Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 443291 times)

drew · « **Reply #855 on:** April 27, 2018, 03:07:09 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 27, 2018, 01:15:51 PM

I'd tell you to try again, but I don't want to be responsible for you hurting yourself.

That passage from Vatican I is simply the definition of Magisterium vs. Revelation.

Revelation -- "make known new doctrine"
Magisterium -- "religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation"

[Take notes here, Drew.]

R&R ALWAYS distort this passage to mean: "If the pope teaches some new doctrine, then we don't have to accept it."

But that would completely undermine infallibility itself. Infallibility is the a priori GUARANTEE that the Pope CANNOT teach such new doctrine inconsistent with Revelation under the conditions stipulated by VI.

So, Stubborn, if Jorge Bergoglio came out tomorrow and made a solemn definition with all the notes of infallibility, using the exact language of Vatican I, and even said "I infallibly define that ..."

and it turned out to be erroneous, how would you react?

Would you 1) just reject this teaching or 2) would change your mind and say that it must be right or 3) would you go sedevacantist? [those are the three possible responses]

Ladislaus,

Your "three possible responses" offer speculations that presuppose that God is not faithful to His word.

It has been nearly sixty years since the election of Pope John XXIII who is held to have not been a pope by "reliable sources" waving the S&S manifesto. Since that time, Neo-modernists have held complete control of the Vatican bureaucracy and there is not a single example of a modernist pope making a "solemn definition with all the notes of infallibility." Why? Why not? And since it has not happened in the last sixty years, why do you suppose it will happen in the next sixty or the next six hundred years? As a matter of fact, it has not happened in the last two thousand years.

There exists a possibility, as Fr. Kramer said, that Pope Benedict never resigned because he has no more authority than Sedeprivationists do to divide the papal office. Since the office cannot be divided, if Pope Benedict did not abdicate entirely, he did not abdicate at all. What would be certain sign of this, would be Pope Francis/Bergoglio actually making a "solemn definition with all the notes of infallibility" without the substance to bind doctrinal and/or moral error on the faithful. But that is a bridge to which we have not arrived and may never arrive.

But this speculation is nothing more than speculation. Jesus Christ promised to protect and preserve His Church from the pope ever using the papal office to bind an error of faith and morals on the Church. This is a Dogma of faith. A formal object of divine and Catholic faith. Catholics who hold Dogma as their rule of faith begin with this truth which forms a boundary limiting all speculation. The fact that it has not happened in sixty years is evidence that the concilar popes have been and are valid popes. If they were not, there would be nothing preventing them from doing so.

S&S through their speculations, have arrived at conclusions that overturn Dogma. They have no pope, no magisterum, no rule of faith and no way to ever get them. They have speculated themselves outside the Catholic Church because they will not hold Dogma as their rule of faith.

Drew

forlorn · « **Reply #856 on:** April 27, 2018, 03:14:38 PM »

Quote from: drew on April 27, 2018, 03:07:09 PM

Ladislaus,

Your "three possible responses" offer speculations that presuppose that God is not faithful to His word.

It has been nearly sixty years since the election of Pope John XXIII who is held to have not been a pope by "reliable sources" waving the S&S manifesto. Since that time, Neo-modernists have held complete control of the Vatican bureaucracy and there is not a single example of a modernist pope making a "solemn definition with all the notes of infallibility." Why? Why not? And since it has not happened in the last sixty years, why do you suppose it will happen in the next sixty or the next six hundred years? As a matter of fact, it has not happened in the last two thousand years.

There exists a possibility, as Fr. Kramer said, that Pope Benedict never resigned because he has no more authority than Sedeprivationists do to divide the papal office. Since the office cannot be divided, if Pope Benedict did not abdicate entirely, he did not abdicate at all. What would be certain sign of this, would be Pope Francis/Bergoglio actually making a "solemn definition with all the notes of infallibility" without the substance to bind doctrinal and/or moral error on the faithful. But that is a bridge to which we have not arrived and may never arrive.

