Your extremely long critique (I might get to the rest of it if I have a day off) begins by claiming two positions I do not hold.
You write, "The first error is one of mis-ordering, which sets the Magisterium above Divine Revelation and the deposit of the Faith."
This is not my position. The Magisterium of the Church is the authentic interpreter of Scripture and Tradition. It is the servant of Divine Revelation, and not its master. Note that these teachings are declarative sentences. They do not say "the Magisterium MUST do this" or "If a lay theologian, parish priest, or YouTuber decides, after prayer and reflection, that a magisterial teaching contradicts the 'perennial Magisterium' he is free to make up other interpretations or to declare to the world that the pope is teaching error."
You also write, "Lewis’ second error is a lack of clarity over the word ‘Magisterium’ itself – which he equates simply to ‘teaching.’" I don't think I have ever defined Magisterium with that word. The Catechism defines the Magisterium as "the pope and the bishops in communion with him" (CCC100), but it is also referred to as the "teaching office of the Church" (which is the pope and the bishops in communion with him). The Magisterium is divinely instituted, and by necessity is a living and constitutive element of the faith. The ecclesial vocation of the theologian is to assist the Magisterium and to deepen our understanding of the Word of God.
The role of the theologian is in service to the Magisterium. It plays a supporting role: St Paul VI once stated, “To be sure, the Magisterium could preserve and teach the faith without the help of theology.”
And when academic theologians seek to undermine the teachings of the authentic ordinary Magisterium, whether by calling them heterodox or explaining them away until they are meaningless, they betray their vocation.
I don't know why I have to repeat my positions over and over again, but for some reason people just attribute strange beliefs to me that I do not hold. Is it over your head?
It's not embarrassing to me. It's simply frustrating that he tried to refute my position, but he apparently doesn't understand it.
He began by accusing me of two "errors" - when I don't hold either. It's frankly insulting for him to assume that I don't know the basic teachings about the papacy. It is my extensive study of these questions that led me to my conclusions.
I am sorry I don't have extensive academic credentials. Fortunately I have discussed these topics at lenght with people who have much better credentials than he does.
Either way, he doesn't understand my position (which is that of the Church). Apparently he's dense or has poor reading comprehension.
Thanks for this. The traditionalists, I mean, the Pharisee cultists, have their own serious issues with authority and obedience, s they are the mirror image of Lewis’ Bergoglian progressivism.
Your extremely long critique (I might get to the rest of it if I have a day off) begins by claiming two positions I do not hold.
You write, "The first error is one of mis-ordering, which sets the Magisterium above Divine Revelation and the deposit of the Faith."
This is not my position. The Magisterium of the Church is the authentic interpreter of Scripture and Tradition. It is the servant of Divine Revelation, and not its master. Note that these teachings are declarative sentences. They do not say "the Magisterium MUST do this" or "If a lay theologian, parish priest, or YouTuber decides, after prayer and reflection, that a magisterial teaching contradicts the 'perennial Magisterium' he is free to make up other interpretations or to declare to the world that the pope is teaching error."
You also write, "Lewis’ second error is a lack of clarity over the word ‘Magisterium’ itself – which he equates simply to ‘teaching.’" I don't think I have ever defined Magisterium with that word. The Catechism defines the Magisterium as "the pope and the bishops in communion with him" (CCC100), but it is also referred to as the "teaching office of the Church" (which is the pope and the bishops in communion with him). The Magisterium is divinely instituted, and by necessity is a living and constitutive element of the faith. The ecclesial vocation of the theologian is to assist the Magisterium and to deepen our understanding of the Word of God.
The role of the theologian is in service to the Magisterium. It plays a supporting role: St Paul VI once stated, “To be sure, the Magisterium could preserve and teach the faith without the help of theology.”
And when academic theologians seek to undermine the teachings of the authentic ordinary Magisterium, whether by calling them heterodox or explaining them away until they are meaningless, they betray their vocation.
I don't know why I have to repeat my positions over and over again, but for some reason people just attribute strange beliefs to me that I do not hold. Is it over your head?
gosh Mike, the least someone can do after getting destroyed like this is just stay away and avoid further embarrassment
It's not embarrassing to me. It's simply frustrating that he tried to refute my position, but he apparently doesn't understand it.
He began by accusing me of two "errors" - when I don't hold either. It's frankly insulting for him to assume that I don't know the basic teachings about the papacy. It is my extensive study of these questions that led me to my conclusions.
I am sorry I don't have extensive academic credentials. Fortunately I have discussed these topics at lenght with people who have much better credentials than he does.
Either way, he doesn't understand my position (which is that of the Church). Apparently he's dense or has poor reading comprehension.
Excellent! My one objection to the article is trivial and I'll make a joke about it elsewhere.
So sad that Lewis even merits a response, but so long as people are actually reading him, this sort of thing will be helpful.
Excellent.
Thanks for this. The traditionalists, I mean, the Pharisee cultists, have their own serious issues with authority and obedience, s they are the mirror image of Lewis’ Bergoglian progressivism.