Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?  (Read 57961 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Clemens Maria

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 880
  • Reputation: +642/-124
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #15 on: March 09, 2018, 09:40:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I don't see how sedeprivationism ends up in conclavism. If anything, it opposes it.
    Yes, you are correct.  It wouldn't surprise me if conservative Novus Ordo Catholics are more ready to hold a conclave than the sedevacante and sedeprivationist bishops.  I don't really fault the sede bishops for that but I wish they would at least give a general council of Catholic bishops some serious thought.

    Offline Centroamerica

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2559
    • Reputation: +1542/-425
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #16 on: March 09, 2018, 09:50:04 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0


  • Not to derail the thread, but is Cantarella's (of all screen names) post calling Archbishop Lefebvre a neo-Jansenist?? I doubt those bishops would agree with such a remark. Despite having left the SSPX, the priests that were known as the nine still have a huge admiration for Archbishop Lefebvre and believe that he was raised up by God.
    We conclude logically that religion can give an efficacious and truly realistic answer to the great modern problems only if it is a religion that is profoundly lived, not simply a superficial and cheap religion made up of some vocal prayers and some ceremonies...


    Offline PG

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1734
    • Reputation: +454/-468
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #17 on: March 09, 2018, 10:08:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, you are correct.  It wouldn't surprise me if conservative Novus Ordo Catholics are more ready to hold a conclave than the sedevacante and sedeprivationist bishops.  I don't really fault the sede bishops for that but I wish they would at least give a general council of Catholic bishops some serious thought.
    I never said that the sedeprivationists will hold a conclave.  They will not.  However, they will be the first victim of a conclave.  And, life is in the blood.  Their end comes like a thief in the night.  

    And, in my previous post, don't be mistaken by what I said about st paul by thinking that I promote conciliarism or collegiality.  That is not the case.  I do not believe in a perfect council judging a pope a formal heretic.  
    "A secure mind is like a continual feast" - Proverbs xv: 15

    Offline ignatius

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 59
    • Reputation: +80/-207
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #18 on: March 09, 2018, 11:39:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • Father Chazal is unquestionably a sedeprivationist ... whether or not he'd lay claim to the term.  He is NOT R&R. 
     I suspected this but can not verify.  Can you provide some writing of his or audio lending him to be a sedeprivationist?  Even for him to say he is not a r&r is a significant position. Thanks.

    Offline obscurus

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 791
    • Reputation: +866/-23
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #19 on: March 10, 2018, 01:33:07 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Nobody ever seems to explain to me how proper authority in the Catholic Church continues according to the strict sedevacantist position. I never get a clear answer.


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3136
    • Reputation: +1923/-971
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #20 on: March 10, 2018, 07:43:42 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    - It may be held that since the Vatican II popes possess a legal and valid election, they have a certain legal status as popes.
    - It may be held that this legal status is sufficient to maintain the succession to Peter and the perpetuity of the hierarchy.
    When +ABL was alive, the sspx agreed with the above.  The ‘recognition’ of the popes was limited as he didn’t think that spiritually they were legitimate.  

    Since +Fellay has took the reigns, the sspx’s definition of ‘recognize’ has become ridiculous and hypocritical.  

    Very important distinction.

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 21784
    • Reputation: +19154/-111
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #21 on: March 10, 2018, 08:41:02 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • Traditional Catholics have traditionally remained aloof and basically ignored "the man in a white cassock who lives in Vatican City".

    Whether he is the pope, only legally the pope, or not pope at all doesn't really matter to us. In my opinion, that knowledge is AT LEAST morally impossible for 99.99% of men who weren't present at this or that secret meeting or election. For the average American or European living in 2018, no amount of study or thought is going to bring you to 100% certainty on the status of Pope Francis (and/or Pope Benedict).

    But when I consider that the whole Crisis in the Church touches on God's secret plans and providence, which NO MAN IS PRIVY TO, nor has God shared his plans with anyone, it's even more impossible to know with certainty. I can't say "metaphysically impossible" because that would be like a plant having the use of reason. But it's morally impossible for 100% of men, not just the 99.99% who weren't intimately involved in papal elections, Freemasonry, etc.

    Oh I've heard some good arguments in my time. From R&R, from conservative Novus Ordo, from sedevacantists, and from sedeprivationists. As you listen to any of their arguments, they sound quite convincing. Just one problem -- those arguments can't all be right!

