Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 204758 times)

drew · « **Reply #180 on:** March 23, 2018, 08:22:58 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on March 23, 2018, 01:04:52 AM

The same as you, because of the Catholic Principle of Non-Contradiction. It is only that the reason of why this may have happened is different.

You cannot have it both ways, either and you also have no current Authority or Magisterium. The rule of Faith you are following are the dogmatic canons taught by the assemblies of Bishops in the past;but these differ from the disciplinary canons also promulgated in such Ecuмenical Councils.

How do you make the difference between dogmatic canons and disciplinary canons (which are reversible) in past Councils? Doesn't make more Catholic sense to believe that everything which emanates from an Ecuмenical Council is at least free from major error?

Do you have a concise list of the dogmatic canons that constitute your Rule of Faith, Mr. Drew?

As I said in an earlier post, no faithful Catholic is obligated to produce an answer for everything. Our job is not to solve the current crisis but to keep the Catholic faith whole and undefiled throughout the crisis. There are many areas of controversy in the current crisis where only time will sort out the proper answers. Many are impatient for an immediate answer and thus choose a course that leads to the overturning of Catholic dogma. They leave a burning ship only to be swallowed up in the sea.

I do have a current Authority but, admittedly, that Authority is not generally followed. But in cases where the ordinary and universal magisterium has been engaged, I have no problem with accepting the teaching of the magisterium, such as, John Paul II's teaching that ordination of women was absolutely prohibited by divine and apostolic tradition.

Think of Authority as exercised by a father who becomes habitually drunk. He does not cease thereby to be the father, and even if drunk, if he makes a reasonable demand that is within the exercise of his duties and the obligation of his children, he must be obeyed. But if the drunken state leads to unreasonable requests that are an abuse of his duties to his children and their obligations to him, he need not be obeyed. Obedience even to a father is governed by the virtue of Religion. No son can obey a father that commands him to offend God. Notice, the Authority of the father remains irrespective of the sons obedience or just refusal to obey.

Dogmatic canons are in the category of Truth/Falsehood. Disciplinary canons are in the category of Authority/Obedience. They are logically distinct in their linguistic structure. The presumption of any authoritative teaching from the ordinary authentic magisterium must certainly be accepted with a presumption of being correct, however, if that is evidently not so, “we must obey God rather than man.”

As for a “list of dogmatic canons” that constitute my “rule of faith” For a long answer, I would give the same answer that was offered by the Fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople in the opening of the Council that I previously quoted to you beginning with all the traditionally accepted Creeds. But a short but adequate answer is this quote from Vatican I which said:

Quote

“Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition (remote rule of faith), and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium” (proximate rule of faith).

The Magisterium, either in its “solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium” is the means and dogma is the end. Dogma answers the question: What is proposed? It is this whatness of what is proposed that constitutes the proximate rule of faith. That is why dogma is called “the formal object of divine and Catholic faith.”

And, before any objection is offered, the word “Universal” necessarily contains the attribute of time as an essential property. If time is not a consideration, the thing itself cannot be a universal. This is by definition.

Drew

drew · « **Reply #181 on:** March 23, 2018, 08:35:26 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 23, 2018, 08:18:09 PM

Again, you distort her position in order to attack it. Straw man. St. Robert Bellarmine, first of all, held it as a "pious opinion" that the Pope could not even personally fall into heresy. St. Robert Bellarmine himself considered this probable. So now you attack a Doctor of the Church as a "papolator". In fact, you implicitly attack every Catholic theologian of "papolatry". "Papolatry", ironically, is the common Protestant attack against the Church.

What Cantarella says is that the Pope as Pope, in his office of teaching the Church, cannot fall into heresy ... i.e., that he can never teach heresy to the Universal Church (assuming that he's a legitimate pope).

If a pope "could not even personally fall into heresy" then how did you loose yours? Sedevacantism and sedeprivationism become theoretically absurd and practically impossible from your own argument.

Pope Honorius was declared a heretic and anathematized by the Magisterium of the Church. Nothing ever said about loosing his office. The grounds for this Magisterial decision was his failure to keep the rule of faith, i.e.: dogma, he was called a heretic.

The only sure "straw man" around here is you.

