Answer to Doctrinal Quiz Show, Third Edition... and special Grand Prize!

Well, I have clearly proven that I am not infallible when it comes to writing the DQS questions! Sorry for the confusion, and yet I guess I should have known that was coming, as I did make the wording vague and tricky, on purpose. 

The question was: How many doctrines of the Catholic Church are taught infallibly?

The (incorrect) answer I expected to get: "Two doctrines have been taught infallibly: the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and the Bodily Assumption of Mary, both of which were declared ex cathedra by a pope."

The real answer: We can’t give an exact number, because ex cathedra pronouncements are only one type of infallibility.

To elaborate, there is actually more than one kind (or level) of infallibility in the Church. The Magisterium (i.e., the teaching authority of the Church) can exercise infallibility in two basic ways: 

1. The "extraordinary Magisterium"  

2. The "ordinary and universal Magisterium"

The exercise of the "extraordinary Magisterium" is the one we hear about most.  This is when the Pope acts on his own, pronouncing and defining doctrine ex cathedra, or "from the Chair" of Peter. This has happened at least twice, with the Marian doctrines mentioned above. (These doctrines were already true before the pope declared them, by the way. Popes do not ever "make up" new doctrines.)

The exercise of the "ordinary and universal Magisterium" is less obvious but more common. It is the teaching of the whole body of bishops, in union with the pope. When the bishops and pope speak and teach definitively on something (for example in an ecumenical council) they are teaching infallibly. The day-to-day teachings of the Church, confirmed and reaffirmed throughout the centuries, fall into this category of infallible teachings. "God exists" would be one such infallibly taught doctrine (pretty basic and general!), as would the prohibition of abortion and contraception (never has the Church sanctioned either one). 

(Read more about infallibility from the a document of Vatican II here. And for those who really want to dive in, read more detail on infallibility here.)

My point in even asking the question was to make clear that an ex cathedra pronouncement (extraordinary Magisterium) is not the only kind of infallibility on the block, and definitely not the most common. Many dissident, unfaithful "Catholics" will use the bogus argument that "the pope only declared two things infallibly!" to justify their rejection of a hundred other Catholic truths.


Now, on to the real reason you are here... 

The Bubble Awards!! 

(Some have earned more than one award, and all have earned at least one, even some who did not participate. I was feeling extremely generous this time around, since I complicated the question and messed with your heads.)


The Excellent Knowledge of Chronology by a Not-Quite Catholic Award goes to Karen! And a special bonus comes with this award: You get to become Catholic in two days! {wild applause from the blogger ladies!}


The You Are an Award Hog; Isn't a National Award Enough for You? Award goes to Jenny! She also gets the Little Miss Catholic Smarty Pants Award for making good points and distinctions, as well as the Suck-Up Award for her final comment.


The Hey, That's a Good Answer and You are Pretty Much Right (and Your Dad Must be a Hit at Parties) Award goes to Adrienne!


The Sarcastic But Lovable Catholic Daughter Award goes to Cecily! (I taught her everything she knows... about sarcasm.)


The De-Lurking Award goes to My Heart Exults! Welcome out from the shadows, and please keep frequenting the Bubble!


The Giving the Wrong Answer I Was Looking For Award goes to Beth!  (Impressive!)


The That's a Great Way to Think About it Award (eerily similar to Adrienne's award, but without the dad part) goes to Callmemama!


The Best Use of a Pop-Culture Reference Award goes to Grace In My Heart!


The Unintentionally Making Leila Feel Guilty for Posing a Confusing Question, But Giving it the Old College Try Anyway Award goes to Wheelbarrow Rider and Rebecca!


The Well-Catechized Catholic Husband Award goes to two non-participants: the husbands of Ann and Karen! 


The Never Say Die Award goes to those contestants who came back twice, three times, and even FOUR times (cough, TW, cough) to comment! These passionate players are: TCIE (missed the last DQS, was the first to answer this time... way to come back!), Kaitlin, Barbie, Brenda, Jenny, Lauren, Shannon, Ann and Tridentine Wife! (And a special shout-out to old friends but first time participants, Barbie and Brenda, who also get the Where Have You Been? Award.)


The Sew, I Knew You Would Be Upset About That, But I Hoped You Would Remember That I Will Always Give You An Award Because You Are Sew Award goes to Sew!