    They all sound convincing because they each focus on ONE ELEMENT of the mystery of the Crisis in the Church. If you focus on this element, you lean R&R. If you focus on this element, you lean sedevacantist. And so on. The problem is, NONE OF THESE POSITIONS ADEQUATELY ADDRESS ALL THE ISSUES AND OBJECTIONS INVOLVED. Hence my firm belief that we're dealing with a mystery.

    But what we do know with certainty: We have to save our souls, and keep the Catholic Faith, and the man in white isn't promoting or protecting that Faith. On the contrary, he is doing everything he can to destroy it.

    So we can pray for him, even in the Canon of the Mass (especially since he might be pope or legally pope -- who knows?) but that's about it.

    We don't have to follow a material heretic, nor should we negotiate with him for "legitimacy", jurisdiction, approval, etc.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 21784
    • Reputation: +19154/-111
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #22 on: March 10, 2018, 09:19:23 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Nobody ever seems to explain to me how proper authority in the Catholic Church continues according to the strict sedevacantist position. I never get a clear answer.

    Oh, they wimp out by saying, "God will work a miracle" or "St. Peter will come down and personally pick the next Pope", which amounts to the same thing.

    That seems like a cop-out to me, because when you have recourse to, "Well, there could be a miracle!" it means you're out of ideas! You don't see any possibility in the human realm.

    See, there's nothing wrong with NOT attempting to explain away the mystery of this Crisis in the Church. Even if we did try to reason about it, we might easily be wrong. Our reason is not infallible. But the Sedevacantists have clearly applied their reason, and have attempted to solve the Crisis mystery completely (with a neat little bow, I might add). But their solution (from human reason) falls short PRECISELY because they can't explain how Authority will come back.

    I don't know how this is all going to be resolved either, which is why my realistic and honest position is: "I don't know, and I can't know. I'm just going to keep the Faith and save my soul."

    Because the status of the Pope is not a T in the road (do I go left? Or right? I have to choose one of them, and they each involved a hard turn one way or the other!), I go with the DEFAULT (as in, computer software) POSITION. That is to say, we assume he's the Pope until a council declares otherwise.

    The Pope question is like a straight road saying "He is the pope" and sedevacantism is a sharp right turn off that road. It's making a decision. If you make no decision, you keep going forward, holding to the default position that he's the pope.

    It follows from this, that Catholics won't ever be judged by God for holding to that default position. Now the same can't be said for those who rashly took the reins, and diverted the carriage on a sharp 90 degree turn. Maybe they shouldn't have done this, maybe they should. But how can you blame someone who just rides in the carriage, letting the horses move you along? Unless you know exactly what needs to be done, and where you need to go instead, then why take the reins?

    Such taking of the reins is a moral action. Is not doing anything also considered a moral action? If so, then we're screwed, because we really don't know what to do, and if we're going to be judged for "doing something" either way, even if that "something" is doing nothing, then how fair is that?
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!


    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 21784
    • Reputation: +19154/-111
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #23 on: March 10, 2018, 09:31:09 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • It is obvious, though, that doing nothing is NOT the same as engaging in any positive action.

    For example, if a man has a gun to your head, there are many things you could do, including nothing at all. You could try to brush the gun aside, create a distraction, try to grab the gun, try to reason with him, etc.

    Or you could do nothing.

    Say you decide to do nothing, and hope he doesn't shoot you. In the worst case scenario, he shoots you in the head. Would you be responsible for your death? Even if, objectively speaking, "you chose poorly" because with this particular criminal, you could have used a Krav Maga move to take the gun away?  Of course not!
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2626
    • Reputation: +1218/-1869
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #24 on: March 10, 2018, 10:17:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Traditional Catholics have traditionally remained aloof and basically ignored "the man in a white cassock who lives in Vatican City".

    Whether he is the pope, only legally the pope, or not pope at all doesn't really matter to us. In my opinion, that knowledge is AT LEAST morally impossible for 99.99% of men who weren't present at this or that secret meeting or election. For the average American or European living in 2018, no amount of study or thought is going to bring you to 100% certainty on the status of Pope Francis (and/or Pope Benedict).

    But when I consider that the whole Crisis in the Church touches on God's secret plans and providence, which NO MAN IS PRIVY TO, nor has God shared his plans with anyone, it's even more impossible to know with certainty. I can't say "metaphysically impossible" because that would be like a plant having the use of reason. But it's morally impossible for 100% of men, not just the 99.99% who weren't intimately involved in papal elections, Freemasonry, etc.

