text:
Professed Catholic historian Brian Tierney, is the author of many books on the Middle Ages and expert on conciliarism: the medieval movement which sought to give ecumenical councils supreme authority, over against popes. He is a vocal critic of papal infallibility.
I am quite familiar with the overall viewpoint: in 1990 when I was an evangelical Protestant, I engaged in a vigorous critique of papal infallibility. I enlisted the aid of Johann von Dollinger, the Catholic historian who was excommunicated for refusing to accept the definition of papal infallibility promulgated at the First Vatican Council in 1870. I also ran across the anti-infallibilist writing of Hans Kung, a modernist who has since been proclaimed by the Church as no longer a Catholic theologian (yet continues to claim to be one). And I found George Salmon, the anti-Catholic Anglican controversialist of the 19th century who is somewhat of a patron saint of historically-oriented anti-Catholic polemicists today (notably, William Webster). Brian Tierney takes positions roughly along these same lines.
But, of course, there are Catholics and there are Catholics. An orthodox Catholic is quite a different animal than a heterodox, modernist one like Hans Kung, or Brian Tierney. Orthodox Catholics accept the dogma of papal infallibility (along with all other Catholic dogmas), as it was defined in an ecumenical council ex cathedra (the highest level of infallibility in Catholic thinking). I was not yet a Catholic when I fought infallibility. In one of my papers I recalled my perspective in 1990 -- the year preceding my conversion:
During the course of this study, I gleefully discovered many of the standard "anti-infallibility" works, which are cited again and again: the Anglican George Salmon's The Infallibility of the Church (originally 1890), Johann von Dollinger's Letters of Janus and Letters of Quirinus (1869-1870) and Hans Kung's Infallible?: An Inquiry (1971) . . .Of course, it never occurs to theological liberals that the "pre-commitment" of the supposedly profoundly prejudiced, biased, intellectually-compromised, dishonest "orthodox" (amateur) historians and apologists such as myself might also be characteristic of the heterodox historians as well. Might not they have certain axes to grind? Is it not possible that in their "pre-commitment" to a vision of the Catholic Church in which greatly-lessened authority of the pope would be the norm and rule, they would be susceptible to interpreting the historical data in a certain way; emphasizing certain things and de-emphasizing others?
. . . the Church historian Dollinger's heretical opinions are also often utilized by Eastern Orthodox polemicists as arguments against papal infallibility. I know this well as a result of my own ongoing dialogues with Orthodox Christians over the Internet.
. . . It is beyond our purview here to examine the faulty and jaundiced reasoning employed by the above-cited "anti-infallibility" works, and my own ambitious and zealous adoption of them, in my effort to refute the Catholic Church on historical grounds. Suffice it to say that it is largely a matter of misunderstanding or misapplying the true doctrine of infallibility, as defined dogmatically by the First Vatican Council in 1870, or else a conveniently selective and dishonest presentation of historical facts and patristic citations. These practices run rampant throughout the current anti-Catholic literature, and always have. And I, too, was guilty of it. Bias has a way of blinding one to even basic logical errors.
If one can be biased in favor of orthodoxy, then why would it be inconceivable that one could also be biased in favor of heterodoxy and against orthodoxy, in historical matters as well as theological ones? Or does someone wish to argue that historians who are in the orthodox wing of their faith (whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant) are inherently biased, while the liberals and heterodox who don't accept their own Church's teachings have only the highest intellectual integrity and would not be subject to such a hideous thing as "bias"?
In the theologically liberal mentality, the only honest Catholics are those who see through the absurdity of Catholic dogma. In other words, the only "good" Catholic is a lousy Catholic (i.e., one who doesn't accept the whole "Catholic ball of wax").
Let us see for a moment what Brian Tierney actually teaches. Here is a portion from the Introduction (pp. 2-5) of his book, Origins of Papal Infallibility: 1150-1350: (Leiden: 1972; emphases in blue added):
If the popes have always been infallible in any meaningful sense of the word—if their official pronouncements as heads of the church on matters of faith and morals have always been unerring and so irreformable - then all kinds of dubious consequences ensue. Most obviously, twentieth century popes would be bound by a whole array of past papal decrees reflecting the responses of the Roman church to the religious and moral problems of former ages. As Acton put it, "The responsibility for the acts of the buried and repented past would come back at once and for ever." To defend religious liberty would be "insane" and to persecute heretics commendable. Judicial torture would be licit and the taking of interest on loans a mortal sin. The pope would rule by divine right "not only the universal church but the whole world." Unbaptized babies would be punished in Hell for all eternity. Maybe the sun would still be going round the earth.Tierney is clearly no orthodox Catholic, and he surely has an axe to grind, since he makes no bones about making fun of Catholic dogmas as ridiculous. He has the usual liberal condescension, bringing to historiography such "objective" descriptions as those I have highlighted in blue above.
All this is impossible of course. No one understands the fact better than modern theologians of infallibility. If past popes have always been infallible—again, we must add, in any meaningful sense of the word—then present popes are hopelessly circumscribed in their approaches to all the really urgent moral problems of the twentieth century, problems involving war, sex, scientific progress, state power, social obligations, and individual liberties. The existence of this dilemma helps to explain the rather eccentric development of the doctrine of infallibility during the past century. Since Vatican Council I, Catholic theologians have felt obliged to defend some form of papal infallibility. Real infallibility has regrettable implications. In the years since 1870, therefore, theologians have devoted much ingenuity to devising a sort of pseudo-infallibility for the pope, a kind of Pickwickian infallibility.
Their usual technique has been to raise endless, teasing, really unanswerable questions about the meaning of the term ex cathedra as used in the decree of Vatican Council I and about the phrases "ordinary magisterium" and "extraordinary magisterium" that came to be associated with it in discussions on papal infallibility. Already in 1874 Gladstone could write, "... There is no established or accepted definition of the phrase ex cathedra and (the Catholic) has no power to obtain one, and no guide to direct him in his choice among some twelve theories on the subject, which, it is said, are bandied to and fro among Roman theologians, except the despised and discarded agency of his private judgment."
Things have not improved since. To be sure, modern apologists often insist that the conditions needed to guarantee the infallibility of a papal pronouncement were set out, once and for all, simply and clearly, in the decree of Vatican Council I. But then they find it impossible to agree as to which particular papal pronouncements actually satisfy these supposedly simple and clear requirements. There is no authoritative or agreed list of the infallible pronouncements made before 1870. The uncertainty as to what is and what is not infallible extends to papal declarations touching the most fundamental issues of public and private morality. Concerning the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX, for instance, the Catholic Encyclopedia declared in 1912, "Many theologians are of the that to the Syllabus as such an infallible teaching authority must be ascribed... Others question this." The New Catholic Encyclopedia, recording the theological progress of half a century, tells us that things remained exactly the same in 1967.
The one papal definition made since 1870 which has been commonly accepted as infallible is Pope Pius XII's proclamation of the dogma of the Assumption. But if, in due course, Catholic theologians find it desirable to retreat from the view that this late-blooming dogma forms an intrinsic part of the Christian faith, there will be no lack of theological argumentation devoted to proving that Pius XII (in spite of his best efforts) did not succeed in making an infallible pronouncement after all. The one consistent rule of interpretation we can be sure of encountering is this: whenever a theologian disagrees with some old teaching or new ruling of a pope he will find good theological grounds for deciding that the papal pronouncement was "not infallible." The whole modern doctrine of infallibility in its Pickwickian form might be summed up in the general principle, "All infallible decrees are certainly true but no decrees are certainly infallible."
To be sure this is not the only position open a contemporary Catholic theologian. During the 1950s Pope Pius XII's encyclical Humani generis stirred a strange eddy of controversy in academic theological circles. In this document the pope declared, "It is not to be thought that matters proposed in Encyclical Letters do not in themselves command assent because (in Encyclicals) the pontiffs do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these things are taught by the magisterium, to which also the words apply, 'He who hears you, hears me'."[footnote: Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 42 (1950), p. 568.] Pope Pius' reference to the authority of the "ordinary magisterium" led some theologians to insist once again that the decree of Vatican Council I actually meant what it said—that the pope was infallible whenever he pronounced on matters of faith and morals "in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians." [footnote: This controversy concerning the infallibility of the pope's ordinary magisterium is described in G. Thils, op. cit., pp. 181-185 and, more fully, in P. B. Bilaniuk, De magisterio ordinario summi pontificis (Toronto, 1966).] The difficulty in this position is that the pronouncements of popes, even of modern popes, sometimes contradict one another (notably, for example, in the matter of religious toleration). Some theologians therefore have upheld the infallibility of contemporary decrees without giving serious consideration to the possibility of their conflicting with preceding ones. In effect, they are content to pretend that the past did not happen. There is at least a beguiling innocence in this approach. Other theologians, more reprehensibly (from a historian's point of view), have devised hermeneutical principles so ingenious that the documents of the past can never embarrass them. By applying such principles, they can reinterpret any doctrinal pronouncement, regardless of its actual content, to mean whatever the modern theologian thinks that its framers ought to have meant. [footnote: A good introduction to the hermeneutical problems that arise when theologians try to reconcile doctrinal statements from different ages of the church's past that are really irreconcilable with each other is provided by H. Riedlinger, "Hermeneutische Ueberlegungen zu den Konstanzer Dekreten" is Das Konzil von Konstanz, ed. A. Franzen and W. Müller (Freiburg, 1964), pp. 214-238.] The infallible doctrine of the past remains infallible but it is deprived of all objective content. This procedure seems based on a kind of Alice-in-Wonderland logic. One is reminded of the Cheshire Cat—the body of a past pronouncement disappears but its grin of infallibility persists. The general principle underlying this second major approach to the problem of infallibility might be summarized in the formula, "All infallible pronouncements are irreformable—until it becomes convenient to change them." It seems only fair to add that most Catholic theologians have continued to opt for some version of the relatively simple and straightforward Pickwickian position.
