Author Topic: Contra Ronaldus - Lawfully Resisting the Pope  (Read 2005 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 21207
  • Reputation: +18755/-72
  • Gender: Male
Contra Ronaldus - Lawfully Resisting the Pope
« on: March 12, 2018, 10:37:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    Dear Friends-

    Given Fr. Ronald Ringrose's recent and public descent into sedevacantism, I thought it apropos to resurrect a short article which restates the doctrines of epikeia and necessity as causes excusing from obedience to superiors (yes, even to Popes), and which have ever served as the doctrinal bases for resistance to conciliar errors.

    Please see the attached article, and pass it along to any who may be confused by Fr. Ringrose's new reasonings.

    Semper Idem,
    Sean Johnson

    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2366
    • Reputation: +1480/-600
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Contra Ronaldus - Lawfully Resisting the Pope
    « Reply #1 on: March 13, 2018, 08:29:32 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    the Magisterium is in fact the RULE of faith
    This is just a gross generalization.  If you want to say "the Magisterium, when it is infallible, is in fact the RULE of faith" I can accept that.  Absent these distinctions, it's not true.


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2366
    • Reputation: +1480/-600
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Contra Ronaldus - Lawfully Resisting the Pope
    « Reply #2 on: March 13, 2018, 09:57:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I saw the previous sentence, which had the necessary distinction.  Therefore, your conclusion should also reference this distinction.

    Offline Centroamerica

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2535
    • Reputation: +1531/-110
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Contra Ronaldus - Lawfully Resisting the Pope
    « Reply #3 on: March 13, 2018, 12:41:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I plan to comment on this this weekend. Not the R and R part, obviously. 
    We conclude logically that religion can give an efficacious and truly realistic answer to the great modern problems only if it is a religion that is profoundly lived, not simply a superficial and cheap religion made up of some vocal prayers and some ceremonies...

    Offline King Wenceslas

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 54
    • Reputation: +15/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Contra Ronaldus - Lawfully Resisting the Pope
    « Reply #4 on: March 13, 2018, 09:01:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • As shown by the last 53 years if one did not resist one would lose one's faith. A fact as shown in my own family.


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3417
    • Reputation: +3438/-462
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Contra Ronaldus - Lawfully Resisting the Pope
    « Reply #5 on: March 18, 2018, 12:28:27 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Ladislaus, thank you for that important distinction. As for you Sean Johnson, our friend, I don’t want to be harsh, so I will not. Yet given your unkind and disrespectful words of Fr. Ringrose and more importantly your misrepresentation of the truth and his position, it is apropos to point out the ignorance of your errors.
     
    Evidently, your ignorance of the of the facts, ideas, and theology is as bad as your ignorance of the Latin you have here attempted. Father Chazal and Father Ringrose are quite clear that the Seat is not vacant. As they say, it is better to be thought ignorant than to express yourself and remove all doubt!
     
    While your ignorance may be excusable, your sins against truth, justice, and charity are not. Please dump them; they are unbecoming of you, who I am sure is otherwise a good child of God.

    CC-

    The ignorance is all yours, my friend:

    1) Fr. Ringrose rejects sedevacantism because he is under the delusion that sediprivationism is not sedevacantism, but which nevertheless concludes at the end of the day that the Pope is not a real (i.e., formal) Pope;

    2) No idea why you are referencing Fr. Chazal (who by the way rejects the sedeprivationism/sedevacantism of Fr. Ringrose; I sent an email from him to Matthew verifying that, but Matthew declined to post it, and for me, it is not worth the effort to dig it up to battle one infected with such proud ignorance as you (i.e., it cannot be penetrated with truth);

    3) You should talk less, and read more.  You would save yourself much embarrassment.

    Pax tecum,
    Sean Johnson
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3417
    • Reputation: +3438/-462
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Contra Ronaldus - Lawfully Resisting the Pope
    « Reply #6 on: March 18, 2018, 09:52:47 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 1 ) We won’t waste time debating over your definition vs. the one of the Wikipedia article — matters not to me; I don’t rely on labels especially those of conflicting definitions. Fr. Ringrose rejects the idea that the election counts for nothing but maintains that it establishes some legal status as pope. Still, it is an obvious and observable fact that the indefectible teaching power promised to Peter is absent. Call it what you you will — except non-Catholic. Unlike R&R which is a heresy. No doubt Fr. Ringrose agrees with Fr. Chazal in one of his recent statements about his new position of his upcoming book: “I really don't care if they call me a sedevacantist...” implying that his NEW position in is based on fidelity to Catholic teaching.
     
