Author Topic: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.  (Read 11673 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Neil Obstat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16288
  • Reputation: +7851/-537
  • Gender: Male
ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
« Reply #15 on: July 24, 2014, 06:20:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .

    Not to discount the importance of being able to say what reality is -- for there can be no doubt that recognizing the difference, the distinction,* between imaginary fantasies and that which ought to be unquestionable, what should be universally recognized, is very important.


    *The word "separation" is absolutely inappropriate in place of "distinction" here.
    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16288
    • Reputation: +7851/-537
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #16 on: July 24, 2014, 06:25:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .

    These are TIMELESS principles, for they span the whole of creation and the history of the world.  You can't say that about most things, you know.

    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3651
    • Reputation: +3597/-243
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #17 on: July 24, 2014, 07:02:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Frances
    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: :incense:
    So what?  The bishop can make his blogs say anything he wants.


    That was my point. He is not giving doctrinal conferences, just giving us his thoughts without asking for the penny.   :scratchchin:  

    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 330
    • Reputation: +1020/-178
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #18 on: July 24, 2014, 09:06:15 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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 circumstances of the world in which the Church has to operate are changing all the time, and so according to the variety of these circumstances 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.




    Quote from: Neil Obstat

    Quote from: Bishop Williamson
    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?


    Just a few observations on H. E. Bishop Williamson's EC.  He begins by pointing out that the word "magisterium" is equivocal which is good.  But, then the he continues using the word indiscriminately which is not good.  For clarity I think the word should be written with a capital "M," Magisterium, when it refers to the teaching office of the Church grounded in the attribute of infallibility which God has endowed His Church.  The word should be written with a very small "m," magisterium, when referring to the teaching of churchmen by virtue of their grace of state.  The distinction is one of kind and not of degree.  The former, either in its ordinary and universal or its extra-ordinary mode of operation, is always infallible.  The fruit of this teaching is known as dogma.  The revealed truth of God proposed by the Church as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.  Dogma is not the only "reality" that can be known but it is the most certain.  

    The claim by +Williamson that the "teacher is superior to (what is) taught, so the Magisterum's teaching is superior to the Catholic people being taught," depends upon what is meant by "magisterium."  It is true only if the teacher is God and the subject being taught is dogma.  But if the "magisterium" is only a churchman regardless of his grace of state, the truth taught is always superior to the teacher.  In this sense, the teacher and those taught are both subject to the truth.  The only weapon of defense a subject has in opposition to the Master is the truth as +Williamson affirms in his last paragraph.

    Rev. Cornelius a Lapide has a good and timely commentary on Luke 22:32.  He says that Jesus Christ conferred two graces.  One was a personal grace gifted to St. Peter in that his faith would not fail.  This personal grace to St. Peter was not conferred upon his successors.  The second grace was to His Church that it would never engage the Magisterium to teach error.  The Pope can err in his personal magisterium and fall away from the faith but he will not be able to engage the attribute of infallibility to Magisterially teach error.  His "function," as +Williamson says, is "to guard and expound faithfully.... the Deposit of Faith."  

    Which introduces the next problem with +Williamson's  EC regarding the "living magisterium" to reformulate perennial truths to a changing world.  This is the same thing Pope John XXIII said in his opening remarks at Vatican II, and it was the core principle of Pope Benedict XVI "hermeneutic of continuity" which directly referenced John XXIII's quotation.  That is, the truths of faith are one thing and their dogmatic formulations are another.  That we can keep the truths of faith while adopting new formulations that are more receptive to the modern world.  

    This is wrong.  The "living magisterium" may dogmatically define a doctrine but that definition is the work of God for the truths of our faith are revealed by God and not by the Magisterium.  This is why it is absurd to consider changing any dogmatic formulations even for what may be considered greater clarity.  Dogma is a universal truth and this does not change.  The only things regarding its relationship with the changing world is that error is manifold and can corrupt and reject truth by any number of ways therefore the truth must be defended from varied assaults.  But the formulation of truth does not change and does not require any reformulation any more than the universal "chair" as understood by Aristotle or St. Thomas has to be reformulated for each successive age.  It is nothing but the error of Modernism to say, that the "Church needs living Masters to vary all the time the presentation and explanation of the unvarying truths."  This is in fact the cause of the current crisis.  