By the time of Vatican Council II the Catholic theology of infallibility had become a tangle of paradoxes and evasions. The theologians had worked themselves into a complicated cul-de-sac. But the council refrained from any thorough-going reconsideration of this question and merely repeated with minor variations the doctrine of 1870. In the years since Vatican Council II, however, a new development of thought has occurred. Very recently—while this book was being written—a few Catholic scholars have begun overtly to challenge the validity of the doctrine that was defined at Vatican Council I and reaffirmed at Vatican Council II. [footnote: F. Simons, Infallibility and the Evidence (Springfield, Ill., 1968); F. Oakley, Council Over Pope? (New York, 1969); H. Küng, Unfehlbar? Eine Anfrage [Infallibility?: An Inquiry] (Zurich, 1970).] It remains to be seen whether their point of view will establish itself as a viable position that can be held within the Roman Catholic church.
This is not objective historiography. Tierney has an agenda, and it is utterly obvious.
What I'm producing is not properly labeled "dissent" except from a modern, post-Vatican I Roman Catholic perspective.
So is it Tierney's position that the supremacy and infallibility of the pope was never held as the orthodox position in the Catholic Church until Vatican I? Or that the popes did not ratify the decisions of ecumenical councils until 1870?
What of, e.g., Pope St. Leo the Great (r. 440-461)?:
The Lord . . . wanted His gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery . . . The Apostolic See . . . has on countless occasions been reported to in consultation by bishops . . . And through the appeal of various cases to this see, decisions already made have been either revoked or confirmed, as dictated by longstanding custom.
(Letter to the Bishops of Vienne, July, 445 A.D., 10:1-2; in Jurgens, William A., ed. and tr., The Faith of the Early Fathers [FEF], 3 volumes, Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1970, vol. 3, 269)
Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed Apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others . . . the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head.
(Letter to Bishop Anastasius of Thessalonica, c. 446 A.D., 14:11; in Jurgens, FEF, vol. 3, 270)
From the whole world only one, Peter, is chosen to preside over the calling of all nations, and over all the other Apostles, and over the Fathers of the Church . . . Peter . . . rules them all, of whom, too, it is Christ who is their chief ruler. Divine condescension, dearly beloved, has granted to this man in a wonderful and marvellous manner the aggregate of its power; and if there was something that it wanted to be his in common with other leaders, it never gave whatever it did not deny to others except through him.
(Sermons, 4:2; in Jurgens, FEF, vol. 3, 275)
For not only was the power of binding and loosing given to Peter before the others, but also to Peter more especially was entrusted the care of feeding the sheep. Yet anyone who denies that the headship must be denied to Peter, cannot really diminish his dignity: but is puffed up with the breath of his pride, and plunges himself to the lowest depth.
(Letters, 10:2, 450 A.D., in Philip Schaff & Henry Wace, eds., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers - Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, 2nd series, vol. 12 [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994], 9)
II. . . . I . . . have delegated my authority to you, beloved, so that you, imitating our gentleness, might assist us in the care which we owe primarily to all the churches by Divine institution . . .
XII. . . . Though they have a common dignity, yet they have not a uniform rank; inasmuch as even among the blessed Apostles, notwithstanding the similarity of their honourable estate, there was a certain distinction of power, and while the election of them all was equal, yet it was given to one to take the lead of the rest . . . The care of the universal Church should converge towards Peter's one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its Head.
(Letter 14:2,12, in Philip Schaff & Henry Wace, eds., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers - Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, 2nd series, vol. 12 [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994], 16,19)
What of St. Francis de Sales, who, at the end of the 16th century, summarized the evidences for the primacy of the pope and Rome in early Christianity?:
St. Peter died Bishop of Rome - therefore the diocese of Rome was the last seat of the head of the Church: therefore the Bishop of Rome who came after the death of St. Peter, succeeded to the head of the Church, and consequently was head of the Church. Some one might say that he succeeded the head of the Church as to the bishopric of Rome, but not as to the kingship of the world. But such a one must show that St. Peter had two sees, of which one was for Rome, the other for the universe, which was not the case . . . Hence, the Bishop of Rome remained general lieutenant in the Church, and successor of St. Peter . . .
At the Council of Nicea, at those of Constantinople and Chalcedon, it is not seen that any bishop usurps the primacy for himself: it is attributed, according to ancient custom, to the Pope; no other is named in equal degree. In short, never was it said, either certainly or doubtfully, of any bishop in the first five hundred years that he was head or superior over the rest, except of the Bishop of Rome; about him indeed it was never doubted, but was held as settled that he was such. On what ground, then, after fifteen hundred years passed, would one cast doubt on this ancient tradition? I should never end were I to try to catalogue all the assurances and repetitions of this truth which we have in the Ancients' writings.
(The Catholic Controversy, tr. Henry B. Mackey, Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1989; orig. 1596, 279, 284)
In fact, St. Francis de Sales offers a statement of papal infallibility remarkably identical to the ex cathedra declaration of 1870, some 274 years later:
When he teaches the whole Church as shepherd, in general matters of faith and morals, then there is nothing but doctrine and truth. And in fact everything a king says is not a law or an edict, but that only which a king says as king and as a legislator. So everything the Pope says is not canon law or of legal obligation; he must mean to define and to lay down the law for the sheep, and he must keep the due order and form.How is it, then, that Tierney can object to what he describes as "endless, teasing, really unanswerable questions about the meaning of the term ex cathedra as used in the decree of Vatican Council I and about the phrases 'ordinary magisterium' and 'extraordinary magisterium' that came to be associated with it in discussions on papal infallibility"?
We must not think that in everything and everywhere his judgment is infallible, but then only when he gives judgment on a matter of faith in questions necessary to the whole Church; for in particular cases which depend on human fact he can err, there is no doubt, though it is not for us to control him in these cases save with all reverence, submission, and discretion. Theologians have said, in a word, that he can err in questions of fact, not in questions of right; that he can err 'extra cathedram,' outside the chair of Peter. that is, as a private individual, by writings and bad example.
But he cannot err when he is 'in cathedra,' that is, when he intends to make an instruction and decree for the guidance of the whole Church, when he means to confirm his brethren as supreme pastor, and to conduct them into the pastures of the faith. For then it is not so much man who determines, resolves, and defines as it is the Blessed Holy Spirit by man, which Spirit, according to the promise made by Our Lord to the Apostles, teaches all truth to the
(Ibid., 306-307)
How is it that Tierney traces this "eccentric development of the doctrine of infallibility" to "the past century" and decries the wasted energies devoted to "devising a sort of pseudo-infallibility"? Is he unfamiliar with these remarks by St. Francis de Sales, a Doctor of the Church? Many sources can be cited, but Tierney needs to produce an authoritative decree of the Church which denied papal infallibility. The problem remains one of arbitrary vs. authentic Christian authority. I stated in another reply to someone else (a Protestant who is historically-minded):
Orthodox doctrinal development and corruption and the various currents of theology throughout history are also separable ideas. They are not mutually-exclusive. Tradition does not reduce to mere history; that is a rationalistic tenet. The Christian has faith, and will view Church history accordingly. It is not contrary to historiography but goes beyond it, just as faith in biblical inspiration is not contrary to archaeological evidences of biblical accuracy, but goes beyond it, introducing the supernatural.The problem remains one of determining orthodoxy. Gratian does not determine that; Tierney does not. The Church does, in her councils and popes. Furthermore, Calvinist critics of the papacy will not apply the same standard to their own faith. They hold to the Westminster Confession and the decrees of the Synod of Dort as a Calvinist. But they wouldn't countenance for a second the notion that the Arminians who were censured and condemned at Dort had opinions equally as valid or "orthodox" as the Calvinist worthies.
Catholics are quite familiar with conciliarism. We simply disagree that its mere existence somehow is an immediate proof that it is as valid of a viewpoint as the papacy, as historically-understood by Catholics. Since you have no standard of orthodoxy, you can only appeal to the bald facts of history, so it stands to reason that you would "reason" from what is, to what should be, because that's all you have in your viewpoint.
The Catholic Church still has the prerogative to ultimately declare certain views heretical (sometimes taking centuries to do so), and the Catholic individual can regard them likewise, without denying the presence of heterodox currents of thought. This is elementary.
. . . diversity itself was not in question, only the interpretation as to its orthodoxy in a Catholic framework.
Yet when it comes to the Catholic Church, all of a sudden we must be subject to the "priesthood of liberal scholars" and our own pronouncements of orthodoxy from within our own authority structures are null and void and of no import. The very existence of plural notions of the papacy and ecclesiology "prove" that each one of them are equally "orthodox."
This is rationalism and secular historicism of the worst kind, devoid of faith, and it even has to be applied inconsistently. Calvinists are allowed to have faith in the decrees of their Calvinist ancestors, but Catholics are not allowed to rest in decrees of popes, Trent, Vatican I, etc., because, well, because they were wrong, and "everyone knows that." So we must live under the burden of this irrational, Enlightenment-inspired liberal mindset (applied to us alone) while the Calvinists are free from it and can exercise supernatural faith in their own brand of theology and ecclesiology. This is a rather curious epistemology and polemic.
Tierney needs to tell us what was "orthodox" then? Were Catholics supposedly permitted to hold any view of ecclesiology whatever? Could they be "papalists" or hold an Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology, or dispense with the papacy altogether and adopt congregationalism? Or are we to believe that there existed no orthodoxy and received tradition whatsoever because people had different opinions?
This is where the authority of the Church comes in, and faith in its dogmas. Dogmas cannot be absolutely proven. They transcend history. "Orthodoxy" itself is a concept that requires faith to believe. One cannot prove from history what was the "correct" doctrine" or "false, heretical" ones. History is simply a collection of facts (according to an observer). Orthodoxy and Apostolic Tradition are matters of faith, ultimately based on the revelation of Scripture. There were plenty of Arians around in the 4th century, too. But that did not make them "orthodox." It has still not been demonstrated that multiple traditions logically or historically rule out one orthodox tradition among them.
