Friday, November 06, 2009

Seen Scott Windsor's imprimatur?

Scott Windsor has responded to some of our recent interactions on his blog, in two parts. I'll address this first part here and then go on to the other post later.

It was YOU who referred to the Eph. 2 post

Yes, that's what's commonly called an "example". An "illustration". I apologise for using a concept that's apparently unfamiliar to you.
My question related to that post was very, very specific. You then responded to the Eph 2 post itself, which is not what I asked about. That is what I mean by your failure to follow the line of argumentation, and then you project your failure onto me and accuse me of shotgunning and partaking with Satan. Again, knock yourself out.


Since when does a "boldfaced word" indicate an internal critique? Boldfaced words mean emphasis.

Sigh. The bold word indicates a critique. If you weren't so busy acting offended, you might remember that I've already explained this to you.
-Here's the original comment from me.
-Mr Windsor's is right after, where he says: "Your use of "Romanist" in a truly bigoted fashion (related to another thread going on here and on my blog too as well as White's) is noted...but even make sure we take note by using bold text?"
-My next comment explains: "I put "from Romanists" in bold b/c I was trying to help you understand what I'd said. It appeared you hadn't followed that I was noting an inconsistency between what you'd said and what *other* ppl have said many times in the past."
-Mr Windsor ignores my explanation and offers this: "For example, if I were using a term like "Prottie" here - and someone expressed to ME that it was a bit of a bigoted term - I would respect them and refrain from further use - I would not go on and not only use it, but bold face it as well!"
-I responded in the next comment: "And again (see how boldface imparts emphasis?), I bolded "Romanist" to try to be helpful and direct attention to my meaning." And then I even explained it AGAIN: "Thus you are showing that you care not for the argument that *OTHER PEOPLE* have often made *IN THE PAST* here on this blog, that private, individual interpretation is useless. That is the extent of my point here."
-Mr Windsor seems finally to get it: "I can't speak for "*OTHER PEOPLE*" - but as for me, the only times I would have to be concerned about "private interpretation" is if I am interpreting something contrary to an already defined teaching"

If only you'd kept right on that train of thought, but no, it's apparently more amusing to vilify me. Whatever, have fun with that.



As I pointed out, there were at least 5 different topics among those 8 questions.

Yes, b/c YOU RESPONDED TO THE EPH 2 POST, Mr Windsor. Sauce for the goose and all that.
And there aren't 5 diff topics. They're all directed at taking your comment that "works" in Eph 2 refers to "works of the OT Law", so I was asking you if you attempt to fulfill the OT Law since Eph 2:10 says we're created in Christ Jesus unto good works. Since "works" = "works of the OT Law", it should be obvious to any reader that, if you believe that, you'd better get right on top of obeying the OT Law!
I note in passing that you've never put fwd any answer beyond "Christ fulfilled the OT Law for us"...as if you completely forgot the original context of the question - Eph 2. It's yet another thread of the argument you've lost track of, but I'll look at your other post on that topic.


Question 4 was asking about my sons (a personal question).

Seriously? Asking whether you fulfilled the circumcision commandments in the OT Law for your sons is "a personal question"?


5) Question 7 asked about graven images...which is wholly a different subject

Oh, the OT Law doesn't deal with graven images? Not even in, say, the 10 Commandments? Like the 2nd one?
Deut 7:5, 25, 12:3 29:17; Num 33:52; Lev 26:30? Aren't those psgs in the OT Law too?


Vague references to entire postings or entire threads of discussion don't cut it as documentation.

I told you where to see a couple of examples. You know, as an apologist you're not all that helpful. Don't you ever answer hypotheticals? It's not like it's not a specific hypothetical.


It sure sounds like St. Jerome was unilaterally acting in the quote you provided. Did he consult the elders of that congregation before acting? Or, did he just walk in and start ripping things down? Did he consult with the local bishop? Did he consult with ANYONE?

(You're shotgunning again, I note. I brought this up as an EXAMPLE, and you're taking it far afield, if we go by your own standard.)
Why would he consult the elders of a wrongdoing congregation?
Maybe he was very, very certain that such a thing was wrong and acted to communicate its wrongness to that church? Maybe he had consulted with the bishop. And wait a sec, why would he need to consult with the local bishop? I thought Christians and especially bishops throughout history have been in agreement about such important things as images. No doubt he agreed with you and knew his own bishop said images in church are a no-go, and thus figured the local bishop would agree, since bishops in Christ's church bind and loose and all that and have all that unity you like to talk about so often.


