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 441586 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #790 on: April 25, 2018, 05:05:34 PM »
I can't help but laugh at this one ^^^

Sean Johnson and Samuel have proven that they can't handle any type of discourse - so instead, like little children they pick up their toys and leave.  

What a bunch of babies...  
:baby:

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #791 on: April 25, 2018, 05:09:56 PM »
Wow.

I guess Matthew has found the “loud and
proud” sedes he was looking for.

Enjoy your sedes Matthew: They are now your primary contributors.

Hasta luego.
Bummer.  I was hoping Matthew might consider banning you for your dogmatic sedeplenism.  You know implying fellow Catholics (sedes) are non-Catholic and referring to them as a sect?


Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #792 on: April 25, 2018, 06:08:48 PM »
I hope you folks bear all of this in mind when the next "catchetical refutation" enters the discourse.    :facepalm:

Offline Maria Auxiliadora

  • Supporter
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #793 on: April 25, 2018, 07:00:51 PM »
Wisdom is the right knowledge about the right things in the right order.  You don’t have anything right. None of your posts contain any greater authority than yourself. They have no reasoned arguments or appeals to recognized authority.
 
“The Magisterium is NOT part of God’s Revelation… Indeed”?  This beyond stupidity.  The Magisterium is the “teaching authority” of the Church.  It has exercised this authority since the first Pentecost in fulfillment of the great commission of Jesus Christ: "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matthew 28:18-20). “He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.” (Luke 10-16).
 
The Magisterium is grounded upon the attributes (powers) of Infallibility and Authority which Christ endowed His Church and are expressed explicitly in these two quotes.  The Church therefore always teaches with the authority of God and without the possibility of error. Every Catholic book on apologetics, every one, will confirm this truth of the “teaching authority” of the Church based upon Scripture and Tradition, which are the sources of revelation and the remote rule of faith.
 
Forms of thought and action have distinct areas of operation as well as interrelated areas.  You draw distinctions where they cannot be drawn and are blind to areas of necessary interaction.  No one conflated Revelation of God and the Authority of God in all things. What was never affirmed needed be refuted.  BUT the Revelation of God and the Authority of God are most certainly related.  That relation is called supernatural Faith “without which it is impossible to please God.”  And what God has united together you cannot divide. I remind you, that until I posted and corrected you, you did not even know the definition of supernatural faith.

And yes, I can distinguish between the Pope and the Magisterium and I can also recognize their mutual dependency.  It is God who has united the exercise of the Magisterium to the person of the Pope and you cannot divide them. Yet again, just as you fractured the virtue of Faith, you attack the papacy by another impossible distinction: dividing the form and the matter and pretending that what you have done does not constitute a substantial change in what Jesus Christ has dogmatically affirmed cannot be done.

 
You cannot explain how the Magisterium is exercised, without a pope without which no one is in potentia to the attribute of infallibility. You cannot explain how, if the Magisterium cannot be exercised, you still have a rule of faith?  
 
Dogma is the fruit of the Magisterium.  The Magisterium is the means and Dogma is the end.  Dogma is the articulation of divine revelation in the form of categorical propositions that are suitable to all the Faithful.  The relationship between Dogma and the Magisterium is neatly summed up in the quote from the Fr. Norbert Jones (1908).

 
The Magisterium is the teacher, Dogma is what is taught.  Dogma is then called the “formal object of divine and Catholic faith” and as the rule of what we are to believe.  As Fr. Jones says, when “supreme magisterium of the Church, defines a doctrine as de fide the dogma in question remains, both in se and in its external formula or terminology, unchanged and unchangeable, like God, Whose voice it communicates to us, in the shape of definite truth.”
 
Dogma communicates to us the “voice” of God. The claim that we must turn to the Magisterium to interpret Dogma is ridiculous because Dogma is the interpretation of the doctrine by the Magisterium.  To ask the Magisterium to explain Dogma is analogous to the Pharisees demanding from Jesus a “sign” after He just performed a miracle.  The miracle itself is the sign and if that sign was unacceptable no other would be given.  Dogma is whatness of our faith.
 
Every heretic who is reconciled to the Church must make an abjuration of heresy and a profession of faith.  The profession of faith is the Creed which is nothing more than a litany of dogmas.  Ecuмenical councils historically begin with the common recitation of the Credo and then affirm the dogmatic declarations of previous councils. What these ecuмenical councils are doing is affirming the Catholic faith by renewing its dogmatic canons, the proximate rule of their faith. From the Fourth Council of Constantinople they Council Fathers, after affirming all the dogmatic canons of the each of the first seven ecuмenical councils individually said:
 
 
Here we have the Magisterium of the Church declaring that dogmatic canons are referred to as “lamps which are always alight and illuminating our steps which are directed towards God.”  They are to be ‘esteemed’ as “a second word of God.” They are “canons which have been entrusted to the Church by the ‘apostles and the councils’. Consequently, they are the “rule (of) our own life and conduct by these canons.”
 
As a sedeprivationist you have destroyed the papal office by diving its form and matter.  You like to distinguish between the pope and the Magisterium but the sorry fact of the matter is that without a pope, there is no access the the Magisterium of the Church.  You call the Magisterium your rule of faith but you have been cut off from the land of the living… you have no rule of faith at all. And you insist upon this when the Magisterium itself commands that the dogmatic canons are to by our “rule of our own life and conduct.” I do not expect that you will have any more respect for this decree affirmed by Pope Leo II than you did for the council decree affirmed by Pope Zosimus who used the terms “dogma” and “rule of faith” as synonyms.  You see no authority beyond yourself.  But while your rule of faith has been destroyed by sedeprivationism, faithful Catholics will have the dogma as their rule of faith to “alight and illuminate our steps” in this most difficult time.
 
Drew

This is a reply to Lasislaus reply 1431.
Ladislaus statement and Drew's reply on page 20.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #794 on: April 25, 2018, 07:45:10 PM »
Accept correction from the likes of you ... who has stated that he would give the same submission to a poster on CI as he would to the Magisterium?
Accept correction when you are wrong - wherever it comes from. The reason you accept it is because you are wrong, that's how it's supposed to work for Catholics. Since you've grown away from the faith and into a Moron, you reject it because of where it comes from, in this case, the pope - your rule of faith.

You need to read it again so it can work on whatever Catholic conscience you might still have left. Read you own defiant word contradicting of the most beautiful and infallible teachings of the pope, your rule of faith.

Lad said: "No, the Immaculate Conception was not held as divinely revealed by the OUM.  Otherwise, there need not even have been a solemn definition."

Pope Pius IX in Ineffabilis Deus said: "The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God, is the pillar and base of truth and has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin


Hopefully you will actually spend a few seconds reading the above comparison of your Ladism with the teaching of the pope, see how terribly misguided you are in your thinking and at least consider swallowing your stupid pride and submitting wholly to the judgement of the Church.