    2) I reference Fr. Chazal because he has the courage and honesty like Frs. Ringrose, Pinaud, Rioult, Roy, to abandon their previous position in order to a avoid its doctrinal error.  Not because they all agree in their new positions.
     
    3) The only embarrassment I carry is my failures in fidelity to the teaching of Christ. Heaven knows I have too many. Just nowhere here. I wish the same could be said for your delusion and pray that it is only due to your ignorance of doctrine and no worse.
     
    Peace to you as well.
    CC-

    If you know me, then you know I have neither the patience, nor the inclination, to bandy wits with Cathinfo sedes.

    I will clarify your lies, then leave you to wallow in your misery:

    1) Fr. Ringrose has endorsed the sedeprivationist position (Which is sedevacantist, whether he will admit it to himself or not), which he mistakenly thinks to be a “via media” solution to the errors he thinks to perceive in R&R and more honest and forthright sedevacantism;

    2)You become a solipsist when you attempt to hitch Fr. Ringrose’s wagon to Fr. Chazal: The latter has dedicated the entire 2nd chapter of his forthcoming book to rebutting the very position Fr. Ringrose has now endorsed, and more than this, has stated to me in an email that he hopes Fr. Ringrose “comes to his senses.”

    Yet you would have them as allies, embracing the same position.
    Which of us is in ignorance here?

    3) Finally, if R&R is heresy, can you explain why the likes of Suarez, Naz, Palazzini, St. Thomas and all other approved theologians who treat of laws and if obedience “recognize” the right and duty to “resist” the evil commands of superiors, whomever they be?

    4) So, Fr. Ringrose opposes R&R, omits the pope’s name from the Mass, and holds the Pope is not truly (“formally”) pope, yet he.....but that is not sedevacantism.

    I am not persuaded.

    One of the other Priests you mentioned said to me that he also omitted the name of Francis from the Mass, rejected his authority to govern the Church, and denied his jurisdiction to do so, and in the next breath said, “anyone who says I am sedevacantist is a liar.”

    “In becoming wise, they have become fools.”
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline Centroamerica

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2535
    • Reputation: +1531/-110
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Contra Ronaldus - Lawfully Resisting the Pope
    « Reply #7 on: March 18, 2018, 01:12:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • As two dogmatic positions on the crisis have it out here, allow me to drop in my two cents.

    Fr. Chazal has admitted that after studying the "seminary libraries" that both the "loss of office" and "non-loss of office" opinions regarding Popes who become heretics or publicly promote heresy are and have been permitted by the Church. This is important. It means that up until now the Church has not spoken even when there were great theologians and even Doctors of the Church on both sides (such as St. Robert Bellarmine or St. John of God). Fr. Chazal has probably been the most honest and balanced priest I've heard so far to comment publicly on this state of the papacy in this current crisis (I can think of a few others.)

    That's why the attacking of positions of other Traditional Catholics' take on the state of the crisis as error is a total moral-less waste of time. It is akin to the Immaculate Conception Dogma before it was solemnly defined. The Dominicans and Franciscans went at it, but at least theirs was a fruitful effort to some extent because there was still a Catholic Pope at the time (something which all sides agree is lacking in our current crisis.)

    So for both sides of the sede vacante and sedeplena to call each other's views an error is to arrogate to themselves a power which they simply don't have. St. Robert Bellarmine's view was never condemned as neither were the opposing views! Fr.Chazal has publicly admitted that the sede vacante position is a valid Catholic opinion with theologians and Doctors of the Church which support it. The R and R argument also has its theologians to support it. Neither of these have ever been condemned as error by the Church. They have only been condemned as error by those who wish to carry their opinion in this crisis to that of a dogmatic fact and condemn the opposing view, something which they have no power or authority to do.

    And now to close with a little thought...

