Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 442349 times)

drew · « **Reply #940 on:** May 05, 2018, 02:33:19 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 05, 2018, 10:53:27 AM

Too bad for you that Vatican I teaches the exact opposite. But, hey, that may have been in a fallible section of the decree.

Pastor Aeternus:
Drew, you directly reject the teaching of Vatican I. Now the comparison with Old Catholicism becomes more and more striking with each heretical post of yours.

Ladislaus,

Good timing. I recently posted to Cantarella explaining this fundamental corruption of Catholic teaching, and now you make a post that commits exactly the error described providing a opportune example:

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #1697 on: Yesterday at 05:56:28 AM »

The cause of this error is making the Attributes of the Church the personal property of churchmen. It leads to Cantarella's and most S&Sers claim that everything whatsoever from a general council is infallible and that the no pope can ever lose the virtue of supernatural faith while possessing an "infallible infallibility" by his attribute of infallibility and a "non-infallible infallibility" by his attribute of indefectibility.

But addressing your post directly should be unnecessary since it has been addressed before. But for the sake of others that may be corrupted by your error, I will explain it again.

The gift of "never-failing faith" is used by the Magisterium of the Church as the scriptural evidence that the doctrine that is being defined is part of divine revelation. If it were not part of divine revelation, it could not be the subject matter of Dogma. It is the Dogma that is infallible and constitutes the formal object of divine and Catholic faith. If anyone wants to know what "the gift of truth and never-failing faith" means, they have only to look to the Dogma because it is this "gift" that the Church is claiming as the proximate cause of papal infallibility. But there is a good clue in the quote you provided that you have apparently overlooked. The gift is given to the popes so that they "might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all." This should have indicated to you that the gift is not a personal gift that each and every pope could never possibly lose the virtue of supernatural faith, but a corporate gift that they may "discharge the exalted office for the salvation of all." If it were a personal gift for this end, the dogma would simple be "the pope is the rule of faith. Think whatever he thinks, say whatever he says, and do whatever he does." And since the Dogma concerns both faith and morals, the personal "never-failing faith" would have to include morals as well. But all this is S&S nonsense.

The Dogmatic canon itself provides the understanding what the gift of "never-failing faith" means. But since Dogma is not your rule of faith, I don't suppose you looked there:

Quote

We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of our: let him be anathema.
Vatican I, Dogma

Several important truths can be know from this Dogma. Such as, it says that it is a "divinely revealed Dogma" which makes it clear that Dogma is part of divine revelation. To be more specific, it is that part of divine revelation that is formally defined by the Magisterium, that is, the "teaching authority" of the Church grounded upon its Attributes of Infallibility and Authority. Dogma is "irreformable," that is in both its form (the meaning) and its matter (the words). It is divine revelation from Scripture and Tradition that forms the remote rule of faith, and likewise, it is again divine revelation that forms the proximate rule of faith.

The "gift of never failing faith" possessed by the pope is the "assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.... which the divine Redeemer willed His Church" WHEN "he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals."

This Dogma is wholly consistent with what Rev. Cornelius a Lapide describes in his Great Commentary on Luke 22:32 where he says that the gift of a personal never-failing faith, meaning that he would never lose the virtue of supernatural faith, was given to St. Peter alone. What was given to the successors of St. Peter was the guarantee that they would never teach error by the Magisterium, which Lapide calls the "divine Oracle," that is, the teaching authority of the Church grounded upon its Attributes of Authority and Infallibility.

But while discussing Dogma and Vatican I, what about this Dogma:

Quote

Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.
Vatican I, Dogma

Since Dogma is not your rule of faith you need not let this little condemnation trouble your conscience. In the Church of Ladislaus there is no pope, no magisterium, no councils, no dogma, and most importantly, no material or instrumental means to ever get them. Your church is permanently defective of attributes that "by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself" willed for His Church. There is no salvation in the Church of Ladislaus.

Drew

drew · « **Reply #941 on:** May 05, 2018, 03:32:12 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on May 04, 2018, 09:13:27 PM

I had read the entire citation before; but it is only the second part of it, and not the first one, what is actually relevant to this discussion because you claim that a legitimate Pope (Paul VI) can teach error to the faithful in nothing less than an Ecunemical Council. Your position therefore, is refuted by Lapide himself, which clearly teaches that the Pope cannot teach error to the Church, even less through the decrees of a General Council. And this has nothing to with the "personal" Faith of Peter, which is a separate issue.

By the way, Lapide does not "make it clear" that a personal never failing Faith is exclusively given to the person of St. Peter. He is just speaking about both privileges, the first touching St. Peter himself; the second one, the office. That is not necessarily a negation of the first privilege for the rest of the legitimate successors of St. Peter.

Cantarella,

You claim "only the second part" is "actually relevant to this discussion" because the other two paragraphs do not fit with your presuppositions on which you have built your church of straw.

You are claiming that I have misrepresented what Lapide said and that is a lie. You are able to give this impression by dropping the first and third paragraphs of the reference cited taking his commentary completely out of context. In the first paragraph Lapide says, contrary to your belief, that the successors of St. Peter DO NOT possess a grace of never possibly losing the virtue of supernatural faith. This was a "personal" gift to St. Peter ALONE. You have repeatedly claimed that each and every pope possess this grace of never losing the virtue of supernatural faith. This is wrong and not a single Church Father is cited holding this opinion, NOT ONE by Lapide, Haydock, or St. Thomas. It is just another stupid idea that you cling to because it serves your ideology. And it is not as if this has not been explained to you before:

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #1155 on: April 16, 2018, 08:31:58 PM »

I invite everyone to read the entire citation of Lapide for themselves posted nearly three weeks ago.

