Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Catman on March 09, 2018, 09:12:26 AM

Title: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Catman on March 09, 2018, 09:12:26 AM

Any one hear anything about this?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Fanny on March 09, 2018, 10:00:16 AM
An acquaintance of mine read it in the Sunday bulletin from Fr. Ringrose's chapel.
Ask your acquaintance to ask fr. Ringrose.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: PG on March 09, 2018, 10:12:11 AM
My guess is that we just have some newbie troll(catman) trying to sow seeds of distrust and doubt at a time when Fr. Ringrose is campaigning to raise funds for his school.  It is probably just an effort to deter that initiative.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on March 09, 2018, 10:22:57 AM

I think that there are one or two forum members here who attend Father's chapel. Maybe they could shed a little light on what was written in the bulletins.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Fanny on March 09, 2018, 10:31:18 AM
Is it wrong to be "new" here? Is it wrong to ask questions? Is this a closed group? Hmmm?
You will have to learn to ignore certain people, get a thick skin, and pray for the crazies.
I would ask your friend to ask fr. Ringrose specifically.
Is he associated with a convent?  Which one? 
Is there a decent traditional convent in this country which is not sede, not feenyite, not nutters?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Student of Qi on March 09, 2018, 10:59:56 AM

 There are also whispers that three "resistance" priests have dropped the name of Frank from the Canon.


Any one hear anything about this?
I have served for many of the Resistence priests, and I can confirm that there is at least one priest I know of who says "Benedicto" in the Canon. I heard it with my own ears. However, I'm not going to give any names or anything. My suggestion, like the others above, is to ask Fr. Ringrose or other priests personally. 
Maybe I shouldn't have even typed this much, but I imagine the "whispers" have some credence. It doesn't seem all that surprising though, aren't some priests known sedeprivationists??
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 09, 2018, 11:29:56 AM

Quote
It doesn't seem all that surprising though, aren't some priests known sedeprivationists??
Maybe Fr Ringrose is following the logic of Fr Chazal, who did an excellent talk on how 'dogmatic' sedevacantism is unsupportable from theologian's views, yet sedevacantism does make good points and that Pope Francis is definitely speaking heresy.  (I'm not here to start some debate over the issue, just pointing out that there's a lot of gray area in such matters.)
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: kiwiboy on March 09, 2018, 01:02:24 PM
I think that there are one or two forum members here who attend Father's chapel. Maybe they could shed a little light on what was written in the bulletins.

a lot more than one or two... about half the parish in my opinion...
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Centroamerica on March 09, 2018, 02:21:44 PM
I don’t understand why so many Catholics and traditional Catholic groups still fight about this. To me the answer seems simple. Yes, there is positive doubt that the post-conciliar popes are not popes and no the problem has not been resolved until the Church speaks on this. Even many SSPX priests could agree with the above. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 09, 2018, 02:56:30 PM
Quote
I don’t understand why so many Catholics and traditional Catholic groups still fight about this. To me the answer seems simple. Yes, there is positive doubt that the post-conciliar popes are not popes and no the problem has not been resolved until the Church speaks on this. Even many SSPX priests could agree with the above.
I agree, spiritually speaking, we should not be fighting about this, especially in the ugly manner in which we often do.  But our human nature is easily tempted to pride, bickering and frustration - which we sadly take out on our fellow Catholics.  Let’s all pray that through this rest of Lent, our penances and prayers can return us to true charity, where we realize that the Church’s trials are God-sent, and God-controlled, therefore our response to such trials also need God’s graces, and a higher level of patience than we are capable.  Then we would see that such trials are meant to teach us perseverance and humility, which Christ foretold to us and which graces we may need for future WORSE trials (the trials outlined in Matt chapter 24).  

If we can’t handle the minor trials now, while we have the sacraments/mass, how will we handle potential persecutions, or civil unrest or famines, when the Faith may be in hiding, and priests in short supply?  We need to prepare NOW. 

13 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/24-13.htm)But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved.  (Matt 24:13)

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: res ipsa loquitur on March 09, 2018, 03:32:03 PM
I agree, spiritually speaking, we should not be fighting about this, especially in the ugly manner in which we often do.  But our human nature is easily tempted to pride, bickering and frustration - which we sadly take out on our fellow Catholics.  Let’s all pray that through this rest of Lent, our penances and prayers can return us to true charity, where we realize that the Church’s trials are God-sent, and God-controlled, therefore our response to such trials also need God’s graces, and a higher level of patience than we are capable.  Then we would see that such trials are meant to teach us perseverance and humility, which Christ foretold to us and which graces we may need for future WORSE trials (the trials outlined in Matt chapter 24).  

If we can’t handle the minor trials now, while we have the sacraments/mass, how will we handle potential persecutions, or civil unrest or famines, when the Faith may be in hiding, and priests in short supply?  We need to prepare NOW.

13 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/24-13.htm)But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved.  (Matt 24:13)
Good point.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on March 09, 2018, 03:37:44 PM

I wonder....how many traditional Catholic bishops identify themselves as sedeprivationist? 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: PG on March 09, 2018, 04:30:17 PM
I wonder....how many traditional Catholic bishops identify themselves as sedeprivationist?
SedeWhat?  I can tell you that none of the bishop consecrated by +Lefebvre are sedeprivationist.  And, none of the bishops consecrated by +Williamson are sedeprivationist.  They are all sedeplenist.

If you genuinely want to know.  Sedeprivationism is simply the good cop of conclavism, with sedevacantism playing the bad cop.  They both work together.  Conclavism is their inevitable end.  

And, Fr. chazal is no sedeprivationist.  Ladislaus is just sowing cockle.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Centroamerica on March 09, 2018, 08:17:44 PM
Yeah. I would agree with Ladislaus’s comments. Dogmatic sedeplenists traditional Catholic bishops aren’t really out there so much. Even Bishop Fellay has made some comments about one day having to say Francis is not the pope, it is possible but he does not know, etc. I can’t just start putting them all in different groups but I can point out things they have all said showing that the will probably admit to a positive doubt and not the contrary. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: PG on March 09, 2018, 09:37:37 PM
pffffft ... none of them are sedeplenists.  To be a sedeplenist you have to believe in the legitimacy of the pope with the certainty of faith.  +Lefebvre, +Williamson, and +Tissier have all expressed doubts at one time another about their legitimacy.  No Catholic could do that of a true pope any more than he can question the truth of any defined dogma.

You put your ignorance on display yet again.  Sedeprivationism militates AGAINST conclavism.

Father Chazal is unquestionably a sedeprivationist ... whether or not he'd lay claim to the term.  He is NOT R&R.  Standard run-of-the-mill R&R holds that some V2 papal teaching is legitimate and must be accepted ... if it's traditional and it's true.  +Chazal claims that all of it is null and void due to the heresy of the occupants of the office, i.e. that they are completely deprived of any formal authority.  Thus, sedeprivationist.
You are failing to distinguish between the belief that a pope can be judged a formal heretic and how it occurs, and doubt about the validity of a pope.  These so called doubts of +Williamson,+Lefebvre, and +Tissier are not at all a doubt about the validity of the conciliar popes.  If they had a doubt, they would be non una cum like all the others who at the very least concluded such.  So, what it is is a doubt or question about whether a pope can become a formal heretic, and how that occurs.  I personally don't believe a pope can ever become a formal heretic.  And, neither do I believe that a perfect council can judge a pope a formal heretic.  But, they did not/have not come to that conclusion.  Hence, the discussion you are abusing.  But make no mistake, it is not a doubt about the validity of the popes.  And, fuss about legitimacy is child's talk.    

The catholic world is not the popes diocese.  Rome is the popes diocese.  The pope gives authority to bishops.  But, such bishop(s) does not then become only a mere messenger of the pope.  Bishops have true authority. There are checks and balances among bishops, pope included.  St. Peter keeps the bishops in check.  And, a bishop in the spirit of st paul keeps the church in check, pope included.  Just as the office of the papacy endures until the end of time.  The spirit of st paul endures among the bishops until the end.  The pope indeed does have supreme power.  But, he only has the keys.  St. paul has the sword.  Both are needed in the church.  So, legitimacy is child's talk.  The church can function one might even say normally with a heretical pope.  That is not to say there is a place for vatican 2 in the church.  There is not.  Thanks to +Lefebvre.  Thanks to +Williamson.  So on and so forth.  R&R is the true traditional position.  And, it is a sedeplenist position.  

So, enough of you promoting papal suzerainty and papal impeccability like all the dogmatic sedevacantists do.  They are in error.  You are in error.  


Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Clemens Maria on March 09, 2018, 09:40:35 PM
I don't see how sedeprivationism ends up in conclavism. If anything, it opposes it.
Yes, you are correct.  It wouldn't surprise me if conservative Novus Ordo Catholics are more ready to hold a conclave than the sedevacante and sedeprivationist bishops.  I don't really fault the sede bishops for that but I wish they would at least give a general council of Catholic bishops some serious thought.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Centroamerica on March 09, 2018, 09:50:04 PM


Not to derail the thread, but is Cantarella's (of all screen names) post calling Archbishop Lefebvre a neo-Jansenist?? I doubt those bishops would agree with such a remark. Despite having left the SSPX, the priests that were known as the nine still have a huge admiration for Archbishop Lefebvre and believe that he was raised up by God.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: PG on March 09, 2018, 10:08:16 PM
Yes, you are correct.  It wouldn't surprise me if conservative Novus Ordo Catholics are more ready to hold a conclave than the sedevacante and sedeprivationist bishops.  I don't really fault the sede bishops for that but I wish they would at least give a general council of Catholic bishops some serious thought.
I never said that the sedeprivationists will hold a conclave.  They will not.  However, they will be the first victim of a conclave.  And, life is in the blood.  Their end comes like a thief in the night.  

And, in my previous post, don't be mistaken by what I said about st paul by thinking that I promote conciliarism or collegiality.  That is not the case.  I do not believe in a perfect council judging a pope a formal heretic.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: ignatius on March 09, 2018, 11:39:42 PM


Father Chazal is unquestionably a sedeprivationist ... whether or not he'd lay claim to the term.  He is NOT R&R. 
 I suspected this but can not verify.  Can you provide some writing of his or audio lending him to be a sedeprivationist?  Even for him to say he is not a r&r is a significant position. Thanks.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: obscurus on March 10, 2018, 01:33:07 AM
Nobody ever seems to explain to me how proper authority in the Catholic Church continues according to the strict sedevacantist position. I never get a clear answer.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 10, 2018, 07:43:42 AM
Quote
- It may be held that since the Vatican II popes possess a legal and valid election, they have a certain legal status as popes.
- It may be held that this legal status is sufficient to maintain the succession to Peter and the perpetuity of the hierarchy.
When +ABL was alive, the sspx agreed with the above.  The ‘recognition’ of the popes was limited as he didn’t think that spiritually they were legitimate.  

Since +Fellay has took the reigns, the sspx’s definition of ‘recognize’ has become ridiculous and hypocritical.  

Very important distinction.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Matthew on March 10, 2018, 08:41:02 AM
Traditional Catholics have traditionally remained aloof and basically ignored "the man in a white cassock who lives in Vatican City".

Whether he is the pope, only legally the pope, or not pope at all doesn't really matter to us. In my opinion, that knowledge is AT LEAST morally impossible for 99.99% of men who weren't present at this or that secret meeting or election. For the average American or European living in 2018, no amount of study or thought is going to bring you to 100% certainty on the status of Pope Francis (and/or Pope Benedict).

But when I consider that the whole Crisis in the Church touches on God's secret plans and providence, which NO MAN IS PRIVY TO, nor has God shared his plans with anyone, it's even more impossible to know with certainty. I can't say "metaphysically impossible" because that would be like a plant having the use of reason. But it's morally impossible for 100% of men, not just the 99.99% who weren't intimately involved in papal elections, Freemasonry, etc.

Oh I've heard some good arguments in my time. From R&R, from conservative Novus Ordo, from sedevacantists, and from sedeprivationists. As you listen to any of their arguments, they sound quite convincing. Just one problem -- those arguments can't all be right!

They all sound convincing because they each focus on ONE ELEMENT of the mystery of the Crisis in the Church. If you focus on this element, you lean R&R. If you focus on this element, you lean sedevacantist. And so on. The problem is, NONE OF THESE POSITIONS ADEQUATELY ADDRESS ALL THE ISSUES AND OBJECTIONS INVOLVED. Hence my firm belief that we're dealing with a mystery.

But what we do know with certainty: We have to save our souls, and keep the Catholic Faith, and the man in white isn't promoting or protecting that Faith. On the contrary, he is doing everything he can to destroy it.

So we can pray for him, even in the Canon of the Mass (especially since he might be pope or legally pope -- who knows?) but that's about it.

We don't have to follow a material heretic, nor should we negotiate with him for "legitimacy", jurisdiction, approval, etc.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Matthew on March 10, 2018, 09:19:23 AM
Nobody ever seems to explain to me how proper authority in the Catholic Church continues according to the strict sedevacantist position. I never get a clear answer.

Oh, they wimp out by saying, "God will work a miracle" or "St. Peter will come down and personally pick the next Pope", which amounts to the same thing.

That seems like a cop-out to me, because when you have recourse to, "Well, there could be a miracle!" it means you're out of ideas! You don't see any possibility in the human realm.

See, there's nothing wrong with NOT attempting to explain away the mystery of this Crisis in the Church. Even if we did try to reason about it, we might easily be wrong. Our reason is not infallible. But the Sedevacantists have clearly applied their reason, and have attempted to solve the Crisis mystery completely (with a neat little bow, I might add). But their solution (from human reason) falls short PRECISELY because they can't explain how Authority will come back.

I don't know how this is all going to be resolved either, which is why my realistic and honest position is: "I don't know, and I can't know. I'm just going to keep the Faith and save my soul."

Because the status of the Pope is not a T in the road (do I go left? Or right? I have to choose one of them, and they each involved a hard turn one way or the other!), I go with the DEFAULT (as in, computer software) POSITION. That is to say, we assume he's the Pope until a council declares otherwise.

The Pope question is like a straight road saying "He is the pope" and sedevacantism is a sharp right turn off that road. It's making a decision. If you make no decision, you keep going forward, holding to the default position that he's the pope.

It follows from this, that Catholics won't ever be judged by God for holding to that default position. Now the same can't be said for those who rashly took the reins, and diverted the carriage on a sharp 90 degree turn. Maybe they shouldn't have done this, maybe they should. But how can you blame someone who just rides in the carriage, letting the horses move you along? Unless you know exactly what needs to be done, and where you need to go instead, then why take the reins?

Such taking of the reins is a moral action. Is not doing anything also considered a moral action? If so, then we're screwed, because we really don't know what to do, and if we're going to be judged for "doing something" either way, even if that "something" is doing nothing, then how fair is that?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Matthew on March 10, 2018, 09:31:09 AM
It is obvious, though, that doing nothing is NOT the same as engaging in any positive action.

For example, if a man has a gun to your head, there are many things you could do, including nothing at all. You could try to brush the gun aside, create a distraction, try to grab the gun, try to reason with him, etc.

Or you could do nothing.

Say you decide to do nothing, and hope he doesn't shoot you. In the worst case scenario, he shoots you in the head. Would you be responsible for your death? Even if, objectively speaking, "you chose poorly" because with this particular criminal, you could have used a Krav Maga move to take the gun away?  Of course not!
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on March 10, 2018, 10:17:32 AM
Traditional Catholics have traditionally remained aloof and basically ignored "the man in a white cassock who lives in Vatican City".

Whether he is the pope, only legally the pope, or not pope at all doesn't really matter to us. In my opinion, that knowledge is AT LEAST morally impossible for 99.99% of men who weren't present at this or that secret meeting or election. For the average American or European living in 2018, no amount of study or thought is going to bring you to 100% certainty on the status of Pope Francis (and/or Pope Benedict).

But when I consider that the whole Crisis in the Church touches on God's secret plans and providence, which NO MAN IS PRIVY TO, nor has God shared his plans with anyone, it's even more impossible to know with certainty. I can't say "metaphysically impossible" because that would be like a plant having the use of reason. But it's morally impossible for 100% of men, not just the 99.99% who weren't intimately involved in papal elections, Freemasonry, etc.

Oh I've heard some good arguments in my time. From R&R, from conservative Novus Ordo, from sedevacantists, and from sedeprivationists. As you listen to any of their arguments, they sound quite convincing. Just one problem -- those arguments can't all be right!

They all sound convincing because they each focus on ONE ELEMENT of the mystery of the Crisis in the Church. If you focus on this element, you lean R&R. If you focus on this element, you lean sedevacantist. And so on. The problem is, NONE OF THESE POSITIONS ADEQUATELY ADDRESS ALL THE ISSUES AND OBJECTIONS INVOLVED. Hence my firm belief that we're dealing with a mystery.

But what we do know with certainty: We have to save our souls, and keep the Catholic Faith, and the man in white isn't promoting or protecting that Faith. On the contrary, he is doing everything he can to destroy it.

So we can pray for him, even in the Canon of the Mass (especially since he might be pope or legally pope -- who knows?) but that's about it.

We don't have to follow a material heretic, nor should we negotiate with him for "legitimacy", jurisdiction, approval, etc.

The above is good Catholic common sense.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: ignatius on March 10, 2018, 10:30:52 AM
Here is what Fr. Ringrose has published:
“Today let us consider another error, referred to by some as “Recognize and Resist.”  In a nutshell, R&R holds that sometimes, the pope teaches error or imposes evil or harmful practices or laws.*  When he does, we must recognize his authority but resist his erroneous teachings or evil commands.  Good Catholics have mistakenly fallen into this error in their attempt to protect the teaching of the Church that the pope must have perpetual successors and that somehow there must always be a hierarchy.  The R&R position cannot be held because it ignores the clear teaching of the Church that the pope cannot teach error or impose evil or harmful practices and laws by virtue of the guarantee of Our Lord and the special assistance of the Holy Ghost.  If we recognize the pope’s authority to teach and rule the Church in matters of faith and morals, we have no choice but to assent and obey, for not to do so would be to fail to assent to Christ Himself, by Whose authority and in Whose name the pope speaks.  So R&R cannot be the answer, and like sedevacantism, it too must be rejected.
(*Some have said that the pope taught error at the time of St. Athanasius, but a closer examination of the facts shows this not to be true.)”

And:
-Contrary to the teaching of the Church: The pope can teach error sometimes and impose harmful or evil practices and laws on the Universal Church.  The Faith requires all Catholics to reject this idea.
-Contrary to the teaching of the Church: There is no hierarchy whatsoever.  (It is de fide that the hierarchy must be perpetual.)  Therefore, Catholics must reject sedevacantism.
-Contrary to the teaching of the Church: We may resist the authority of the pope.  Therefore, we must reject R&R.
- Since it is obvious that the Vatican II popes have imposed teachings and practices contrary to Faith and morals, it must be concluded that the infallible and indefectible teaching power promised to Peter’s successors is absent.
- It may be held that since the Vatican II popes possess a legal and valid election, they have a certain legal status as popes.
- It may be held that this legal status is sufficient to maintain the succession to Peter and the perpetuity of the hierarchy.

So does he believe francis is the pope or not?  What pope does he say in his mass: none or benedict? 
These are important questions.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on March 10, 2018, 10:59:29 AM
Previously, I posted excerpts.  Here's the complete text:

From Fr. Ringrose’s bulletin:
This feast reinforces Catholic teaching that Christ has given to Peter and his successors a unique role in the Church as Universal Pastor.  In this role as teacher Our Lord has promised that he who hears Peter hears him.  Recognizing this promise, the Church has infallibly taught that Peter and his successors cannot teach error to the Universal Church any more than Christ can.  So Christ guarantees that Peter will never teach error and Peter has the special assistance of the Holy Ghost to carry this out.
Last week we considered the error of sedevacantism, which holds that there is no pope, and that there is no hierarchy.  Today let us consider another error, referred to by some as “Recognize and Resist.”  In a nutshell, R&R holds that sometimes, the pope teaches error or imposes evil or harmful practices or laws.*  When he does, we must recognize his authority but resist his erroneous teachings or evil commands.  Good Catholics have mistakenly fallen into this error in their attempt to protect the teaching of the Church that the pope must have perpetual successors and that somehow there must always be a hierarchy.  The R&R position cannot be held because it ignores the clear teaching of the Church that the pope cannot teach error or impose evil or harmful practices and laws by virtue of the guarantee of Our Lord and the special assistance of the Holy Ghost.  If we recognize the pope’s authority to teach and rule the Church in matters of faith and morals, we have no choice but to assent and obey, for not to do so would be to fail to assent to Christ Himself, by Whose authority and in Whose name the pope speaks.  So R&R cannot be the answer, and like sedevacantism, it too must be rejected.
(*Some have said that the pope taught error at the time of St. Athanasius, but a closer examination of the facts shows this not to be true.)
 
From Fr. Ringrose’s posting in his church:
It is the teaching of the Church that the office of the Chair of St. Peter (Peter and his successors, the popes) is indefectible, that is it is always free from error and must be perpetual.  Its teachings are the standard and rule of Faith, despite the worthiness or unworthiness of the successor.  In light of this, what is a faithful Catholic to do?  Join or re-join the Novus Ordo?  By no means!  It is a false religion and to do so would be to abandon the Catholic Faith.
The question arises:  How is it that the New Order popes have attempted to impose on the Church erroneous teachings and harmful or evil law or practices?  Particular attention must be given to two of the most widely-held erroneous explanations:  sedevacantism and recognize and resist (R&R).  In light of what has been said, the following become apparent:
- Contrary to the teaching of the Church: The pope can teach error sometimes and impose harmful or evil practices and laws on the Universal Church.  The Faith requires all Catholics to reject this idea.
- Contrary to the teaching of the Church: There is no hierarchy whatsoever.  (It is de fide that the hierarchy must be perpetual.)  Therefore, Catholics must reject sedevacantism.
- Contrary to the teaching of the Church: We may resist the authority of the pope.  Therefore, we must reject R&R.
- Since it is obvious that the Vatican II popes have imposed teachings and practices contrary to Faith and morals, it must be concluded that the infallible and indefectible teaching power promised to Peter’s successors is absent.
- It may be held that since the Vatican II popes possess a legal and valid election, they have a certain legal status as popes.
- It may be held that this legal status is sufficient to maintain the succession to Peter and the perpetuity of the hierarchy.
It would appear, then, that the Chair is not totally vacant, nor is it completely full.  The new order popes possess some legal aspect as popes but lack the authority to teach or rule on matters of faith and morals.  In the face of this situation, the proper response of all faithful Catholics is to believe what Catholics have always believed and to do what Catholics have always done.  We cannot go wrong with that!
 

I think that Fr. Ringrose makes the situation more complicated than it has to be. He says above, in the last paragraph,  that...."the chair is not totally vacant, nor is it completely full." Well, this stance will then necessitate a complicated explanation, when really it shouldn't be all that complicated. IMO, we simply do not follow a pope in his errors.

+ABL did not obsess on the Pope and jurisdiction.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: PG on March 10, 2018, 11:22:38 AM
Here is what Fr. Ringrose has published:
The R&R position cannot be held because it ignores the clear teaching of the Church that the pope cannot teach error or impose evil or harmful practices and laws by virtue of the guarantee of Our Lord and the special assistance of the Holy Ghost.  If we recognize the pope’s authority to teach and rule the Church in matters of faith and morals, we have no choice but to assent and obey, for not to do so would be to fail to assent to Christ Himself, by Whose authority and in Whose name the pope speaks.
This is a dangerous position Fr. Ringrose is teaching.  Because, synonymous with saving our souls is preserving or in our case saving the papacy.  Because, it is from the papacy that we have other bishops.  And, it is from among the other bishops that we have the sword.  Even the priest and the mass is not officially ahead of those two, despite it being easily quotable by +Lefebvre.  We have to keep it all in the balance.
Fr. ringrose position is one step away from if not already at the door of entertaining the outright invalidity of the new rites.  And, not just due to human error outside of their papal introduction.  Because, if we do not recognized the popes authority(or better yet ability) to teach and rule, why would we grant these popes the benefit of the doubt that they can create 7 valid new rites/changes in the rites?  We only grant validity because we believe that these popes have authority.  Without that belief, which has been always strong in sspx tradition, validity of the new rites will meet the chopping block.
And, if these conciliar popes do ever teach true faith and morals, I will be the first to agree with them.  Why is it that fr. ringrose wouldn't want to be the first to agree/support them?  That is precisely how reform and return will occur.  As matthew said about the sedes, st peter is not going to come down from heaven and miraculously select for us a new pope or point out the true pope.  We must be realistic and practical.  The pope is not outside of conversion.  Popes can be wrong, even in faith and morals.  However, before popes were/are wrong, previous popes were right, and taught such right.  Before any error crept into the church through the papacy, and error has for a long long time, correct teaching was established by a preceding pope.  That is the deposit of the faith, and the strength of the office of peter.  Without its visibility, we would not benefit as we do.  Let us not now refuse that.
I would agree that even when a heretical pope(or any pope for that matter) is right(or better yet not wrong), we do not necessarily have to obey.  But, not in the sense that creates extremes like it does for fr. ringrose.  Do you remember the uproar that occurred when +Williamson said that if pope francis called me up today and said, "I want to approve you and give you an official piece of paper stating such", +Williamson said he would be on a plane to rome the very next day to go and pick it up?  This was within the context of a conversation about how we do not need such approval or piece of paper, but was said to show how useful even with these heretical popes it is/can be.  For +Williamson it was not "either or", it was "both and".  And, that is not a contradiction.  That is true wisdom.  That is what was displayed by +Lefebvre that proud indi priests could not accept, and that is what is displayed by +Williamson.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Matthew on March 10, 2018, 11:57:30 AM
Frankly, I don't know about the new Novus Ordo rites, either. As I was taught, when we have a choice between a doubtful Rite and a certain Rite, we ARE OBLIGATED to choose the more certain.

This is Church teaching. And it is the foundation of the Traditional Movement. It is why we reject wholesale the entire Conciliar package -- Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, its new practices, its new sacraments, its doubtful priests and bishops, and its materially heretical popes. Why risk invalidity when we can go to a Traditional Catholic Mass chapel and get 100% certain priests and sacraments?

Are the Novus Ordo Mass and the Conciliar sacraments valid? Who cares! It's an academic question, because no Catholic who values his Faith should EVER consider going to a Novus Ordo Mass. Better to stay at home than to imbue sentimental, protestant, liberal, feminist propaganda.

I'm a practical person. Chalk it up to the Irish side of my heritage. When I observe that the average Novus Ordo Catholic is indistinguishable from his Jewish and non-Catholic friends in every measurable way -- how many children he has, his use of birth control, his language, his recreation, his ambitions, his hobbies, his dress, his politics ("go Hillary! go Obama! -- for the economy! Who cares about abortion...") his daily prayer life, etc. than why shouldn't I conclude that something is critically wrong in that church?

It's not just the smart thing to do, though. We are actually meeting our grave obligation to keep the Faith and not put our Faith in jeopardy. Are we allowed to attend protestant services? No. Why would we be allowed to attend virtually protestant services, with a few Catholic vestiges but mostly protestant, indistinguishable from a protestant service by the average layman, and which was actually designed by a half-dozen protestant ministers? Those who want to muse about the validity of the Novus Ordo are COMPLETELY missing the point. It's still filled with anti-Catholic poison! It's calculated to destroy souls. Why would you subject yourself to its destructive power? Do you think you're stronger than so many who have fallen away? That would be pride (which is ironic, since they always accuse Trads of being proud and disobedient).

When the priest has Holy Water and regular water available for baptism, he must choose the Holy Water. He can't choose doubtfully valid matter over certainly valid matter.  The same goes for the FORM (the words) of the sacrament!

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: obscurus on March 10, 2018, 05:03:36 PM
That's where sedeprivationism comes in ... as one proposed resolution to this question.  I myself have a slightly-different slant on this position, where I believe that if a merely-material Pope appoints a bishop to his office, and that bishop is not a heretic and has no impediment to formally exercising the office, he can in fact formally exercise his office and has all the usual jurisdiction that comes with it.
And not binding at all on the Catholic conscience -- mere theological speculation. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: obscurus on March 10, 2018, 05:10:32 PM
https://www.chantcd.com/index.php/Contra-Cekadam (https://www.chantcd.com/index.php/Contra-Cekadam)

AVAILABLE NOW - $10 plus shipping.


Also the thought that Fr. Chazal supports the sedeprivationist theory is complete nonsense.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: obscurus on March 10, 2018, 07:29:48 PM
It seems like hair-splitting. Authority is de facto extinct in the Catholic Church. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: obscurus on March 10, 2018, 08:03:53 PM
So you're claiming that the Church has defected.  Heresy.
That is not what I am saying -- but that is what you are implying, no? 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: obscurus on March 10, 2018, 08:11:03 PM
You just said that authority has ceased in the Church ... that's a defection of the Church and heresy.  There's no sugar-coating that.  You may need to rethink and restate your position in non-heretical terms.
What I am saying is that according to Fr Ringrose -- authority has de facto ceased. I obviously don't believe authority has ceased because Christ has instituted the Church with a hierarchy. However, what you are saying -- correct me if I am wrong -- (I am not actually trying to be flippant) is that the normal governance of the Church has more or less stopped. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Centroamerica on March 10, 2018, 08:17:21 PM
Just a little tidbit.

The Dominican priest/professor and later bishop, Guerard des Lauriers, was the confessor of Pope Pius XII (!), helped pen the Dogma of the Asssumption and also wrote the Ottaviani Intervention.

I'm not a proponent of the Thesis, but it seems to make sense. I feel that one day the Church will state one way or another on the matter.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: obscurus on March 10, 2018, 08:20:14 PM
I know he was brilliant. He also taught at Econe for a few years. Great theoretical mind but as someone said didn't have the practical wisdom of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: obscurus on March 10, 2018, 08:50:50 PM
And again....

THE THESIS OF CASSICIACUM
  or the material Papacy
A contribution for a peaceable debate
*  *  *
A Note from the Translator:
Among the various theological attempts to explain the place and the role of the Conciliar Popes in the crisis in the Church, there is one called the “Thesis of Cassiciacum”, or the Material Papacy, conceived after Vatican II by the French theologian Fr. Guérard des Lauriers.

There was lacking in the English language a serious critical study to expose the metaphysical and theological deficiencies of this theory. The following study, written by Fr. Curzio Nitoglia, a former follower of this Thesis, combines a deep theological knowledge and a balanced approach on the subject.

The bottom line of his argumentation is that a pure Material Pope is not sufficient to perpetuate the Papacy, but also theChurch Itself.
Fr. Nitoglia ranges the “Thesis of Cassiciacum” among the Sedevacantist theories, because despite recent attempts of calling it “Sedeprivationism”, the conclusion of this theory is that we have not a true Pope in Rome.

The author, in other studies, shares the position of Recognize and Resist (R&R) as being the most suitable attempt to explain the complex and difficult situation of the Papacy after Vatican II. 
“In this passage from the Gospel of St. Mark (6:47-56) it is rightly written that the Boat (that is, the Church) was in the middle of the sea, while Jesus stood alone on the dry land: because the Church is not only tormented and oppressed by so many persecutions from the world, but sometimes it is also soiled and contaminated so that, if it were possible, its Redeemer in these circumstances, it would seem to have abandoned it completely”. Saint Bede (In Marcum, chapter VI, book II, chapter XXVIII, volume 4).

Introduction

A prominent Dominican theologian, Father Michel Louis Guérard-des-Lauriers, in front of the tragedy of Vatican Council II and the Novus Ordo Missae, elaborated a "Thesis" called of "Cassiciacum", according to which, at least starting from the promulgation ofDignitatis humane (December 7, 1965), the See of Peter is formally vacant. That is, Paul VI was Pope only materially or in potency, but not formally or in act.

The distinctions between matter/form, potency/act are not his invention (as many of his detractors have suggested); there were elaborated by Aristotle, and perfected by St. Thomas Aquinas affirming that the being is the ultimate act of every form or essence, and were canonized by the Magisterium since the thirteenth century, and especially at the Council of Trent, concerning the Sacraments (matter, form and minister). [1] (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-critical-study-on-the-material-pope-thesis/#post__ftn1)

However, if it is applied to the Papacy, it can work only with the material death of the Pope, but not beyond. In this article I will try to explain to the readers who, confused by the doctrines of the Second Vatican Council and the after-council and by the reservations of the "traditionalist" resistance to Modernist innovations, are turning to the Thesis of the material Papacy, which appears logically founded to solve the problem of Authority in the Church. In doing so, however, they start by defending the Authority but they end up by annihilating it.

Certainly in the face of so much disarray in the ecclesial environment, the question arises: "how is it possible that ‘Christ on earth’, who kisses the Quran, goes to a synagogue to proclaim the Jews ‘fathers of Christianity’, brings together all the false religions together with the only True Religion in Assisi ...?” But from here to theorize the"Theological Thesis" of the Papal Vacancy (not only of the Pope, but of Cardinals, Bishops and Priests) for fifty consecutive years and to organize a subsequent "Religious Movement" with an extremely detailed moral and liturgical discipline, which applies the "Thesis" to practical cases and comes to deny the sacraments to those who do not agree with the aforementioned "Thesis", considering it a "specification of an act of Faith", the step goes too far, and when “you bite more than you can chew,” it does not lead to anything good, but to a thunderous slide.

I do not want to denigrate the 'sedevacantists', who have been marginalized and accused too much in the "traditionalist" milieu, by taking the side of the criticism to their theories and their attitude led to the "excesses." Indeed, they have on their side some positive elements: serious studies of the Church and of the Papacy in the light of logic, of ecclesiology, of the counter-Church problem, of a largely forgotten Roman integration in the "traditionalist" environment, of classical anti-Modernism etc.

Nevertheless I would like to recommend them – after having been myself a 'sedevacantist' for 20 years [2] (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-critical-study-on-the-material-pope-thesis/#post__ftn2)  - to avoid those excesses, which do not help leading the souls to Heaven more easily and surely ("suprema lex Ecclesiae: salus animarum – the surpreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls"), that is to say, by affirming that all the sacraments of the 'non-sedevacantist' priests are certainly invalid or gravely sinful and therefore we must not approach them [3] (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-critical-study-on-the-material-pope-thesis/#post__ftn3) ; a certain tendency towards personal criticism, which can lead to gossip (even now by personally attacking Bishop Williamson without foundation). Every excess is a defect. Father Guérard des Lauriers, (whom I still deeply respect as a man, priest and theologian, although I no longer share the theological Thesis [4] (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-critical-study-on-the-material-pope-thesis/#post__ftn4) ) was alien to such petty quarrels, even if he had a strong vis polemica [polemic force], because the "struggle for the truth" should not be confused with gossip, slander, pedantry and malice.

The Material Papacy & the Virtual Church’

It is of Faith (de fide) that the Church will last until the end of the world ("I am with you every day until the end of the world", Mt. 28:20). It is defined of Faith that Christ gave his Church a Hierarchy (Pope and Bishops), which will last until the end of the Church (Conc. Trent, DB 966).

The Protestants, however, recognize only the general priesthood of all the faithful and deny the Hierarchy or the Papacy and the Episcopate. They were condemned asheretics by the Council of Trent. The First Vatican Council defines of Faith"Christ wanted that in his Church there were Pastors and Doctors until the end of the world (Mt. 28:20)" (DB 1821), which are the Bishopssuccessors of the Apostles and subject to the First or the Prince of the Apostles, that is Peter and his successors in the Roman See (DB 1821) Remove "First" and everything falls. Furthermore, it is of Faith that"Christ established Peter first of all the Apostles and the visible Head of the whole Church" (First Vatican Council, DB 1823).

Therefore the Church must rest on Peter and the Apostles and their successors (Pope and Bishops) until the end of the world when there must be at least two Bishops according to the most restrictive interpretation of the First Vatican Council (as regards Order and Jurisdiction) and a first Pope of all the Apostles (as regards Order and Jurisdiction).
Now the 'mitigated sedevacantists', who follow the 'Thesis of Cassiciacum', admit that there must always be during the history of the Church at least two validly consecrated Bishops, with integral Faith and Jurisdiction (Magisterium, Imperium et Sacerdotium –Magisterium, Government and Priesthood), but deny that there should be a Pope in act (in actu); only a Pope in potency(in potentia) is enough for them.
This distinction does not seem acceptable to me. In fact, how could the Church rest on a Pope who is not yet Pope in act, but who is a baptized elected by the Cardinals, who has not yet accepted the canonical election, and therefore not being a Pope? The Church (like any entity) cannot rest on and be founded on potentiality and becoming, but only in act and in being; otherwise it would be a potential, virtual and in fieri Church.

Furthermore, it is not possible to be lacking together the Pope in act, the College of Cardinals capable of replacing the deceased Pope by governing with authority (a sort of "vicar" college of the Vicar of Christ, because the cardinal College would be onlymaterial, which could validly elect a Pope, but does not govern the Church in act, which does not have formal apostolicity), and even the universal Episcopate having jurisdiction in act with every Bishop in his Diocese [5] (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-critical-study-on-the-material-pope-thesis/#post__ftn5) , who maintain the unity and existence of the Church, awaiting for the election of a new Pope. Otherwise we would be faced with a state of 'vacant Church,' more than the only 'vacant papal See'.

Unity and Apostolicity of the Church

Unity is an essential note of the Church and is essentially focused on the only visible Head of the Church, the Roman Pontiff, to whom rests the principle of apostolic succession (or formal Apostolicity, while the only 'material apostolicity' is not enough as a note of the Church of Christ). Then, without Peter or Pope there is no Church, which is in communion with Christ through the Prince of the Apostles. [6] (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-critical-study-on-the-material-pope-thesis/#post__ftn6)

Therefore, everything that happens outside the uninterrupted chain of Peter and his successors is outside the Unity and formal Apostolicity of the Church [7] (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-critical-study-on-the-material-pope-thesis/#post__ftn7) and reveals the detachment of dried branches from the vital trunk of the Church of Christ.

Apostolicity is, in the crisis which the ecclesial environment is experiencing, the most useful and important note to understand what happens and to bring a remedy to so much evil. Without the Apostles the Church of Christ does not subsist, since Jesus himself founded it on them. But without the Prince of the Apostles, without Peter, who is the secondary and subordinated 'stone' to Christ, the Apostles are detached from Christ. The presence of the Pope is therefore absolutely necessary, and not only of the Bishops in fieri (in becoming) or in esse (in being), and not in potentia (in potency) or in progress.

In fact, if the Church were in potency or in becomingshe would not yet exist and besides Christ would not be with her, as He has promised, every day from Calvary until the end of the world, but He would be at intervals, sometimes in progress or in being, and sometimes only in potency or in progress.

On the contrary, Christ founded His Church on a single uninterrupted chain of Popes in act of being and not in perpetual becoming or intermittently: Peter and the Apostles were Pope and Bishops in act and formally, not in potencyin fieri or only materially. The Church rests on being, on act and form, not on becoming, potency and materiality; a "Church" like this latter would seem rather the "cosmic Church" of the "cosmic Christ"in perpetual evolution of Teilhard de Chardin. Therefore, that “Church” or the “Papacy”,material or in progress, of four Popes which has not passed to the act and has interrupted the unity and the formal apostolic succession from Peter, is a Papacyconceived by the mind of a man, even from a very great theologian (who, however, is not Christ on earth nor the ecclesiastical Magisterium), but it is not the Church desired by God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

'Vacant See’, yes, 'Church vacant', no

a) 'Vacante Sede Apostolica' at every death of the Pope, yes.

Canonists and theologians define, and therefore distinguish, the period of Vacancy of the Apostolic See, which goes from the death of a Pope to the election of the next one, from the lack of authority or Hierarchy in the Church (Either "Sedevacantism" mitigated, or absolute).

During the Conclave the Cardinals cannot issue new laws, but they must not diminish the rights of the Apostolic See, keeping alive those existing (see St. Pius X, Vacante Sede Apostolica, December 25, 1904; Pius XI, Quae divinitus, March 26, 1925, Pius XII, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, December 8, 1945).

Then, even though the Pope is dead, the Cardinals still have a certain power on the universal Church, as the Bishops maintain the Jurisdiction in their Dioceses and the Parish Priests in the Parishes.

While in the practical case of "Sedevacantism" one finds oneself in a total (or onlyformalvacancy of the power of Jurisdiction of the Pope, of the Cardinals and of the Bishops throughout the world (starting from 1958/1965), and also in a state of privation of the power of Order (starting from 1970). That is, the Hierarchical Church no longer exists; as regards the power of Jurisdiction, totally or at least formally according to the "Thesis of Cassiciacum", for this Thesis the papal authority from Paul VI until today is only material or potential; and moreover the Priesthood would have disappeared since 1970 because it is considered invalid by 'Sedevacantism' if it is conferred with the new Sacramentary of Paul VI of 1970.

Now, Jesus promised the indefectibility to the Church, [8] (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-critical-study-on-the-material-pope-thesis/#post__ftn8) saying: "I will be with you until the end of the world" (Mt. 28:20) and "the gates of Hell will not prevail against My Church" (Mt. 16:19).
Therefore His Church will last until the end of the world, keeping 1°) the Hierarchy, since the Church is hierarchical and monarchical by divine Will and will remain so until the end of time; 2°) the Priesthood, as without the priesthood or sacrifice there is no Religion.