The teaching authority of the Church determines orthodox (including the nature of the papacy). Thus the Council of Lyons II (1274) declared:
Also this same holy Roman Church holds the highest and complete primacy and spiritual power over the universal Catholic Church which she truly and humbly recognizes herself to have received with fullness of power from the Lord Himself in Blessed Peter, the chief or head of the Apostles whose successor is the Roman Pontiff. And just as to defend the truth of Faith she is held before all other things, so if any questions shall arise regarding faith they ought to be defined by her judgment . . . in all cases looking forward to an ecclesiastical examination, recourse can be had to her judgment, and all churches are subject to her; their prelates give obedience and reverence to her.Likewise, Council of Florence (1438-1445), in its Decree for the Greeks, Laetentur coeli, July 6, 1439:
(From Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma; translated by Roy J. Deferrari, from the 13th edition of Enchiridion Symbolorum, 1955, Fitzwilliam, NH: Loreto Publications, section 466, p. 185)
We likewise define that the holy Apostolic See, and the Roman Pontiff, hold the primacy throughout the entire world; and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of blessed Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and the true vicar of Christ, and that he is the head of the entire Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him in blessed Peter by our Lord Jesus Christ, to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church; just as is contained in the acts of the ecumenical Councils and in the sacred canons.Liberal historians like Tierney need to make the case from authoritative declarations of the Church that papal infallibility is heretical or that conciliarism is true, or that it is a free-for-all and the Church has been silent on the matter. Orthodoxy is intensely debated in Protestant circles as well, in the endless liberal-conservative battles for denominations and (particularly) biblical inerrancy. How does that prove that no one true tradition exists, or that, e.g., confessional Presbyterianism is false?
(Ibid., section 694, p. 220)
It is not only liberal but fundamentally dishonest, to claim to be an adherent of a particular theology and communion, yet ignore or re-define one of its binding decrees (and this applies across the board, to all sorts of Christians). What is stopping these people from getting out? If they don't like the papacy, they can become Anglican or Orthodox. If they want women priests, they can become Anglicans. If they want to contracept or abolish priestly celibacy or not be obliged to hold to Mary's Assumption or Immaculate Conception as dogma, they can become Anglican or Orthodox. Etc., etc. What is stopping them?
Catholic dogma won't change. It hasn't yet, and that is its glory, and one reason why I am a Catholic. We don't cave into modernism and the zeitgeist. Praise God for it! But some Calvinist apologists will even play along with the liberals when it suits their purpose. They would have nothing to do with them in their own Presbyterian circles, but when it comes to Catholicism, who cares? "My enemy's enemy is my friend."
Yet one doesn't observe Catholic apologists like myself demanding that the Calvinists admit Arminians and loosen up that requirement, under pain of being declared abominably triumphalistic and arrogant heads-in-the-sand. We recognize that this is what Calvinists believe and that they have a right to hold it and form their assemblies without harassment as to their internal inconsistency or intolerance. Why, then, are we not accorded the same respect or prerogative?
Every Christian tradition has lines which cannot be crossed. Why this is such a difficult concept to grasp is beyond me. You can't get from the historical is to the dogmatic ought to be without both faith in the revelation of the Bible and the authority of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit. Catholic dogmatic understandings do not have to fudge or ignore the facts of history. We are simply declaring one tradition to be orthodox. Trent did this, Lyons did. It didn't start with Vatican I.
A very historically-minded Protestant, on a discussion board, who goes by the nickname "Retro Rosco III", drew some excellent analogies:
I still don't understand what the point of all of this talk about "dissent" is, at least in principle. So what if there was some variety in the Western tradition or even a certain amount of "dissent" against modern papal claims, which again I think aren't "absolute monarchy"? Why does this have anything to do with veracity of papal claims or the truth claims of other communions for that matter? Jacobus Arminius and his followers certainly were "dissenters" against the "extreme" positions on predestination that were gaining favor early on in the Reformed tradition. Does this "dissent" ipso facto disprove the Synod of Dort, especially as vast majority of people who call themselves Protestants both today and most likely in the future would agree more with the "dissenting" Arminius than Dort (the kangaroo court of Dort as some Arminians call it)?Liberal historians and other critics of the Catholic Church have not adequately overcome the force of the analogy of Catholics deciding what is orthodox or not according to their own theological paradigm. Some of them deny that it is even reasonable to speak of anything in the Middle Ages as "heretical" simply because there were multiple traditions on ecclesiology. We deny that they were all equally legitimate. And we do this precisely as Dort decided that Arminianism was illegitimate, even though it had a respectable Protestant strain going back at least to Philip Melanchthon and the Lutheran confessions (which any Protestant would be hard-pressed to consistently regard as "out of the mainstream" of early Protestant tradition); not to mention also the Anabaptist Protestant tradition.
Or what about Chalcedon? The Monophysite churches in Egypt, Syria and Persia (who are still around today) were "dissenters" from it and were orthodox on every other point (as was Arminius against Dort). So does their "dissent" cast shadows of doubt on the veracity of Chalcedon? I just don't see how the idea that there were and are dissenters necessarily does anything one way or the other to the truth claims of a particular council or idea. If that is the case then the Reformed should ditch Dort and we should all question Chalcedon . . . But perhaps the principle of existing dissent isn't being applied consistently in looking at church history.
. . . The Reformed typically claim that their own theories in regards to free will/predestination/soteriology represent the "historic Protestant position" over against the so-called "Arminians". I realize that the Reformed recognize Lutherans and Anglicans as "true Protestants" as well, but generally not Methodists, Baptists, Pentecostals and generic Evangelicals. Well, I have already demonstrated that the Anabaptist/Mennonite tradition, which was very much "Arminian" before Arminius illustrates that there was much more of a variety of views on soteriology (and other issues) in the Reformation than the Reformed care to admit. Not to mention very real disagreements with the Lutherans on these matters . . . both during the Reformation and today. Finally, Armininus' views weren't formally condemned until Dort anyway, and if is anchronistic to declare someone with Gratian's views a "heretic" or "dissent" before Vatican I, why isn't it the same with someone who held to Arminius' views before Dort?
What I am getting at is that your logic in regards to the Medieval papacy vis-a-vis current RCC papal claims if applied to the Reformation totally undercuts the Reformed tradition's claim to represent "historical Protestant soteriology". Thus, all the current Reformed talk about the "heresy" of "Arminianism", especially in regard to modern Evangelicalism is no different in principle than modern RCC papal historical and confessional claims you disagree with. And remember, "contemporary confessional commitments cannot be allowed to retroactively determine what the sources say or what was and was not "orthodox" in the actual time periods under discussion", right? Same with the Reformation, right? So if it is not the business of the RCC to pretend that their present standards are the authoritative interpretation of the past on the papacy, how can the Reformed turn around and do the same on the Reformation?
Catholics (by the very definition of the word catholic [universal], cannot use the terms "heresy" and "orthodoxy" in a limited, "internal" sense, because in our vision of ecclesiology (which we consider explicitly biblical for the most part), it is meaningless to speak of multiple "orthodoxies," for there can only be one orthodoxy and one way to determine it with finality: the papacy, working in conjunction with ecumenical councils and the bishops outside of councils. We believe that there is but one Church and one Tradition which has preserved the fullness of the apostolic Tradition -- our own, of course.
It is not immediately arrogant or triumphalistic or "exclusivistic" to believe this. We simply believe that there is one legitimate orthodox Tradition and that it is the Catholic Tradition. Other variants of Christianity possess it to various degrees, and we acknowledge them as brothers in Christ by virtue of baptism and many other areas of agreement. But we cannot allow multiple orthodoxies. That does not mean we do not allow the existence of other Christians.
For the Catholic, there is no such thing as one orthodoxy for this community and another one for that community (not in any ultimate sense), for we believe that there is but one apostolic Tradition. This is clearly how St. Paul presents the notion of apostolic Tradition in Scripture.
The Apostles and Fathers would regard the notion of multiple orthodoxies, applied only internally to individual faith communities or "sub-traditions" as contrary to catholicity and apostolic succession, and in fact, itself a heretical and unbiblical concept.
As for Catholics "reading their own late-breaking, sectarian dogmas about the Papacy back into all of previous history," I categorically deny that we are doing this, and that it accurately reflects the facts of history. I have given plenty of documentation that there were strong papal views earlier on, and much more could be brought to the table (and, of course, as always, development of doctrine must be taken into consideration as well).
If anything is "late-breaking, sectarian dogma," it is all that Protestantism brought in as radical innovations and novelties: much of which had never been believed before except by non-trinitarian heretics and a few mavericks here and there (like Wycliffe). But that is another discussion altogether.
No one is "writing off" original sources. We are simply saying that there is such a thing as orthodoxy, that multiple strains of belief (in the Middle Ages or any other time) do not disprove this, and that the Catholic Church is no more unreasonable in believing that than Calvinists are in believing in their own confessions and thinking others "heterodox" (and oftentimes, not Christian at all, unlike the Catholic Church).
There is such a thing as an undue or extreme, partisan bias in doing history, and a liberal pre-commitment would certainly have a significant effect on this. It is evident, e.g., in Tierney's mocking of infallibility, calling it "Pickwickian," "Alice-in-Wonderland logic," and so forth. The historian does not mock. That isn't his job; he is supposed to report the facts as he sees them. This is sheer liberal disdain for supernatural faith.
I found an excellent online article in the evangelical journal, Quodlibet, by Scott David Foutz, entitled, "On Establishing an Evangelical Historiography for the 21st Century" (http://www.quodlibet.net/histfinl.shtml). The author makes a number of points that I agree with. I shall quote it at some length:
Although Christianity indeed offers the contemporary pilgrim much in the way of universal and transhistorical truth, it is quickly realized that even these have come to us in the swaddling clothes of history. Recent historiography en toto has increasingly tended toward relativism due to a growing awareness of the role of what Carl Becker has termed "climates of opinion" or Thomas Kuhn the now iconic "paradigm" . . . .A similarly traditional Christian view of historiography can be found in the online article, "Was Luke an Accurate Historian?," by Nicholas M. van Ommeren:
A very general overview of historiographical trends reveals three approaches which have each become prominent in the field at one point or another: the ideological, scientific, and relativistic. The first, ideological or presuppositional historiography is the predominant approach employed by pre-Enlightenment histories and several traditions thereafter. Ideological history starts with an historian who has already taken an interpretive stance of the events and thus goes about writing history in order to defend that position. Ancient examples of this would include the histories of Eusebius, Orosius, Josephus, and the Gospel of John, the latter of which explains, "These things have been written so that you may believe that Jesus in the Christ" (20:31) . . .