    “On the other hand, it seems to us much more certain that the faith taught by the Church for twenty centuries can contain no errors than it is absolutely certain that the pope is truly pope. Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, invalidity of his election are all causes from which it may sometimes result that a Pope has never been or is now no longer Pope. In this case, a very exceptional one of course, the Church would be in the situation she experiences after the death of a soveriegn Pontiff. For a grave problem does, after all, confront the conscience and faith of all Catholics since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate. How can a pope, true successor to St. Peter, assured of the assistance of the Holy Ghost, preside over the destruction of the Church, the deepest and most excessive in Her history, in so short a space of time, what no heresiarch has ever succeeded in doing? All those enter into schism who cooperate in this realization of this upheaval and adhere to this new Conciliar Church, as His Excellency Bishop Benelli designated it in the letter he addressed to me in the Holy Father’s name last June 25th.” (Archbishop Lefebvre-Declaration of August 2, 1976.)





    We conclude logically that religion can give an efficacious and truly realistic answer to the great modern problems only if it is a religion that is profoundly lived, not simply a superficial and cheap religion made up of some vocal prayers and some ceremonies...


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14229
    • Reputation: +7234/-2296
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Contra Ronaldus - Lawfully Resisting the Pope
    « Reply #8 on: March 18, 2018, 03:07:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • With sedeplenism, the Holy See is occupied simpliciter.
    With sedevacantism, the See is vacant simpliciter.
    With sedeprivationism, the See is occupied secundum quid and vacant secumdum quid.

    It's called a distinction.  Study scholastic logic a bit, and then come back to us.

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 877
    • Reputation: +641/-122
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Contra Ronaldus - Lawfully Resisting the Pope
    « Reply #9 on: March 19, 2018, 10:30:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 3) Finally, if R&R is heresy, can you explain why the likes of Suarez, Naz, Palazzini, St. Thomas and all other approved theologians who treat of laws and if obedience “recognize” the right and duty to “resist” the evil commands of superiors, whomever they be?
    If your principle #3 is true, Our Lord would have been duty-bound to resist Pontius Pilate's command to crucify not only an innocent man (whom he knew to be so) but the Son of God!  And yet Our Lord walked under His own power to Calvary.  How could we ever justify resisting the true Vicar of Christ or even doubting his authority in matters of faith and morals?  He that heareth you, heareth me. (Luke 10:16)

    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2413
    • Reputation: +1125/-1773
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Contra Ronaldus - Lawfully Resisting the Pope
    « Reply #10 on: March 19, 2018, 10:52:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • As two dogmatic positions on the crisis have it out here, allow me to drop in my two cents.

    Fr. Chazal has admitted that after studying the "seminary libraries" that both the "loss of office" and "non-loss of office" opinions regarding Popes who become heretics or publicly promote heresy are and have been permitted by the Church. This is important. It means that up until now the Church has not spoken even when there were great theologians and even Doctors of the Church on both sides (such as St. Robert Bellarmine or St. John of God). Fr. Chazal has probably been the most honest and balanced priest I've heard so far to comment publicly on this state of the papacy in this current crisis (I can think of a few others.)

    That's why the attacking of positions of other Traditional Catholics' take on the state of the crisis as error is a total moral-less waste of time. It is akin to the Immaculate Conception Dogma before it was solemnly defined. The Dominicans and Franciscans went at it, but at least theirs was a fruitful effort to some extent because there was still a Catholic Pope at the time (something which all sides agree is lacking in our current crisis.)

    So for both sides of the sede vacante and sedeplena to call each other's views an error is to arrogate to themselves a power which they simply don't have. St. Robert Bellarmine's view was never condemned as neither were the opposing views! Fr.Chazal has publicly admitted that the sede vacante position is a valid Catholic opinion with theologians and Doctors of the Church which support it. The R and R argument also has its theologians to support it. Neither of these have ever been condemned as error by the Church. They have only been condemned as error by those who wish to carry their opinion in this crisis to that of a dogmatic fact and condemn the opposing view, something which they have no power or authority to do.

    And now to close with a little thought...

    “On the other hand, it seems to us much more certain that the faith taught by the Church for twenty centuries can contain no errors than it is absolutely certain that the pope is truly pope. Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, invalidity of his election are all causes from which it may sometimes result that a Pope has never been or is now no longer Pope. In this case, a very exceptional one of course, the Church would be in the situation she experiences after the death of a soveriegn Pontiff. For a grave problem does, after all, confront the conscience and faith of all Catholics since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate. How can a pope, true successor to St. Peter, assured of the assistance of the Holy Ghost, preside over the destruction of the Church, the deepest and most excessive in Her history, in so short a space of time, what no heresiarch has ever succeeded in doing? All those enter into schism who cooperate in this realization of this upheaval and adhere to this new Conciliar Church, as His Excellency Bishop Benelli designated it in the letter he addressed to me in the Holy Father’s name last June 25th.” (Archbishop Lefebvre-Declaration of August 2, 1976.)