In this regard, St. Ambrose of Milan (Liber de Salomone, chapter 4) compares the Church to a ship "that is continually agitated by the waves and storms of the sea, but which will never fail, because its mast is the Cross of Christ, his helmsman is God the Father, the guardian of the prow the Holy Ghost, and the rowers the Apostles.". [9] (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-critical-study-on-the-material-pope-thesis/#post__ftn9)
Saint Bede comments: "In this passage from the Gospel of Mark (6:47-56) it is rightly written that the Ship (i.e. the Church) was found in the middle of the sea, while Jesus stood alone on the dry land: since the Church is not only tormented and oppressed by so many persecutions by the world, but sometimes it is also dirty and contaminated so that, if possible, its Redeemer in these circumstances, it would seem to have abandoned it completely." (In Marcum, chapter VI, book II, chapter XXVIII, volume 4)

The College of Cardinals is still an arbiter in act, in spite of the Pope's death, for urgent cases, namely in the internal forum and conscience, which are solved by a majority vote. Furthermore, every day a "General Congregation" of all Cardinals in Conclave must meet.

Besides, the Cardinals are locked up in the Conclave and "placed in poor living conditions to shorten as much as possible the Vacancy of the Apostolic See", [10] (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-critical-study-on-the-material-pope-thesis/#post__ftn10)which would have lasted, according to Sedevacantism, over half a century against the nature of the Church. Indeed, according to "Sedevacantism," the vacancy would have lasted at least since 1965.

When the Pope dies the offices of all the Cardinals cease, except a) that of the "Major Penitentiary Cardinal", [11] (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-critical-study-on-the-material-pope-thesis/#post__ftn11) who continues to exercise the most important functions, that is, about cases of internal forum and conscience (see Pius XI, Quae divinitus, March 26, 1925); b) that of the "Camerlengo Cardinal", [12] (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-critical-study-on-the-material-pope-thesis/#post__ftn12) which, far from diminishing or even completely ceasing, develops its most important functions, which consist in administering the temporal goods of the Apostolic See; c) the "Sacred Congregations" [13] (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-critical-study-on-the-material-pope-thesis/#post__ftn13) and the "Ecclesiastical Tribunals" [14] (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-critical-study-on-the-material-pope-thesis/#post__ftn14) which continue to function only with the ordinary faculties, except those that are not urgent, which may be postponed to the future election of the Pope.

Furthermore, Saint Pius X wisely wished that the certainty and validity of the election of the Pope should be out of any doubt and therefore eliminated any penalty invalidatingthe election of the Pope brought by any previously reigning Pope (for example, Pope Julius II, in 1505, he had sanctioned Simony as invalidating the papal election). [15] (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-critical-study-on-the-material-pope-thesis/#post__ftn15)

As for Simony, it consists in the gravely illicit exchange of spiritual goods with material ones (e.g. a cardinal buys the papal election for 10 million). Now St. Thomas equates Simony with Atheism or Irreligion, since a simoniac does not believe in God because he buys spiritual things with money as if they were material (S. Th., II-II, q. 100, a. 1).

This analogy is very interesting, since the "Thesis of Cassiciacum" does not follow the dead path ab initio [from the beginning] of the “heretical Pope”, but takes a new and apparently living road, according to which the Authority is aimed at the common good of the subject. Therefore, they say, a Pope who does not objectively want the good of theChurch does not want the end or goal of the Pontifical Authority.

Therefore he is not Pope in act or formally, but only in potency or materially and will become Pope only when he has taken away the impediment of the lack of right intention or will of the common good or end of the Authority. But the atheist or the irreligious, who does notbelieve in God, in Religion and therefore not even in the Church, cannot want the goodof the Church and of souls. And yet, according to St. Pius X and Canon Law, he is also a Pope in act. [16] (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-critical-study-on-the-material-pope-thesis/#post__ftn16) So the path of the "Thesis of Cassiciacum" ("partialSedevacantism") finishes, at its end, in a barred road like the one, already barred, of the "heretical Pope" ("total Sedevacantism").

The candidate canonically elected by the College of Cardinals, if he accepts the election, ipso facto becomes Pope in act. [17] (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-critical-study-on-the-material-pope-thesis/#post__ftn17)

Regarding Benedict XVI, who is considered an "appearance of Pope" by the "Thesis of Cassiciacum," since he would not be a Bishop, as being consecrated after 1970 with the new Pontifical of Paul VI, first of all, it would be necessary to demonstrate the invalidity of the new Episcopal Consecrations; furthermore, even if the power of Order and the power of Jurisdiction are each other really distinct, since the Order is conferred through the appropriate Sacrament, while Jurisdiction is granted through the canonical Mission of the Pope (see Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 1943), nevertheless they are "in mutual relation because Jurisdiction supposes the Order, and vice versa the exercise of the Order is governed by the Jurisdiction". [18] (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-critical-study-on-the-material-pope-thesis/#post__ftn18) So if Ratzinger was not a bishop, he would not even be in potentia proxima to become Pope because Jurisdiction supposes the Order, and since he would not have the Order of Episcopate he could not have the Jurisdiction over the Universal Church as the Bishop of Rome.

Therefore he would not be even materially Pope, but only "an appearance of Pope", just like the actor

Ugo Pagliai, who in the film "Under the Sky of Rome" represented Pius XII, was not even "Pope materially", but only an "appearance of Pope"  representing Eugenio Pacelli.

It seems clear to me that the "Vacant See at every death of the Pope" is essentially distinct from the "Sedevacantism" theory, which destroys the essere or being of the Church and creates a virtual one, in potency or in constant becoming according to the "Thesis of Cassiciacum", while "Total Sedevacantism" does not save anything.

b) Not to 'Sedevacantism' or the Vacant See for half a century.

Then we must clearly distinguish: 1°) the transient state of the "Vacant See", which goes from the death of a Pope to the election of another, a state in which the College of Cardinals remain capable of substituying the deceased Pope [19] (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-critical-study-on-the-material-pope-thesis/#post__ftn19) (a kind of "Vicar" College of the Vicar of Christ) governing with authority and the universal Episcopate,[20] (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-critical-study-on-the-material-pope-thesis/#post__ftn20) thus maintaining uninterrupted Unity and Continuity of the series of Popes from St. Peter until the end of the world and the existence of the Church, awaiting for the election of a new Pope; 2°) the "Vacant Church", which is the state of deprivation of a pope in act, a College governing with vicarious authority, and of the universal Episcopate having jurisdiction, a state that could materially last until the passing of this material papacy.

'Sedevacantism', therefore, is substantially different from the Vacancy of the Apostolic See at every Pope's death. In fact, according to this theory, it practically coincides with the "Vacant Church" and, therefore, runs into this difficulty: if the material Pope dies without becoming Pope in act or formally, then the unbroken chain of the Popes’ seriesbreaks and the doors of the Hell would prevail, the Church of Christ having died, passed from potentiality to corruption or to nothingness. In fact, Aristotle and St. Thomas teach that there is: 'nothing' (nihilo), 'power' (potentia or ability to pass to the act) and the 'act' (actus) of being or existing. Now “ex nihilo nihil fit (from nothing, nothing comes)”; [21] (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-critical-study-on-the-material-pope-thesis/#post__ftn21) “Potentia reducitur ad actum, per ens in actu (potency passes into act thanks to an efficient cause, which is already an being in act)” [22] (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-critical-study-on-the-material-pope-thesis/#post__ftn22) and finally "ex ente in actu non fit ens, quia iam est ens (from a being in act does not come a being, because it is already in act)”. [23] (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-critical-study-on-the-material-pope-thesis/#post__ftn23)

Aristotle with the notion of power or potency, which is truly distinguished from the actand from nothingness and which is a pure capacity of passing to act or to receive it, harmonized the principle of being, and the fact of becoming [a being]. In fact, thanks to the power or potency (which is not nothing, but neither being in act), the Stagirite explains that "from potency comes the act, or potency passes to the act.

Therefore becoming is possible and being also, precisely thanks to power". Now, potency is notnothing but "non-being" and exists as something intermediate between nothingness and being in perfect act (for example the wood of the statue that is slowly chiseled is not pure nothingness, but neither is the completed statue, yet it exists while the artist works it and strives for the perfect act and not for perpetual movement). [24] (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-critical-study-on-the-material-pope-thesis/#post__ftn24)

This metaphysical notion of power or potency was applied by Father M. Guérard des Lauriers theologically and acutely to the problem of Authority: he said that a Pope can be such either in act (or formally) or only in potency (or materially). That is, when a Pope is elected and he has not yet accepted the canonical election, he is Pope only innear potency (potentia proxima) or materially; he becomes in act or formally when he accepts his election. Any baptized man can be elected Pope and therefore he is Popein 'remote power' (potentia remota); if he is elected, he becomes in 'near potency' and if he accepts the canonical election he becomes Pope 'in act' or formally (receiving the priestly and episcopal consecration).

In fact "forma dat esse" (the form gives the being) (Aristotle and St. Thomas). Now aformless or material Pope does not exist in act; he could exist if he receives the beingin act, like wood which is not a chair but could become it. Any existing being exists (ex-sistit, comes out of nothing or its cause) when its essence, which is in potency to be as the ultimate act, receives the being in act.

Therefore, if the cardinals Montini, Luciani, Wojtyla or Ratzinger do not receive the form or ultimate act of being, there is no such thing as Pope Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
Furthermore, Card. Montini or Pope Paul VI once dead is no longer a man, but a corpse which is neither a subject of sacred Orders (Priesthood and Episcopate) nor of Jurisdiction (Papacy and Bishop of Rome).

The corpse falls into dust and becomes nothing, once separated from its soul or form first and therefore he cannot receive the ultimate being or form/act and cannot exist, except by a miracle of Divine Omnipotence that restores life to the dead ("Ex nihilo nihil fit"), as will happen at the end of the world with the Resurrection of the bodies.

Therefore, if 'Sedevacantism' wants to be logical, Montini can no longer become Paul VI in the act of being and is no longer even a material Pope, but a corpse "pulvis, cinis et nihil" (dust, ashes and nothing). Then, if John Paul I would have "converted" (as the 'Thesis of Cassiciacum' suggested), he would not have been the successor of Paul VI, because the uninterrupted chain of the Popes, from St. Peter to the last living Pope until the End of the World, it would be interrupted and the Church of Christ would have ended with the death of Paul VI. But all this is against the defined Faith of the Unity and Apostolicity of the Church.

In fact, if the material Pope does not accept the election, he remains Pope in near potency until he dies. Once dead, he is a corpse and is no longer a baptized man, it isnihil (or nothing), it is no longer potency (or ens materialiter). Now ex nihilo nihil fit(nothing comes from nothing). Therefore the Church, according to 'Sedevacantism', would have died. As wood could become a statue in act, but if it rots and becomes dust, it is no longer in remote potency (pure wood) nor in near potency (wood in process, which is becoming a statue), so the corpse is not in potency (not even remote) to the Papacy and will never become Pope.

The thesis of the material or in potency Papacy had a considerable initial philosophical and theological depth, but it was exhausted with the death of Paul VI and is completely overcome with the election of Benedict XVI, who is considered by the same Thesis, not to be a bishop and therefore an "appearance" of Pope (Guérard des Lauriers). Now "an appearance" or an actor representing a Pontiff is not subject to Holy Orders and Jurisdiction (the Cardinals do not elect an actor or one who poses himself as Pope, but choose a baptized person who accepts the canonical election to become really Pope in act) and it is not even in a remote potency capable of becoming Pope in near potencyand then in act. According to 'Sedevacantism,' the successor of Pius XII, after the death of the material Pope Paul VI, who did not pass to the act and could no longer pass, being dead, he would no longer be the formal successor of Peter, but would be the Head of a new "church", essentially different from the one that founded Jesus Christ over Peter, and a fortiori the Pope elected after Benedict XVI would not be the formalsuccessor of Peter, but only an "appearance of the Pope" and not even a "materialPope". But this is contrary to the revealed and defined Catholic Faith, which teaches the formal and uninterrupted apostolicity of the Popes from St. Peter to the end of the world.

If the ecclesial and spiritual "Hierarchy" (Pope and Bishops) are the formal successors of Christ, of Peter and of the Apostles, they are the Church of Christ as Christ wanted it; otherwise they are the product of an intellectual Thesis elaborated in an "emergency" state. But it is not human thought that creates reality even in a state of extreme emergency, it is not a theological thesis which founds the true Church of Christ. This "church", a product of human intellect and essentially different from the hierarchical and visible Church of Christ, seems to me rather a "pneumatic [spiritual] church". The real state of emergency or necessity in which we find ourselves does not authorize us to change the essence of the Church, which Christ has desired and founded, imagining one in fieri [in becoming] or in potency or material, which never exists, without passing to the act for over half a century.

The Church has been, is and will be in act, not in becoming, just as Christ is hodie, heri et in saecula, [today, yesterday and forever] "semper idem" [always the same] and not "always in fieri" [in becoming]. The true Apostolic succession is the formal succession, nourished by its root, which is the ‘Rock’, Christ, and His Vicar on earth, 'Peter'.
St. Augustine teaches that a simple material succession, not formally united with its root, would be sterile. [25] (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-critical-study-on-the-material-pope-thesis/#post__ftn25) Like any branch (Bishops/Apostles) that starts from cut and dry branches (Pope/First and Prince of the Apostles) is not alive and fruitful. Remove the first one and the whole building collapses. Thus an only material apostolic succession has collapsed, died and is dead. It is a historical, chronological, material, physical "succession" or an "abscess", but not formally apostolic, alive and vivifying.[26] (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-critical-study-on-the-material-pope-thesis/#post__ftn26)

Conclusion

For these reasons it seems to me that we cannot admit 'Sedevacantism' as theologically probable, while the 'Vacant See at every death of Pope' is a fact and"contra factum non valet argumentum" [there is no argument against a fact].

Putting together the various currents or theses that attempt to explain the current situation in the Church of Christ is a "traditional-ecumenical" utopia, and instead of shooting among anti-modernists, to aim at modernism is a more realistic possibility. "In coertis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas!" [Unity in truth, freedom in doubt, charity in everything].

Fr. Curzio Nitoglia

FOOTNOTES
 
 [1] DB 355, St. Gregory VII, Synod of Rome (11 February 1079); DB 430, Innocent III, IV Lateran Council (30 November 1215); DB 581, Gregory XII, Council of Constance (22 February 1418; DB 884, Julius III, Council of Trent (11 October 1551); DB 1529, Pius VI, Constitution Auctorem fidei (August 28, 1794); DB 2045, St. Pius X, Lamentabili Decree (3 July 1907); DB 2318, Pius XII, Encyclical Humani generis (12 August 1950); cfr. St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Th., III, q. 60; A. Piolanti, The Sacraments, Florence, 1956.

 [2] I do not deny it, "he who denies is a renegade," but I have taken and I take a distance from it, because I believe I had not the certainty I presumed to have [at that time]. "Total sedevacantism" has never convinced me. The "Thesis of Cassiciacum" yes, but now no more. I am not infallible, I do not hold any authority; I only allow myself to express my convictions without wanting to excommunicate, to accuse anyone of formal heresy or schism. "In a black night, a black priest, on a black stone, only God can see him", says the proverb. In the present situation, which seems to me to be the most serious that has troubled but not overcome the Church, we find ourselves in the dark, as during the Passion and Death of Jesus: "tenebrae factae sunt - there were darkness" (Lk. 23:44); "this is your hour, and the power of darkness."(Lk 22:53) and it is very difficult to see clearly ... in the dark.

 [3] Confession and Extreme Unction included, when Moral Theology and Canon Law teach that in periculo mortis a Catholic can ask for absolution and Extreme Unction also to a schismatic, an excommunicated or a heretic (CIC, can. 870-936; 937-947; 1251). Therefore denying the possibility to the faithful to go to Confession, since the priests 'non una cum' are not everywhere, means exposing them to the risk of damnation, committing an abuse of power, which goes against the moral and canonical doctrine commonly taught by the Church.

 [4] Well-founded metaphysically until the death of the first material Pope, but weak in the practical, historical, juridical and canonical consequences. In fact, Father Guérard des Lauriers regarded it little; in fact he looked very carefully at the canonists. Instead the Church is not only a pneumatic, mystical, spiritual or "meta - physical" entity, but it is also a Body, a perfect juridical Society, composed of baptized human beings and a hierarchy made up of men, who live throughout history, who are faced with moral, practical and contingent situations, not only metaphysical, speculative and dogmatic situations. St. Robert Bellarmine defines it: "the Society of the baptized, who profess the same Faith, participate in the same sacraments and depend on the legitimate Pastors, the Bishops, and especially the Roman Pontiff". The Catechism of St. Pius X (October 12, 1912) incorporates this definition to N. 105, also to N. 110 teaches: "the Church of Jesus Christ is one, because all its members had, have and will always have [...] the Roman Pontiff, successor of St. Peter, thus forming all one Body, the Mystical Body of Jesus".Pius XII explained this definition by speaking of a juridical "Body" and at the same time "Mystical" or supernatural Body (Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, 1943). The Church is divine or supernatural and spiritual as regards the efficient cause (God who founded it), the final cause (the Heaven to which it leads), the means which provide the Grace with which God has endowed it (the Sacraments), but it is human as regards the material causefaithful and pastors who compose it (the baptized, the Bishops and the Pope). These two elements of the Church cannot be divided, but must always be united and studied together, as the body and the soul in man.

 [5] The onus probandi [burden of the proof] that (according to the more restrictive interpretation of the First Vatican Council) at least two bishops with jurisdiction remained in their dioceses during the period of currently supposed "vacant see" (1965-2013) belongs to the 'Sedevacantist'. You cannot make a petition of principle: since at least two bishops are necessary to guarantee the permanence of the hierarchical Church, then it is absolutely certain that there were and continue to be two bishops with jurisdiction, who teach true doctrine and celebrate Mass traditional not "una cum"(Magisterium), they do not publicly accept the false one of Vatican II and the communion with the material Pope (from Paul VI to Benedict XVI); they have the power of Order (Sacerdotium), having been ordained priests and consecrated bishops before 1970, and finally they govern the souls with laws that lead them to Heaven (Imperium), rejecting the false ones of Vatican II and post-council. Since the hierarchy of the Church must be easily recognizable, the 'Sedevacantism' must show us what these two bishops are. The theory of the Church that exists in the true "traditionalist" faithful and priests is contrary to the divine institution of the Church, invariably directed by a monarchical episcopate both in the Dioceses (Bishops) and in the universal Church (Pope). Moreover, these bishops without the 'Bishop of the Bishops' or a Pope, 'the first or the Prince of the Apostles', in act are 'acephal’ [headless], but a Body without a Head is dead, so 'Sedevacantism' does not guarantee the subsistence of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, which is Petrine and Episcopal by Divine will who wanted a Church founded on a Pope (successor of Peter and not an "appearance") and on the Bishops (successors of the Apostles).

 [6] See B. Gherardini, La CattolicaLineamenti d’ecclesiologia agostiniana, Turin, Lindau, 2011, pp. 77-78.

 [7] St. Aug., Epistle 53, 1, 2.

 [8] From the Latin "in-deficere", cannot fail, cannot cease.

 [9] C. Mazzella, De Religione et Ecclesia, Rome, 1892, n. 738.

 [10] F. Roberti - P. Palazzini, Dizionario di Teologia Morale, Rome, Studium, IV ed., 1968, entry "Conclave", vol. I, p. 360.

 [11] The "Major Penitentiary Cardinal" is the Cardinal who presides over the "Sacred Apostolic Penitentiary", which in the Roman Curia is the "first Ecclesiastical Court". A tribunal of mercy, forgiveness and redemption, almost an appendix of the sacrament of Confession for the most difficult or reserved cases to the Holy See. It grants acquittals, dispensations, commutations and condonations for the internal forum only. The other Congregations or Dicasteries of the Roman Curia provide for the external forum (see C. Berutti, De Curia Romana, Rome, 1952). The Holy Penitentiary dates back to the remotest times of the Church (see Benedict XIV, Apostolic Constitution In Apostolicae, 13 April 1744, Pius XI, Const. Apost., Quae divinitus, 25 March 1935), "as a fountain open to the faithful for the ablution of sins" (Pius XI, Const. cit.).“In the case of a vacant office, the Major Penitentiary Cardinal not only preserves all his faculties, but may also - in cases of serious and urgent necessity - do what is usually reserved for the Pope personally." (Pius XI, Const. Apost., Quae divinitus, cit., N.12, Pius XII, Const. Apost., Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 8 December 1954, n.17). If during the Apostolic See's vacancy the Major Penitentiary Cardinal dies, the other Cardinals gathered in the Conclave, must meet as soon as possible to elect a cardinal who, during the Vacancy of the Holy See, will have the office of Major Penitentiary (Pius XII, Apost., Vacantis Sedis Apostolicae, cit., No. 14). As can be seen, the period of vacant office is very different from the period contemplated by "Sedevacantism", in which there is the absence, at least current if not total, of any Papal, Cardinals and Episcopal Authorities, given the Heresy of the Pope, the Cardinals and of the Bishops who follow the errors of Vatican II ("absolute Sedevacantism") or the lack of objective will to do the good of the Church ("mitigated Sedevacantism").

 [12] The "Cardinal Camerlengo" is the Cardinal who presides over the "Apostolic Chamber", which administers all the assets and income of the Holy See and of the Vatican City during the "Vacant See" (St. Pius X, Const. Apost., Vacante Apostolica Sede, December 25, 1901). See G. Felici, La reverenda Camera Apostolica, Vatican City, 1940.

 [13] "Sacred Congregations", also called Dicasteries or Roman Congregations, are collegial bodies, made up of various Cardinals, who assist the Pope in governing the Church. Their competence is only in the external forum. Cf. N. Del Re,La Curia Romana, Rome, 1941.

 [14] The "Ecclesiastical Tribunals" are the organs of the Canonical Judicial Order of the Church, which administer justice, that is, they judge imperatively the controversies that arise in the application and observation, in special cases, of the Law enacted by the Ecclesiastical Legislative Bodies. In the Church there are Central or Roman Tribunals, which have jurisdiction for canonical or ecclesiastical laws throughout the world. In addition there are Diocesan Tribunals (peripheral or local), which have jurisdiction only on the particular Diocese. Cf. F. Roberti, De Processibus, I, Rome, 1941; F. Della Rocca, Istituzioni di Diritto processuale canonico, Turin, 1946).

 [15] See Vittorio Bartoccetti, entry "Conclave", in "Enciclopedia Cattolica", Vatican City, 1950, vol. IV, coll. 176-183.

 [16] The same comparison applies to a schismatic or heretic cardinal, possibly elected Pope. If the atheist is validly elected with even greater reason, the heretic, who does not deny all religion, but only some of his Dogmas. Therefore the Bull of Paul IV (Cum ex Apostolatus officio, 15 February 1559, in Bullarium Romanum, Turin, 1862, volume VI, pp. 551-556, tr. It., In SZ Ehler - JB Morrall, Chiesa e Stato attraverso i secoli, Milan, Vita e Pensiero, 1958, pp. 207-213) ceases as the Sanction concerning the Simony of Julius II of 1505. Furthermore, the Bull of Paul IV "is a disciplinary act of the Church, which sums up all the previous excommunications and depositions from the functions of the Church of all dignitaries. [...]. During the pontificate of Paul IV Gian Pietro Carafa (1555-1559) the Protestant schism reached very large proportions. [...]. Against this threatening tide, Pope Gian Pietro Carafa rose strongly. [...]. The atmosphere was so hot that Paul IV even came to fear defections in the College of Cardinals himself. His doubts particularly concerned the influential Cardinal Morone, whose possible election to the Holy See was a cause of great apprehension for Paul IV. [...]. The Bull Cum ex Apostolatus officio [...] provides for the possible election of a Pope of dubious orthodoxy [...] about Cardinal Morone. The Bull declares invalid the election to the papal throne of any candidate, who previously proved to be cohabiting with the Lutheran schismatics" (SZ Ehler - JB Morrall, Chiesa e Stato attraverso i secoli, cit., "Bolla Cum ex Apostolatus officio", Commentary, page 206). The fact of not having been taken over by the CIC of 1917 and being a disciplinary act, it falls ipso facto even if not explicitly repealed as the Bubble of Julius II of 1505 on Simony.

 [17] S. Negro, L’ordinamento della Chiesa cattolica, Milan, 1940.

 [18] A. Piolanti, I Sacramenti, Florence, 1956, Id., Corpo Mistico e Sacramenti, Rome, 1955; A. Lanza - P. Palazzini,Sacramenti e vita sacramentale, Rome, 1957; L. Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, vol. I, thesis 15-24, Rome, 1927; R. Zappelena, De Ecclesia, II ed., Rome, 1954; A. Ottaviani, Institutiones Iuris Publici Ecclesiastici, vol. I, Rome, 1936; A. Vellico, De Ecclesia, Rome, 1940; E. Ruffini, La Gerarchia della Chiesa, Rome, 1921; St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Th., II-II, q. 39, a. 3.

 [19] Note that the trickery of an only material cardinal College, which could  validly elect a Pope, but does not govern the Church in act, does not save formal apostolicity. In fact, if the material Pope does not pass to the act and becomes aformal Pope, the uninterrupted chain of Popes breaks and the Church ends.

 [20] The Episcopate is: 1 °) monarchical ("only one is the Bishop for every church or diocese", St. Ignatius Martyr † 107,Philadelphi, IV, 1); 2°) by Will or Divine institution (St. Ign., Eph., II, 2; Id., Trall., XIII, 2; Id., Philadel., III, 2; Id., Smyrn., VIII, 1 ; Id., Eph., V, 3); 3 °) as an imperative rule (S. Ign., Philadelph., VII, 1: "sine Episcopo nihil faciatis – do nothing without a bishop"). In fact, the ecclesiastical Fathers since 80 A.D. (from S. Ignatius of Antioch, Ephes., I, 2; Damas of Magnesia, Magn., II, 1; Polybium of Tralle, Trall., I, 1; up to Smyrian Policarp, Ad Polyc., Prologue) teach it in a morally unanimous way, based on Holy Scripture (Act., 20:28; Philip., 1:1; 1 Tim., 3:4; Tit., 1:7; 1 Peter, 2:25). So this truth is contained in the two sources of Revelation (Tradition and Holy Scripture) and proposed to believe by the Magisterium(Council of Trento, sess., XXIII, c.4, DB 960; Conc. Vat. I, sess IV , c.3, DB 1828, St. Pius X, LamentabileDecree, DB 2050 and 2147), the "Code of Canon Law" (can 329, & 1) establishes the divine institution.
Therefore the diocesan church, and even more so the universal Church, cannot be governed by priests collegially and a fortiori by the faithful, but invariably there must be a bishop (at least twoin the whole world) with jurisdiction in the diocese and the pope with jurisdiction in place in the universal Church and not "an appearance of the Pope" (St. Ignatius Martyr, Ad Rom., chapter IX). The "appearance" of Pope and two incognito bishops are a pneumatic Church and not avisible Church, and therefore are not the Church of Christ (see A. VELLICO, De Ecclesia, Rome, 1940, pp. 229-242; Id.,De episcopis iuxta doctrinam catholicam, Rome, private ed., 1937).

 [21] Only God creates from nothing.

 [22] Wood is in potency to be either a statue or a chair ... but it passes to a statue or a chair ... only thanks to a carpenter, who is an efficient cause in existence. If wood rots and becomes dust and then nothing, without having first become a chair in place, it is no longer a chair in potency because "ex nihilo nihil fit – from nothing comes nothing". It is the same for the Cradinals Montini, Luciani and Wojtyla, who, having died without having become popes in act or formally, [according to the Thesis] no longer have the power to receive the form or the act of the Papacy ("from nothing comes nothing"): a dead person cannot come a Pope, since it is nothing and it is not power or ability to receive the form of the Papacy.

 [23] From the chair or statue does not come the chair or statue, since it is already a chair or a statue in [
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: obscurus on March 10, 2018, 11:00:54 PM
No he wasn't and he was also quite a good deal older than the Archbishop. Is it obligatory for the Catholic mind? It still does not answer the question of how Christ's Church can actually continue to govern -- it simply doesn't according to this theory but is left in a frozen state. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Last Tradhican on March 10, 2018, 11:29:59 PM
The Dominican priest/professor and later bishop, Guerard des Lauriers, was the confessor of Pope Pius XII (!), helped pen the Dogma of the Asssumption and also wrote the Ottaviani Intervention.
Wow! Thanks, I didn't know that.

I was always shocked that Pius XII's confessor was the progressivist Fr. Augustin Bea, S.J. This news that Guerard des Lauriers was his confessor till 1955 when the progressivist Bea took over, is even more of a shock. What a contrast, like going from white to black in one day! 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: PG on March 11, 2018, 12:05:14 AM
It still does not answer the question of how Christ's Church can actually continue to govern -- it simply doesn't according to this theory but is left in a frozen state.
Providence would have it that not only St. Peter die in Rome, but St. Paul as well.  St. Paul is our check and balance.  St. Paul would have us be more missionary, and less utopian.  And, who was the most glorious missionary of the V2 crisis?  +Lefebvre was the glorious missionary.  I will follow +Lefebvre and +Williamson who has been faithful to him.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: PG on March 11, 2018, 12:18:39 AM
In 2015, Fr. Ringrose explained to the Holy Name Society and ladies' sodality that because francis does not possess the authority of the pope that he (Fr. Ringrose) has dropped his name from the Mass.
I will have to pray for Fr. Ringrose.  I went down this road years when I first became a traditionalist.  And, I found myself basically at his exact position.  So, I will not disown him.  But, it is dangerous.  I am glad I am no longer there.  Because, the night cometh, when no man can walk.  It is beneficial for all that francis be prayed for in the canon.  The other novus ordo bishops on the other hand, I have my doubt.  But, I like consensus.  However, you cannot have consensus without dialogue, and I have heard no R&R clerics discuss this or explain why novus ordo bishops are legitimate.  
If we really believe in what +Lefebvre did, and I do, then in my opinion you have to conclude that novus ordo bishops do not have authority, or have doubtful authority.  That is the only way to allow the existence of the society, other than the fact that it was uncanonically suppressed.  However, history books do not favor such particulars.  History is objective.  And, objectively speaking, the sspx does not respect the novus ordo diocese.  But, the sspx does respect the pope.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: 2Vermont on March 11, 2018, 08:09:58 AM
With respect to sedeprivationism, I am still unsure how it is possible for heretics to elect a heretic pope in the Catholic Church.  Where is Church teaching to support this?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: 2Vermont on March 11, 2018, 08:26:05 AM
I agree that this is pure sedeprivationism.
Is it?  It seems to me that Fr Ringrose, like Fr Chazal, consider these men real popes....just without the "authority".  Sedeprivationism believes that these men are NOT real popes.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Smedley Butler on March 11, 2018, 09:00:58 AM
People popping out of the woodwork for 6 pages of blather about labels for different flavors of sedevavantism, but how many of you put put your money where your mouth is and donated to help Fr. Ringrose's school? 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: obscurus on March 11, 2018, 10:15:59 AM
From Fr. Chazal's upcoming book:

http://tradidi.com/resistance/contra-cekadam-part-1

CARDINAL BILLOT sj.
.. wrote the famed “de Ecclesia” and is at once the clearest, among many, to expose how your theory of sedeprivationism does not makes sense. Billot formulated the following thesis: “The peaceful and universal adhesion of the Church was always the infallible sign of the legitimacy of the person of the Roman Pontiff and the existence of all the conditions that are required for the legitimacy itself.” The proof is extensive (p.623). he states before that “From the moment in which the Pope [like Paul VI at least] is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.” (de Ecclesia, I, p.612.) “…God cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff who is not so truly and legitimately (this is precisely what you contend, from John XXIII to 1975 at least). […] this adhesion of the Church heals in the root all vice of the election and shows infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.”

If I mention his refutation of your sedeprivationism first, it is because Billot uses the universal adhesion of the Church to solve the mystery of the heretical Pope: “Whatever one thinks on the above sentences (Cajetan versus Bellarmine), the adhesion of the Universal Church shall be always of itself alone the infallible sign of the legitimacy of the person of the Pontiff, and the existence of all the conditions required of the legitimacy itself” (#3, p.634).

Moreover, on the question of loss of Faith in Rome, if Billot follows Bellarmine’s fifth opinion, (like Naz and the other manuals you quote,) he considers it a pure hypothesis that cannot happen because the tribulations of the Church would be unbearable: “Being verified the hypothesis that a Pontiff became notoriously heretic, the Church would fall into so many and such torments, that it is credible a priori that God would never permit this to be.” (p.632).

He goes as far as even deny the possibility of even internal heresy in the Pope, while most theologian, like the DTC, deny such impeccability in the Faith : “… if, considering God’s Providence, he Pontiff cannot fall into occult or purely internal heresy, much less can he fall into external and notorious heresy. The order established by God demands that, as a private person, the Sovereign Pontiff cannot be heretical, including in the sole internal forum.” (de Eccl). Hence despite his great clarity on other topics, Billot is confused on the question of the Heretical Pope. If you use him on this question, you have either to endorse his specific weakness on this question (belief in the Impeccability of the Pope), or to accept the solution he proposes to the conundrum: Universal and Peaceful Acceptance.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: 2Vermont on March 11, 2018, 10:32:59 AM
Oh, I had not seen this.
Confederate Catholic:  In 2015, Fr. Ringrose explained to the Holy Name Society and ladies' sodality that because francis does not possess the authority of the pope that he (Fr. Ringrose) has dropped his name from the Mass.

I don't understand why, if this is true, the original post is being treated as new news. Also, if it is true, I would still be interested in knowing whether he is basing this on the fact that he doesn't have the "authority" or if he truly believes he is a false pope.  Those that believe the latter tend to associate themselves more with sedevacantists than non-sedevacantists because both are very clear that this "pope" is no pope.  Their explanations are just different (ie totalist sede vs material-formal sede).
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: obscurus on March 11, 2018, 11:04:45 AM
So no formal authority exists in the Church according to sedeprivationism. Am I correct?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Smedley Butler on March 11, 2018, 11:22:06 AM
If I had known in advance that Fr. Ringose is a sedewhatever, I would not have donated to his school. Oh well. Live and learn.
Fr. Ringrose is not sedevacantist, as far as I know. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: PG on March 11, 2018, 11:55:58 AM
I personally hold that a bishop appointed by a material pope can formally exercise office so long as he does not have any impediments to it (i.e. is not a heretic or excommunicate).  
Yet you attack me.  Vatican 2, ecumenism, religious liberty, defense of the new mass, collegiality, and loose NFP is an impediment.  I mean, the NO bishops universally are opposed to +lefebvre and the old sspx.  That is a clear sign of a heretical impediment in my opinion.  That is why I generally say remove the NO bishops(the pope remains) from the una cum, and doubt their legitimacy.  I simply have enough conviction to put into practice.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: PG on March 11, 2018, 12:10:52 PM
He was a sedevacantist. Therefore, his "views" can be easily dismissed.

If you have a problem with that, too bad.
des lauriers morality was worse.  He flip flopped becoming a full fledged sedevacantist in order to become consecrated a bishop by +Thuc.  +Thuc did not like his sedeprivationism, and required that he embrace full vacantism.  He agreed.  Then, after being consecrated, flip flopped back into privationism, which is basically just a more on the fence position that is none the less servant to vacantism.  


Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Smedley Butler on March 11, 2018, 12:17:33 PM
Someone just posted that Father Ringrose does not put the name of Francis in the Canon, and that he believes Francis has no authority.  So, what does that make him in your eyes?

Doesn't his school teach Baal worship in their science classes, and yet you're promoting it?
Are you saying you do not support Catholic schools because they teach the Church-condemned error of pagan Greek heliocentrism?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: PG on March 11, 2018, 12:18:46 PM
Yep.  I attack you for not applying the same standard to Francis.  He's far more hereticaler than many, even most, NO bishops.
One cannot apply those standards to francis.  Fr. chazal has even clearly said in his privation lecture that we the church do not have the instruments to formally assess the state of the papacy/francis.  We cannot judge the pope a formal heretic.  And, there is no historical precedent of a perfect or imperfect council, or any council for that matter judging a pope a heretic or judging a pope to not have authority.  It has never happened, and I contend it will never happen.  The pope can not be judged, and will never be a formal heretic.  That is my standard.  And, when applied, my theory and thinking is sound.   
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 11, 2018, 12:41:14 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkoG3rznTwQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkoG3rznTwQ)
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Smedley Butler on March 11, 2018, 01:16:29 PM
Uhm, no, my question was why YOU support it despite the fact that "they teach the Church-condemned error of pagan Greek heliocentrism" (as YOU put it).
I support Catholic schools.
I cannot control the error of the heliocentric revolution that devasted the Church. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 11, 2018, 01:55:27 PM
Not today, in the absence of a true Pope, whom alone this Authority would derive from.
  
Let me ask, where is the formal authority existing (in practicality) for the R&R camp today anyway?

Authority is an attribute of the Church primarily and only secondarily and accidentally an attribute of the pope. Those who make the pope the rule of faith have a problem when he is a heretic with the exercise of authority. Those who make dogma the rule of faith can deal with the corruption of authority.
 
Sedeprivationists destroy the papal office by dissolving the unity of its form and matter.  Sedevacantists destroy the papal office by permanently getting rid of it. R&R recognizes the authority but its obedience is directed by the virtue of Religion. For this, like the man born blind, we have been excommunicated from the Novus Ordo. No surprise here. So you can argue about the “practicality” of R&R but it does not lead to intellectual vacuum or doctrinal and moral dead end that is incompatible with revealed truth.
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Centroamerica on March 11, 2018, 02:07:24 PM
Sedeprivationists destroy the papal office by dissolving the unity of its form and matter.  
Drew
Can you expound on this?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 11, 2018, 02:25:36 PM
Quote from: drew on Today at 01:55:27 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=48225.msg598974#msg598974)Sedeprivationists destroy the papal office by dissolving the unity of its form and matter.  
Drew
Can you expound on this?

WikiPedia: Hylomorphism (or hylemorphism) is a philosophical theory developed by Aristotle, which conceives being (ousia) as a compound of matter and form. The word is a 19th-century term formed from the Greek words ὕλη hyle, "wood, matter", and μορφή, morphē, "form".
 
This philosophical truth of hylomorphism has been incorporated into Catholic dogma in its decrees on the sacraments.  When you dissolve the matter and the form you dissolve the being.  It undergoes a substantial change.  It no longer is what it was. We know as a dogma of faith that the papal office will continue until the end of time with perpetual successors. Sedeprivationism ends the office by postulating the separation of the form and matter.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 11, 2018, 02:29:14 PM
Quote from: Meg on Today at 11:25:06 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=48225.msg598923#msg598923)Sedeprivationism is basically the same thing as sedevacantism. Very little difference.

At least it's a theory that is consistent with Catholic doctrine ... unlike R&R.

Sedeprivationism is intellectually absurd. Sedevacantism is doctrinally and morally a dead end. Recognize and resist is the only sound position at this time that is easily defended in spite of the mocking insults delivered by posters on this forum.
 
Caiaphas was a heretic.  He denied the bodily resurrection and rejected Jesus as the Christ. He did not thereby loose his office. Even the apostles after Pentecost did not suggest that he lost his office because of heresy. St. Paul recognized and respected the office when he appeared before the high priest in Jerusalem. “And they that stood by said: Dost thou revile the high priest of God? And Paul said: I knew not, brethren, that he is the high priest. For it is written: Thou shalt not speak evil of the prince of thy people” Acts 23:4-5. “Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not” Matt. 23:1-3. This direction can be accurately described as “recognize and resist.” What God has established, only God can overthrow. Every commentary on the parable of the tares (Matt 13:24) the including Rev. George Haydock Commentary, Rev. Cornelius a Lapide’s Great Commentary, and St. Thomas’ Catena Aurea quoting the Church Fathers without exception say the tares refer to heretics.  Those who demand that heresy precludes anyone from the office want to make themselves the “Lord of the Harvest.” Heresy precludes only be canonical laws, not by the nature of heresy itself.  It is a question of law.  It is ironic indeed that those making themselves the “Lord of the Harvest” end up with the tares.
 
No Catholic is required to do more with a heretical pope than the man born blind, and if he keeps dogma as his proximate rule of faith, a whole host of problems can be avoided. Those who deny dogma as the proximate rule of faith make the person of the pope their rule of faith and what follows is a host of irreconcilable problems.
 
The sedeprivationists offend the first principles of the understanding. The conciliarist popes are either popes or they are not. They cannot be, and not be, at the same time. If they stand in any way in potential to the office, then they are not popes. To divide the office between degrees of material and formal possession is to destroy the papacy. Separation of form and matter always constitutes a substantial change by definition. It is a dogma of faith that the Church founded by Jesus Christ was founded upon Peter. It is further a dogma of faith that the office will have perpetual successors. The faith is the primary sign and cause of unity in the Church. The pope is only accidentally and secondarily the sign and cause of unity and, since he is not the proximate rule of faith, he is just as much subject to the faith as every baptized Catholic. He does not possess the authority to command obedience to anything in violation of the virtue of Religion which is the virtue under Justice that directly governs obedience.  Any act of obedience to any human authority that offends the virtue of Religion is a sin. Just as the man born blind in John 9 professed the true faith to the Pharisees every faithful Catholic is called upon to do the same today.  It did not require him to deny that authority of the Pharisees because of heresy.  When the pope becomes a heretical Judaizer like St. Peter did, when in his “dissimulation… (he) walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel,” he must be “withstood to his face” Gal 2:13-14.
 
