Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 442529 times)

Meg · « **Reply #925 on:** May 03, 2018, 02:26:26 PM »

Quote from: An even Seven on May 03, 2018, 02:15:40 PM

You asked "would you be fine with the Vll Council if it wasn't ratified or promulgated by a non-pope?"

A) If it was ratified by a Pope, I would be bound to be "fine" with it.

B) If it were ratified by a Pope, it would not have errors in it.

C) Contradicting and judging the decrees of a Council is condemned.

D) This shows me you don't really understand Sede-vacantism.

Your question doesn't make sense to a Catholic who knows the Authority of Councils.

You didn't actually answer the question. I already know about the three sede points you give above. They're nothing new.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #926 on:** May 03, 2018, 10:28:36 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth on May 03, 2018, 01:31:16 PM

This is the thread that never dies. I say "thread," not topic. The original topic died tens of thousands of views ago. It's something like Henry Kissinger, he never expires, though many wish he would and deserves to. ???

:applause:

drew · « **Reply #927 on:** May 04, 2018, 05:56:28 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella on May 02, 2018, 05:59:02 PM

You have your wife, Pax Vobis, and Stubborn each following you around, up - thumbing every single one of your posts while carelessly down-thumbing mine, yet no one of you are actually reading anything that has been posted.

Did you all miss the part of the visual, which clearly indicates that General Councils are infallible? And no, it is not only when they define canons and anathemas. Lyons I did not define anything. What, do you think that the Holy Ghost only makes an entrance exclusively in the exact time of proposing such dogmatic definitions, and then leaves right after? Absurd.

Furthermore, your allegation is not only that a General Council ratified by the Pope is NOT infallible merely; but that it has been actually harmful, teaching contra-verdades, leading souls to Hell. Even more absurd.

Cantarella,

What you are affirming as true is not and it is not an innocuous mistake. You are doing the same thing with the general councils that you do with the pope, that is, you are making the Attributes of the Church the personal attributes of Churchmen. And since the attributes are divine powers it is a form of divinizing churchmen.

The Attributes are powers that belong to the Church primarily and essentially. They belong to churchmen only secondarily and accidentally. It is a grave but common error to regard the Attributes of the Church as belonging primarily and essentially to churchmen because it necessarily leads to the pope becoming the rule of faith since he personally possesses an "infallible infallibility" for special acts from his attribute of Infallibility and a "fallible infallibility" for every day run of the mill acts from his attribute of Indefectibility. I know you like to claim the “magisterium is your rule of faith,” but the magisterium can only be engaged by the pope so in the end its all the same. Regarding of everything from a general council as “infallible” is just doing the same thing on a wider scale.

But what follows is the overthrowing of dogma. Since the entire general council is "infallible," this commonly leads to “theologians” using sound bites from the "infallible" narrative texts to interpret the infallible dogma in a non-literal sense, for example, with regard to the dogmas regarding the necessity of the sacraments for salvation, this is more often the case than not. This is not to diminish the importance of the narrative texts but if they are not kept in their proper order of reference everything is turned on its head.

Since the Attributes belong primarily and essentially to the Church, churchmen can only participate in these Attributes under specific conditions most important of which is the proper intent to do so. The reference that you provided confirms this fact:

Quote

"Secondly we note, that the holy Councils lawfully kept for determination, or clearing of doubts, or condemning of errors and Heresies, or appeasing of Schisms and troubles, or reformation of like, and such like important matters, have ever the assistance of God’s Spirit, and therefore cannot err in their sentences and determination concerning the same, because the Holy Ghost cannot err, from whom (as you see here) jointly with the Council the resolution proceedeth."

Quote provided by Cantarella from authoritative source

General councils with “the assistance of God’s Spirit… cannot err in their sentences and determinations concerning…. the clearing of doubts, or condemning of errors and Heresies, or appeasing of Schisms and troubles, or reformation of like, and such like important matters.” When everything from a general council is regarded as “infallible” the dogmatic canons are reduced to the level of the narrative texts as the work of human hands. They then, like the narrative texts, are open to non-literal interpretation, contextualization, examination of the subjective intent of the author, and all other methods of textual criticism which may be permitted with the narrative text.

