Monday, November 09, 2009

Scott Windsor can't make up his mind

Scott Windsor says:

You misrepresent the office of the bishop. Each office is NOT infallible in and of itself. They DO have apostolic authority to correct me if I have misrepresented Catholic teaching myself - but a single bishop has not the charism of infallibility, save the Bishop of Rome, and he utilizes that VERY judiciously.
Well, yes, so judiciously as to be unrecognisable.

Anyway, while he's been avoiding the onus of submitting all of his work to the Magisterium (whom he apparently, carelessly equates with his local bishop) like the plague as well as blissfully ignoring the implications of receiving a brush-off from them, he's pursued the following line of argumentation over at his blog, and I'd like to know why.

He'd asked me to whom I'm submitted. I told him the elders of my church (my Southern Babdist church is elder-led). Follow the excerpts down the page.
SW: So, your answer is that you are submissive to the elders of your church - to whom do they submit to (sic)?
ME: My elders are in submission to the Holy Spirit Who expresses Himself thru the Word of God.
SW: I see, so your elders are their own little magisterium.
ME: My elders don't think they're infallible. They don't think they're descended directly via "apostolic succession" from Peter. They're not headed by a Pope who can speak ex cathedra whenever he feels like declaring something he said in the past at some point to have been an infallible statement, in retrospect. They are subject to Scripture and teach what it says. There are quite a few large differences. You should really know better, given how long you've been at this.
SW: That's sad, because in the Church which Jesus built, his bishops were indeed given the authority to bind or loose whatsoever they chose, and if it were bound on Earth, then it was also bound in Heaven. Since nothing fallible can logically be bound in Heaven, then this authority had to be infallible authority. Furthermore, this is part of what Jesus was sent to do (or else why do it?) and Jesus said "As the Father sent Me, I also send you." If the Apostles then did not pass on this authority which Jesus passed on to them - then they would have failed the Master right from the beginning. So the first bishops were given this infallible authority and by Jesus' Word, they too - being sent as He was sent - had to pass on this authority, which they did. So, if your elders were True Leaders of His Church, then they would have to have infallible authority, without it - they are just impostors, wolves dressed in sheeps clothing - to fool even the elect.
Me: So you admit that your original assertion was wrong - that my elders are their own little Magisterium. Good, we're getting somewhere. The decent thing to do would be to withdraw that statement, sir. (He didn't.)
SW: You brought up the non-infallibility of your elders, I responded that it was a pity, since Jesus established the True Church with "overseers" (bishops) who indeed had this authority.

Now, contrast that line of commentary with what he said most recently, quoted at the top. Which one is right? One can only wish Mr. Windsor could keep track of his arguments, to say nothing of my own.


29 comments:

beowulf2k8 said...

How do your elders deal with the fact that "he shall be called a Nazarene" is not an OT prophecy even though Matt 2:23 says it is? And how do they deal with the statement by Jesus in both Matthew and Luke that "of all those born of women none is greater than John" by which Jesus denies being born of a woman. Or with John 6:51 where Jesus says "I am the bread which came down from heaven and the bread is my flesh" by which he confesses that he come down bodily from heaven without birth? Or how do you deal with the fact that in John Jesus never speaks of the law as 'my law' but only as 'their law' and to the Jews 'your law'? Or that he says everyone who came before him were thieves? Or that he says in Luke 9:55 that Elijah called down murderous fire from heaven by a spirit other than the Heavenly Father? Or again how do your edlers deal with the contradiction between Matthew and Luke on Jesus' relationship to Nazareth, for in Matthew the hometown of Mary and Joseph is Bethlehem and they only move to Nazareth out of fear of Herod, whereas in Luke they are from Nazareth and only go to Bethlehem for the census then return to Nazareth as a matter of course, and in Matthew they live in Bethlehem for 2 years after Jesus' birth but in Luke for less than 40 days after Jesus' birth? Or again, how do the elders deal with the god of this world being said by Paul to have blinded the Jews whereas the OT says that Yahweh did so, and how also do the elders deal with Yahweh inciting David to number Israel in Samuel but Satan doing it in Chronicles? They don't. And neither does the Catholic magesterium. These are contractions created by the Catholic editors which can only be explained by a Marcionite.

