Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
SSPX Resistance News / Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Last post by trad123 on Yesterday at 11:16:24 PM »

. . . the original promulgation is the remote Rule of Faith, and the continuous promulgation by the Teaching Body is the proximate Rule.

(. . .)

. . .the Catholic Rule of Faith may be ultimately reduced to the sovereign teaching authority of the Holy See.

. . .this sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth. . .

The Church has been at all times, and will forever be, necessarily visible, so that each person may always be able to learn from his pastor the true doctrine regarding the dogmas of faith ... to receive the Sacraments, to be directed in the way of salvation, and to be enlightened and corrected should he ever fall into error. For, were the Church in any time hidden and invisible, to whom would men have recourse in order to learn what they are to believe and to do? ... It was necessary that the Church and her pastors be obvious and visible, principally in order that there might be an infallible judge ... to resolve all doubts, and to whose decision everyone should necessarily submit. Otherwise, there would be no sure rule of faith by which Christians could know the true dogmas of faith and the true precepts of morality, and among the faithful there would be endless disputes and controversies ... "And Christ gave some apostles, and others pastors and doctors, that henceforth we be no more children tossed to-and-fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine" (Eph. 4:11-14)

(. . .)

 In a word, take away the authority of the Church, and neither Divine Revelation nor natural reason itself is of any use, for each of them may be interpreted by every individual according to his own caprice

. . .the rule of faith means something extrinsic to our faith, and serving as its norm or measure.

(. . .)

. . .the Bible and Divine tradition must be the rule of our faith; since, however, these are only silent witnesses and cannot interpret themselves, they are commonly termed "proximate but inanimate rules of faith". Unless, then, the Bible and tradition are to be profitless, we must look for some proximate rule which shall be animate or living.

The rule of faith.

It seems timely to add here a few remarks on the rule of faith. This term signifies the standard or norm according to which each individual Christian must determine what is the material object of his faith.

Protestants claim that the written Word of God, Holy Scripture, and that alone, is the one rule of faith. Catholics, on the other hand, even though they, too, admit that our faith must be regulated in the final analysis by the Word of God — including tradition as well as Scripture — hold that the proximate and immediate rule of faith — that rule to which each of the faithful and each generation of the faithful must look directly — is the preaching of the Church. And so, according to Catholics, there exists a twofold rule of faith: one remote and one proximate. The remote rule of faith is the Word of God (handed down in writing or orally), which was directly entrusted to the Church's rulers that from it they might teach and guide the faithful. The proximate rule of faith, from which the faithful, one and all, are bound to accept their faith and in accordance with which they are to regulate it, is the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium.(27) The following assertions concern the proximate rule of faith.

 1. The Church's preaching was established by Christ Himself as the rule of faith. This can be proved from Matthew 28:19—20 and Mark 16:15—16; the command to teach all nations certainly implies a corresponding duty on the part of the nations to believe whatever the apostles and their successors teach, On the other hand, there is no notice anywhere of Christ's having commanded the apostles to give the people the doctrine of salvation in writing, and never did He command the faithful as a whole to seek their faith in the Bible.

 2. The Church's preaching is a rule of faith which is nicely accommodated to people's needs. For (a) it is an easy rule, one that can be observed by all alike, even the uneducated and unlettered. What could be easier than to give ear to a magisterium that is always at hand and always preaching? (b) It is a safe rule, for the Church's teaching office is infallible in safeguarding and presenting Christ's doctrine. (c) It is a living rule, in accordance with which it is possible in any age to explain the meaning of doctrines and to put an end to controversies.

Attention is focused on the “magisterium of the Church” be­cause it was established in the treatise on the Church that the preaching of the Church’s magisterium is the proximate rule of faith for each person in the age in which he lives. Consequently, Scripture—setting aside the question of its being the only source of revelation—is at any rate only the remote rule of faith.

The necessary attributes of a rule of faith are to be found only in the teaching office of the Catholic Church. From what we have said it follows that there must be another rule of faith different from Scripture and tradition — an authority to direct us in the understanding of these sources of our faith. The attributes of a rule of faith must be determined by its object, which is
chiefly the preservation of the deposit of faith and of the unity of the Church. The Church and the faith are in most intimate connection with the salvation of man; and, consequently, another object of the rule of faith is the securing of the salvation of the individual.

1. A rule of faith must be visible.

Its object is to remove the difficulties which endanger the true faith and the Church's unity. But this is possible only in case, that, being consulted by doubting or contending parties, its voice may be heard. Besides, in every society, in addition to the written law, there is a living,visible authority which applies the law in given cases and dispenses justice between litigant parties. Now, if the Church is a visible society, it must naturally have a visible authority to settle doubts and disputes in matters of faith.

2. A rule of faith must, as the supreme authority, be such as to compel submission to its decision, for it must be the means of maintaining unity.

This cannot be done unless its verdict decides all questions and removes all doubts. A final decision, that renders further opposition unavailing, can be given only by such supreme authority as commands the unqualified submission of all.

3. A rule of faith must be infallible.

An infallible authority, alone, can in all cases decide in matters of faith in such a way as not to endanger the integrity of the deposit of faith; an infallible authority, alone, can maintain unity of faith; for the obligation to believe exists only when one is morally certain that what is proposed to his belief is really of divine revelation. Only an infallible authority can give this assurance.

4. A rule of faith must be of divine institution.

In matters of religion, we must consult, not man's pleasure, but God's ordination. From what we have said, it clearly shows that the teaching authority of the Catholic Church possesses all these attributes.Though in many cases it might remain uncertain what is the teaching of the Church dispersed throughout the world —what the Church proposes as revealed truth in its ordinary preaching: yet, there are more ways than one of interrogating this authority, and when the importance of the matter demands, the Church has diverse means of giving a public and final decision in all cases.

