Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 441886 times)

drew · « **Reply #955 on:** May 06, 2018, 06:31:49 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella on May 05, 2018, 10:03:06 PM

Pope Pius XII must be an idolater then, since he clearly teaches that Christ and the Pope (His Vicar) constitute one Only Head. (This is not only when the Pontiff speaks ex-cathedra, which has only happened 5 - 6 times in the entire history of the Church; but also in his regular teaching).

If the legitimate successor of St. Peter is NOT the Vicar of Christ, this is, his true representative on earth, then Roman Catholicism does not make any sense.

A heretic cannot represent Christ.

From Mystici Corporis:

Cantarella,

I have never called Pope Pius XII an "idolater" but, for the record, there are S&Sers who believe Pope Pius XII lost the office because he was a heretic. Some of the charges leveled against him include, tampering with the liturgy, inverting the rule of faith lex orandi lex credendi, establishing the liturgical commission under Bugnini, promoting all the Vatican II neo-modernists into positions of authority, authorizing the biblical commissions to permit the "days" of creation to be taken metaphorically, effectively allying the Church with Communism (an intrinsic evil) during WW II considering National Socialism a greater evil, his opening to NFP, etc., etc.

Do you know that even the term "Vicar of Christ" has only been around for the last thousand years. In the first millennium the pope was called the "Vicar of St. Peter." But whatever he is called, he is not called "God." To pretend that there is no distinction between the pope and Jesus Christ is what happens when the Attributes of the Church become the attributes of churchmen.

You are claiming a heretic cannot represent Christ. But why limit to heresy. Why can anyone who is sinner of any sort represent Christ or be identified with Christ? I happen to believe it is true when Pope Pius XII says "That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head" but under specific conditions. There union is not a constant identity because if it were, the pope would be the rule of faith just as Jesus Christ Himself is the rule of faith. He would also constitute the rule of morality just as Jesus Christ is. But this clearly is not so. Christ and the pope when engaging the Magisterium, that is, the teaching authority of the Church grounded upon the Attributes of Authority and Infallibility, are perfectly united, for the pope is then the material and instrumental causes of dogma while God is the final and formal causes of dogma. They are perfectly united to one end.

If you want to argue that a heretical pope must necessarily lose the office, that is another question. I claim that he does not, but surprisingly, that question has not been addressed in this thread.

Drew

drew · « **Reply #956 on:** May 06, 2018, 11:52:05 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 06, 2018, 07:06:01 AM

I've already explained this a few times ... except that I used the term absolute and relative. One can BE one thing in act and another in potency. I AM a Catholic man. I am in potency to be a priest. Because I am not a priest, this does not mean I do not exist and do not have act. But Drew doesn't care.

Ladislaus,

The office of the papacy exists in act. In is not in potency to anything because it was established by Christ and will endure until the "consummation of the world" with "perpetual successors" in exactly the same sense in which it was established. Your post is in fact an absurd proposition and denial of dogma.

Quote

Ladislaus said:
"Drew, you want to know why I have such animosity towards you? It's quite simple. With every post you are calling my mother a whore. It's no different than if you and I were attending the same chapel and you started to tell everyone (falsely) that my wife is a whore. It's the same thing as if you were saying such things about Our Lady. You are saying that the Immaculate Bride of Christ is a whore that's committing adultery and is 99.5% corrupt and polluted. If you were saying such things about my wife, it would take every ounce of restraint that I could muster not to beat you to within an inch of your life or knock your head clean off your shoulders. With every post, you are essentially asserting that the Bride of Christ is a whore. You need to think about what you're doing. So on this forum, you're going to get the virtual equivalent of a beatdown every time you post such blasphemous calumny. I will defend the honor of Holy Mother Church. You're very lucky that I'm not the Pope, because I would excommunicate you so fast that your head would spin, and I would make you wear a hair shirt outside your church every Sunday for about ten years wearing a sign that you are guilty of blaspheming the Church. You prefer to defend Bergoglio at the cost of Our Mother Church's reputation."
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #1757 on: Today at 07:17:23 AM »

Ladislaus, "your church," your "mother," is a whore. It has, as you have already admitted, no pope, no magisterium, no councils, no dogma, and no moral compass. These are necessary attributes of the Catholic Church, the bride of Christ, so everyone can tell that "your church" is not the Catholic Church but a whore. Not only is "your church" lacking these necessary attributes, it has no possibility of ever getting them. You can dress it up all you like but a whore is a whore.

But Lad, that is not why you have "such animosity towards" me. The reason you hate me is because I know you are a phony and have exposed your lying and ignorance. You don't like someone pointing out such things as that you did not even know the definition of supernatural faith. And after screwing that up, you proceeded to destroy the definition by dividing its necessary attributes. This is just one, but one several phenomenal blunders you have made and never corrected. You do not post for the edification of others or for the purpose of seeking truth. You post only for the glory of Ladislaus and because of that, God let's you make a fool of yourself.

Please provide one quote where I have "defended Bergoglio." This is just another of your lies. When they make you the pope of the S&Sers you won't have to excommunicate me because I not consorting with a whore.

Drew

drew · « **Reply #957 on:** May 06, 2018, 12:24:03 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 06, 2018, 07:46:33 AM

You have this completely backwards, and this only proves our point. Someone can not believe a particular dogma and still be a Catholic ... e.g. though ignorance. But if someone pertinaciously rejects one dogma, he rejects them all. Why? Because he rejects the AUTHORITY behind all dogmas. It's because the person no longer has the formal motive of faith in accepting these dogmas on the authority of the Church who has defined them. So it's in rejecting the RULE behind the dogma that one becomes a heretic rather than in materially believing or not believing any particular dogma.