The third paragraph was dropped because it makes it clear that the "never-failing faith" that was gifted to St. Peter's successors is in the exercise of the papal office which directs the "divine Oracle." This is wholly consistent with the doctrine that was dogmatized at Vatican I on papal infallibility and its necessary relation to the exercise of the papal office.

A general council approved by the pope cannot teach error in faith and morals when the Magisterium of the Church, that is, the "teaching authority" God willed His Church grounded upon the Attributes of Authority and Infallibility, is engaged. That requires intent to define a matter of divine revelation. That never happened at Vatican II and this has been explained to you countless times but to no effect. You persist in claiming that everything from a general council is infallible without exception. This, as said, is nothing other than a form of idolatry. You are taking the divine Attributes which belong to the Church primarily and essentially and making them the primarily and essentially the personal powers of churchmen.

What do you possible care about Dogma? It is not your rule of faith and you and Ladislaus have accused others of being "Protestants" for "private interpretation" when taking Dogma in its literal sense. Anyway, you do not even know what Dogma is as evidenced by your referring to Article #29 from Exsurge Domine as a "dogma from the Council of Trent." Dogmas have developed a common grammatical form and you could not ever recognize that.

No wonder you are in a church without dogmas. You have no pope, no magisterium, no rule of faith, no moral compass. and what is most damning of all, no material or instrumental means to ever get them. All these are necessary attributes of the Catholic Church and an infallible sign that whatever church you belong, it is not the Church founded by Jesus Christ.

Drew

JPaul · « **Reply #942 on:** May 05, 2018, 06:24:36 PM »

Which means that Vatican II has nothing at all to do with the See of Peter. It is the false teaching of thieves and robbers.
Who could argue to the contrary?

drew · « **Reply #943 on:** May 05, 2018, 07:06:05 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 05, 2018, 03:55:30 PM

So, then, Drew, what happens to the Church when a Pope dies and before another is elected? At one point there was a span of three years. This dogma does not mean that there has to be a Pope at every moment of history since the founding of the Church. And neither Cantarella nor I are straight sedevacantists, so our position absolutely maintains the "material or instrumental means" to get a true Pope elected. So you keep putting up bogus strawmen, as is typical of people who are not intellectually honest.

I reiterate, Drew, you are a heretic, not unlike a Protestant and an Old Catholic, who does not believe in the indefectibility of the Magisterium. To you a mere material continuity suffices for indefectibility.

You claim we have no Magisterium. In your heretical view of things, we're better off WITHOUT a Magisterium, since YOUR MAGISTERIUM leads souls to hell.

You are at once a heretic and a blasphemer against Holy Mother Church.

Ladislaus,

You are talking about the historical precedent of "a span of three years" between popes during which time the willful intent, the moral imperative, and the material and instrumental means to make a pope was always present.

This cannot be equated with a span of more than fifty years, give or take a few depending on whose version of S&S your dealing with, during which there exists no willful intent, no moral imperative, and no material and instrumental means to correct the defect. The defect is even worse with Sedeprivationists who have destroyed the papal office by fracturing its form and matter. It is a dogma (for whatever that is worth to you), a formal object of divine and Catholic faith, that there will be "perpetual successors" in the papal office. What do you think the word "perpetual" means? Its primary meaning in English, and the Latin from which it is derived, is "permanent." The only thing "permanent" about the S&Sers is the defect.

Your church has no pope, no magisterium, no dogma, no rule of faith, no moral compass and no way out.

I doubt not that in "your church" I am a "heretic" and "blasphemer" but I am not a member of "your church." The Jews and Mohammedans would agree with you. I am a member of the Catholic Church which can be recognized even in this age of apostasy by unmistakable Attributes. "Your church," as you said is "better off WITHOUT a Magisterium," therefore it is, without a possibility of doubt, not the Church founded by Jesus Christ.

Drew

drew · « **Reply #944 on:** May 05, 2018, 07:31:44 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 05, 2018, 04:06:27 PM

So Drew claims that Vatican I teaching regarding never-failing faith applies only to when the Pope is infallibly defining dogma. Drew, using his own rule of faith, his own private judgment, explains away anything he doesn't like.

Unfortunately for him, this sentence precedes the one cited earlier. Pastor Aeternus:
Explain how, after your interpretation of what happened with Vatican II, you do not deny this teaching that "this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by ANY ERROR." Vatican II is the mother of all blemishes on the Holy See ... from your heretical viewpoint.

Ladislaus,

You should send your posts to me for corrections before publication so you don't look too bad. You are committing the same error again that you did in your previous post that served as nice illustration for Cantarella, but one is enough.
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #1730 on: Today at 02:33:19 PM »

The Dogma itself, the fruit of the Magisterium, defines what the "gift of never-failing faith" means regarding papal infallibility. If you want to know what is means look to the Dogma. Luke 22:32, the "gift of never-failing faith," is directly cited as the Scriptural authority for the doctrine as part of divine revelation and the justification for the dogmatic definition. Dogmas are "truths fallen from heaven." And therefore, what St. James said is doubly true for Dogma, "Receive the ingrafted word, which is able to save your souls."

The link to the previous post above also provides the quotation of the Dogma on papal infallibility from Vatican I with a brief reflection. Take the time to read it again for comprehension.

Drew