    It is insupportable to argue that a "living magisterium" is necessary to reinterpret dogma for the benefit of a changing world and then appeal to "reality" as the criteria to judge whether or not the "magisterium" is or is not sufficiently faithful to the perennial truths.  Our understanding of "reality" is a human approximation of truth at best and subject to error.  We are far better off than the faithful who rose against Nestorius and stand on firmer ground.  Their opposition was based upon the received Tradition of faith.  Their defense of Catholic doctrine led to the formulation of dogma which has enriched the Church for all time.  The criteria to judge is revealed truth of dogma.  

    It is important to pray and offer penitential sacrifices for +Williamson that he may have clarity of thought and decisiveness in action.

    Drew


    Offline Charlotte NC Bill

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 421
    • Reputation: +493/-4
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #19 on: July 24, 2014, 09:32:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The average tradcat won't appreciate "decisiveness in action"...For them "Tradition" is a nice chapel with a more "conservative atmosphere " than their local NO church....they're superficial..To them the ArchBp  really was a comfort merchant who could take them back to the 1950's...These people tend to think that EVERYTHING about the official Bp. fellay/Max Krah run SSPX is providential and not to be questioned incl. the inevitable sell-out... :geezer:


    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3651
    • Reputation: +3597/-243
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #20 on: July 25, 2014, 08:10:07 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The truths of the Faith once received are to be transmitted intact and unaltered. Which is to say, as it was declared or given by Christ through His Church.
    There can be no need to ever reformulate what is true by the Divine Will.

    All men who are of good will and seek such Truth will be granted understanding.

    Quote

    reformulate
      Use Reformulate in a sentence
    re·for·mu·late
    [ree-fawr-myuh-leyt] Show IPA
    verb (used with object), re·for·mu·lat·ed, re·for·mu·lat·ing.
    1.
    to formulate again.
    2.
    to formulate in a different way; alter or revise: to reformulate our plans.


    The very concept of such expedient reformulation invites corruption and alteration of the truth. It should not be mentioned.

    Quote

    the Church needs living Masters to vary all the time the presentation and explanation of the unvarying truths.


    I would take exception to this contradictory idea. Such living masters are to transmit and teach. Of course you need someone who is alive to tell you the truth, but catering to this or that sensibility, in this or that particular time is not required to hand on what one has received. The same explanation which was given to my ancestors is quite adequate to teach me today. In fact, is that not what Tradition is?
      The presentation and more importantly the explanation should never be tampered with, as, at times, even a small deviation in either can change the meaning or sense of a truth to the hearer. One treads upon unsound ground, when one ventures to do so.







    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16288
    • Reputation: +7851/-537
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #21 on: July 25, 2014, 08:46:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: drew
    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 circumstances of the world in which the Church has to operate are changing all the time, and so according to the variety of these circumstances 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.




    Quote from: Neil Obstat

    Quote from: Bishop Williamson
    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?



    Just a few observations on H. E. Bishop Williamson's EC.  He begins by pointing out that the word "magisterium" is equivocal which is good.  But, then the he continues using the word indiscriminately which is not good.  For clarity I think the word should be written with a capital "M," Magisterium, when it refers to the teaching office of the Church grounded in the attribute of infallibility which God has endowed His Church.  The word should be written with a very small "m," magisterium, when referring to the teaching of churchmen by virtue of their grace of state.  The distinction is one of kind and not of degree.  The former, either in its ordinary and universal or its extra-ordinary mode of operation, is always infallible.  The fruit of this teaching is known as dogma.  The revealed truth of God proposed by the Church as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.  Dogma is not the only "reality" that can be known but it is the most certain.  

    The claim by +Williamson that the "teacher is superior to (what is) taught, so the Magisterum's teaching is superior to the Catholic people being taught," depends upon what is meant by "magisterium."  It is true only if the teacher is God and the subject being taught is dogma.  But if the "magisterium" is only a churchman regardless of his grace of state, the truth taught is always superior to the teacher.  In this sense, the teacher and those taught are both subject to the truth.  The only weapon of defense a subject has in opposition to the Master is the truth as +Williamson affirms in his last paragraph.

