Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 440875 times)

drew · « **Reply #105 on:** March 13, 2018, 08:22:05 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 13, 2018, 11:09:36 AM

Even if a non-infallible teaching can be, strictly speaking, mistaken, the Magisterium must always be considered a generally-reliable and safe guide to the faith. Otherwise, the Magisterium would have defected. If the Magisterium could promote grave and widespread error to the faithful ... to the point that Catholics MUST sever communion with the hierarchy rather than accept these teachings, then the Magisterium would have defected. R&R types love to quibble over the strict limits of infallibility, but then completely ignore the fact that the Magisterium cannot be anything other than a reliable and safe guide. If the Magisterium could endanger faith, lead souls to hell, or even just cause them harm, it would have defected. R&R like to pretend that, apart from the solemn dogmatic definition we see a couple times per century, everything else is a theological free-for-all.

This muddled comment repeatedly uses the term "Magisterium" equivocally and its not like this point has not been made to you before.

Sedeprivationism begins from its very inception making a gross fundamental error of basic philosophical truth, that is, when the form and matter of any being are separated, the being undergoes a substantial change. It then dives into pontificating to everyone else that it has all the right answers. An small error in the beginning can lead to an enormous error in the end. But what about a an enormous error in the beginning? So just who has "defected"?

Drew

cathman7 · « **Reply #106 on:** March 13, 2018, 09:08:10 PM »

Quote from: ConfederateCatholic on March 13, 2018, 08:47:39 PM

BRAVO to Fathers Ringrose, Pinaud, Roy, and Rioult and finally Chazal for the bravery to reject the RR heresies. Likewise to Bishop Zendejas for continuing to care for these priests and for the bulk of his own people who likewise reject RR. Hopefully the rest of the SSPX or “Resistance” clergy are not far behind. There is hope.

I am sorry you keep saying Fr Chazal rejects RR and embraces sedeprivationism. This message is simply ridiculous. You place extreme burdens on a Catholic to hold to the sedeprivationist theory.
Now R&R is heresy? My...who made you Pope?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #107 on:** March 13, 2018, 09:27:00 PM »

The modernists use the term “living” to squirm their way into the idea that truth can change. They say the magisterium is “living”, meaning that whatever the current magisterium says, is truth. Therefore, it follows that the church can be “updated” because the “living” magisterium needs to teach truth “for the modern man”. No! This is relativism and humanism mixed together.

Everything that we need to believe to get to heaven has been known by Catholics since the 1st century. THERE ARE NO NEW CATHOLIC TRUTHS. Therefore, the need for a “living” magisterium is a lie. What is true is always true, and it has been true since the day Christ ascended into heaven and will be true until He comes again at the end of time.

drew · « **Reply #108 on:** March 13, 2018, 10:01:11 PM »

Quote from: ConfederateCatholic on March 13, 2018, 08:50:54 PM

Dear Drew,
The Catholic Encyclopedia 1913 uses the term Living Magisterium in a section title. I do understand your point that the N.O. is manipulating a redefinition of revelation and the magisterium but certainly the teaching authority is living entity. See the CE quote below.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
"With regard to the organ of tradition it must be an official organ, a magisterium, or teaching authority."

"Must it be admitted that Christ instituted His Church as the official and authentic organ to transmit and explain in virtue of Divine authority the Revelation made to men?

"The Protestant principle is: The Bible and nothing but the Bible; the Bible, according to them, is the sole theological source; there are no revealed truths save the truths contained in the Bible; according to them the Bible is the sole rule of faith:"

"by it and by it alone should all dogmatic questions be solved; it is the only binding authority. "

"Catholics, on the other hand, hold that there may be, that there is in fact, and that there must of necessity be certain revealed truths apart from those contained in the Bible;"

"they hold furthermore that Jesus Christ has established in fact, and that to adapt the means to the end He should have established, a LIVING organ as much to transmit Scripture and written Revelation as to place revealed truth within reach of everyone always and everywhere."

Confederate Catholic,

Modernist, like from George Tyrrell to his fellow Jesuit Pope Francis/Bergoglio, always equivocate mixing dangerous errors with Catholic truth. Fr. Jean Vincent V. Bainville was also a Jesuit. St. Alphonsus said that a single bad book can destroy a monastery. This superficially innocent entry in the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia contains the seeds of every argument used by Fr. Bainville in overturning the Catholic dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church which he denied in typical Neo-modernist style by 1) equivocating definitions, 2) qualifying categorical propositions, and 3) moving dogmatic truths from the category of truth/falsehood to the category of authority/obedience. The last of these permits all the limitations that restrict the application of laws, commands, precepts, etc. to excuse anyone from conforming to revealed Truth. That is where Bainville's theory of "living magisterium" leads and was intended to lead. It is not easily evident from the encyclopedia entry but, in hindsight, its footprints are clearly seen.

There is frequent reference by the Neo-modernist hierarchy to John XXIII's opening address at Vatican II where he said that the truths of our faith are one thing and the manner in which they are expressed another. The entire theme of Vatican II was to drive a wedge between dogmas and how they are articulated. This has invariably been done under the pretext of a deepening of understanding by a "living magisterium". Most recently, it is the argument used by supporters of Francis to destroy the sacrament of Marriage and all Catholic morality.

Drew

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #109 on:** March 13, 2018, 10:46:00 PM »

Quote from: drew on March 13, 2018, 07:53:59 PM

Those who do not follow Dogma as their proximate rule of faith cannot avoid such errors as sedeprivationism that drives a wedge between the form and the matter of the papal office thus necessarily causing a substantial change that destroys the office, or sedevacantism that simply throws it away.

Admittedly, I have not really studied sedeprivationism so I can't comment on that part of your statement but I'm curious what you mean by "sedevacantism ... simply throws [the office] away". I doubt you are denying the fact that there have been at least 260 periods where there was no cleric possessing the Roman See in the history of the Church. Every one of those periods was known as a sede vacante. Why would positing a sede vacante now bring one under an accusation of "throwing away the office"?

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 440875 times)

drew

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?

cathman7

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?

Pax Vobis

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?

drew

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?

Clemens Maria

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?