Which brings up the question of Exsurge Domine by Pope Leo X. You have called the articles "dogmas" and others have said they are infallible. The propositions are not dogmas. That does not mean they are not true. It means they have another source of authority. The same Truth can be known both by natural reason assisted by grace and by divine revelation. St. Thomas address this is the first question in the Summa.

Consider the Truth that murder is a wrong. This truth is known by two different modes, one by natural law and the other by divine revelation. What is the difference and why would God reveal something that everyone already knows? When the Truth is known directly by God’s revelation it has an authority and clarity that is far superior to what is known by natural reason assisted by grace. Truths that are known by natural reason aided by grace are open to reconsideration, contextual considerations, and possible modification. Truths known by divine revelation are not.

This is analogous to truths taught by the magisterium of the pope by his grace of state compared to the same truths when dogmatized without the mediation of human reason, for as St. Pius X said, dogmas are “truths fallen from heaven.” In Exsurge Domine, Pope Leo X is teaching by his grace of state. All the propositions are true but they are not dogmas. Pope Leo X is teaching by his grace of state and therefore says twice in the docuмent that the various propositions have different levels of authority. Some of the articles are direct heresy because they contradict dogmatic canons from the Council of Constance. Others were not heresy at the time of Exsurge Domine but became so after the dogmatic canons from the Council of Trent anathematized them, specifically with regard to the sacraments. Some of the articles are called “offensive to pious ears.” The truths that are not directly heretical are open to contextual refinement. You will never hear of something being 'infallibly offensive to pious ears.'

Many of the articles from Exsurge Domine were subsequently dogmatized at Trent. So why would Trent dogmatize what had already been condemned from Exsurge Domine? The reason is the same that God has when He reveals anything that can be known by natural reason assisted by grace. Any truth arrived at by natural reason assisted by grace can be developed and refined. Any truth revealed by God that has been dogmatically canonized has reached its term.

Anyone who claims that everything a pope does or everything a general council does is always infallible either directly or indirectly ends up in personal error because it undermines all revealed truth. Like the conservative Catholics who follow the pope like his shadow and the S&Sers who cast him aside, both have the same essential error.

It is an error to regard the Attributes as the personal property of churchmen. It is also an error to regard Indefectibility as an inverted infallibility. It is a divine power granted by God to His Church that has as its primary end the assurance that His Church would never fail in the true worship of God and the sanctification of the faithful. The irony of the whole thing is those who have this concept of Indefectibility as an inverted infallibility end up in a church with no pope, no magisterium and no material or instrumental means to ever correct the problem. They use indefectibility as their reason to become permanently defective.

Drew

Stubborn · « **Reply #928 on:** May 04, 2018, 07:14:16 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 03, 2018, 07:18:33 PM

Perhaps none. I guess that they may have taught errors all the way back then ... since they didn't define doctrines.

Poor lad, you're all confused. Let's hope this helps clear up your confusion.

The Apostles were each personally infallible after the descent of the Holy Ghost upon them at Pentecost, so whatever they taught, whether alone, in assembly, or dispersed throughout the world, really was infallible, so you see, they actually would have had no need to assemble for the same reasons Councils have assembled since.

Meanwhile, the NO agrees that the Apostles were personally infallible, but to that, the NO have added "collegial infallibility", which, while (I presume) you KNOW the NO collegiality crap is error, yet you believe collegial infallibility to be a de fide doctrine of the Church.

The NO created the condition of the bishops' infallibility being dependent upon their collegiality, aka unanimously teaching the same thing while being in union with the pope, this is the way it works since the "New Pentecost" of V2. Sometimes, people forget the part about being in union with the pope - but Cantarella was right on top of it!

We had our Pentecost and the NO had theirs, you're trying to get the two to agree, but by design, that is a doomed proposition and only adds to your confusion.

Hope this clears up some of your confusion.

Stubborn · « **Reply #929 on:** May 04, 2018, 07:41:24 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven on May 04, 2018, 07:24:58 AM

I know but it's the same reason you keep engaging Stubborn. Stubborn never has any substance either. They are way too similar. Their hatred for anything not R&R clouds their minds of all logic. Something needs to be said every once in a while.

In my case, IRL I've seen too many good Catholics, including priests lose their faith for sedeism. So why wouldn't I have a hatred for it?

We just explain the simple truths best as we can so others don't trap themselves in the iniquitous web of sedeism.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 442529 times)

Meg

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

Centroamerica

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

drew

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

Stubborn

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

Stubborn

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