Drew

drew · « **Reply #182 on:** March 23, 2018, 08:59:53 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 23, 2018, 08:23:17 PM

Oh, come on now. Yes, the existence of the Magisterium was revealed. That's not what we're talking about.

When I say that the Magisterium is not part of Revelation, I'm simply reiterating the teaching of Vatican I regarding the distinction between Revelation and Magisterium. Magisterium is not part of Revelation; it's a distinct thing. It's the Church explaining and defining Revelation. It's formally distinct.

You said, not once, but in several posts that the Magisterium was not part of divine revelation. You claimed that it was from the Authority of God but not revealed by God. You patted yourself on the back for your clever ability to make distinctions. You did this to support your stupid argument to justify your driving a wedge between the two necessary attributes that define supernatural faith. You overturned the definition of supernatural faith and then proposed that "the Magisterium was not of divine revelation" so that you could claim that the Magisterium was "extrinsic" to the faith.

Furthermore, Vatican I never said what you are here claiming that "the Magisterium is not part of Revelation" to qualify a distinction between "Revelation and Magisterium."

You are a damn liar. I cannot imagine what you could possible do to make living. You are incompetent, careless, shameless and remarkably immature. You have demonstrated time and again a cowardly petty shallowness of character. This entire forum would benefit from your absence. Lacking that, Matthew could establish a "Ladislaus" sub-forum under the general heading of a "Greater Depression" where you could read and reply to your own posts.

Drew

Jeremiah2v8 · « **Reply #183 on:** March 23, 2018, 10:02:21 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 23, 2018, 08:11:19 PM

Textbook. You appeal to dogma over and above the Magisterium, except what you're actually doing is preferring your own private interpretation of dogma to that of the Church.

You don't answer questions so if I repeat myself below it's unfortunately a necessity under the circuмstances. Or maybe some different questions will get a response.

Do you believe there is error in the current Catechism, which is certainly Magisterial teaching under Pope John Paul II? If so, why don't you declare yourself a Sedevacantist? That would be the only possible conclusion faced with a Magisterium propounding erroneous teaching on the faith to the universal Church, since the Magisterium cannot teach error according to you.

Your position seems to agree with that of Cardinals Marchetti-Selvaggiani and Ottaviani that dogmas "must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church." (Suprema Haec).

How has the "teaching authority of the Church" interpreted Trent and the "necessity" of water baptism? You are aware of the Roman Catechism, the Catechism of Trent, right? You are aware of the "unanimous" teaching of the theologians, St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, etc., supporting BOD, expressed with nary a whisper of objection from the Magisterium?

Do you accept the dogma re the necessity of baptism "in the sense in which the Church herself understands it"?

Or are you a "Protestant" opposing your own interpretation of the dogma against the indefectible Magisterium that is your "rule of faith"?

Quote

Matthew 7

[1] Judge not, that you may not be judged, [2] For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. [3] And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? [4] Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye? [5] Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/47007.htm

Stubborn · « **Reply #184 on:** March 24, 2018, 05:19:55 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella on March 23, 2018, 11:19:07 AM

This bull contradicts you in the very first paragraph:

Quote
The only-begotten Son of the Eternal Father, who came on earth to bring salvation and the light of divine wisdom to men, conferred a great and wonderful blessing on the world when, about to ascend again into heaven, He commanded the Apostles to go and teach all nations,(1) and left the Church which He had founded to be the common and supreme teacher of the peoples.
It is precisely this teaching Church (this is, the Magisterium) which Christ left, in order to be the common and supreme teacher of the peoples. The teaching Church is the Rule of Faith for all generations; contrary to what Mr. Drew says.

By the way, this bull also refers to the ecuмenical councils as the "flowers of ALL earthly wisdom".

Your above quote from Pope Leo XIII does not agree whatsoever with your echoing of V2's LG.

Yes, certainly the Church is the supreme teacher because the Church is Christ, it is Christ's mystical body which He established on earth in order to teach us how to get to heaven. He left us His Mystical Body, which IS the Church. The Church is most assuredly the supreme teacher.

Catholics, being members of the Church, are members of Christ's mystical Body, the Church. Christ and the Church are one. They are one and the same, which is the reason why the Church He left us can never err and will last till the end of time - because the Church is Christ.

