Introibo After Ultracrepidarians Again

His series "Contending for the Faith" has a July issue:

Introibo Ad Altare Dei : Contending For The Faith—Part 5
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2022/07/contending-for-faith-part-5.html

And here he goes:

Like the Feeneyites, Benns insists that anyone can read "the obvious meaning" of the words in Canon Law. In a similar fashion, Protestants reject the Magisterium on the grounds that they can "read the Bible for themselves." The cardinal said the canons were "clear in their obvious meaning"—to whom? Anyone? Young Bobby? (Maybe Bobby can do Mr. Robbins next guest post). No, it is understood that it is clear to those properly trained (canonists and theologians), just as the legal meaning of "not guilty" is clear to lawyers, not the average non-lawyer.

The legal meaning of "not guilty" in Scotland means "reasonably cleared of suspicion" since there it is co-divided with "not proven" meaning "not sufficient proof for guilt to condemn the person" - but in other than Scottish jurisdictions of English language, "not guilty" would legally mean either "reasonably cleared of suspicion" OR "not sufficient proof for guilt to condemn the person" as the pronouncement "not proven" does not exist.

There is a very big difference between rejecting the Magisterium and seeing one is cut off from access. There is therefore a big difference between doing as best as one can because that is what one has and "doing as best as one can" after cutting oneself off from the magisterium, deliberately.

As a former Protestant, I consider Introibo fairly incompetent in matters about Protestantism : many Protestant sects do have a sort of Magisterium and the adhesion to this day to certain Protestant errors do not come from rejection of the Catholic magisterium, still less from a happy go lucky confidence one can read the Bible oneself, but from acceptance of the Protestant de facto rogue magisterium. Often disguised as scholarship. "Greek and Coptic texts of Sub tuum praesidium are no longer dated to second century" they will say (important given that these non-Latin versions preserved an ending confirming the Immaculate Conception, and given the privileged position they give to pre-Constantine centuries) or "ekklesia doesn't mean denomination" (forgetting that it was very certainly a visible ekklesia with a visible structure and unity - which any casual reader of the New Testament could figure out, as long as he didn't allow Protestant "scholarship" (pseudo-magisterium) to stop him). While the historically "magisterial" Protestantisms are mainly non-US invented sects, like Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, a) these usually have more errors, more pernicious errors, and could be foreseen as having more pernicious errors, since they came to exist by direct rebellion against the Catholic Church, as compared to the US-invented sects, and b) the exemples of "scholarship" doing the office of magisterium I just gave involve precisely US-invented versions of Baptism.

It is truly dishonest of Introibo to blame an optimist view of one's own understanding of Scripture for the errors of Protestantism.

And even more so to, having made this the root error of Protestantism, when it wasn't, apply this to Catholics, whether Theresa Benns or myself, who disagree with them.

Now, being in communion with the late bishop Dolan, Introibo certainly has access to priests trained in seminaries - but which were not so prior to Vatican II. This poses the question which of the post-Vatican II and anti-conciliar seminaries is supposed to take the place of the prior to Vatican II real approval by real bishops in communion with real popes.

We are so very Ott, so utterly Tanquerey and so totally van Noort, therefore us ... fine, before the Council, a man who wanted to write anything on religion in the dioceses where these men were would arguably have had to deal with these men as they were approved. But they did not foresee the post-conciliar situation as Introibo sees it - does that mean that such as situation is unreal because they did not foresee it? What about the guys who also claim to follow Ott, Tanquerey and van Noort, but who disagree with Dolan and Introibo? But more so, what of those who could claim that there are other issues than the post-conciliar situation that Ott, Tanquerey and van Noort did not think through? Like Tanquerey's support for an Adam with "evolved body, receiving a soul directly from God" (beyond what his physical ancestry had received) ... he never posed the question whether this would affect in any way, shape or form how Adam grew up. To pose the question basically means to reject the option.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Holy Gorkum Martyrs
9.VII.2022

Brilae, in Hollandia, passio novemdecim Martyrum, Gorcomiensium nuncupatorum; quorum ex numero novem Sacerdotes ac duo Laici erant Fratres Minores, quatuor Presbyteri saeculares, duo Praemonstratenses, unus Regularis Canonicus sancti Augustini, et unus Dominicanus. Hi omnes, ob tuendam Ecclesiae Romanae auctoritatem et realem Christi in Eucharistia praesentiam, a Calvinianis haereticis varia ludibria et tormenta perpessi, tandem, in trabem acti, agonem suum, adstrictis laqueo faucibus, consummarunt; et a Pio Nono, Pontifice Maximo, inter sanctos Martyres relati sunt.

PS, see also citation here:

Introibo Ad Altare Dei : Get The Correct Interpretation And You're Home Free
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2022/06/get-correct-interpretation-and-youre.html

The true meaning is made even more clear by canonists Abbo and Hannon commenting on Canon 17:

Doctrinal Interpretation. Every theologian and canonist may interpret the law privately (i.e. with the authority warranted by their own private learning). Their interpretations, however, have only that weight which attaches to the reasons on which they are based. They possess special value when they are almost unanimous and consistent over an extended period of time, since in the latter case they would be practically obligatory. (See The Sacred Canons, [1952], 1:35; Emphasis mine).

Canon 17 mentions three types of interpretation, and private interpretation is not one of them. Abbo and Hannon in the comment add this, and the words "the authority warranted by their own private learning" or "only that weight which attaches to the reasons on which they are based" show v e r y clearly that the same would apply to someone who did not have the position of a cleric who has a Doctorate in Sacred Theology (STD) or of a cleric who has a Doctorate in Canon Law (JCD). As to the words of Rocca, "private doctor" - the word comes from a context of the Middle Ages which certainly does not in and of itself necessarily refer to an university degree of doctorate. See how St. Thomas Aquinas says that the Pope "may err as a private doctor" ... the opposition is not to someone who is not a university doctor of relevant discipline, it is to (in the case of the Pope) the official capacity "as pope" and (in the case of Della Rocca) to an interpretation that is, in the terms of canon 17 "authentic" - a type of interpretation of the law which has force of law!/HGL