    Rev. Cornelius a Lapide has a good and timely commentary on Luke 22:32.  He says that Jesus Christ conferred two graces.  One was a personal grace gifted to St. Peter in that his faith would not fail.  This personal grace to St. Peter was not conferred upon his successors.  The second grace was to His Church that it would never engage the Magisterium to teach error.  The Pope can err in his personal magisterium and fall away from the faith but he will not be able to engage the attribute of infallibility to Magisterially teach error.  His "function," as +Williamson says, is "to guard and expound faithfully.... the Deposit of Faith."  

    Which introduces the next problem with +Williamson's  EC regarding the "living magisterium" to reformulate perennial truths to a changing world.  This is the same thing Pope John XXIII said in his opening remarks at Vatican II, and it was the core principle of Pope Benedict XVI "hermeneutic of continuity" which directly referenced John XXIII's quotation.  That is, the truths of faith are one thing and their dogmatic formulations are another.  That we can keep the truths of faith while adopting new formulations that are more receptive to the modern world.  

    This is wrong.  The "living magisterium" may dogmatically define a doctrine but that definition is the work of God for the truths of our faith are revealed by God and not by the Magisterium.  This is why it is absurd to consider changing any dogmatic formulations even for what may be considered greater clarity.  Dogma is a universal truth and this does not change.  The only things regarding its relationship with the changing world is that error is manifold and can corrupt and reject truth by any number of ways therefore the truth must be defended from varied assaults.  But the formulation of truth does not change and does not require any reformulation any more than the universal "chair" as understood by Aristotle or St. Thomas has to be reformulated for each successive age.  It is nothing but the error of Modernism to say, that the "Church needs living Masters to vary all the time the presentation and explanation of the unvarying truths."  This is in fact the cause of the current crisis.  

    It is insupportable to argue that a "living magisterium" is necessary to reinterpret dogma for the benefit of a changing world and then appeal to "reality" as the criteria to judge whether or not the "magisterium" is or is not sufficiently faithful to the perennial truths.  Our understanding of "reality" is a human approximation of truth at best and subject to error.  We are far better off than the faithful who rose against Nestorius and stand on firmer ground.  Their opposition was based upon the received Tradition of faith.  Their defense of Catholic doctrine led to the formulation of dogma which has enriched the Church for all time.  The criteria to judge is revealed truth of dogma.  

    It is important to pray and offer penitential sacrifices for +Williamson that he may have clarity of thought and decisiveness in action.

    Drew


    I really appreciate your insightful comments, Drew.  It's nice to actually have a conversation.  

    The definition of magister and magisterium is instructive.  My Latin dictionary has the following:

    magis-ter  -tri m  chief, master, director;  teacher;  advisor, guardian;  ringleader, author;  (in apposition with noun in the gen) expert: (keeper of animals) shepherd, herdsnman; magister equitum (title of dictator's second in command) Master of the Calvary,  magister morum censor; magister sacrorum chief priest;  magister vici ward boss;  navis magister ship's captain

    magister-ium -(i)i n dictatorship, presidency, superintendence;  control, governance;  instruction; magisterium morum censorship

    *************
    It seems to me that modern man rebels against the principle of having a master:  against the principle of there being anything GOOD or BENEFICIAL in censorship;  and therefore, modern man, in this willful abhorrence of the proper definition(s) of words and phrases rooted in the Latin magister, simply wants nothing to do with them.

    Therein lies the rub.


    Notice that the Latin word magister / magistri  is a male gender noun (indicated by m), however, when you look at magisterium / magisterii  it's not male but rather neuter (indicated by n).  Therefore, it is sloppy scholarship to equate the connotation of magister with that of magisterium or Magisterium, because the latter is not a person, but a thing, if Latin carries any proper meaning into the adoptive language.  If it does, Magisterium cannot refer to men ('men' is plural and male gender), but only to the teaching OFFICE (singular, neuter) that the men occupy.  You don't say that the papacy is a man or the presidency is a man, do you?