    Doesn't Fr. Chazal believe that Francis does not have jurisdiction, even though he is the pope?


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14229
    • Reputation: +7234/-2296
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Contra Ronaldus - Lawfully Resisting the Pope
    « Reply #11 on: March 19, 2018, 11:45:43 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Doesn't Fr. Chazal believe that Francis does not have jurisdiction, even though he is the pope?

    Based on something he wrote, it sounds like Father Chazal believes that Francis has jurisdiction, but that his use of it is illicit, since he's a heretic.  And he holds that Francis completely lacks all teaching authority due to his heresy.  This is actually a very credible position.  I have held the position that he only materially possesses jurisdiction but that material jurisdiction suffices to make appointments, and that those appointed can actually formally exercise the jurisdiction if in fact they had no impediment to do so.  That's why, for instance, a material pope can appoint material Cardinals who can then elect another material pope who can appoint more material cardinals who can then elect a formal (& material) Pope ... if one of the people they happen to elect isn't a heretic ... even if all the Cardinals would be heretics.  And the same thing applies top down.  Another consequence is that if a material Pope appoints a bishop, who happens NOT to be a heretic, then that Bishop can FORMALLY hold and exercise episcopal jurisdiction.  Let's say there's an Eastern Rite bishop who isn't a heretic and is validly consecrated a bishop.

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 877
    • Reputation: +641/-122
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Contra Ronaldus - Lawfully Resisting the Pope
    « Reply #12 on: March 19, 2018, 01:00:22 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Based on something he wrote, it sounds like Father Chazal believes that Francis has jurisdiction, but that his use of it is illicit, since he's a heretic.  And he holds that Francis completely lacks all teaching authority due to his heresy.  This is actually a very credible position.  I have held the position that he only materially possesses jurisdiction but that material jurisdiction suffices to make appointments, and that those appointed can actually formally exercise the jurisdiction if in fact they had no impediment to do so.  That's why, for instance, a material pope can appoint material Cardinals who can then elect another material pope who can appoint more material cardinals who can then elect a formal (& material) Pope ... if one of the people they happen to elect isn't a heretic ... even if all the Cardinals would be heretics.  And the same thing applies top down.  Another consequence is that if a material Pope appoints a bishop, who happens NOT to be a heretic, then that Bishop can FORMALLY hold and exercise episcopal jurisdiction.  Let's say there's an Eastern Rite bishop who isn't a heretic and is validly consecrated a bishop.
    That theory/position, in my opinion, does violence to the visibility of the Church.  How can we say the Church is visible if it is not readily apparent who can exercise authority legitimately?  In my opinion it is better to just admit that currently nobody is exercising authority.  If we all agreed on that point then the next step would be obvious.  The Catholic clergy would then have to elect a Catholic pope.  Of course, then it would be a question of who are the Catholic clergy?  Well, obviously the way forward is not going to be a cake walk.

    Offline Centroamerica

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2535
    • Reputation: +1531/-110
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Contra Ronaldus - Lawfully Resisting the Pope
    « Reply #13 on: March 20, 2018, 10:59:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Another observation:

    If assisting a sedeprivationist priest who dogmatically condemns R&R is good enough for Fr. Ortiz then is it good enough for all of us. It is a contradiction to condemn Fr. Ringrose and not all the clergy who assist his apostolate, which by the way includes Bp. Zendejas.
    As Fr. Chazal pointed out, both the R and R and sede vacante positions have their canonists, theologians and Doctors of the Church which were never condemned before the Council and allowed to carry the debate of 'loss of office' vs 'non-loss of office'. This means that both positions are tenable Catholic positions until Holy Mother Church says otherwise. Those who condemn the opposing position have no authority to do so.
    We conclude logically that religion can give an efficacious and truly realistic answer to the great modern problems only if it is a religion that is profoundly lived, not simply a superficial and cheap religion made up of some vocal prayers and some ceremonies...

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16