There may be some around, but I don't "use them" in "worship."

Let the reader judge whether the actions performed by RCs before their images is "using them" in "worship".

One can find SOME of the defined teachings of the RCC in many places. Others are said to be defined but are not. Some, it would be nice if they were, but they're not, such as an infallible list of infall teachings, a list of the infallibly-interpreted Scr psgs, etc.
But for the 3rd time, you say on the one hand that it's the reader's responsibility to figure it out, and on the other decry this individual interpretation if it differs from the RCC's teachings. How can we know who's right here?
IOW, you're asking me to act like a Protestant. It's really weird.
How about you actually exercise some of this humility you claim and submit ALL your work to the Magisterium for the imprimatur? What's so wrong with that request?


Catholic apologists are used to help explain what the Magisterium ...REALLY teaches as opposed to anti-Catholic propaganda.
(source)

And why precisely can't the Magisterium take care of that? The Pope? Is he too busy making official visits to Hugo Chávez and kissing Qur'ans to pitch in?

Anyway, the main point of this whole thing is that Mr Windsor apparently wants everyone to take his word for it on the question of whether he's submitted to the Magisterium. "Oh don't worry," he says, "I've written to my bishop, and in the past I've had good success getting a response." That's nice, and I'm sure such responses from men who wear such elaborate vestments and who hide and transfer pædophiles and can't decide what to do with obviously pro-baby-murder politicians among their constituents impart warm fuzzies, but from someone who's a little closer to the big-time than an anonymous race-baiting RC commenter like, say, Dozie, I'd like more than his assurance. I mean, I'm supposed to let RCC's dogmatic proclamations bind my conscience on pain of mortal sin (or, on pain of somehow wriggling out from under the virtual panacæa of the concept of "invincible ignorance"), but if Mr Windsor relies on his private interpretation to find out whether his own teachings are thus bound, I feel less motivated to do anything more than that.



13 comments:

James Swan said...

Catholic apologists are used to help explain what the Magisterium ...REALLY teaches as opposed to anti-Catholic propaganda

That is, one gets the particular interpretation of the Magisterium by whichever Catholic apologist one choooses to utilize.

Scott said...

My response is here.

Rhology said...

Thank you Mr Windsor. Unfortunately, more than half your post is bellyaching about how mean and nasty I supposedly am. I tire of the same hypocritical complaints from you, so I'll be passing over all that.

Scott Windsor does not give imprimaturs.

But do you HAVE one? I find it very difficult to believe that you really misunderstood the point of that question. But let me be as clear as I can - I am inquiring as to the trustworthiness of a fallible non-member of the Magisterium to properly represent and defend the Magisterium, especially when he does not submit his work to them on a regular basis, and doubly especially when he tries to lay the responsibility for finding error/inconsistency in his work at MY feet, a Protestant, thus fundamentally telling me to act like a Protestant! How do you allay this doubt?


You first state that a bold word indicates a critique then in the same context you AGREE WITH ME and say "see how boldface imparts emphasis?" So, critique or emphasis?

I honestly don't know how to explain it any other way than to recount the conversation in toto, which I just did in this post. I question whether you're this dense, so I'm leaning towards the conclusion that you're allowing your outrage over the word "Romanist" to cloud your thinking with emotion. I recommend you get over it, b/c you've made yourself look silly here.


Private interpretation is used by us ALL - we only get into trouble if our private interpretation is contrary to an already defined interpretation.

So you agree with my original point. Thanks, I don't know why you couldn't just come out and say it.


No, you asked *ME* about *MY* sons. That's personal. Do you not see that? Seriously?

Yes, whether you obeyed the OT Law in circumcising them. It's not about them, it's actually far more about YOU and your willingness to obey the OT Law, since your interp of Eph 2 says you're created in CHrist Jesus to obey the OT Law. It's a very straightfwd point, but again you see fit to sidestep the issue and whine about "personal attacks".