The Very Thoughtful and Impressive Answers, But I Had Written Out The Awards Last Night Before Your Answers Came on the Scene, So I Don't Have Enough Time to Give You Clever, Detailed Awards or Else I Will Never Be Able to Publish This Post Award (a.k.a. the Latecomers Award) goes to Little JoAnn, Bonnie, Allie, Mrs. Blondies, Mrs. Mike, Joseph's Mommy, and Lisa!






And now... the GRAND PRIZE WINNER, for actually guessing the GRAND PRIZE is... Amazing Life!!!!  She has won an ergonomically-correct, waste-reducing exfoliating body cleanser with a hole in it!  Holey Soap, congratulations!!!! (For a testimony of how that soap works, click here!)

Thanks again, everyone, for playing Doctrinal Quiz Show!!!  See you next time, with a better formulated question!

Doctrinal Quiz Show, Third Edition! Infallibility

Welcome back, fans! I do love hosting the DQS and I am so excited for you to play along!

Today's subject: Infallibility.

Today's tricky question:

How many Catholic doctrines have been taught infallibly?

Remember, NO cheating, googling or copying other commenters! If you are thinking of cheating, remember that Jesus is sitting next to you and He sees all.

As an extra fun incentive, I have a special Grand Prize that I will be sending the winner!! Trust me, it's a prize you all want. 

In addition to the Grand Prize, I will also be handing out the usual slate of awards.

Okay, give me your best answers!

A liberal responds, and a dialogue is born.

Maybe, after all this time, I have a taker? A nice liberal named Sophie responded to my  "While we're at it..." post (and I'm hoping she's also read the post entitled, "Why I can't talk to liberals, even though I've tried"). I appreciate her outreach, and I want to address her points. Her words are in italics.

Before I express my opinion on your post, I would first like to congratulate you: Congratulations! Although I blatantly disagreed with what you had to say, your argument was so well written that I couldn't help but appreciate your polite but firm position.

Thanks, Sophie! I like you already. ;) 

However, I would like to prove you wrong on two counts:

Firstly, on your idea about the "manipulation of language" on both the words "Marriage" and "Gay". According to the dictionary, the word marriage has several definitions, none of which directly pertain to a man and a woman. These definitions are as follows:

"The state, condition or relationship of being married; wedlock.

The legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities

A relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other, in the manner of a husband and wife."

You will note the last definition says in the MANNER OF, not ONLY PERTAINING TO. 

This is interesting, Sophie. First, I was not directly discussing dictionary definitions, as those can change even year to year (especially in these politically correct days!). What I said was: "marriage" has always been known as one thing (male/female).  In other words, there was never a time in history when "marriage" was commonly understood to mean two men exchanging vows and having sex (or two women, or even a human and an animal). It has always been understood to mean man/woman (until this very recent push). Do you disagree?


But since you brought up dictionary definitions, let's talk about it. I don't know the issue date of your dictionary, but even an old dictionary never needed to specify that "marriage" was specifically man/woman, because, again, it was understood to be just that. And as far as the term "in the manner of" ... let's take your implication to its logical conclusion: Two brothers could "pledge themselves to each other, in the manner of a husband and a wife." Would you call that "marriage"? If not, why not? It fits your interpretation of the dictionary definition, right?

Now for the word, "Gay." It isn't like someone just up and decided, "Hmm, today I think I'll change the definition of the word 'Gay.'" It happened over a period of many many years. As all the Literary Professors I have ever been taught by have reminded me, "If you can't roll with the evolution of language, stop using it." One must learn to adapt to the new definitions of words. 

I guess I would like to know what your understanding of "many many years" is? I do know that my husband has a relative who was named "Gay" in the 1950s. By the time she was a young adult in the 1970s, she had taken the drastic step to change her name. Is such an abrupt and dramatic re-definition really an "evolution" of language? Also, we all have certainly "adapted" to the unfortunate new definition of "gay" here in America, as evidenced by the fact that no one in his right mind would name a child "Gay" anymore, and yet it was once a lovely name. 

Also, if anyone is giggling at the word "gay" in Christmas Carols, they are most likely about five years old.

You are right on this. I went back and looked at my wording. I should have used the word "children" instead of "young people," even though I thought that was implied.  (*Update: I'm rethinking my answer here. I have a five year old son, and he wouldn't giggle because he has no idea what the word "gay" means. As it should be. Hopefully there aren't many circles of five-year-olds who would giggle, since they should be clueless about homosexuality at their age. And if you think older kids and teens don't laugh at the word "gay" in Christmas carols, then I'm thinking you don't know many people that age? So, I stand by my original term, "young people.")

