Question re Magisterium

[Lisdogan]

I have read the thread and think it is worth noting a section of the Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), issued by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (Holy Office):

“While insisting on the Church’s ability to teach infallibly, it acknowledges that in expressing revelation ‘difficulties arise from the historical condition’: (1) the meaning of faith pronouncements 'depends partly on the power of language used at a certain…time; (2) some dogmatic truth is at first expressed imcompletely and later…receives a fuller and more perfect expression; (3) pronouncements usually have a limited intention ‘of solving certain questions or removing certain errors’; and (4) the truths being taught, while ‘distinct from the changeable conceptions of a given epoch’ are sometimes phrased by the Magisterium ‘in terms that bear the traces of such conceptions’. Accordingly, so as to present more clearly the same truth, the Magisterium, profiting from theological debate, may reformulate them.”

(72:36, The New Jerome Biblical Commentary)

 

[CentralFLJames]

I have read the thread and think it is worth noting a section of the Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), issued by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (Holy Office):

“While insisting on the Church’s ability to teach infallibly, it acknowledges that in expressing revelation ‘difficulties arise from the historical condition’: (1) the meaning of faith pronouncements 'depends partly on the power of language used at a certain…time; (2) some dogmatic truth is at first expressed incompletely and later…receives a fuller and more perfect expression; (3) pronouncements usually have a limited intention ‘of solving certain questions or removing certain errors’; and (4) the truths being taught, while ‘distinct from the changeable conceptions of a given epoch’ are sometimes phrased by the Magisterium ‘in terms that bear the traces of such conceptions’. Accordingly, so as to present more clearly the same truth, the Magisterium, profiting from theological debate, may reformulate them.”

(72:36, The New Jerome Biblical Commentary)

I think this is an honest admission and recognition that semantics change and that greater focus and insight is developed over time through the discovery of deeper revelation. This just places a burden on the magisterum to be careful in forming new dogma or teaching so that it does not overly specify a thing too soon; and allows for a natural refinement as the human intellectual and expressive means matures to properly express what it has heard spiritually. Further, Catholics, by the very nature of universal scope are dealing with a dichotomy of language lexicons where the corpus of the Church do not speak a common lingua-franca - even when hearing a single Spiritual voice. Clearly, we tend to think and express in terms of our primary language semantics. And this is where nuanced expression needs to be refined and developed over time - and on occasion updated as the semantics shift around us. Latin is supposed to be the common lingua franca of the church but few speak of the Vulgate speak it anymore so there is always the challenge in translating and assimilating universal teaching in a plurality of tongues.

All more reason for having a single teaching office and a single locus of thought and interpretation. We don’t need a new tower of babel and workers all hearing different things.

James

 

[itsjustdave1988]

“We only owe our religious obedience to our parish pastor, our ordinary (normally the diocesan bishop), and the Roman Pontiff. These three men are the lawful pastors of our soul, and we must submit to them in matters religious”

Would you not agree that you are not to submit to your priest if you feel he is teaching against Catholic teaching (both infallible and authoritative/fallible)?

St. Thomas Aquinas taught that we are obliged to obey our lawful superiors excepting on two conditions: 1) the superior demands something of us outside his scope of responsibility, or 2) the superior demands something of us contrary to higher authority. (cf. Summa Theologica, IIb, 104, 5).

The kind of obedience described above is called “sufficient obedience” by St. Thomas, because this kind of obedience is necessary for salvation.

However, if condition 1) from above exists, we are still permitted obey our superior. This is called by St. Thomas, “perfect obedience.” Even if outside the scope of authority of our superiors, we are permitted to obey him in all things lawful.

Yet, if condition 2) exists, we are NOT permitted to obey our superior. Obeying contrary to the demands of higher authority is called by St. Thomas, “indiscreet obedience,” which is a sin.

Certainly, in the case of immediate “peril,” St. Thomas teaches us that “necessity needs no dispensation.”

