James C. White

The "C" stands for Clueless.

For some reason I do not fathom, Bill Cork quoted yesterday, and thanked, Reformed polemicist James White for the following passage now on the home page of his website:

The website that got me thinking is from Envoy Magazine, Patrick Madrid's publication. I went there to see his comments on the document from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops regarding the evangelization of the Jews (or the lack thereof) and the "abiding validity" of the Old Covenant. In passing I have found it fascinating that the general reaction of Roman Catholic apologists was, in fact, predictable: they have sought to minimize its authority and reject its conclusions. Remember, these are the same apologists who will speak so often of the "authority of the church" and the "bishops in union with the Pope" and the "teaching magisterium" and all these other wonderfully nebulous things, but when bishops and cardinals speak out and promote liberalism, all of a sudden these lay-apologists are able to rip and shred their "magisterial leaders" without batting an eye.

White seems to think that he has caught "Roman Catholic" "lay-apologists" in some sort of contradiction or hypocrisy. Nonsense. We have merely caught White in his typical confusion. Fascinating. (I say "typical" only because I have occasionally read White's contributions at Steve Ray's message board. I have no further acquaintance with his writings, and I desire none.)

I have already addressed the issue of the authority — or, rather, the lack of authority — of the document in question, on Aug. 14:

The Apostolic Letter Apostolos Suos (May 21, 1998) spells out that, basically, a committee of an episcopal conference has no authority whatever. See especially ## 22 and 23. (Even the episcopal conference itself has no authority to bind the consciences of the faithful unless it acts unanimously or with the recognitio of the Holy See.) ....

I will quote now the passages in the Apostolic Letter cited, with some additional matter preceding and following, and omitting the footnotes:

21. The joint exercise of the episcopal ministry also involves the teaching office. The Code of Canon Law establishes the fundamental norm in this regard: "Although they do not enjoy infallible teaching authority, the Bishops in communion with the head and members of the college, whether as individuals or gathered in Conferences of Bishops or in particular councils, are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the faithful entrusted to their care; the faithful must adhere to the authentic teaching of their own Bishops with a sense of religious respect (religioso animi obsequio)". Apart from this general norm the Code also establishes, more concretely, some areas of doctrinal competence of the Conferences of Bishops, such as providing "that catechisms are issued for its own territory if such seems useful, with the prior approval of the Apostolic See", and the approval of editions of the books of Sacred Scripture and their translations.

The concerted voice of the Bishops of a determined territory, when, in communion with the Roman Pontiff, they jointly proclaim the catholic truth in matters of faith and morals, can reach their people more effectively and can make it easier for their faithful to adhere to the magisterium with a sense of religious respect. In faithfully exercising their teaching office, the Bishops serve the word of God, to which their teaching is subject, they listen to it devoutly, guard it scrupulously and explain it faithfully in such a way that the faithful receive it in the best manner possible. Since the doctrine of the faith is a common good of the whole Church and a bond of her communion, the Bishops, assembled in Episcopal Conference, must take special care to follow the magisterium of the universal Church and to communicate it opportunely to the people entrusted to them.

22. In dealing with new questions and in acting so that the message of Christ enlightens and guides people's consciences in resolving new problems arising from changes in society, the Bishops assembled in the Episcopal Conference and jointly exercizing their teaching office are well aware of the limits of their pronouncements. While being official and authentic and in communion with the Apostolic See, these pronouncements do not have the characteristics of a universal magisterium. For this reason the Bishops are to be careful to avoid interfering with the doctrinal work of the Bishops of other territories, bearing in mind the wider, even world-wide, resonance which the means of social communication give to the events of a particular region.

Taking into account that the authentic magisterium of the Bishops, namely what they teach insofar as they are invested with the authority of Christ, must always be in communion with the Head of the College and its members, when the doctrinal declarations of Episcopal Conferences are approved unanimously, they may certainly be issued in the name of the Conferences themselves, and the faithful are obliged to adhere with a sense of religious respect to that authentic magisterium of their own Bishops. However, if this unanimity is lacking, a majority alone of the Bishops of a Conference cannot issue a declaration as authentic teaching of the Conference to which all the faithful of the territory would have to adhere, unless it obtains the recognitio of the Apostolic See, which will not give it if the majority requesting it is not substantial. The intervention of the Apostolic See is analogous to that required by the law in order for the Episcopal Conference to issue general decrees. The recognitio of the Holy See serves furthermore to guarantee that, in dealing with new questions posed by the accelerated social and cultural changes characteristic of present times, the doctrinal response will favour communion and not harm it, and will rather prepare an eventual intervention of the universal magisterium.

23. The very nature of the teaching office of Bishops requires that, when they exercise it jointly through the Episcopal Conference, this be done in the plenary assembly. Smaller bodies — the permanent council, a commission or other offices — do not have the authority to carry out acts of authentic magisterium either in their own name or in the name of the Conference, and not even as a task assigned to them by the Conference.

24. At present, Episcopal Conferences fulfill many tasks for the good of the Church. They are called to support, in a growing service, "the inalienable responsibility of each Bishop in relation to the universal Church and to his particular Church" and, naturally, not to hinder it by substituting themselves inappropriately for him, where the canonical legislation does not provide for a limitation of his episcopal power in favour of the Episcopal Conference, or by acting as a filter or obstacle as far as direct contact between the individual Bishops and the Apostolic See is concerned.

The clarifications thus far expressed, together with the normative adjustments which follow, correspond to the wishes of the Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops of 1985, and they aim at illuminating and making more efficacious the action of Episcopal Conferences. The Conferences will opportunely review their statutes in order to bring them into line with these clarifications and norms, as called for by the Synod.

Reading this over, I can surely guess what White would do with it. "See? See!!! See??!!!??? There it is right there: Although they do not enjoy infallible teaching authority, the Bishops in communion with the head and members of the college, whether as individuals or gathered in Conferences of Bishops or in particular councils, are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the faithful entrusted to their care; the faithful must adhere to the authentic teaching of their own Bishops with a sense of religious respect. Doesn't this Roman-Catholic lay-apologist Core know better than do provide a quotation that proves my case for me? Ha!"

Yes, I think that would be typical. But # 22, you see, further refines # 21, especially here: Smaller bodies — the permanent council, a commission or other offices — do not have the authority to carry out acts of authentic magisterium either in their own name or in the name of the Conference, and not even as a task assigned to them by the Conference.

So, those (such as I) who claim that Reflections has no teaching authority are simply correct: it was issued by a committee of the episcopal conference. Really, is this so hard to understand? Those who argue that Reflections is not in accord with the prescriptions of the second paragraph of # 21 are free to do so. I do not do so, because I still have not read Reflections, and I have no plans to read it: what I assert about it has nothing to do with content but with origination. And those who try to make hay out of such claims and arguments, as if they constitute some black mark against the integrity of the Catholic faith or of the Catholic faithful, are simply blustering and bluffing. And Clueless.

P.S. I know the man's middle initial is really "R".

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Sun. 09/29/02 07:10:22 PM
Categorized as Classic.