The second major approach to history is found in scientific historiography , which seeks to implement historiographical procedures modeled after those of the natural sciences. Traditionally, this approach has adamantly opposed any hint of ideological influence, but has instead insisted on a "presuppositionless" or "selfless" investigation of the historical facts. Following in the footsteps of empiricism, scientific historiography will see as true only those interpretations of historical facts which are most verifiable or reasonable. On the one hand, this method has engendered much gain in historical studies through its optimism that actual knowledge of particular facts is possible. On the other hand, strict adherence to this model has proven an obstacle to evangelical historians due to the former's near a priori denial of the possibility of the miraculous . . .
[Authors like Kung and to a lesser extent Tierney do not even believe infallibility is possible. This will necessarily color their conclusions in that regard; hence the anti-supernaturalist bias makes them untrustworthy -- from a broad Christian perspective -- to pronounce negatively and condescendingly on such supernatural, faith-based subjects as they do]
Scrutiny of scientific historiography has discovered it to be an unrealized ideal despite the valiant attempts of many. The possibility of a "presuppositionless" anything has fallen into more than doubt while greater and greater influence is attributed to one's own world view. Objective reconstruction of the past is denied by such thinkers as Carl Becker who has concluded that any history is "an imaginative creation, a personal possession which each one of us... fashions out of his individual experience, adapts to his practical or emotional needs, and adorns as well as may be to suite his aesthetic tastes." Even the once seemingly impenetrable bastion of scientific procedure has fallen into question with Thomas Kuhn's landmark analysis of the history of the sciences.
All of this marks the snowballing transition toward the third major approach we will consider, relativistic historiography, which views all attempts at history as inevitably a reconstruction of the past into what the historian thought or wished had happened. The relativistic differs from ideological historiography in that the former views the historian as inescapably locked into a particular worldview or paradigm. Ideological historians write history from a vantage point they have predetermined, while relativistic historiography views the very ability of the historian as determined by contextual factors such as culture, education, gender, race, and religion . . . relativism itself quickly moves from description to prescription and insists that every observer is a prisoner of one of many relative paradigms among which correspondence is at best unlikely. This utterly removes the possibility and relevance of factuality from the spheres of history and knowledge, leaving only autobiographical interpretation and solipsism. For some this may be a comfortable and non-demanding position to find oneself, but for many, it marks a serious degeneration of human knowledge. For evangelical scholarship, it denies a most fundamental necessity, historical knowledge as the basis of one faith. If biblical historians such as Luke or John 12 are subjected to this model, immediately lost is the ability to claim both that the text speaks one thing, and that this one thing corresponds to a universally accessible reality . . .
This brings us to the role of presuppositions or my term of choice, meta-view. It is clear that the total possible number of theories exceeds those implemented by the observer. Some he flatly rejects, some he puts on the back burner, and some he habitually implements. Thus a selection of theories has taken place according to some set of criteria. The grid through which a theory is run in order to ascertain its acceptability is that of the meta-view . Nicolas Wolterstorff understands this meta-view to be comprised of what he terms "Control-beliefs". Such control-beliefs do not simply stand above the observer determining what he or she may think or suppose; viz., they are not to be understood as controlling-beliefs . They are interactive with phenomena and may indeed be informed by observation, experience, and logic. They also may contain a priori beliefs and beliefs derived from special revelation. Together, these control-beliefs comprise a meta-view through which the individual interprets the world and its meaning.
The meta-view functions on three levels. On one level, it serves to inform the individual as to the very nature of meta-view itself. This is to say that the meta-view contains some basic beliefs about itself. Wolterstorff terms these as data-background beliefs . This is not to say that the meta-view determines itself, but rather that once particular data-background beliefs are adopted the individual is committed to only those meta-views which are compatible with those beliefs. It remains possible for the individual to exchange these data-background beliefs with others, thus allowing for a shift in meta-views . . .
[this is where I would place the Catholic faith in the indefectibility of the Church, one main stream of apostolic Tradition which resides in its fullness in the Catholic Church, the belief in a standard of orthodoxy and development of doctrine interpreted through this grid, an authoritative Church -- over against the sola Scriptura concept -- and dogmas such as papal infallibility]
Christian and non-Christian scholars alike have access to the historical data of Christian history. The difference between these two groups lies not in their access, but in their theorizing and structuring of that data into their respective meta-views . . .
Another reason many scholars no longer regard Luke (and therefore the other Evangelists as well) as an objective historian, is the modern view of historiography. This view has its roots in a development in philosophy called the "New Hermeneutic." This "New Hermeneutic" has also forced its way from philosophy into biblical scholarship. Rudolf Bultmann, follower of the existentialist philosopher Martin Heidegger, is closely associated with this development in biblical scholarship. According to this philosopher, the knowing subject cannot be separated from the known object. Therefore a hermeneutical circle is also spoken of. This entails that there is constant reciprocal influence between the subject and the object. In contrast to traditional hermeneutics, the subject cannot objectively observe the object from a distance. For modern historiography this means that the historian can never give an objective description of events.In his second footnote, Marshall is again cited, making a point almost identical to one I have made:
Historiography then is not an investigation of objective facts, but an expression of the subjective impressions of the historian. The historian, as "knowing subject," cannot objectively observe the historical facts, the known object. There is therefore a distinction made in modern historiography between the fact "an sich" (in itself), and the fact interpreted and described by the historian. Marshall calls this the difference between "event" and "fact."
Therefore in that view no absolute reliability can be claimed for the work of any historian. This presupposition of modern historical science is then projected onto Luke the historian. Luke could therefore never have been an objective historian, according to these presuppositions. However, according to Marshall, these presuppositions of modern historical science are grossly exaggerated. It is wrong, he suggests, to posit that objective historiography is an unachievable ideal . . .
According to van Unnik, Luke was not only a reliable, objective historian, which is clear from his striking agreements with the historiography of Josephus, but Luke was also concerned with the infallibility of the facts. Luke wanted to describe the development of early Christianity.
[the writer is referring to I. Howard Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1984) ]
This is the view of Bultmann: "To make faith dependent upon history would be to destroy the character of faith as faith and to substitute fallible knowledge for it." To this Marshall answers, "Basically this approach does not do justice to the biblical idea of faith. Such faith is rooted in the historical" (ibid., p. 34, . . . see also pp. 18, 30-37, 46, 50). "History is not irrelevant to faith, but historical statements form part of the substance of faith" (ibid., p. 37).I wrote:
Tradition does not reduce to mere history; that is a rationalistic tenet. The Christian has faith . . . It is not contrary to historiography but goes beyond it, just as faith in biblical inspiration is not contrary to archaeological evidences of biblical accuracy, but goes beyond it, introducing the supernatural.So my ideas are echoed by two evangelical articles on historiography, and a respected evangelical scholar even defends the notion of "objective historiography" over against the liberals. It appears, then, that my thought is quite in line with "evangelical historiography." than Tim's. Some Calvinist critics of Catholicism are currently taken with liberal "Catholic" historians, while I place much more credence in conservative evangelical ones. Truth is stranger than fiction once again. But if there is one constant in my thought ever since I converted to evangelicalism in 1977, it is a detestation of theological liberalism. I don't need to resort to liberal, modernist or post-modernist methodologies to critique Protestantism, and Protestants shouldn't do so in critiquing Catholicism.
I even found an ostensibly secular historian who agrees with my general historiographical point of view. Georg G. Iggers, is "distinguished Professor Emeritus at the State University of New York at Buffalo," and "has for more than thirty years been a leading expert on international historiography." In the article, "The Uses and Misuses of History", he concludes with a section entitled, "Objective Standards After All":
In the most recent decades, as we know, there has been a great deal of skepticism regarding the possibility of objective historical inquiry.One thing the liberal critics of papal supremacy harp on about is the notion that heretical popes somehow disprove supremacy. But it is entirely possible within orthodox Catholicism that a pope could be a heretic and even teach heretical notions (we only deny -- in faith -- that it is possible for him to bind the entire Church to a heretical view):
Despite my critique of the cult of objectivity which was shared by almost the entire historical profession, I am not willing to concede that there are no objective standards of historical criticism. The fact that the professional historians have contributed to the construction of national, ethnic, confessional and more recently gender related myths does not mean that there are no criteria of rational inquiry by which these myths can be taken apart. It is certainly very difficult to establish historical truths. Admittedly sources can lend themselves to different interpretations. But these interpretations are not arbitrary but are dependent on the sources. Historiography is thus an ungoing dialogue which does not necessarily arrive at consensus but may enhance understanding of the past by illuminating it from a variety of perspectives . . .
Every historian inevitably has a point of view. But the best way of avoiding arriving at untruths is to analyze one's point of view and thus being aware of one's perspective. This has been the responsibility of the historian past and present.
This little Apollon article is thus not a repudiation of professional history but a call for it to live up to the ideals of intellectual honesty which it proclaimed. The article itself harbors a conviction , which may to some appear a prejudice, namely the belief that there are standards of humanity and logical thinking which can guide the rational discourse among historians.
But even if we grant that Pope Leo II and the Council condemned Honorius in his own person as a heretic (Chapman, Amann), this, as Cardinal Newman pointed out, is 'inconsistent with no Catholic doctrine' (Difficulties of Anglicans, II, 317).The question with regard to conciliarism is whether councils or popes have final authority. Catholics have always held that this authority resides in the papacy, and have stated as much in councils and authoritative papal proclamations. Some medieval conciliarists, and anti-supernaturalist modernist historians and theologians such as Brian Tierney and Hans Kung deny this.
