Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?  (Read 90570 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 2Vermont

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6166
  • Reputation: +2888/-520
  • Gender: Female
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #45 on: March 11, 2018, 10:32:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Oh, I had not seen this.
    Confederate Catholic:  In 2015, Fr. Ringrose explained to the Holy Name Society and ladies' sodality that because francis does not possess the authority of the pope that he (Fr. Ringrose) has dropped his name from the Mass.

    I don't understand why, if this is true, the original post is being treated as new news. Also, if it is true, I would still be interested in knowing whether he is basing this on the fact that he doesn't have the "authority" or if he truly believes he is a false pope.  Those that believe the latter tend to associate themselves more with sedevacantists than non-sedevacantists because both are very clear that this "pope" is no pope.  Their explanations are just different (ie totalist sede vs material-formal sede).
    "For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest, nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad."- Luke 8:17

    Offline cathman7

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 815
    • Reputation: +880/-23
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #46 on: March 11, 2018, 11:04:45 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So no formal authority exists in the Church according to sedeprivationism. Am I correct?


    Offline Smedley Butler

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1334
    • Reputation: +536/-1529
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #47 on: March 11, 2018, 11:22:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If I had known in advance that Fr. Ringose is a sedewhatever, I would not have donated to his school. Oh well. Live and learn.
    Fr. Ringrose is not sedevacantist, as far as I know. 

    Offline PG

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1734
    • Reputation: +455/-475
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #48 on: March 11, 2018, 11:55:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • I personally hold that a bishop appointed by a material pope can formally exercise office so long as he does not have any impediments to it (i.e. is not a heretic or excommunicate).  
    Yet you attack me.  Vatican 2, ecumenism, religious liberty, defense of the new mass, collegiality, and loose NFP is an impediment.  I mean, the NO bishops universally are opposed to +lefebvre and the old sspx.  That is a clear sign of a heretical impediment in my opinion.  That is why I generally say remove the NO bishops(the pope remains) from the una cum, and doubt their legitimacy.  I simply have enough conviction to put into practice.  
    "A secure mind is like a continual feast" - Proverbs xv: 15

    Offline PG

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1734
    • Reputation: +455/-475
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #49 on: March 11, 2018, 12:10:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • He was a sedevacantist. Therefore, his "views" can be easily dismissed.

    If you have a problem with that, too bad.
    des lauriers morality was worse.  He flip flopped becoming a full fledged sedevacantist in order to become consecrated a bishop by +Thuc.  +Thuc did not like his sedeprivationism, and required that he embrace full vacantism.  He agreed.  Then, after being consecrated, flip flopped back into privationism, which is basically just a more on the fence position that is none the less servant to vacantism.  


    "A secure mind is like a continual feast" - Proverbs xv: 15


    Offline Smedley Butler

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1334
    • Reputation: +536/-1529
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #50 on: March 11, 2018, 12:17:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Someone just posted that Father Ringrose does not put the name of Francis in the Canon, and that he believes Francis has no authority.  So, what does that make him in your eyes?

    Doesn't his school teach Baal worship in their science classes, and yet you're promoting it?
    Are you saying you do not support Catholic schools because they teach the Church-condemned error of pagan Greek heliocentrism?

    Offline PG

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1734
    • Reputation: +455/-475
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #51 on: March 11, 2018, 12:18:46 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • Yep.  I attack you for not applying the same standard to Francis.  He's far more hereticaler than many, even most, NO bishops.
    One cannot apply those standards to francis.  Fr. chazal has even clearly said in his privation lecture that we the church do not have the instruments to formally assess the state of the papacy/francis.  We cannot judge the pope a formal heretic.  And, there is no historical precedent of a perfect or imperfect council, or any council for that matter judging a pope a heretic or judging a pope to not have authority.  It has never happened, and I contend it will never happen.  The pope can not be judged, and will never be a formal heretic.  That is my standard.  And, when applied, my theory and thinking is sound.   
    "A secure mind is like a continual feast" - Proverbs xv: 15

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6602
    • Reputation: +3686/-1089
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #52 on: March 11, 2018, 12:41:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1


  • Offline Smedley Butler

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1334
    • Reputation: +536/-1529
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #53 on: March 11, 2018, 01:16:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • Uhm, no, my question was why YOU support it despite the fact that "they teach the Church-condemned error of pagan Greek heliocentrism" (as YOU put it).
    I support Catholic schools.
    I cannot control the error of the heliocentric ʀɛʋօʟutιօn that devasted the Church. 