…if the observance of the law according to the letter does not involve any sudden risk needing instant remedy, it is not competent for everyone to expound what is useful and what is not useful…those alone can do this who are in authority, and who, on account of such like cases, have the power to dispense from the laws. If, however, the peril be so sudden as not to allow of the delay involved by referring the matter to authority, the mere necessity brings with it a dispensation, since necessity knows no law. Summa Theologica, IIa, 96, 6]

I bring this up because the “necessity knows no law” axiom has been improperly used to dissent by all kinds of people, whether so-called “traditionalists” or “progressives.” Properly applied according to St. Thomas, “necessity” only pertains to when there is immediate harm such that there is no time to seek dispensation from higher authority.

So, if in conscience, you have doubt about the lawfulness of your superior’s demands and discern that condition 2) may be present, and you do not have sufficient time to consult higher authority on the matter, then by necessity you have dispensation from obedience to the perilous demand of your lawful superior. However, if there does exist time to consult higher authority, you are obliged to do so.

continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

So, if our parish priest should demand something contrary to the demands of our diocesan bishop, we are not permitted to obey. Likewise, if our diocesan bishop demands something contrary to the demands of the Roman Pontiff, we are not permitted to obey.

Finally, with special respect toward obedience to the chief pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff, the following saints and doctors have this to say:

St. Catherine of Sienna: “Divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other.** And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil.” (Letter to Brother Antonio of Nizza).

** St. Robert Bellarmine:** "…the pontiff not only should not and cannot preach heresy, but also should always teach the truth, and he will certainly do this since the Lord commanded him to confirm his brothers, and therefore he added: I have asked for you that your faith not fail, i.e. that the preaching of the true faith not fail in your see…Secondly it is proved from the result, for so far there has been no heretic, or certainly it cannot be proved of any that he was a heretic. Therefore it is a sign that this cannot happen." De Romano Pontifice, Bk IV, Ch. 6]

** Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman:** “*”**I say with Cardinal Bellarmine whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed. No good can come from disobedience. ***His facts and his warnings may be all wrong; his deliberations may have been biassed. He may have been misled. Imperiousness and craft, tyranny and cruelty, may be patent in the conduct of his advisers and instruments. But when he speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak, and all those imperfections and sins of individuals are overruled for that result which our Lord intends (just as the action of the wicked and of enemies to the Church are overruled) and therefore the Pope’s word stands, and a blessing goes with obedience to it, and no blessing with disobedience."[John Henry Newman “'The Oratory, Novr. 10, 1867”, The Genius of Newman (1914), by Wilfrid Ward, Vol II, Ch. 26]

St. Pius X: “And how should one love the Pope? Not merely by word nor tongue, but works and integrity. When one is loved, all of that person’s thoughts, wills, and desires are sought out for assent…to demonstrate our love to the Pope it is necessary to obey him…when we love the Pope, … we do not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of other persons – no matter how learned – who dissent from the Pope. For whatever may be their learning, they are not holy, for where there is holiness there cannot be dissent with the Pope.” [allocution of 18 November, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695]

If a person has multiple parishes near him, is it sinful for him to go to another church if his thinking/perspective matches up more with another area priest?

While I personally disagree with this kind of “parish shopping”, it may be permitted within current Church law, depending upon local diocesan norms. I personally believe the geographically closest parish is the family God intends for us to share in our worship, even if there are some “crazy uncles” in the parish clergy that one must suffer from time to time. If the preaching is contrary to doctrine, I figure I must be sent there by Divine providence to help teach him what his pastor is teaching. Nonetheless, one must weigh this against what may be the “greater evil” of harm done to one’s children being routinely exposed to heterodox or even heretical teachings.

Of course this gets somewhat back into the OP’ers question - how do you know you are legitimately dissenting/resisting rather than sinfully disobeying.

See my reference to St. Thomas Aquinas above.

I’m also wondering if the citations of canon law, DV, and LG do not beg the question as perhaps they are reformable in and of themselves.

Canon law and the constitutions they are based upon are not irreformable (excepting when they also touch upon dogma). However, until and unless revised by lawful authority, they are binding upon all Catholics.