But this speculation is nothing more than speculation. Jesus Christ promised to protect and preserve His Church from the pope ever using the papal office to bind an error of faith and morals on the Church. This is a Dogma of faith. A formal object of divine and Catholic faith. Catholics who hold Dogma as their rule of faith begin with this truth which forms a boundary limiting all speculation. The fact that it has not happened in sixty years is evidence that the concilar popes have been and are valid popes. If they were not, there would be nothing preventing them from doing so.

S&S through their speculations, have arrived at conclusions that overturn Dogma. They have no pope, no magisterum, no rule of faith and no way to ever get them. They have speculated themselves outside the Catholic Church because they will not hold Dogma as their rule of faith.

Drew

how isn't NO a received and approved rite?

Stubborn · « **Reply #857 on:** April 27, 2018, 04:03:48 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 27, 2018, 03:42:48 PM

You're too much of an idiot to realize that this makes YOU the moron. It's laughable.

This is to illustrated the stupidity of the axiom you keep throwing out there, without qualification, that if the Pope teaches something new, we don't have to accept it.

Precisely as you answer, if a LEGITIMATE POPE were to define something that has the notes of infallibility, it's GUARANTEED a priori to NOT BE NEW. So what's under discussion is the limits of infallibility.

I ask the question to shut morons like yourself up (which I know won't happen), but at least you can be publicly scorned, for your ridiculous parroting of your made-up axiom from this distortion of Vatican I.

So top blubbering like an idiot about how "If the Pope teaches something new, we are allowed to reject it."

Now if you want to move on to a discussion of how you interpret the limits of infallibility, that's a different issue, but stop making an idiot out of yourself by continually parroting back that stupid line. If something has the notes of infallibility, it CANNOT be "new doctrine" and CANNOT be false. That is guaranteed.

You are such a faithless fool that even your questions make zero sense.

Just you forget about asking such questions only a faithless prot would ask, and explain what the ladism idea of Universal Discipline even is. You know, that idea that ALL theologians agree is theologically certain.

Since you falsely claim ALL theologians agree it is infallibly certain, you should be able to pop out a few dozen quotes, so lets see some quotes from pre-V1 theologians you lying Moron.

drew · « **Reply #858 on:** April 27, 2018, 05:03:50 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on April 27, 2018, 03:56:01 PM

That should tell you, that contrary to the Pastor Aternus R&R distortion of Papal infallibility, Catholics are bound to accept all Papal teachings; not only those few considered "ex-cathedra".
Vatican I was simply defining when the teachings of the Roman Pontiff in themselves cannot be ever reformed, not even by the Church. That is all.

Cantarella,

This what I have saying repeatedly. The pope is your rule of faith. You believe that he possess a never-failing faith. That he is infallibly infallible when he is infallible and fallibly infallible when he is not. Your mystical insights have brought you to a church that has no pope, no magisterium, no rule of faith, no forgiveness of sins, no nothing, not even the possibility of salvation.

That is where you are right now and apparently you have no plans to do anything about it. Good luck.

Drew

drew · « **Reply #859 on:** April 27, 2018, 05:19:02 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 27, 2018, 03:45:07 PM

See my previous post about why I put that question to Stubborn. I grow weary of the stupid R&R axioms such as that distortion of Vatican I. Hey, if the Pope teaches "new doctrine", say R&R, then has not right to do it and so we can reject it. This is NOT what Vatican I meant. If something has the notes of infallibility (the extent of which we disagree on), then it's GUARANTEED NOT TO BE "NEW DOCTRINE" a priori. So stop it with the stupid misapplied axioms already.

Ladislaus,

"Misapplied axioms"? See, this is what I told you long ago. You don't believe in Dogma at all. Dogmas are not "axioms." That is why Dogma is not for you an a priori necessary truth from which other necessary truths can be reliably deduced. Your stuck with inductive approximations grounded upon your blighted observations and wild speculations.

You and Cantarella belong to a church fashioned in your own image. No pope, no magisterium, no rule of faith, no forgiveness of sins, not ever a chance of salvation and best of all, no Dogmas, just axioms. As I said, there is no reason you cannot become the pope of the S&S church, and then everything you say can be fallibly infallibly "true."

Drew

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 443291 times)

drew

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

forlorn

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

Stubborn

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?