Sedevacantism is intellectually, morally and doctrinally a dead-end. They have arrived at a Church that is not just defective in an essential attribute but it has no capacity to ever correct the defect therefore it cannot be the Church founded by Jesus Christ. How do faithful Catholics end up in a position that is manifestly erroneous?  Those Catholics that do not accept dogma as the proximate rule of faith necessarily make the pope their rule of faith. They make him the source of revelation as the revealer of mere ecclesiastical faith and they impose an understanding to the attribute of Indefectibility to mean that the pope possess a personal never failing faith and cannot possible teach error or promulgate unjust laws. They cannot recognize a heretical pope without feeling personally contaminated by his sin. But none of this is so. None of this has been dogmatically defined. These are nothing but theological presuppositions; speculative opinions expressed from men who could not imagine the current crisis of the Church. These opinions in our current situation appear daily more and more implausible.
 
Until the Pope uses his office to engage the attribute of Infallibility that Jesus Christ endowed His Church to bind doctrinal error and immorality upon the Catholic faithful, and sedevacantists produce their own papal claimant, there is no argument against the recognize and resist that does not lead to doctrinal and intellectual error. Our obligation is only to remain doctrinally and morally sound in the faith.  No Catholic is obligated to provide an answer every question but he does have an obligation to avoid obvious errors. “Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof” Matt 6:34.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: 2Vermont on March 11, 2018, 04:29:55 PM
You don't seem to understand sedeprivationism.  You had this same problem on the Father Chazal thread.  You're stuck on a binary pope or no pope.  Sedeprivationism holds that he's real in one respect, but not real in another.  That's referred to as a DISTINCTION.  That "real" pope thing is +Sanborn's spin on it because he only grudgingly accepted sedeprivationism to get consecration from +McKenna.  Even then, +Sanborn says he's not a true pope because he lacks authority.  Father Ringrose and Father Chazal have stated that he lacks authority.  So you're playing with semantics on what it means to be a "real" pope.  

How is a pope "real" if he lacks authority?  As per Father Ringrose, he maintains a certain legal status by way of his election, but no formal authority ... aka sedeprivationism.
As for the bolded, do you have real proof of that?  Because if you don't that comment is pure calumny and should be retracted.

Do sedeprivationists believe that the post Vatican II papal claimants are popes?  Yes?  No?  Maybe? Partially?

If a pope requires both the material and the formal aspects, then how is one a pope who only has one? 

And if the sedeprivationists believe that he isn't really pope, then why don't they just come out and say it?  

Cantarella is a sedeprivationist and clearly states in her posts over and over again that they are not popes.  Father Chazal and Father Ringrose do not seem to think the same way that she does, so how are they all sedeprivationists?

 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 11, 2018, 04:33:02 PM

Quote
Our obligation is only to remain doctrinally and morally sound in the faith.  No Catholic is obligated to provide an answer every question but he does have an obligation to avoid obvious errors. “Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof” Matt 6:34. 
Agree 1000%!
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: 2Vermont on March 11, 2018, 04:40:05 PM
One of the 20th-century popes actually issued a document (can't recall if it was St. Pius X or Pius XII or perhaps both) which explicitly stated that even excommunicates could validly cast votes in a conclave.  Somebody else might have the text readily available.

+des Lauriers was no theological lightweight, and he adduced some weighty theological arguments in favor of the thesis.  He didn't simply pull it out of thin air.
That shows that excommunicates can elect a pope.  It doesn't explain how  they can elect a man that is a non-Catholic heretic to the Chair of Peter.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: 2Vermont on March 11, 2018, 04:52:41 PM
That's one response to his theological position in the practical order.  On the other hand, one might continue to keep his name in their by virtue of his having legal status as pope.  Of course, in the Canon, it does refer to the included pope as being among the "orthodoxi ... cultores catholicae fidei" (orthodox keepers of the catholic faith) ... which status one would rightly reject for Francis.

So, 2V, does this sound like Father Ringrose considers him a "real" pope?
I'm not sure. 
(a)  Is this report even true?  (because there seems to be a lot of confusion surrounding what Fr Ringrose believes and doesn't believe)
(b)  If the report is true, then the fact that he leaves his name out of the canon may only mean that he believes that Francis is just not fully pope.  

Just as a heads up, I will only be posting today.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: obscurus on March 11, 2018, 08:44:50 PM
I would say that an obvious error would be to think that the Church can contradict Herself. Given that to all appearances the Church did contradict Herself in Vatican II Council as is the wish of the International Jewry (To make the Catholic Church contradict Herself as to prove that her claims of Divinity are false) then the only possible explanation is that the authority (pope) who promulgated such Council is false and that the erroneous teachings are coming from an illegitimate impostor; unless you would like to argue that there exists not such contradiction.
I think what Drew posted makes more reasonable sense than the Church has somehow ceased exercising any formal authority since 1958 or was it 1965 or was it 1968, 69? 75? When exactly? Who decides?

Everyone keeps bringing up the point of papal interregna when the Church must wait between the death and election of a new Pope and that it is analogous to the situation now albeit a longer time having elapsed. However, in previous times the Church had the mechanism in place to continue exercising formal authority -- how could Christ leave it otherwise? Yet according to the sedevacantist and sedeprivationist theories this doesn't even exist.

I am not saying the position of Archbishop Lefebvre is not without some difficulties but it seems like a commonsensical and healthy reaction to the Crisis.

Btw, Cantarella, it is interesting you posted something from Fr. Lucien because he now accepts that Vatican II must be accepted. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: obscurus on March 11, 2018, 08:57:51 PM
Sedeprivationism is intellectually absurd. Sedevacantism is doctrinally and morally a dead end. Recognize and resist is the only sound position at this time that is easily defended in spite of the mocking insults delivered by posters on this forum.
 
Caiaphas was a heretic.  He denied the bodily resurrection and rejected Jesus as the Christ. He did not thereby loose his office. Even the apostles after Pentecost did not suggest that he lost his office because of heresy. St. Paul recognized and respected the office when he appeared before the high priest in Jerusalem. “And they that stood by said: Dost thou revile the high priest of God? And Paul said: I knew not, brethren, that he is the high priest. For it is written: Thou shalt not speak evil of the prince of thy people” Acts 23:4-5. “Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not” Matt. 23:1-3. This direction can be accurately described as “recognize and resist.” What God has established, only God can overthrow. Every commentary on the parable of the tares (Matt 13:24) the including Rev. George Haydock Commentary, Rev. Cornelius a Lapide’s Great Commentary, and St. Thomas’ Catena Aurea quoting the Church Fathers without exception say the tares refer to heretics.  Those who demand that heresy precludes anyone from the office want to make themselves the “Lord of the Harvest.” Heresy precludes only be canonical laws, not by the nature of heresy itself.  It is a question of law.  It is ironic indeed that those making themselves the “Lord of the Harvest” end up with the tares.
 
No Catholic is required to do more with a heretical pope than the man born blind, and if he keeps dogma as his proximate rule of faith, a whole host of problems can be avoided. Those who deny dogma as the proximate rule of faith make the person of the pope their rule of faith and what follows is a host of irreconcilable problems.
 
The sedeprivationists offend the first principles of the understanding. The conciliarist popes are either popes or they are not. They cannot be, and not be, at the same time. If they stand in any way in potential to the office, then they are not popes. To divide the office between degrees of material and formal possession is to destroy the papacy. Separation of form and matter always constitutes a substantial change by definition. It is a dogma of faith that the Church founded by Jesus Christ was founded upon Peter. It is further a dogma of faith that the office will have perpetual successors. The faith is the primary sign and cause of unity in the Church. The pope is only accidentally and secondarily the sign and cause of unity and, since he is not the proximate rule of faith, he is just as much subject to the faith as every baptized Catholic. He does not possess the authority to command obedience to anything in violation of the virtue of Religion which is the virtue under Justice that directly governs obedience.  Any act of obedience to any human authority that offends the virtue of Religion is a sin. Just as the man born blind in John 9 professed the true faith to the Pharisees every faithful Catholic is called upon to do the same today.  It did not require him to deny that authority of the Pharisees because of heresy.  When the pope becomes a heretical Judaizer like St. Peter did, when in his “dissimulation… (he) walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel,” he must be “withstood to his face” Gal 2:13-14.
 
Sedevacantism is intellectually, morally and doctrinally a dead-end. They have arrived at a Church that is not just defective in an essential attribute but it has no capacity to ever correct the defect therefore it cannot be the Church founded by Jesus Christ. How do faithful Catholics end up in a position that is manifestly erroneous?  Those Catholics that do not accept dogma as the proximate rule of faith necessarily make the pope their rule of faith. They make him the source of revelation as the revealer of mere ecclesiastical faith and they impose an understanding to the attribute of Indefectibility to mean that the pope possess a personal never failing faith and cannot possible teach error or promulgate unjust laws. They cannot recognize a heretical pope without feeling personally contaminated by his sin. But none of this is so. None of this has been dogmatically defined. These are nothing but theological presuppositions; speculative opinions expressed from men who could not imagine the current crisis of the Church. These opinions in our current situation appear daily more and more implausible.
 
Until the Pope uses his office to engage the attribute of Infallibility that Jesus Christ endowed His Church to bind doctrinal error and immorality upon the Catholic faithful, and sedevacantists produce their own papal claimant, there is no argument against the recognize and resist that does not lead to doctrinal and intellectual error. Our obligation is only to remain doctrinally and morally sound in the faith.  No Catholic is obligated to provide an answer every question but he does have an obligation to avoid obvious errors. “Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof” Matt 6:34.

Drew
Bishop Donald Sanborn teaches the exact opposite. He says the Pope is the "living rule of faith for the entire Church". I quote: 

Quote
The third difference is that the case of a heretical pope is different from that of a heretical bishop. A pope is the living rule of faith for the entire Church, and is infallible in his magisterium (whether solemn or ordinary universal), and is infallible in promulgating universal laws, liturgy, and disciplines. None of these things is true of a bishop of a diocese. I remember as a child that people would often say, “You can’t be more Catholic than the Pope.” Very true. He is the living rule of faith, just as a yardstick is the rule of what is one yard. (source: http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/SCSF%20February%202018.pdf)
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: PG on March 11, 2018, 09:34:46 PM
Drew - Thank you, I entirely agree with you.  

Obscurus and cantarella - The "living" magisterium cantarella mentions as opposed to the rule of dogma, and the "living" rule of faith that +Sanborn attributes solely to the papacy as opposed to the rule of dogma are both wrong.  The living element(s) in our time of crisis are either what we might call the office of st paul, or "the two or more who gather together in Christs name" with dogma as the rule of faith for both.  Those are the living elements that vacantists and feeneyites are confusing.  The vacantists attribute it solely to the pope, which will always and has let them down.  And, the feeneyites attribute it to legion, which is basically the collective novus ordo zeitgeist.  Both are not catholic.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 11, 2018, 09:37:28 PM

 (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=48225.msg598992#msg598992)Quote from: drew on Today at 01:55:27 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg598973/#msg598973)
Authority is an attribute of the Church primarily and only secondarily and accidentally an attribute of the pope. Those who make the pope the rule of faith have a problem when he is a heretic with the exercise of authority. Those who make dogma the rule of faith can deal with the corruption of authority


But the rule of Faith is neither. The Pope nor the Dogma are the proximate rule of Faith; but the living Magisterium of the Church.
Once one arrives to such realization, then the conclusion is completely different.

Cantarella,

You should begin at the end which is obviously not Catholic. Sedevacantist are in a church that has no pope, has no intention of getting one, and has no mechanism to get one. Their church cannot be the Church founded by Jesus Christ because it is absent a necessary attribute. If this fact is not enough to make any sedevacantist rethink the problem, then there is really nothing that can be done for them.

I was reading Rev. Joseph Pohle’s The Author of Nature and Supernature a few days ago and was actually surprised to see him directly and explicitly refer to dogma as the rule of faith before he begins his theological exposition on a different questions address in the book.  Maybe if you read it repeated several times by someone whose opinion you respect you would get this first and essential point correct. The book can be read on line.

If I ask you, "What is the Catholic faith regarding the necessity of Baptism?", are you going to send a letter to the “living magisterium” to get the answer?  You agree, I hope, that the remote rule of faith is Scripture and Tradition which is divine revelation.  Do you believe that Dogma is divine revelation? Should it surprise you to learn that the proximate rule of faith is also “divine revelation”?  

What you may not know is that the term “living magisterium” is a relative neologism. The earliest entry on the question is found in the 1912 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia under “Tradition and the Living Magisterium” written by Rev. J. Bainvel. Also, what you may not know is that Rev. Bainvel is also the author of the book, “Is There Salvation Outside the Catholic Church?” which teaches that there is a disjunction between the body and the soul of the Church and just about every non-Catholic is a member of the soul of the Church, and being a member of the soul of the Church is all that is necessary for salvation.  Therefore any Hindu as a Hindu, Jew as a Jew, Moslem as a Moslem, etc., etc., can obtain salvation by being secret members of the “soul of the Church”.  All this was made possible by first creating the “living magisterium” which permits the mutation of Catholic doctrine and, of course, setting aside dogma as the rule of faith.  

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: obscurus on March 11, 2018, 09:43:19 PM
Drew - Thank you, I entirely agree with you.  

Obscurus and cantarella - The "living" magisterium cantarella mentions as opposed to the rule of dogma, and the "living" rule of faith that +Sanborn attributes solely to the papacy as opposed to the rule of dogma are both wrong.  The living element(s) in our time of crisis are either what we might call the office of st paul, or "the two or more who gather together in Christs name" with dogma as the rule of faith for both.  Those are the living elements that vacantists and feeneyites are confusing.  The vacantists attribute it solely to the pope, which will always and has let them down.  And, the feeneyites attribute it to legion, which is basically the collective novus ordo zeitgeist.  Both are not catholic.  
I agree with Drew. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Centroamerica on March 11, 2018, 09:47:09 PM
You should begin at the end which is obviously not Catholic. Sedevacantist are in a church that has no pope, has no intention of getting one, and has no mechanism to get one. Their church cannot be the Church founded by Jesus Christ because it is absent a necessary attribute. If this fact is not enough to make any sedevacantist rethink the problem, then there is really nothing that can be done for them.
Sedevacantists (of which I am not) and other similar groups did not found a new church anymore than Bishop de Castro Mayer did when his priests were expelled from their churches by Bishop Navarro and built new churches to offer the true Mass right near or beside the diocesan churches! They all run off of the same concept: the papal claimant cannot be obeyed because to do such would be to disobey Divine law.
Only a true conciliar apologist would make such a statement. Total newchurch speak. Let me quote Bishop Tissier from the 2012 Winona priestly ordinations when he said "this newchurch is no church but a poison poisoning the Church!".
Nice try to derail the thread and bury everything in ten tons of pages running circles around the EENS dogma and feenyism.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: PG on March 11, 2018, 09:52:34 PM
I agree with Drew.
I know, I just saw you post how +Sanborn believes the opposite, and wanted to respond to that part.  And, to add to my last post, I don't think what I posted is in disagreement with dogma as the rule of faith.  Because, I am aware of how the past probably 1200 years has placed increasing emphasis on the papacy to the point where I am not surprised that there are people who think as +Sanborn.  And, the papacy is important.  It is a significant element concerning what we might say are "living" elements of the faith.  However, when the pope is a heretic, and the college we might say of bishops are heretics, what are we to think?  Well, firstly, as drew said, it is dogma that is our rule of faith.  But, secondly, for our crisis, it would be I think the "living" examples I gave.  Because, there must always be hiarchical authority in the church.  And, I contend that there still is.  It is just not the pope and the college of bishops.  It would be st paul an and the two or more who gather in Christ's name.   Those are somewhat masked terms, but that may be the best way to say it.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 11, 2018, 09:55:33 PM
Bishop Donald Sanborn teaches the exact opposite. He says the Pope is the "living rule of faith for the entire Church". I quote:
That is correct.  Sedevacantists (with only one exception that I know of), like conservative Catholics, hold the pope as the rule of faith. The conservatives believe the pope is rule of faith so they do everything he does.  Sedevacantists hold the pope as the rule of faith and say he cannot be the pope.  I had a recent exchange with Emmett O'Regan a conservative author and publicist who believes that the pope is the rule of faith and possess a "never failing faith."  In the exchange, it is interesting to see that his arguments regarding the pope are the same arguments offered by sedevacantist. 

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: obscurus on March 11, 2018, 10:02:43 PM
Sedevacantists (of which I am not) and other similar groups did not found a new church anymore than Bishop de Castro Mayer did when his priests were expelled from their churches by Bishop Navarro and built new churches to offer the true Mass right near or beside the diocesan churches! They all run off of the same concept: the papal claimant cannot be obeyed because to do such would be to disobey Divine law.
Only a true conciliar apologist would make such a statement. Total newchurch speak. Let me quote Bishop Tissier from the 2012 Winona priestly ordinations when he said "this newchurch is no church but a poison poisoning the Church!".
Nice try to derail the thread and bury everything in ten tons of pages running circles around the EENS dogma and feenyism.

Yes but the Campos priests at that time operated under the principle that they must avoid the Conciliarists at all costs. They didn't question whether they had any authority. Can we somehow now claim that there is no longer any operating authority in the Church? I mean we are trying to keep principles here and avoidance seems imperative and Bishop Fellay and the like don't seem to understand that anymore. But it doesn't mean "R&R" is somehow illogical.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: obscurus on March 11, 2018, 10:08:53 PM
I know, I just saw you post how +Sanborn believes the opposite, and wanted to respond to that part.  And, to add to my last post, I don't think what I posted is in disagreement with dogma as the rule of faith.  Because, I am aware of how the past probably 1200 years has placed increasing emphasis on the papacy to the point where I am not surprised that there are people who think as +Sanborn.  And, the papacy is important.  It is a significant element concerning what we might say are "living" elements of the faith.  However, when the pope is a heretic, and the college we might say of bishops are heretics, what are we to think?  Well, firstly, as drew said, it is dogma that is our rule of faith.  But, secondly, for our crisis, it would be I think the "living" examples I gave.  Because, there must always be hiarchical authority in the church.  And, I contend that there still is.  It is just not the pope and the college of bishops.  It would be st paul an and the two or more who gather in Christ's name.   Those are somewhat masked terms, but that may be the best way to say it.
I don't quite understand the parts I put in bold. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: PG on March 11, 2018, 10:37:28 PM
I don't quite understand the parts I put in bold.
Well, for the most part heresy and error comes from the pope and the NO college of bishops.  And, those are the two channels traditionally associated with the magisterium.  So, in our time of crisis, those are really not representing the magisterium in action.  And, I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be a traditional catholic if it weren't for +Lefebvre, and now +Williamson.  I certainly wouldn't be one if I relied on the pope and the college for direction.  They(+lefebvre) are a manifestation of what I would call the office of st. paul in action.  Which is the bishop that can successfully resist the pope.  And, he can successfully resist the pope because dogma is his rule of faith.  The other "two" I would be guessing about.  Perhaps it is some combination of the monk and the nun.  I do not know.  But, I don't think it is a husband and wife.    
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Centroamerica on March 11, 2018, 10:40:48 PM
Yes but the Campos priests at that time operated under the principle that they must avoid the Conciliarists at all costs. They didn't question whether they had any authority. Can we somehow now claim that there is no longer any operating authority in the Church? I mean we are trying to keep principles here and avoidance seems imperative and Bishop Fellay and the like don't seem to understand that anymore. But it doesn't mean "R&R" is somehow illogical.
Actually, they made a deal with the Vatican and explained in their letter in great detail how they made that deal because they no longer wanted to question whether the vatican 2 church had any authority and were afraid that if they continued that they would have to openly accept sedevacantism. They even explain how they wrote to Bishop Fellay and explained the same.
http://brasildogmadafe.blogspot.com.br/p/documento-perdido-dos-padres-de-campos.html
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 11, 2018, 10:47:46 PM
Quote
The Rule of Faith is the Magisterium or teaching Church. There is no doubt on that. 
Correct, Canterella, but what are the teachings of the magisterium but doctrine and the catechism?  And what is doctrine and the catechism but the re-teaching of “what has always been taught” for 1,900 years.  Thus, the magisterium’s job is to safeguard and teach doctrine, which is the rule of faith.  

If the current magisterium/hierarchy fails to do their job, then Catholics must turn to historical, orthodox teachings (ie doctors of the church and previous saintly popes) to help them learn the faith, which is exactly what trads have done.
  
The question of the status of the non-orthodox magisterium is largely academic, as it's none of our jobs to come to any conclusions about their future or punishments, etc.  Our job is to know, love and serve God, and we have 1,900 yrs of consistent Church Teaching on how to do this.  Everything else, including the status of the pope, is largely a distraction - especially for we laity.  

As +W has been pointing out the past 3 weeks in his newsletters, our families are in crisis, young trads are leaving Church altogether, families are being ripped apart by immorality and many trad priests/bishops are STILL (after 20+ years?!) spending their time arguing about the status of the pope?  REALLY?  Is this the most pressing matter of the day?  Hardly.  The battle for souls has moved from the streets into the home and many priests have their heads stuck in theology books - too busy to notice and too worried about which “group” (ie sspx vs sede) is “winning”.  What an insane world we live in.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: obscurus on March 11, 2018, 11:02:13 PM
Actually, they made a deal with the Vatican and explained in their letter in great detail how they made that deal because they no longer wanted to question whether the vatican 2 church had any authority and were afraid that if they continued that they would have to openly accept sedevacantism. They even explain how they wrote to Bishop Fellay and explained the same.
http://brasildogmadafe.blogspot.com.br/p/documento-perdido-dos-padres-de-campos.html
Yes, I am aware of what they did. It is sad. Bishop Rifan would eventually begin to concelebrate the New Mass. Again, they didn't quite understand the Crisis being isolated in their area of Brazil. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: obscurus on March 11, 2018, 11:04:08 PM
Correct, Canterella, but what are the teachings of the magisterium but doctrine and the catechism?  And what is doctrine and the catechism but the re-teaching of “what has always been taught” for 1,900 years.  Thus, the magisterium’s job is to safeguard and teach doctrine, which is the rule of faith.  

If the current magisterium/hierarchy fails to do their job, then Catholics must turn to historical, orthodox teachings (ie doctors of the church and previous saintly popes) to help them learn the faith, which is exactly what trads have done.
  
The question of the status of the non-orthodox magisterium is largely academic, as it's none of our jobs to come to any conclusions about their future or punishments, etc.  Our job is to know, love and serve God, and we have 1,900 yrs of consistent Church Teaching on how to do this.  Everything else, including the status of the pope, is largely a distraction - especially for we laity.  

As +W has been pointing out the past 3 weeks in his newsletters, our families are in crisis, young trads are leaving Church altogether, families are being ripped apart by immorality and many trad priests/bishops are STILL (after 20+ years?!) spending their time arguing about the status of the pope?  REALLY?  Is this the most pressing matter of the day?  Hardly.  The battle for souls has moved from the streets into the home and many priests have their heads stuck in theology books - too busy to notice and too worried about which “group” (ie sspx vs sede) is “winning”.  What an insane world we live in.  

Not to distract too much from the original intent of this thread but I think you are on to something. We are losing the cultural battle. At some point, these matters become too abstract and academic as fascinating as they may be for our curious minds.

The other day, I wanted to search a bit about what the youth were 
listening to and was completely shocked. It was a thousand times worse than what I unfortunately was exposed to growing up. Of course, we may say "my son or daughter doesn't listen to this" but  I wonder.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 12, 2018, 09:09:21 AM
Lad, you're putting words into Drew's mouth; he's not a protestant and many sedes DO act as if the pope is the rule of their faith, just like novus ordo catholics put the papacy on a pedastal.  You hear the phrase 'R&R' and you immediately go into attack mode and put blinders on...yet I ask, one could define Fr Ringrose and Chazal's arguments as "recognizing" their material authority, while "resisting" their non-existent spiritual authority.  Potatoe, potato.  Don't let the terms overshadow the underlying arguments.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Centroamerica on March 12, 2018, 09:49:23 AM
I maintain my position of position of positive doubt regarding post-concliar Popes and make no pronouncement on the See of Peter ever at all.

That said, what is inherently ABSURB is accepting Bergoglio as your True Spiritual Leader. This would be no different than accepting the Dali Lama as your spiritual leader and saying you are Catholic at this point. A future conclave may even make such a situation a reality for you. Then where would you stand? Any non-Catholic can be the legitimate successor of St. Peter or just a modernist one? Who draws that line? Do you see where this is going. The Masons want nothing more than that Traditionalist accept any non-Catholic as their spiritual leader because it serves their purpose of consolidating all “religions” under the New one world religion. It’s coming. And dogmatic sedeplenist are pointing the way.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 12, 2018, 11:01:04 AM
Here's the issue that is not being distinguished - the time factor.  For example, how many councils have we had in the past and how many doctrines have they defined?  (at least 20 councils).  And how many Doctors of the Church and saints and other holy people, including popes, have written and explained such doctrines?  Hundreds.  So, the previous magisterium's of the Church have already "spoken" and already explained all that's needed to be said concerning most of these doctrines.  For example, the doctrine of Christ having 2 natures - divine and human.  This has been around and explained for so long that we catholics in the 19th/20th/21st centuries don't need it re-explained.  It's pretty basic.

So, such doctrines are settled.  The current magisterium isn't spending time re-explaining these types of topics because the Church has had 17 centuries to do so.  So, to say that the current magisterium is the 'rule' of faith, is not accurate for this topic.  It might be accurate for issues which are CURRENTLY BEING ATTACKED or which need to be clarified, but for older doctrines, we look to the past for explanations.  We can do this because the Church's teachings are CONSISTENT and UNIVERSAL.  Therefore, what She said 16-17 centuries ago concerning Our Lord's Divine nature was as accurate then as it is now.

The point is, to say that the current magisterium is the 'rule' of faith is only partially correct.  The magisteriums of the past (i.e. previously defined doctrine/dogma and the related commentary) is part of the 'rule' of faith as well, because Church Teaching is eternal, no matter what time period it came from.  So the rule of faith is THE MAGISTERIUM (past and present) because ultimately what they teach is ETERNAL TRUTH, which is timeless.

So, to Drew's point, whether or not the current pope strays from the Faith is irrelevent to our Faith because the current magisterium is only a small part of The UNIVERSAL magisterium, which is the constant teaching of the faith over 2,000 centuries.  This UNVERSAL magisterium is what Drew means when he says 'doctrine'.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 12, 2018, 11:48:22 AM
Except that catholics, when they accept dogma must also accept the commentary/explanation of it, whereas protestants just accept the the dogma (which they believe they can privately interpret).  I see what you mean, that people could infer that the commentary doesn't matter, if they just hear the word 'dogma' but I don't see that is what Drew is arguing. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 12, 2018, 12:14:55 PM
Quote
The  Magisterium (Pope & Episcopate) is needed for each passing generation.
No one is saying they aren't needed.  We're debating to what level.  The point Drew is trying to make is that one's faith is MORE DEPENDENT on dogma (which has already been explained) than on the current hierarchy.  As the past 50 years have shown - wherein we've had NO leadership and NO reliance on the magisterium, since they are quasi-heretical - traditional catholics have survived quite easily, because we have 2,000 yrs of orthodox magisterium's to fall back on.  This is the beauty of God's eternal truth - that it does not change, which is why modernists had to introduce the idea of a 'living' magisterium - to get people to stop looking at the past and to get them to think that the 'current' magisterium is all that matters.  This is heresy pure and simple.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 12, 2018, 01:08:19 PM
Quote
St. Augustine famously taught that he wouldn't even believe the Scriptures themselves if the Church didn't propose them to him for belief.
Right, but again, you must differentiate between the current and the UNIVERSAL magisterium.  The Church has told us that Scripture must be believed...she told us LONG AGO.  So, no matter what happens with Francis' faith, the belief in Scripture doesn't change.  So, as Drew would classify it, this is a defined dogma/Truth which stands on its own, regardless of what's going on TODAY in rome.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 12, 2018, 01:52:19 PM
Quote
He was arguing that the Magisterium is not the proximate rule of faith but, rather, dogma itself.
As I understand it, he was classifying the PAST magisterium's teachings as dogma, since they aren't alive anymore and their teachings are 'set in stone'.  All things in the present are classified as the magisterium.  This way, one does not have to use the term 'universal'.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 12, 2018, 03:10:19 PM
Well, the term 'magisterium' is less than 200 years old, so there's not a super clear understanding/terminology history behind it.  And modernism has further muddied the waters.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 12, 2018, 06:40:25 PM
No, CATHOLICS hold that the Magisterium is the proximate rule of faith, not the pope per se.  So you open with a complete strawman distortion of Catholic teaching.  R&R like yourself concocted this nonsense about DOGMA itself, i.e. YOUR private judgment interpretation of said dogma, being the rule of faith ... and have thus essentially embraced Protestantism, the only difference being that the Prots hold that there's only one source of said dogma, while you hold two.  Other than that, you're nothing but a run-of-the-mill Protestant.  Dogmas is the object of the faith, not its rule.  We've gone through this already.

You make distinctions that cannot be made, and then cannot make distinctions that should.  In a previous exchange on this same subject you divided the two necessary and essential attributes of the virtue of faith.  In this exchange you divide the matter from the form of the papal office and cannot see a necessary substantial change that must follow. Then you cannot make a simple distinction between the Magisterium, which is the means, from dogma, which is the end and which constitutes the formal object of divine and Catholic faith. It is the formal object that constitutes the rule.  And this fact can be seen as evident if you simply examine the answers that are given to questions on defined doctrine. The answer is always the dogma.
 
Rev. Joseph Pohle in God, the Author of the Natural and Supernatural uses the term “rule of faith” as a synonym for dogma, for example, when he says:

Quote
It is a rule of faith, by which we believe that there is but one God, nor any other beside the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing. For the sources of their teaching the Fathers point to Apostolic Tradition and the Mosaic narrative. Thus St. Athanasius teaches: “God created all things, which previously did not exist, through the Logos out of nothing, so that they received being, as He speaks through the mouth of Moses: ‘In the beginning God created heaven and earth.’”

He even cites the Church council that uses the term “Rule of Faith” as a synonym for dogma that was approved by Pope Zosimus.
 

Quote
“Whoever denies that new-born infants should be baptized immediately after birth, or asserts that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but do not contract from Adam original sin, which must be expiated in the waters of regeneration, and that consequently the baptismal form for the remission of sins applies to them not truly, but falsely; let him be anathema.” The Council bases this definition on Rom. V, 12 sqq., and on ecclesiastical Tradition, and concludes: "Propter hanc enim regulam ndei etiam parvuli, qui nihil peccatorum in semetipsis adhuc committere potuerunt, ideo in peccatorum remissionem veraciter baptizantur ut in eis regeneratione mundetur, quod generatione traxerunt. According to this rule of faith little children, who are as yet unable to commit actual sin, are therefore truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that by regeneration they may be cleansed of that which they have contracted by generation."
Second Council of Mileve (416); its canons were taken over by a plenary council held at Carthage in 418, and approved and promulgated by Pope Zosimus in his Epistola Tractoria.

St. Thomas says:

Quote
The formal object of faith is the First Truth as manifested in Holy Scripture and in the Church’s teaching. Hence if anyone does not adhere as to an infallible and Divine rule to the Church’s teaching, which proceeds from the Church’s truth manifested in Holy Scripture, such an one has not the habit of faith, but holds the truths of faith not by faith but by some other principle" (II-II, Q. v, a. 3).

The Church’s teaching (Magisterium) is the means to produce the “infallible and Divine rule to the Church’s teaching” (Dogma).  Dogma and Scripture are both called “the formal object of faith.” Both are Divine Revelation. Scripture is “first,” that is the remote rule of faith. Dogma is the proximate rule of faith.
 
When you fail to make the distinction between the means and the ends you cause the same confusion in the minds of the faithful that Cantarella made by calling the "living magerterium the rule of faith," that is, that the rule of faith can continually develop and evolve through the “living magisterium.” Furthermore, since the pope is the means by which the “living magisterium” speaks, this is nothing more than a synonym for calling the pope the rule of faith.

Only those who faithfully hold dogma as the proximate rule of faith can avoid the errors of sedeprivationism that destroys the office by dividing its form and the matter, and sedevacantism that discards the office entirely.


Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 12, 2018, 09:17:24 PM
Your definition is present tense and makes the history of the Church meaningless.  ALL magisteriums matter- past, present and future.  The past magisteriums are dead - what is left?  Doctrine.  What is the Creed, but belief in God and TRUTHS?  What’s another word for Truth, but doctrine?  

Your overemphasis on the papacy is not catholic.  Yes, he is our authority on earth, just like St Peter was head of the Apostles but lest we forget, St Peter didn’t start the Church or invent the Truths of our Faith - Christ did.  Which means that Truth/doctrine exists OUTSIDE and BEFORE the papacy.  Ergo, the magisterium/pope is not the end-all-be-all, but Christ is, who is Truth itself.  And St Paul and St John did a heck of a lot more explaining of the Faith than St Peter did, at least what was written down.  

We must obey the papacy, yes.  We must believe what Christ taught as doctrine, yes.  Normally these do not conflict, but if they do, we fall back to the source, which is Christ and PREVIOUS ORTHODOX teachings.  The pope can fail, as Christ said to St Peter “Get behind me, Satan.”  This is not scandalous, it was expected to happen, which is why Christ gave the Church infallibility, so that future, bad popes would be bound by PREVIOUS ORTHODOXY and prevented from leading His sheep into error.  

Truth (doctrine) is authority.  Authority (magisterium) is not Truth.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Clemens Maria on March 12, 2018, 11:41:16 PM
And:
-Contrary to the teaching of the Church: There is no hierarchy whatsoever.  (It is de fide that the hierarchy must be perpetual.)  Therefore, Catholics must reject sedevacantism.
This is a strawman.  Sedevacantism doesn't posit the complete loss of the hierarchy.  SVs are all over the map on this particular point.  1. Some say there must be an ordinary hidden somewhere (Bishop in the woods theory) - John Lane claims this among many others.  2. Some say all the sees are vacant - Fr. Cekada proposed this on Ignis Ardens in 2012.  It is possible. The hierarchy consists of all clerics and even a man who has received first tonsure is a cleric.  So as long as there is at least one Catholic bishop (even if not an ordinary), the hierarchy is intact and retains all the powers of order and jurisdiction even if jurisdiction is not being exercised in any particular see.  3. Sede privationist theory  4. Siri theory - Cardinal Siri was the true pope elected in 1958.  5. Home alone theory and Apocalypse theory - we are in the end times.  There might be other positions as well.  But they are generally lumped in with the sv position.  Basically, sv is a catchall for everyone who rejects the idea that Conciliar bosses are the true hierarchy of the Catholic Church.  With the possible exception of position #5, sedes are not positing the destruction of the hierarchy.  And those who hold #5 are very small in number.  So I consider the argument a strawman.  Also, I have never heard of a sede privationist attacking sedevacantists.  So Fr Chazal and Fr. Ringrose have an ambiguous position.  It certainly looks like SP but they are trying to distance themselves from other SPs and they give no reason for that.  We could speculate that  they do this for political reasons (because SP would be unpalatable to many former SSPX people which is the demographic that they are trying to serve).
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 13, 2018, 08:04:47 AM
Quote
What is being argued here is simply the foundation that the Rule of Faith for Catholics is what is taught by the Pope and the Apostolic succession of Bishops in union with him acting as protectors of the Deposit of Faith.

Cantarella,
Your quote above perfectly agrees with my view.  It shows the job of the magisterium as protectors of the Deposit of Faith (which Drew refers to as 'doctrine' because doctrine is just the re-teaching and clarifying of what Christ taught the Apostles).

This whole argument about 'rule of faith' or 'proximate' vs 'remote' is confusing and THAT is what is causing the disagreement, in my opinion.  The only point I'm trying to make is that the Deposit of Faith came before the Church, since Christ's teachings existed before the Church was founded, since Christ taught the Apostles everything before He ascended into heaven and the Church wasn't officially started until 10 days later at Pentecost.  So, which came first, the teachings of the Church or the Church?  The teachings.  What is the role of the magisterium?  To protect and re-teach those teachings.  Thus, the foundation of the Church are its teachings (i.e. doctrine).  Therefore, what is more important, what is being protected, or the protector?  Obviously, what is being protected is more important, therefore doctrine is more important than the magisterium.

My view is not an attack on the papacy, but just a moderation of the over-adulation and semi-worship we've experienced regarding the papacy since the 60s, when radio and tv came on the scene.  Before that, the avg catholic had almost NO interaction with the pope.  Their daily 'authority figure' was their local bishop.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 13, 2018, 10:04:05 AM
Again, you throw around the word 'magisterium' as if it's ALL infallbile and we must accept ALL of it, no ifs, ands or buts.  This is a gross generalization.  If you would distinguish between the fallible and infallible parts of the magisterium, then you would see that I'm not rejecting the papacy, or maginalizing the idea of the magisterium, but only separating the fallible vs infallible, just as sedeprivationism separates the material from the spiritual office of the pope.

Previous INFALLIBLE magisteriums declared it a dogma that 'outside the church there is no salvation'.  The V2 magisteriums FALLIBLY "seems" to contradict these doctrines.  Therefore, the V2 magisteriums are wrong (and by extension, Pope Francis is wrong), for they contradict doctrine and scripture.  Ergo, this is an example where doctrine supercedes the papacy.

 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Croix de Fer on March 13, 2018, 10:06:08 AM
I am honestly in disbelief that we have Catholics here who have no concept about the Catholic Magisterium ... and who seem to follow a religion that's closer to both Protestantism and schismatic Orthodoxy than it is to Catholicism. 
Yeah, a lot of them are "dogmatic" sedes who are converts from Protestantism, too. A bunch of them on Facebook issuing their "bulls" and "encyclicals" to everyone. :laugh1: They act like some Catholic theologian after having converted from being a Protty or secularism only 3 years ago. Some of them haven't even had Confirmation, and others are home-aloner schizoids, despite a valid Tridentine Latin or eastern rite Mass available to them, but they think they can school everyone on the Catholic Faith.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 13, 2018, 10:14:19 AM
Quote
DOGMA + MAGISTERIUM = object of supernatural faith
Agree.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 13, 2018, 12:00:13 PM
Can the magisterium issue NEW teachings of the Faith?
Can the magisterium change articles of Faith?
Can the magisterium get rid of articles of Faith?

The answer to this is 'no' because EVERY article of Faith that we are required to hold now, is the same that was required of the Apostles and of 1st century christians, either explicitly or implicitly.  Therefore, when you argue that the magisterium is 'always reliably safe' or something along those lines, you are indirectly giving them freedom to add/subtract from the Faith, which freedom they do not have - because the FAITH CANNOT CHANGE.  The Faith came before the Church, since the Faith existed (imperfectly) in the Old Testament.  As Christ said "I came not to destroy but to fulfill." 

As Christ warned us 'beware of wolves in sheep's clothing."  Who would He be warning us about, except the hierarchy?  Why did St Paul need to rebuke St Peter, if the magisterium is always 'safe'? 

When one says that 'dogma is the rule of faith', the way I understand it is that dogma refers to 1) articles of faith and 2) infallible declarations by previous magisteriums.  Therefore, dogma covers all REQUIRED beliefs. 

If the current pope/magisterium fallibly contradicts an article of faith or previous infallible statement (yes, it can happen), then they are anathema, as St Paul told us.  There's no other way to understand it and this view is completely Catholic. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 13, 2018, 12:03:44 PM
Quote
If the Magisterium, attempting to act Infallibly, could endanger faith, lead souls to hell, or even just cause them harm, it would have defected.  
Fixed your comment above. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 13, 2018, 12:05:01 PM
Quote
Catholicism 103:  The Pope is the principle and center, of the unity of faith.
True, but he's not the author of the articles of faith, he's just the guardian of it...if he stays orthodox.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 13, 2018, 12:08:30 PM
Quote
Catholicism 102:  Church's lawful Rite of Mass cannot be harmful and is guaranteed to please God because Christ gave it to us.