CathApol said...

>> sw: You misrepresent the office
>> of the bishop. Each office is
>> NOT infallible in and of
>> itself. They DO have apostolic
>> authority to correct me if I
>> have misrepresented Catholic
>> teaching myself - but a single
>> bishop has not the charism of
>> infallibility, save the Bishop
>> of Rome, and he utilizes that
>> VERY judiciously.

Alan responds:
> Well, yes, so judiciously as to
> be unrecognisable (sic).

(yawn) No substance, as usual, just whining.

Alan continues:
> Anyway, while he's been avoiding
> the onus of submitting all of
> his work to the Magisterium
> (whom he apparently, carelessly
> equates with his local bishop)
> like the plague as well as
> blissfully ignoring the
> implications of receiving a
> brush-off from them, he's
> pursued the following line of
> argumentation over at his blog,
> and I'd like to know why.

1) I have not avoided submission to the Magisterium - as was confirmed by my local bishop's office - I am and continue to be in submission to their authority.

2) The office of my local bishop IS the local magisterial authority over me. The bishop is PART OF the Ordinary Magisterium.

3) There was no "brush off" as Alan would like everyone to believe, in fact, just the opposite! The Chancellor's Office (for the bishop) encourages my lay apostolate work in defending the Church in such venues as the Internet - as I have been doing for over 20 years now.

4) Alan has no specific complaint regarding my adherence to and/or representation of magisterial teaching - no, he proposes some sort of Medieval-like witch-hunt to scour every jot and tiddle I have written and published for any hint of "error."

So, having nothing, Alan continues to lash out irrationally at me personally. A sad testimony to Protestant apologetics if we ever saw one.

Keep it up, Alan, you make the rest of us look good! Oh, and when you have something of substance, look me up - I'd be more than willing to investigate it, but until then, have a nice day.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<
http://cathapol.blogspot.com

beowulf2k8 said...

Scott, since you are here, can you ask your 'infallible' bishop to reconcile the above mentioned passages for me?

CathApol said...

Beowulf - as I told Alan (were you not paying attention?) My bishop, in and of himself, is not infallible. If you're asking me respectfully - I may be inclined to give you some answers.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

James Swan said...

Rho,

The colors seem a bit early Christmas. We haven't even had Thanksgiving yet!(:

beowulf2k8 said...

Scott, I suppose an answer from the 'ordinary' magesterium is as good as one from the meta-ordinary magesterium, since that one will never speak on any subject other than Mary's ever-virginity anyway. Indeed we must all agree that Mary never slept with Joseph since Joseph is only a literalization of the title Messiah ben Joseph. There was no Joseph. And Mary was John Mark's mother for Jesus denies her at Cana "what is there between me and thee, woman?" And shows why at the cross saying to John Mark "behold your mother." Was John then born of a virgin? Perhaps John Mark was the reincarnation of Mahershalalhashbaz, for contextually Isaiah 7-8 is about Mahershalalhashbaz being born of a virgin as a sign of when Ahaz' two enemy kings will be defeated by the Assyrian king and Yahweh himself declares Mahershlalhashbaz to be the fullfillment of the virgin birth prophecy in Isaiah 8. But Jesus himself tells us that he descended from heaven already having his flesh (John 6:51) and he tells us his only mother and brothers and sisters are those who do his Father's will.

Let the infallible or falible magesterium either one explain how Hosea 11:1 and all the rest of the prophecies in Matthew's first two chapters contextually aplly to Jesus when they don't, and let them further explain how all of Jesus' own denials of his birth fit with the fictional birth stories and how John Mark's mother Mary can be Jesus' mother when he says he was not born of a woman for "of all those born of women none is greater than John". If they can explain all this logicially, then and only then will I believe they are infallible.

my3sons said...

I find it interesting that Scott always ends his writing with "In JMJ". Translation-In Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. Hmmmmm.

CathApol said...

my3sons,
What have you got against the Holy Family? Jesus, Mary and Joseph are an example for all of us in how to live. Methinks thou protesteth too much.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

EA said...

