touched on the fundamental platform upon which the whole of the Conciliar revolution is built. The unclean spirit of Vatican II entirely relies on this false principle you have described in this last paragraph. Thank you!

.

*When I said, "there's more," it wasn't hot air. The raw fact is, my questions "boil down" to something more distilled, something more POTENT than "asking what reality is."

.

.