    It is one of the earmarks of post-Conciliar ambiguity to presume that there are men (plural number, male gender noun) to whom the term Magisterium (singular number, neuter noun) applies, disregarding the teaching office (neuter).  


    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3651
    • Reputation: +3597/-243
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #22 on: July 25, 2014, 10:41:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Neil Obstat,
    Quote
    I really appreciate your insightful comments, Drew.  It's nice to actually have a conversation.  


    I will second that sentiment. Insights and principles which can lead to logical conclusions. Always good.


    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6610
    • Reputation: +4068/-507
    • Gender: Female
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #23 on: July 25, 2014, 10:52:01 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: J.Paul
    The truths of the Faith once received are to be transmitted intact and unaltered. Which is to say, as it was declared or given by Christ through His Church.
    There can be no need to ever reformulate what is true by the Divine Will.

    All men who are of good will and seek such Truth will be granted understanding.

    Quote

    reformulate
      Use Reformulate in a sentence
    re·for·mu·late
    [ree-fawr-myuh-leyt] Show IPA
    verb (used with object), re·for·mu·lat·ed, re·for·mu·lat·ing.
    1.
    to formulate again.
    2.
    to formulate in a different way; alter or revise: to reformulate our plans.


    The very concept of such expedient reformulation invites corruption and alteration of the truth. It should not be mentioned.


    Dogmas are really truths fallen from Heaven above and must be preserved at all costs as the divine treasures they are. Catholics should not fall into the modernist error of "reformulating" dogma. Dogmatic statements say what they mean and mean what they say. There is a permanent meaning in a dogma that does not ever change. It remains unaltered for all eternity.

    Pope St. Pius X explicitly condemned the proposition that dogmas are to be understood as figurative symbols. The Church understands her dogmas precisely by the very words she has once declared.  Loyal Catholics must know that Catholic dogmatic statements are immutable truths of Heaven not subject for accommodation to suit the current world needs. Pope Pius X solemnly condemned this method of interpretation or re-formulation employed by the progressive Modernists, in which dogmas have a meaning that is different from what the words literally say and mean.
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline Columba

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 552
    • Reputation: +728/-0
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #24 on: July 25, 2014, 10:57:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: drew
    Which introduces the next problem with +Williamson's  EC regarding the "living magisterium" to reformulate perennial truths to a changing world. This is the same thing Pope John XXIII said in his opening remarks at Vatican II, and it was the core principle of Pope Benedict XVI "hermeneutic of continuity" which directly referenced John XXIII's quotation.

    Your term "reformulate" does not appear in the EC. Doesn't the "living magisterium" simply apply unvarying truths to contemporary situations? Vatican II fathers abused this principle to introduce ambiguity. This then served as a shield of plausible deniability for heresy.

    The "living magisterium" can be defended from such abuse without it being discarded. Or if we judge this term as having been ruined, how should we now refer to the principle of applying the unvarying truths to contemporary situations?

    Offline Frances

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2660
    • Reputation: +2239/-1
    • Gender: Female
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #25 on: July 25, 2014, 12:19:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Columba
    Quote from: drew
    Which introduces the next problem with +Williamson's  EC regarding the "living magisterium" to reformulate perennial truths to a changing world. This is the same thing Pope John XXIII said in his opening remarks at Vatican II, and it was the core principle of Pope Benedict XVI "hermeneutic of continuity" which directly referenced John XXIII's quotation.

    Your term "reformulate" does not appear in the EC.

    The "living magisterium" can be defended from such abuse without it being discarded. Or if we judge this term as having been ruined, how should we now refer to the principle of applying the unvarying truths to contemporary situations?


     :dancing-banana:Fr. Chazal has invented a new app for this.  It's called the Theanalogizer! :wink:
     St. Francis Xavier threw a Crucifix into the sea, at once calming the waves.  Upon reaching the shore, the Crucifix was returned to him by a crab with a curious cross pattern on its shell.  


    Offline Columba

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 552
    • Reputation: +728/-0
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #26 on: July 25, 2014, 01:46:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • ???

    Offline Frances

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2660
    • Reputation: +2239/-1
    • Gender: Female
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #27 on: July 25, 2014, 08:12:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Columba
    ???