    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 371
    • Reputation: +1095/-235
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #54 on: March 11, 2018, 01:55:27 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!2
  • Not today, in the absence of a true Pope, whom alone this Authority would derive from.
      
    Let me ask, where is the formal authority existing (in practicality) for the R&R camp today anyway?

    Authority is an attribute of the Church primarily and only secondarily and accidentally an attribute of the pope. Those who make the pope the rule of faith have a problem when he is a heretic with the exercise of authority. Those who make dogma the rule of faith can deal with the corruption of authority.
     
    Sedeprivationists destroy the papal office by dissolving the unity of its form and matter.  Sedevacantists destroy the papal office by permanently getting rid of it. R&R recognizes the authority but its obedience is directed by the virtue of Religion. For this, like the man born blind, we have been excommunicated from the Novus Ordo. No surprise here. So you can argue about the “practicality” of R&R but it does not lead to intellectual vacuum or doctrinal and moral dead end that is incompatible with revealed truth.
     
    Drew

    Offline Centroamerica

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2556
    • Reputation: +1546/-428
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #55 on: March 11, 2018, 02:07:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sedeprivationists destroy the papal office by dissolving the unity of its form and matter.  
    Drew
    Can you expound on this?
    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 drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 371
    • Reputation: +1095/-235
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #56 on: March 11, 2018, 02:25:36 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!2
  • Quote from: drew on Today at 01:55:27 PMSedeprivationists destroy the papal office by dissolving the unity of its form and matter.  
    Drew
    Can you expound on this?

    WikiPedia: Hylomorphism (or hylemorphism) is a philosophical theory developed by Aristotle, which conceives being (ousia) as a compound of matter and form. The word is a 19th-century term formed from the Greek words ὕλη hyle, "wood, matter", and μορφή, morphē, "form".
     
    This philosophical truth of hylomorphism has been incorporated into Catholic dogma in its decrees on the sacraments.  When you dissolve the matter and the form you dissolve the being.  It undergoes a substantial change.  It no longer is what it was. We know as a dogma of faith that the papal office will continue until the end of time with perpetual successors. Sedeprivationism ends the office by postulating the separation of the form and matter.

    Drew

    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 371
    • Reputation: +1095/-235
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #57 on: March 11, 2018, 02:29:14 PM »
  • Thanks!6
  • No Thanks!1
  • Quote from: Meg on Today at 11:25:06 AMSedeprivationism is basically the same thing as sedevacantism. Very little difference.

    At least it's a theory that is consistent with Catholic doctrine ... unlike R&R.

    Sedeprivationism is intellectually absurd. Sedevacantism is doctrinally and morally a dead end. Recognize and resist is the only sound position at this time that is easily defended in spite of the mocking insults delivered by posters on this forum.
     
    Caiaphas was a heretic.  He denied the bodily resurrection and rejected Jesus as the Christ. He did not thereby loose his office. Even the apostles after Pentecost did not suggest that he lost his office because of heresy. St. Paul recognized and respected the office when he appeared before the high priest in Jerusalem. “And they that stood by said: Dost thou revile the high priest of God? And Paul said: I knew not, brethren, that he is the high priest. For it is written: Thou shalt not speak evil of the prince of thy people” Acts 23:4-5. “Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not” Matt. 23:1-3. This direction can be accurately described as “recognize and resist.” What God has established, only God can overthrow. Every commentary on the parable of the tares (Matt 13:24) the including Rev. George Haydock Commentary, Rev. Cornelius a Lapide’s Great Commentary, and St. Thomas’ Catena Aurea quoting the Church Fathers without exception say the tares refer to heretics.  Those who demand that heresy precludes anyone from the office want to make themselves the “Lord of the Harvest.” Heresy precludes only be canonical laws, not by the nature of heresy itself.  It is a question of law.  It is ironic indeed that those making themselves the “Lord of the Harvest” end up with the tares.
     
    No Catholic is required to do more with a heretical pope than the man born blind, and if he keeps dogma as his proximate rule of faith, a whole host of problems can be avoided. Those who deny dogma as the proximate rule of faith make the person of the pope their rule of faith and what follows is a host of irreconcilable problems.
     