Keep in mind to, Lumen Gentium also gives the faithful this right and obligation:

By reason of the knowledge, competence, or pre-eminence which they have, the laity are empowered—indeed sometimes obliged—to manifest their opinion on those things which pertain to the good of the Church. If the occasion should arise, this should be done through the institutions established by the Church for that purpose, and always with truth, courage, and prudence, and with reverence and charity toward those who, by reason of their office, represent the person of Christ.*** The laity should, as all Christians, promptly accept in Christian obedience decisions of their spiritual shepherds***, since they are representatives of Christ as well as teachers and rulers in the Church.
[Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, no. 37]
For more on how to charitably and reverently manifest one’s opinion for the good of the Church in accordance with canon law, see here:

Effective Lay Witness Protocol
cuf.org/FaithFacts/protocol.asp

 

[The_Dude]

“Obeying contrary to the demands of higher authority is called by St. Thomas, “indiscreet obedience,” which is a sin.”

“So, if our parish priest should demand something contrary to the demands of our diocesan bishop, we are not permitted to obey. Likewise, if our diocesan bishop demands something contrary to the demands of the Roman Pontiff, we are not permitted to obey.”

Right, but really the “demands of the Roman Pontiff” come from his and Magisterial writings to the Church, which is where the whole problem stems from as those teachings are to be interpreted, and the faithful really do not have a chance to interact with the Pope directly on issues.

Say you, with all charity towards your priest, sincerely believe he is in error in teaching something (say to the parish at large in a homily/bulletin or just a subset in study groups or to you individually) - you approach him tactfully to discuss the matter armed with your magisterial documents and theologians that support your interpretation (I daresay there are many lay catholics more theologically astute than their priests) - he counters with his own interpretation of those documents and perhaps brings documentation supporting his view and claims you are the one misinterpreting, not him, and you should submit. Do you still submit even though you think he really is in error? You could consult the bishop I suppose (as you should for non-perilous situations as you noted), but I doubt the bishop really has time to deal with every parishioner’s doubts. But say you’re lucky and he is able to interact with you and supports the priest. Well, now you still think the bishop and priest are just completely misinterpreting the magisterial teaching on this issue and are liberal progressives or whatever, but of course you really can’t just phone up the Pope or whatever for clarification.

It just seems to me that since there is quite a bit of disagreement amongst Catholics and theologians and bishops over Magisterial documents/teachings (they are non-perspicuous in a sense) and the obligatory force of certain statements, that this could be quite a common issue as it might not be very clear what exactly the “demands of the higher authority” actually consist of. Some teachings are clear of course as being a fully defined dogma/moral, the Trinity, Purgatory, etc. but there are many grey areas.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Right, but really the “demands of the Roman Pontiff” come from his and Magisterial writings to the Church, which is where the whole problem stems from as those teachings are to be interpreted, and the faithful really do not have a chance to interact with the Pope directly on issues.

Any communication requires thought in order to understand the communication. However, this is not as difficult as exegesis of an ancient document written in an ancient language. Furthermore, the Church has an office responsible for interpreting these documents, so it is not an intractable problem. Since we have a living magisterium, two-way communication can occur. Contacting the Apostolic Nuncio or the Roman Curia is not as difficult as you might think.

For example, there was some doubt as to what John Paul II meant in *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, *so a request for clarification or *dubium *was sent to the Holy See. A Responsum ad dubium was provided. See here.

…Well, now you still think the bishop and priest are just completely misinterpreting the magisterial teaching on this issue and are liberal progressives or whatever, but of course you really can’t just phone up the Pope or whatever for clarification.

The protocol I recommended takes you step-by-step through this process.

Effective Lay Witness Protocol
cuf.org/FaithFacts/protocol.asp

For instance,

H. After contacting the archbishop without success, contact the Apostolic Nuncio at the following address: Apostolic Nuncio, 3339 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Washington, DC 20008.

I. If the above approaches prove fruitless, contact the Holy See. If it becomes necessary to take this final step, proper procedures must be used and the matter directed to the proper office of the Holy See, or your request will not be addressed. To obtain assistance in taking this step, contact [Catholics United for the Faith] Information Services at (800) 693-2484. If we are unable to help you directly, we will refer you to competent persons who can.