Ladislaus,

You need a Catholic dictionary. Heresy is the denial of Dogma, the formal object of divine and Catholic faith.

Quote

"Limiting ourselves to the objective aspect, (the subjective aspect belongs to moral theology), we define heresy as: 'A teaching which is directly contradictory to a truth revealed by God and proposed to the faithful as such by the Church.'"
Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, Parente, Pillanti and Garofalo

A "truth revealed by God and proposed to the faithful as such by the Church" is called a DOGMA. You will find exactly the same definition in the Catholic Encyclopedia and from St. Thomas. I know that because I have already posted it to you a long time ago.

So Heresy is, in fact, the "failure to keep dogma as the rule of faith. That is what heresy is."

Now Lad, this is just another definition that you have screwed up. You do this all the time. You make fundamental errors in definition, which leads to fundamental errors in judgment, which leads to fundamental errors in reasoning, which in turn leads others into error. Little errors in the beginning can lead to big errors in the end. Big errors in the beginning, and you end up so far off the map that you cannot find your way home. I suggest you drop marbles instead of bread crumbs so when you turn around there may be some possibility of finding your way back.

Drew

drew · « **Reply #958 on:** May 06, 2018, 01:27:00 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on May 06, 2018, 09:17:32 AM

Respected theologian Scheeben answers this question explicitly:

Besides, that proposition has already been condemned as heretical in the errors of Jan Hus, back in 1415:

Condemned:
Notice that the "membership" in the Church is what is the key here.

Cantarella,

Heresy in and of itself does not separate anyone from the Church any more than any mortal sin does. S&Sers admit that if the pope were a occult heretic he would not lose his office. This is true and necessarily so or the faithful would never know if the pope was really the pope. What separates a heretic from the Church is manifest heresy that is harmful to others. This is treated as a canonical crime and prosecuted as such. Ipso facto penalties still require a canonical determination of guilt. The problem is that the pope is "judged by no one," canon law is the human law of the Church, the pope is above the legal penalty of the law although not above the moral penalty.

In the parable of the Cockle, every Church Father commenting on the passage taught that, among other things, the cockle primarily represents heretics. Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Harvest, commands that the cockle remain until the harvest for one reason, that removing it may do more harm to the wheat. However, when the Magisterium of the Church determines that the heretic is doing greater harm to the faithful by not being uprooted, she in her wisdom may remove the cockle before the harvest. That she has repeatedly done through history. But with each heresy, relatively few heretics are formally excommunicated.

Caiaphas, the high priest, sitting on the "chair of Moses," was a heretic, and not only was he recognized as such by Jesus Christ and later the Apostles, he was able to prophecy the truth in virtue of his office. What was established by God can only be overthrown by God and what happened to the Jєωιѕн high priest in 70 AD will, in an analogous manner, happen to our heretical popes in Rome just as it happened in 1527.

The mercenary armies of the Catholic emperor Charles V were Protestants. He marched on Rome in 1527 because of Rome entered into a political alliance with king of France. The sack of Rome was far exceeding in brutality and duration than even the sacks by the Vandals in 455 or the Visigoths in 410.

Roberto de Mattei wrote:

Quote

On October 17, 1528, the imperial troops abandoned a city in ruins. A Spanish eyewitness gives us a terrifying picture of the City a month after the Sack: “In Rome, the capital of Christendom, not one bell is ringing, the churches are not open, Mass is not being said and there are no Sundays nor feast days. The rich merchant shops are used as horse stables, the most splendid palaces are devastated, many houses burnt, in others the doors and windows broken up and taken away, the streets transformed into dung-heaps. The stench of cadavers is horrible: men and beasts have the same burials; in churches I saw bodies gnawed at by dogs. I don’t know how else to compare this, other than to the destruction of Jerusalem. Now I recognize the justice of God, who doesn’t forget even if He arrives late. In Rome all sins were committed quite openly: sodomy, simony, idolatry, hypocrisy and deceit; thus we cannot believe that this all happened by chance; but for Divine justice”. (L. von Pastor, History of Popes, cit. p. 278).
Pope Clement VII commissioned Michelangelo to paint the Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel, conceivably to immortalize the dramas the Church had undergone during those years. Everyone understood that it was a chastisement from Heaven. There were no lack of premonitory warnings: lightening striking the Vatican and the appearance of a hermit, Brandano da Petroio, venerated by the crowds as “Christ’s Madman”, who, on Holy Thursday 1527, while Clement VII was blessing the crowds in St. Peter’s shouted: “sodomite bastard, for your sins Rome will be destroyed. Confess and convert, for in 14 days the wrath of God will fall upon you and the City.”
Roberto de Mattei, The Sack of Rome

This cleansing of Rome by God was necessary for its purification leading to the Council of Trent. A cleansing of the same nature but of greater intensity is coming to Rome soon enough. You don't have to do anything but keep the faith, use dogma as your rule, pray and do penance. God will take care of the rest.

I do not understand your point of posting the condemned proposition of the heretic Hus so I will not comment.

Drew

Theosist · « **Reply #959 on:** May 06, 2018, 01:41:16 PM »

Quote

The office of the papacy exists in act. In is not in potency to anything ...

Enter the hidden premise of Aristotelian crypto-nominalism to turn that in a false dichotomy between the Papacy only existing in acts of the Pope or otherwise only in potency!

The Papacy exists, actually, whether or not there is any particular pope holding the office, and your denial of this is only made possible through your Aristotelian refusal to acknowledge the actual existence of universals outside of their particular instantiations, the reality of forms apart from matter, and objectivity of our ideas outside of minds to conceive of them - a trait you share with every philosophy that has helped dig the hole of the modern world.