    Oh I've heard some good arguments in my time. From R&R, from conservative Novus Ordo, from sedevacantists, and from sedeprivationists. As you listen to any of their arguments, they sound quite convincing. Just one problem -- those arguments can't all be right!

    They all sound convincing because they each focus on ONE ELEMENT of the mystery of the Crisis in the Church. If you focus on this element, you lean R&R. If you focus on this element, you lean sedevacantist. And so on. The problem is, NONE OF THESE POSITIONS ADEQUATELY ADDRESS ALL THE ISSUES AND OBJECTIONS INVOLVED. Hence my firm belief that we're dealing with a mystery.

    But what we do know with certainty: We have to save our souls, and keep the Catholic Faith, and the man in white isn't promoting or protecting that Faith. On the contrary, he is doing everything he can to destroy it.

    So we can pray for him, even in the Canon of the Mass (especially since he might be pope or legally pope -- who knows?) but that's about it.

    We don't have to follow a material heretic, nor should we negotiate with him for "legitimacy", jurisdiction, approval, etc.

    The above is good Catholic common sense.

    Offline ignatius

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 59
    • Reputation: +80/-207
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #25 on: March 10, 2018, 10:30:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Here is what Fr. Ringrose has published:
    “Today let us consider another error, referred to by some as “Recognize and Resist.”  In a nutshell, R&R holds that sometimes, the pope teaches error or imposes evil or harmful practices or laws.*  When he does, we must recognize his authority but resist his erroneous teachings or evil commands.  Good Catholics have mistakenly fallen into this error in their attempt to protect the teaching of the Church that the pope must have perpetual successors and that somehow there must always be a hierarchy.  The R&R position cannot be held because it ignores the clear teaching of the Church that the pope cannot teach error or impose evil or harmful practices and laws by virtue of the guarantee of Our Lord and the special assistance of the Holy Ghost.  If we recognize the pope’s authority to teach and rule the Church in matters of faith and morals, we have no choice but to assent and obey, for not to do so would be to fail to assent to Christ Himself, by Whose authority and in Whose name the pope speaks.  So R&R cannot be the answer, and like sedevacantism, it too must be rejected.
    (*Some have said that the pope taught error at the time of St. Athanasius, but a closer examination of the facts shows this not to be true.)”

    And:
    -Contrary to the teaching of the Church: The pope can teach error sometimes and impose harmful or evil practices and laws on the Universal Church.  The Faith requires all Catholics to reject this idea.
    -Contrary to the teaching of the Church: There is no hierarchy whatsoever.  (It is de fide that the hierarchy must be perpetual.)  Therefore, Catholics must reject sedevacantism.
    -Contrary to the teaching of the Church: We may resist the authority of the pope.  Therefore, we must reject R&R.
    - Since it is obvious that the Vatican II popes have imposed teachings and practices contrary to Faith and morals, it must be concluded that the infallible and indefectible teaching power promised to Peter’s successors is absent.
    - It may be held that since the Vatican II popes possess a legal and valid election, they have a certain legal status as popes.
    - It may be held that this legal status is sufficient to maintain the succession to Peter and the perpetuity of the hierarchy.

    So does he believe francis is the pope or not?  What pope does he say in his mass: none or benedict? 
    These are important questions.


    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2626
    • Reputation: +1218/-1869
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #26 on: March 10, 2018, 10:59:29 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • Previously, I posted excerpts.  Here's the complete text:

