Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 440531 times)

drew · « **Reply #1130 on:** May 21, 2018, 04:40:23 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 21, 2018, 08:32:25 AM

Before addressing this, I need to understand your terms.

You distinguish between Magisterium (capital M) and magisterium (lowercase).

So an Encyclical like, say, Mortalium Animos, which Magisterium do you categorize it as and why?

Ladislaus,

I have made clear to you in several posts which I can reference that I distinguish between the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church grounded upon the Church's Attributes of Authority and Infallibility which can never err, and the magisterium, the teaching authority of churchmen grounded upon their grace of state which always has the possibility of error.

The Magisterium, can be engaged in two modes of operation: Extra-ordinary and the Ordinary & Universal.

Mortalium Animos is an example of Magisterium being engaged in its Ordinary & Universal mode of operation for at Pope Pius XI says in his encyclical, "for here there is a question of defending revealed truth."

Drew

drew · « **Reply #1131 on:** May 21, 2018, 04:48:13 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 21, 2018, 08:35:15 AM

This is yet another example of your general dishonesty.

So, here, you try to chartacterize this as something I made up, using the phrase "what you like to call". I did not come up with this notion. Msgr. Fenton explained this position and cited the theologians who also taught this ... as something that is intrinsically related to the indefectibility of the Magisterium.

Lad,

I can reference, if you like, the discussion where you defended the notion "Infallible Security." I have not attribute this notion to you as its author but as its defender. It is the grounds for the non-sense 'fallible infallibility' attributed to the pope.

It furthermore ignores that the primary act of the power of Indefectibility which is to preserve the worship of God and the sanctification of the faithful.

Drew

drew · « **Reply #1132 on:** May 21, 2018, 06:30:18 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 21, 2018, 08:42:17 AM

And the thing that everyone should take away is that Liberal Novus Ordo Catholics and R&R have a great deal in common.

As for the last part, it's another lying straw-man distortion. Because the Magisterium is the rule of faith, this does not mean that it is "open to constant development". This is prevented by the Holy Spirit ... whom you malign with every post.

Then I guess you consider John of St. Thomas an idiot for saying precisely that the Pope is the rule of faith. In fact, every theologian, many of whom have been cited on this thread, who teaches that the Magisterium is the rule of faith, is just a blithering idiot ... according to the great and powerful Drew, The Decider and Judge of all that is Catholic vs. all that is not Catholic. Drew, Doctor of the Church, also denounces Bishop Guerard des Laurier as a moron who doesn't know Philosophy 101. Give us a beak. Your hubris knows no bounds. But that's only inevitable when one sets himself up as the ultimate rule of faith as you do.

Lad,

"Lying straw-man distortion?" The Magisterium is the necessary means by which Dogma is produced. Dogma is the end. The end is always primary in practical matters. When you make the "means" the rule of faith rather than the "end" then you are exchanging being for becoming and truth never reaches its term. This is a standard error of Neo-modernism.

I have already proven that dogma is the rule of faith. I have proven it by an appeal to reason that dogma as the rule of faith is necessarily derived from the definition of heresy. Why this necessarily follows may be over your head but that does not change that fact that it does.

It is also proven by the appeal to authority from the letter of Pope Agatho to the ecuмenical council that they must accept the dogma defined by Pope Adrian without discussion as their "rule of faith." The letter was formally accepted by the council along with the dogma defined by Pope Adrian. It is therefore a Magisterial act that dogma is the rule of faith.

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #2000 on: May 16, 2018, 08:13:11 PM »

Bishop des Laurier's thesis of sedeprivationism postulates the separation of the form and matter of the papal office that would necessarily cause a substantial change in what we know by divine and Catholic faith, that is, Dogma, will last until the end of the world with perpetual successors. Apparently, des Laurier like you did not hold dogma as his rule of faith.

Now you have no pope, no magisterium, no dogma, and no rule of faith. You like to accuse others of heresy but you have no rule of faith by which to make any such judgment excepting your own wits. So let's call the "Wit of Lad your rule of faith?"

But as I recall, you are the guy that did not know the definition of supernatural faith. And then you postulated the division of the necessary attributes supernatural faith corrupting its definition. So maybe you don't need a rule at all.

SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
« Reply #30 on: August 16, 2015, 08:08:35 AM »

SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
« Reply #33 on: August 16, 2015, 01:17:43 PM »

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #214 on: March 17, 2018, 02:55:17 PM »

Drew

drew · « **Reply #1133 on:** May 21, 2018, 07:23:56 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 21, 2018, 06:51:03 PM

I guess that your proof must have escaped the notice of every Catholic theologian before you. No doubt you'd be declared a Doctor of the Church were it not for the fact that Luther came up with the idea before you did.

Lad,

"Every Catholic theologian?" Hardly. I have already produced quotes from several Catholic theologians that support dogma as the rule of faith. If you like, I will repost the links. They were not cited it the previous post because as an argument they are the least in authority. They are in fact not an argument at all but an excuse for not giving one. The letter of Pope Agatho is a Magisterial letter. It rests on the authority of God, the strongest of all arguments. You do not find this convincing because the Magisterium is not really your rule of faith either.

The belief that Luther held dogma as the rule of faith is so stupid that I will add it to my list of Ladislausisms.

Luther denied the Magisterium and therefore all Dogma. He held Scripture alone as the remote rule of faith and the individual believer as the proximate rule of faith. You like Luther have no pope and no magisterium and no rule of faith so you, more than me, can sympathize with this dilemma. Luther had to rely on the Wit of Luther for his rule of faith which is not any better than the Wit of Lad.

You can fix this all up when you become the S&Sers first pope.

Drew

drew · « **Reply #1134 on:** May 21, 2018, 07:53:53 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on May 21, 2018, 07:35:39 PM

But Exsurge Domine by Pope Leo X, in which the R&R position is explicitly condemned, isn't?

The condemned errors of Martin Luther are not quite infallible for Mr. Drew; but this Letter of Pope Agatho is indeed.

Cantarella,

You are immune to reason and Magisterial authority. Your will is fixed, determined in entering a church that has no pope, no magisterium, no dogma, no moral compass, no rule of faith and no material or instrumental means to ever get them. Your church is not the Catholic Church.

This Letter of Pope Agatho concerns dogma, the rule of faith, and is addressed to an ecuмenical council which accepted the Letter. It is a Magisterial docuмent. The Magisterium is only your rule of faith as a means to turn your back on Dogma.

Drew