You have recourse to the Holy See, if necessary. You may need the patience of St. Catherine of Sienna, but you’d be surprised at how accessible the Holy See can be, when the matter is serious enough.

Cardinal Francis Arinze, the prefect for Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, visited my diocese and spoke on the responsibility of the lay faithful. You can view it on video, here:

The Apostolate Specific to the Lay Faithful, Cardinal Francis Arinze

… it might not be very clear what exactly the “demands of the higher authority” actually consist of…there are many grey areas.

Is there a particular issue that you have in mind? Perhaps discussion in this forum could help. Most of what I have come across is not that ambiguous.

See also, Obedience to a Priest

 

[CThomas]

“The Dude” – these are some really good and clarifying questions you’re asking. I also think they’re really important in light of the central role that the authority of the magisterium plays in Catholic doctrine. I’d be really interested to know if there are concrete, determinate answers to these questions – particularly, when (if ever) it is permissible to disobey if both your priest and your bishop go way off the reservation. The answer can’t be that you can do it if they are committing obvious errors or something such, because that leaves the individual believer in the driver’s seat, where, I assume, he must not be on the Catholic view.

Thanks for clarifying these questions.

CThomas

 

[Chancellor]

The Dude and CThomas,

The reasoning regarding the magisterium must be used with great caution.

The Roman Catholic Church is not a dictatorship, nor is the magisterium subject to the individual interpretation of lay people.

We simply cannot use the magisterium like a fundamentalist uses scripture. It may not be “proof texted”. Quoting from the magisterium will almost always lead to a wrong conclusion.

The argument that we cannot do what a priest wants if it disagrees with the bishop, or what the bishop wants if it disagrees with the magisterium is simply incorrect.

the magisterium is not “law” in the sense that most Americans use the word. The concepts of Roman law which undergird Church law are much different than the English Common Law that undergirds American civil law.

There is the similarity that when a law is passed by congress it must then go to a rules committee to be put into a form that is useable. Similarly, the magisterium is put into practice using Canon Law.

Since Canon Law is a multiyear course of study lets just skip to the key point:

In most cases the Ordinary (Bishop/Eparch, or Superior of an Order) has complete authority to interpret the magisterium and to adapt it to the needs of his diocese/eparchy/order)

Similarly, a parish priest has the same authority in his parish.

Example: I live in an area that includes 22 soverign nations(Indian Reservations if you must) and one state of the USA. All of this comprises 2 and one-half dioceses. The soverign nations have at least 7 different native languages, only one of which exists in a written form. So what is the point? In the real world the Catholic expression can radically differ from place to place. Bishops and priests MUST adapt or the Church would die.

The pope is not the bishop’s boss in most areas. He appoints bishops but only has very limited power to remove one. Priests have large areas of authority that are not under the control of the bishop.

Final Point: On rare occasions we can get some action from the bishop by complaining about a priest. It is impossible in most cases to go over a bishop’s head, the single exception is public scandal. Does anyone ever wonder why Mother Angelica stopped making ad hominem attacks on Cardinals?

Take Home Point: The magisterium may not be “proof texted”, it is subject to meta-interpretation including (but not limited to) Canon Law and the discretion of the bishop and priest. Finding something written in the magisterium might make it true, but it does not make it applicable.

Incidently, in practice the Catholic Church does not allow “proof texting” scripture either. Scriptural interpretation must be based on the totality of scripture and revelant tradition.

The Chancellor

 

[CatsAndDogs]

In most cases the Ordinary (Bishop/Eparch, or Superior of an Order) has complete authority to interpret the magisterium and to adapt it to the needs of his diocese/eparchy/order)

Similarly, a parish priest has the same authority in his parish.

The Chancellor

So, if I’m from a teeny tiny little island country and we are composed of one Archdiocese containing one Diocese, which in turn contains one Parish, and our one Priest, who happens to be the Archbishop of our Archdiocese is a complete “Nimrod” (shall we say) and whom I’d rather not “follow” in his wacky interpretations of “Catholic doctrine”,…

…I need to find another country to inhabit?

