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

Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?  (Read 440525 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #1110 on: May 18, 2018, 07:57:34 PM »
Quote
Now Vatican II is not only not infallible, but it's not even Magisterium.
V2 is not infallible.  It’s also not part of the CONSTANT/UNIVERSAL magisterium (because its teachings are not consistent with Tradition, thus are not Universally held, by all, everywhere...meaning they are not Apostolic in origin).  

At this point, V2 is part of the fallible/ordinary magisterium, unless and until they can show their teachings agree with Tradition (which they’ve yet to do).  

Ladislaus, you REFUSE to distinguish between the fallible/ordinary magisterium and the Universal/Constant magisterium.  You use the term ‘magisterium’ too generally.  Can you explain why?  

Offline drew

  • Supporter
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #1111 on: May 18, 2018, 08:03:02 PM »
You really need to go back and study the Penny Catechism before attempting theology and making a fool of yourself.

You and Stubborn and Pax simply make up definitions on the fly that suit your narrative but have no grasp of even the most basic theological concepts involved here.

Ladislaus,

You have a short term memory problem so I will re-post the exchange where you mess up the definition of heresy conflating it with apostasy.
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #2037 on: May 16, 2018, 08:58:01 PM »

Drew


Offline drew

  • Supporter
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #1112 on: May 18, 2018, 08:22:16 PM »
V2 is not infallible.  It’s also not part of the CONSTANT/UNIVERSAL magisterium (because its teachings are not consistent with Tradition, thus are not Universally held, by all, everywhere...meaning they are not Apostolic in origin).  

At this point, V2 is part of the fallible/ordinary magisterium, unless and until they can show their teachings agree with Tradition (which they’ve yet to do).  

Ladislaus, you REFUSE to distinguish between the fallible/ordinary magisterium and the Universal/Constant magisterium.  You use the term ‘magisterium’ too generally.  Can you explain why?  

Pax,

Thanks for the post. You saved me the trouble.  It is amazing that the errors of the S&Sers can be reduced to corrupted definitions and erroneous conceptions on the most fundamental philosophical and theological truths.  Ultimately their system of belief is a bag of dust.  I doubt that S&S is the cause but rather the result of these errors.  And the same thing would hold for conservative Catholics like columnist and author Emmett O'Regan who would follow the pope to hell and think he was in heaven.  The only difference between Ladislaus and O'Regan is a question of temperament.  Their arguments are just about the same in every essential. 

Drew

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #1113 on: May 19, 2018, 05:02:37 AM »
Decrees of the Holy Office are not irreformable or infallible.  This has been demonstrated many times already.

Bravo, you found one decree of the Holy Office that was lifted.  Any more?

Maybe it was the teaching of Pius IX that the Church is not capable of allowing discipline that is harmful to souls.

The Holy Office

 So, what was the Holy Office of 1616? Well in the wake of the Protestant rebellion, Pope Paul III (1534-1549) set up various congregations to assist the popes in their task of safeguarding the apostolic faith held ‘in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition.’ One of the most important of these was the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, otherwise known as the Congregation of the Holy Office, set up in 1542. The function of this body was specifically to maintain and defend the integrity of the faith, to examine and proscribe errors and false doctrines by way of the censorship of books etc., but most of all to combat heresy at the highest level.
     The Congregation of the Index, otherwise known as the Index, was finally established in 1572. It was the section placed by Supreme Sacred Congregation in charge of heretical and offensive book censorship, a practice that had been ongoing since the Council of Trent. Made up of ten cardinals, its decrees were normally signed only by its chief officers.
     Later, in 1588; Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) gave the Holy Office even more explicit powers in the Bull Immensa Dei (God who cannot be encompassed). In this directive he made the reigning pope, whoever he may be, Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition. This gave the Catholic world to understand that decisions assigned to its judgment, before publication, would invariably be examined and ratified by the Pope himself as supreme judge of the Holy See, and would go forward clothed with such formal papal authority.