"Jesus, Mary and Joseph are an example for all of us in how to live."

And how was that, exactly? Fleeing to Egypt or losing track of your "only" child at the annual religious festival?

CathApol said...

>> sw: "Jesus, Mary and Joseph are
>> an example for all of us in how
>> to live."
>
> And how was that, exactly? Fleeing
> to Egypt or losing track of your
> "only" child at the annual
> religious festival?

Fleeing to Egypt was in obedience to God, what your beef there? That is a GOOD example of how to live! Obeying God!

Willingness to yield to God's Will in their lives - both Mary and Joseph gave up a "normal" life to raise their Son. We don't know what happened to Joseph in Jesus' adult years (likely he passed on) but Mary devoted the rest of her life in devotion to her Son! And of course, I don't have to tell you (I hope) that we are to try to be like Jesus as much as we can.

As for the incident of finding Jesus a the Temple, they likely assumed he was with other relatives and then yes, their extreme concern for their Son is a good example for us too.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Rhology said...

Mr Windsor,

The office of my local bishop IS the local magisterial authority over me. The bishop is PART OF the Ordinary Magisterium.

Then please explain your criticism of my church's elders. That's the whole point of my post; not to critique RC dogma per se, but the inconsistency of your critique.


(Ah, I was wondering what "JMJ" stood for. Thanks for the clarification.)

Rhology said...

Mr Windsor said:
Methinks thou protesteth too much.

That sounds like a "personal attack" to me, Mr Windsor, if we're using your standard of distinguishing personal attacks.

CathApol said...

>> sw: The office of my local
>> bishop IS the local magisterial
>> authority over me. The bishop
>> is PART OF the Ordinary
>> Magisterium.
>
> AR: Then please explain your
> criticism of my church's elders.
> That's the whole point of my
> post; not to critique RC dogma
> per se, but the inconsistency of
> your critique.

sw: My critique remains untouched. You have conceded that your elders have no valid apostolic succession, mine do. The authority of the office passed down from one generation to the next - but your Baptist elders popped up out of nowhere at some point.

> AR: (Ah, I was wondering what
> "JMJ" stood for. Thanks for the
> clarification.)

sw: Well, I didn't offer initially what it stands for, but I did offer a clarification/explanation - so you're welcome.

> Mr Windsor said:
>> sw: Methinks thou protesteth
>> too much.
>
> AR: That sounds like a "personal
> attack" to me, Mr Windsor, if
> we're using your standard of
> distinguishing personal attacks.

sw: It was a line stolen from Shakespeare and it has to do with your protesting - not your person.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Rhology said...

You have conceded that your elders have no valid apostolic succession, mine do. The authority of the office passed down from one generation to the next - but your Baptist elders popped up out of nowhere at some point.

Goalpost-shifting is noted.

And yes, exactly - the PROTESTING was the target. The ARGUMENT. Double standard much?

Rhology said...

Speaking of my elders...


Constitutions of the Holy Apostles: Let him that teaches, although he be one of the laity, yet, if he be skilful in the word and grave in his manners, teach; for "they shall be all taught of God." See ANF, Vol. VII, Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book 8.32, p. 495


Now, you have a few choices here, Mr Windsor.
1) Drop your asinine line of argumentation. (This is the preferred option.)
2) Insist that I don't have the right to use early church documents since the early church was the Roman Catholic Church.
3) Counter-quote sthg else out of the early church.
4) Accuse this of being out of context.
5) Ignore it.

If #3, you'd need to explain how counter-quoting helps you out of the fact that the early church just straight did not teach what you say it teaches, on a consistent basis. It gives us good reason to doubt that the early church taught consistently on quite a range of things, if it couldn't get authority right, and should push us back to that which is theopneustos. See here for more on that.

If #4, you'll have to do some fancy stepping. Words mean things, and these words mean something that's not easily mitigated by context.

If #5, you'll be displaying behavior very common to RC apologists.

Peace,
Rhology

Richard Froggatt said...

Or #6

What has the quote got to do with Alan?

CathApol said...

Alan,
First off, your elders were not a part of Christianity when that was written.