 

[Chancellor]

So, if I’m from a teeny tiny little island country and we are composed of one Archdiocese containing one Diocese, which in turn contains one Parish, and our one Priest, who happens to be the Archbishop of our Archdiocese is a complete “Nimrod” (shall we say) and whom I’d rather not “follow” in his wacky interpretations of “Catholic doctrine”,…

…I need to find another country to inhabit?

Well, I guess that would be one possibility. I recently moved to a new diocese and we definitely did some shopping before choosing a parish (with the bishop’s knowledge and approval incidentally). And yes, in the course of Church history there may have been more than one “Nimrod” wearing a mitre.

My point,however, is that if we ask the Vatican for a correct interpretation the answer will be “ask your bishop or priest”.

Catholicism is about living the faith, not asserting beliefs. Yesterday the Pope instructed the Church to give great latitude in allowing Eucharist to young people. To paraphrase Benedict XVI, he said that he used to be alot more strict but as Pope he could see things a little differently. So, here we will go again as the legalists will condemn BXVI as a liberal and proclaim the imminent death of the Church.

As for me, I know that if it were not for the triumph of mercy over judgement I would be in for a long hot future.

P.S. Some of the Nimrods are insufferable. My idea of hell would be to be stuck on the island you describe, but with no where else to go.

May our Lord bless you with a good priest.

The Chancellor

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… I’d be really interested to know if there are concrete, determinate answers to these questions – particularly, when (if ever) it is permissible to disobey if both your priest and your bishop go way off the reservation. The answer can’t be that you can do it if they are committing obvious errors or something such, because that leaves the individual believer in the driver’s seat, where, I assume, he must not be on the Catholic view.

I believe, as I explained above, that Catholic theology teaches:

We are obliged to obey our lawful superiors excepting on two conditions: 1) the superior demands something of us outside his scope of responsibility, or 2) the superior demands something of us contrary to higher authority. (cf. Summa Theologica, IIb, 104, 5).

Does that put the individual believer in the “driver seat?” Each individual certainly has the responsibility to conscientiously discern between what is truth and what is error, between what is a morally good from what is a morally bad action. One must constantly inform their conscience and one must always obey a certain conscience. Obeying a certain conscience does not necessarily excuse from sin if following an erroneous conscience, if that error was due to ignorance of things one is obliged (and is capable) of knowing.

The problem arises when one has a doubtful or *uncertain *conscience. That is when we are called to seek further guidance from our priest, and if necessary, our bishop, and if still necessary, the Holy See, in order to remove the doubt.

Once doubt is removed, we may not obey our superior in matters contrary to higher authority (unlawful orders, as we say in the military). In the special case of matters which, do to the immediate peril involved, not having the time to seek clarification from higher authority for removal of doubt, then we have what is called a “doubt of law” which is not binding according to the universal canons of the Church. In other words, in matters of doubt, we are called to take the safest course of action.

 

[Chancellor]

itsjustdave,

your post was very nicely stated. I especially applaud the seeking of wisdom directly prom the priest first. Here are som nstrategies that readers might find helpful/

In my experience a very good resource is often the ministrues department of the diocese, the diocesan library etc.

A good strategy can be to call and ask who among the clergy or departmental laity might be a good resource. The diocesan newspaper folks often are excellent resources as well. A letter to the editor that is carefully and respectfully phrased can also be helpful.

The Catholic Church is full of people who are often mature lifelong servants of God.

Approaches to avoid:

Charges of heresy.
Smearing priests (or other ad hominem attacks)
“proof texting” the magisterium.

Again, thanks for an excellent post…

The Chancellor

 

[JRKH]

itsjustdave,

your post was very nicely stated. I especially applaud the seeking of wisdom directly prom the priest first. Here are som nstrategies that readers might find helpful/

In my experience a very good resource is often the ministrues department of the diocese, the diocesan library etc.

A good strategy can be to call and ask who among the clergy or departmental laity might be a good resource. The diocesan newspaper folks often are excellent resources as well. A letter to the editor that is carefully and respectfully phrased can also be helpful.

