Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 211 212 [213] 214 215 ... 228

Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?  (Read 440686 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Maria Auxiliadora

  • Supporter
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #1060 on: May 15, 2018, 05:05:33 PM »
Logged

Offline Clemens Maria

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #1061 on: May 15, 2018, 09:45:09 PM »
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora on May 15, 2018, 04:54:04 PM

Wrong:

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg599170/#msg599170
So is Drew claiming that he himself defines "Rule of Faith" to be synonymous with dogma?  I ask because I distinctly remember Drew saying that "dogma is the rule of faith".  Which, if rule of faith and dogma are synonyms, is completely meaningless.  It would be like saying dogma is dogma or the rule of faith is the rule of faith.  It is nonsense.  I'm not saying there isn't a sense in which dogma could be synonymous with the rule of faith but in the context of this discussion it is not.  If you want to have a civil discussion concerning a topic the first order of business is coming to some agreement on the definition of the terms of the argument/discussion.  I would argue that the CE article on the Rule of Faith is a good starting point.  I believe is is the working definition which most of the other participants in this discussion were referring to.  And if you are going to gainsay the CE article, I would like to know your qualifications for doing so.  I'm certainly not going to give more credibility to a part-time amateur theologian than I would give to a pre-Vatican II full-time theologian with a doctorate in sacred theology.  e.g. Hugh Pope
Logged

Offline Clemens Maria

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #1062 on: May 15, 2018, 09:53:11 PM »
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora on May 15, 2018, 05:05:33 PM

And here:

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg599371/#msg599371
Right.  That post confirms my assertion that Drew denies that there is an animate/living proximate rule of faith.  He admits that the truthfulness of God in revealing Himself is the remote rule of faith.  He admits that dogma is the proximate rule of faith.  But he does not make any distinction between the inanimate proximate rule of faith and the animate proximate rule of faith.  In effect, he makes himself the animate proximate rule of faith.
Logged

Offline Clemens Maria

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #1063 on: May 15, 2018, 10:18:57 PM »
By the way, even Drew will have to admit that in this discussion dogma and rule of faith are not synonyms because even he admits that there is a remote rule of faith (the truthfulness of God in revealing himself) which is not equivalent to dogma.  But I will assume that when he says dogma is the rule of faith, he means that dogma is the proximate rule of faith.  Which is true.  However, dogma is the inanimate proximate rule of faith.  There is also the animate proximate rule of faith (according to CE/Hugh Pope) which would be the hierarchy of the Catholic Church (Magisterium).  We are required to be subject to the hierarchy.  We are not permitted to overrule the hierarchy when we think they have gone wrong.  Obviously, it is our responsibility to identify who is the hierarchy of the Catholic Church (which in this day and age we should do very carefully and prayerfully) but once we have identified the hierarchy, we are obligated to obey their commands/instructions.  The perplexing thing about the SSPX/R&R position is that they (the SSPX clerics) say that they have no jurisdiction and that the Magisterium lays with the Conciliar hierarchy which they then advise us to ignore/disobey.  So they save us from the heresy of Modernism only to have us die in schism and/or a strange form of the Gallican/Anglican heresy.
Logged

Offline drew

  • Supporter
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #1064 on: May 16, 2018, 11:51:45 AM »
Quote from: trad123 on May 14, 2018, 10:08:41 PM
On the Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope : when teaching the faithful, and on his relation to a general council

Published 1809

https://archive.org/details/OnTheApostolicalAndInfallible


Trad123,

This is an interesting book.  I have found a number of references especially from the councils in the first millennium referring to the defined canons, dogmas, given to restore heretics to the Church as the rule of faith.

But this quote below is appropriate because it demonstrates that clear distinction between the pope and the office which some have conflated, between the pope engaging the Magisterium of the Church and teaching by his grace of state which some have not differentiated, and between the personal errors of a pope and errors related in the teaching authority of his office.  It sets the standard for those who claim and wish to prove that the personal errors of Liberius and Honorius in any way damaged the authority exercised by the papal office.


Quote
Before answering the accusation (that Popes Liberius and Honorius were heretics and formally taught heresy), we must once more remind our opponents that, in order to overturn our thesis (of papal infallibility), they must prove not merely that Liberius or Honorius has spoken or written what is contrary to faith, or denied it, but that he did so as Pope, teaching in matters of faith or morals, and thereby binding the Universal Church.  If they cannot prove this, they prove nothing, for the fallibility would then be only personal and private, and would no more affect the infallibility of the Pope as Universal teacher, than the denial of Peter in the Court of the High Priest injured his infallibility as Prince of the Apostles.  They must, then, first produce good, historical evidence of the fact; secondly, they must prove that it was a definition or teaching contrary to truth in matters of faith; and, thirdly, that the Pope intended, by his teaching, to bind the Universal Church to believe it.
Rev. F. X. Weninger, S.J., D.D., On the Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope, when teaching the faithful, and on his relation to a General Council

The conciliar popes are heretics.  I can say this because I recognize that dogma is the proximate rule of faith and provides the criteria to make such a judgment.  Those that deny this have no standard by which to make any accusation of heresy.  I also recognize that the conciliar popes have never “intended to bind the Universal Church to believe” their errors as formal objects of divine and Catholic faith.  Whenever the “ordinary and universal magisterium” has been employed, even by Paul VI and John Paul II, it has always been faithful to Catholic doctrine and morals.

The great problem is that since few recognize that dogma is the rule of faith, they have followed this heretical popes in their errors, such as conservative Catholics, or they have embraced their own set of heretical errors.

The S&Sers have no pope, no magisterium, no rule of faith, and no means to ever correct these permanent defects that manifest their error.  The church they belong to cannot be the Catholic Church.

Drew
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 211 212 [213] 214 215 ... 228
« previous next »