    From Fr. Ringrose’s bulletin:
    This feast reinforces Catholic teaching that Christ has given to Peter and his successors a unique role in the Church as Universal Pastor.  In this role as teacher Our Lord has promised that he who hears Peter hears him.  Recognizing this promise, the Church has infallibly taught that Peter and his successors cannot teach error to the Universal Church any more than Christ can.  So Christ guarantees that Peter will never teach error and Peter has the special assistance of the Holy Ghost to carry this out.
    Last week we considered the error of sedevacantism, which holds that there is no pope, and that there is no hierarchy.  Today let us consider another error, referred to by some as “Recognize and Resist.”  In a nutshell, R&R holds that sometimes, the pope teaches error or imposes evil or harmful practices or laws.*  When he does, we must recognize his authority but resist his erroneous teachings or evil commands.  Good Catholics have mistakenly fallen into this error in their attempt to protect the teaching of the Church that the pope must have perpetual successors and that somehow there must always be a hierarchy.  The R&R position cannot be held because it ignores the clear teaching of the Church that the pope cannot teach error or impose evil or harmful practices and laws by virtue of the guarantee of Our Lord and the special assistance of the Holy Ghost.  If we recognize the pope’s authority to teach and rule the Church in matters of faith and morals, we have no choice but to assent and obey, for not to do so would be to fail to assent to Christ Himself, by Whose authority and in Whose name the pope speaks.  So R&R cannot be the answer, and like sedevacantism, it too must be rejected.
    (*Some have said that the pope taught error at the time of St. Athanasius, but a closer examination of the facts shows this not to be true.)
     
    From Fr. Ringrose’s posting in his church:
    It is the teaching of the Church that the office of the Chair of St. Peter (Peter and his successors, the popes) is indefectible, that is it is always free from error and must be perpetual.  Its teachings are the standard and rule of Faith, despite the worthiness or unworthiness of the successor.  In light of this, what is a faithful Catholic to do?  Join or re-join the Novus Ordo?  By no means!  It is a false religion and to do so would be to abandon the Catholic Faith.
    The question arises:  How is it that the New Order popes have attempted to impose on the Church erroneous teachings and harmful or evil law or practices?  Particular attention must be given to two of the most widely-held erroneous explanations:  sedevacantism and recognize and resist (R&R).  In light of what has been said, the following become apparent:
    - Contrary to the teaching of the Church: The pope can teach error sometimes and impose harmful or evil practices and laws on the Universal Church.  The Faith requires all Catholics to reject this idea.
    - Contrary to the teaching of the Church: There is no hierarchy whatsoever.  (It is de fide that the hierarchy must be perpetual.)  Therefore, Catholics must reject sedevacantism.
    - Contrary to the teaching of the Church: We may resist the authority of the pope.  Therefore, we must reject R&R.
    - Since it is obvious that the Vatican II popes have imposed teachings and practices contrary to Faith and morals, it must be concluded that the infallible and indefectible teaching power promised to Peter’s successors is absent.
    - It may be held that since the Vatican II popes possess a legal and valid election, they have a certain legal status as popes.
    - It may be held that this legal status is sufficient to maintain the succession to Peter and the perpetuity of the hierarchy.
    It would appear, then, that the Chair is not totally vacant, nor is it completely full.  The new order popes possess some legal aspect as popes but lack the authority to teach or rule on matters of faith and morals.  In the face of this situation, the proper response of all faithful Catholics is to believe what Catholics have always believed and to do what Catholics have always done.  We cannot go wrong with that!
     

    I think that Fr. Ringrose makes the situation more complicated than it has to be. He says above, in the last paragraph,  that...."the chair is not totally vacant, nor is it completely full." Well, this stance will then necessitate a complicated explanation, when really it shouldn't be all that complicated. IMO, we simply do not follow a pope in his errors.

    +ABL did not obsess on the Pope and jurisdiction.