The Catholic Church is full of people who are often mature lifelong servants of God.

Approaches to avoid:

Charges of heresy.
Smearing priests (or other ad hominem attacks)
“proof texting” the magisterium.

Again, thanks for an excellent post…

The Chancellor

I will echo your sentiments re: the excellant posts here.

To this I would just add the instruction of Jesus to the Jews and His disciples:

Matthew 23: 1-3
Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.

Thus, obedience to ones immediate religious superior, even if the superior is in error incurs no sin upon the one obeying. Thus, if there is doubt on our part as to the validity of some item, our first duty should be obedience.
Conscience, as in well formed conscience, must also be used. If something seem so agregious that you cannot, in good conscience, obey, then one should seek council and guidence as you describe above.

Peace
James

 

[CatsAndDogs]

P.S. Some of the Nimrods are insufferable.

My idea of hell would be to be stuck on the island you describe, but with no where else to go.

The Chancellor

Yes, hell is the great (though torturous) planet of Minimononesia inhabited by you and Archbishop Nimrod Whoyagonnacall Whereyagonnago!

Amen!

(( Sounds like Pokoponesia, whose “King”, famously, said this:
[king] Pokopo believes that whether your oppressing a people or running a resort you go with your strengths and this speech sums that up for Pokopo quite well, “I am not a smart man. I am not an honest man. I am not a clean man. I am not a rational man. But I am a very big man.” ))

 

[Chancellor]

Yes, hell is the great (though torturous) planet of Minimononesia inhabited by you and Archbishop Nimrod Whoyagonnacall Whereyagonnago!

Amen!

(( Sounds like Pokoponesia, whose “King”, famously, said this:
[king] Pokopo believes that whether your oppressing a people or running a resort you go with your strengths and this speech sums that up for Pokopo quite well, “I am not a smart man. I am not an honest man. I am not a clean man. I am not a rational man. But I am a very big man.” ))

CatsandDogs;

This is terrible. The penultimate ring of hell. The only thing possibly worse would be Minimononesia in the company of my first wife.

T.C.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

CatsandDogs;

This is terrible. The penultimate ring of hell. The only thing possibly worse would be Minimononesia in the company of my first wife.

T.C.

Ka-ruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!

(( That’s Pokoponesian for “Kill me NOW, drag me across the a’a lava fields, so I don’t have to hear anymore nagging!” ))

 

[Chancellor]

Ka-ruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!

(( That’s Pokoponesian for “Kill me NOW, drag me across the a’a lava fields, so I don’t have to hear anymore nagging!” ))

Do you think there is a sneaky Aku Bird that can get me out of this?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Do you think there is a sneaky Aku Bird that can get me out of this?

Aznuts! Dem Aku stay stink-eye kine birds, eh brah?

Why da kama’aina HATE dem Aku lolo buggah birds:

[SIGN]“An Aku Bird arrives at the party empty-handed, but does not hesitate to stick its hand in the cooler for a cold one. And another. And another. And yet another. And when it¹s time to refill the cooler, an Aku Bird never chips in. Once the cooler is full again, an Aku Bird is usually the first one to grab another cold one. We all know an Aku Bird or two. We don¹t like them. Warn your friends and family if you spot an Aku Bird at your next gathering.”[/SIGN]

 

[Chancellor]

Aznuts! Dem Aku stay stink-eye kine birds, eh brah?

Why da kama’aina HATE dem Aku lolo buggah birds:

[SIGN]“An Aku Bird arrives at the party empty-handed, but does not hesitate to stick its hand in the cooler for a cold one. And another. And another. And yet another. And when it¹s time to refill the cooler, an Aku Bird never chips in. Once the cooler is full again, an Aku Bird is usually the first one to grab another cold one. We all know an Aku Bird or two. We don¹t like them. Warn your friends and family if you spot an Aku Bird at your next gathering.”[/SIGN]

Its settled then. I’ll disguise myself as a long cold Fire Rock and await rescue. But would the magisterium approve?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Its settled then. I’ll disguise myself as a long cold Fire Rock and await rescue. But would the magisterium approve?

No rescue from hell, brah!