Fixed the above.  Not specific enough.
The novus ordo is not a lawful rite and is essentially different from the True Mass, therefore it's not from the Church and is not protected by indefectibility.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 13, 2018, 12:31:04 PM
Lawfullness and validity are completely separate issues.  I'm not going to go into the novus ordo's illegality...that's been covered before.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 13, 2018, 01:15:44 PM
So, Bellator, according to your logic, the pope can change the words of consecration?  He can change what Christ instituted?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 13, 2018, 01:20:36 PM
Quote
If the Magisterium could endanger faith, lead souls to hell, or even just cause them harm, it would have defected.  
Ladislaus and Cantarella,
If you believe the above, then how can you believe in Fr Chazal's explanation of sedeprivationism?  If you believe the magisterium/pope cannot defect, then how can you believe he is in heresy and has lost his spiritual office? 
To me, Fr Chazal's viewpoint where the pope loses his spiritual office when he loses his faith, is proof that the magisterium can defect.  Because the defection from the truth was not official, then such a defection is not of the Church, but just of the churchmen.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 13, 2018, 01:25:06 PM
Quote
No, the entire point is that these men do NOT exercise Magisterium.
Yes, but since when?  At what point did +Francis lose his spiritual office?  Was the Synod not an exercise of the magisterium?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 13, 2018, 01:43:42 PM
What about Pope Paul VI?  He was not exercising his magisterium at V2?  I don't think he was, i'm curious as to your view.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 13, 2018, 04:23:14 PM
Quote
Unlikely.
Ok, but why is it unlikely?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 13, 2018, 06:57:53 PM
No, because as it was defined in Vatican I Council, everything that the Magisterium proposes for belief as being divinely revealed MUST necessarily be derived from the Deposit of Faith, which consists of both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. There can be no novelties added to it, nor contradictions. The Magisterium consists of only all the infallible teachings of the Church.

Dogmas cannot change. They do not "evolve" either or are subject to further interpretation. This is true. It is also true however, that the Magisterium of the Church cannot contradict itself; but apparently it did, on December 7 of 1965, according to the Cassiciacum Thesis.

What is your intent by this post? I have been defending the immutability of Catholic dogma a lot longer than you. It was you who used the term “living magisterium” and called it the “rule of faith.”  I reminded you where the term came from, Fr. Bainville, and why and how this early modernist used the term, that is, to ultimately destroy the immutability of the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. The term in fact is the distinguishing quality of Neo-modernism that posits a disjunction between dogma and its verbal expression.  It looks to the "living magisterium" to direct the progression of dogma from one meaning to another under the pretext of a deeper understanding.

I hope you never err by saying again, “the living magisterium is the rule of faith.”  

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 13, 2018, 07:53:59 PM
DOGMA + MAGISTERIUM = object of supernatural faith

The equal sign (=) in mathematics is used to indicate a quantitative identity.  What you have posted is not an identity and further muddies the issue.  When we had this exchange before on the rule of faith, you erroneously claimed that the Magisterium stood outside of divine revelation so that it could act as judge of divine revelation.  The Magisterium is not outside of, but is an integral part of divine revelation.  If anything, the term "living magisterium" functions as if it were an independent arbiter of divine revelation.

The objects of supernatural faith are, without exception, divine revelation. Supernatural faith is believing what God has revealed on the authority of God.  Divine revelation is the one and only rule of faith.

God's revelation is contained in Scripture and Tradition. This revelation is called the "formal object of divine faith" and constitutes the remote rule of faith.
Dogma is the Church formally defining an object of divine faith. This act of defining is possible because God has endowed His Church with powers that permit her to fulfill her obligations. Her obligations are three: to teach, to sanctify and to govern. The powers to fulfill these obligations are the "attributes" of the Church. They are attributes of God primarily and necessarily, and they are only attributes of the Church because the Church is a divine institution. These attributes (powers) are: Infallibility, Indefectibility, and Authority and these powers directly correspond with the obligations to teach, to sanctify and to govern that God has delegated to His Church.

The power of infallibility belongs to the Church and we know this through and only through divine revelation. Designated Churchmen can engage this power to teach in the name of God without the possibility of error, "He who heareth you, heareth Me." This teaching office is called the Magisterium and specific criteria necessary for Churchmen to engage this divine power has been dogmatically defined. It is one, and unfailingly teaches without the possibility of error because it is God who is the teacher.

The Magisterium is part of divine revelation. When the Magisterium is engaged, Churchmen can in the name of God define a doctrine of divine revelation in a formal sense. This defined doctrine is then called a Dogma and it is then referred to as the "formal object of divine and Catholic faith" and, as part of divine revelation, it constitutes the proximate rule of faith.

The Magisterium is one of our Dogmas. In this sense it is "object of supernatural faith" like all divine revelation.

If it were expressed in a mathematical formula, it would be more accurate to say:
Objects of Supernatural Faith = All Divine Revelation
All Divine Revelation = Scripture + Tradition + Dogmas
Objects of Supernatural Faith = Scripture + Tradition + Dogmas
The Magisterium is part of divine revelation that is, a defined doctrine, and thus, a Dogma and is grounded upon the Church's attribute of Infallibility.

Those who do not follow Dogma as their proximate rule of faith cannot avoid such errors as sedeprivationism that drives a wedge between the form and the matter of the papal office thus necessarily causing a substantial change that destroys the office, or sedevacantism that simply throws it away.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 13, 2018, 08:09:00 PM
Catholicism 101: Ecumenical Councils approved by a Pope are infallible.

This is a gross over generalization.  Ecumenical Councils approved by a Pope CAN BE infallible, or rather, can issue infallible decrees.  They have the capacity to engage the Church's attribute of Infallibility and teach doctrinal truth without the possibility of error.  Only the Dogmatic definitions from ecumenical councils, such as from the Council of Trent, have this attribute of Infallibility. Councils have historically done a lot more than define doctrine although this, until Vatican II, has always been their primary purpose. It is because Vatican II purposefully refused to define any doctrine that Canon Gregory Hesse speculated that it may not for that reason be a true ecumenical council.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 13, 2018, 08:22:05 PM
Even if a non-infallible teaching can be, strictly speaking, mistaken, the Magisterium must always be considered a generally-reliable and safe guide to the faith.  Otherwise, the Magisterium would have defected.  If the Magisterium could promote grave and widespread error to the faithful ... to the point that Catholics MUST sever communion with the hierarchy rather than accept these teachings, then the Magisterium would have defected.  R&R types love to quibble over the strict limits of infallibility, but then completely ignore the fact that the Magisterium cannot be anything other than a reliable and safe guide.  If the Magisterium could endanger faith, lead souls to hell, or even just cause them harm, it would have defected.  R&R like to pretend that, apart from the solemn dogmatic definition we see a couple times per century, everything else is a theological free-for-all.

This muddled comment repeatedly uses the term "Magisterium" equivocally and its not like this point has not been made to you before.

Sedeprivationism begins from its very inception making a gross fundamental error of basic philosophical truth, that is, when the form and matter of any being are separated, the being undergoes a substantial change. It then dives into pontificating to everyone else that it has all the right answers.  An small error in the beginning can lead to an enormous error in the end. But what about a an enormous error in the beginning? So just who has "defected"?

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: obscurus on March 13, 2018, 09:08:10 PM
BRAVO to Fathers Ringrose,  Pinaud, Roy, and Rioult and finally Chazal for the bravery to reject the RR heresies. Likewise to Bishop Zendejas for continuing to care for these priests and for the bulk of his own people who likewise reject RR. Hopefully the rest of the SSPX or “Resistance”  clergy are not far behind. There is hope.
I am sorry you keep saying Fr Chazal rejects RR and embraces sedeprivationism. This message is simply ridiculous. You place extreme burdens on a Catholic to hold to the sedeprivationist theory
Now R&R is heresy? My...who made you Pope?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 13, 2018, 09:27:00 PM
The modernists use the term “living” to squirm their way into the idea that truth can change.  They say the magisterium is “living”, meaning that whatever the current magisterium says, is truth.  Therefore, it follows that the church can be “updated” because the “living” magisterium needs to teach truth “for the modern man”.  No!  This is relativism and humanism mixed together.

Everything that we need to believe to get to heaven has been known by Catholics since the 1st century.  THERE ARE NO NEW CATHOLIC TRUTHS.   Therefore, the need for a “living” magisterium is a lie.  What is true is always true, and it has been true since the day Christ ascended into heaven and will be true until He comes again at the end of time.   
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 13, 2018, 10:01:11 PM
Dear Drew,
The Catholic Encyclopedia 1913 uses the term Living Magisterium in a section title. I do understand your point that the N.O. is manipulating a redefinition of revelation and the magisterium but certainly the teaching authority is living entity. See the CE quote below.


 
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm)
"With regard to the organ of tradition it must be an official organ, a magisterium, or teaching authority."
 
"Must it be admitted that Christ instituted His Church as the official and authentic organ to transmit and explain in virtue of Divine authority the Revelation made to men?
 
"The Protestant principle is: The Bible and nothing but the Bible; the Bible, according to them, is the sole theological source; there are no revealed truths save the truths contained in the Bible; according to them the Bible is the sole rule of faith:"
 
"by it and by it alone should all dogmatic questions be solved; it is the only binding authority. "
 
"Catholics, on the other hand, hold that there may be, that there is in fact, and that there must of necessity be certain revealed truths apart from those contained in the Bible;"
 
"they hold furthermore that Jesus Christ has established in fact, and that to adapt the means to the end He should have established, a LIVING organ as much to transmit Scripture and written Revelation as to place revealed truth within reach of everyone always and everywhere."

Confederate Catholic,

Modernist, like from George Tyrrell to his fellow Jesuit Pope Francis/Bergoglio, always equivocate mixing dangerous errors with Catholic truth. Fr. Jean Vincent V. Bainville was also a Jesuit.  St. Alphonsus said that a single bad book can destroy a monastery. This superficially innocent entry in the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia contains the seeds of every argument used by Fr. Bainville in overturning the Catholic dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church which he denied in typical Neo-modernist style by 1) equivocating definitions, 2) qualifying categorical propositions, and 3) moving dogmatic truths from the category of truth/falsehood to the category of authority/obedience.  The last of these permits all the limitations that restrict the application of laws, commands, precepts, etc. to excuse anyone from conforming to revealed Truth. That is where Bainville's theory of "living magisterium" leads and was intended to lead. It is not easily evident from the encyclopedia entry but, in hindsight, its footprints are clearly seen.

There is frequent reference by the Neo-modernist hierarchy to John XXIII's opening address at Vatican II where he said that the truths of our faith are one thing and the manner in which they are expressed another.  The entire theme of Vatican II was to drive a wedge between dogmas and how they are articulated.  This has invariably been done under the pretext of a deepening of understanding by a "living magisterium". Most recently, it is the argument used by supporters of Francis to destroy the sacrament of Marriage and all Catholic morality.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Clemens Maria on March 13, 2018, 10:46:00 PM
Those who do not follow Dogma as their proximate rule of faith cannot avoid such errors as sedeprivationism that drives a wedge between the form and the matter of the papal office thus necessarily causing a substantial change that destroys the office, or sedevacantism that simply throws it away.
Admittedly, I have not really studied sedeprivationism so I can't comment on that part of your statement but I'm curious what you mean by "sedevacantism ... simply throws [the office] away".  I doubt you are denying the fact that there have been at least 260 periods where there was no cleric possessing the Roman See in the history of the Church.  Every one of those periods was known as a sede vacante.  Why would positing a sede vacante now bring one under an accusation of "throwing away the office"?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 14, 2018, 06:55:18 AM
Considering all the modern and liberal things which happened under Pius XII, I think a novel term such as “living” should send off warning bells in your head.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 14, 2018, 07:24:04 AM
As I mentioned, the term "Magisterium" as known today was first used by Pope Pius IX in Tuas Libenter, 1863 :

I only read it in Italian and cannot find a copy in English so I used Google translator. The most relevant part is:
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/tuas-libenter/

The extent of obedience

We address to the members of this Congress well-merited praise, because, rejecting, as We expected they would, this false distinction between the philosopher and the philosophy of which We have spoken in earlier letters, they have recognized and accepted that all Catholics are obliged in conscience in their writings to obey the dogmatic decrees of the Catholic Church, which is infallible. In giving them the praise which is their due for confessing a truth which flows necessarily from the obligation of the Catholic faith, We love to think that they have not intended to restrict this obligation of obedience, which is strictly binding on Catholic professors and writers, solely to the points defined by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith which all men must believe. And We are persuaded that they have not intended to declare that this perfect adhesion to revealed truths, which they have recognized to be absolutely necessary to the true progress of science and the refutation of error, could be theirs if faith and obedience were only accorded to dogmas expressly defined by the Church. Even when it is only a question of the submission owed to divine faith, this cannot be limited merely to points defined by the express decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this Apostolic See; this submission must also be extended to all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith. But, since it is a question of the submission obliging in conscience all those Catholic who are engaged in that study of the speculative sciences so as to procure for the Church new advantages by their writings, the members of the Congress must recognize that it is not sufficient for Catholic savants to accept and respect the dogmas of the Church which We have been speaking about: they must, besides, submit themselves, whether to doctrinal decisions stemming from pontifical congregations, or to points of doctrine which, with common and constant consent, are held in the Church as truths and as theological conclusions so certain that opposing opinions, though they may not be dubbed heretical, nonetheless, merit some other form of theological censure.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Mr G on March 14, 2018, 08:06:05 AM
I am sorry you keep saying Fr Chazal rejects RR and embraces sedeprivationism. This message is simply ridiculous. You place extreme burdens on a Catholic to hold to the sedeprivationist theory.
Now R&R is heresy? My...who made you Pope?
http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/03/guerard-de-lauriers-call-your-office-fr.html (http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/03/guerard-de-lauriers-call-your-office-fr.html) From Dr. Chojnowski:
Here is my email exchange with Fr. Francois Chazal about the position that he articulates in his new upcoming book about Francis, the Papacy, and Fr. Anthony Cekada.

Father,

 By sedeplenist I take it to mean that a man has been elected legitimately to the papacy but cannot exercise his power or take it on because of the obstacle of heresy. Would you say this applies to Francis or not?

Dr. Chojnowski: Fr. Chazal's kind response. And by the way, unlike the arch laymen of Misters Salza and Siscoe, has been a perfect gentleman in this entire back and forth. Here is his response:

Yes, in virtue of canon law. 2264.
 That s also the basis for us using supplied jurisdiction (canon 209).
 It has been our policy from day one, and the Archbishop was much criticized for it.
 It is obvious that the Church does not want Catholics to place themselves under heretics, because they will inevitably drag them towards heresy, or at least compromise. That s also the whole debate since 2012.
 I really don't care if they call me a sedevacantist if I hold this principle.


 fc+

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: ConfederateCatholic on March 14, 2018, 08:13:31 AM
pic
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 14, 2018, 08:33:42 AM
Quote
Dear Pax,
I don’t know nor did I say Fr. Chazal embraced sp.
I didn't comment on this; must have been someone else.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Clemens Maria on March 14, 2018, 09:43:30 AM
Father Chazal is redefining the term "sedeplenist" in order to avoid the label "sedeprivationist" (which has long been taken as a synonym for sedevacantism).  In point of fact, when you have a Pope who has legitimate election but lacks authority due to heresy ... that's what has been known heretofore as sedeprivationism.  Run-of-the mill R&R holds that these popes have authority ... when they're teaching the truth, but lack authority when teaching error.  Father Chazal has proclaimed that all of their acts are null and void and that they are to be categorically ignored ... rather than having their individual acts "sifted" according to Tradition.
It was a typo by Dr Chojnowski.  He has since corrected it.  He meant sedeprivationist.  So basically, Dr C is trying to find out if Fr Chazal is an SP.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 14, 2018, 11:57:19 AM
If you don't understand why the term 'living' is problematic, then I don't know what to tell you.  It is heresy?  No, but still problematic.  And Leo XIII's time was hardly orthodox.  He was surrounded by freemasons, and had not Pius X come along after him, we would've had Vatican 2 in the early 1900s instead of 60 years later.  He beheld the dream of the devil asking Our Lord for 100 years, remember?

Why are all of you defending this idea of a 'living' magisterium?  I don't get it.  There's no doubt it's a modernist buzzword.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 14, 2018, 02:13:19 PM
Quote
Are you now questioning the orthodoxy of Pope Leo XIII??
No.  I said his time period was not orthodox.  Even St Pius X alluded to his efforts being stalled and thwarted many times by infiltrators.

The 'living' magisterium can be interpreted as you did; it can also be interpreted as meaning that truth can change 'for modern man'.  This is how pre-V2 modernists were interpreting it in the 40s and 50s.  It's not an exact word, but has many meanings.  Modernists love words which they can corrupt to their purposes.  This is why it's dangerous.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 14, 2018, 03:40:01 PM
Quote
If theologians and modernists decide to twist around the words of the Holy Roman Pontiff - so be it! 
Fair point, but you also have to admit that theological words should be as precise as possible, (and 'living' is not precise at all) which is why theologians used to use the Scholastic method of St Thomas.  If precise words are used, then misinterpretation is hardly possible, therefore truth is protected.  Modernists use vague words on purpose, and it's been going on since the 1800s, because that's when modernists started infiltrating the Church.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 14, 2018, 10:52:36 PM
Would it make any difference if the word "living" is removed? It seems to me you are taking issue with that word because of the connection with Fr. Bainvilles' dissolution of the EENS dogma, which everyone knows I am a strict believer of (if not, just glance at my signature). The Magisterium, this is, the teaching Church composed by the Pope of Rome (Vicar of Christ) and Bishops (apostolic succession) in union with him, constitute the Rule of Faith for Catholics.

My point is that this Magisterium of the Church cannot err via a general council. An error of such magnitude is impossible. If it indeed happened, then this very fact as a sign, an indication, that the authority which promulgated it is illegitimate. That is the whole point.    

"The deeper understanding" of dogma was already condemned by Pope Leo XIII in Testem Benevolentiae:

In Human Generis, Pope Pius XII is explicit about the Magisterium being the Rule of Faith:

As Catholics, we now that Christ established a Magisterium in order to keep intact the deposit of revealed truths for all time. Also, we know that this Magisterium cannot teach anything other than what pertains to this original deposit of Faith (Scripture & Tradition). Therefore, the Magisterium cannot contradict itself because that would be a failure of the Magisterium.

The Magisterium has to be viewed from the perspective of the Christ and His Church rather from that of individual churchmen.

The term, “living magisterium,” as far as I have seen, was a neologism coined by Fr. Bainville, a neo-modernist.  The analogies offered to describe divine revelation are typically either of a living tree or a river to represent how divine revelation develops and changes within a form.  The rule of faith then becomes the pope who is the oracle for divining the hidden and novel meanings.  The pope becomes a Gnostic cipher.

Pope Francis developed this “living magisterium” theory a few months ago quoting the  scripture text, “Therefore every scribe instructed in the kingdom of heaven, is like to a man that is a householder, who bringeth forth out of his treasure new things and old” Matt 13:52. What is particularly malicious about Pope Francis is that he has made a quantum leap in the Neo-modernist war against the faith taking it from the more theoretical to the everyday practical application.  The previous conciliar popes beginning with John XXIII opening of Vatican II posited a disjunction between dogma and its verbal expression.  Francis says:


Quote
"It is not enough to find a new language in which to articulate our perennial faith; it is also urgent, in the light of the new challenges and prospects facing humanity, that the Church be able to express the “new things” of Christ’s Gospel, that, albeit present in the word of God, have not yet come to light.  This is the treasury of “things old and new” of which Jesus spoke when he invited his disciples to teach the newness that he had brought, without forsaking the old (cf. Mt 13:52)." 
…… I would like now to bring up a subject that ought to find in the Catechism of the Catholic Church a more adequate and coherent treatment in the light of these expressed aims.  I am speaking of the death penalty.  This issue cannot be reduced to a mere résumé of traditional teaching without taking into account not only the doctrine as it has developed in the teaching of recent Popes, but also the change in the awareness of the Christian people which rejects an attitude of complacency before a punishment deeply injurious of human dignity. It must be clearly stated that the death penalty is an inhumane measure that, regardless of how it is carried out, abases human dignity.  It is per se contrary to the Gospel, because it entails the willful suppression of a human life that never ceases to be sacred in the eyes of its Creator and of which – ultimately – only God is the true judge and guarantor.
Pope Francis, Oct 2017

 
The death penalty is just a beginning.  What Francis has done with the divorced and civilly remarried to overturn all Catholic morality by making the subjective motive the primary determinate of the moral act rather than the objective act itself. All this is only possible because Catholics have been sold on the idea of a “living magisterium” where the pope, as the rule of faith, can boldly reconstruct the entire gospel in his own image.
 
Compare Francis exegesis with this excerpt from Cornelius a Lapide’s Great Commentary:
 

Quote
“Therefore every scribe instructed in the kingdom of heaven, is like to a man that is a householder, who bringeth forth out of his treasure new things and old” Matt 13:52.
Things new and old. This is a proverb, signifying every kind of food, substance, or goods necessary or useful for sustaining a family. Some of these things are best when new, others when old. Hence the proverb, “New honey, old wine;” i.e., honey is best when fresh, but the oldest wine is the best. Hence too the verse in Pindar’s ninth Olympic Hymn, “Praise old wine, but the flowers of new Hymns.” The meaning is—As the father of a family provides for his household things new and old, i.e., everything necessary and useful, so ought a Gospel teacher to bring forth, at suitable times, according to the capacity of his hearers, various discourses, knowledge of every kind; and especially to take care to teach them the new and unknown mysteries of the Gospel, by means of old examples, such as parables and similitudes, which his hearers can take in. Moreover, some of the ancients, as SS. Chrysostom, Augustine, Jerome, Hilary, and Bede apply old and new to the Old and New Testaments. For that is the best preaching when the New Testament is confirmed and illustrated from the Old, and proved to be in all points typically agreeable to it. For the Old Testament was the type of the New; the New Testament is the antetype of the Old.

 
What has happened is the Magisterium, making the pope as the rule of faith, has been turned on its head treating it as if it were his personal attribute.  Remember that Infallibility, as an attribute of the Church, proceeds the Magisterium and it is proximate cause. The Church was founded by Jesus Christ.  He called it “His” Church.  He founded it upon Peter but the nature of the Church, a divine institution, is established by God.  Therefore it has the attributes that properly belong to God alone. It is the Church that is Infallible.  It is only with certain churchmen under certain circumstances who can participate in the Church’s Infallibility.  The term, “Magisterium,” properly speaking, applies to churchmen engaging the Church’s attribute of Infallibility to teach in the name of God without the possibility of error. 
 
It would be best to do away with the thinking of the pope as infallible, or the pope with the bishops of the world at a given time as infallible, or the pope in council with the bishops of the world as infallible.  They are not infallible in act but only in potency.  They can be, because under these conditions they have the potential to act infallibly by engaging the Church’s attribute of Infallibility. And this can only happen as Vatican I defined, when there is intent to define a doctrine of Catholic faith or morals as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith that is binding upon all Catholics in the world.  In the end, Infallibility is only a temporary and accidental attribute of churchmen under dogmatically specified circumstances. 
 
Also, when examining Infallibility from the perspective as primarily an attribute of the Church, it is evident that it is and can only be one thing speaking with one voice. The term “universal” includes the necessary attribute of time.  When the pope, or the pope with the bishops of the world, or the pope with the bishops of the world in council enter in the Act of Infallibility, they are participating in the one timeless universal attribute of God just as popes and bishops throughout the history of the Church have done before them.    
 
The analogy of divine revelation as a living tree or a river with material changes within a constant form is improper because divine revelation can only be communicated through the perception of material things.  When the matter is in constant flux, the thing itself cannot be known.  With this theory, ecclesiastical traditions by which the faith can be known and communicated to others must undergo constant material change. The mind forms concepts and extracts universal truths from these material perceptions. If the matter itself becomes wholly indeterminate, the faith cannot be known and communicated to others.  This is why our ecclesiastical traditions are the subject matter of Dogma and have been incorporated into the Tridentine profession of faith. 
 
A better analogy of divine revelation consistent with the Church Fathers would be a football that is to be handed off or passed on to others, always diligently guarded and protected until the final goal is reached.  That this will happen is certain, and this in the end, when the attribute of Indefectibility is dogmatically defined, will be its evidence.
 
As the Neo-modernists have divided Dogma from its verbal expression (i.e. dividing the matter from the form), Sedeprivationism divides the matter and the form of the papal office necessarily causing a substantial in its nature. Like Neo-modernists they are dividing what are in fact essential attributes of things thereby changing their essential nature. Dogma is the proximate rule of faith and provides everything for a faithful Catholic to confront the errors of heretical authority without doing damage to revealed Truth. 
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Clemens Maria on March 15, 2018, 02:57:05 PM
Actually the Conciliar church is recognizable.  It appears to be a branch of the Anglican Church.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Centroamerica on March 17, 2018, 11:56:05 AM
Actually the Conciliar church is recognizable.  It appears to be a branch of the Anglican Church.
I find this comment very interesting. I've never heard anyone else put it like that.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Wessex on March 17, 2018, 01:38:34 PM
Actually the Conciliar church is recognizable.  It appears to be a branch of the Anglican Church.
Rome has not formally applied to join the Anglican community but I know some Anglicans that have gone the other way, chased out by the ladies. This was before Bergoglio would have ridiculed such a decision.

The new church though could be the result of the reforming spirit of northern Europeans finally convincing 'backward' Mediterranean types that social and industrial development would require a matching religious dimension and that changes were required. The early protestants started it off and their ideas moved south!
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 17, 2018, 02:55:17 PM
bzzzt.  Straw Man Alert!  Straw Man Alert!

It is the Magisterium, and not the pope per se (as if it were his personal attribute), that is the rule of faith.

Ladislaus,
 
Remember this post:

SSPX Resistance News (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/) / SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/secret-special-chapter-of-neo-fsspx/msg463249/#msg463249)
« on: August 16, 2015, 01:17:43 PM »
 
Quote from Ladislaus
Quote
Quote from: drew

Quote
Submission of the mind and will, that is, the soul to God on the authority of God is what divine faith is.  It must necessarily be unqualified.

Simply not true, Drew.
“Simply not true”? What I said is a brief paraphrase but the statement is most certainly true.

Quote from: Vatican I, On Faith
Quote
“We are obliged to yield to God the revealer full submission of intellect and will by faith. This faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, the catholic church professes to be a supernatural virtue, by means of which, with the grace of God inspiring and assisting us, we believe to be true what He has revealed, not because we perceive its intrinsic truth by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God himself, who makes the revelation and can neither deceive nor be deceived.”
 

Twice you were asked about this comment and you never replied.  I have come to realize that you do not know the definition of supernatural faith.
That is why you then in another exchange said this:

Crisis in the Church (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/) / Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-heretical-pope-fallacy/msg588233/#msg588233)  
« on: January 08, 2018, 07:54:26 PM »
 
Quote from: Ladislaus on January 08, 2018, 11:25:03 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-heretical-pope-fallacy/msg588127/#msg588127)
Quote
To simplify, the faith is the WHAT believed while the rule is related to the WHY believed.

What do I believe?  the Assumption.  Why do I believe it?  Because it was proposed as dogma by the authority of the teaching Church (proximately) and ultimately by God in revealing Himself (remotely).  So it's the proposal by the Church (viewed formally) that's the rule of what I believe.

This is similar to the distinction between the faith itself (the contents of Revelation) and the faith viewed as supernatural virtue as moved by the formal MOTIVE of faith

Like Ockham’s razor, this is very neat oversimplification trying drive a wedge between necessary elements of the virtue of faith. 

If the Rule of Faith only answered why we believe, then Scripture and Tradition, the remote rule of faith, would have nothing to say to the question of what. This is obviously mindless proposal. But, since faith is believing what God has revealed on the authority of God (why), the revealer, the rule of faith necessarily answers both the questions, why and whatWhat a Catholic believes and why a Catholic believes it are both attributes of the virtue of Faith. If you drive a wedge between these attributes, the faith is lost. The rule of faith must necessarily address both questions and it does so in both the remote and proximate rules. 

When the pope employing the teaching office of the Church engages the Church’s attribute of infallibility it is affirmed that God is the revealer answering both the questions of what and why. Such as in Vatican I Pastor Aeternus, on papal infallibility: “Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God Our Savior, the exaltation of the Catholic Religion, and the salvation of Christian people, the Sacred Council approving, We teach and define that it is a divinely-revealed dogma…”.  

Your oversimplification makes the pope the revealer.  The pope is the necessary but insufficient material and efficient cause of Dogma.  God is the formal and final cause.  Dogma is the proximate rule of faith.  

Drew
 
 
You drove a wedge between the two necessary attributes of supernatural faith destroying the definition. Since you do not know the definition of supernatural faith, you in your ignorance have been trampling all over it. No wonder you do not know that Dogma is the proximate Rule of Faith, you do not even know what the faith is.
 
You have other gross errors as well. Such as when you claimed that the Magisterium is outside of divine revelation so as to act as a judge of revelation.  The ramifications of this colossal error seem lost on you. 
 
In your defense of Sedeprivationism, you error in corrupting a truth of fundamental philosophy that the separation of a being's form and matter requires the being to undergo a substantial change.  This principle has been incorporated into Catholic sacramental theology that was dogmatically affirmed at the Council of Trent. It thus constitutes a truth of divine revelation.  You have divided the form and the matter of the papal office that effectively destroys the office that we know by Catholic dogma will exist until the end of time.  Those that correctly hold Dogma as the proximate Rule of Faith would not make such a terrible mistake. But you persist in your error even after I provided direct quotations from Scheeben's, from Rev. Joseph Pohle and Pohle's direct quote from a Church council approved by Pope Zosimus that uses "rule of faith" as a synonym for dogma.  You are both immune to reason and competent authority. 
 
What is worse, you promote your errors with a sense of authority that is unearned and undeserved and your responses to anyone who points out your errors is nothing but insults.  
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Centroamerica on March 17, 2018, 03:45:56 PM
He was a sedevacantist. Therefore, his "views" can be easily dismissed.

If you have a problem with that, too bad.
This is the problem with some Traditionalists. In all reality, it aggravates the Crisis in my opinion. Many in the SSPX-resistance are willing to admit (Fr. Chazal being one of them) that when one reads the "seminary libraries" the sede vacante position is a legitimate Catholic position just as there are theologians on the other side (R and R). I completely agree with Fr. Chazal on this and am glad that he took the time to dig into this and explain to confused faithful like people responsible for comments like those above. Fact of the matter is that until the Church speaks declaratively on the subject of the post-conciliar papal claimants, undeniable positive doubt does exist and theologians and Doctors of the Church have written extensively on the topic of a sede vacante due to a Pope losing office because of being a heretic just as there are theologians on the other side who said that he would retain office.

The schools of Papal Identity being a dogmatic fact and Dogmatic Sede Vacantism have all the clear signs of the spirit of division (arrogance, deceit, lack of respect and supernatural charity, personal interests, etc).

Until the Church speaks on the post-conciliar crisis, the question regarding the legitimacy of the public and notorious heretic Bergoglio will not be resolved. Any Catholic that assumes to himself the power to resolve it in one way or the other, ignores the Doctors of the Church and the Infinite Wisdom of God and arrogates to himself a power which he simply doesn't have- that of making a dogmatic declaration of the loss of office of Papal-claimant heretics of which the Church until now has allowed both schools of thought (loss and non-loss) to exist!
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 17, 2018, 03:52:12 PM
But the rule of Faith is neither. The Pope nor the Dogma are the proximate rule of Faith; but the living Magisterium of the Church.

Once one arrives to such realization, then the conclusion is completely different.

Then the obvious question is: "Where is your living magisterium" without which you have no "rule of faith"? 

Quote
Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own. As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum
 
It is also "permanent."  That is a dogma, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith. Not only do you not have one, you have no means of ever getting one.  

You like Ladislaus confuse means and ends.  You look at the heresy of the conciliar popes and reply with the wrong answer because you want to be "lord of the harvest."  If the "living magisterium" is the proximate "rule of faith," you have nothing by which to judge the current popes as heretics. 

You have defended the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church. Why do you have a problem defending the dogma that there will be perpetual successors to the papal office until the end of time?  By the way, it was the "living magisterium" as conceived by Fr. Bainville that corrupted the dogma EENS a long time ago.  If dogma is not your proximate rule of faith how can you defend it?

Drew 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 17, 2018, 04:34:19 PM
I would say that an obvious error would be to think that the Church can contradict Herself. Given that to all appearances the Church did contradict Herself in Vatican II Council as is the wish of the International Jewry (To make the Catholic Church contradict Herself as to prove that her claims of Divinity are false) then the only possible explanation is that the authority (pope) who promulgated such Council is false and that the erroneous teachings are coming from an illegitimate impostor; unless you would like to argue that there exists not such contradiction.

You also said in a later post, "Catholicism 101: Ecumenical Councils approved by a Pope are infallible."

You obviously believe that Vatican II was necessarily infallible.  Therefore, using sedevacantist logic, since Vatican II taught heresy, Paul VI could not have been a pope.  Setting aside that you could not possibly know that Vatican II taught heresy since Dogma is not your proximate rule of faith, let's first address your belief that Vatican II was infallible.  

Vatican II was only infallible in potentia, never in actu. Vatican II could only be infallible if the pope is the rule of faith.  But he is not. Canon Gregory Hesse postulated that Vatican II was not a legitimate council because it repudiated from beginning to end the possibility of engaging infallibility in actu.  The criteria to engage the attribute of the Church's infallibility requires intent to define and impose a doctrine of faith by solemn definition upon the universal Church as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.  That never happened at Vatican II.  Those who claim otherwise are either taking isolated quotations entirely out of context in the rare instances where the text appeals to apostolic teaching, or they are just lying.

Even at the Council of Trent, the council only engaged the Church's attribute of infallibility in actu with the dogmatic canons and not in the narrative texts.  

When you say, "Ecumenical Councils approved by a Pope are infallible." then the pope is your rule of faith.  You can call it the "living magisterium" if you like but it effectively is the same thing.  By appealing to the "living magisterium" as your rule of faith, you just dig a deeper hole.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 18, 2018, 07:05:02 AM
St. Vincent de Paul appeals to Dogma as his "rule of faith."

Quote
I am most particularly obliged to bless and thank God, for not having suffered the first professors of that doctrine (Jansenism), men of my acquaintance and friendship, to be able to draw me to their opinions.  I cannot tell you what pains they took, and what reasons they propounded to me; I objected to them, amongst other things, the authority of the Council of Trent (DOGMA), which is clearly opposed to them; and seeing that they still continued, I, instead of answering them, quietly recited my Credo (DOGMA); and that is how I have remained firm in the Catholic faith. 
St. Vincent de Paul regarding in dealing with the Jansenist 

A Creed is a litany of Dogmas.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 18, 2018, 07:16:50 AM
No, she is saying that this council is OBVIOUSLY without the Indefectible teaching protection of the the Holy Ghost promised to the Church residing in the papal office.
 
You should let Canteralla answer for herself.
 
The Indefectibility of the Church is another question. The attribute of Indefectibility has not been dogmatized like the attribute of Infallibility so there remains theological liberty to its understanding.  I would offer only this at this time.  The theological speculations regarding Indefectibility made by theologians during times of general stability in the Church may not necessarily be true.  Such as Fr. Fenton's speculations published in AER that no one could ever suffer spiritual harm by blind obedience to Church authority.
 
But to sedevacantists, if Indefectibility is really just a negative expression of Infallibility as those who hold the pope as the rule of faith contend,  how is it that a church without a pope and without an instrumental cause to make one has not defected?
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 18, 2018, 12:40:34 PM
Apart from the fact that you grossly mischaracterize his position as promoting "blind obedience to Church authority", what Msgr. Fenton articulates is much more than mere speculation.  It's a direct consequence of what the Church has always taught regarding the Magisterium.

So, where to begin?  Fenton is not speaking about simple "authority".

1) He explains how this is limited to "teaching" and not to "authority" in general.
2) Even within teaching, he explains that it is limited to the substance of core theological principles that were taught to the Universal Church as normative for faith and morals ... not to each and every obiter dictum within the Papal Magisterium.

Essentially, if you were to do serious harm to your faith by assenting to the Magisterium on such core teachings, the Magisterium would have failed in its mission and defected.  If the Magisterium got so corrupt that we, as you claim, MUST go so far as to refuse communion with the hierarchy, then the Magisterium would have failed.  If an Ecumenical Council had taught Religious Liberty and religious indifferentism, and I accepted this and harmed (or even eventually lost) my faith, then the Magisterium would have defected.

This is nothing but Catholicism 101 ... vs. your brand of Protestantism that you pertinaciously promote here.

Ladislaus,


The reference to the quote from Fr. Fenton concerns the attribute of the Church's Indefectibility, not the "Magisterium" that you refer to in your reply.  If you would take time to read and understand a post before you reply maybe you would not make so many erroneous comments that are indefensible, and, what is worse,  you never retract or correct.

This question, regarding the quote of Fr. Fenton (provided below) and the Church's Indefectibility, I have already addressed before in detail. The link to my previous comment is also provided below.  Anyone can read it and also your comments defending the absurd claims of "infallible security."

I emphasize again that the Church's attribute of Indefectibility has not been dogmatically addressed in detail as the attribute of the Church's Infallibility has, and when it is, the popular theological treatment of it as "infallible security," a type of negative infallibility where the pope exercises an infallible infallibility and a non-infallible infallibility at the same time will be done away with as just another erroneous theological speculation that borders on hubris.

As to the charge that I am a "Protestant" you make it without evidence so it is nothing more than calumny. Produce your evidence and I will explain to you why it is stupid and irresponsible. Since you do not know the definition of supernatural faith and you deny that dogma is your Rule of Faith, you have nothing by which to judge anything by. That is, excepting your own authority, which, I doubt not, is sufficient for you.

You drop lower in my estimation with every post.

Drew


SSPX Resistance News (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/) / SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/secret-special-chapter-of-neo-fsspx/msg503693/#msg503693)
« on: April 14, 2016, 01:27:39 AM »

The absurdity of "infallible security" is seen in Fr. Fenton's assurance that blind obedience will always save the day:
Quote from: Msgr. Fenton
"In doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters..... God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth."

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 18, 2018, 01:48:01 PM

Quote
Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth."
This above quote is definitely psychological propaganda (catholic style) to get people ready for the V2 changes that were to come.  If the above is true, then infallibility is meaningless.  Of course the above is not true, and is an exaggeration of the authority of the papacy, which the Modernists used to their advantage, and which was necessary so that catholics would "obediently" swallow V2's errors. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 18, 2018, 03:30:08 PM
There's nothing to correct.  You grossly mischaracterized Fenton as promoting "blind obedience to authority".  He does nothing of the sort in the article to which you refer.  It is YOU who need to retract and correct your mistake.  You're basically smearing Fenton ... to be point of bordering upon calumny.

SSPX Resistance News (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/) / SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/secret-special-chapter-of-neo-fsspx/msg503693/#msg503693)

« on: April 14, 2016, 01:27:39 AM »

The absurdity of "infallible security" is seen in Fr. Fenton's assurance that blind obedience will always save the day:
Quote from: Msgr. Fenton
"In doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters..... God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth."
 
 
Ladislaus,
 
Poor Fr. Fenton is promoting the idea that there exists and non-infallible infallibility personally exercised by the papal magisterium teaching by his grace of state that works alongside his infallible infallibility.  Since something cannot be and not be at the same time, that should be the first clue for you that Fr. Fenton was going in the wrong direction.  But, again, I have already addressed this question in the provided link on the “infallible security” blanket that you like to crawl under.
 
I am not blaming Fr. Fenton, when he along with some very famous names, allowed the non-infallible infallibility to take the infallible infallibility in a non-literal sense and promoted the novel doctrine of salvation by implicit desire against the dogma EENS. It was a popular theological belief at the time that after the last fifty years since Vatican II has to be rethought.
 
But you cannot rethink anything.  You have thrown out dogma as your rule of faith so when you get a letter back from the “living magisterium” straightening out this problem make be sure to post it on CathInfo.  Oh, I forgot. You are promoting sedeprivationism now which destroys the papal office by fracturing its form and matter.  You have killed the “living magisterium” and have no one to write to.  So you have no rule of faith. But alas, you still have your own authority as your rule of faith.  Gee, that sounds dangerously close to Protestantism.
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 18, 2018, 04:44:42 PM
The question of "Where is your living magisterium today" is THE question that all traditionalists ponder regardless of their stance on the crisis. Centroamerica is correct when he says that "Until the Church speaks on the post-conciliar crisis, the question regarding the legitimacy of the public and notorious heretic Bergoglio will not be resolved". Differently from the dogmatic truths concerning EENS, I can only write about my current personal conclusions on this crisis, which amount to mere speculations. You know I come from a previous, almost - dogmatic sedeplenist position. I have never supported the separatist SSPX rhetoric because it does not make sense. After reading Mons. Guerard Des Lauriers works though, I realized that his thesis has a lot of merit in explaining the reason why we are experiencing such an apparent swift in the current Magisterium.

I would not say that the current Magisterium is merely in a passive state of "standby" as this was a normal interregnum; no, I would go further and say that there exist at present time a para-magisterium, actively trying to destroy Catholicism by teaching falsehood and promoting world-wide "contra - verdades". Yes, I see that there are global active forces trying to pose as the Roman Catholic Church, which make sense, because the judeo-masonic infiltration of the Church is a fact well documented. Also, it makes more sense that there was an impostor placed to falsely occupy the Seat of Peter, rather than two thousand bishops apostatizing at once in Vatican II Council, because we know that all bishops of world without the Pope are not infallible.  

In Des Lauriers words about the "Church Crisis": (using Google translation)

That is the precise date of the Magisterial contradiction occurring in a setting of a General Council, (with the promulgation of Dignitatis Humanae), which even if one wants to argue, is not infallible, it is evidently part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, at the very least, and therefore, it is impossible that it teaches actively against the Faith. Contra-Verdades

Cantarella,
 
You are trying to answer questions that you do not have to answer.  You have to begin from what is known with certainty and draw necessary conclusions but if something does not necessarily follow leave it alone. 
 