Second, that quote has nothing to do with elders at all, but speaks of who should be baptized, who should be rejected and who should be given more time.

So Alan, you have a couple choices:

1) Apologize for the "asinine" comment - that wasn't very good "manners."

2) Admit that you quoted something which truly doesn't apply to your elders. (I guess that makes my answer to you #4 - I read the context, did you?)

Or, you could do both.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

my3sons said...

CathApol, I have nothing against Jesus' family, but where does Scripture point us to pray in the names of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph? Scripture has us praying in the name of Jesus only. Soli Deo Gloria!

Rhology said...

It says:

Let him that teaches, although he be one of the laity...

Laity = not an ordained clergyman. By your definitions, my elders are not ordained clergymen.

Thanks for playing.

Peace,
Rhology

Scott said...

Alan writes:
> It says:
> Let him that teaches,
> although he be one of the
> laity...
>
> Laity = not an ordained
> clergyman. By your definitions,
> my elders are not ordained
> clergymen.

sw: I don't see how this helps your case in the least. Bishops in apostolic succession would be ordained clergyman - you're helping to confirm MY point that your elders are not part of the Apostolic succession. You are also inadvertently supporting my ability to "teach" - though I am not ordained clergy (and that helps you too a bit), but that's not the point I made - which still stands. So the unordained can help teach - what has that got to do with validity? Those unordained would still need to be in communion with and under the guidance of a bishop - which you have already conceded your elders are not.

Alan remarks:
> Thanks for playing.

sw: Thanks! I enjoy winning too! :-)

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Rhology said...

You are also inadvertently supporting my ability to "teach" - though I am not ordained clergy

Um, hardly. RC dogma remains unchanged.

Richard Froggatt said...

So by Rhology's definition ( to be consistent ) it applys to Jehovah's Witnesses also.

Rhology said...

RF,
JWs aren't Christian. Hate to break the news like this.

Richard Froggatt said...

And you're not apostolic.

Scott said...

my3sons writes:
> CathApol, I have nothing against
> Jesus' family, but where does
> Scripture point us to pray in
> the names of Jesus, Mary, and
> Joseph? Scripture has us
> praying in the name of Jesus
> only.

Hmmmm, I wasn't aware I was praying when I signed my comments. Are these comments part of your prayer and worship?

When I sign, "In JMJ" (In Jesus, Mary and Joseph), it is simply a complimentary closing, as in basic friendly letter writing. Like, "Yours sincerely" or "Humbly in your service," etc. Stuff we learn in elementary school.

I remain, your unordained teacher, in JMJ,

Scott<<<

Scott said...

Alan wrote:
> Um, hardly. RC dogma remains unchanged.

Alan, the topic was apostolic succession. The point is your elders do not have it (a point you've already conceded) and my bishop does have.

Now you're trying to say the topic was "RC dogma remains unchanged." I would agree with that statement, but it has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

It seems you've mistitled this thread... it should be "Rhology can't make up his mind" - that is if you insist upon using pejoratives in the titles of your threads (which does seem common here).

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Rhology said...

No Mr Windsor, the topic was not apostolic succession. It was whether my elders are their own little Magisterium and whether they have teaching validity since they're not part of RCC. Example #6 or so of your losing track of the argument.

Scott said...

Sorry to break it to you, Alan, but my bishop is part of the Ordinary Magisterium which is included in apostolic succession. It is not I who is losing track of the argument. Your elders are not part of the apostolic succession (thanks again for yet another opportunity to remind you and the readers of the fact you've already conceded this point) and therefore in their usurping of teaching authority outside communion with the apostolic succession - they, in effect, become a "little magisterium" of sorts - a parallel church to the One which Jesus Christ built upon the Apostles and continues with their successors.

You've lost this round. The more you continue to try resurrect your failure - the more you fail. You quoted something off-topic which apparently you thought would help your cause, but context betrayed you and in the end it only helped my cause. If you wish to continue, feel free.

You're left with two choices:
1) Continue trying to save face.

2) Give it up, you lost.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Rhology said...

Cool, I'm more than happy to leave it right here. Thanks!