(The Question Box, New York: Paulist Press, 1929 ed., 173)
"Fr. Mateo," a Catholic apologist, replied to one particular charge of Brian Tierney:
[Question] On page 116 of his book "Origins of Papal Infallibility" Brian Tierney writes that Pope John XXII in his Bull of 23 Nov 1324 Quia Quorundam condemned the view that "What the Roman pontiffs have once defined in faith and morals with the key of knowledge stands so immutably that it is not permitted to a successor to revoke it ...". How is John XXII's Bull reconcilable with Vatican I's declaration on papal infallibility? Is he condemning ex-cathedra papal infallibility or merely key-of-knowledge papal infallibility? If the latter then what is key-of-knowledge infallibility as opposed to ex-cathedra infallibility?(http://www.cin.org/mateo/9602124.html)
Dear Gerard,
In the reign of Pope John XXII (1313-1334), a puritanical sect within the Franciscan Order who called themselves "the Spirituals" held that their interpretation of the rule and lifestyle of Saint Francis, especially in the matter of practicing poverty, was the ONLY LEGITIMATE WAY TO FOLLOW JESUS CHRIST. They taught that their rule of life was identically the same as the Gospel, the very way of life led by Christ and his Apostles, inspired by the Holy Spirit as were the Scriptures.
They further held that approval of their rule by earlier popes was a matter pertaining to faith and morals; and since the rule was equal to the Gospel (they said), no subsequent Pope could change or revoke it.
Pope John rejected this fantastic doctrine in a bull of 1324 entitled Quia Quorundam . He denied the "Spirituals'" contention that their rule and style of poverty was equal to the Gospel and he pointed out that papal approval of a religious order and its rule was a matter of Church legislation, not of faith or morals. Therefore, he taught, a pope could (and sometimes might have to ) modify an earlier pope's legislation or revoke it.
In the course of the encyclical, Pope John denied the existence of a "key of knowledge", in virtue of which the "Spirituals" contended that earlier popes had unchangeably established this rule and lifestyle. (The phrase `key of knowledge' comes from Luke 11:52, which the "Spirituals" misused).
Pope John was not dealing with an issue of doctrinal infallibility, but with a defective understanding of the Church's governing power as invested in the Pope.
Infallibility, as defined in the First Vatican Council, requires that the faith of the whole Church be the norm of papal definitions; that these definitions be according to Scripture; that the pope speaks infallibly only when he speaks as teacher and pastor of all the faithful, with the infallibility with which Christ endowed his Church as a whole. This is 'ex cathedra' infallibility.
Tierney is not a reliable guide in understanding our doctrine of infallibility. His book "Origins" wins the praise of such dissidents as Hans Kung and Richard McBrien. If you want to correct his views, read James Heft's "John XXII and Papal Teaching Authority". Heft is at the University of Dayton . . .
An anonymous reviewer of Steve Ray's book, Upon This Rock, on amazon.com, makes an interesting comment about Tierney's extremely liberal anti-dogmatism, with which we shall conclude:
Stephen K. Ray does an excellent job of presenting the scriptural and historical case for the papacy. He writes clearly and well. I would like to make a point about a book mentioned in the review by the Eastern Orthodox gentleman, namely Brian Tierney's "The Origins of Papal Infallibility". Moved by that review I read Tierney's book. Brian Tierney, though a good scholar, has an axe to grind, specifically a liberal Catholic axe. I am surprised that an Eastern Orthodox person would commend the arguments of Tierney, since Tierney obviously is against not just PAPAL infallibility, but ALL infallibility, including the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils and the infallibility of the Church herself, both of which doctrines are believed in by the Eastern Orthodox. Tierney, as a liberal, does not believe that the Church can definitively commit herself to truths. In other words, he rejects the possibility of dogma. Essentially his position is that of Hans Kung.(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0898707234/002-3371205-5780855?vi=glance)
The mistake that this Eastern Orthodox reviewer makes illustrates a basic problem with attempts to interpret the historical evidence in an Eastern Orthodox or Anglican way: these via media are self-destructive, as Newman realized. The Orthodox accept the hierarchical authority of bishops and the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils. But the scriptural evidence and the evidence from the ante-Nicene Fathers is stronger for the papacy than for the authority of Ecumenical Councils. One can pick holes in the evidence for the papacy, but only by using arguments that ultimately can be used even more effectively against other doctrines that the Orthodox would wish to uphold. Protestants have the same problem: the same arguments that are used against the papacy can be turned even more effectively against the New Testament. To return to Ray's book, I recommend it very highly.
Uploaded by Dave Armstrong on 5 June 2003. Revised on 1 December 2003 and 20 January 2004.


text:
Change currency:
Other country sites
Your Recent Searches
Your bag is empty
Free DELIVERY Worldwide*
Get inspired by summer's new love for metallics and sequins (Chanel and Alexander McQueen were all over the mermaid look for S/S'12) and ramp up your party look with shimmering dresses and shorts, aquatic sequins and pale denim. Team a metallic skater skirt with a T-shirt, toughen up a sequined party dress with a bomber jacket and swap heels for dance-all-night flatforms and sporty accessories.
View Feature
Refine By
Price Range
The celebrities named or featured on asos.com have not endorsed recommended or approved the items offered on site
©2015 asos.com Ltd
All rights reserved
Cookie Use
ASOS uses cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.
If you continue we assume that you consent to receive all cookies on all ASOS websites.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
CONCORD, N.C. – The WKA Mazda / Bridgestone Manufacturers Cup Series is set to close its 2013 season this September 27-29 at the new GoPro Motorplex in Mooresville, N.C. The RACERSITES Nationals marks the Man Cup's first visit to the pristine North Carolina sprint track and the last major event of what was a stacked 2013 schedule at the GoPro Motorplex.
Pre-registration for the RACERSITES Nationals is open until Sept. 20, however, pre-entry prices will increase $10 per class and $5 for Friday practice Wednesday, Sept. 4.
This gives racers approximately one more week to pre-enter at the best prices.
Click here to download the Mooresville Man Cup entry form.
The event will be a must-see for 2-cycle kart racers and fans with national championship battles being decided on Sunday, Sept. 29. Several classes are up for grabs and a handful of drivers have a shot at a prestigious WKA Triple Crown championship.


text:
AUSTIN (November 19, 2012) -- Texas has a new rival. Or make that an old one.
With the breakup of the annual Texas-Texas A&M rivalry after more than 100 years, the No. 18 Longhorns will face Big 12 newcomer TCU on Thanksgiving night in a renewal of an old Southwest Conference grudge match.
Several Longhorns (8-2, 5-2 Big 12) say not playing the Aggies feels kind of weird. Senior safety Kenny Vaccaro says he misses the rivalry with A&M "a lot" and wishes he could play them "one more time."
TCU (6-4, 3-4) is one of Texas' oldest rivals. The teams have met 83 times, but just once since 1995.


text:
Monday, November 19, 2012
Winter Crisp
Ingredients and Preparation
½ cup
All-purpose flour
3 tablespoons
Lemon peel, grated
1 teaspoon
Lemon juice
¾ teaspoon
Apples, unpeeled, sliced
5 cups
1 cup
Rolled oats
2/3 cup
Brown sugar, packed
1/3 cup
Whole wheat flour
¼ cup
Ground cinnamon
2 teaspoons
Soft margarine, melted
1 tablespoon
To prepare filling, in a medium bowl combine sugar, flour, and lemon peel; mix well. Add lemon juice, apples, and cranberries; stir to mix. Spoon into a 6-cup baking dish.
To prepare topping, in a small bowl, combine oats, brown sugar, flour, and cinnamon. Add melted margarine; stir to mix.
Sprinkle topping over filling. Bake in a 375ºF oven for approximately 40-50 minutes or until filling is bubbly and top is brown. Serve warm or at room temperature.
The Journal Scene is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. We do not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not The Journal Scene.
If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Read our full terms and conditions.
© 2015 Trident Health.


text:
sponsored promotion
If you are anything like us Thanksgiving is one of your favorite days of the year. The weather is crisp and cool outside, the day is full of family and friends, and, of course, delicious food!
We have partnered with Ronco to make one Mom Bloggers Club member's Thanksgiving even more memorable this year. We are giving away a Ronco 5500 Stainless Rotisserie valued at $179.99.
HOW TO ENTER (2 STEPS: Comment + Tweet)
Official Rules: This giveaway is open to US residents only. The giveaway ends at 8:00 AM on November 16 EST. Two comments must be added to win. Any additional comments will increase your chances of winning. You can leave as many comments as you'd like as long as the two required comments above are included.
This would be fabulous because we are having a small gathering the night before Wednesday because my brother's family is divorced. Because we have people not off work on this day, it would be fabulous to let the Ronco do all the work!
This would just make our Thanksgiving AMAZING!! Having just lost my home to a fire on the 4th of July, I have been living in an extended stay hotel with no oven for 4 months. I just bought a house and am moving in before thanksgiving, however I have nothing to cook with, not even a pan so this would be used to cook my main dish! Amazing it would be! Thanks for the opp!
I'm going to use this to cook 2 turkey breast! I bet it's going to be delicious! Good luck everyone!
I like the precise rotation. This would make a perfectly cooked chicken! Love this product:)
I can't cook a good bird and this would be SO helpful!!!
Loving the Set it and forget it! Perfect for busy moms!
Oh my...this would make a memorable Thanksgiving for my family this year because I have never cooked my own turkey, whole, chicken, or roast! Isn't that sad( and pretty embarrassing too)! My family would be thrilled :)
Here's my tweet :) https://twitter.com/SunandSipCups/status/265591174922924033 Thank you!!
Here is my tweet: https://twitter.com/EcoBlogz/status/265589160872656896
It would make it memorable by making it easier to make a delicious meal, with two kids 3 and under I could use some help!