It is a dogma that there will be perpetual successors in the papal office until the end of time.  Francis/Bergoglio is no greater a heretic than his conciliar predecessors. Only his aggressive brashness, authoritarian spirit, vulgarity and overturning morality in the practical order has made him more repulsive than those who came before him even to the point of enlightening many conservative Catholics to rethink their positions. But it should not change the position of traditional Catholics.
 
Using the certainty of Catholic dogma we are obliged to reject everything from the conciliar church that does not accord with our immemorial ecclesiastical traditions.  These traditions are not merely matters of Church discipline; they are necessary attributes of the faith that make the faith known and communicable to others. No pope possesses the authority to overturn these things but it does not require that he be removed from his office to oppose him.  The office was established by God and only God can correct it. Just like the office of the high priest Caiphias. Jesus Christ advise to recognize and resist.
 
Remember the parable of the cockle. That cockle are heretics as taught by all the Church Fathers.  The advice of Jesus Christ is to leave them until the harvest.  The Church excommunicates heretics only because they are harming the faithful and that is a question of canon law.  It is not a moral necessity. 
 
The sedevacantists make the pope their rule of faith.  They take the attribute of Indefectibility and interpret it to mean that the pope possesses a non-infallible infallibility and therefore can never teach doctrinal or moral error.  This theory was harmless when the Church prospered but it clearly cannot stand the light of a clear examination. 
 
The attributes of the Church: Infallibility, Indefectibility, and Authority relate directly to what St. Pius X identified in Pascendi as the three duties of the Church: to teach, to sanctify and to govern.  There is an overlapping between the powers and the duties but the primary purpose of Indefectibility is duty to sanctify and worship God.  Those who hold the pope as the rule of faith believe him to be infallible in his non-infallibility and thus either remove him from office or blindly obey and follow his every error.  Those that hold dogma as the rule of faith subject obedience to the virtue of Religion and, like the man born blind, do not obey any command that directly or indirectly offends the virtue of Religion. 
 
Some day we will learn that the evidence for the Indefectibility of the Church is the faithful Catholics who have preserved our immemorial ecclesiastical traditions, particularly, the immemorial received and approved rite of Mass, that is a dogma of our faith against a heretical hierarchy who would ‘deceive even the elect, if that were possible’.
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on March 19, 2018, 10:42:36 AM
Cantarella,
 
You are trying to answer questions that you do not have to answer.  You have to begin from what is known with certainty and draw necessary conclusions but if something does not necessarily follow leave it alone.  
 
It is a dogma that there will be perpetual successors in the papal office until the end of time.  Francis/Bergoglio is no greater a heretic than his conciliar predecessors. Only his aggressive brashness, authoritarian spirit, vulgarity and overturning morality in the practical order has made him more repulsive than those who came before him even to the point of enlightening many conservative Catholics to rethink their positions. But it should not change the position of traditional Catholics.
 
Using the certainty of Catholic dogma we are obliged to reject everything from the conciliar church that does not accord with our immemorial ecclesiastical traditions.  These traditions are not merely matters of Church discipline; they are necessary attributes of the faith that make the faith known and communicable to others. No pope possesses the authority to overturn these things but it does not require that he be removed from his office to oppose him.  The office was established by God and only God can correct it. Just like the office of the high priest Caiphias. Jesus Christ advise to recognize and resist.
 
Remember the parable of the cockle. That cockle are heretics as taught by all the Church Fathers.  The advice of Jesus Christ is to leave them until the harvest.  The Church excommunicates heretics only because they are harming the faithful and that is a question of canon law.  It is not a moral necessity.  
 
The sedevacantists make the pope their rule of faith.  They take the attribute of Indefectibility and interpret it to mean that the pope possesses a non-infallible infallibility and therefore can never teach doctrinal or moral error.  This theory was harmless when the Church prospered but it clearly cannot stand the light of a clear examination.  
 
The attributes of the Church: Infallibility, Indefectibility, and Authority relate directly to what St. Pius X identified in Pascendi as the three duties of the Church: to teach, to sanctify and to govern.  There is an overlapping between the powers and the duties but the primary purpose of Indefectibility is duty to sanctify and worship God.  Those who hold the pope as the rule of faith believe him to be infallible in his non-infallibility and thus either remove him from office or blindly obey and follow his every error.  Those that hold dogma as the rule of faith subject obedience to the virtue of Religion and, like the man born blind, do not obey any command that directly or indirectly offends the virtue of Religion.  
 
Some day we will learn that the evidence for the Indefectibility of the Church is the faithful Catholics who have preserved our immemorial ecclesiastical traditions, particularly, the immemorial received and approved rite of Mass, that is a dogma of our faith against a heretical hierarchy who would ‘deceive even the elect, if that were possible’.
 
Drew

Good explanation. The sedes certainly do make the pope their rule of faith. And they invent all kinds of different little belief systems in order to justify their opinions. How many more versions of sedeism will be invented by them? There are already quite a few, and they believe that all trads must find which form of sedeism suits them personally. Or they may argue that there brand of sedeism is the best and most logical. As if that's a proper Catholic thing to do.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on March 19, 2018, 12:12:23 PM
Garbage.  I already called drew out once for this strawman nonsense.

You didn't draw out anything, except for proof that it's all about the Pope. And you have to give an elaborate and windy explanation as to why your brand of sedeism is the correct one.

Sedewhatevers use endless blah-blah in order to justify their brand of sedeism. Kind of like a JP2 encyclical. He too used endless blah-blah to describe his personalism.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on March 19, 2018, 12:27:22 PM

Nobody holds that the Pope is the rule of faith.



But that's what your positon boils down to. It's all about the pope. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on March 19, 2018, 12:37:37 PM
Nobody's talking here about what it boils down to.  Indeed, the theological lynch pin for all these disagreements regarding the appropriate Catholic response to this crisis "boils down to" the pope and the papacy.  

But here we're talking about the RULE OF FAITH.

I'm saying that your position boils down to the Pope as being your rule of faith. For sedewhatevers, it's all about the Pope. It's like an obsession for people who have too much time on their hands. 

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Centroamerica on March 19, 2018, 07:30:21 PM

The argument of perpetual successors from some of the R and R is lacking depth and understanding. I've never heard any priest of the R and R position make that assertion that there are 'perpetual successors' therefore no sede vacante could be possible.

I accept the dogmatic ramifications of the Primacy of Peter, obviously. What I am saying is that the dogma does not state that there will be a continual line of Popes for all eternity. To state this would be to deny the Second Coming of Christ and the end of the world. Will there be Roman Pontiffs after the Second Coming of Christ? Of course not. The world as we know it ends and eternity begins.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 19, 2018, 08:42:38 PM
So the authority of an Ecumenical Council, Vatican I, which I hope, we all agree is a legitimate and valid Council of the Church, is telling me that Blessed Peter and His Successors are to persevere in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received, so the Truth stands firm. I hope we all agree here (with the exception of, perhaps Poche) that to all appearances, Pope Francis and his conciliar predecessors are far from keeping such promise.

Cantarella,

No one is defending the heretic Pope Francis.  What is being argued is the implications of his heresy.

You, as much as anyone posting on CI, know that it is the dogma that is infallible and narrative text must be understood in light of the dogma and not the other way around. How often have you heard others try to bend the narrative texts from the Council of Trent to interpret the dogmas in a non-literal sense? But in both of these cases, the narrative texts in no way undermine the dogma.

The Dogma in question is from Pastor Aeternus:

Quote
If then, any should deny that it is by the institution of Christ the Lord and by Divine right, that Blessed Peter should have a perpetual line of successors in the Primacy over the Universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff' is the successor of Blessed Peter in this primacy; let him be anathema.

"Blessed Peter should have perpetual line of successors in the Primacy over the Universal Church" is a divinely revealed truth that forms the formal object of divine and Catholic faith.  You have to being with this and any possible conclusions regarding the current situation in the Church cannot place this truth that has been revealed by God into question.

Ladislaus' objections to the R&R are bogus arguments. His accusations and objections are childish. If you would like any of his claims addressed in more detail let me know.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: obscurus on March 20, 2018, 04:19:42 AM
Ladislaus writes with erudition and solid doctrinal points. Making ad hominem attacks is both childish and pompous.

The Universal Ordinary Magisterium is infallible always. That’s de fide, not bogus.
....when in conformity with Tradition. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 20, 2018, 06:14:40 AM
The Universal Ordinary Magisterium is infallible always. That’s de fide, not bogus.
This is not in dispute.

What is in dispute is that your statement, which is truth, is being used to promote the error that the pope / hierarchy are themselves  the Ordinary, the Solemn,  and the Universal Magisterium, that these people are infallible [even] when they aren't, and that whatever the pope alone or in a council teaches, is by that account made a part of the magisterium - and this error is endlessly promoted in spite of both historical (V2 itself) and present (it's aftermath) reality, which reality must necessarily be entirely rejected and denied in order to consistently promote this error - in an erudite manner of course.

In a nutshell, they boil it down to either one has faith in and believes the above promoted error and on that account, rejects all things Catholic and is a devout NOer (as "the magisterium" teaches), or, they consistently prove that they have no faith whatsoever, by that I mean they indisputably prove that they have absolutely zero, zilch, nada faith in their own false idea of what the magisterium is, reject what the magisterium (https://www.cathinfo.com/anonymous-posts-allowed/what-exactly-is-the-magisterium/msg588103/#msg588103) actually is, then profess one or more of the varieties of sedeism.  All this is, is iniquitous. All this false ideology proves is that it serves absolutely no purpose except to make people workers of iniquity as they strive, often at great length, to reject that which actually is de fide.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 20, 2018, 07:22:26 AM
Catholic Encyclopedia:

You have eliminated the Magisterium as the PROXIMATE RULE OF FAITH.  Consequently, you leave a vacuum, which is invariably filled with your private judgment.  That's identical to Protestantism.  I'm stunned that you don't understand this.

Ladislaus,

Although you may not, others will appreciate the irony of this post where you insist that the magisterium is "extrinsic to the faith."  Again you are repeating the same error again, that has been previously corrected, without any reflection upon its implications.  You accuse others of being “Protestant” but this present error you are professing IS a fundamental doctrine of Protestantism.

Faith is believing what God has revealed on the authority of God the revealer.  What is “extrinsic” to the faith, is extrinsic to God’s revelation and God’s authority as revealer.  You claim that the “magisterium is the rule of faith” and that this “magisterium” is extrinsic to and therefore, not a part of God’s revelation and God’s authority.  If it is not from God, then it is from man, and cannot make any claim to infallibility because infallibility is an attribute of God.

Your doctrine, like every Protestant, claims that the Catholic Magisterium is not from God but is a merely human institution and its claims to infallibility in potentia are bogus.

God often lets other fall into the same doctrinal and moral failings they unjustly accuse others of.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 20, 2018, 08:48:16 AM
God often lets other fall into the same doctrinal and moral failings they unjustly accuse others of.
This.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 20, 2018, 12:46:39 PM
I think we need to re-phrase the question.  This whole debate over 'proximate rule' vs 'remote rule' is confusing. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 20, 2018, 03:05:18 PM
Well, let's debate this question:  Which areas of the church are able to err?

Certainly not dogma, nor scripture, nor Tradition.  Also not the infallible magisterium, which explains dogma, scripture and tradition.  So the only piece which can err are the churchmen themselves, which are the ordinary, fallible magisterium.  Debating over which uncorruptible part is the rule of faith is an exercise I don't understand.  Scripture, Tradition, the infallible magisterium - they are ALL important and necessary pieces of the Church, without which, you would not have a Church at all.  Can we all agree on this?

The conclusion of this would be, since churchmen can err, and since the magisterium is dependent on churchmen, that this is the least necessary (in the short term) of all of the 3.  In the long term, it will always exist, so there's no debate on that.  But short term, the magisterium could be affected, therefore scripture/tradition are the most stable of the 3.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Clemens Maria on March 20, 2018, 09:34:40 PM
St. Thomas Aquinas --
Notice, as I have been saying, that the TRUTH itself is the "formal object of faith", whereas the "infallible and divine RULE" is the "Church's TEACHING" (aka Magisterium).  It's this teaching that grants the requisite AUTHORITY to the truth MANIFESTED in the Scripture and provides its formal motive.  Without the authority of the Church providing the formal motive of faith, there's no true supernatural faith.  The, in the vacuum of this authority, "some other principle" (usually Protestant private judgment) fills the void.

Exactly as I have been articulating contrary to Drew's Protestantism.
Great post!
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 20, 2018, 10:11:04 PM
With every post you simply expose your ignorance even more.  Indeed the Magisterium is NOT part of God's Revelation.  That Revelation ceased with the death of the Last Apostle.  But the Magisterium does indeed come from God's AUTHORITY (which He left with and communicated to the Church).  Just because it's extrinsic to the faith, per se, doesn't mean that it's not of God's authority ... but from man's.  You do realize that Revelation and Authority are not co-extensive and that God's authority does operate outside of Revelation, right?  Honestly, man, you're just a babbling fool with little or no grasp of basic logic.  You can't distinguished between Pope and Magisterium, between faith and authority, between revelation and Magisterium, between revelation and authority ... but coflate all these notions like some ignoramus.  This argument of yours quoted above has to be one of the most idiotic things I've read in a very long time.

When you appeal to DOGMA over and above the Magisterium, you have become a Protestant.  It's the Magisterium that has the authority to interpret dogma  There is NO APPEAL over the Magisterium to dogma.

Now, go ahead and say that not every pronouncement of the Magisterium is infallible or irreformable.  That's an argument that can be debated among Catholic.  But this nonsense where you make dogma the rule of faith cannot be countenanced among Catholics.  You make yourself a Protestant heretic with this garbage.

Dogma is the object of our faith; it's WHAT we believe.  But we do not believe dogma based on its own intrinsic truthfulness, but based on the authority of the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.  That's the formal motive of faith, the truthfulness of the Revealer.  But, as the Protestants found out, when you take the Magisterium away as the proximate rule of faith, that creates a vacuum.  We human beings ALWAYS have a proximate rule of faith.  While some Prots tried in vain to set up various interpretation authorities, nothing short of God's authority in the Magisterium could suffice ... and everything else invariably reduces to PRIVATE JUDGMENT as the proximate rule of faith.

By appealing to DOGMA over the Magisterium, what you're really saying is that my, Drew's, INTERPRETATION of said DOGMA, TRUMPS the INTERPTATION OF THE MAGISTERIUM.  YOU ARE MAKING YOUR PRIVATE JUDGMENT YOUR PROXIMATE RULE OF FAITH.

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).

Quote
Modernism is condemned because it virtually destroys Christian dogma by denying that the dogmas of faith are contained in the revelation made by the Holy Spirit to the Catholic Church and subsequently defined through the supreme authority of the same Ecclesia docens{1} (https://www3.nd.edu/%7Emaritain/jmc/etext/oldtru02.htm#n_1). Once the Holy Spirit, speaking through the supreme magisterium{2} (https://www3.nd.edu/%7Emaritain/jmc/etext/oldtru02.htm#n_2) of the Church, defines a doctrine as de fide{3} (https://www3.nd.edu/%7Emaritain/jmc/etext/oldtru02.htm#n_3) the dogma in question remains, both in se{4} (https://www3.nd.edu/%7Emaritain/jmc/etext/oldtru02.htm#n_4) and in its external formula or terminology, unchanged and unchangeable, like God, Whose voice it communicates to us, in the shape of definite truth. Modernism tells us quite the reverse.
{1} (https://www3.nd.edu/%7Emaritain/jmc/etext/oldtru02.htm#n1) Ecclesia docens -- i.e., 'the teaching Church.'
{2} (https://www3.nd.edu/%7Emaritain/jmc/etext/oldtru02.htm#n2) Magisterium = 'teaching authority.'
{3} (https://www3.nd.edu/%7Emaritain/jmc/etext/oldtru02.htm#n3) De fide = 'what is of faith.'
{4} (https://www3.nd.edu/%7Emaritain/jmc/etext/oldtru02.htm#n4) In se = 'in itself.'
Rev. Father Norbert Jones, C.R.L., Old Truths, Not Modernist Errors, Exposure of Modernism and Vindication of its Condemnation by the Pope, 1908, (footnotes in original)

 
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.  Ecumenical councils historically begin with the common recitation of the Credo and then affirm the dogmatic declarations of previous councils. What these ecumenical 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 ecumenical councils individually said:
 
Quote
If we wish to proceed without offence along the true and royal road of divine justice, we must keep the declarations and teachings of the holy fathers as if they were so many lamps which are always alight and illuminating our steps which are directed towards God. Therefore, considering and esteeming these as a second word of God, in accordance with the great and most wise Denis, let us sing most willingly along with the divinely inspired David, The commandment of the Lord is bright, enlightening the eyes, and, Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my paths; and with the author of Proverbs we say, Your commandment is a lamp and your law a light, and like Isaiah we cry to the lord God with loud voice, because your commands are a light for the earth. For the exhortations and warnings of the divine canons are rightly likened to light inasmuch as the better is distinguished from the worse and what is advantageous and useful is distinguished from what is not helpful but harmful.
Therefore we declare that we are preserving and maintaining the canons which have been entrusted to the holy, catholic and apostolic church by the holy and renowned apostles, and by universal as well as local councils of orthodox [bishops], and even by any inspired father or teacher of the church. Consequently, we rule our own life and conduct by these canons and we decree that all those who have the rank of priests and all those who are described by the name of Christian are, by ecclesiastical law, included under the penalties and condemnations as well as, on the other hand, the absolutions and acquittals which have been imposed and defined by them.
Fourth Council of Constantinople.

 
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
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Clemens Maria on March 21, 2018, 08:52:41 AM
And this power of designation is key.  I don't know if any other sedeprivationists hold this, but if he can designate in general, then he can also designated/appoint a Bishop.  And if that Bishop is not a heretic (or have some other impediment) that Bishop can formally exercise jurisdiction.

This clearly suffices to meet the definition of Pastor Aeternus.  If you take it too literally, it could never allow for even a brief interregnum between the death of one pope and the election of another.
At least some straight sedevacantists (maybe many?) also hold that a non-pope could legitimately make appointments via epikeia.  John Lane for example.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: King Wenceslas on March 21, 2018, 02:46:52 PM
Pray for him but do not listen to him.

The same as would have been done with John XXII.

This will sort itself out with a world war, a world wide plague, asteroid, comet, whatever.

Get the sacraments where you can. Don't adhere to any one priest, bishop, cardinal to much. Be alert and watchful.


Quote
Our captain Christ has given us the bearings unchangeable and clearly marked. Steady at the helm. Confidence and faith with sufficient heroism will get us home safely.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 21, 2018, 08:44:44 PM
Even if this dogma was to be taken in the sense that R&R does, this is, the permanent physical occupancy of the See by a pope at all times, I do not see how this necessarily contradicts the sedeprivationist position, in which the permanency of the material hierarchy is fundamental (this is by the way, the main difference from strict sedevacantism). The Cassisiacum Thesis believes that the merely material occupation of Sees, currently by Bergoglio, is effectively transmitted in the Church, as long as the external human acts of a juridical order which are required for this continuance are carried on.

In the words of Fr. Bernard Lucien:


What is understood by Mission is the glory of God and the salvation of souls.

What is understood by Session is the material occupation of the See of Peter.

The ordering of these two is precisely what is lacking today in the Church militant because the materialiter pope does not have the habitual intention of doing good to the Church. He loses therefore, Authority; but not power of designation. This permanence of the hierarchical structure is absolutely required for the Church to retain her Apostolic nature.

The theory of sedeprivationism postulates a substantial change in the papal office instituted by Jesus Christ.  It is theoretically a heresy and a practically an impossibility. It cannot be done.  The theory, like sedevacantism, is an attempt to become the Lord of the Harvest concerning the disposition of cockle. It begins with unnecessary presuppositions and ends with problems worse than those they are trying to avoid. It also, directly or indirectly, holds the pope as the Rule of Faith. Ladislaus claims he holds the magisterium as his rule of faith but the Magisterium of the Church is never exercised outside of the person of the pope occupying the papal office. In the practical order there is no divergence in act. Once there is postulated a substantial change in the papal office, there is no pope because there is no office, there is no magisterium because there is no pope in potentia to the attribute of Infallibility, and there is no rule of faith for Ladislaus.

Ladislaus (and there are previous posts on this question) believes in “infallible security.” That is, he believes that the attribute of Indefectibility means that the pope has a fallible infallibility in the exercise of his ordinary authentic magisterium. This is just a popular theological speculation that cannot stand up to serious criticism, but, notwithstanding its corruption of the moral order, provides fuel for the accusation that anyone who is not blindly obedient to a heretical pope becomes ipso facto a Protestant. It leads to the blind obedience of the conservative Catholic, or leads to either driving a wedge between the pope and the office (sedevacantism) or wedge through the office itself (sedeprivationism).  

Reread the quotation I provided from Fourth Council of Constantinople or better, go on-line and read the entire introduction to the Council affirming all previous Dogmatic Canons. This is the same Council that charged Pope Honorius along with others of heresy.  The Rule of Faith used to judge these persons as heretics was the DOGMATIC CANONS. This Council was affirmed by Pope Leo II. This directly affirms the council I previously quoted, confirmed by Pope Zosimus, that treats the terms Dogma and Rule of Faith as synonyms. The Magisterium, the “teaching authority,” is the means and dogma is the end of its proper function.

If you just stick to what is known with certainty, that is, Dogma, drawing only necessary and certain conclusion from revealed truth, leaving what is unknown to the providential care of God, you can stay on dry ground while others are washed away.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Centroamerica on March 21, 2018, 09:10:57 PM


To condemn as heretics those who believe the Pope would cease to be Pope if befallen into obstinate heresy is not only to condemn St. Robert Bellarmine's opinion on this (something the Church has never done), but also to condemn both Archbishop Lefebvre's opinion that it is possible and Bishop Fellay's opinion that it is possible. Would those who condemn most vehemently those who believe that the sede vacante is a possibility, also openly condemn St. Robert Bellarmine, Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay? This is where deceit comes into play demonstrating that they hold to the spirit of division.

“Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, invalidity of election are so many reasons why a pope might in fact never have been pope or might no longer be one. In this, obviously very exceptional case, the Church would be in a situation similar to that which prevails after the death of a Pontiff.” (Archbishop LefebvreLe Figaro, August 4, 1976)

“If he (Pope Francis) continues as he does now, maybe we will be obliged to say ‘he cannot be pope!’ I say ‘maybe’ I don’t know. (Bishop Fellay, Oct 13, 2013 St. Vincent Church, KC,MO)
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 22, 2018, 09:55:53 AM
It was the Third Council of Constantinople; not the Fourth.

And per your own reasoning, such condemnation of Pope Honorious is of dubious veracity; given that the narrative is not enclosed in a dogmatic canon. All the councils, from Nicea to Vatican I, have worded their dogmatic canons "If any one says...let him be anathema"; but if any teaching proposed by the Church is outside this strict bracket; is not infallible and therefore subject to error, according to Drew.

Thanks for the correction but the purpose of the post had nothing to do with Pope Honorius' condemnation or the fact that the citation in question is not a dogmatic canon. The purpose of recommending your reading this introduction to the Council is to see all the Church fathers of the Council affirm all the dogmatic proclamations of previous councils one by one; to see that in their judgments against all the heretics and heresies, the dogmatic canons are repeatedly mentioned as their rule of faith by which they 'govern their lives'. Dogma as the proximate rule of faith should be something that you should have no problem accepting from what you have posted in the past. Unless, that is, if you are determined to follow the errors of sedeprivationism or sedevacantism in which case, dogma has to take a back seat just as it does with those promoting salvation by implicit desire.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on March 22, 2018, 10:15:23 AM
And that's a debate among Catholics with Catholic premises.  But we can't start out with the Protestant heresy that dogma is the rule of faith rather than the Magisterium.
But Drew maintains that it is the Magisterium which determines dogma; the Prots reject the whole idea of "magisterium." He says, in effect, the Magisterium provides us nourishment to eat (which Prots deny), but it cannot eat itself (and you agree with him; see below).

By what "rule of faith" do you determine that the current Magisterium has gone "off the rails" and needs to be rejected?

No matter what the "rule of faith" is, at some point you must determine if the "rule of faith" applies to something, in this instance the current Magisterium. Even if your position is "doubt" and not rejection, that is still your determination of dubiety. If you base that on prior Magsterial statements . . . so does Drew in relying on infallible Magisterial utterances.

If you say the current Magisterium isn't the Magisterium, and its rules shouldn't be followed . . . how do you know that?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 22, 2018, 12:29:32 PM
But Drew maintains that it is the Magisterium which determines dogma; the Prots reject the whole idea of "magisterium." He says, in effect, the Magisterium provides us nourishment to eat (which Prots deny), but it cannot eat itself (and you agree with him; see below).

By what "rule of faith" do you determine that the current Magisterium has gone "off the rails" and needs to be rejected?

No matter what the "rule of faith" is, at some point you must determine if the "rule of faith" applies to something, in this instance the current Magisterium. Even if your position is "doubt" and not rejection, that is still your determination of dubiety. If you base that on prior Magsterial statements . . . so does Drew in relying on infallible Magisterial utterances.

If you say the current Magisterium isn't the Magisterium, and its rules shouldn't be followed . . . how do you know that?


One of Drew's quotes on page 14, reply #200:
https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=48225.195
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on March 22, 2018, 01:02:55 PM
Dimond Brothers have summed up very nicely how R&R leads inexorably to a non-Catholic view of the Magisterium.



The Dimond brothers. I, for one, could care less about what they think. They're nuts. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 22, 2018, 01:54:57 PM
Quote
Does this mean absolute inerrancy in every single proposition that proceeds from the Magisterium?  No.  But it does mean that the Magisterium will always be a safe and reliable and sure guide to Catholic faith overall.

I absolutely disagree with your underlined philosophy above, which comes from Fenton.  I've quoted many other theologians who say that the fallible magisterium can err greatly; the fallible magisterium is NOT ALWAYS "safe and reliable".  If it was, then the pope's power of infallibility is pointless.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 22, 2018, 02:46:44 PM
Dimond Brothers have summed up very nicely how R&R leads inexorably to a non-Catholic view of the Magisterium.


Well, I suppose that these popes COULD have been wrong, just piously exaggerating the general safety and reliability of the Magisterium.

Does this mean absolute inerrancy in every single proposition that proceeds from the Magisterium?  No.  But it does mean that the Magisterium will always be a safe and reliable and sure guide to Catholic faith overall.
Everything the popes said is certainly true. Your problem is that you don't know what the magisterium is and as long as you believe the magisterium they speak of to be the hierarchy, you never will.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Croix de Fer on March 22, 2018, 03:14:24 PM

Dr(j)ew got completely destroyed by Cantarella and Ladislaus. :laugh1:
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on March 22, 2018, 03:45:24 PM

One of Drew's quotes on page 14, reply #200:
https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=48225.195
Good post. Thanks. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on March 22, 2018, 03:52:33 PM
Dr(j)ew got completely destroyed by Cantarella and Ladislaus. :laugh1:

Only true in the minds of the sedes.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 22, 2018, 03:53:26 PM
In your opinion, what is the Magisterium?  
From the thread titled: What exactly is the Magisterium? (https://www.cathinfo.com/anonymous-posts-allowed/what-exactly-is-the-magisterium/75/)

The act of promulgation must be a teaching (magisterium), and not a mere statement; this teaching must witness to its identity with the original Revelation, i.e. it must always show that what is taught is identical with what was revealed; it must be a "teaching with authority" - that is, it must command the submission of the mind, because otherwise the unity and universality of the Faith could not be attained." - Scheeben
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 22, 2018, 03:54:10 PM
Only true in the minds of the sedes.
This.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 22, 2018, 03:57:37 PM
But Drew maintains that it is the Magisterium which determines dogma; the Prots reject the whole idea of "magisterium." He says, in effect, the Magisterium provides us nourishment to eat (which Prots deny), but it cannot eat itself (and you agree with him; see below).

By what "rule of faith" do you determine that the current Magisterium has gone "off the rails" and needs to be rejected?

No matter what the "rule of faith" is, at some point you must determine if the "rule of faith" applies to something, in this instance the current Magisterium. Even if your position is "doubt" and not rejection, that is still your determination of dubiety. If you base that on prior Magsterial statements . . . so does Drew in relying on infallible Magisterial utterances.

If you say the current Magisterium isn't the Magisterium, and its rules shouldn't be followed . . . how do you know that?

Excellent questions!  I hope you don't mind my making them my own. Ladislaus believes that the Indefectibility of the Church means that the pope possesses a fallible infallibility in the exercise of his ordinary authentic magisterium; a sort of negative infallibility whereby he can never lead any of the faithful into error.  The theory is called "infallible security" (which I have already provided a link) from an earlier exchange with Ladislaus.  Actually this may prove to be the most common property of those who hold the pope as the rule of faith.  Since he is preserved from all public error, he can be safely followed wherever he leads.  

So your questions are excellent. When did the Magisterium go "off the rails"? and, since dogma is not their rule of faith, How could they possibly ever know?

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 22, 2018, 04:37:44 PM
It was the Third Council of Constantinople; not the Fourth.

And per your own reasoning, such condemnation of Pope Honorious is of dubious veracity; given that the narrative is not enclosed in a dogmatic canon. All the councils, from Nicea to Vatican I, have worded their dogmatic canons "If any one says...let him be anathema"; but if any teaching proposed by the Church is outside this strict bracket; is not infallible and therefore subject to error, according to Drew.

I apologized too soon assuming that you had checked the sources and were correct. I took another look and see that I was correct in my citation. The quote that I provided was from the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople and not as you said from the Third.  The Third condemned Pope Honorious as a heretic and the Fourth Council of Constantinople confirmed this condemnation saying:

Quote
Further, we accept the sixth, holy and universal synod {6 Constantinople III}, which shares the same beliefs and is in harmony with the previously mentioned synods in that it wisely laid down that in the two natures of the one Christ there are, as a consequence, two principles of action and the same number of wills. So, we anathematize Theodore who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, the unholy prelates of the church of Constantinople, and with these, Honorius of Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria as well as Macarius of Antioch and his disciple Stephen, who followed the false teachings of the unholy heresiarchs Apollinarius, Eutyches and Severus and proclaimed that the flesh of God, while being animated by a rational and intellectual soul, was without a principle of action and without a will, they themselves being impaired in their senses and truly without reason.
The quote provided on the dogmatic canons being their rule of faith is from the first canon.
Fourth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople

But again, the "anathema" against Pope Honorius was not my point in the post. The post was to demonstrate how the council Fathers held dogma as their rule of faith. So I will post again the First Canon from the Fourth Council of Constantinople in its entirety:

Quote
If we wish to proceed without offence along the true and royal road of divine justice, we must keep the declarations and teachings of the holy fathers as if they were so many lamps which are always alight and illuminating our steps which are directed towards God. Therefore, considering and esteeming these as a second word of God, in accordance with the great and most wise Denis, let us sing most willingly along with the divinely inspired David, The commandment of the Lord is bright, enlightening the eyes, and, Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my paths; and with the author of Proverbs we say, Your commandment is a lamp and your law a light, and like Isaiah we cry to the lord God with loud voice, because your commands are a light for the earth. For the exhortations and warnings of the divine canons are rightly likened to light inasmuch as the better is distinguished from the worse and what is advantageous and useful is distinguished from what is not helpful but harmful.

Therefore we declare that we are preserving and maintaining the canons which have been entrusted to the holy, catholic and apostolic church by the holy and renowned apostles, and by universal as well as local councils of orthodox [bishops], and even by any inspired father or teacher of the church. Consequently, we rule our own life and conduct by these canons and we decree that all those who have the rank of priests and all those who are described by the name of Christian are, by ecclesiastical law, included under the penalties and condemnations as well as, on the other hand, the absolutions and acquittals which have been imposed and defined by them. For Paul, the great apostle, openly urges us to preserve the traditions which we have received, either by word or by letter, of the saints who were famous in times past.
Canon I, Fourth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople

If you do not want to stumble in the darkness of our current crisis in the Church, you must keep the dogmatic canons as "many lamps which are always alight and illuminating our steps which are directed to God." 

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on March 22, 2018, 04:46:28 PM
Excellent questions!  I hope you don't mind my making them my own. Ladislaus believes that the Indefectibility of the Church means that the pope possesses a fallible infallibility in the exercise of his ordinary authentic magisterium; a sort of negative infallibility whereby he can never lead any of the faithful into error.  The theory is called "infallible security" (which I have already provided a link) from an earlier exchange with Ladislaus.  Actually this may prove to be the most common property of those who hold the pope as the rule of faith.  Since he is preserved from all public error, he can be safely followed wherever he leads.  

So your questions are excellent. When did the Magisterium go "off the rails"? and, since dogma is not their rule of faith, How could they possibly ever know?

Drew
Drew,

Thanks.

Yeah, I don't know how Ladislaus resolves this problem, but perhaps he'll let us know. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: obscurus on March 22, 2018, 06:47:33 PM
The following is a dogma of the Faith, Mr. Drew:

The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful.

The totality of bishops assembled in a General Council is infallible. (This is, only IN UNION with the Pope of Rome). Yet, R&R denies this dogmatic truth when they pretend that it was possible that more than a thousand bishops united with a true Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth, maliciously taught error and promulgated falsehood to the Universal Church in Vatican II Council.
What have they proposed at the Council to be held by all the faithful? We need to look at that Council and perhaps see that is was unlike any other.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: obscurus on March 22, 2018, 07:19:16 PM
I say that as a mark of understatement. 

What level of assent do the decrees of V2 demand?

There were 16 documents promulgated at the Council so which ones demand a Catholic's total acceptance? 

More fundamental, what was the precise nature of this Council? Is it of the same nature as say Trent simply because all the bishops were gathered under the authority of John XXIII and Paul VI?

The Council didn't even issue anathemas and didn't condemn any of the modern errors unlike the schemas which did condemn errors.

Are we perhaps super-dogmatizing the Council?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: obscurus on March 22, 2018, 07:21:58 PM
Let's see... two dogmatic and pastoral constitutions, nine decrees and three declarations, to begin with....

But why would I need to "look at the Council and see that was unlike any other"? As a simple Catholic soul, why would I have to scrutinize that?

I mean, if I can trust not even the Vicar of Christ on earth, whoever else can I trust? It used to be that Roman Catholics could just trust the Pope of Rome and accepted, as a matter of fact, that there was not a highest authority living on earth.
At the same time a simple Catholic soul is not so ready to accept the abstract theological opinion of ONE theologian. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: obscurus on March 22, 2018, 07:42:52 PM
Found these (from Fr. Gleize)

http://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/debate-about-vatican-ii-fr-gleize-responds-msgr-ocariz-22405 (Written in 2011)

http://www.sanpiox.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=467:una-questione-cruciale-il-valore-magisteriale-del-concilio-vaticano-ii&catid=64:crisi-nella-chiesa&Itemid=81 (The full text in Italian; I don't understand Italian which is why I would use DeepL translator to get a good English rendering of it) I plan on reading this at some point. 

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 22, 2018, 08:09:22 PM
The following is a dogma of the Faith, Mr. Drew:

The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful.

The totality of bishops assembled in a General Council is infallible. (This is, only IN UNION with the Pope of Rome). Yet, R&R denies this dogmatic truth when they pretend that it was possible that more than a thousand bishops united with a true Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth, maliciously taught error and promulgated falsehood to the Universal Church in Vatican II Council.

Cantarella,

You are stumbling in the darkness already.


Since dogma is not your "rule of faith" why do you bother to quote it?  You claim that the magisterium is your rule of faith, why not follow it? If the magisterium is in error, how can you possible know since you deny dogma as your rule of faith? You have nothing to judge anything by.

"The totality of bishops assembled in a General Council (with the pope) is infallible" only in potentia. To be infallible in acta requires that specific criteria be met which includes intent to define and impose upon the universal Church a question of faith and/or morals. Vatican II repudiated from the beginning to the end any claim to ever engage the attribute of Infallibility which Jesus Christ endowed His Church.  

You cannot have it both ways.  If the magisterium is your rule of faith and, like Ladislaus, you believe that the even in its ordinary authentic expression is necessarily free of error by virtue of the Church's attribute of Indefectibility, then how could Vatican II possible be in error? How can you possibly know if Vatican II "maliciously taught error and promulgated falsehood"? You have nothing by which to judge the matter.

You have no pope. You have no access to the Magisterium. You have no rule of faith. Sedevacantism and sedeprivationism are dead ends where all those stumbling souls who directly or indirectly hold the pope as their rule of faith fall into a hopeless mess of contradictions. What is fundamentally common to both errors is the overturning of dogma.  

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: obscurus on March 22, 2018, 08:14:44 PM
Cantarella,

You are stumbling in the darkness already.


Since dogma is not your "rule of faith" why do you bother to quote it?  You claim that the magisterium is your rule of faith, why not follow it? If the magisterium is in error, how can you possible know since you deny dogma as your rule of faith? You have nothing to judge anything by.

"The totality of bishops assembled in a General Council (with the pope) is infallible" only in potentia. To be infallible in acta requires that specific criteria be met which includes intent to define and impose upon the universal Church a question of faith and/or morals. Vatican II repudiated from the beginning to the end any claim to ever engage the attribute of Infallibility which Jesus Christ endowed His Church.  

You cannot have it both ways.  If the magisterium is your rule of faith and, like Ladislaus, you believe that the even in its ordinary authentic expression is necessarily free of error by virtue of the Church's attribute of Indefectibility, then how could Vatican II possible be in error? How can you possibly know if Vatican II "maliciously taught error and promulgated falsehood"? You have nothing by which to judge the matter.

You have no pope. You have no access to the Magisterium. You have no rule of faith. Sedevacantism and sedeprivationism are dead ends where all those stumbling souls who directly or indirectly hold the pope as their rule of faith fall into a hopeless mess of contradictions. What is fundamentally common to both errors is the overturning of dogma.  

Drew
In reference to the bold... Yes and it explains why they can't make any necessary distinctions. "You either obey everything or there is no Magisterium to speak of" 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 22, 2018, 08:19:28 PM
The following is a dogma of the Faith, Mr. Drew:

The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful.

The totality of bishops assembled in a General Council is infallible. (This is, only IN UNION with the Pope of Rome). Yet, R&R denies this dogmatic truth when they pretend that it was possible that more than a thousand bishops united with a true Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth, maliciously taught error and promulgated falsehood to the Universal Church in Vatican II Council.
Sorry Cantarella, but you are preaching a NO doctrine. This "totality of the Bishops is infallible....." is not a dogma. It is not even a Church teaching at all - and in fact is a contradiction of dogma per Vatican 1's teaching, which specifically states that the pope, and only the pope teaches infallibly, and only when he speaks ex cathedra. Your "dogma of the faith" is nowhere in any Church teaching. Outside of some writings from some 20th century theologians, the only place I have ever come across it is in Lumen Gentium (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html), #25, especially the second paragraph - you are almost repeating LG word for word.

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: obscurus on March 22, 2018, 08:32:54 PM
From Fr. Gleize (http://www.sanpiox.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=467:una-questione-cruciale-il-valore-magisteriale-del-concilio-vaticano-ii&catid=64:crisi-nella-chiesa&Itemid=81) (2011): 

(The sedevacantists and sedeprivationists (boy can we use a different name?) are arguing in the same manner as Bishop Ocáriz (a conservative Conciliar bishop)) 

(Translation from DeepL)


AN INSUFFICIENT PROBLEM

These general references would not present any difficulty if Bishop Ocáriz did not apply them to the teachings of Vatican II. In fact, according to him, even if the last Council did not want to define any dogma, the charism of truth and the magisterial authority were certainly present, to the point that to deny them to the whole of the episcopate gathered cum Petro et sub Petro to give a teaching to the universal Church would mean to deny a part of the very essence of the Church. [With all due respect, Cantarella, you are arguing in the same manner] So that the Council's affirmations recalling truths of faith evidently require the adherence of theological faith, not because they were taught by this Council, but because they had already been taught as such in an infallible way by the Church, either by virtue of a solemn decision, or by ordinary and universal teaching. The same full and definitive assent is required for the other doctrines recalled by the Council and already proposed with a definitive act by previous magisterial interventions. The other doctrinal teachings of the Council require the faithful to give religious assent of will and intelligence.

Without doubt, one could be pleased to see finally a theologian of the Holy See introduce all these nuances and with this oppose the more formal, albeit implicit, refusal to all the unilateral expositions that until today have presented Vatican Council II in a maximalist perspective, as if it were an absolutely untouchable dogma, "even more important than that of Nicaea"[4]. However, however seductive it may be in terms of the nuances and distinctions it makes, such an analysis conveys a postulate at its root that is far from evident. In this way, the study of Bishop Ocáriz avoids answering the crucial question, which is still pending between the Saint Pius X Fraternity and the Holy See. More precisely, in the eyes of the Opus Dei prelate it seems that the answer to this question is entirely implicit, as if it had never been necessary to deal with the issue or as if no debate had ever taken place.