Anonymous Posts Allowed / Re: Lukewarm Catholics
« Last post by songbird on Yesterday at 10:57:47 PM »
Disagree!  There is plenty of good reading, from the Bible to Saints and etc.  Reading the Lives of the Saints, and Our Lady's Ways are available to anyone, who has the want to know.  Question now is, why some people do not want to know?  Apostasy.  All in prophecy.
Health and Nutrition / Re: Anti Christian Dairy Farmers of America
« Last post by songbird on Yesterday at 10:51:12 PM »
I used to buy chocolate candy in shape of a cross for Easter at the 99 cent store, but they don't carry it/sell it anymore.   I remember the chocolate eggs!  Oh, how beautiful they were.
SSPX Resistance News / Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Last post by Cantarella on Yesterday at 10:31:16 PM »
"The accusations that the Protestants and Orthodox have made against us Catholics for centuries" is that we mindlessly make the pope our rule of faith rather than the divinely revealed Truths of Jesus Christ, that is, Dogma.

Did these dogmas fall from Heaven straight to your intellect via private revelation, Mr. Drew? If you scratch the word "dogma" and replace it with "Scripture" that is exactly what the Protestants allege against us. There is a reason why they call us "papist". As said before, the dogmatic canons are such because the Magisterium of the Church taught it so in the past, via the highest organs of infallibility such an Ecumenical Council ratified by a Pope.
SSPX Resistance News / Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Last post by Cantarella on Yesterday at 10:19:25 PM »
No one is denying that the conciliar popes are heretics.  You claim that cannot happen because "Christ purposely prayed for this not to happen."  You then believe that every pope possess a personal "never failing faith."  This is same nonsense passed around by conservative papolators and it is the reason they hold the pope as their rule of faith.
Not one Church Father held this opinion. Examine the commentaries on this Scripture passage from St. Thomas, Fr. George Haydock, and Fr. Cornelius a Lapide. Not one of them supports this claim.  Lapide in fact explicitly denies it saying that a personal never failing faith was given to St. Peter alone and not to his successors. Furthermore, the dogmatic decree on papal infallibility cites this Scriptural passage as evidence for the dogma but the dogma itself says nothing of the kind that you are suggesting.

This is the exact annotation I have of Matthew 16, 16 - 19 of in 1582 Douay Rheims Bible:


16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Blessed art thou, we find: "For it was of congruity and Christ's special appointment, that he upon whom he intended to found his new Church, and whose Faith we would make infallible, should have preeminence of this first profession of Christ's natural divinity, or, that he was by nature the very son of God a thing so far above the capacity of nature, reason, flesh and blood, and so repugnant to Peter's sense and sight of Christ's humanity, flesh, infirmities, that for the belief and public profession thereof he is counted blessed, as Abraham was for his faith: and hath great promises for himself and his posterity, as the said Patriarch had for him and his seed. According to St. Basil, because he excelled in faith, he received the building of the Church committed to him".

There is another couple of scriptural references I can think of, about the actual impossibility of the Pope losing the Catholic Faith, let alone teaching public heresy against the Faith.

Why should I believe you, instead of my Bible?
Thanks much for posting the OP.  Bolton appears to be an absolute certified psychopath.
World War III - Chapter 2 / The Chinese Invasion - Dr. William Pierce
« Last post by Croix de Fer on Yesterday at 10:09:27 PM »

John Bolton wants to genocide all Syrians and Iranians for a greater "Israel".

Research "The Greater Israel Project".
SSPX Resistance News / Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Last post by Cantarella on Yesterday at 10:05:28 PM »
It is evident that you hold the pope as your rule of faith.  

No, my Rule of Faith is the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church in its highest manifestation of Infallibility. Namely, Ecumenical Councils and dogmatic ex-cathedra statements by the successors of St. Peter.

Because we know that the Church cannot contradict Herself; and to all appearances, there is a contradiction in Vatican II Council from previous Magisterial Teaching; then that it may be an indication that a true successor of St. Peter did not promulgated it. It could be an explanation for the consequent and successive chain of evils, following the Council as well.  

I can look for Truth with confidence in ex-cathedra statements by the Popes and Ecumenical Councils up until Vatican II where there was a contradiction in a setting of a General Council, and an evident swift of the Magisterium as to make the Roman Catholic Church practically unrecognizable.  

That is all.
SSPX Resistance News / Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Last post by Jeremiah2v8 on Yesterday at 10:02:21 PM »

Textbook.  You appeal to dogma over and above the Magisterium, except what you're actually doing is preferring your own private interpretation of dogma to that of the Church.
You don't answer questions so if I repeat myself below it's unfortunately a necessity under the circumstances. Or maybe some different questions will get a response.

Do you believe there is error in the current Catechism, which is certainly Magisterial teaching under Pope John Paul II? If so, why don't you declare yourself a Sedevacantist? That would be the only possible conclusion faced with a Magisterium propounding erroneous teaching on the faith to the universal Church, since the Magisterium cannot teach error according to you. 

Your position seems to agree with that of Cardinals Marchetti-Selvaggiani and Ottaviani that dogmas "must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church." (Suprema Haec). 

How has the "teaching authority of the Church" interpreted Trent and the "necessity" of water baptism? You are aware of the Roman Catechism, the Catechism of Trent, right? You are aware of the "unanimous" teaching of the theologians, St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, etc., supporting BOD, expressed with nary a whisper of objection from the Magisterium?

Do you accept the dogma re the necessity of baptism "in the sense in which the Church herself understands it"?

Or are you a "Protestant" opposing your own interpretation of the dogma against the indefectible Magisterium that is your "rule of faith"?

Matthew 7

[1] Judge not, that you may not be judged, [2] For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. [3] And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? [4] Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye? [5] Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10