     :dancing-banana:
    Check Fr. Chazal's letter in the July 2014 Recusant.  He explains it in detail.
     St. Francis Xavier threw a Crucifix into the sea, at once calming the waves.  Upon reaching the shore, the Crucifix was returned to him by a crab with a curious cross pattern on its shell.  

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16288
    • Reputation: +7851/-537
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #28 on: July 26, 2014, 12:43:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: I made several typos when I

    The definition of magister and magisterium is instructive.  My Latin dictionary has the following:

    magis-ter  -tri  m  chief, master, director;  teacher;  adviser, guardian;  ringleader, author;  (in apposition with noun in the gen) expert:  (keeper of animals) shepherd, herdsman;  magister equitum (title of dictator's second in command) Master of the Cavalry;  magister morum censor;  magister sacrorum chief priest;  magister vici ward boss;  navis magister ship's captain

    magister-ium -(i)i  n  directorship, presidency, superintendence;  control, governance;  instruction; magisterium morum censorship



    ****************************************              

    It seems to me that modern man rebels against the principle of having a master:  against the principle of there being anything GOOD or BENEFICIAL in censorship;  and therefore, modern man, in this willful abhorrence of the proper definition(s) of words and phrases rooted in the Latin magister, simply wants nothing to do with them.

    Therein lies the rub.

    Notice that the Latin word magister / magistri  is a masculine gender noun (indicated by m = masculine noun), however, when you look at magisterium / magisteri / magisterii  it's not masculine but rather neuter (indicated by n = neuter gender noun).  Therefore, it is sloppy scholarship to equate the connotation of magister with that of magisterium or Magisterium, because the latter is not a person, but a thing (neuter gender), if Latin carries any proper meaning into the adoptive language.  If it does, Magisterium cannot refer to men ('men' is plural, with masculine gender) or man (as in mankind, which includes women and children), but can only refer to the teaching OFFICE (singular number, neuter gender) that the men occupy.  You don't say that the papacy is a man or the presidency is a man, do you?  

    Nor do we say the directorship is a man;  nor do we say that the superintendence is a man;  nor do we say that control is a man;  nor do we say that governance or instruction or censorship is a human person (a man). [/font][/size]

    .

    Notice that it is unnecessary to say "a woman" or "a man or a woman," because the term "man" in such situations INCLUDES the feminine gender such that the office of directorship or superintendence or control, etc. may equally be occupied by a man or by a woman;  nonetheless, superintendence never refers to the person of the superintendent, but rather to his office.

    (Again, it's unnecessary to say, "his or her office," or "his/her office," or "hiser office," or "h/is/er office" or whatever, because "his office" INCLUDES the instance of it being "her office."  This is where the error of feminism comes in and gender neutral language, such that feminists get all flustered and bent out of shape when a rule book for instance, refers to the principal's office as "his office" when the principal is a woman.  But in proper Latin tradition AND THEREFORE likewise in proper English tradition, there is no distinction in sex when the masculine gender is used, for "his office" merely means a human being's office, instead of like a ROBOT's office, which would be NEUTER gender, and therefore "its office," but that would imply by gender neutral non-discrimination 'standards' to DEMEAN homosexuals by calling them "it" -- and we just can't abide by THAT, can we??)

    It is one of the earmarks of post-Conciliar ambiguity to presume that there are men (plural number, masculine gender noun) to whom the term Magisterium (singular number, neuter noun) applies, disregarding the teaching office (neuter), or the doctrine (neuter) being taught by that office.  

    That is to say, that the penchant to impart a human being's identity or personhood or humanity into a neuter noun like magisterium does NOT belong to the Roman Catholic Latin Sacred Tradition AT ALL.  It has ONLY arisen as a consequence of the unclean spirit of Vatican II and the abomination of removing the Church from her firm foundations in the sacred language of LATIN!

    Magisteri and magisterii means the same thing, the second i being apparently a convention that is used occasionally for whatever reason (perhaps more or less commonly in ecclesiastical Latin as opposed to classical Latin), but in both cases the word is second declension Genitive singular.  When such words are used in English, the declensions are ignored and the Nominative form is the basis for our words.  I'm telling you this so you can see why we always say "Magisterium" in English and we never say "Magisterio" or "Magisterii" or "Magisteria," etc.