It is more necessary than ever. In fact, it is far from evident that the charism of truth and the authority of the Magisterium were certainly present in the last Council and that the whole of the episcopate gathered cum petro et sub Petro benefited from the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit to teach the universal Church. Whether we like it or not, it is not obvious that the last Council can impose itself in the eyes of Catholics, in everything and for everything as the exercise of a true Magisterium, such as to require their adherence to the different degrees indicated. We deny this, for serious reasons. In fact, if one refers to the traditional definition of the Magisterium (§ 3-5) one is obliged to observe that the procedures of Vatican II do not conform to it (§ 6-7). All the more so since this integral novelty of the 21st Ecumenical Council is explained in depth by absolutely new assumptions (§ 8-12).

3

THE REASON FOR THE MAGISTERIUM'S EXISTENCE

The unity of the Church and unity in faith are inseparable, and rightly the Magisterium has the task of safeguarding them. To this end he needs the charism of truth, as the means required to preserve the common good of the Church, which is the good of unity in the profession of the same faith. This is the reason given by the Pastor Aeternus Constitution of Vatican Council I: "Therefore this charism of truth and faith, already indefectible, was granted by God to Peter and his successors in this Chair, so that [...] after eliminating what leads to the schism, the whole Church might be kept one"[5]. In the same way, St. Thomas explains why the pope, when he teaches dogma, must be divinely assisted, and must be so precisely because he acts as head, to safeguard the unity of the Church: "And the reason for this lies in the fact that the Church must have one faith, according to the admonition of St. Thomas, the Pope is the one who is the most important person in the world. Paul (1 Cor 1:10): "Say the same thing to all of you, and there should be no schisms among you. But this cannot be observed if, when a question of faith arises, it is not defined by those who preside over the whole Church, so that its decision may be accepted by the whole Church with firm consent"[6]. This is therefore the final cause of the activity of the Magisterium, which explains its indefectibility in the faith. The Magisterium is assisted by God to the extent that it must ensure the unity of the Church, which is the unity of the common profession of faith. This assistance is not absolute, therefore, but limited: it accompanies the transmission of Revelation and nothing else. Christ told his Apostles that the Holy Spirit would assist them to teach everything that he himself had taught them, no more, no less[7].

Therefore, far from constituting doctrine, the act of the Magisterium does nothing but preserve and declare it[8]: the Magisterium is defined as such in an objective dependence on divine revelation, the transmission of which it must ensure. In the discussions leading up to the adoption of the Constitution Lumen Gentium, the main representatives of the "Coetus internationalis patrum", including Mons. Lefebvre, proposed a significant amendment[9]. This modification of the text gave the understanding that, if the definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable for themselves and not because the Church would give them the assent, it is because the assistance of the Holy Spirit does not allow them to ever contradict the common faith of the Church or to depart from it. The reason for this amendment was precisely to show (especially in the presence of the Eastern schismatics) that the pope does not have the power to arbitrarily define every kind of truth, even outside the deposit of faith. On the occasion of the first Vatican Council, the speaker charged with explaining, on behalf of the Holy See, the exact meaning of the text of Pastor Aeternus, insisted in the same sense: since the exercise of the Magisterium has the raison d'être of being the common good of the unity of the faith, assistance is given to the Pope so that he may preserve the common faith of the Church[10]. As has rightly been pointed out[11], if, from a false perspective, one loses sight of the right relationship that makes the Magisterium dependent on objective Tradition, the Deus revelans risks taking second place to the advantage of the custos et magistra. The means to avoid this risk consists in remembering the essential definition of the Magisterium: a power ordered to its object.

Since the unity of a power derives from that of its object, the unity of the Magisterium is that of revealed truth[12]. One recalls the other, since the revealed doctrine is the principle and foundation of the Magisterial teachings, as the specific object of an act.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 23, 2018, 04:38:17 AM
The totality of "Bishops" necessarily includes the Bishop of Rome, right? ::). I was not referring to the bishops by themselves. It has been repeated that the key of infallibility here is the Bishop of Rome; the successor of St. Peter in union with the bishops in a setting of a General Council. No, it is not a NO doctrine. It is actually a very old Catholic belief that this general assembly is one of the organs of Church infallibility.
I am trying to tell you that there is no such Catholic doctrine, that this "doctrine" only exists officially within the NO. The Bull of V1, Aeterni Patris (1869-1870), clearly defines the Church's infallibility, the NO "totality" doctrine is not in it - the "totality" doctrine, which doctrine is essential to the NO's collegiality farce, is eliminated by V1.

The only solemnly defined dogma there is on the subject of infallibility is found in Aeterni Patris and it clearly states that it is a revealed dogma that only the pope teaches infallibly - and even then, council or no council, he only teaches infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra. Period.  

As you know, unless condemning error(s), solemnly defined dogmas tell what is, not "what isn't". The reason the "totality doctrine" is not in V1 is because it is no doctrine, i.e., "it isn't".

The reason V1 never condemned the "totality doctrine" is because it never was a doctrine. Contrary to the idea that it is actually a very old belief, the whole false "doctrine" was non-existent until some time after V1. It in fact only came into existence after V1 and that's thanks to certain 19th / 20th century theologians whom personally, I believe are responsible for the initial promulgation of that error, which means that prior to V2, that "essential to the NO doctrine", was not even a century old. IOW, it is a new doctrine = it is a false doctrine and is proven to be certainly false by today's bishops themselves.

I spent a lot of time researching this "totality doctrine" and can say with confidence that it is only found it two places on earth, the NO and among the writings of some of the "well respected" 19th and 20th century theologians, prior to that it does not exist. I encourage you and whoever else disbelieves this to research it for themselves.

The crazy thing is, is that the people don't believe their own eyes when they see for themselves that by their actions since V2, it is the bishops themselves that overtly, blatantly and indisputably prove this doctrine to be entirely false, a lie, a total sham, same as the whole NO.




Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Centroamerica on March 23, 2018, 12:10:21 PM
The error of collegiality was when the bishops were removed as princes of their dioceses and submitted to a body of bishops which had control over their dioceses. Such as the USCCB. At least in practice, that was the result. It was a restructuring of the newchurch.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 23, 2018, 02:13:52 PM
:facepalm:

:laugh1:

St. Thomas Aquinas and Ladialaus and Cantarella --

DOGMA:  Formal Object of Faith
MAGISTERIUM:  Rule of Faith


Drew --
DOGMA:  Rule of Faith
MAGISTERIUM:  Churchmen Opining About Various Doctrinal Subjects


You're seriously asking why someone might quote dogma?  Because Dogma is that which is believed on the authority of the Church's teaching.

Where have I ever said that the "Magisterium is Churchmen Opining About Various Doctrinal Subjects"?  This is just another of your imaginative inventions to smear others.  Produce your evidence.  I can provide direct links to multiple CathInfo posts where I have explained what the word "Magisterium" means, its various equivocal usages and distinctions.  And several of these have been directed toward your repeatedly using the word "magisterium" equivocally and inappropriately.  These exchanges have gone on over years and still you repeat the same mistakes over, and over, and over again.  This theory of the Magisterium that you attribute to me is just another of your lies.  And, as it's always easier to vomit out a damnable lie it takes a lot more work to clean it up.  So for the benefit of others, let's clean it up.
 
The Magisterium is the "teaching authority" of the Church.  It is, like the Church itself, established by God and it is part of divine revelation.  So you first massive error is that claim that the Magisterium has not been revealed by God.  The Magisterium is grounded upon the attributes of Authority and Infallibility which God has endowed His Church and this is of divine revelation.  These attributes are attributes of God alone and only of the Church because the Church is a divine institution. The Magisterium always teaches with the Authority of God the Truth of God without the possibility of error.  We believe what the Magisteirum teaches because it is the Truth of God revealed by God.  When the pope who is in potentia to the attribute of Infallibility teaches by the Magisterium, he does not teach on his own authority but the Authority of God. Thus dogma is divine revelation formally defined by the Church which we are obligated to believe because it is a Truth revealed by God on the Authority of God. Thus, the definition of faith is believing what God has revealed on the authority of God.
 

Quote
If anyone says that divine faith is not to be distinguished from natural knowledge about God and moral matters, and consequently that for divine faith it is not required that revealed truth should be believed because of the authority of God who reveals it: let him be anathema
Vatican I

And again:
 

Quote
"This faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, the Catholic Church professes to be a supernatural virtue, by means of which, with the grace of God inspiring and assisting us, we believe to be true what He has revealed, not because we perceive its intrinsic truth by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God himself, who makes the revelation and can neither deceive nor be deceived."
Vatican I

This then is the Magisterium speaking saying that we believe not because Churchmen say so but because God has revealed it.  Here is a specific quotation from Vatican I on this very question:
 

Quote
These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she (the Church) subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church.
Vatican I

The objects of divine and Catholic faith are believed because they are "divinely revealed." Thus, divine revelation is always the rule of faith. The same thing is said about Dogma that, "it is divinely revealed.... being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author." Thus St. Pius X condemned the following proposition:
 

Quote
The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort. Condemned.
St. Pius X, Lamentabili

The objects of divine and Catholic Faith are "proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed" by her teaching authority.
 

Quote
Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.
Vatican I

In the previously provided quotation from the Fourth Council of Constantinople, the Church Fathers of the Council explicitly say in direct reference to the dogmatic canons that "we rule our own life and conduct by these canons." This is directly referenced by Vatican I Council saying:
 

Quote
"So the fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences."
Vatican I


The "rule of the true faith" is the dogmatic canons and the creedal profession of faith that contains these dogmas.
 
The word "dogma" and its cognates appears 48 times in the Pascendi, Lamentabili and the Oath Against Modernism by St. Pius X explaining and condemning the errors of Modernism which is understandable because this heresy has as its end the destruction of dogma. The heresy of neo-modernism destroys dogma as its end as well but does so indirectly treating dogma not as a revealed truth on the Authority of God but rather only on the authority of churchmen. Thus, they make dogma a matter of ecclesiastical faith as you, Ladislaus, regard it. Thus the magisterium of churchmen becomes the author of dogma and can change its meaning whenever it suits their purpose. Thus the magisterium of churchmen becomes your rule of faith.  It's just another way of saying the pope is your rule of faith because without the pope, there is no magisterium either of churchmen or Magisterium of God.  That is why you, Ladislaus, believe and have posted that the faithful must rely upon the magisterium of churchmen to interpret dogma.
 
But that cannot be done because, as St. Pius X says in the Oath Against Modernism where the "immutable truth preached by the apostles form the beginning" is called "dogma":

Quote
The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
Oath Against Modernism


Thus it should be clear to everyone why you constantly conflate the Magisterium of the Church grounded upon the attributes of Infallibility and Authority of God which He has endowed His Church with the magisterium of churchmen teaching by their grace of state.  In the end you corrupt dogma in its very nature which is a necessary prerequisite for preaching sedevacantism and sedeprivationism.
 
You corrupted the definition of supernatural faith splitting its two essential attributes. You corrupted the office of the papacy driving a wedge between its matter and form and thus subjecting what God has established to a substantial change thus destroying its nature.  You have denied that the Magisterium, that is, the teaching authority of the Church, is of divine revelation.  You claim that the Magisterium is based upon the Authority of God but God has not revealed it.  You have conflated the infallible Magiserium of the Church grounded upon the attributes of Infallibility and Authority with the magisterium of churchmen based upon their grace of state.  Dogma then becomes the revelation of churchmen and what churchmen reveal they can change, and then it follows, that for you Dogma cannot be the proximate rule of faith because it is entirely the revelation of churchmen and subject to their ever evolving insights.
 
You don't post to seek truth as an end.
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 23, 2018, 02:57:09 PM
Stumbling in darkness is thinking that a legitimate successor of St. Peter can lose the Faith and become a heretic, even though Christ purposely prayed for this not to happen; or that the current Vicar of Christ can lead souls to Hell, even though Christ expressly commanded Him to "feed His sheep".

Stumbling in darkness is thinking that you can be more Catholic than the "Pope". That the Pope you recognize as such has become an enemy of the Faith and therefore, you must severe communion from him, in order to keep the Faith.

This is real darkness right there for a Roman Catholic.

Tell me, if you think that the Pope of Rome can become a heretic, one after another one, for decades now, how is this not giving in to the accusations that the Protestants and Orthodox have made against us Catholics for centuries?.

It is evident that you hold the pope as your rule of faith. 
 
No one is denying that the conciliar popes are heretics.  You claim that cannot happen because "Christ purposely prayed for this not to happen."  You then believe that every pope possess a personal "never failing faith."  This is same nonsense passed around by conservative papolators and it is the reason they hold the pope as their rule of faith.
 
Not one Church Father held this opinion. Examine the commentaries on this Scripture passage from St. Thomas, Fr. George Haydock, and Fr. Cornelius a Lapide. Not one of them supports this claim.  Lapide in fact explicitly denies it saying that a personal never failing faith was given to St. Peter alone and not to his successors. Furthermore, the dogmatic decree on papal infallibility cites this Scriptural passage as evidence for the dogma but the dogma itself says nothing of the kind that you are suggesting.
 
It is evident that you hold the pope as your rule of faith when you say because he is an "enemy of the Faith and therefore, you must severe communion from him, in order to keep the Faith." If dogma were your rule of faith you would never say anything of the sort.  Was Jesus Christ tainted by the heresy of Caiaphas? Did He err when he directed his disciples to be subject to them but not to follow their example?  Were Catholics tainted by the heresy of Pope Honorius who was anathematized by more than one ecumenical council because he was not removed from his office?
 
"The accusations that the Protestants and Orthodox have made against us Catholics for centuries" is that we mindlessly make the pope our rule of faith rather than the divinely revealed Truths of Jesus Christ, that is, Dogma. Unfortunately for you, that is exactly what you are doing. Now you are a member of a church that has no pope and no material, efficient or instrumental causes to ever make one. You are in a church that is permanently lacking an essential attribute of the Church founded by Jesus Christ.  Whatever church you are in, it is not His and outside of His Church, there is no salvation.
 
Lastly, for your benefit, Fr. Jean Bainville, who wrote the entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia published in 1908 on the Living Magisterium and Tradition, is the same guy who wrote the book, Is There Salvation Outside the Catholic Church? In this book, still in print, Bainville drives a wedge between the Body and the Soul of the Church offering salvation to anyone united to the Soul of the Church alone. This included Protestants, Hindus, Moslems, Orthodox, etc.
 
What Bainville ecclesiology does is divine the Matter and the Form (Body and Soul) of the Church and ignored the fact that his theology destroyed the Church in its very nature because the separation of matter and form always causes a substantial change in the thing itself. 
 
Sedeprivationism does the same thing to the papal office.  Exactly the same thing.  If you persist in your error it will not be without "substantial" consequences. 
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on March 23, 2018, 03:45:13 PM
bzzzt.  But it is the CHURCH who tells us that God has revealed it.  Thus the meaning of St. Augustine's quote:  "I would not believe the Gospel myself if the authority of hte Catholic Church did not move me to do so."

Take your Protestantism elsewhere.
Protestantism?

Here's a quote from Drew, an excellent statement:

Quote
The Magisterium is the "teaching authority" of the Church.  It is, like the Church itself, established by God and it is part of divine revelation.  So you first massive error is that claim that the Magisterium has not been revealed by God.  The Magisterium is grounded upon the attributes of Authority and Infallibility which God has endowed His Church and this is of divine revelation.  These attributes are attributes of God alone and only of the Church because the Church is a divine institution. The Magisterium always teaches with the Authority of God the Truth of God without the possibility of error.  We believe what the Magisteirum teaches because it is the Truth of God revealed by God.  When the pope who is in potentia to the attribute of Infallibility teaches by the Magisterium, he does not teach on his own authority but the Authority of God. Thus dogma is divine revelation formally defined by the Church which we are obligated to believe because it is a Truth revealed by God on the Authority of God. Thus, the definition of faith is believing what God has revealed on the authority of God. 

God ordained the means and the ends; one of the means of His Revelation is the divinely instituted Magisterium, centered on the successors to Peter and the bishops in union with him. Drew professes this Catholic doctrine. 

How on earth is that Protestant?

As to non-infallible statements of the Magisterium, they must be subject to something? Do you, Ladislaus, simply believe whatever your bishop says, or whatever the pope says?  Do you believe and accept everything in the current Catechism? If not, why not . . . IT'S TEACHING OF THE MAGISTERIUM, YOUR RULE OF FAITH. 

And if you don't accept something in the Catechism, on what basis? Prior catechisms? That's just another "living magisterium" speaking. Why the old one, and not this one? 

By calling Drew a Protestant it seems you're saying either someone believes whatever the "living Magisterium" says to be without error or one's a Protestant. 

By that standard, I'd say you're a Protestant too. 

If you're not saying that, I repeat, again . . . how does one determine if the Magisterium is teaching something erroneous? How do you figure that JPII and his bishops were erroneous in the Catechism, particularly since you say the Magisterium can't be erroneous?

How could you claim any teaching in the current Catechism is erroneous with your inflated view of indefectibility without being a Sedevacantist

Again, I'm making an assumption that you don't believe everything in the current Catechism. 

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: obscurus on March 23, 2018, 04:02:21 PM
I will share a section from Van Noort's Christ's Church on the "rule of faith" shortly.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 23, 2018, 06:32:15 PM
This bull contradicts you in the very first paragraph:

Quote
Quote
The only-begotten Son of the Eternal Father, who came on earth to bring salvation and the light of divine wisdom to men, conferred a great and wonderful blessing on the world when, about to ascend again into heaven, He commanded the Apostles to go and teach all nations,(1) and left the Church which He had founded to be the common and supreme teacher of the peoples.

It is precisely this teaching Church (this is, the Magisterium) which Christ left, in order to be the common and supreme teacher of the peoples. The teaching Church is the Rule of Faith for all generations; contrary to what Mr. Drew says.

Cantarella,
You are contradicting your mentor, Ladislaus.  This quotation says that, "The only-begotten Son of the Eternal Father... left the Church which He had founded to be the common and supreme teacher of the peoples."

Ladislaus says:

Quote
"Drew, your fight is against St. Thomas and all Catholic theologians, not with me. I'm not even going to bother with your last post.  You can't seem to understand concepts as being formally distinct from one another.  You act stunned when I wrote that the Magisterium is not part of God's Revelation.  Magisterium is in fact formally distinct from Revelation." 
Ladislaus

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg600685/#msg600685)
« Reply #293 on: March 21, 2018, 08:17:44 AM »

Well, what is it going to be: the Magisterium is part of divine revelation or the Magisterium is not part of divine revelation.  Who has everything wrong, you or Ladisalus?

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 23, 2018, 08:22:58 PM
The same as you, because of the Catholic Principle of Non-Contradiction. It is only that the reason of why this may have happened is different.  

You cannot have it both ways, either and you also have no current Authority or Magisterium. The rule of Faith you are following are the dogmatic canons taught by the assemblies of Bishops in the past;but these differ from the disciplinary canons also promulgated in such Ecumenical Councils.

How do you make the difference between dogmatic canons and disciplinary canons (which are reversible) in past Councils? Doesn't make more Catholic sense to believe that everything which emanates from an Ecumenical Council is at least free from major error?

Do you have a concise list of the dogmatic canons that constitute your Rule of Faith, Mr. Drew?

As I said in an earlier post, no faithful Catholic is obligated to produce an answer for everything. Our job is not to solve the current crisis but to keep the Catholic faith whole and undefiled throughout the crisis. There are many areas of controversy in the current crisis where only time will sort out the proper answers.  Many are impatient for an immediate answer and thus choose a course that leads to the overturning of Catholic dogma. They leave a burning ship only to be swallowed up in the sea.
 
I do have a current Authority but, admittedly, that Authority is not generally followed.  But in cases where the ordinary and universal magisterium has been engaged, I have no problem with accepting the teaching of the magisterium, such as, John Paul II's teaching that ordination of women was absolutely prohibited by divine and apostolic tradition. 
  
Think of Authority as exercised by a father who becomes habitually drunk. He does not cease thereby to be the father, and even if drunk, if he makes a reasonable demand that is within the exercise of his duties and the obligation of his children, he must be obeyed.  But if the drunken state leads to unreasonable requests that are an abuse of his duties to his children and their obligations to him, he need not be obeyed.  Obedience even to a father is governed by the virtue of Religion.  No son can obey a father that commands him to offend God.  Notice, the Authority of the father remains irrespective of the sons obedience or just refusal to obey.
 
Dogmatic canons are in the category of Truth/Falsehood.  Disciplinary canons are in the category of Authority/Obedience. They are logically distinct in their linguistic structure.  The presumption of any authoritative teaching from the ordinary authentic magisterium must certainly be accepted with a presumption of being correct, however, if that is evidently not so, “we must obey God rather than man.”
  
As for a “list of dogmatic canons” that constitute my “rule of faith” For a long answer, I would give the same answer that was offered by the Fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople in the opening of the Council that I previously quoted to you beginning with all the traditionally accepted Creeds. But a short but adequate answer is this quote from Vatican I which said:

Quote
“Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition (remote rule of faith), and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium” (proximate rule of faith).
 
The Magisterium, either in its “solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium” is the means and dogma is the end.  Dogma answers the question: What is proposed?  It is this whatness of what is proposed that constitutes the proximate rule of faith.  That is why dogma is called “the formal object of divine and Catholic faith.”
  
And, before any objection is offered, the word “Universal” necessarily contains the attribute of time as an essential property.  If time is not a consideration, the thing itself cannot be a universal. This is by definition.
 
Drew 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 23, 2018, 08:35:26 PM
Again, you distort her position in order to attack it.  Straw man.  St. Robert Bellarmine, first of all, held it as a "pious opinion" that the Pope could not even personally fall into heresy.  St. Robert Bellarmine himself considered this probable.  So now you attack a Doctor of the Church as a "papolator".  In fact, you implicitly attack every Catholic theologian of "papolatry".  "Papolatry", ironically, is the common Protestant attack against the Church.

What Cantarella says is that the Pope as Pope, in his office of teaching the Church, cannot fall into heresy ... i.e., that he can never teach heresy to the Universal Church (assuming that he's a legitimate pope).

If a pope "could not even personally fall into heresy" then how did you loose yours?  Sedevacantism and sedeprivationism become theoretically absurd and practically impossible from your own argument.

Pope Honorius was declared a heretic and anathematized by the Magisterium of the Church.  Nothing ever said about loosing his office.  The grounds for this Magisterial decision was his failure to keep the rule of faith, i.e.: dogma, he was called a heretic.

The only sure "straw man" around here is you.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 23, 2018, 08:59:53 PM
Oh, come on now.  Yes, the existence of the Magisterium was revealed.  That's not what we're talking about.

When I say that the Magisterium is not part of Revelation, I'm simply reiterating the teaching of Vatican I regarding the distinction between Revelation and Magisterium.  Magisterium is not part of Revelation; it's a distinct thing.  It's the Church explaining and defining Revelation.  It's formally distinct.

You said, not once, but in several posts that the Magisterium was not part of divine revelation. You claimed that it was from the Authority of God but not revealed by God.  You patted yourself on the back for your clever ability to make distinctions.  You did this to support your stupid argument to justify your driving a wedge between the two necessary attributes that define supernatural faith.  You overturned the definition of supernatural faith and then proposed that "the Magisterium was not of divine revelation" so that you could claim that the Magisterium was "extrinsic" to the faith.

Furthermore, Vatican I never said what you are here claiming that "the Magisterium is not part of Revelation" to qualify a distinction between "Revelation and Magisterium."

You are a damn liar. I cannot imagine what you could possible do to make living. You are incompetent, careless, shameless and  remarkably immature.  You have demonstrated time and again a cowardly petty shallowness of character. This entire forum would benefit from your absence. Lacking that, Matthew could establish a "Ladislaus" sub-forum under the general heading of a "Greater Depression" where you could read and reply to your own posts.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on March 23, 2018, 10:02:21 PM

Textbook.  You appeal to dogma over and above the Magisterium, except what you're actually doing is preferring your own private interpretation of dogma to that of the Church.
You don't answer questions so if I repeat myself below it's unfortunately a necessity under the circumstances. Or maybe some different questions will get a response.

Do you believe there is error in the current Catechism, which is certainly Magisterial teaching under Pope John Paul II? If so, why don't you declare yourself a Sedevacantist? That would be the only possible conclusion faced with a Magisterium propounding erroneous teaching on the faith to the universal Church, since the Magisterium cannot teach error according to you. 

Your position seems to agree with that of Cardinals Marchetti-Selvaggiani and Ottaviani that dogmas "must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church." (Suprema Haec). 

How has the "teaching authority of the Church" interpreted Trent and the "necessity" of water baptism? You are aware of the Roman Catechism, the Catechism of Trent, right? You are aware of the "unanimous" teaching of the theologians, St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, etc., supporting BOD, expressed with nary a whisper of objection from the Magisterium?

Do you accept the dogma re the necessity of baptism "in the sense in which the Church herself understands it"?

Or are you a "Protestant" opposing your own interpretation of the dogma against the indefectible Magisterium that is your "rule of faith"?


Quote
Matthew 7

[1] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=7&l=1-#x) Judge not, that you may not be judged, [2] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=7&l=2-#x) For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. [3] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=7&l=3-#x) And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? [4] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=7&l=4-#x) Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye? [5] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=7&l=5-#x) Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.


http://www.drbo.org/chapter/47007.htm
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 24, 2018, 05:19:55 AM
This bull contradicts you in the very first paragraph:

Quote
The only-begotten Son of the Eternal Father, who came on earth to bring salvation and the light of divine wisdom to men, conferred a great and wonderful blessing on the world when, about to ascend again into heaven, He commanded the Apostles to go and teach all nations,(1) and left the Church which He had founded to be the common and supreme teacher of the peoples.
It is precisely this teaching Church (this is, the Magisterium) which Christ left, in order to be the common and supreme teacher of the peoples. The teaching Church is the Rule of Faith for all generations; contrary to what Mr. Drew says.

By the way, this bull also refers to the ecumenical councils as the "flowers of ALL earthly wisdom".
Your above quote from Pope Leo XIII does not agree whatsoever with your echoing of V2's LG.

Yes, certainly the Church is the supreme teacher because the Church is Christ, it is Christ's mystical body which He established on earth in order to teach us how to get to heaven. He left us His Mystical Body, which IS the Church. The Church is most assuredly the supreme teacher.

Catholics, being members of the Church, are members of Christ's mystical Body, the Church. Christ and the Church are one. They are one and the same, which is the reason why the Church He left us can never err and will last till the end of time - because the Church is Christ.

Heaven and earth will pass away, but it is His Words that will last forever. When you read dogma, you read His Words. His words are contained the Solemn Magisterium as well as in both the Ordinary Magisterium and the Universal Magisterium. This is the teaching of V1.  

OTOH, the NO church is a church where all the bishops of the world in union with pope, gather in council, or are dispersed throughout the world teach whatever they want - and on that account alone whatever they teach is binding and infallible. This is the NO church. This is a NO doctrine and does not agree with Pope Leo's or any other Church teaching.



Quote
Stubborn, how do you distinguish an infallible teaching?
"Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed, 1) which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and 2) which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium." - Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council

Truth is "the matter", the way we learn this truth is via "the method". We Catholics are bound to truth, it is the truth that binds us. It is therefore the matter that binds us, not the method. It is therefore "the matter" which is our rule of faith, not "the method".  

OTOH, within the NO church, it is the method that binds them, not the matter. The NO matter ever changing and is therefore impossible to bind oneself too. This is why within the NO, they are bound to the method, not the matter, i.e. they are bound to teachings of their popes and bishops which are lies, on that account they cannot be bound to truth. They are bound to the method, not the matter.



Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on March 24, 2018, 06:42:52 AM

. . . . they are bound to teachings of their popes and bishops which are lies, on that account they cannot be bound to truth. They are bound to the method, not the matter.
This is what happens when the priest/bishop "theologians" prophesy the lie of their "immunity" from error in their teaching ALWAYS and whenever they open their mouths, and the people swallow it.

It results in the contradictions of Ladislaus at best (the Magisterium is indefectibile and without error in its teaching, except when that teaching is BOD, or a new rite of Mass, or whatever) and the apostasy of the NO church in masses at worst.


Quote
Jeremiah 5

[11] For the house of Israel, and the house of Juda have greatly transgressed against me, saith the Lord. [12] They have denied the Lord, and said, It is not he: and the evil shall not come upon us: we shall not see the sword and famine. [13] The prophets have spoken in the wind, and there was no word of God in them: these things therefore shall befall them . . .

[26] For among my people are found wicked men, that lie in wait as fowlers, setting snares and traps to catch men. [27] As a net is full of birds, so their houses are full of deceit: therefore are they become great and enriched. [28] They are grown gross and fat: and have most wickedly transgressed my words. They have not judged the cause of the widow, they have not managed the cause of the fatherless, they have not judged the judgement of the poor. [29] Shall I not visit for these things, saith the Lord? or shall not my soul take revenge on such a nation? [30] Astonishing and wonderful things have been done in the land.

[31] The prophets prophesied falsehood, and the priests clapped their hands: and my people loved such things: what then shall be done in the end thereof?

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/28005.htm
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: obscurus on March 24, 2018, 08:11:19 AM
So we look at the Novus Ordo "Magisterium" and the "Popes" and see what has been promoted and taught since (what year?) and according to the traditional teaching it contradicts the very essence of the Church: Therefore, it cannot be the Magisterium; these men CANNOT be Popes; therefore the Church stopped teaching to the faithful in the here and now since (what year?). 

However, it was divinely provided that one theologian in Fr Guerard des Lauriers came up with a solution -- the only solution -- to the thorny problem of the Crisis. It was developed in the mid to late 70s. One must hold to his solution unless one is deemed a heretic. Archbishop Lefebvre promoted heresy in following the course of action he chose. Shame on him for not understanding the brilliance of Fr des Lauriers. 

All we can do is wait for divine intervention in completely overhauling of these usurpers of authority. The new hierarchy must then be reconsecrated or ordained in the Traditional Rite and then go from there. Or God will intervene directly and straighten things out. 

Obviously the above is all tongue and cheek and is not meant to be a theological response. I find it difficult to believe that Archbishop Lefebvre's approach was somehow heretical or at least nearing it. 

(Someone posted excerpts from Van Noort's Christ's Church already)

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 24, 2018, 09:22:57 AM
This is what happens when the priest/bishop "theologians" prophesy the lie of their "immunity" from error in their teaching ALWAYS and whenever they open their mouths, and the people swallow it.

It results in the contradictions of Ladislaus at best (the Magisterium is indefectibile and without error in its teaching, except when that teaching is BOD, or a new rite of Mass, or whatever) and the apostasy of the NO church in masses at worst.
Yes, being bound to the method, which can be evil, instead of being bound to the matter, which forever can be only truth, has resulted in the crisis we are in.

We MUST be bound to the truth - THAT is our rule of faith. Dogma, as V1 states, is contained in the Magisterium, can only ever be truth itself - Dogma is our rule of faith.

As these last 60 years indisputably prove, to consistently confuse the Magisterium with the hierarchy, or with the pope, or with whatever the pope / members of the hierarchy teach is binding, then take that confused idea and make that the rule of faith, has resulted in an entirely different and diabolical church - it resulted in the church of the Novus Ordo.

 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 24, 2018, 11:36:18 AM


Ladilaus,

"Protestant" Drew, now 67, has been a traditional Catholic since age 22. Today, he has all 6 daughters married in the traditional Rite to solid Catholics and all 39 grandchildren (as of now) growing up in Tradition and all home schooled. I hope you can do as well.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: ConfederateCatholic on March 24, 2018, 12:55:10 PM
(Someone posted excerpts from Van Noort's Christ's Church already)
Translation:
"Someone posted excerpts from Van Noort's Christ's Church already, and I looked it up in order to attempt a rebuttal, but was unable to do so, and realized I was mistaken."
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: obscurus on March 24, 2018, 01:26:27 PM
Translation:
"Someone posted excerpts from Van Noort's Christ's Church already, and I looked it up in order to attempt a rebuttal, but was unable to do so, and realized I was mistaken."
Never knew you had the gift of reading souls. Must be a wonderful gift to have. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 24, 2018, 01:45:12 PM
Lasialaus,

Please accept my apology for the last post.  My insulting comments were out of line.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on March 24, 2018, 06:45:14 PM
Church has never taught or defined BoD.

And the new Mass and NO teaching do not come from the Magisterium, but from a bunch of usurpers masquerading as the hierachy.  That's precisely the point of sedeprivationism (as articulated by Father Ringrose and Father Chazal in in particular).
The Magisterium teaches BOD in the Catechism of Trent. You simply say it's not to keep your idea of the indefectibility of the "teaching" Magisterium intact. The Magisterium is indeed teaching in the Catechism; that's the purpose of a catechism.

A "potential" pope is not a pope, but may be a pope someday. Your sedeprivationist pope is as "much" of a pope as I am a millionaire. I'm broke, and you're a Sedevacantist. And so are Father Ringrose and Father Chazal apparently.  

Your sedevacantism - in light of your belief in the "indefectibility" of the "teaching" Magisterium - goes back to at least St. Pius V (when the Church issued the Catechism of Trent with its profession of BOD).

Sorry. But if you had cancer and I knew you'd want me to tell you.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: ConfederateCatholic on March 24, 2018, 10:50:57 PM
Never knew you had the gift of reading souls. Must be a wonderful gift to have.
Res ipsa loquitur.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: ConfederateCatholic on March 24, 2018, 10:58:09 PM
(Someone posted excerpts from Van Noort's Christ's Church already)

Ha this is it.
 The proximate rule of faith is . . . 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 25, 2018, 04:35:07 AM
G. Van Noort 1861-1946

He is simply another one of the "well respected" 19th / 20th century theologians whose theological opinions or speculations, taken as if they are the official, infallible teachings of the Church, are what helped get us in this mess.

Notice that today, even with access to mountains of more information right at your fingers then back in the 60s, how easily fooled you and the sedes are.

Keep trying.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on March 25, 2018, 04:41:23 AM
The good news is that Ladislaus, Mr. Drew, Stubborn, Trad123, Maria Auxiliadora and me, we all are in definite agreement that BOD was never taught by the infallible Magisterium of the Church; let alone this Judaic novelty of "salvation by implicit desire".

:cheers:
Cantarella (and Laudislaus),

I agree; neither do I. However, the Catechism of Trent is the Magisterium teaching. And Laudislaus certainly believes that the "teaching" is in error. 

We are talking about indefectibility and the Magisterium's freedom from error in teaching the faithful. If BOD is error than indefectibility is lost according to those terms. This "rule of faith" is apparently a bad rule and fails, not providing the faith, and teaching error regarding it. 

Please follow the discussion.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 25, 2018, 04:47:45 AM
^^^^^Well said.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on March 25, 2018, 10:18:26 AM
Since when is a Catechism the Magisterium. It's a book and not infallible.
It appears you have not been following the discussion. 

If Ladislaus defines the Magisterium as "the Church teaching infallibly," we would not be having this discussion. If he defines it that way, he can tell us. 

Let us hear him say the indefectible Magisterium that teaches without error is limited to the Church teaching infallibly, i.e. when she is teaching, either through a solemn channel or through her ordinary magisterium, that something is of the divine faith. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on March 25, 2018, 01:07:27 PM

I'm not sure I understand any of this. I haven't been following closely but your post is hard for me to follow. Not an insult BTW. Please rephrase if you want me to respond. If not, let me just leave these quotes.
I can't really rephrase since I don't understand your confusion.

Btw, what do you believe the popes meant by "Magisterium" in those quotes?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 25, 2018, 04:54:05 PM
Did these dogmas fall from Heaven straight to your intellect via private revelation, Mr. Drew? If you scratch the word "dogma" and replace it with "Scripture" that is exactly what the Protestants allege against us. There is a reason why they call us "papist". As said before, the dogmatic canons are such because the Magisterium of the Church taught it so in the past, via the highest organs of infallibility such an Ecumenical Council ratified by a Pope.

Cantarella,
 
The denial that dogmas are "truths fallen from heaven" is a condemned proposition of the Moderenists from Lamentabili.
 
Quote
The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort. Condemned St. Pius X, Lamentabili, 22

When you exchange the word "dogma" for "scripture," you are replacing the proximate rule of faith for the remote rule of faith which changes the meaning of the post.
 
Acceptance of the proximate rule of faith necessarily presupposes acceptance of the Magisterium (the "teaching authority") and the papal office which alone can engage the teaching authority which is grounded upon the powers of Infallibility and Authority which Jesus Christ endowed His Church through which dogmas come.  The papal office is the necessary but insufficient means to define doctrine as dogma. It is the material and efficient cause of dogma.  Dogmas are the formal objects of divine and Catholic faith, they are "truths fallen from heaven, and as such, are divine revelation that constitute the proximate rule of faith.  The Magisterium is the means used by God brings these truths to His faithful, not "private revelation."
 
In addition to rejection of the Magisterium, Protestants also reject Tradition as a source of divine revelation.
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 25, 2018, 05:00:22 PM
It is precisely this teaching Church (this is, the Magisterium) which Christ left, in order to be the common and supreme teacher of the peoples. The teaching Church is the Rule of Faith for all generations; contrary to what Mr. Drew says.

By the way, this bull also refers to the ecumenical councils as the "flowers of ALL earthly wisdom".

Your above quote from Pope Leo XIII does not agree whatsoever with your echoing of V2's LG.

Yes, certainly the Church is the supreme teacher because the Church is Christ, it is Christ's mystical body which He established on earth in order to teach us how to get to heaven. He left us His Mystical Body, which IS the Church. The Church is most assuredly the supreme teacher.

Catholics, being members of the Church, are members of Christ's mystical Body, the Church. Christ and the Church are one. They are one and the same, which is the reason why the Church He left us can never err and will last till the end of time - because the Church is Christ.

Heaven and earth will pass away, but it is His Words that will last forever. When you read dogma, you read His Words. His words are contained the Solemn Magisterium as well as in both the Ordinary Magisterium and the Universal Magisterium. This is the teaching of V1.  

OTOH, the NO church is a church where all the bishops of the world in union with pope, gather in council, or are dispersed throughout the world teach whatever they want - and on that account alone whatever they teach is binding and infallible. This is the NO church. This is a NO doctrine and does not agree with Pope Leo's or any other Church teaching.


"Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed, 1) which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and 2) which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium." - Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council

Truth is "the matter", the way we learn this truth is via "the method". We Catholics are bound to truth, it is the truth that binds us. It is therefore the matter that binds us, not the method. It is therefore "the matter" which is our rule of faith, not "the method".  

OTOH, within the NO church, it is the method that binds them, not the matter. The NO matter ever changing and is therefore impossible to bind oneself too. This is why within the NO, they are bound to the method, not the matter, i.e. they are bound to teachings of their popes and bishops which are lies, on that account they cannot be bound to truth. They are bound to the method, not the matter.

Stubborn,

I think this is an excellent post worth giving serious reflection.  Clearly and simply explained.

Vatican II has corrupted the meaning of the word "universal" magisterium by making it a purely material object divorced from the attribute of time.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 25, 2018, 05:10:00 PM
Mr. Drew: the Vicar of Christ on earth is not a mere "churchman". The following is the Scriptural annotation I have in my Bible on Luke 22, 32, in which is taught that Popes may err personally; but not judicially or definitely. The dogmatic definition on Pastor Aeternum about Papal Infallibility is based upon such verse. This was true for St. Peter as well as for all his legitimate successors:


I have studied this matter. The evidence for the improbability of the Pope ever falling into personal heresy, (let alone teaching it via an Ecumenical Council); heavily outweighs the evidence otherwise. "For it was of congruity and Christ's special appointment, that he upon whom he intended to found his new Church, and whose Faith He would make infallible...". It is common knowledge that this argument of Pope Honorius has been repeatedly made against the Catholic claims of Papal infallibility for many centuries, but why should I take side with the Protestants, Orthodox, the SSPX and the likes of Salza & Siscoe on this matter?

Cantarella,

I have no disagreement with the quote you have provided.  The "never failing faith" means that the successors of St. Peter can never formally engage the Magisterium grounded upon the attributes of Infallibility and Authority to bind errors of faith and/or morals on the faithful.

Regarding Pope Honorius, it is a fact that he was declared a heretic and anathematized by more two ecumenical councils about 200 years apart. It is unfortunate that others have tried to excuse this fact or mitigate its implications because, if these two ecumenical councils erred than the consequences are far worse than the problem of Honorius. Still, it is worth emphasizing that never was the question ever considered that Pope Honorius lost his office because of heresy.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 25, 2018, 05:35:22 PM
No, my Rule of Faith is the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church in its highest manifestation of Infallibility. Namely, Ecumenical Councils and dogmatic ex-cathedra statements by the successors of St. Peter.

Because we know that the Church cannot contradict Herself; and to all appearances, there is a contradiction in Vatican II Council from previous Magisterial Teaching; then that it may be an indication that a true successor of St. Peter did not promulgated it. It could be an explanation for the consequent and successive chain of evils, following the Council as well.  

I can look for Truth with confidence in ex-cathedra statements by the Popes and Ecumenical Councils up until Vatican II where there was a contradiction in a setting of a General Council, and an evident swift of the Magisterium as to make the Roman Catholic Church practically unrecognizable.  

That is all.

Cantarella,

I have no disagreement with what you have said. The Magisterium is the means and its end is the "highest manifestation of Infallibility. Namely, Ecumenical Councils and dogmatic ex-cathedra statements by the successors of St. Peter."  It is this end to which we look for what we are to believe as formal objects of divine and Catholic faith. They are the whatness of our faith and consequently constitute the proximate rule of our faith.

