Yes, two people just independently (without knowing each other or what the other had written) made the same "colossal" mistake, a corruption of the faith ... strange.
No, Drew, you're the one corrupting faith and promoting the same error (heresy) as the Protestants ... the only difference between you and the Prots being that the Prots recognize only one source of dogma (Sacred Scripture) while you recognize two (Sacred Scripture and Tradition). Otherwise, your thesis is identical to theirs, and is simply not Catholic.
Another perspective on the distinction would be that between quoad se and quoad nos, where something might be dogma quoad se but does not become dogma quoad nos until it's proposed as such by the Church's infallible teaching authority.
Then of course, as I've pointed out, and all Catholic theologians admit, there's the content of dogma, i.e. WHAT is believed, vs. WHY it's believed. St. Thomas clearly teaches the distinction, namely, that natural truths are believed on their own merits, whereas supernatural truths can only be believed based on the authority of the One Revealing them, and it's a combined act of intellect and will, the latter being drawn by the intellectual motives of credibility into a submission of the will to that authority. But supernatural truths are simply not knowable on their own or intrinsically. Vatican I made that definition quite clear.
Here's another way to look at it. So, we believe dogma due to the authority of God revealing. But how do we know that it was God who revealed these things? Did God come down and tell us that it was He behind Sacred Scripture and Tradition? Of course not. We accepted it based upon the testimony of the Church, those whom He sent to communicate this to us. If we didn't believe in and accept their testimony, who know? ... they could have made the whole thing up, just like Mohammed made up his fake religion. Just as it's absurd to believe, as the Prots do, that somehow God plopped the Bible down onto earth from heaven in the same way he wrote on the stone tables for Moses (and even then we have to take Moses' word for it, and believe that he didn't just carve those up himself during his prolonged stay alone up there and pretend that God did it). Similarly, God didn't just plop "Tradition" down, along with the Bible. And, just as the Prots decided that the Bible did not require any authoritative interpretation (since it was their "rule of faith") ... leading to there being currently over 23,000 different Prot denominations with varying interpretations of said Bible, it's precisely the same grave error and "corruption of faith" to assert the same thing of Tradition, that it requires no interpretation. Long before the Prots came along, when people still believed in Tradition, there were myriad heresies from the very beginnings of the Church, from people who claimed a different interpretation of Bible and Tradition. How does one discern the correct interpretation and the false one? Obviously by relying upon the authority of the Church.
Ladislaus,
You have a long track record of posting gross errors and then, rather than correcting them, trying to cover your tracks by "esoteric" qualifications that muddle the issue and often lead to bigger errors. You routinely post without having read or reflected on the question at hand which is evidence of sloth and offer "authoritative" opinions ground on thin air. You are doing the same thing with this current thread. So I will freely link your previous posts as I clean up your mess.
Re: Why SSPX Cannot Defend Catholic Tradition - Bakery & Wine Cellar Consecrations «
Reply #105 on: July 28, 2023, 03:14:09 PM
Protestants believe that the remote rule of faith is scripture alone and the proximate rule of faith is the individual believer. Protestants reject that the Magisterium of the Church is intrinsic to the faith, that is, of divine revelation. In fact it is one of the fundamental doctrines uniting all Protestants. I affirm that the remote rule of faith is Scripture and Tradition and the proximate rule of faith is dogma. Since the instrumental and material cause of dogma is the Magisterium that Protestants reject, it is not possible to be a Protestant. What you have said is calumny because you cannot produce a single post from me calling into question that the Magisterium of the Church is of divine revelation. Besides being calumny, it is an ignorant accusation.
But on the other hand, I can produce posts from you denying that the Magisterium is intrinsic to the faith, that is, part of divine revelation. Here are links to posts where you made the colossal error that the "magisterium of the Church IS NOT part of divine revelation" but, as you said, it is "formally distinct." The posts also contain Magisterial statements referring to dogma as the rule of faith.