    If you were using Latin, however, there are the following declensions, and therefore in Latin documents that would have words based on the Latin "magisterium" (a NEUTER noun, not a masculine noun!!) they would be declined in the documents such that you might see "magisteri" or "magisterii" or "magisterio" or "magisteria" or "magisteriis" as follows:

    SECOND DECLENSION SINGULAR
    Nominative  . . . . . magisterium
    Genetive . . . . . . .  magisteri or magisterii
    Dative . . . . . . . . .  magisterio
    Accusative . . . . . .  magisterium
    Ablative . . . . . . . .  magisterio

    SECOND DECLENSION PLURAL
    Nominative . . . . .  magisteria
    Genetive . . . . . . .  magisterium
    Dative . . . . . . . . .  magisteriis
    Accusative . . . . . .  magisteria
    Ablative . . . . . . . .  magisteriis


    It's a bit hard to imagine that "magisteriums" (in English) would be discussed in the Church, except perhaps hypothetically, for the Church is one, and therefore has one teaching office in the unity of the faith.  

    Consequently, it would make logical sense that in English, if the plural form for magisterium were to be used, it would be "magisteria," and the proof of this lies in many similar Englishized Latin words, such that the proper English plural form is the Latin plural, Nominative declension.  (E.g., radius, radii;  appendix, appendices;  basis, bases;  species, species;  amphora, amphorae;  opus, opera)

    (If it were to be so hypothetically discussed in Latin, you would then see the words in the second group, "Plural" being used, "magisteria" and "magisteriis," whenever the Nominative, Dative, Accusative or Ablative declensions are appropriate, and in the plural number, "magisterium" would be for the Genetive declension, not the Nominative declension, and therefore, English words, which are derived from the Nominative declension, plural number would logically be "magisteria" instead of "magisterium."  But again, the words English borrows from Latin ignores declensions, and when we talk about more than one magisterium we simply put an "s" on the end for the plural number:  "magisteriums."  That is not how Latin EVER indicates plural.  In English translations and in proper English original writing, it is ONLY found in Englishized Latin words.  I don't know about other non-Latin languages, especially Romance languages such as French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian and Italian.  If any reader here knows, please chime in and pronounce the relevant convention(s).)

    Therefore, when you see messages or writings of pundits or bigots or know-it-alls mentioning "magisteriums" you should immediately recognize it as a RED FLAG that something might be haywire.  The Church does not have one magisterium before Vat.II and another one after Vat.II, for example.  There is no "traditional magisterium and modern magisterium."  

    Perhaps one might say "Modernist magisterium," but that would seem to be dangerous, because to begin with, all too many Catholics have no idea what "Modernist" means in the first place, and so they might likely think that your 'modernist magisterium' is some kind of compliment when in fact you were trying to criticize Modernist leanings in what SHOULD be the Magisterium, but might not be in fact, or whatever.  

    If you've made it this far and you still think you know what I'm talking about, perhaps you may have thought of asking another question very pertinent to this thread which I have not mentioned.......


    ..............Yet..............



    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Columba

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 552
    • Reputation: +728/-0
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #29 on: July 26, 2014, 02:59:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Frances
    Quote from: Columba
    ???

     :dancing-banana:
    Check Fr. Chazal's letter in the July 2014 Recusant.  He explains it in detail.

    I am familiar with the newly-coined term Theanalogizer, but am still unsatisfied with your response. Fr. Chazal uses Theanalogizer to negatively categorize Menzingen errors that he or somebody else has already refuted. You employed Theanalogizer against my post defending +Williamson without attempting any argument against it, or rather, in lieu of an argument.

    Drew misleadingly used variations on the term "reformulate" three times to criticize +Williamson. J.Paul responded to Drew as if he believed +Williamson was really advocating the reformulation of doctrine. It appears that Drew's use of "reformulate" had the effect of a successful straw-man gambit upon J.Paul. This may have been unintentional by Drew, but I saw a need to correct the error.

    Your response further confuse the issue instead of helping to clear it up.

    EC's should not be held above criticism but neither should they be subjected to logical fallacy (even if unintentional).

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16