Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?  (Read 440485 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #25 on: March 10, 2018, 10:30:52 AM »
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

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #26 on: March 10, 2018, 10:59:29 AM »
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

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #27 on: March 10, 2018, 11:22:38 AM »
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.  

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #28 on: March 10, 2018, 11:57:30 AM »
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 Jєωιѕн 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!


Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #29 on: March 10, 2018, 05:03:36 PM »
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.