    Offline PG

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1734
    • Reputation: +454/-468
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #27 on: March 10, 2018, 11:22:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Here is what Fr. Ringrose has published:
    The R&R position cannot be held because it ignores the clear teaching of the Church that the pope cannot teach error or impose evil or harmful practices and laws by virtue of the guarantee of Our Lord and the special assistance of the Holy Ghost.  If we recognize the pope’s authority to teach and rule the Church in matters of faith and morals, we have no choice but to assent and obey, for not to do so would be to fail to assent to Christ Himself, by Whose authority and in Whose name the pope speaks.
    This is a dangerous position Fr. Ringrose is teaching.  Because, synonymous with saving our souls is preserving or in our case saving the papacy.  Because, it is from the papacy that we have other bishops.  And, it is from among the other bishops that we have the sword.  Even the priest and the mass is not officially ahead of those two, despite it being easily quotable by +Lefebvre.  We have to keep it all in the balance.
    Fr. ringrose position is one step away from if not already at the door of entertaining the outright invalidity of the new rites.  And, not just due to human error outside of their papal introduction.  Because, if we do not recognized the popes authority(or better yet ability) to teach and rule, why would we grant these popes the benefit of the doubt that they can create 7 valid new rites/changes in the rites?  We only grant validity because we believe that these popes have authority.  Without that belief, which has been always strong in sspx tradition, validity of the new rites will meet the chopping block.
    And, if these conciliar popes do ever teach true faith and morals, I will be the first to agree with them.  Why is it that fr. ringrose wouldn't want to be the first to agree/support them?  That is precisely how reform and return will occur.  As matthew said about the sedes, st peter is not going to come down from heaven and miraculously select for us a new pope or point out the true pope.  We must be realistic and practical.  The pope is not outside of conversion.  Popes can be wrong, even in faith and morals.  However, before popes were/are wrong, previous popes were right, and taught such right.  Before any error crept into the church through the papacy, and error has for a long long time, correct teaching was established by a preceding pope.  That is the deposit of the faith, and the strength of the office of peter.  Without its visibility, we would not benefit as we do.  Let us not now refuse that.
    I would agree that even when a heretical pope(or any pope for that matter) is right(or better yet not wrong), we do not necessarily have to obey.  But, not in the sense that creates extremes like it does for fr. ringrose.  Do you remember the uproar that occurred when +Williamson said that if pope francis called me up today and said, "I want to approve you and give you an official piece of paper stating such", +Williamson said he would be on a plane to rome the very next day to go and pick it up?  This was within the context of a conversation about how we do not need such approval or piece of paper, but was said to show how useful even with these heretical popes it is/can be.  For +Williamson it was not "either or", it was "both and".  And, that is not a contradiction.  That is true wisdom.  That is what was displayed by +Lefebvre that proud indi priests could not accept, and that is what is displayed by +Williamson.  
    "A secure mind is like a continual feast" - Proverbs xv: 15

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 21784
    • Reputation: +19154/-111
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #28 on: March 10, 2018, 11:57:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Frankly, I don't know about the new Novus Ordo rites, either. As I was taught, when we have a choice between a doubtful Rite and a certain Rite, we ARE OBLIGATED to choose the more certain.

    This is Church teaching. And it is the foundation of the Traditional Movement. It is why we reject wholesale the entire Conciliar package -- Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, its new practices, its new sacraments, its doubtful priests and bishops, and its materially heretical popes. Why risk invalidity when we can go to a Traditional Catholic Mass chapel and get 100% certain priests and sacraments?

    Are the Novus Ordo Mass and the Conciliar sacraments valid? Who cares! It's an academic question, because no Catholic who values his Faith should EVER consider going to a Novus Ordo Mass. Better to stay at home than to imbue sentimental, protestant, liberal, feminist propaganda.

    I'm a practical person. Chalk it up to the Irish side of my heritage. When I observe that the average Novus Ordo Catholic is indistinguishable from his Jewish and non-Catholic friends in every measurable way -- how many children he has, his use of birth control, his language, his recreation, his ambitions, his hobbies, his dress, his politics ("go Hillary! go Obama! -- for the economy! Who cares about abortion...") his daily prayer life, etc. than why shouldn't I conclude that something is critically wrong in that church?

    It's not just the smart thing to do, though. We are actually meeting our grave obligation to keep the Faith and not put our Faith in jeopardy. Are we allowed to attend protestant services? No. Why would we be allowed to attend virtually protestant services, with a few Catholic vestiges but mostly protestant, indistinguishable from a protestant service by the average layman, and which was actually designed by a half-dozen protestant ministers? Those who want to muse about the validity of the Novus Ordo are COMPLETELY missing the point. It's still filled with anti-Catholic poison! It's calculated to destroy souls. Why would you subject yourself to its destructive power? Do you think you're stronger than so many who have fallen away? That would be pride (which is ironic, since they always accuse Trads of being proud and disobedient).

    When the priest has Holy Water and regular water available for baptism, he must choose the Holy Water. He can't choose doubtfully valid matter over certainly valid matter.  The same goes for the FORM (the words) of the sacrament!

    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline obscurus

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 791
    • Reputation: +866/-23
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #29 on: March 10, 2018, 05:03:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • That's where sedeprivationism comes in ... as one proposed resolution to this question.  I myself have a slightly-different slant on this position, where I believe that if a merely-material Pope appoints a bishop to his office, and that bishop is not a heretic and has no impediment to formally exercising the office, he can in fact formally exercise his office and has all the usual jurisdiction that comes with it.
    And not binding at all on the Catholic conscience -- mere theological speculation. 

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16