Secondly, I would like to point out that though you say you "simply don't understand," I think it goes deeper than that. It looks like you are discouraging Homosexual marriage because you dislike the idea of it, not just because of the so-called abuse of literary devices.

You are absolutely right that I believe homosexual activity to be immoral, just as I consider pre-marital sex to be immoral, and adultery, etc., etc. It's no secret to anyone reading that I am a devout Catholic who believes what the Church teaches. But I am also a lover of distinctions. True, I don't believe in homosexual activity, but I also don't believe in manipulation of language to further a political agenda. In this case, I was discussing my objection to redefining the word "marriage" to describe homosexual unions. It would be another subject entirely to discuss why I believe that homosexual activity itself is wrong. It's easy for all of us to go off on tangents, so I try to commit to one subject at a time.

I have thoroughly enjoyed posting this to you. I do hope I can continue to keep up a friendly debate with you over this, as I have several good points on the subject.

Thanks, Sophie, I would love to hear them! And maybe you could answer a question for me that Gwen (a previous liberal commenter) would or could not:  


Do you believe it is okay to change the meanings of words in order to advance a political agenda? 


Blessings to you! 

Why I am not "green." Illustrated.

Yes, it is true, I don't understand the liberal mind. 


So, we get to our southern California hotel room, and we are confronted with a brand new kind of soap... er, I mean waste reducing exfoliating body cleanser.

The package tells us the following (among other eco-reassuring things): "This innovative ergonomically shaped 'waste reducing' soap has been designed to eliminate the unused center of traditional soap bars."

You got that? The middle of traditional bar soap tends to go unused, thus creating waste. Happily, this new "green" soap is specifically designed to eliminate that previously unnoticed environmental hazard.

A closer look....

My husband actually thought that my kids (who destroy everything) had vandalized the soap.


My dear daughter was perplexed and repulsed, calling the soap "disgusting environmentalist green dysfunctional non-sanitary soap."  But how do you really feel, honey?
                            




Okay, so can you guess the irony? Here is a visual of the irony:

Visual irony, continued (before and after shots):

That is correct. The "waste reducing" soap breaks up easily into big wasteful chunks of soap, much larger than any "unused center" of traditional soaps. The useless, chunky pieces are then thrown in the trash. 

But wait! It gets better! There is a secondary soap available for hotel patrons, presented right next to the ergonomically correct reduced-waste (highly wasteful) soap. This secondary soap is produced and marketed by the same "green" company:

                           

Do you see more irony? Why, if you flatten it out a bit, that little round soap looks almost like it could be....the missing soap center! 

But that can't be right, because then we would not only have to throw out the big chunks of waste from the reduced-waste soap, but also the unused center of the little round secondary soap as well. Thus, we not only defeat the purpose of the reduced-waste "green" soap, but we actually create more waste (by far) than the old traditional bar of soap.

It seems to me that the tale of the soap is a metaphor for the liberal mindset: You get to feel good inside about accomplishing nothing (and usually making things worse). 

Thoughts?

I'm Back!

So glad to be back!! I can't wait to catch up on the blogs and start commenting again! I have missed you guys!


Before we left on our trip to California, I prayed that God would spare us from an earthquake. Within hours of arriving, we were in an earthquake, ha ha! Half of the extended family ran for the door frames, and the other half (including me) didn't even notice it! Crazy!!


So, I have about twenty new post ideas buzzing around my brain. One will be coming tonight, I hope. I think you will enjoy it. :) I also plan another great post to respond to a very kind and thoughtful liberal who decided to take me on and answer my questions (see the "While we're at it..." post). So, thanks for your patience. I now must go start in on some major mounds of laundry....

Be back soon....

Well, a blogger has to take a vacation every now and then, right? What am I going to do without you guys, though? Please, no interesting or controversial posts while I am gone, all right? Thanks, I appreciate it! I really don't want to miss anything. I will try to check in when I can.

And, maybe this is a good time to leave, since Blogger is having a huge glitch with retaining and displaying blog comments. They said they are working on it. It better be fixed by the time I get back, or else, ha ha! (I am sure they are shaking in their boots.)  


Bye for now!!

Your periods, your way.

Ewwwww!