‘I found it laid down by such distinguished repre­sentatives of the Ultramontane school as Cardenas, La Croix, Zaccaria, and Bouix, that Congregational decrees, confirmed by the Pope and published by his express order, emanate from the Pontiff in his capacity of Head of the Church, and are ex cathedrâ in such sense as to make it infallibly certain that doctrines so propounded as true, are true.’ --- Fr W. Roberts.

The 1616 decree, unlike every other decree of the Holy Office recorded in Denzinger's History of dogmas, was the only one that DEFINED an opinion as formal heresy. If it was not a HERESY then why did the Church of 1633 put Galileo on trial for heresy? According to you this is your Catholic Church:

1. Rome, i.e. a Pontifical Congregation acting under the Pope’s order, may put forth a decision that is neither true nor safe.

2. Decrees confirmed by, and virtually included in, a Bull addressed to the Universal Church, may be not only scientifically false, but theologically considered, danger­ous, i.e. calculated to prejudice the cause of religion, and compromise the safety of a portion of the deposit com­mitted to the Church’s keeping. In other words, the Pope, in and by a Bull addressed to the whole Church, may confirm and approve, with Apostolic authority, deci­sions that are false and perilous to the faith.

3. Decrees of the Apostolic See and of Pontifical Con­gregations may be calculated to impede the free progress of Science. [Condemned by Pius IX in his Syllabus]

4. The Pope’s infallibility is no guarantee that he may not use his supreme authority to indoctrinate the Church with erroneous opinions, through the medium of Congregations he has erected to assist him in protecting the Church from error.

5. The Pope, through the medium of a Pontifical Congregation, may require, under pain of excommunica­tion, individual Catholics to yield an absolute assent to false, unsound, and dangerous propositions. In other words, the Pope, acting as Supreme Judge of the faithful, may, in dealing with individuals, make the rejection of what is in fact the truth, a condition of communion with the Holy See.

6. It does not follow, from the Church’s having been informed that the Pope has ordered a Catholic to abjure an opinion as a heresy, that it is not true and sound.

7. The true interpretation of our Lord’s promises to St. Peter permits us to say that a Pope may, even when acting officially, confirm his brethren the Cardinals, and through them the rest of the Church, in an error as to what is matter of faith.

8. It is not always for the good of the Church that Catholics should submit themselves fully, perfectly, and absolutely, i.e. should yield a full assent, to the decisions of Pontifical Congregations, even when the Pope has con­firmed such decisions with his supreme authority, and ordered them published.

If any of the above were true, Catholicism as a divinely guided religion is false.

To finish Ladislaus, it is not the likes of you who determine what laws of the Church one should follow and what we can discard, well not for me anyway. The Holy Office confirmed in 1820 that the 1616 decree was not reformable so it was never reformed.


Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #1114 on: May 19, 2018, 09:17:48 AM »
Quote
That an Ecuмenical Council which satisfies the conditions above stated is an organ of infallibility will not be denied by anyone who admits that the Church is endowed with infallible doctrinal authority.

I've already pointed this out on previous threads, but I will do so again (though I don't think many of you will accept it).  The phrase "organ of infallibility" means that an ecuмenical council has the "potential" to be infallible; it does not mean that it AUTOMATICALLY is, or that everything in a council is infallible.
The phrase "organ of" means that an ecuмenical council is a good vehicle, method or circuмstance by which the pope makes use of his teaching authority.
 
You are falsely interpreting this to mean that an ecuмenical council is infallible just because its ecuмenical.  WRONG!

If you read further down the article, it goes on to explain the 4 conditions required for papal infallibility from Vatican I (which you over-complicate and misunderstand to further your agenda), and after explaining these 4 conditions, it says:

Hence doctrinal decisions or instructions issued by the Roman congregations, even when approved by the pope in the ordinary way, have no claim to be considered infallible. To be infallible they must be issued by the pope himself in his own name according to the conditions already mentioned as requisite for ex cathedra teaching.


So the above explains that if a teaching does not fulfill the 4 conditions laid out by Vatican I, then it's not infallible.  It's that simple.  V2 did not contain any ex Cathedra statements, therefore it's not infallible.  Case closed.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm