Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 204977 times)

Pax Vobis · « **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?

drew · « **Reply #1111 on:** May 18, 2018, 08:03:02 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 18, 2018, 07:43:54 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

drew · « **Reply #1112 on:** May 18, 2018, 08:22:16 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 18, 2018, 07:57:34 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

cassini · « **Reply #1113 on:** May 19, 2018, 05:02:37 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 18, 2018, 05:26:43 PM

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.

Pax Vobis · « **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

JPaul · « **Reply #1115 on:** May 19, 2018, 09:57:31 AM »

Pax Vobis,

Quote

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.

That is not to say that it does not contain error and heresy which has been diseminated throughout the whole Church to the harm of souls as well as promulgating disciplines which are harmful to Tradition and the Faith. Do you believe Vatican II to be a valid council of the Church?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #1116 on:** May 19, 2018, 01:08:03 PM »

If a council:
1) does not agree with Tradition
2) is not taught with certainty of Faith
3) is not binding under pain of sin
4) is not infallible
5) is ambiguous, novel and contradictory
6) is described in a new way (ie pastoral)
7) is different from ALL PREVIOUS EcuмENICAL COUNCILS in history

...what should that tell us? That it’s not part of the Faith! Or at least, we treat it with hesitation and accept it conditionally (which is EXACTLY what V2 officials have said.)

You all falsely give V2 authority and protection from error it did not have, did not claim to have and did not express in its docuмents.

Any of the faithful that accepted V2 did so of their own accord. The warning signs are all over the place. Those that had/have a heart open to the Truth will see its errors and God will lead them to Tradition. Those that accept Modernism will be guilty of abandoning the Faith in God’s eyes. Woe to them.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #1117 on:** May 19, 2018, 01:09:25 PM »

Quote

If an Ecuмenical Council teaches against the Faith

V2 did not teach with the same level of authority that ALL PREVIOUS councils did. You’re comparing apples-oranges.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #1118 on:** May 19, 2018, 01:15:10 PM »

Quote

And I am going to say again, that even when Ecuмenical Councils do not define infallible dogmas as an organ, they still CANNOT teach heresy to the Faithful or contradict the Faith in any of its decrees or constitutions, because they represent the UNIVERSAL Church and are binding therefore to all Christians.

You are not the Church. You are not a Roman official. You are not authorized to say what V2 binds or doesn’t bind. Your contention that V2 is binding on the faithful is a misapplication of many “high level” principles with an erroneous conclusion that is directly at odds with EVERY MAJOR V2 explanation by Roman officials. Your view is not based on facts, but incorrect logic and emotion.

cassini · « **Reply #1119 on:** May 19, 2018, 01:16:57 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 19, 2018, 08:33:22 AM

Let's read St. Robert Bellarmine on the subject:

‘Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the centre of the universe and the Earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the Earth but the Earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But as for myself, I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun is at the centre and the Earth is in the heavens, as it is to demonstrate that the sun really is in the centre and the Earth in the heavens. I believe that the first demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers

So, basically, what they were condemning is the assertion that Sacred Scripture was false implicit in Galileo's theories ... and the fact that his theories did not have any real proof. So, reading the above, there was clearly no absolute ruling regarding the truth or falsehood of heliocentrism, and what was being condemned was the implicit allegation that Sacred Scripture was wrong. And indeed the competence of the Magisterium has for its primary object matters of faith and morals, rather than natural science. So the primary object of this condemnation was a matter of faith and morals, that Sacred Scripture might be in error, rather than the teaching of any particular scientific matter.

You could say that if Bellarmine's letter came AFTER the 1616 decree. However it was written in 1615 one year before the Pope gave his definition of formal heresy. Even if Bellarmine meant what the Galileans make him say, it became REDUNDANT one year later in 1616.

Interestingly Ladislaus the above passage is nearly always used by the Galileans to dismiss the decree as soon as they believed proof was found. They all used it, John Paul II and all. This letter was origionally written to dismiss the idea that Galileo had proof, and is in the present tense. The Heliocentrists actually write it up in this way: 'If there were EVER proof for a moving earth...' They always take it out of context to make it apply to any time in the future and not the present time Bellarmine wrote it. They never repeat Bellarmine's belief that there is no proof and that no proof will ever be found.

Finally, I have grave problems myself with this sort of theology if we can call it that conjured up by the helios, even JPII. What if we were to apply that thinking (if there were ever proof then) to any other dogmas of the Catholic faith? You could EQUALLY say that 'IF EVER THERE WAS PROOF THAT ADAM AND EVE NEVER EXISTED WE WOULD HAVE TO RECONSIDER THE DOGMA OF ORIGINAL SIN' or 'IF EVER PROOF THAT JESUS NEVER ACTUALLY DIED ON THE CROSS, WE WOULD HAVE TO RECONSIDER THAT DOGMA.'

See what I mean?

TKGS · « **Reply #1120 on:** May 19, 2018, 01:53:14 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 19, 2018, 01:15:10 PM

You are not the Church. You are not a Roman official. You are not authorized to say what V2 binds or doesn’t bind. Your contention that V2 is binding on the faithful is a misapplication of many “high level” principles with an erroneous conclusion that is directly at odds with EVERY MAJOR V2 explanation by Roman officials. Your view is not based on facts, but incorrect logic and emotion.

Of course, if you look at what the Conciliar Church says, what the Roman officials say, what laws and docuмents the Vatican has promulgated since Vatican 2, and the teaching of all the Conciliar bishops throughout the world, you will note that it is actually your view that is based solely on wishful thinking.

trad123 · « **Reply #1121 on:** May 19, 2018, 03:53:48 PM »

Paul VI

https://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/speeches/1976/docuмents/hf_p-vi_spe_19760524_concistoro.html

Using Google Translate

Quote

a) On the one hand, here are those who, on the pretext of greater fidelity to the Church and the Magisterium, systematically reject the teachings of the Council itself, its application and the resulting reforms, its gradual application by the Apostolic See and of the Episcopal Conferences, under our authority, desired by Christ. The discredit on the authority of the Church is cast in the name of a Tradition, of which only respectfully and verbally attest; the faithful depart from the bonds of obedience to the See of Peter as to their legitimate Bishops; today's authority is rejected, in the name of yesterday's. And the fact is all the more serious, since the opposition we are talking about is not only encouraged by some priests, but led by a Bishop, however always venerated by Us, Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre.

It is so painful to notice it: but how can we fail to see in such an attitude - whatever may be the intentions of these people - to put oneself outside obedience and communion with the Successor of Peter and therefore of the Church?

Since this is, unfortunately, the logical consequence, when it is claimed to be preferable to disobey under the pretext of keeping intact one's own faith, to work in its own way for the preservation of the Catholic Church, while at the same time denying effective obedience. And it is said openly! It is denied to state that the Second Vatican Council is not binding; that faith would also be in danger because of the Post-Council reforms and guidelines, which one has to disobey to preserve certain traditions. Which traditions? It is this group, and not the Pope, not the Episcopal College, not the Ecuмenical Council, which determines which among the innumerable traditions must be considered as the norm of faith! As you see, venerable Brothers, this attitude stands as a judge of that divine will, which has placed Peter and His legitimate successors as Head of the Church to confirm the brothers in the faith, and to feed the universal flock (Cf. 32, Io . 21, 15 ff.), Which established him as guarantor and custodian of the deposit of the Faith.

drew · « **Reply #1122 on:** May 19, 2018, 04:32:10 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 18, 2018, 08:33:04 PM

O'Regan had it basically right ... and you only made a fool of yourself in that exchange.

Ladislaus,

Thanks for this admission of agreement with an eminent spokesman for Conservative Catholicism who unabashedly believes and promotes the pope as his rule of faith. Papolatry is just another form of idolatry. There really is not a dime's worth of difference between the presuppositions and logical conclusions of Conservative Catholics and the S&Sers.

But there is a moral difference. I will make a prediction. Far greater percentage of Conservative Catholics will come to the recognition of their error and turn to the immutable truth of Catholic Dogma as their rule of faith than will S&Sers. For even now, Conservative Catholics are questioning these erroneous assumptions to rethink the problem of making the pope the rule of faith. They are open to the consideration of necessity of grounding their faith upon the immutable revealed truthd of Catholic Dogma. The S&Sers on the other hand have hardened into an obstinacy of spirit that willfully turns against Dogma because it condemns what they have done.

You are in a church of your own making the lacks necessary attributes of the Catholic Church, and the longer this goes on, the less you will care.

Drew

drew · « **Reply #1123 on:** May 19, 2018, 04:51:05 PM »

Quote from: trad123 on May 19, 2018, 03:53:48 PM

Paul VI

https://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/speeches/1976/docuмents/hf_p-vi_spe_19760524_concistoro.html

Using Google Translate

trad123,

There were two serious problems with Archbishop Lefebvre that made the defense of the Catholic faith impossible and have contributed to the demise of the SSPX as a voice for Catholic tradition: One, he did not hold Dogma as the rule of faith, and Two, he regarded all immemorial ecclesiastical traditions as matters of mere discipline. Thus Paul VI could claim that he was opposing his version of discipline against the the new version which the Church is at liberty to bind and loose.

If the resistance is to have any success whatsoever, it has to recognize these errors and structure opposition on the immutable truths of Catholic Dogma. Truth is the only weapon the faithful possess against the abuse and perversion of authority.

Drew

forlorn · « **Reply #1124 on:** May 19, 2018, 06:28:55 PM »

Quote from: drew on May 19, 2018, 04:51:05 PM

trad123,

There were two serious problems with Archbishop Lefebvre that made the defense of the Catholic faith impossible and have contributed to the demise of the SSPX as a voice for Catholic tradition: One, he did not hold Dogma as the rule of faith, and Two, he regarded all immemorial ecclesiastical traditions as matters of mere discipline. Thus Paul VI could claim that he was opposing his version of discipline against the the new version which the Church is at liberty to bind and loose.

If the resistance is to have any success whatsoever, it has to recognize these errors and structure opposition on the immutable truths of Catholic Dogma. Truth is the only weapon the faithful possess against the abuse and perversion of authority.

Drew

The Pope does have the authority to bind and loose new disciplines and rites, and Catholics cannot call anything the Church does in its masses as calls to impiety.