This would be great in my kitchen. When we were kicked out of our home that we were renting(long story) nearly every bit of my kitchen cookery items were left behind, all my crock pots, stock pots, slow cookers/roasters, etc...It has been real difficult using the bear minimal cooking/baking items...and now am teaching my son the finer points in cooking since he has taken his first cooking class at the age of 11, and he has been cooking with me since he was 4 years old ...what better way to reward him for his hard work than to win this, and teach him a new way of cooking!! I have always wanted one of these but could never afford one!
Our family likes all different foods - ham, turkey - and with the Ronco Rotisserie, we could cook both easily!
With the baby due any day, I'd love a little help in the kitchen. I LOVE the taste of rotisserie and would love to be able to get that without having to fire up the entire oven!
we have never used a rotisserie to cook the turkey, so that would really change things up
Rotisserie Turkey would be a great addition to Thanksgiving this year!!!


text:
New financial opportunities, including a possible savings of over $1 million for the county, were proposed during the Ashe County Board of Commissioners meeting on Monday, Jan. 7.
The N.C. Forest Service also presented their annual report to the board, and said $40 million worth of housing was saved from wildfires in 2012.
Refinancing county debt
Ashe County Manager Dr. Pat Mitchell said the county has the opportunity to refinance its loans and save over $1 million between now and 2027 during the planning portion of the BOC meeting.
Mitchell said this discovery happened when she was considering the county's current debt schedule and how that might impact infrastructure in the future.
According to the current debt schedule, the county will make payments on Westwood Elementary School until 2016, Ashe County High School until 2017, the library until 2018, and the Justice Center until 2027.
The county could save $1 million if the county refinances the loans on Westwood Elementary, the library, and the Justice Center as three separate loans with PNC Bank.
Mitchell said the savings wouldn't be noticed at first because of prepay penalties, but will have an impact by 2027.
"It looks like Westwood and the library would be assets to the bank," said Commissioner Gerald Price. "Gaining two and penalizing one – it doesn't seem fair," said Price.
Mitchell said the process was just beginning, and no official decisions have been made.
Archery contest
Also during the planning portion of the BOC meeting, Price said he was approached by a representative from the National Field Archery Association who wanted to make Ashe County one of four national target spots in 2014.
Price said he thought the event might last up to three days, and could bring as many as 10,000-20,000 visitors to the county.
A tournament this size will require a large facility, said Price. Commissioner Judy Porter Poe said an event like this is "a big family thing."
"Somebody has to get this thing coordinated," said Price.
Mitchell told Price to "have them get in touch with me," as she will act as a liaison for Ashe County.
N.C. Forest Service
During Monday's meeting, the N.C. Forest Service made its annual report to the Board of Commissioners.
"I would like to thank the board for the continued support. A lot of districts seem to struggle, and we appreciate the budget," said County Ranger Tim Lewis. He also said Ashe County's district has the "nicest head quarters in the state and the biggest in the state."
Ashe County has approximately 154,383 acres of commercial forestland. According to Lewis, a major issue the forest service is fire control in Ashe County.
"North Carolina Forest Service ranks first in the Southeast for minimal acreage per wildfire. For each fire the average size is four acres. That speaks for itself," said a release from the Forest Service.
To date, there have been over 32 wildfires in the county since Jan. 2012, slightly down from the average of 45 fires per year.
According to the Forest Service, over 250 homes were threatened or saved at a value of $40 million.
Also vital to Ashe County is the protection of the county's number one cash crop, Christmas trees. Fire damage to this crop has been been held to a minimum, due to quick responses of the volunteer fire departments.
"Losses reached up to 380 mature and non-mature trees due to wildfire at an average cost of $14 per tree. The importance for protection of these trees is vital since fire insurance cannot be economically obtained on this crop," said the Forest Service's release.
According to Lewis, 90 percent of the fires in Ashe County were caused by improper ash disposal. In just one Saturday, 16 fires were started because of improper ash disposal, said Lewis.
This high rate of fires caused by ash disposal stopped after a public service announcement over the radio.
Along with public service announcements, the N.C. Forest Service has provided many educational programs to the public school system. To promote fire prevention, the N.C. Forest Service reached out to the local school system with Fire Prevention Week.
Forest management has been another focus for Ashe County. The N.C. Forest Service maintains continual checks for pests like the Gypsy Moth or Southern Pine Beetle that could be destructive for local forests.
According to Lewis, no Gypsy Moths were found in the 114 traps set in Ashe County. Another pest, the Southern Pine Beetle, caused alarm when they were discovered at 4,100 feet above sea level when they are not expected to live above 2,200 feet above sea level, said Lewis. However, Lewis said they disappeared after early freezes this year.
Currently, the N.C. Forest Service in Ashe County has finalized the first Firewise Community, the Stonebridge Homeowners Association.
The Firewise program focuses on reducing fire risk with fuel mitigation and providing emergency exits throughout properties.
"Stonebridge has been awarded a national award for efforts in fuel mitigation and emergency exits provided throughout the property," said the release.
Also during the BOC meeting:
- The emergency operations plan presented by Emergency Management Coordinator Patty Gambill was approved by the board in a 4-1 vote, with Price dissenting.
- The BOC also allotted $15,000 to West Jefferson for its bicentennial celebration after a 4-1 vote, with Price dissenting.
- Russ Hanes, Carol Coulter, Dr. Leigh Bradley, Steve Johnson, Marc Payne, and Donnie Johnson were appointed to the Ashe County Parks and Recreations Board in a 5-0 vote.


text:
CONCORD, N.C. – If you're interested in becoming certified as an official WKA / SFI 2- or 4-cycle tech official, this is the time of year to do it.
Click here to view and print the 2013 WKA Tech Seminar reservation form.
February will include three WKA / SFI Tech Certification seminars in three different areas of the country.
Next weekend the annual 2-Cycle and 4-Cycle Tech Seminar will take place at the OVKA Swap Meet at the Clark County Fairgrounds in Springfield, Ohio. Doors open for the popular karting trade show at 7 a.m. on Saturday, February 6. Registration will take place the Saturday morning with the seminar slated to begin at noon.
A 4-Cycle Tech Seminar will take place at the WKA Office in Concord, N.C., Saturday, February 9. This is the same weekend as the AKRA Kart Trade Show at the Metrolina Tradeshow Expo in Charlotte, N.C., about 15 minutes from the WKA office.
The trade show is open all day Friday and Saturday. Registration for the seminar will begin at 11:30 a.m. and the seminar will begin at noon.
Sunday, February 17 will conclude the month of seminars at Raceway Park in Englishtown, New Jersey. The Englishtown seminar is for 2- and 4-cycle. Registration will begin at 8:30 a.m. and the seminar will begin at 9.
WKA members who wish to become certified as WKA Technical Inspectors will take the SFI/WKA Certification Examination at the conclusion of the seminars. Those passing the open book examination will receive a 2-year WKA/SFI Technical Inspector certification.
The cost for any of these seminars is $125. That includes the seminar, the SFI examination and a copy of the 2013 Technical Manual. Those successfully completing the examination will receive a clothing patch and an ID card and will be included on the list of SFI / WKA Certified Technical Inspectors.


text:
Fox Creek 4
Lewisville 3
In the words of Fox Creek High School softball coach David Bell, Wednesday's elimination game on the road against Lewisville was "a barn burner." His team got a big-time pitching performance from Stephanie Bloedel, outstanding defense behind her and clutch hitting to allow Fox Creek to beat Lewisville and advance to the Upper State championship game.
The win avenged a 5-1 defeat at the hands of Lewisville on Monday. Bell credited his team with a better performance in the win-or-go-home game.
"We hit the ball better this time. We were more aggressive on the bases," Bell said of the narrow victory that sets up a showdown at Dixie for the Upper State title. Fox Creek (21-6-1) must win two games to just one for Dixie to advance to the Class A state championship series."It was a good ballgame to watch. Stephanie pitched a heck of a game."
Bloedel, the Predator ace, tossed another complete game, recording nine strikeouts in the win. She was supported by strong defense, as Hanna Culpepper made what Bell described as a "Willie Mays catch," to save two runs from scoring. That allowed Fox Creek time to grind out runs on offense. Nicole Gibson had a double and Betty Zigati delivered one of the biggest hits, with a two-run single.
Gametime for the contest with Dixie is still being determined but Bell said this was a milestone win for the Predator program.
"This is by far the furthest we've ever gone," he said.
Dillon 15
Silver Bluff 2
Silver Bluff saw its season come to an end in a lopsided loss to Dillon, but that didn't take away from what was an impressive run to advance deep in to the Class AA Lower State playoffs.
The Bulldogs (14-2) ran into a buzzsaw of an offensive team and made matters worse with 12 errors. Junior pitcher Karly Kinard was tagged for 12 hits, including four home runs, surrendering 15 runs. But just one of those was an earned run because of all the defensive miscues.
"We had a lot of errors and that was the best hitting team we've faced. It snowballed on us, but it shows us where we need to be as a softball team," Silver Bluff head coach Eric Hofstetter said. "We had a good run. Karly started to peak and that put us in position to do better."
While Dillon's offense dominated, the Bulldogs only runs came courtesy of a two-run single by Alexus Robertson. The bad news for Silver Bluff is that the season is over and all-star catcher Laini Frye will be lost to graduation. The good news is that the Bulldogs were a very young team this season and should return a strong core to make another run next year.
Notice about comments:
Aiken Standard is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point.
We do not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click the X that appears in the upper right corner when you hover over a comment. This will send the comment to Facebook for review. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Read our full terms and conditions.


text:
Find hotels in York using the list and search tools below. Find cheap and discounted hotel/motel rates in or nearby York, PA for your business or personal leisure travel. We list the best York, Pennsylvania motel and hotel rooms. Browse the York area hotels to find the perfect lodging! Please use the provided map of the York hotels. Booking 5+ Rooms? Find York Group Hotel DealsThe York center is around the area of Police Heritage Museum and the area of Glatfelter Paper Mill.
York Hotels/Accommodations
Next 20 York Hotels > [1 - 20 of 50]
Next: See My York Hotels with Pricing >


text: Clearwater is described as a "sea foam." It's a muted, bluish aqua cream with a matte finish. When sheered out, it almost looks like it has an overcast of gray. I think it's a rather interesting color, but it seemed extra creamy and had a thinner consistency than other Paint Pots, so it was harder to get really opaque color that didn't naturally want to sheer out. I had some slight creasing that was visible after eight hours of wear. MAC Sky Blue is more shimmery, powder. Inglot #367 is lighter, powder. Dior Blue Lagoon #1 is slightly brighter, powder. bareMinerals Illusion is lighter, powder. See comparison swatches. It was also similar an old, limited edition Paint Pot called Rollickin', which had shimmer to it.


text:
Manchester United's treble dream died as Cristiano Ronaldo scored on his return to Old Trafford.
Juventus could send striker Nicklas Bendtner back to Arsenal following the on-loan striker's conviction for drink-driving in his native Denmark.
Striker Georgios Samaras is calling on Turkish referee Firat Aydinus to ensure Celtic are not bundled out of the Champions League unfairly tonight at Juventus.
Full-back Sasha Riether has revealed that talks to keep him at Fulham are set to open this month as he bids to make his year-long loan move from German side Cologne a permanent one.
Sir Alex Ferguson was left 'distraught' as 10-man Manchester United crashed out of the Champions League after losing 2-1 to Real Madrid.
West Ham are set to send loan striker Andy Carroll back to Liverpool at the end of the season after deciding he has not done enough to justify a £17m switch and wages of £84,000 per week.
Chelsea are demanding that interim boss Rafael Benitez seals a top-four finish in the Premier League.
Swansea winger Wayne Routledge, 28, could be given a shock England call-up by manager Roy Hodgson.
Schalke striker Klaas-Jan Huntelaar has no intention of moving to the Premier League despite interest from Liverpool and Arsenal.
Manchester United crashed out of the Champions League last night after a controversial red card for Nani.
England U21s boss Stuart Pearce has admitted Jack Wilshere will NOT play for his Young Lions this summer.
Manchester United boss Sir Alex Ferguson reacted with fury as his side crashed out of the Champions League last night - victims of a cruel and undeserved sending off.
Manchester City are maintaining their interest in Roma's Argentine winger Erik Lamela, 21, who has been watched by Patrick Vieira.
Birmingham want to sign Inverness and Scotland midfielder Andrew Shinnie, 23, on a pre-contract agreement for the summer.
Celtic are keen on Liverpool's 6ft 5in striker Michael Ngoo, 20, who is currently on loan at Hearts.
Tottenham skipper Michael Dawson is back on the England radar almost two years after his last cap.
Arsenal are to become the first Premier League club to play in Vietnam after the Gunners announced they will play a pre-season friendly against the Vietnamese national side in Hanoi in July.
Cristiano Ronaldo broke Manchester United's hearts last night after Nani's sending off swung a tight game Madrid's way.
This was a good game ruined by a bad referee. A terrible decision by Cuneyt Cakir, sending off Nani for accidentally catching Alvaro Arbeloa, rightly enraged Manchester United players, who surrounded the Turkish official at the end.
Sir Alex Ferguson was left seething with rage as Manchester United's Champions League dreams were crushed by Cristiano Ronaldo on a dramatic night at Old Trafford, when a hugely controversial decision to send off Nani helped to sweep Real Madrid into the quarter-finals.
Neil Lennon, the Celtic manager, has accused Juventus rival Antonio Conte of "talking rubbish", as the row over how the Italian side defended in Glasgow three weeks ago continued to dominate the club's Champions League tie.
West Brom defender Jonas Olson insists he is happy at The Hawthorns despite having a summer get-out clause in his current contract.
Arsene Wenger wants to sign Ashley Williams, 28, from Swansea City at the end of the season, having lost faith in his central-defensive partnership of Thomas Vermaelen and Per Mertesacker.


text:
Pricing & Reservations - call 24 hours 800-242-1715
Refine Search:
34570 LA Highway 16Denham Springs, LA 70706
Phone: 225-665-3040
18.6 Miles from 70722
As low as
$ 92
per month
7375 Airline HighwayBaton Rouge, LA 70805
Phone: 225-356-7663
26.5 Miles from 70722
As low as
$ 69
per month
4756 Florida Blvd.Baton Rouge, LA 70806
Phone: 225-927-9425
28.9 Miles from 70722
As low as
$ 95
per month
Questions? Call 800-242-1715
For Your Convenience:
We've selected our most common size for you: 5x10.
To begin, please select the size you're most interested in.
Free Van/Truck Rental with Move-In (Learn More)
Climate Controlled Storage (Learn More)
Humidity Controlled Storage (Learn More)
Drive Up Access (Learn More)
It was the best experience I have had with a storage company, Mr. Ray was very attentive, informative and even offer and brought me and daugther water to our storage unit. It was a very very hot day, and we greatly appreicated his thoughtfulness. Because of his thoughtfulness I will never rent with any other storage company again, but Uncle Bobs thanks, thanks again to Mr. Ray for making this a good day for me and my family, i will never forget it.Leaisa from Baton Rouge, LA
August 26, 2014
I was suprised how pleased I would be after the experance I had with one of your competitors. Great job from all your employees, keep up the excellant service.Gary from Denham Springs, LA
August 25, 2014
I needed unit for emergency and the associate Jodi gave me all of the options and gave me time to think; she did not rush my decision at all and was very helpful. She has awesome customer service skills and is great at multitasking. I still have a unit currently and will always look for Uncle Bob from here on out. Associates like Jodi are what make businesses succeed!!Katrina from Baton Rouge, LA.
August 7, 2014
I can't say enough good things about this company. I had my unit almost 3yrs and I never had a problem. When I was moving out I didn't have anyone to help me on that last day and I called and was told that I had until the 5th of the month to empty it out. She was so nice about it and I was so glad to have the extra days.Sarah from D. S., LA
June 23, 2014
What a pleasure it is these days to work with a business who is knowledgeable and goes above and beyond the call to make a customer feel satisfied and happy. I'm in my 70's and had never had the need to rent a storage locker before....it was all new to me, but both Jayme and Connie made me feel comfortable, assuring me my personal belonging would be fine and safe. Knowing I could call on them at any time if the need arises, was also very re-assuring. Thank you for taking the time to put my mind at ease.Laura from Greenwell Springs, LA
March 26, 2014
Could you have the associates move my stuff for me?? Included in my rent?? (Just kidding...great people & place!)Boyd from Baton Rouge, LA
July 17, 2015
Hillary in the front office is wonderful! She was always so happy and always had a smile on her face! Its people like her who make it worth doing business with! Not only did she remember my name but she greeted me by first name every time she saw me! Thanks for a job well done!!!Meredith from Denham Springs, LA
June 23, 2015
The manager is very nice, respectful and his knowledge of the business is wonderfulKeeva from Baton Rouge, LA
June 22, 2015
great place for storage, customer service was excellentRayford from Baton Rouge, LA
June 18, 2015
I have been very impressed with the service at Uncle Bob's and I'm very confident that I chose the right storage facility. Many facilities that I called were unaware that humidity control was "a thing" let alone important. The staff has been very accommodating and friendly! Overall, an outstanding business relationship!Rhett from Baton Rouge, LA
May 3, 2015


text:
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Ms. 21st century
Let me take a detour on the way to answering that.
My friend James sent me a link to this post by Penelope Trunk. It's a pretty typical screed against grad school, of the kind that you've read before and that I've critiqued before. I could rebut it; as is typical of those sort of arguments, it's long on attitude and low on facts-- facts like median income and employment rate for those with graduate degrees, etc. But honestly, why bother? It strikes me that grad school is a bad idea for very many people and a fantastic idea for a much smaller number of people. And yet I find that notion-- that some choices are good for some and not good for others, and that there is no way to sort which is which except by living those choices-- to be anathema to both Trunk's project and our culture.
Now, I could go into take down mode with Ms. Trunk. There's a lot to mine there. You'll find Trunk is something of an archetype: the person who is Winning at Life and insists on telling you. Loudly. Page after page of her blog amounts to self-justifying and self-promoting. She has launched three successful startups! She has appeared on 200 radio stations! She used to be a professional beach volleyball player! But as I navigated the site, I just got more and more bummed out, to see a person whose entire shtick is built on projecting the confidence which no one with actual confidence ever feels the need to project. Turns out that Trunk herself went to grad school. (She can't simply disagree with those who believe grad school can sometimes make sense; she must "crush" them. What does that tell you?)
There's a single lesson that I have learned more forcefully and more completely than any other in my life.
Those who try to show you that they're strong are weak.
Strong people don't talk about their own strength. Weak people do that. Secure people don't try to convince you of their security. Insecure people do that. People who love themselves don't have to prove it. People who hate themselves try to. When you get down to the root of my complaints, why I'm so cranky about Internet culture, the thing that I object to most strongly is the refusal to let other people make their own choices. And my belief is that this refusal stems from a desperate need people feel to validate and justify their own lives. I've written in defense of monogamy many times, and one point I've made over and over again is that those who attack the romantic ideal often do so because they don't like the implied judgment of other people's successful relationships. When people say, for example, "everybody cheats," what they are in fact saying is "I cheat, and I can't countenance the implied judgment that might exist if others don't." Take that perverse logic and apply it to almost everything, and you've got something like 21st century aspirational culture.
I mean check out this post from Penelope Trunk's blog. Look at the list of what she accomplishes. I would put it to you that literally listing the reasons you feel good about yourself is a rather strong indication that, in fact, you don't feel that good about yourself. But if Trunk does it with less self-awareness than others, she is no less of a model for your typical blogger at Gawker or the Awl or wherever else. Take pop culture writing. When people talk about the AV Club, they talk about a place where people can discuss the pop culture they love. Who could argue with that idea? But when I look at the actual AV Club, I just see row upon row of people who need to let everyone know that being a fan of Community marks you as a connoisseur while being a fan of Two and a Half Men makes you a chump. Even our purely subjective aesthetic choices are not allowed to be our own anymore. If tastes are subjective and people are allowed to make whatever choices they want in the media they consume, people can't use those tastes to justify their self-conception as arty or hip or whatever. So what you get is a lot of people heaping derision on those who make different aesthetic choices. Nobody can leave other people alone anymore.