Heaven and earth will pass away, but it is His Words that will last forever. When you read dogma, you read His Words. His words are contained the Solemn Magisterium as well as in both the Ordinary Magisterium and the Universal Magisterium. This is the teaching of V1.

OTOH, the NO church is a church where all the bishops of the world in union with pope, gather in council, or are dispersed throughout the world teach whatever they want - and on that account alone whatever they teach is binding and infallible. This is the NO church. This is a NO doctrine and does not agree with Pope Leo's or any other Church teaching.

Quote

Stubborn, how do you distinguish an infallible teaching?

"Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed, 1) which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and 2) which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium." - Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council

Truth is "the matter", the way we learn this truth is via "the method". We Catholics are bound to truth, it is the truth that binds us. It is therefore the matter that binds us, not the method. It is therefore "the matter" which is our rule of faith, not "the method".

OTOH, within the NO church, it is the method that binds them, not the matter. The NO matter ever changing and is therefore impossible to bind oneself too. This is why within the NO, they are bound to the method, not the matter, i.e. they are bound to teachings of their popes and bishops which are lies, on that account they cannot be bound to truth. They are bound to the method, not the matter.

Jeremiah2v8 · « **Reply #185 on:** March 24, 2018, 06:42:52 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on March 24, 2018, 05:19:55 AM

. . . . they are bound to teachings of their popes and bishops which are lies, on that account they cannot be bound to truth. They are bound to the method, not the matter.

This is what happens when the priest/bishop "theologians" prophesy the lie of their "immunity" from error in their teaching ALWAYS and whenever they open their mouths, and the people swallow it.

It results in the contradictions of Ladislaus at best (the Magisterium is indefectibile and without error in its teaching, except when that teaching is BOD, or a new rite of Mass, or whatever) and the apostasy of the NO church in masses at worst.

Quote

Jeremiah 5

[11] For the house of Israel, and the house of Juda have greatly transgressed against me, saith the Lord. [12] They have denied the Lord, and said, It is not he: and the evil shall not come upon us: we shall not see the sword and famine. [13] The prophets have spoken in the wind, and there was no word of God in them: these things therefore shall befall them . . .

[26] For among my people are found wicked men, that lie in wait as fowlers, setting snares and traps to catch men. [27] As a net is full of birds, so their houses are full of deceit: therefore are they become great and enriched. [28] They are grown gross and fat: and have most wickedly transgressed my words. They have not judged the cause of the widow, they have not managed the cause of the fatherless, they have not judged the judgement of the poor. [29] Shall I not visit for these things, saith the Lord? or shall not my soul take revenge on such a nation? [30] Astonishing and wonderful things have been done in the land.

[31] The prophets prophesied falsehood, and the priests clapped their hands: and my people loved such things: what then shall be done in the end thereof?

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/28005.htm

cathman7 · « **Reply #186 on:** March 24, 2018, 08:11:19 AM »

So we look at the Novus Ordo "Magisterium" and the "Popes" and see what has been promoted and taught since (what year?) and according to the traditional teaching it contradicts the very essence of the Church: Therefore, it cannot be the Magisterium; these men CANNOT be Popes; therefore the Church stopped teaching to the faithful in the here and now since (what year?).

However, it was divinely provided that one theologian in Fr Guerard des Lauriers came up with a solution -- the only solution -- to the thorny problem of the Crisis. It was developed in the mid to late 70s. One must hold to his solution unless one is deemed a heretic. Archbishop Lefebvre promoted heresy in following the course of action he chose. Shame on him for not understanding the brilliance of Fr des Lauriers.

All we can do is wait for divine intervention in completely overhauling of these usurpers of authority. The new hierarchy must then be reconsecrated or ordained in the Traditional Rite and then go from there. Or God will intervene directly and straighten things out.

Obviously the above is all tongue and cheek and is not meant to be a theological response. I find it difficult to believe that Archbishop Lefebvre's approach was somehow heretical or at least nearing it.

(Someone posted excerpts from Van Noort's Christ's Church already)

Stubborn · « **Reply #187 on:** March 24, 2018, 09:22:57 AM »

Quote from: Jeremiah2v8 on March 24, 2018, 06:42:52 AM

This is what happens when the priest/bishop "theologians" prophesy the lie of their "immunity" from error in their teaching ALWAYS and whenever they open their mouths, and the people swallow it.

