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.
"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 ecumenical 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 »