"Thou shalt NOT..." clause - or, in short things you should NOT do, not things you SHOULD do! That would be a NON-work. Can you see now how it is a wholly different subject?

Um, sin is not a work, that requires some sort of redemptive power to overcome? Come on.
James 2:10? For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.


No, the reader doesn't get to judge my personal intentions behind my worship!

Another complete misunderstanding. Besides, I doubt that examining the intentions of the millions of RCs in S America who treat Mary like a goddess would be a profitable exercise for your position. You're in the minority and you don't even know it.


Again asking about this "infallible list of infallible teachings." The Church hasn't seen the need for such a list

Then she has no Canon of her infallible teaching. And yet many RCs have the gall to ask "How do you know you have the right Canon?" And Rome doesn't even have one! It's amazing, and another display of how the Magisterium is out of touch with modern RC apologetics.

(cont)

Rhology said...

(cont)


I'm telling you (as you've been told before) there ARE lists available for you to look at - you are just insisting upon one, infallible list - when you know such a list does not exist.

I insist on it b/c it's only reasonable, it's the only consistent thing one should expect. You don't have one, so much the worse for your position.


Then you talk about getting responses from men who wear elaborate vestments, as if what a person wears has anything to do with anything here.

It has everythg to do with whether he's responsive to lay apologists like yourself. I don't know if I've ever been accused of being too subtle, but you're certainly acting like I'm a master of it here today.


Next you talk about old news of bishops who hide and transfer pedophiles

Whom you're insisting
1) have the charism of infallibility, and
2) are the ones to whom we can appeal to know the truth about godly doctrine.
Again, not that hard to figure out.


Next you talk about alleged inability to deal with pro-baby-murder politicians

Which would be...an action of the Magisterium. Again. Apparently, to you, variations on the same theme equal shotgunning. Whatever.

Peace,
Rhology

CathApol said...

Alan wrote:
> Thank you Mr Windsor.

sw: You're welcome.

> Unfortunately, more than half your
> post is bellyaching about how mean
> and nasty I supposedly am. I tire
> of the same hypocritical
> complaints from you, so I'll be
> passing over all that.

sw: That's pretty rich coming from you! Maybe it you'd spend less time being "mean and nasty" (your words) I could spend less time pointing that out to you? Hmmmm, what a concept!

sw: More later... Take care Alan.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

CathApol said...

"it" should be "if" in that previous comment...

CathApol said...

Alan, aka "Rhology,"

I received a response from the Chancellor's Office of my local diocese. They expressed support for my continued participation as a concerned layperson writing on the Internet - however, lacking a formal theological degree (one of those goals I have not yet attained) they would not be considering my "work" for ecclesiastical approval at this time. Here is how the response closed:

You may have found the niche or venue where you can make a very positive contribution to defending the faith. I do not believe that it would be appropriate or helpful to change or redefine that role. If you are questioned about your willingness to submit to the authority of the local bishop, I suggest that you simply affirm that you are always willing to do so and should anything expressed in your writings be subject to correction by the local bishop that you would comply with any direction received from him.

So, that by which I have already stated - I am already in compliance with the wishes of my local bishop's office.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Rhology said...

If you are questioned about your willingness to submit to the authority of the local bishop, I suggest that you simply affirm that you are always willing to do so and should anything expressed in your writings be subject to correction by the local bishop that you would comply with any direction received from him.


I am questioning the entirety of your writings, b/c according to RCC I'm not supposed to act like a possibly-rebel Protestant, and I'm supposed to submit my private interpretation to the true and infallible voice of the Magisterium. So, I am formally requesting that you submit all of what you've written to the Magisterium so I can be assured that reading your writings will not lead me astray.


Now, we both know that even if you were to do that, they'd say "Um, no, sorry." Why? B/c they clearly don't care enough to do so, even though they talk like they're infallible and always ready to correct the poor, lost soul who thinks he can understand the Scr all by himself. I'm just asking for the church to be consistent all the way across the board. Don't you see how they just dismissed you as if it's really not a big deal? Why not leave this stuff to the infallible experts? Or, as I said before, are they too busy with wearing their fancy vestments, shuffling pædophiles around, and visiting Chairman Chávez?