I have no disagreement that Vatican II contradicts "previous Magisterial teaching," that is, the magisterium of Vatican II contradicts the proximate rule of faith, Dogma. But the magisterium of Vatican II formally refused to engage the Magisterial power of the Church grounded upon its attributes of Infallibility and Authority.  It therefore has no more authority than churchmen teaching by their grace of state.  And, as important as this is, when this teaching by their grace of state contradicts Dogma, the proximate rule of faith, it must be rejected, when, as you said, we can "look for Truth with confidence in ex-cathedra statements by the Popes and Ecumenical Councils up until Vatican II," that is, we can look to dogma. We reject it because "we ought to obey God rather than men."

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 25, 2018, 10:33:36 PM
Cantarella,
 
The denial that dogmas are "truths fallen from heaven" is a condemned proposition of the Moderenists from Lamentabili.
 
When you exchange the word "dogma" for "scripture," you are replacing the proximate rule of faith for the remote rule of faith which changes the meaning of the post.
 
Acceptance of the proximate rule of faith necessarily presupposes acceptance of the Magisterium (the "teaching authority") and the papal office which alone can engage the teaching authority which is grounded upon the powers of Infallibility and Authority which Jesus Christ endowed His Church through which dogmas come.  The papal office is the necessary but insufficient means to define doctrine as dogma. It is the material and efficient cause of dogma.  Dogmas are the formal objects of divine and Catholic faith, they are "truths fallen from heaven, and as such, are divine revelation that constitute the proximate rule of faith.  The Magisterium is the means used by God brings these truths to His faithful, not "private revelation."
 
In addition to rejection of the Magisterium, Protestants also reject Tradition as a source of divine revelation.
 
Drew
This post was addressed to Cantarella. Reply # 399
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 25, 2018, 10:35:15 PM
Cantarella,

I have no disagreement with the quote you have provided.  The "never failing faith" means that the successors of St. Peter can never formally engage the Magisterium grounded upon the attributes of Infallibility and Authority to bind errors of faith and/or morals on the faithful.

Regarding Pope Honorius, it is a fact that he was declared a heretic and anathematized by more two ecumenical councils about 200 years apart. It is unfortunate that others have tried to excuse this fact or mitigate its implications because, if these two ecumenical councils erred than the consequences are far worse than the problem of Honorius. Still, it is worth emphasizing that never was the question ever considered that Pope Honorius lost his office because of heresy.

Drew
This was also addressed to Cantarella. Reply # 401
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 25, 2018, 10:38:38 PM
Cantarella,

I have no disagreement with what you have said. The Magisterium is the means and its end is the "highest manifestation of Infallibility. Namely, Ecumenical Councils and dogmatic ex-cathedra statements by the successors of St. Peter."  It is this end to which we look for what we are to believe as formal objects of divine and Catholic faith. They are the whatness of our faith and consequently constitute the proximate rule of our faith.

I have no disagreement that Vatican II contradicts "previous Magisterial teaching," that is, the magisterium of Vatican II contradicts the proximate rule of faith, Dogma. But the magisterium of Vatican II formally refused to engage the Magisterial power of the Church grounded upon its attributes of Infallibility and Authority.  It therefore has no more authority than churchmen teaching by their grace of state.  And, as important as this is, when this teaching by their grace of state contradicts Dogma, the proximate rule of faith, it must be rejected, when, as you said, we can "look for Truth with confidence in ex-cathedra statements by the Popes and Ecumenical Councils up until Vatican II," that is, we can look to dogma. We reject it because "we ought to obey God rather than men."

Drew
And this was also addressed to Cantarella. Reply #402
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 25, 2018, 10:54:30 PM
Quote
But other than that, what's the difference between JP2 issuing an Encyclical and Karol Woytla writing a book about Theology of the Body?
All papal teachings are to be given 'religious assent' which is a cautious acceptance.  JP2's encyclicals were not authoritative, in the sense that he did not solemnly engage his infallibility.  Therefore, they are in the realm of the ordinary, fallible magisterium, as teachings from his PERSONAL BISHOP's office as a theologian, historian, etc.  

The ordinary magisterium CAN BE infallible, but it must follow (in a general sense) the same guidelines as the solemn requirements of infallibility.  In other words, the pope must still 1) make it known he is teaching from his apostolic chair, 2) on a matter of faith and morals, 3) on a matter than must be believed by all the faithful.

In 1989 the 'congregation for the doctrine of the faith' explained about the ordinary magisterium:
 “one can point in general to teachings set forth by the authentic ordinary magisterium in a non definitive way which require degrees of adherence differentiated according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine or by the tenor of the verbal expression.”

If we can trust the churchmen of 1989 to explain such a matter, then their view means that the ordinary magisterium's teachings are reflected in the 1)nature of the statement, 2) the repetition of the doctrine (i.e. does it agree with "what has always been taught") and 3) the tenor (i.e. authority) of the words.  These 3 things line up with the 3 requirements as outlined in V1, it's just that the ordinary magisterium can teach a truth in a long winded manner, as opposed to the SOLEMN magisterium, which issues a truth in a single/few sentences.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 26, 2018, 05:25:47 AM
EVERY Catholic theologian teaches that the Magisterium is the proximate rule of faith.

I love if how Stubborn dismisses with a wave of his hand any 19th/20th century theologian (who doesn't agree with him).
Actually Lad, the point here is that you are the one who believes this (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg601323/#msg601323) opinion from Van Noort, which is shared with some other 19th/20th century theologians, to be dogma. This "dogma's" validity wholly depends upon on the "totality of bishops doctrine", which was never a teaching of the Church, you will not find this "totality doctrine" in any Church teaching. The only place you WILL find it officially taught, is in the teachings of V2 as I already posted. It is a teaching, nay a dogma of the NO that you are attempting to defend.  

It most certainly is not a teaching of "EVERY Catholic theologian", only *some* 19/20th century theologians -  and it most certainly has never been a teaching of the Church. You will never prove it is a teaching of the Church. If you take the time to actually research it, you'll discover that you can only prove that this "doctrine" is strictly confined to two main sources - 1) certain "well respected" 19/20th century theologians and 2) the Conciliar church. That's it.

The tip off that it is heresy, is that it rejects time. It abhors time. Time is it's enemy - more properly stated, the universality of tradition is this "doctrine's" avowed enemy.

What I mean is that because whatever all the bishops in union with the pope (your "magisterium") teach is infallible, then you are bound to blindly follow whatever they teach and whenever they teach it, *without any regard whatsoever* to scripture and tradition, solemnly defined dogmas and all other truths contained in the Church's magisterium - unless the current "magisterium" explicitly permits it.

That is simple reality which even you have zero faith in - because if you had any faith in it whatsoever, you would be a NOer.





Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 26, 2018, 06:12:04 AM
Stubborn,

I think this is an excellent post worth giving serious reflection.  Clearly and simply explained.

Vatican II has corrupted the meaning of the word "universal" magisterium by making it a purely material object divorced from the attribute of time.

Drew
Exactly.
I attempted to explain my thoughts on it being divorced from time in my last post.

This exemption from the attribute of time is what proves that the whole "totality of bishop doctrine" is flat out heresy. I'm of the opinion that is remotely probable, or at least possible that even the conciliar popes and bishops actually believe that this heresy is indeed a dogma - because they've demonstrate as much since V2.

The sede's, albeit confusedly, also believe this heresy is a dogma - it's far and away the most necessary fuel for their sedeism.

The NOers certainly believe it's a dogma because it most certainly is the main reason so many Catholics abandoned the true faith for the new faith in the first place back in the 60s. Without convincing the masses that this heresy is dogma, I'm of the opinion that there's no way would the Church's enemies could have enjoyed such a success.

Most trads kinda, sorta think that they believe it's a dogma maybe. Most simply accept that they do not fully understand it, that it's above their pay grade to actually understand it. These take the safest road and strive to simply persevere in the faith, avoid the NO and do what they need to do to save their souls.  

The truth is, the roots of this "totality of bishops / magisterium doctrine" only go back as far as the late 1800s. It was never something the Church taught, not ever. Far as I can find, it was never even considered at all, not until some time just after V1. Far as I can find, the whole thing is the product of a few theologians' opinions from those days that people of the last 100 years or so have taken to be an official teaching of the Church.  
 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on March 26, 2018, 07:12:15 AM
The Teaching office of the Church. This must have the Pope included and it must be clear that the teaching has been divinely revealed. Since Peter and his successors were the only ones promised an unfailing faith, Catechisms, Theologians, non-Pope saints, Bishops not in union with the Pope are all examples of not the Magisterium.
The Solemn Magisterium is the Ex Cathedra statements as outlined by the Vatican Council. The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is the teachings that are not set in that manner but nevertheless teach something divinely revealed. Usually a reiteration of a solemn declaration.
There are no teachings of the Magisterium that are erroneous or fallible. If a teaching is opposed to an Infallible Teaching, it is not of the Magisterium.
That is a decent definition. Thanks. I agree with it. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Centroamerica on March 26, 2018, 07:28:51 AM
There were many Church Councils that the pope was not even present. Some even called by the Emperors. I’m not sure, but the pope may have sent his delegate to those that he was not present. Fr. Hesse goes into the history of church councils and talks about the many church councils were the pope did not come. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on March 26, 2018, 07:30:56 AM
Quote from: Jeremiah2v8 on Yesterday at 10:18:26 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg601346/#msg601346)
Quote
If Ladislaus defines the Magisterium as "the Church teaching infallibly," we would not be having this discussion. If he defines it that way, he can tell us.

Nonsense.  This discussion hasn't been about infallibility ... but about whether the Magisterium is the Rule of Faith, or dogma is (as Drew has been asserting).

I have repeatedly stated that, if you want to argue about the limits of infallibility, that's a separate issue that can be disputed among Catholic (to a point).  But to go around saying that Catholics can appeal to dogma over the Magisterium because Dogma is in fact the proximate rule of faith ... that's Protestantism.
That is not what you "say," perhaps, but it is what you do (e.g., BOD).

I keep pressing you on the definition of "Magisterium teaching," which you say is "indefectible" and "free from error."

It seems to me - again, this is why I keep pressing you for definitions - that your view of the "Magisterium teaching" would include the Roman Catechism, which teaches BOD, which you reject as an erroneous teaching.

There is no catechism more authoritative than the Catechism of Trent, which is a universal catechism issued under the authority of St. Pius V and whose authority was ratified by subsequent popes. The whole purpose of a catechism is "teaching" the faith. If it is issued by the Church, it would within any common sense of terms be the Church, or Magisterium, "teaching" regarding the faith.

It seems the purpose and upshot of your "the rule of faith is the Magisterium" is that it explains or interprets and delivers the faith to us. If you are limiting the "Magisterium teaching" to infallible statements then your position is not any different from Drew's and just semantics. You reject BOD on the basis of infallible teachings, and thereby hold the Magisterium's feet to God's revealed truth (including what the Magisterium itself has indicated as "revealed" truth), as Drew does.

Again, it appears to me that you "say" that the Magisterium is your rule but do otherwise: you reject what appears to be the Magisterium teaching in the Roman Catechism in BOD on the basis of "an appeal to dogma" - or perhaps you claim the Magisterium is not teaching in the Roman Catechism.

I'm trying to understand your position, which seems inconsistent.

How do you define the "Magisterium teaching"?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 26, 2018, 07:44:23 AM
Sorry for the repost, but the picture isn't visible when not logged in.  Here's the text from Van Noort:

The proximate rule of faith, from which the faithful, one and all, are bound to accept their faith and in accordance with which they are to regulate it, is the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium. The following assertions concern the proximate rule of faith.
1.  The Church's preaching was established by Christ Himself on the rule of faith.  This can be proved from Matthew 28:19-20 and Mark 16:15-16; the command to teach all nations certainly implies a corresponding duty on the part of the nations to believe whatever the apostles and their successors teach. 

If this is an official teaching of the Church - that is, if this is indeed the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium, then we are all bound to be NOers.

Thankfully this is not the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium, what it is, is the opinion of a theologian shared by some other theologians and is also a doctrine of the Conciliar church.

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 26, 2018, 08:01:50 AM
There were many Church Councils that the pope was not even present. Some even called by the Emperors. I’m not sure, but the pope may have sent his delegate to those that he was not present. Fr. Hesse goes into the history of church councils and talks about the many church councils were the pope did not come.
In the last few months, I've listened to a handful of Fr. Hesse's sermons and if I recall correctly, didn't Fr. say that the popes did not call those councils, but they did end up going to them?  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Centroamerica on March 26, 2018, 09:10:54 AM
In the last few months, I've listened to a handful of Fr. Hesse's sermons and if I recall correctly, didn't Fr. say that the popes did not call those councils, but they did end up going to them?  
He mentions several that the pope did not even go to. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Centroamerica on March 26, 2018, 09:20:17 AM
In the last few months, I've listened to a handful of Fr. Hesse's sermons and if I recall correctly, didn't Fr. say that the popes did not call those councils, but they did end up going to them?  
Start at minute 4:50 and you will see that there have been Councils called by Emperors where the Pope was not even present and te Councils were only approved as true Church Coincils centuries later. 
https://youtu.be/xnEQIq4_AKI (https://youtu.be/xnEQIq4_AKI)
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 26, 2018, 10:53:05 AM
Start at minute 4:50 and you will see that there have been Councils called by Emperors where the Pope was not even present and te Councils were only approved as true Church Coincils centuries later.
https://youtu.be/xnEQIq4_AKI (https://youtu.be/xnEQIq4_AKI)
Thanks! I see Fr. was correcting another one of the 20th century theologian's teachings, Ludwig Ott's, for his teaching that "the very fact that a pope calls a Council, makes it a Council."
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 26, 2018, 10:54:11 AM
Quote
I just don't recognize this concept of Catholicism, that everything is a theological free-for-all except for a small amount of core dogma.
Ladislaus, can you give me examples of a theological "free-for-all" that you speak of?  What do you mean by 'small amount of core dogma'?  Your comment presumes that there will be NEW dogma sometime in the future.  How can that be possible, when ALL dogma is contained in scripture/tradition?

Quote
                       CATHOLICS MUST ASSENT TO MAGISTERIUM  ||  CATHOLICS ARE FREE TO DISREGARD MAGISTERIUM

NOVUS ORDO GOOD   ||                          NO Conservaties                                                   NO Liberals

NOVUS ORDO BAD      ||                               SV/SP                                                                 R&R
Also, for the 100th time, you simplify the magisterium and fail to distinguish between the infallible and fallible.  What non-sede, non-novus ordo catholics reject is the FALLIBLE magisterium, which we are allowed to do, when the FALLIBLE magisterium DIRECTLY contradicts a previous SOLEMN definition by a previous magisterium.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 26, 2018, 11:00:44 AM
Yeah, either that or at least entertain positive doubts about the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants.
No, you are either bound by the (your) magisterium to be a NOer, or you do not have an ounce of faith in the very thing you've been promoting the Church infallibly teaches.

If the "totality of bishops doctrine" is true, then rejecting every previous teaching which contradicts current teaching is binding because that is the current teaching of the "totality of bishops". You yourself do not believe this, which is to say, you do not believe the very doctrine you constantly promote as Church teaching because if you did actually believe it, you would be at least in error for not believing the conciliar church is Catholic - on top of there being no reason whatsoever to entertain any positive doubts about anyone's legitimacy ever.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on March 26, 2018, 01:05:15 PM
The fact is that no one in history before R&R ever held that General Councils were not an Infallible Act of the Magisterium (even if they didn't word it like that). So we are left with two options; the Magisterium can err and has defected or those men were not Popes and V2 was not a Catholic Council.

No, it isn't a fact, and there are not only two options.

You didn't give the option in which the Church is occupied by a modernist sect. That's not an option in your mind, but you are only a layman like the rest of us. +ABL taught that the Church is occupied.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on March 26, 2018, 01:17:41 PM
Well...then prove it.

You sedes won't accept anything that doesn't line up with your made-up views. Your a devotee of Des Lauriers, right? So whatever he said is de fide to you, apparently. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 26, 2018, 01:43:18 PM
Quote
It's looking at it from the perspective that the Magisterium cannot, on the whole, be substantially corrupted.
If the magisterium cannot substantially err, then why are you a sedeprivationist?  Isn't that view admitting that the magisterium has erred and has lost its spiritual authority due to heresy? 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 26, 2018, 01:58:52 PM
I've found that this poster is not worth responding to at all ... along with Stubborn.  They are so emotionally attached to their positions ... without the slightest logical backing or theological acumen ... that there's simply no dislodging them from it.  I wouldn't waste even a few minutes of my time once a month responding to Meg or to Stubborn.

PS -- this poster is the one who's going around stalking me with downthumbs for every post, including ones that have nothing controversial about them.  She's doing it out of spite.
You are just upset because you do not know what to believe Lad. The "totality of bishops doctrine" dictates that you absolutely must accept whatever they teach as being infallibly safe, but you reject that part of the doctrine. Why promote a doctrine that even you reject?

Your magisterium teaches that the next generation of the totality of bishops, per "the doctrine", will demand the same consent as today's totality of bishops, it doesn't matter if they contradict the previous totality of bishops, any more than it matters that the totality of bishops for the last 60 years contradicts the previous 2000 years of totality of bishops. That's your magisterium. That's your doctrine. That's your rule of faith. :facepalm:
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on March 26, 2018, 02:02:43 PM
Let's say Pius XII is giving some 2-hour allocution and slips up theologically once or twice.  Is that substantial error in the Magisterium?  No.  But now Pius XII writes an encyclical teaching some erroneous doctrine to the Universal Church?  At that point it's substantial error.  
How about an error regarding justification, like BOD, in a universal catechism for instruction on the faith, like the Catechism of Trent? 

Just a helluva "slip up"? I'd say that's substantial error. 

No?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 26, 2018, 02:12:02 PM
How about an error regarding justification, like BOD, in a universal catechism for instruction on the faith, like the Catechism of Trent?

Just a helluva "slip up"? I'd say that's substantial error.

No?
Keep pressing him Jeremiah and he'll decide that your posts are not worth responding to at all. That's how it goes with some people who cannot answer clear questions with clear answers and instead, prefer to dance around your questions and dispute the indisputable lest they admit they've had it wrong all along. Keep him - and us all in your prayers please.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: King Wenceslas on March 26, 2018, 02:18:32 PM
The Church will always exist even with heretical popes since 1958:

Quote
(Athanasius and the Church of Our Time, p. 23):

The priest Arius denied the central doctrine of Catholicism:  the
divinity of Christ.  He claimed that Jesus Christ was like God, but was not
really God.  He thus fashioned a Christ who would be acceptable to the non-
Catholic world, who would be acceptable to both the Jewish people and the
pagans.  Thus, Arianism was the first "ecumenical" religion.

   Millions were led astray by this charismatic priest, including four out
of five bishops according to St. Jerome, and two-thirds of all priests.  The
eminent patristic scholar Fr. Jurgens notes:  "At one point in the Church's
history, only a few years before Gregory [Nazianzen]'s present preaching
(A.D. 380), perhaps the number of Catholic bishops in possession of sees, as
opposed to Arian bishops in possession of sees, was no greater than something
between 1% and 3% of the total.  Had doctrine been determined by popularity,
today we should all be deniers of Christ and opponents of the Spirit."
 (W.A.
Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 39.)


So you see if you were taking a popularity poll in 380 AD Arianism won hands down. But they still didn't win in the long haul. People need to chill out. The Church was in just as bad a state under the Arian heresy as it is now under the Modernist heresy. Viola, the Church still exists. The culpable Arians of that time are in hell and the Catholics of that time are in heaven. All the modernists will be gotten rid of by God in his own due time when fire falls from the sky. In the mean time we don't need to lose our minds by following after all the latest theological fads that SEEM to solve our problems in a nice neat bow.

Stay Catholic. What was believed before October 1958 stay with; ignore what was taught after October 1958.[/pre]
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Croix de Fer on March 26, 2018, 02:26:09 PM
Your a devotee of Des Lauriers, right? So whatever he said is de fide to you, apparently.

You're
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 26, 2018, 02:57:43 PM
Quote
No, sedeprivationism means that the POPES do not exercise authority, predominantly teaching authority.  In other words, it's not the Church teaching but these imposters pretending that they are teaching.  Why are you conflating the Popes and the Magisterium?
How can the magisterium exist without the pope?  It can't.  The pope is promised infallibility, and the bishops in union with the pope are promised infallibility, BUT NOT the bishops apart from the pope.  If there is no pope, there is no magisterium, there is no teaching authority.

Therefore, if you want to argue that the magisterium cannot substantially err, then you MUST accept V2, because you have to believe that V2 is not a substantial change from Tradition.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 26, 2018, 03:19:09 PM
How can the magisterium exist without the pope?  It can't.  The pope is promised infallibility, and the bishops in union with the pope are promised infallibility, BUT NOT the bishops apart from the pope.  If there is no pope, there is no magisterium, there is no teaching authority.

Please post this teaching that the bishops in union with the pope are promised infallibility.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 26, 2018, 04:12:20 PM
Sorry, I worded that oddly.  The bishops aren't promised infallibility, but the pope can be infallible either alone (i.e. dogma of the Assumption) or in union with the bishops (i.e. council).  Either way, there is no infallibility if the pope is not involved.

Vatican I quotes the Council of Florence:

    "The Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole Church."
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 26, 2018, 04:56:36 PM
Why don't you give it a try?

Post any Catholic source of any type outside the SSPX and the like, which teaches that an Ecunemical Council ratified by a Pope can err. The same request was made to Pax Vobis and Mr. Drew before, but we are still waiting.
Wow Cantarella, it makes me very sad to see what has happened to you. I thought when you quoted a sede bishop who quoted from V2 and called that a dogma was pretty sad, but now this?

When are you going to post at least one official Church teaching defining this "dogma of the faith" - or any papal teaching at all (other than that which you already posted from Bishop Pivarunas citing Lumen Gentium) that teaches your "totality of bishops" dogma of the faith, as you called it in this (http://The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful.) post as quoted below?

You said:
The following is a dogma of the Faith, Mr. Drew:

The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful.


Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 26, 2018, 05:49:37 PM
No, these are the actual two alternatives for Catholics.  Defection of the Church is not an option (although I know that you meant it only logically).

EITHER the V2 hierarchy is not legitimate or V2 taught truth.

From a story about St. Thomas Aquinas --

Well, I would sooner believe that Religious Liberty is true than to believe that THE CHURCH could lie.  Hands down.  It's not even a question.  If I came to the conclusion that the V2 hierarchy was/is/has been legitimate, then I would go the way of all those conservative EWTN Catholics where I spent my time showing how V2 can be reconciled with prior Magisterium.
The V2 hierarchy, while not the Church, is legitimate - and they preach(ed) lies.

But if your rule of faith really is the magisterium, then none of this matters because I am wrong and so are you because if the magisterium is the rule of faith, then it is of the faith that the V2 "magisterium" is indeed legitimate, but they did not lie. You are bound to follow the magisterium because the magisterium is for you the rule of faith, while dogma is my rule of faith.

As quoted from Van Noort, being bound to the "magisterium" as your rule of faith, "implies a corresponding duty on the part of the nations to believe whatever the successors of the Apostles teach." According to you, this is de fide - no?

This being the case, you can't presume to get out of it by claiming they're possibly illegitimate or teach error! That is a blatant rejection of dogma and a total loss of faith - faith in the very rule of faith you keep promoting as being dogmatic!  

Kind of reminds me of a guy driving a beat up, rusty old pick up truck with the muffler hanging down and wearing cloths from the salvation army, trying to tell you how to become rich.




Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 26, 2018, 06:13:31 PM
.
Kind of reminds me of a guy driving a beat up, rusty old pick up truck with the muffler hanging down and wearing clothes from the salvation army, trying to tell you how to become rich.

.
Oh, you mean like Sam Walton?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 26, 2018, 06:40:45 PM
Quote
Post any Catholic source of any type outside the SSPX and the like, which teaches that an Ecunemical Council ratified by a Pope can err. The same request was made to Pax Vobis and Mr. Drew before, but we are still waiting.
For the record, I posted numerous theological opinions which state that EVERY WORD of conciliar documents are not infallible.  Only those statements which are authoritarian, clear and bind the faithful to believe matters of faith and morals, are infallible.  

Multiple people agreed with this.  Some did not, like Ladislaus and you, who then argue that a fallible statement is still “free from error” because of (your personal interpretation of) indefectibility.  So a fallible infallibility.  

This is nonsense and degrades the idea of infallibility and makes it pointless.  If the Magisterium is protected from err due to indefectibility, then why does infallibility even exist? ? ?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on March 26, 2018, 08:07:28 PM
Stop digressing.  I don't believe that the Catechism of Trent taught BoD.  

Unfortunately for you, I'm not digressing, but bringing up a very relevant point that directly contradicts not only your position but your attacks on the positions of others, e.g., Stubborn and Drew.

What is under discussion is the view that the Magisterium is free from error. You have yet to offer a definition of that critical term, Magisterium. You quote popes who say that the Magisterium is "free from error" then you go off on Thomas substance/accidents and say:

Quote
No, what these Popes are teaching about is the Magisterium considered AS A WHOLE, the "forest" vs. the "trees" view of it that I've been talking about.  It's looking at it from the perspective that the Magisterium cannot, on the whole, be substantially corrupted.

Why don't you go back and look at your quotes from the popes. Here's some of the phrases they used: "unable to be mistaken," "without danger of error," "could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching." That is far more than "cannot, on the whole, be subtantially corrupted." Nice try, though, with that Thomist stuff. Impressive.

And now you say that you "don't believe" that the Catechism of Trent taught BoD. Here's the language, using a quote from another poster, which is cited:

Quote
[35. Adulti quomodo ante Baptismum instruendi sint.]

Diversam vero rationem in iis servandam esse, qui adulta aetate sunt, et perfectum rationis usum habent, qui scilicet ab infidelibus oriuntur, antiquae ecclesiae consuetudo declarat. Nam christiana quidem fides illis proponenda est, atque omni studio ad eam suscipiendam cohortandi, alliciendi, invitandi sunt. Quod si ad dominum Deum convertantur, tum vero monere oportet, ne, ultra tempus ab ecclesia praescriptum, baptismi sacramentum different. Nam cum scriptum sit: Non tardes converti ad Dominum, et ne differas de die in diem; docendi sunt perfectam conversionem in nova per baptismum generatione positam esse. Praeterea, quo serius ad baptismum veniunt, eo diutius sibi carendum esse ceterorum sacramentorum usu et gratia, quibus christiana religio colitur, cum ad ea sine baptismo nulli aditus patere possit: deinde etiam maximo fructu privari, quem ex baptismo percipimus; siquidem non solum omnium scelerum, quae antea admissa sunt, maculam et sordes baptismi aqua prorsus eluit ac tollit, sed divina gratia nos ornat, cuius ope et auxilio in posterum etiam peccata vitare possumus, iustitiamque et innocentiam tueri: qua in re summam christianae vitae constare facile omnes intelligunt.

[36. Adultis baptismum differendum esse demonstratur.]

Sed quamvis haec ita sint, non consuevit tamen ecclesia baptismi sacramentum huic hominum generi statim tribuere, sed ad certum tempus differendum esse constituit. Neque enim ea dilatio periculum, quod quidem pueris imminere supra dictum est, coniunctum habet; cum illis, qui rationis usu praediti sunt, baptismi suscipiendi propositum atque consilium, et male actae vitae poenitentia satis futura sit ad gratiam et iustitiam, si repentinus aliquis casus impediat, quo minus salutari aqua ablui possint. Contra vero haec dilatio aliquas videtur utilitates afferre. Primum enim, quoniam ab ecclesia diligenter providendum est, ne quis ad hoc sacramentum ficto et simulato animo accedat, eorum voluntas, qui baptismum petunt, magis exploratur atque perspicitur: cuius rei causa in antiquis conciliis decretum legimus, ut qui ex iudaeis ad fidem catholicam veniunt, antequam baptismus illis administretur, aliquot menses inter catechumenos essent: deinde in fidei doctrina, quam profiteri debent, et christianae vitae institutionibus erudiuntur perfectius. Praeterea, maior religionis cultus sacramento tribuitur, si constitutis tantum paschae et pentecostes diebus, solemni caeremonia baptismum suscipiant.

Ref: Catholic Church (1566) Catechismus ex Decreto Concilii Tridentini ad Parochos Pii Quinti Pont. Max. Iussu Editus. (Rome: Manutius) pp.197-198.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TPxbAAAAQAAJ (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TPxbAAAAQAAJ)
Headings from the 1845 Rome edition. p.108 ff.


Here's my translation:-

[35. How adults should be instructed before baptism.]

The custom of the early Church testifies that a truly different method is to be kept for those who are at a  mature age and have the complete use of reason, and for those who undoubtedly descend from infidels.  For instance, the Christian faith is at least to be proposed to them, and they are also to be exhorted, drawn and invited to take it up with all zeal.  If they are converted to the Lord God, then truly it is proper to advise them not to put off receiving the sacrament of baptism beyond the time prescribed by the Church; for seeing that it is written: Do not delay to convert to the Lord, and do not postpone it from day to day, they should be taught that complete conversion, by a new coming into being through baptism is, to be highly valued; in addition, those who come late for baptism, still further lose for themselves the advantage and the grace of the other sacraments with which the Christian religion is adorned, since, without baptism, no one can be permitted to approach them [= the other sacraments]; then also they are deprived of the chief reward which we secure from baptism; because not only does the water of baptism wash off and entirely take away the stain and uncleaness of every evil deed which they had previously committed, but it adorns us with divine grace, by whose power and assistance we are also able to avoid sins in the future and to safeguard [our] righteousness and innocence; which, in reality, all easily understand to be the chief point of the Christian life.

[36. It is shown that the Baptism of adults is to be delayed.]

But nevertheless the Church has not been accustomed to bestow the sacrament of baptism at once upon this kind of person, whomsoever they might be, but has appointed that it should be deferred to a fixed season.  Nor, in fact, does that delay hold the associated danger, which was said above to be certainly imminent for children, since, for those who are endowed with the use of reason, the intention as well as the resolution of receiving baptism, and repentance for a life badly spent, would be sufficient for the grace and the righteousness [of baptism to be granted to them], if some sudden accident should impede them from being able to be washed in the water of salvation.  Indeed, on the contrary, this delay seems to bring certain advantages.  In the first place, in fact, because it is carefully provided for by the Church that, lest anyone approach this sacrament with a feigned and simulated spirit, the desire of those who seek baptism is, to a greater extent, investigated as well as observed, on account of which we read in ancient decrees of the Councils that those who come to the Catholic faith from the Jews, shall spend several months amongst the catechumens before baptism is administered to them.  Then, they are to be completely instructed in the doctrine of the faith which they ought to profess, and in the institutions of the Christian life.  Moreover, a greater degree of reverence is shown towards the sacrament, if it be arranged that, they receive baptism with solemn ceremony only on the days of Easter and Pentecost.

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/sedevacantist-'-feeneyite-'-bishops/ (Reply 11)

Now, apart from asking you to look at the language itself, which appears to be well translated above, I also want you to consider the following comments you made to Drew and Stubborn in this thread:

Quote
"but please stop promoting this false and heretical notion that dogma is the proximate rule of faith ... against the teaching of all Catholic theologians."

"EVERY Catholic theologian teaches that the Magisterium is the proximate rule of faith.

I love if how Stubborn dismisses with a wave of his hand any 19th/20th century theologian (who doesn't agree with him)."

I have one for you: NAME A SINGLE CATHOLIC THEOLOGIAN WHO READS THE ABOVE CITED PASSAGE OF THE CATECHISM AS NOT SUPPORTING BOD. I'll let you answer and see what you come up, rather than listing the long roll call of theologians and saints who would not "believe" like you that the Catechism is "not teaching BoD."

You're simply, ah, selective in applying the accusation of not listening to the theologians when it suits you - namely, applying it to others and avoiding the application to yourself. In fact, unless I'm wrong about what I think you will (or rather won't) come up with,"every Catholic theologian" opposes you. Doesn't stop you on your "belief" regarding the Catechism, so why should "EVERY Catholic theologian" prevent Drew and Stubborn from offering their view, which is at least consistent and doesn't come at you with a beam sticking out of the eye.  

The Magisterium that is "free from error" appears to be only "free from error" when it agrees with Ladislaus. When it doesn't, well, it commits some real whoppers.

Digression? Nah. It's a pin that goes straight into your balloon.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 26, 2018, 09:37:49 PM
Drew, you are just too proud to accept that you've been wrong about this.  Someone cited Van Noort, and one could cite a huge number of Catholic theologians.  I started with St. Thomas himself.  But you just keep regurgitating this nonsense because you won't admit that you got it wrong.  But it's worse than nonsense; it's the very heretical root of Protestantism.

Again, I know that you're trying to do in order to bolster up R&R.  Do that, instead, by arguing about the limits of the Magisterium, but please stop promoting this false and heretical notion that dogma is the proximate rule of faith ... against the teaching of all Catholic theologians.  I know why you're clutching onto this with white knuckles ... because you argued this position in some op ed piece (or whatever that was, I can't recall 100%).  You similarly erred in misunderstanding and mischaracterizing the notion of "religious assent" to the Magisterium.

If you want to back R&R, just stick to your argument that the teaching of V2 can be rejected as fallible Magisterium.  But let go of this error.

Ladislaus,

In a recent post I apologized for going too far in a personal criticism.  I should make it clear that I was not apologizing for calling you a liar, just for applying the defects of character found in liars to yourself. You posted in different thread your claim that the Magisterium of the Church was not of divine revelation. You repeated this error several times.  You then lied about committing this error and implied the problems were with other's inability to understand you nuanced distinctions between the Magisterium and Authority from Vatican I. If you or anyone else reading this post would like, I will post each link to document this lie in detail. So when I call you a liar, it is documented accusation.

There are various levels of credibility afforded evidence. The weakest is human authority and the strongest is the authority of God. In support to the claim that Dogma is the proximate rule of faith I have provided the relative weak evidence by direct quotations from St. Thomas, from Scheeban's, and Rev. Joseph Pohle. These posts can be pulled up again if necessary. To these authorities you counter with Van Noort's who doesn't even agree with you.  Van Noort does not say that the Magisteruim is the proximate rule of faith, he says the the proximate rule of the faith is Catholic preachers bring the faith to illiterate people. This is the only evidence you have produced.

Over and above the mere opinion of theologians, I have provided Magisterial evidence from the Fourth Council of Constantinople approved by Pope Adrian II and from a Council approved by Pope Zosimus where both directly hold dogma as the rule of faith. Another poster provided a direct quote from Denzingers saying the same. There is also the evidence from St. Pius X in Pascendi and Lametabili in which he repeatedly refers to dogma. 

In between these extremes there have been several reasoned arguments all of no avail. You will not distinguish between the means and the ends. 

You have committed gross theological and philosophical errors that have serious repercussions. The first serious error was your claim that the Magisterium was not part of divine revelation. You then denied the correct definition of supernatural faith that it is believing what God has revealed on the authority of God.  You then took these two necessary attributes of supernatural faith and drove a wedge between them claiming what we believe and why we believe have different sources.  Your doctrine of sedeprivationism postulates a separation of between the form and the matter of the papal office thus causing a substantial change destroying the office that we know by divine and Catholic faith cannot happen. You err in your understanding of the Magisterium constantly using the term equivocally.  You claim that anyone not exercising unqualified obedience to the ordinary authentic magisterium is a "Protestant." You corrupt Catholic morality regarding the regulation of obedience by the virtue of Religion. The only error you are not currently repeating is that the Magisterium is not part of divine revelation but, you did not correct the error. You just tried to lie your way out of it.

You repeat that the magisterum is your rule of faith but you acknowledge only a material pope that has no authority so he is no pope at all because authority is a necessary attribute of the office. Without a pope you have no access to the magisterium and therefore have no rule of faith. You accuse the conciliar popes of heresy but by what criteria?  If they are the magisterium ("teaching authority"), and the magisterium is your rule of faith, how can it be judged? What is the rule that judges the "teaching authority" by which you can accuse it of heresy? You cannot appeal to dogma because you have already said that only the magisterium ("teaching authority") alone can interpret dogma.  You have already accused others of being "Protestants" for 'interpreting dogma.' 

You have no place left to go. You have entered a church of your own making.

Drew

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 27, 2018, 04:18:15 AM
.
Kind of reminds me of a guy driving a beat up, rusty old pick up truck with the muffler hanging down and wearing clothes from the salvation army, trying to tell you how to become rich.

.
Oh, you mean like Sam Walton?
No, more like Fred Sanford.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 27, 2018, 06:19:37 AM
This is just a repetition of the old doctrine that all the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Pope are infallible "when they propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful". The words "dispersed" just means that they are not gathered in the setting of an Ecunemical Council. What is the issue with it? All that it means is that there is no need to have the setting of a General Council in which all the bishops are present, in order to engage the Magisterium; which makes sense, given that there has only been 21 Ecunemical Councils since the Church foundation; so not ALL living generations have had an Ecunemical Council going during life time.
It is not an old doctrine, it is officially a Novus Ordo doctrine, found only in the official documents of V2, specifically, it is found only in Lumen Gentium #25.

In fact, the part I bolded in #3 is by far the best definition of what the Ordinary Magisterium is that I have seen so far.


Pope Pius IX in Tuas Libenter

1) "We love to think that they have not intended to restrict this obligation of obedience, which is strictly binding on Catholic professors and writers, solely to the points defined by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith which all men must believe.

2) And We are persuaded that they have not intended to declare that this perfect adhesion to revealed truths, which they have recognized to be absolutely necessary to the true progress of science and the refutation of error, could be theirs if faith and obedience were only accorded to dogmas expressly defined by the Church.

3) Even when it is only a question of the submission owed to divine faith, this cannot be limited merely to points defined by the express decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this Apostolic See; this submission must also be extended to all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith. [the Ordinary Magisterium]

4) But, since it is a question of the submission obliging in conscience all those Catholic who are engaged in that study of the speculative sciences so as to procure for the Church new advantages by their writings, the members of the Congress must recognize that it is not sufficient for Catholic savants to accept and respect the dogmas of the Church which We have been speaking about: they must, besides, submit themselves, whether to doctrinal decisions stemming from pontifical congregations, or to points of doctrine which, with common and constant consent, are held in the Church as truths and as theological conclusions so certain that opposing opinions, though they may not be dubbed heretical, nonetheless, merit some other form of theological censure.

*******************
*******************

In this teaching above, we read in #1 that dogma rules, that all men must believe the defined dogmas of the Church, not some vague idea of a magisterium. In #2, we read that perfect adhesion to dogma ("revealed truths") is absolutely necessary in the refutation of error. This agrees with dogma being the rule of faith.

We learn in #3 that we cannot limit our beliefs to defined dogma, that we must also believe (faithfully submit to) "all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world" (the Ordinary Magisterium).

In and of itself, #3 and #4 kills the "totality of bishops doctrine" with the words "all that has been handed down". They then bury it 6 feet under with the words "with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith" since here, the word "universal" simply means "always and every where".  The term "constant consent"  means that all of the Church's authorities and learned have accepted and taught as a part if the faith since the time of the Apostles.

Because he includes the attribute of time, he immediately eliminates the "totality of bishops doctrine", which by it's very nature excludes the attribute of time. 


Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 27, 2018, 06:21:38 AM
This is just a repetition of the old doctrine that all the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Pope are infallible

Now, let's make a simple comparison between 1) what your idea is that TL teaches, vs 2) what TL actually teaches:



Quote
#1
“For even if it were a matter of that submission which must be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, this would not have to be limited to those matters that have been
defined by explicit decrees of ecumenical councils or by the Roman pontiffs and by this Apostolic See, but would also have to be extended to the totality of the Bishops [which is] is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful.

Quote
#2
Even when it is only a question of the submission owed to divine faith, this cannot be limited merely to points defined by the express decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this Apostolic See; this submission must also be extended to all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith. [the Ordinary Magisterium]

If #1 is in fact the way it is, then we are all bound to faithfully submit to the teachings of V2 - and most certainly faithfully submit to all of the NO bishops.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 27, 2018, 07:37:18 AM

Quote
when they propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful"
Cantarella,
Your definition above of the ordinary magisterium is EXACTLY what I’ve been saying and it lines up EXACTLY with the requirements of Vatican I, when it defined infallibility.  It fulfills the 4 requirements of Vatican 1, therefore it is 1) Official Teaching and 2) is Infallible and protected from error.  

V2 did not propose ANY teaching as being 1) a “divinely revealed” topic of 2) “faith and morals” that 3) “must be held” under pain of sin by 4) “all the faithful” of the Church, everywhere and for all time.  

Here’s what you guys are missing...the important factor of being “divinely revealed”.  What does this mean?  It’s another term for Tradition.  It means the Church is telling us that teaching x is “part of Tradition”, that it can be traced back to the Apostles because Christ HAS ALREADY revealed it to them.   

Notice that Vatican I does not say that the pope “divinely REVEALS” (present tense).  No!  All truth has already been revealed to the Apostles by Christ.  

