Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 516562 times)

drew · « **Reply #725 on:** April 21, 2018, 06:04:33 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella on April 20, 2018, 11:44:11 PM

Liturgical rites being of a disciplinary nature; not dogmatic, is easily proved by the fact that they are not universal, which you yourself have mentioned several times is a crucial element of "Dogma".

A "dogmatic definition" automatically means that it is UNIVERSALLY applicable to all Catholics of every rite, universally binding on all Catholics, and FORMALLY revealed by God as dogma.

That is how we can tell that Quo Primum for example, is a disciplinary decree, because it is only applicable to the Western Rite church and it had absolutely no binding power on the Eastern Rite churches.

Cantarella,

What is dogmatized is the principle that every Catholic must worship according to their "received and approved" rites. You typically being with a personal notion and then inductively work toward some willful resolution, while I try to begin from dogma, that is, divinely revealed truth, and look for certain deductive conclusion that are necessarily true. If any conclusion leads to an evident conflict with dogma, I reject it. You on the other hand are indifferent to the fact that your inductive "musings" lead to conclusions that overturn dogma. It does not matter to you at all that your "musings" have brought you into a church that has no pope, no magisterium, no dogma, no rule of faith, nothing and, what is worse, no intent or means of every correcting this defect. The church you belong to cannot be the Catholic Church because it does not have her necessary attributes and never will.

Adherence to the "received and approved" rites is a Dogma that has been, with other Dogmas, incorporated into the Tridentine profession of faith. This divinely revealed truth is where you should begin but you won't. You repeat again that "Quo Primum for example, is a disciplinary decree" when the subject matter is dogma, the "received and approved" rites. When the subject matter is Dogma, the decree cannot, by definition, be merely disciplinary.

Your proposal is nonsense. Compare and contrast the condemnation of Iconoclasm as a heresy. No individual icon is a universal anymore than a particular liturgical usage. The principle is the universal truth an attack upon the images of our faith is an attack on the faith itself. Each particular "received and approved" rite is like a perfect icon, the work of the Holy Ghost, who leads the Church to the perfect worship of God.

There is a strong relationship between the error of Nominalism and modern philosophical and theological errors. Your approach to this problem is nominalistic and grossly mechanistic.

Drew

drew · « **Reply #726 on:** April 21, 2018, 06:31:21 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella on April 20, 2018, 10:51:59 PM

Those who are looking from the fence can realize the plain falsehood of this statement and this is just a quick example among many.

Here is the canon in question:

Please read what is explicitly stated. This is not a mere "supervision" function. The canon is very clear that the Holy See alone has the right to ENACT the form of the Sacred Liturgy. Enacting is not merely supervising.

Looking at the dictionary definition of the word ENACT:

Make (a bill or other proposal) law.

"Make" is not the same as "supervise".

Cantarella,

Just a short comment on your approach to this problem. You are not presenting an argument. You are offering yourself as an "expert" to set your opinion against the opinion of Msgr. Klaus Gamber who was generally recognized and accepted as great liturgist.

I know of canon lawyers that you could quote who would agree with you completely. For example in 2001, John M. Huels, OSM, JCD, who at the time was a Servite priest, influential liturgical canonist, professor of canon law and vice-dean of Saint Paul University in Ottawa. His his opinion was published by the Canon Law Society of America. Your opinion is in perfect agreement with Huels.

I do not agree with Huels but I acknowledged that he was a recognized "expert" so when I disagree with his opinions, I have to offer reasoned arguments from higher authority to canon law, or at a minimum, produce a comparatively qualified expert who disagrees.

That's how it works.

Drew

hollingsworth · « **Reply #727 on:** April 21, 2018, 11:06:08 AM »

PV:

Quote

... it's just that conversations get sidetracked.

We all need a good laugh at least once a week.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #728 on:** April 21, 2018, 11:11:43 AM »

Haha. But the sidetracks which sidetracked the ORIGINAL sidetracks were worth exploring. We just didn’t leave any breadcrumb trail back to Grandmas house...

hollingsworth · « **Reply #729 on:** April 21, 2018, 12:23:40 PM »

PV:

Quote

But the sidetracks which sidetracked the ORIGINAL sidetracks were worth exploring.

You're right. Not to mention the sidetracks, of the sidetracks, of the sidetracks, of the sidetracks, of the sidetracks of the ORIGINAL sidetracks. Don't forget them.! And particularly, the matter of Fr. Jenkins having possibly dyed his hair. That sidetracked topic alone warrants in depth analysis and discussion. Why, it could push viewing totals well beyond 50,000, though certain CI members might collapse from exhaustion at the end of it all. ???

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 516562 times)

drew

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

drew

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

hollingsworth

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

Pax Vobis

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

hollingsworth

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