It results in the contradictions of Ladislaus at best (the Magisterium is indefectibile and without error in its teaching, except when that teaching is BOD, or a new rite of Mass, or whatever) and the apostasy of the NO church in masses at worst.

Yes, being bound to the method, which can be evil, instead of being bound to the matter, which forever can be only truth, has resulted in the crisis we are in.

We MUST be bound to the truth - THAT is our rule of faith. Dogma, as V1 states, is contained in the Magisterium, can only ever be truth itself - Dogma is our rule of faith.

As these last 60 years indisputably prove, to consistently confuse the Magisterium with the hierarchy, or with the pope, or with whatever the pope / members of the hierarchy teach is binding, then take that confused idea and make that the rule of faith, has resulted in an entirely different and diabolical church - it resulted in the church of the Novus Ordo.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #188 on:** March 24, 2018, 11:36:18 AM »

Ladilaus,

"Protestant" Drew, now 67, has been a traditional Catholic since age 22. Today, he has all 6 daughters married in the traditional Rite to solid Catholics and all 39 grandchildren (as of now) growing up in Tradition and all home schooled. I hope you can do as well.

ConfederateCatholic · « **Reply #189 on:** March 24, 2018, 12:55:10 PM »

Quote from: obscurus on March 24, 2018, 08:11:19 AM

(Someone posted excerpts from Van Noort's Christ's Church already)

Translation:
"Someone posted excerpts from Van Noort's Christ's Church already, and I looked it up in order to attempt a rebuttal, but was unable to do so, and realized I was mistaken."

cathman7 · « **Reply #190 on:** March 24, 2018, 01:26:27 PM »

Quote from: ConfederateCatholic on March 24, 2018, 12:55:10 PM

Translation:
"Someone posted excerpts from Van Noort's Christ's Church already, and I looked it up in order to attempt a rebuttal, but was unable to do so, and realized I was mistaken."

Never knew you had the gift of reading souls. Must be a wonderful gift to have.

drew · « **Reply #191 on:** March 24, 2018, 01:45:12 PM »

Lasialaus,

Please accept my apology for the last post. My insulting comments were out of line.

Drew

Jeremiah2v8 · « **Reply #192 on:** March 24, 2018, 06:45:14 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 24, 2018, 02:46:08 PM

Church has never taught or defined BoD.

And the new Mass and NO teaching do not come from the Magisterium, but from a bunch of usurpers masquerading as the hierachy. That's precisely the point of sedeprivationism (as articulated by Father Ringrose and Father Chazal in in particular).

The Magisterium teaches BOD in the Catechism of Trent. You simply say it's not to keep your idea of the indefectibility of the "teaching" Magisterium intact. The Magisterium is indeed teaching in the Catechism; that's the purpose of a catechism.

A "potential" pope is not a pope, but may be a pope someday. Your sedeprivationist pope is as "much" of a pope as I am a millionaire. I'm broke, and you're a Sedevacantist. And so are Father Ringrose and Father Chazal apparently.

Your sedevacantism - in light of your belief in the "indefectibility" of the "teaching" Magisterium - goes back to at least St. Pius V (when the Church issued the Catechism of Trent with its profession of BOD).

Sorry. But if you had cancer and I knew you'd want me to tell you.

ConfederateCatholic · « **Reply #193 on:** March 24, 2018, 10:50:57 PM »

Quote from: obscurus on March 24, 2018, 01:26:27 PM

Never knew you had the gift of reading souls. Must be a wonderful gift to have.

Res ipsa loquitur.

ConfederateCatholic · « **Reply #194 on:** March 24, 2018, 10:58:09 PM »

Quote from: obscurus on March 24, 2018, 08:11:19 AM

(Someone posted excerpts from Van Noort's Christ's Church already)

Ha this is it.
The proximate rule of faith is . . .

Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 204758 times)

drew

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

drew

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?

Stubborn

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

Jeremiah2v8

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

cathman7

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

Stubborn

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

Maria Auxiliadora

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

ConfederateCatholic

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

cathman7

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?

ConfederateCatholic

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

ConfederateCatholic

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