So a couple of days ago, I am at my gynecologist's office (which is always a great time), and I am sitting alone on the crinkly paper, in a paper robe (sorry you had to read that; do you think I liked writing it?), and I'm looking around because of course there is nothing else to do but look around. 

Covering the stirrups (yuck, hate that word) are the little yellow stirrup warmers advertising the Pill (oh, joy!). I am used to those (even though I never get used to those). 

Then, I glance at the poster on the back of the door, and here's what jumped out at me:

YOUR PERIODS.  YOUR WAY.

You want:      You'll get:

                              

Underneath the first column were the three options a woman might "want": 0 periods a year, 4 periods a year, 13 periods a year. And the "you'll get" part went on to describe what type of Pill and how it would be prescribed.

I thought, Now, there's our culture in a nutshell: You want it, you'll get it! Your way! Periods served up just like Burger King! Yeeeee-haw!

It's been said that the theme song in Hell is I Did it My Way. If you've ever listened to the lyrics, you'll agree that must be the case. And by golly I couldn't help it, I started singing that tune in my head until the doctor came in! 

Now, I love my doctor. He is an incredible evangelical Christian, and one of the few OB/gyns in town who is vocally pro-life. In one examining room he had even hung a beautiful defense of the humanity of the human embryo. But, ironically, he has contraception ads all over the darned place. This particular poster was the most remarkable I have seen.

You gotta wonder, what is so wrong with a woman's body that we must chemically alter its functioning, stopping what it was designed -- by God -- to do? When did the suppression/derailing of a normal bodily process become "health," and when did we decide it was good to advertise it, convincing women to ask for something we never knew we wanted? And when did it become all about "me" and what I "want" anyway?

And the worst part of all for me personally? It's knowing that a few years ago, I would have thought this product was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Like I said, Ewwwww!

And Lord have mercy.

I was a boy once, too! *UPDATED*

So, you all had a good laugh over Ann's post about when she was a boy, eh? Then this should make you fall off your seats! Yes, that is me at 4 years old, in my preschool picture (circa 1971). Proof, for sure, that I was once a boy! The son my dad never had. Nice hair, don't you think? I'm glad that I was later able to get in touch with my feminine side. (By the way... that boy shirt? It's actually a dress.)

*Update: I just showed this post to my fifteen-year-old daughter. She asked me, "Is that Dad?" When I told her who it was, she cracked up and said, "You look like a boy!" Exactly.

A couple quick things...

(So sorry to interrupt the riveting discussion about toilet paper on the previous post. Feel free to keep commenting on that post, though, because can toilet paper really ever be discussed enough?)

First, I am SO EXCITED to be a part of the Prayer Buddies this time around! And, I couldn't be more thrilled about the person I am praying for! I hope I will do right by you, Prayer Buddy! Yippee!!! Thanks JBTC, TCIE and Sew for organizing this impressive effort!

Second, is it really tacky to become an "Amazon Associate" or whatever they call it? Meaning, a blogger signs up with Amazon to receive 15% of any purchase made through a recommendation on the blog? I have linked books to Amazon in the past, and I will be linking to books in the future, so why not bring in a couple of bucks if someone chooses to buy it from Amazon through my blog? It would make my husband think my blog was productive, ha! But is the whole idea tacky?? Tell me what you think and be honest!

Oh, and for anyone who is still dragging her feet on her faith story, consider this my gentle prompting.

Sorry, Sew, this is another boring post, but I will do better next time and stir up some controversy for you, I promise! ;)

3 Quick Pet Peeves: Remotes, misrepresentation, and toilet paper

1. I really don't understand why I have eight remote controls for three TVs? Shouldn't technology simplify things?? And, since I don't know how to use most of the features on the remotes or the TVs, the whole situation becomes even more absurd.

2. It troubles me when people misrepresent the Catholic Faith after they have been informed that they are wrong about Catholic teaching. I mean, if I tell you (and even show you) that my home is painted blue, and yet you continue to tell me that my home is painted yellow, then we can't even talk about house paint can we? I get it that you may not like blue, but that still won't make my house yellow!

3. It's an old argument I know, but the toilet paper should come up over the top of the roll, and no one should ever have to reach up from the bottom near the wall and pull it down that way. All of you bottom pullers can try to defend your position, but deep in your hearts you know you are wrong.

And that's as controversial as I will get today, ha ha!! (But I feel some more controversy coming up soon, so stay tuned...)