Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 443345 times)

Centroamerica · « **Reply #150 on:** March 21, 2018, 09:10:57 PM »

To condemn as heretics those who believe the Pope would cease to be Pope if befallen into obstinate heresy is not only to condemn St. Robert Bellarmine's opinion on this (something the Church has never done), but also to condemn both Archbishop Lefebvre's opinion that it is possible and Bishop Fellay's opinion that it is possible. Would those who condemn most vehemently those who believe that the sede vacante is a possibility, also openly condemn St. Robert Bellarmine, Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay? This is where deceit comes into play demonstrating that they hold to the spirit of division.

“Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, invalidity of election are so many reasons why a pope might in fact never have been pope or might no longer be one. In this, obviously very exceptional case, the Church would be in a situation similar to that which prevails after the death of a Pontiff.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

“If he (Pope Francis) continues as he does now, maybe we will be obliged to say ‘he cannot be pope!’ I say ‘maybe’ I don’t know. (Bishop Fellay, Oct 13, 2013 St. Vincent Church, KC,MO)

drew · « **Reply #151 on:** March 22, 2018, 09:55:53 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella on March 22, 2018, 09:15:11 AM

It was the Third Council of Constantinople; not the Fourth.

And per your own reasoning, such condemnation of Pope Honorious is of dubious veracity; given that the narrative is not enclosed in a dogmatic canon. All the councils, from Nicea to Vatican I, have worded their dogmatic canons "If any one says...let him be anathema"; but if any teaching proposed by the Church is outside this strict bracket; is not infallible and therefore subject to error, according to Drew.

Thanks for the correction but the purpose of the post had nothing to do with Pope Honorius' condemnation or the fact that the citation in question is not a dogmatic canon. The purpose of recommending your reading this introduction to the Council is to see all the Church fathers of the Council affirm all the dogmatic proclamations of previous councils one by one; to see that in their judgments against all the heretics and heresies, the dogmatic canons are repeatedly mentioned as their rule of faith by which they 'govern their lives'. Dogma as the proximate rule of faith should be something that you should have no problem accepting from what you have posted in the past. Unless, that is, if you are determined to follow the errors of sedeprivationism or sedevacantism in which case, dogma has to take a back seat just as it does with those promoting salvation by implicit desire.

Drew

Jeremiah2v8 · « **Reply #152 on:** March 22, 2018, 10:15:23 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 20, 2018, 05:37:44 PM

And that's a debate among Catholics with Catholic premises. But we can't start out with the Protestant heresy that dogma is the rule of faith rather than the Magisterium.

But Drew maintains that it is the Magisterium which determines dogma; the Prots reject the whole idea of "magisterium." He says, in effect, the Magisterium provides us nourishment to eat (which Prots deny), but it cannot eat itself (and you agree with him; see below).

By what "rule of faith" do you determine that the current Magisterium has gone "off the rails" and needs to be rejected?

No matter what the "rule of faith" is, at some point you must determine if the "rule of faith" applies to something, in this instance the current Magisterium. Even if your position is "doubt" and not rejection, that is still your determination of dubiety. If you base that on prior Magsterial statements . . . so does Drew in relying on infallible Magisterial utterances.

If you say the current Magisterium isn't the Magisterium, and its rules shouldn't be followed . . . how do you know that?

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #153 on:** March 22, 2018, 12:29:32 PM »

Quote from: Jeremiah2v8 on March 22, 2018, 10:15:23 AM

But Drew maintains that it is the Magisterium which determines dogma; the Prots reject the whole idea of "magisterium." He says, in effect, the Magisterium provides us nourishment to eat (which Prots deny), but it cannot eat itself (and you agree with him; see below).

By what "rule of faith" do you determine that the current Magisterium has gone "off the rails" and needs to be rejected?

No matter what the "rule of faith" is, at some point you must determine if the "rule of faith" applies to something, in this instance the current Magisterium. Even if your position is "doubt" and not rejection, that is still your determination of dubiety. If you base that on prior Magsterial statements . . . so does Drew in relying on infallible Magisterial utterances.

If you say the current Magisterium isn't the Magisterium, and its rules shouldn't be followed . . . how do you know that?

One of Drew's quotes on page 14, reply #200:
https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=48225.195

Meg · « **Reply #154 on:** March 22, 2018, 01:02:55 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 22, 2018, 12:48:32 PM

Dimond Brothers have summed up very nicely how R&R leads inexorably to a non-Catholic view of the Magisterium.

The Dimond brothers. I, for one, could care less about what they think. They're nuts.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 443345 times)

Centroamerica

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?

drew

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?

Jeremiah2v8

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?

Maria Auxiliadora

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?

Meg

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?