    The sedeprivationists offend the first principles of the understanding. The conciliarist popes are either popes or they are not. They cannot be, and not be, at the same time. If they stand in any way in potential to the office, then they are not popes. To divide the office between degrees of material and formal possession is to destroy the papacy. Separation of form and matter always constitutes a substantial change by definition. It is a dogma of faith that the Church founded by Jesus Christ was founded upon Peter. It is further a dogma of faith that the office will have perpetual successors. The faith is the primary sign and cause of unity in the Church. The pope is only accidentally and secondarily the sign and cause of unity and, since he is not the proximate rule of faith, he is just as much subject to the faith as every baptized Catholic. He does not possess the authority to command obedience to anything in violation of the virtue of Religion which is the virtue under Justice that directly governs obedience.  Any act of obedience to any human authority that offends the virtue of Religion is a sin. Just as the man born blind in John 9 professed the true faith to the Pharisees every faithful Catholic is called upon to do the same today.  It did not require him to deny that authority of the Pharisees because of heresy.  When the pope becomes a heretical Judaizer like St. Peter did, when in his “dissimulation… (he) walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel,” he must be “withstood to his face” Gal 2:13-14.
     
    Sedevacantism is intellectually, morally and doctrinally a dead-end. They have arrived at a Church that is not just defective in an essential attribute but it has no capacity to ever correct the defect therefore it cannot be the Church founded by Jesus Christ. How do faithful Catholics end up in a position that is manifestly erroneous?  Those Catholics that do not accept dogma as the proximate rule of faith necessarily make the pope their rule of faith. They make him the source of revelation as the revealer of mere ecclesiastical faith and they impose an understanding to the attribute of Indefectibility to mean that the pope possess a personal never failing faith and cannot possible teach error or promulgate unjust laws. They cannot recognize a heretical pope without feeling personally contaminated by his sin. But none of this is so. None of this has been dogmatically defined. These are nothing but theological presuppositions; speculative opinions expressed from men who could not imagine the current crisis of the Church. These opinions in our current situation appear daily more and more implausible.
     
    Until the Pope uses his office to engage the attribute of Infallibility that Jesus Christ endowed His Church to bind doctrinal error and immorality upon the Catholic faithful, and sedevacantists produce their own papal claimant, there is no argument against the recognize and resist that does not lead to doctrinal and intellectual error. Our obligation is only to remain doctrinally and morally sound in the faith.  No Catholic is obligated to provide an answer every question but he does have an obligation to avoid obvious errors. “Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof” Matt 6:34.

    Drew

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6166
    • Reputation: +2888/-520
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #58 on: March 11, 2018, 04:29:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You don't seem to understand sedeprivationism.  You had this same problem on the Father Chazal thread.  You're stuck on a binary pope or no pope.  Sedeprivationism holds that he's real in one respect, but not real in another.  That's referred to as a DISTINCTION.  That "real" pope thing is +Sanborn's spin on it because he only grudgingly accepted sedeprivationism to get consecration from +McKenna.  Even then, +Sanborn says he's not a true pope because he lacks authority.  Father Ringrose and Father Chazal have stated that he lacks authority.  So you're playing with semantics on what it means to be a "real" pope.  

    How is a pope "real" if he lacks authority?  As per Father Ringrose, he maintains a certain legal status by way of his ɛƖɛctıon, but no formal authority ... aka sedeprivationism.
    As for the bolded, do you have real proof of that?  Because if you don't that comment is pure calumny and should be retracted.

    Do sedeprivationists believe that the post Vatican II papal claimants are popes?  Yes?  No?  Maybe? Partially?

    If a pope requires both the material and the formal aspects, then how is one a pope who only has one? 

    And if the sedeprivationists believe that he isn't really pope, then why don't they just come out and say it?  

    Cantarella is a sedeprivationist and clearly states in her posts over and over again that they are not popes.  Father Chazal and Father Ringrose do not seem to think the same way that she does, so how are they all sedeprivationists?

     
    "For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest, nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad."- Luke 8:17

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6602
    • Reputation: +3686/-1089
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #59 on: March 11, 2018, 04:33:02 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1

  • Quote
    Our obligation is only to remain doctrinally and morally sound in the faith.  No Catholic is obligated to provide an answer every question but he does have an obligation to avoid obvious errors. “Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof” Matt 6:34. 
    Agree 1000%!


     

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