Perhaps if I thought that this all made people actually happy and fulfilled, I could let it go. But that's not what I find. I find, in fact, that the more time people spend justifying and validating themselves, the bigger gulf they feel between the self-concept they try to project and how they actually feel about themselves. It may be a cliche, and it may tiptoe up to the line of New Agey goop, but I do believe it's true: you will never achieve self-fulfillment by looking outside of yourself. Other people cannot validate you. Not that they shouldn't, but that they can't and won't. If they could, all of this manic effort to get them to would have certainly accomplished it by now. I drone on about self-pitying sci-fi fans not just because they're bullying and sanctimonious. It's also because the self-pity and sanctimony don't actually make them happy. As showy as they are in rejecting "high culture," they also yearn for validation from that culture. But that's an empty concept, and even if there were designated high priests of high culture, their approval would not make sci-fi fans happy. It comes from inside or it doesn't come at all.
If I am cruel, then I hope it is a kind cruelty, one in the service of getting past a particularly unhealthy cultural moment. For now I look out at a broader culture, made increasingly visible and explicit by the Internet, and see an army of Penelope Trunks: outwardly self-satisfied, brimming with false confidence and showy self-esteem, incapable of accepting that other people make other valid choices, terrified that someone will puncture the bubble of their self-presentation, desperate to position themselves above and apart from the same people they look to for validation, and deeply unhappy.
10 comments:
- Josh said...
Yeah, she's got Asperger's. I don't think that means she should be coddled (obviously, she doesn't need it), and I wholeheartedly agree that she is obnoxiously overconfident, prone to saying crazy bullshit, and a bizarre choice (in my opinion) for anyone to consistently take life advice from. But a refrain on her blog is "I don't really understand how normal human beings are supposed to treat each other," and so, from a rhetorical standpoint, she might not be the ideal central example for your otherwise very good argument.
- May 1, 2012 at 10:49 AM
- Will said...
Great post. I agree with practically everything written here. The one thing that is lacking though is the idea of trying to help people see a better life.
For example: A lot of Americans think they will be happier living in a HUGE house in the exurbs with a 45 minute commute and limited walking opportunity. I can accept that for some people, that truly is what they want. But for probably a majority of those in that situation, they got there because they have been confused and persuaded by our cultural love of space and home ownership. I don't know exactly how best to approach someone and say, "I think you might be happier with 40% less space, a 10 minute commute and a grocery store in walking distance." But I do feel the need to say it. Because hey, some people have been misled.
How does the well-intentioned person give advice if we have to accept everyone's personal preferences as their own (as opposed to a product of their upbringing)?
Basically, is there room for trying to help others out, as opposed to the poison that is criticizing to make myself feel superior?
- May 1, 2012 at 11:16 AM
What an excellent post. I don't really have anything to add. Just, damn, that's a good one.
I don't think that's so difficult. Give advice when asked for it. Recognize that regarding helping others out, advice (even when asked for) generally doesn't; and that there are plenty of other ways to help, but most of them are more difficult than giving advice.
- May 1, 2012 at 12:00 PM
"If tastes are subjective and people are allowed to make whatever choices they want in the media they consume, people can't use those tastes to justify their self-conception as arty or hip or whatever. So what you get is a lot of people heaping derision on those who make different aesthetic choices."
Thanks for making me think, yet again. BUT wouldn't this be better attributed to the freedom faceless internet posting gives you to say things that you would normally suppress in face-to-face conversation? The internet is an outlet for repressed thoughts.
- May 1, 2012 at 2:40 PM
- PrajK said...
I know this post wasn't about grad school per se. But since you write about it often, and you did raise the issue here, allow me to rant for a bit. I agree Trunk was ridiculous. And I completely agree that grad school is a perfectly good choice for many.
But, but, but...you're ignoring an important element of her argument. The life of the mind is wonderful, and there's a big part of me that would be happy if I stayed in that path. But in the end, we all need to put food on the table. And so it's not unfair to ask how a graduate degree will prepare you for getting a job. Especially since career prospects are at least part of the reason why some people get a graduate degree in the first place.
Yes, I know you can trot out statistics showing that PhDs have the lowest unemployment rate among all demographics. But those stats don't capture the insecurity, the pain, the self-doubt, the "how can it be so hard to get a job when I'm so smart and have a PhD" feeling that so many of us go through. I can't count the number of people who wished they dropped out after their masters (or earlier) precisely because of feelings like these. And the people I'm thinking of are scientists and engineers. I suspect it might even be worse for those in the humanities.
Just as we shouldn't ignore the fact that grad school is a fantastic decision for some people, we shouldn't ignore the fact that it was a terrible choice for others. It's not at all obvious to everyone that 6 years deeply exploring an intellectual topic is worth the lost income, the miserable job search, and the very late start to a career they could have had when they were 22. The worst part is that many don't realize that grad school was the wrong choice until they've spent six years doing it!
For all her flaws (and there are many), I suspect Trunk resonates with this group. If she could do so with more grace and nuance, why not highlight that at the end of this long--often wonderful, but sometimes miserable--journey, the real world still awaits? And in the real world, not everyone will value narrow expertise. Grad students are not always aware of this going in. And even if they are, they can still be reminded from time to time.
Even as far back as 1990, it was widely acknowledged that PhD students get very bad career advice. However poorly she may be doing it (and I agree she is doing a terrible job), Trunk is at least trying to solve a very real problem.
I get your indignation, and understand why you attack people like Trunk. Like you, and despite the fact that I've left, I feel very strongly that academics and grad students are "my people." But that's why it's even more important for us to recognize the kernel of wisdom in her piece. Unfortunately, your writing on this topic (not just this post) often reminds me why some of the most vicious anti-academia screeds are written by former academics.
It can be frightening to apply for a real job for the first time when you're almost 30 years old with few marketable skills. Career academics rarely respond to that emotion
and--even worse--sometimes belittle those who possess it. I wish that you would spend a bit more time working on that rather than just attacking the Penelope Trunks out there. They'll always be there, and will need to be put in their place from time to time. But I feel you can do so much more.
- May 1, 2012 at 11:12 PM
- Freddie said...
Well, I have written a bit about the PhD job market before. One point to make is that Trunk harps on opportunity cost, the idea that even funded graduate students are giving up their time. But number one, that is the fundamental problem I'm talking about: that she thinks she's in a better position to determine what people's priorities should be. Number two, opportunity cost implies opportunity. For many people, the job they'd be getting instead of going to grad school does not exist.
But in the end, we all need to put food on the table. And so it's not unfair to ask how a graduate degree will prepare you for getting a job.
This would be a far more compelling argument coming from someone who doesn't homeschool her kids, which is absolutely a privilege of the affluent and directly cuts against the need to put food on the table, or someone who doesn't constantly brag about dropping out of life to live on a pig farm. If she actually had those priorities, she'd still be wrong. But she doesn't; she wants to have it both ways.
- May 2, 2012 at 5:48 AM
Freddie - I agree with you about Trunk's flaws - her pretty frequent abuses of logic and statistics, and her lack of self-awareness - but at the same time, she penetrates through to truths that are obscured by more even-handed writers. Her piece on divorce from earlier this year was powerful and actually validated by the often tendentious counterarguments in her responses section.
She would also vehemently disagree with your statement that no opportunity costs exist ("the job they'd be getting instead of going to grad school does not exist"). I am an academic refugee of almost twenty years and, you know what, I agree with Trunk on this matter.
- May 3, 2012 at 3:56 PM
- Freddie said...
What business of it is yours telling people what their opportunities are? What the logical choices are for their own lives?
- May 3, 2012 at 10:15 PM
Not sure I understand your point. Trunk is providing advice. Even if it is strongly-worded advice, it doesn't compell anyone to follow it.
Individual decisions don't occur in some sort of self-directed vacuum. They are influenced by both general advice (such as Trunk's) or tailored advice from a personal contact. Both types of advice can be good or bad and both contain generalizations that aren't always applicable.
- May 4, 2012 at 11:52 AM
- Paul Sherrard said...
It's best to just read Cracked.com instead of the AV Club, and not do so ironically. And so forth.
- May 5, 2012 at 9:53 AM


text:
Attached Photo (Credit: GoMocs.com): Junior Agathe Sauzon tied teammate Jordan Britt for fifth-place at the Lady Bulldog Individual
ATHENS, Ga. --- Jordan Britt (Chattanooga) and defending Southern Conference medalist Agathe Sauzon (Publier, France) tied for fifth at the Lady Bulldog Individual Saturday. The duo navigated the 36-hole day at University of Georgia Golf Course five-over par, 149.
Britt opened with a 77, but turned it on for her second 18. She tied for the low round of the day with an even-par 72.
Sauzon was consistent. She was in third after the opening 18 holes as her 75 (+3) was just two strokes off the pace. She carded a two-over 74 for round two as she and Britt finished two shots behind first.
Alex Harrell (Auburn) and Chessey Thomas (Tennessee) matched Britt's afternoon 72 to break out of their tie for third with Sauzon to share the title at plus three (147).
Emily McLennan (Queensland, Australia) also finished in the top 20. She tied for 19th at 156 completing her day with a one-over par 73.
Chattanooga opens the spring schedule a week later, February 17-18, at the Central District Invitational. This is the second year the Mocs enter the event hosted by Michigan State on the Cypress Course in Lakewood Ranch, Fla.
GoMocs.com is the official website of the Chattanooga Mocs. The Mocs can also be followed on their official Facebook page or on Twitter. Find out how to join the UTC Mocs Club and support more than 300 student-athletes by clicking here.