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? «
Reply #146 on: March 20, 2018, 10:11:04 PM
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? «
Reply #141 on: March 20, 2018, 07:22:26 AM »
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? «
Reply #182 on: March 23, 2018, 08:59:53 PM
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? «
Reply #236 on: March 26, 2018, 09:37:49 PM
And lastly, a link to a post the docuмents multiple errors providing specific citations:
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? «
Reply #251 on: March 27, 2018, 07:12:01 PM
It is good that you have in some measure corrected your error that corrupted the virtue of faith by distinguishing a difference between
what we believe and
why we believe it. But for clarity, there is no such thing as "WHAT is believed vs. WHY it's believed" and it has nothing to do with the distinction between natural truths and divinely revealed truths. Here is a link previously correcting your error on this question.
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? «
Reply #175 on: March 23, 2018, 02:13:52 PM
The entire thread,
Is Fr. Ringrose dumping the R&R crowd?, has an interesting history. The thread extended to 174 pages when it was locked by the Moderator who then deleted all your posts and Cantarella's posts which reduced the thread to 76 pages. Nearly 100 pages attributed to you and Cantarella alone were considered not worth retaining! Your posts and Cantarella's were not lost entirely because when replying I always quoted your entire posts so that there would be no question of taking you out of context. The thread has been read nearly 240,000 times. The reading have increased. It has been read over 70,000 times in the last 15 months. I have been contacted many times by those who appreciate the clarity brought to confusing questions.
You claim that the magisterium is your proximate rule of faith but you constantly use the term equivocally. But this is just another obfuscation. The pope holds the keys to the magisterium, so no matter how you understand the term, the pope is therefore your proximate rule of faith. You confuse always means and ends. The end of a Magisterial act is dogma. Dogma is the proximate rule of faith. This truth is established by quotations provided by Church fathers, Councils and theologians in the Ringrose thread but that made no impression on you. Let's explain once again why the definition of heresy makes this necessarily so and what the implications of this means to you.
St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas." The genus of both faith and heresy is the deposit of faith by those who "professed the faith of Christ." The species difference it that the heretic "corrupts" dogma and the faithful do not. This is an
essential definition. Essential definitions are the most intelligible of all definitions for a specific reason.
In a previous post I cited St. Thomas who teaches that the existence of God IS NOT self-evident necessarily. Once the terms of the definition are understood regarding the existence of God, then, the existence of God is not just evident, but becomes a self-evident necessary truth. Vatican I dogmatized that the existence of God can be known with certainty from created things. This means that the terms are themselves evident that must be understood to provide an essential definition that God exists. This is what essential definitions do. When the terms of the proposition are understood, the truth becomes self-evident. Yet, there are many who claim to be atheists. They reject the definition of the terms.
To deny that dogma is the proximate rule of faith requires the rejection of the terms of the definition of heresy as the rejection of dogma. It begins with denying dogma in its essence which is the heresy of Modernism, as well as Neo-modernism. There can only be a distinction between dogma
quoad se and dogma
quoad nos by someone who corrupts the definition of dogma. But, corruption of definitions is your forte. Dogma is divine revelation formally defined by the Magisterium of the Church and proposed to all the faithful as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith. So how is it possible that dogma could be "
quoad se" because there is no self-referential subjective quality to dogma?
Neo-modernism as heresy says exactly the opposite. It claims that dogma is
formally divine and materially human. It claims that the material human element must undergo perpetual refinement by the magisterium to better approximate the divine truth. It denies that there is anything definitive with dogma and consequently one must constantly ask the magisterium what dogma currently means today. They hold the magisterium as the proximate rule of faith, that is, the pope, and look to him to determine what now is to be held as a formal object of faith.
You in fact accuse me of being a "Protestant" because I take dogma literally, because I DO NOT return to the current pope and ask for a magisterial judgment of what a specific dogma means today. I DO NOT ask for a magisterial judgment regarding what we are currently to believe regarding Catholic truths such as the True Presence, the Assumption, the Resurrection, etc., etc. You believe in the evolution of dogma and therefore it cannot possibly be the proximate rule of faith. And in this you corrupt dogma in its essence. That is why the essential definition is unintelligible to you. That is why you cannot "see" the self-evident truth. It is the same reason that atheists cannot "see" that God necessarily exists.
It is in fact a diagnosis of a terminal condition.
Drew 
Topic: OPEN LETTER to E. MIchael Jones in defense of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò (Read 9380 times)