Peace,
Rhology

CathApol said...

> I am questioning the entirety of
> your writings,

sw: They are pleased with my desire to serve as a lay apologist and that I am fully willing to be corrected, if any error is found, by my local bishop. My bishop's office is content with this - but you are not. I serve my bishop, not you.

> b/c according to RCC I'm not
> supposed to act like a
> possibly-rebel Protestant,

sw: Too late! (smile)

> and I'm supposed to submit my
> private interpretation to the
> true and infallible voice of the
> Magisterium.

sw: And I do submit to the Magisterium. If you find ANY work of mine to be in error as far as defined/infallible Catholic teaching is concerned, please bring it to my attention - otherwise, put a cork in it. You are merely persisting in libel to continue to impugn my character as if I am not in submission to my local ordinary. I have demonstrated I am - and they are pleased to allow me to continue as I am (though at some point in the future, I do wish to take on a more official theological capacity).

> So, I am formally requesting
> that you submit all of what
> you've written to the
> Magisterium so I can be assured
> that reading your writings will
> not lead me astray.

sw: I have done so. They support me in the lay work I am doing now. If ANYTHING is found to be in error and IF I were unwilling to correct it from fellow laypersons offering correction, THEN a complaint could be submitted to their office and IF the complaint was found to have merit - the Office of the Bishop would correct me - and I remain fully willing and humble to yield to their correction.

> Now, we both know that even if
> you were to do that, they'd say
> "Um, no, sorry." Why? B/c they
> clearly don't care enough to do
> so, even though they talk like
> they're infallible and always
> ready to correct the poor, lost
> soul who thinks he can
> understand the Scr all by
> himself.

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.

> I'm just asking for the church
> to be consistent all the way
> across the board.

sw: They are. Just because they don't measure up to your personal standards of what YOU think they should be does not make them inconsistent.

> Don't you see how they just
> dismissed you as if it's really
> not a big deal?

sw: They did not "dismiss" me - they, quite the opposite, encouraged me to continue on in confidence.

> Why not leave this stuff to the
> infallible experts?

sw: Receiving an imprimatur is not a label of infallibility! You misunderstand and misrepresent Catholicism if you believe it does and are saying it does.

> Or, as I said before, are they
> too busy with wearing their
> fancy vestments, shuffling
> pædophiles around, and visiting
> Chairman Chávez?

sw: Such bigoted comments do not merit a reply.

sw: Have a nice day, I believe we're done here.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Rhology said...

A lot of words, virtually no content. We certainly are done here.

Well, except for this.

Peace,
Rhology

CathApol said...

I seem to have overlooked this comment earlier:

Then she has no Canon of her infallible teaching. And yet many RCs have the gall to ask "How do you know you have the right Canon?" And Rome doesn't even have one! It's amazing, and another display of how the Magisterium is out of touch with modern RC apologetics.

Um, apples and oranges here. Yes, you're asking two questions about "canon" - but two different "canons!" The Catholic Church has infallibly defined the Canon of Sacred Scripture! You're welcome for that, well, as far as the New Testament is concerned anyway. Catholics validly ask you what the Canon of Scripture is and how you KNOW what that canon is because we KNOW that you got that canon from US! You trust US for the Canon of the New Testament, but for the Old Testament you trust those who rejected Jesus Christ as their Messiah. You don't trust the Jews who converted and became Christians (Catholics).

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Rhology said...

Yes, you're asking two questions about "canon" - but two different "canons!"

Yes, that's true, and Rome has infallibly defined neither. Which is why RCs' harping on the Canon issue towards Sola Scripturists is so rich in irony.
For SS-ists, the Canon of Scr is our Canon of infallible teachings.
For RCs, the non-existent Canon of Magisterial teaching would be your Canon of infallible teaching.



The Catholic Church has infallibly defined the Canon of Sacred Scripture!

No, it has not; only the Canon of the NT.


You're welcome for that, well, as far as the New Testament is concerned anyway.

Well, the Canon of the NT is hardly the Canon of Scripture, now is it?


You trust US for the Canon of the New Testament, but for the Old Testament you trust those who rejected Jesus Christ as their Messiah.

I trust God for both.

Peace,
Rhology

Scott said...

I have responded here.