The Pope’s job is to re-teach or clarify WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN REVEALED.  Infallibility does not reveal something NEW (that’s not possible!) but only connect some point of the Faith back to Tradition which is 1) under attack or 2) which is currently misunderstood.  

Go re-read the Papal Bull of the Assumption.  The Pope makes it very clear that this is not new but is a part of the Faith going back to Apostolic times (because, of course, the Apostles were there when Our Lady Assumed into heaven).   

Go re-read any council document (apart from V2) and they explain or refer to Tradition and how their canons are Apostolic beliefs.  

Go re-read Humanae Vitae (which theologians argue was an exercise of ORDINARY magisterium).  The pope makes clear that the Church’s stance against birth control is 1) constant teaching 2) a matter of faith/morals, 3) part of the natural law (which is “divinely revealed” upon all men’s hearts).  And 4) must be believed by all Catholics.  

The point is, the TIME factor matters.  Because the Church is TIMELESS.  She teaches the same truths yesterday, today and tomorrow.  What Christ taught the Apostles was the “full faith”.  He gave them “all truth”.  THERE IS NOTHING NEW FOR THE CHURCH TO TEACH.  

So when the pope (either alone or in union with the bishops) exercises his teaching authority, on a matter of faith and morals, he is not REVEALING (present tense) a teaching but only confirming/reminding us of what HAS ALREADY BEEN revealed (past tense) by Christ to the Apostles.  Therefore, the idea that the magisterium is the “rule of faith” is as erroneous as saying that a priest is the “author of the Holy Eucharist”.  In both cases, the pope/priest is the intermediary between us and Christ.  These intermediaries are ABSOLUTELY necessary to our faith and our religion, but the formal object of our faith is Christ and His teachings (ie articles of faith or dogma) not of the Apostles and their successors.  For ALL DOGMA was revealed by Christ to the Apostles.  There is nothing left for the Church to do but re-teach and clarify.  
 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on March 27, 2018, 08:07:20 AM
Here’s what you guys are missing...the important factor of being “divinely revealed”.  
 
Pax Vobis,

Yes. Very important qualification. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on March 27, 2018, 08:11:46 AM
Keep pressing him Jeremiah and he'll decide that your posts are not worth responding to at all. That's how it goes with some people who cannot answer clear questions with clear answers and instead, prefer to dance around your questions and dispute the indisputable lest they admit they've had it wrong all along. Keep him - and us all in your prayers please.
Stubborn,
Thank you. We need each others' prayers. Pray for me as well, please.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on March 27, 2018, 08:15:56 AM
It is not an old doctrine, it is officially a Novus Ordo doctrine, found only in the official documents of V2, specifically, it is found only in Lumen Gentium #25.

In fact, the part I bolded in #3 is by far the best definition of what the Ordinary Magisterium is that I have seen so far.


Pope Pius IX in Tuas Libenter

1) "We love to think that they have not intended to restrict this obligation of obedience, which is strictly binding on Catholic professors and writers, solely to the points defined by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith which all men must believe.

2) And We are persuaded that they have not intended to declare that this perfect adhesion to revealed truths, which they have recognized to be absolutely necessary to the true progress of science and the refutation of error, could be theirs if faith and obedience were only accorded to dogmas expressly defined by the Church.

3) Even when it is only a question of the submission owed to divine faith, this cannot be limited merely to points defined by the express decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this Apostolic See; this submission must also be extended to all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith. [the Ordinary Magisterium]

4) But, since it is a question of the submission obliging in conscience all those Catholic who are engaged in that study of the speculative sciences so as to procure for the Church new advantages by their writings, the members of the Congress must recognize that it is not sufficient for Catholic savants to accept and respect the dogmas of the Church which We have been speaking about: they must, besides, submit themselves, whether to doctrinal decisions stemming from pontifical congregations, or to points of doctrine which, with common and constant consent, are held in the Church as truths and as theological conclusions so certain that opposing opinions, though they may not be dubbed heretical, nonetheless, merit some other form of theological censure.

*******************
*******************

In this teaching above, we read in #1 that dogma rules, that all men must believe the defined dogmas of the Church, not some vague idea of a magisterium. In #2, we read that perfect adhesion to dogma ("revealed truths") is absolutely necessary in the refutation of error. This agrees with dogma being the rule of faith.

We learn in #3 that we cannot limit our beliefs to defined dogma, that we must also believe (faithfully submit to) "all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world" (the Ordinary Magisterium).

In and of itself, #3 and #4 kills the "totality of bishops doctrine" with the words "all that has been handed down". They then bury it 6 feet under with the words "with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith" since here, the word "universal" simply means "always and every where".  The term "constant consent"  means that all of the Church's authorities and learned have accepted and taught as a part if the faith since the time of the Apostles.

Because he includes the attribute of time, he immediately eliminates the "totality of bishops doctrine", which by it's very nature excludes the attribute of time.

Stubborn,

Yes. Both Vatican I and Tuas Libenter add the qualification, pointed out by Pax Vobis, that the teaching must be one set forth as "divinely revealed." Since revelation was complete with the apostles, that necessarily includes some time element. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 27, 2018, 08:41:51 AM
Dignitatis Humanae of Vatican II

 

“PAUL, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, TOGETHER WITH THE FATHERS OF THE SACRED COUNCIL FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY…(# 9): The things which this Vatican Synod declares [declarat] concerning the right of man to religious liberty, have their foundation in the dignity of the person, whose needs have become more fully known to human reason through the experience of the ages.  In fact, this doctrine [doctrina] on liberty has its roots in divine Revelation; with all the more reason, therefore, it is to be preserved [servanda est] sacredly by Christians…(# 12): The Church therefore, faithful to the truth of the Gospel, follows the way of Christ and the Apostles when it acknowledges the principle of religious liberty as in accord with human dignity and the revelation of God, and when it promotes it…EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS.  WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY… I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”

From MHFM

Lumen Gentium of Vatican II

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world.... they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on March 27, 2018, 08:52:23 AM
Dignitatis Humanae of Vatican II

 

“PAUL, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, TOGETHER WITH THE FATHERS OF THE SACRED COUNCIL FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY…(# 9): The things which this Vatican Synod declares [declarat] concerning the right of man to religious liberty, have their foundation in the dignity of the person, whose needs have become more fully known to human reason through the experience of the ages.  In fact, this doctrine [doctrina] on liberty has its roots in divine Revelation; with all the more reason, therefore, it is to be preserved [servanda est] sacredly by Christians…(# 12): The Church therefore, faithful to the truth of the Gospel, follows the way of Christ and the Apostles when it acknowledges the principle of religious liberty as in accord with human dignity and the revelation of God, and when it promotes it…EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS.  WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY… I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”

From MHFM

Interesting. 

I believe this is the relevant Latin text:


Quote
Ecclesia igitur, evangelicae veritati fidelis, viam Christi et Apostolorum sequitur quando rationem libertatis religiosae tamquam dignitati hominis et Dei revelationi consonam agnoscit eamque fovet. 

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_lt.html


Seems a rather odd way of "declaring" something to be revealed, saying a principle "accords" with the revelation of God. Various civil rights may "accord" with the revelation of God without being part of it. An "accord" in English is an agreement between two separate parties or distinct things. The Latin should be looked at. 

Definitely a point worth discussion. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 27, 2018, 10:44:12 AM
For the record, my arguments have nothing to do with R&R.  Some of you want to label them as such, so you can disregard, but that’s lazy.  Keep an open mind, and be open to the truth on this specific point.  Life’s not all about R&R vs Sede.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 27, 2018, 11:55:47 AM
Yes, we are; but only if Pope Paul VI was a true Pope; because only the papal approbation is what makes the decrees of an Ecunemical Council binding. You are going out of the way, but it is quite unnecessary. Simply, do a dispassionate research on the infallibility of Ecunemical Councils. I recommend you start by reading the dogmatic Profession of Faith imposed by Pope Saint Horsmidas (514-23) on the Eastern bishops implicated in the schism of Acacius.

R&R is trying way too hard. I know because I have been there, but we do not have to.
You cannot get out of it like that - at least not honestly. By doubting the legitimacy of pope Paul VI, and on that account rejecting your own rule of faith, clearly demonstrates that you have no faith whatsoever in your own rule of faith. Can't you see that?

Even using your own misunderstanding of TL #3, he clearly says that we owe our submission to the magisterium. To you, this now  means that you owe your submission to the NO teachings of the totality of bishops - does it not? This is your rule of faith, this is  what you say you believe the true pope, Pius IX, taught - no? What gives you the right to reject this teaching? Do you think Pius IX was a false pope too?

You seem to agree with Lad that we cannot know right from wrong, or truth from heresy, or old from new without the (your) rule of faith, the magisterium. So by what authority do you ignore the magisterium, i.e. your rule of faith? What kind of a rule of faith is it that allows or encourages you to simply ignore it whenever you want to?  

For me, I don't need to read the dogmatic, Profession of Faith because I understand and embrace what the Church has always taught, which TL worded so clearly - TL #3 teaches me that after dogma, I owe my submission to "all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world", which is the Magisterium.

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: King Wenceslas on March 27, 2018, 02:44:32 PM
PPVI (January 12, 1966)

In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document.

Dr. Ludwig Ott.  He explains our duty towards the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium as follows:
The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible.  Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible.  Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religious).  The so-called silentium obsequiosum, that is “reverent silence”, does not generally suffice.  By the way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conclusion that the decision rests on an error.”

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 27, 2018, 03:00:58 PM
Pastor Aeternus IV.2

So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: "The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor.

You're simply too much already. You have no faith whatsoever in your own rule of faith.  



Quote
You guys have absolutely NO shame whatsoever.  You need to read ALL of Pastor Aeternus; if you have any Catholic bones left in your body, then you should blush with shame for ever having embraced R&R.  But then you can just claim that Pastor Aeternus got it wrong.

No, Pastor Aeternus is without question absolutely right. The thought that it could be wrong never entered into our minds. After all, for us, Pastor Aeternus' teachings are the Rule of faith. It is with faith that we wholly embrace our rule of faith. It is YOU who have it wrong. Nothing complicated here Lad.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 27, 2018, 04:37:50 PM

Quote
This ^^^ is in direct contradiction to Vatican I...
No it's not.


Quote
Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.
The ordinary magisterium is fallible unless it agrees with "what has always been taught" (i.e. Apostolic Tradition), then it's UNIVERSAL because it agrees with the ETERNAL truths taught by Christ..

If the ordinary magisterium attempts to teach something new, then it is anathema!  There are no new catholic truths, don't you understand that?  The articles of the Creed will never change, never be added to, never be deleted.  CHRIST GAVE THE APOSTLES THE FULLNESS OF THE FAITH.  Full means COMPLETE.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 27, 2018, 07:12:01 PM
Your [false] accusation that I am a liar comes from the fact that you are simply incapable of understanding that words can be used in different ways.

Define Revelation.  Revelation can be used for the revealed truths themselves, or for the PROCESS of Revelation, whereby God revealed Himself to us.

Indeed, the existence of the Magisterium is A revealed truth.  I did not disagree with this.  When I said that the Magisterium is not part of Revelation, I was referring to the process of Revelation.

This is precisely the distinction taught by Vatican I:  Pastor Aeternus IV.6.
Whereas Revelation "makes known some new doctrine", Magisterium "religiously guards and faithfully expounds the revelation or deposit of faith".  Popes do not REVEAL doctrine but, rather,

I can't help you are incapable of understanding the difference.

PS -- R&R distort the meaning of this passage to make it sound as if WHEN the Magisterium expounds "some new doctrine", then it can be rejected.  But this passage is nothing more than a definition of the Magisterium, the Church's teaching authority, as distinct from Revelation.

And this is what I said in stating correctly that the Magisterium is not part of Revelation.

No, Drew, you the liar.  You repeated the assertion that we consider the Pope to be the rule of faith even after I pointed out that it was not correct but was a dishonest strawman argument.

Amazing, you make the allegation of lying and produce no evidence other than your arguments (for what they are worth) have not convinced me?  You think everyone reading these posts are fools?  When I call you a liar, I produce a specific allegation.  The charge is based upon evidence so that you can address the specific charge. Liars always have problems with their memory so let me refresh yours. 
 
To "prove" your claim that the "magisterium is the rule of faith," you pasted the article from the Catholic New Advent Encyclopedia that argued that the rule of faith must be "extrinsic" to the faith. 
 Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-heretical-pope-fallacy/msg587485/#msg587485)
« Reply #94 on: January 03, 2018, 09:27:31 PM »
 
From this you argued that the magisterium is extrinsic to the faith, and that it is not part of divine revelation. We had several exchanges on this question to which you replied:
 
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg600685/#msg600685)
« Reply #293 on: March 21, 2018, 08:17:44 AM »

Quote
Drew, your fight is against St. Thomas and all Catholic theologians, not with me.

 I'm not even going to bother with your last post.  You can't seem to understand concepts as being formally distinct from one another.  You act stunned when I wrote that the Magisterium is not part of God's Revelation.  Magisterium is in fact formally distinct from Revelation.  In Revelation, God reveals His truth to us.  With Magisterium, the Church teaches and interprets and explains said truth.  It is not the Church's teaching authority which REVEALS the truth.  In fact, Vatican I clearly explained that papal Magisterium (in the context of infallibility) is to given to reveal new truth but merely to explain and protect it.  If you cannot understand how these are different, then I just can't help you.  Then your post goes downhill from there.
Ladislaus


Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg601142/#msg601142)
« Reply #358 on: March 23, 2018, 06:32:15 PM »

After Cantarella posted a dogmatic teaching that the magisterium is from divine revelation, she was asked whether she believed the dogma or you.
 
The reply did not come from Cantarella but from you.  And now we move on to your lying efforts to "prove" that you never argued that the magisterium is extrinsic to divine revelation.
 
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg601154/#msg601154)
« Reply #363 on: March 23, 2018, 08:23:17 PM »
 
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora on March 23, 2018, 06:32:15 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg601142/#msg601142)

"Well, what is it going to be: the Magisterium is part of divine revelation or the Magisterium is not part of divine revelation.  Who has everything wrong, you or Ladisalus?"

Quote
"Oh, come on now.  Yes, the existence of the Magisterium was revealed.  That's not what we're talking about.
 "When I say that the Magisterium is not part of Revelation, I'm simply reiterating the teaching of Vatican I regarding the distinction between Revelation and Magisterium.  Magisterium is not part of Revelation; it's a distinct thing.  It's the Church explaining and defining Revelation.  It's formally distinct."
Ladisalus

And the equivocations keeps on flowing.  You are a liar.
 
But your claim that the magisterium is not part of divine revelation is just one of many stupid things that you have posted. You are a phony pretending a competency that you do not possess.

Several years ago you denied that supernatural faith was believing what God has revealed on the authority of God.

 
SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/secret-special-chapter-of-neo-fsspx/msg463233/#msg463233)
« Reply #30 on: August 16, 2015, 08:08:35 AM »
 
Then you demonstrated that you in fact did not know the definition of supernatural faith when you proposed driving a wedge between these two necessary attributes and thereby, dissolving the definition.
Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-heretical-pope-fallacy/msg588127/#msg588127)
« Reply #245 on: January 08, 2018, 11:25:03 AM »

Quote
"To simplify, the faith is the WHAT believed while the rule is related to the WHY believed."
Ladislaus

So in this thread we have you arguing the magisterium is the rule of faith when you clearly do not know what the faith is or what the magisterium is. No wonder you do not know what the rule of faith is!
 
But you plod on tracking dirt where ever you go. Sedeprivationism presupposes the dissolution of the form and matter of the papal office and you are so ignorant that you do not even know that this presupposition necessarily produces a substantial change destroying the office!
 
You possess some knowledge but without wisdom or understanding.  The habit of the first principles is wholly lacking with you.  And what makes everything so destructive, you have no moral sense and your too immature to take responsibility for what you post or the damage you may do.
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 27, 2018, 07:59:49 PM
And then Drew claims that the indefectibility of the Magisterium has not been defined.

Let's keep reading in Pastor Aeternus. (IV.6-7)

Vatican I teaches that the Papal Magisterium was given by God so that the "whole flock of Christ might be kept away ... from the poisonous food of error" ... and yet R&R have the audacity to assert, in direct defiance of Vatican I, that the Papal Magisterium has in fact SUPPLIED this "poisonous food of error" to the "whole flock of Christ".  How can you affirm, with your non-Catholic R&R position, that the Holy See "remains unblemished by any error".  Disgraceful!  Get thee behind me, Satan.  R&R claims that the Papal Magisterium has failed to realize its end of protecting the flock from error, i.e. that it has defected.

You guys have absolutely NO shame whatsoever.  You need to read ALL of Pastor Aeternus; if you have any Catholic bones left in your body, then you should blush with shame for ever having embraced R&R.  But then you can just claim that Pastor Aeternus got it wrong.  After all, these passages are not infallible because they do not come in the form of a solemn definition.  You can just discard any non-infallible teaching of the Magisterium at a whim, because you in your brilliant private judgment have deemed it incompatible with dogma.

Many of you are nothing but Protestant heretics and schismatics.


Ladislaus, you liar.  If you are going to begin a post by affirming something I said, provide the quotation in the proper context.  

Quote
Pastor aeternus is the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ, issued by the First Vatican Council, July 18, 1870. The document defines four doctrines of the Catholic faith: 1) the apostolic primacy conferred on Peter, 2) the perpetuity of the Petrine Primacy in the Roman pontiffs, 3) the meaning and power of papal primacy, and 4) Papal Infallibility - infallible teaching authority (magisterium) of the Pope.   Wikipedia

Nothing here formally defining the doctrine of Indefectibility, as a matter of fact, the word, "indefectibility" or its cognates does not appear in the document, but if someone did not know better, they just might think you knew what you are talking about.

The only thing that I have affirmed is that the attribute of Indefectibility has not been dogmatically addressed as has the attribute of Infallibility and that theological opinions regarding this attribute will need to be rethought.

You really have a lot of nerve.  You sedeprivationists destroy the papal office by fracturing its form and matter and then have gall to pretend that the Indefectibility of the Church is someone else's problem.  You have no pope, you have no access to the magisterium of the Church (revealed by God), and you have no rule of faith.

You are adrift Ladislaus, treading water way over your head.  


Drew

P. S. I forgot about your "infallible security" blanket.  There should be directions somewhere on how to make it a flotation device.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 27, 2018, 08:05:48 PM

Quote
The only thing that I have affirmed is that the attribute of Indefectibility has not been dogmatically addressed as has the attribute of Infallibility
I agree with the idea that Indefectibility has not has not been adequately explained.  If it had been, then we wouldn't have certain people arguing that indefectibility is a "backup plan" for the church's magisterium, which renders the pope as a living oracle, incapable of "substantial" error and making the power of infallibility pointless.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on March 27, 2018, 08:29:24 PM
Ladislaus,

Still looking for that theologian who agrees with you that the Roman Catechism did not teach BoD? Likely you've given that up. 

Perhaps you're simply trying to figure out how a Magisterium which is "unable to be mistaken," "without danger of error," and which "could no means commit itself to erroneous teaching" could manage to publish a universal catechism for instruction of the faithful that teaches the erroneous teaching of BoD?

Yes . . . that would explain your reticence. 

Or, to paraphrase Elias - perhaps your doctrine of indefectibility is sleeping, and needs to be awaken? (3 Kings 18:27)

  
**BUMP**


Quote
Reply #464

Quote from: Ladislaus on Yesterday at 03:07:26 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg601543/#msg601543)
Quote
Stop digressing.  I don't believe that the Catechism of Trent taught BoD.  


Unfortunately for you, I'm not digressing, but bringing up a very relevant point that directly contradicts not only your position but your attacks on the positions of others, e.g., Stubborn and Drew.

What is under discussion is the view that the Magisterium is free from error. You have yet to offer a definition of that critical term, Magisterium. You quote popes who say that the Magisterium is "free from error" then you go off on Thomas substance/accidents and say:

Quote
Quote
No, what these Popes are teaching about is the Magisterium considered AS A WHOLE, the "forest" vs. the "trees" view of it that I've been talking about.  It's looking at it from the perspective that the Magisterium cannot, on the whole, be substantially corrupted.


Why don't you go back and look at your quotes from the popes. Here's some of the phrases they used: "unable to be mistaken," "without danger of error," "could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching." That is far more than "cannot, on the whole, be subtantially corrupted." Nice try, though, with that Thomist stuff. Impressive. 

And now you say that you "don't believe" that the Catechism of Trent taught BoD. Here's the language, using a quote from another poster, which is cited:

Quote
Quote
[35. Adulti quomodo ante Baptismum instruendi sint.]

Diversam vero rationem in iis servandam esse, qui adulta aetate sunt, et perfectum rationis usum habent, qui scilicet ab infidelibus oriuntur, antiquae ecclesiae consuetudo declarat. Nam christiana quidem fides illis proponenda est, atque omni studio ad eam suscipiendam cohortandi, alliciendi, invitandi sunt. Quod si ad dominum Deum convertantur, tum vero monere oportet, ne, ultra tempus ab ecclesia praescriptum, baptismi sacramentum different. Nam cum scriptum sit: Non tardes converti ad Dominum, et ne differas de die in diem; docendi sunt perfectam conversionem in nova per baptismum generatione positam esse. Praeterea, quo serius ad baptismum veniunt, eo diutius sibi carendum esse ceterorum sacramentorum usu et gratia, quibus christiana religio colitur, cum ad ea sine baptismo nulli aditus patere possit: deinde etiam maximo fructu privari, quem ex baptismo percipimus; siquidem non solum omnium scelerum, quae antea admissa sunt, maculam et sordes baptismi aqua prorsus eluit ac tollit, sed divina gratia nos ornat, cuius ope et auxilio in posterum etiam peccata vitare possumus, iustitiamque et innocentiam tueri: qua in re summam christianae vitae constare facile omnes intelligunt.

[36. Adultis baptismum differendum esse demonstratur.]

Sed quamvis haec ita sint, non consuevit tamen ecclesia baptismi sacramentum huic hominum generi statim tribuere, sed ad certum tempus differendum esse constituit. Neque enim ea dilatio periculum, quod quidem pueris imminere supra dictum est, coniunctum habet; cum illis, qui rationis usu praediti sunt, baptismi suscipiendi propositum atque consilium, et male actae vitae poenitentia satis futura sit ad gratiam et iustitiam, si repentinus aliquis casus impediat, quo minus salutari aqua ablui possint. Contra vero haec dilatio aliquas videtur utilitates afferre. Primum enim, quoniam ab ecclesia diligenter providendum est, ne quis ad hoc sacramentum ficto et simulato animo accedat, eorum voluntas, qui baptismum petunt, magis exploratur atque perspicitur: cuius rei causa in antiquis conciliis decretum legimus, ut qui ex iudaeis ad fidem catholicam veniunt, antequam baptismus illis administretur, aliquot menses inter catechumenos essent: deinde in fidei doctrina, quam profiteri debent, et christianae vitae institutionibus erudiuntur perfectius. Praeterea, maior religionis cultus sacramento tribuitur, si constitutis tantum paschae et pentecostes diebus, solemni caeremonia baptismum suscipiant.

Ref: Catholic Church (1566) Catechismus ex Decreto Concilii Tridentini ad Parochos Pii Quinti Pont. Max. Iussu Editus. (Rome: Manutius) pp.197-198.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TPxbAAAAQAAJ (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TPxbAAAAQAAJ)
Headings from the 1845 Rome edition. p.108 ff.


Here's my translation:-

[35. How adults should be instructed before baptism.]

The custom of the early Church testifies that a truly different method is to be kept for those who are at a  mature age and have the complete use of reason, and for those who undoubtedly descend from infidels.  For instance, the Christian faith is at least to be proposed to them, and they are also to be exhorted, drawn and invited to take it up with all zeal.  If they are converted to the Lord God, then truly it is proper to advise them not to put off receiving the sacrament of baptism beyond the time prescribed by the Church; for seeing that it is written: Do not delay to convert to the Lord, and do not postpone it from day to day, they should be taught that complete conversion, by a new coming into being through baptism is, to be highly valued; in addition, those who come late for baptism, still further lose for themselves the advantage and the grace of the other sacraments with which the Christian religion is adorned, since, without baptism, no one can be permitted to approach them [= the other sacraments]; then also they are deprived of the chief reward which we secure from baptism; because not only does the water of baptism wash off and entirely take away the stain and uncleaness of every evil deed which they had previously committed, but it adorns us with divine grace, by whose power and assistance we are also able to avoid sins in the future and to safeguard [our] righteousness and innocence; which, in reality, all easily understand to be the chief point of the Christian life.

[36. It is shown that the Baptism of adults is to be delayed.]

But nevertheless the Church has not been accustomed to bestow the sacrament of baptism at once upon this kind of person, whomsoever they might be, but has appointed that it should be deferred to a fixed season.  Nor, in fact, does that delay hold the associated danger, which was said above to be certainly imminent for children, since, for those who are endowed with the use of reason, the intention as well as the resolution of receiving baptism, and repentance for a life badly spent, would be sufficient for the grace and the righteousness [of baptism to be granted to them], if some sudden accident should impede them from being able to be washed in the water of salvation. Indeed, on the contrary, this delay seems to bring certain advantages.  In the first place, in fact, because it is carefully provided for by the Church that, lest anyone approach this sacrament with a feigned and simulated spirit, the desire of those who seek baptism is, to a greater extent, investigated as well as observed, on account of which we read in ancient decrees of the Councils that those who come to the Catholic faith from the Jews, shall spend several months amongst the catechumens before baptism is administered to them.  Then, they are to be completely instructed in the doctrine of the faith which they ought to profess, and in the institutions of the Christian life.  Moreover, a greater degree of reverence is shown towards the sacrament, if it be arranged that, they receive baptism with solemn ceremony only on the days of Easter and Pentecost.

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/sedevacantist-'-feeneyite-'-bishops/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/sedevacantist-'-feeneyite-'-bishops/) (Reply 11)


Now, apart from asking you to look at the language itself, which appears to be well translated above, I also want you to consider the following comments you made to Drew and Stubborn in this thread:

Quote
Quote
"but please stop promoting this false and heretical notion that dogma is the proximate rule of faith ... against the teaching of all Catholic theologians."

"EVERY Catholic theologian teaches that the Magisterium is the proximate rule of faith.

I love if how Stubborn dismisses with a wave of his hand any 19th/20th century theologian (who doesn't agree with him)."


I have one for you: NAME A SINGLE CATHOLIC THEOLOGIAN WHO READS THE ABOVE CITED PASSAGE OF THE CATECHISM AS NOT SUPPORTING BOD. I'll let you answer and see what you come up, rather than listing the long roll call of theologians and saints who would not "believe" like you that the Catechism is "not teaching BoD." 

You're simply, ah, selective in applying the accusation of not listening to the theologians when it suits you - namely, applying it to others and avoiding the application to yourself. In fact, unless I'm wrong about what I think you will (or rather won't) come up with,"every Catholic theologian" opposes you. Doesn't stop you on your "belief" regarding the Catechism, so why should "EVERY Catholic theologian" prevent Drew and Stubborn from offering their view, which is at least consistent and doesn't come at you with a beam sticking out of the eye.   

The Magisterium that is "free from error" appears to be only "free from error" when it agrees with Ladislaus. When it doesn't, well, it commits some real whoppers. 

Digression? Nah. It's a pin that goes straight into your balloon. 

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 28, 2018, 06:20:09 AM
Mmmmm....Pastor Aeternus is telling us explicitly that the Pope enjoys the Divine promise of never-failing Faith.

What does that say about the belief that all the conciliar "popes" have become heretics one after the other?

Cantarella,

Now you have gone back to where this started.  The Pope is you rule of faith.  I suggest that you read the thread:
The Heretical Pope Fallacy (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-heretical-pope-fallacy/msg586898/#msg586898)
« on: December 31, 2017, 06:05:26 PM »

My wife posted a few of my initial exchanges with the conservative Catholic Emmet O'Regan.  The link is provided in the post to the entire exchange. You will discover that he, like you, believes that the pope possesses a personal "never-failing faith."  Besides not being true, it leads to two ends and you and Mr. O'Regan are good examples of both. 

Dogma is the proximate rule of faith and the only solution to this error.

You need not reply to this. I think you are determined to follow the course you have chosen and any further discussion would be fruitless.  It is Holy Week and we will have Tenebrae each day sung in Latin this year at our chapel in York, PA, so my time is committed elsewhere.

Drew


Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 28, 2018, 06:43:21 AM
Mmmmm....Pastor Aeternus is telling us explicitly that the Pope enjoys the Divine promise of never-failing Faith.

What does that say about the belief that all the conciliar "popes" have become heretics one after the other?
Please don't take my bluntness as me being disrespectful toward you Cantarella because that most certainly is not why I am being blunt.....

Being bound to the magisterium as your rule of faith "implies a corresponding duty to believe whatever the successors of the Apostles teach."

So where do you come off accusing the pope(s) of being heretics? You speak as if the popes and bishops (magisterium) are in some type of major doctrinal conflict with each other when they are not. What happened to your faith in your rule of faith?

Do you know what it means to have faith in the rule of faith?

Having faith means that no matter how pleasant or repugnant to you it may be, you are required to accept it. You may not accuse or put impositions on it, you may not require of it, *it requires of you* – and what it requires is your absolute submission of faith.

This is exactly the point. I am challenging you to demonstrate where your faith really lies. By telling you that you are bound to submit to the NO bishops and popes (magisterium), I am telling you something that is repugnant to you, something that logically, no trad Catholic could stomach - but having faith consists of accepting it regardless of how it strikes us, accepting it because it is our rule of faith, which rule is foundational to our faith.

I know the idea that the hierarchy, is the magisterium is the rule of faith, is entirely false, entirely NO, that it is a false teaching which even you and Lad have no faith in - we all know this because if you actually believed in what you say, you would have faith in it and  you would be NO. Trads have always rejected that false teaching for what it is, while embracing what the magisterium actually is and what the rule of faith actually is - lest we all be NO.





Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 28, 2018, 08:46:01 AM

Quote
R&R claims that the Papal Magisterium has failed to realize its end of protecting the flock from error, i.e. that it has defected.
Ladislaus,
The magisterium cannot defect because it is the teaching AUTHORITY of the Church.  The magisterium has already SOLEMNLY declared that the ideals of V2 are errors.  Case closed.  There’s no “sifting” involved.  It’s written in black-and-white for all to see (and all must believe) and such errors have been condemned for CENTURIES.  It’s not complicated.  V2 fallibly taught infallibly condemned errors.  Infallible teaching > fallible “teaching”.  A 6yr old can understand this.  

Secondly, V2 DID NOT teach with doctrinal authority, nor did they bind anyone to believe its errors UNDER PAIN OF SIN.  If there is no obligation to believe under pain of sin, then it’s not a matter of salvation.  Therefore, we are OBLIGATED to reject these novelties which are PREVIOUSLY AND DOGMATICALLY AND INFALLIBLY CONDEMNED.  We are obligated to reject V2 or else we go to hell.  

The fact that you cannot distinguish between the fallible and infallible nature of the pope’s teaching authority, nor do you accept the simple understanding of the word ‘fallible’ is astounding.  And it shows that you are defending a preconceived conclusion instead of following the facts.  

(For the record, I do believe that the sedeprivationist theory is possible, not because of this “proximate rule” debate but for other reasons.  So don’t broad-brush people with your personal “R&R” definition.  There are many different perspectives.)
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 28, 2018, 09:17:52 AM
R&R DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS THE TEACHING OF VATICAN I.

Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus IV.7

Quote
This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine.

It cannot happen that Catholics in submission to the Papal Magisterium could jeopardize their salvation and ingest the "poisonous food of error" ... as R&R claims has happened.  This right here is all the theological proof you need for the teaching of "infallible safety" ... which Drew dismisses as pure speculation.  It's TAUGHT DIRECTLY by Vatican I.
Pitiful bit of theological wizardry you attempt there Lad. Study the prior bullet point IV.6, in order to find out what this gift of never failing faith is. Study it until you fully understand and comprehend it. After you accomplish this, then apply the correct understanding to 7.

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 28, 2018, 11:07:33 AM
:laugh1:

Unbelievable.  I simply quote Vatican I and that's referred to as a "pitiful ... theological wizardry".  You guys are a joke, and it might even be funny if you weren't promoting heresy.
LOL

I was talking about your ridiculous commentary, not the clear teaching you chose to mangle. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 28, 2018, 11:10:25 AM
Imbecile, it defines it right there in the text I quoted.  Never-failing faith has the effect of making sure that in the discharge of his teaching office the pope cannot introduce the poison of error to the flock ... and that the teaching office will be conducive to the salvation of the faithful (rather than militated against it .. as you heretics claim).

I'm taking off the gloves here.  You guys are without a question HERETICS.

In fact, as St. Thomas teaches that, once you've rejected the Magisterium as your rule of faith, you cannot have supernatural faith anymore --


This some other principle always ultimately reduces to your own private judgment.
Brainiac, you don't understand what Never failing faith is. Take the gloves and slip them over your head already, then go submit to your idea of the magisterium, show us the faith you have in that for a change.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 28, 2018, 11:25:06 AM
Quote
WRONG.  Most of the errors people call out in Vatican II were condemend in documents of the ORDINARY PAPAL MAGISTERIUM that had far less authority than an Ecumenical Council does.
No, you're wrong.  V2's errors may have been condemned through the ordinary magisterium but they were also condemned solemnly.  How many times have anti-EENS ideals been condemned?  Multiple.  Has V2's false ecumenism been condemned solemnly?  Yes, council of florence, I believe.  And religious liberty?  Yes, already been condemned (but I don't remember the council).

Even the novus ordo's 'consecration of the wine' translation has been condemened solemnly.  So, there's that too.

The reasons people bought into V2 was because of 1) false obedience, 2) the argument that these errors were not errors, but simply an "update for the times", and 3) a willingness to make catholicism "easier".  Many, many catholics of this time WANTED the changes.

Any catholic with a brain at the time knew V2 had errors which had already been condemned.  Those that loved the Faith, started traditionalism.  Those that wanted to walk the 'wide and easy path' did so, and they placated their conscience by telling themselves they were 'obedient'.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 28, 2018, 12:01:26 PM
Quote
But you're claiming, then, that it's possible for an Ecumenical Council to teach HERESY to the Universal Church?  That's taking it to a new level.
V2 did not make use of its SOLEMN infallible magisterium, therefore its documents fall under the fallible ordinary magisterium.  Your problem is that you refuse to admit that 'fallible' means 'able to err'.

You also erroneously treat a SOLEMN infallible Teaching (capital 'T') as being on the same level as a teaching (lowercase 't') from the fallible, ordinary magisterium, which teachings do not carry the same doctrinal weight. 
- SOLEMN teachings have a 'certainty of faith'; teachings from the ordinary magisterium do not. 
- SOLEMN teachings are binding 'under pain of sin'; ordinary, fallible teachings do not. 
- SOLEMN teachings MUST be belived, no ifs, ands or buts.  Ordinary teachings require a conditional assent, presuming error is possible.

Your refusal to admit these distinctions is alarming.  You can agree to the above and still be a sedeprivationist.  Why you fight this makes no sense.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 28, 2018, 01:24:42 PM
Cantarella,

Now you have gone back to where this started.  The Pope is you rule of faith.  I suggest that you read the thread:
The Heretical Pope Fallacy (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-heretical-pope-fallacy/msg586898/#msg586898)
« on: December 31, 2017, 06:05:26 PM »

My wife posted a few of my initial exchanges with the conservative Catholic Emmet O'Regan.  The link is provided in the post to the entire exchange. You will discover that he, like you, believes that the pope possesses a personal "never-failing faith."  Besides not being true, it leads to two ends and you and Mr. O'Regan are good examples of both.  

Dogma is the proximate rule of faith and the only solution to this error.

You need not reply to this. I think you are determined to follow the course you have chosen and any further discussion would be fruitless.  It is Holy Week and we will have Tenebrae each day sung in Latin this year at our chapel in York, PA, so my time is committed elsewhere.

Drew

Seems to me Ladislaus is trying to bury any replies from his oponents he doesn't have an answer for (except insults, of course). I think the replies on the above link are well worth the read. All the replies should be in the link below.

http://unveilingtheapocalypse.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-heretical-pope-fallacy.html (http://unveilingtheapocalypse.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-heretical-pope-fallacy.html)
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: hollingsworth on March 28, 2018, 01:26:23 PM
Matthew's problem is that he doesn't know when to shut a topic down.  He let's a thread about Fr. Ringrose descend into a food fight between CI members who wind up calling one another morons and heretics. Many other CI topics have fizzled out similarly. What could possible be Matt's motive in allowing this nonsense to continue?  Yet he does it time after time.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 28, 2018, 01:35:10 PM
Please don't take my bluntness as me being disrespectful toward you Cantarella because that most certainly is not why I am being blunt.....

Being bound to the magisterium as your rule of faith "implies a corresponding duty to believe whatever the successors of the Apostles teach."

So where do you come off accusing the pope(s) of being heretics? You speak as if the popes and bishops (magisterium) are in some type of major doctrinal conflict with each other when they are not. What happened to your faith in your rule of faith?

Do you know what it means to have faith in the rule of faith?

Having faith means that no matter how pleasant or repugnant to you it may be, you are required to accept it. You may not accuse or put impositions on it, you may not require of it, *it requires of you* – and what it requires is your absolute submission of faith.

This is exactly the point. I am challenging you to demonstrate where your faith really lies. By telling you that you are bound to submit to the NO bishops and popes (magisterium), I am telling you something that is repugnant to you, something that logically, no trad Catholic could stomach - but having faith consists of accepting it regardless of how it strikes us, accepting it because it is our rule of faith, which rule is foundational to our faith.

I know the idea that the hierarchy, is the magisterium is the rule of faith, is entirely false, entirely NO, that it is a false teaching which even you and Lad have no faith in - we all know this because if you actually believed in what you say, you would have faith in it and  you would be NO. Trads have always rejected that false teaching for what it is, while embracing what the magisterium actually is and what the rule of faith actually is - lest we all be NO.

^^^This.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 28, 2018, 01:36:22 PM
Bellator,
As has been mentioned multiple times before, you make the same error that Ladislaus does, in that you refuse to admit that the ordinary magisterium can be infallible and fallible, depending on the wording and authority they use in their teachings.

Many theologians say that Humae Vitae was an example of the ordinary/universal magisterium because the teaching was 1) clear, 2) authoritative and 3) proposed as a UNIVERSAL teaching, meaning it was shown to agree with Tradition.  Humae Vitae intended and made it clear that its teaching was binding and had to be believed.

V2 was not clear, not authoritative and is not universal, because its novelties (which the authors admit were novelties) do not agree with Tradition.  Therefore it's a fallible teaching.  V2 was not clear nor did it say it was binding anyone under pain of sin.

Vatican 1 was not referring to V2's type of teaching but to the clear, authoritative and universal teaching like in Humae Vitae.  The differences between the two are striking.  Language and intent is IMPORTANT!
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 28, 2018, 02:10:54 PM
Get lost, heretic.  You're also one of the biggest idiots I've ever encountered online ... without the ability to grasp simple logic or even basic English.  By itself, it's no big deal ... since not everyone has received the gift of intelligence from God.  But combined with your incredible hubris, where you THINK you know better than the Church on everything, and only your interpretation of dogma is in fact the exact dogma "as it is written" ... that combination of stupidity and arrogance are incredibly repugnant to both God and man.
Let's be straight here. You lie, not me. You're the educated one whose been brainwashed, not me. You're the one with no faith in your own heretical idea of what the magisterium even is, not me. I could go on, but you'll have to find out the hard way. Sad, but that's usually the way it works when you have no faith. I will keep you in my prayers.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Clemens Maria on March 28, 2018, 02:24:00 PM
Self-moderating is always a possibility: Profile>Modify Profile>Buddie/Ignore List>Edit Ignore List  - Enter member name in text box and click Add button.  This works fairly well even if you are not a terribly self-disciplined character.  You will still see the heading of the posts of this member but not the content.  There is a link if you really want to see the content.  But don't click it.  Just trust that there was a good reason that you went to the trouble of putting this member on the ignore list.  Serenity now!
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 28, 2018, 02:26:59 PM
You contradict the teaching of Vatican I, Pax....


Quote
Vatican I

Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or IN her ordinary and universal magisterium
I think you put the accent on the wrong word BD. I think you should have put the accent on the word "in".

In Tuas Libenter, Pope Pius IX defines those things which are contained IN the magisterium as: "All that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith."

By this definition of both Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, both are infallible.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: King Wenceslas on March 28, 2018, 02:50:28 PM
Bellermine should have gotten his act together before stating this:


Quote
It is proved ab eventu. For to this point no [Pontiff] has been a heretic, or certainly it cannot be proven that any of them were heretics; therefore it is a sign that such a thing cannot be


Quote
The Form and Minister of Baptism *

[From the responses to the decrees of the Bulgars, Nov., 866, Pope St. Nicholas the Great]

Denzinger 335 Chap. 104. You assert that in your fatherland many have been baptized by a certain Jew, you do not know whether Christian or pagan, and you consult us as to what should be done about them. If indeed they have been baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity or only in the name of Christ, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles [cf.Acts 2:38;19:5], (surely it is one and the same, as Saint Ambrose * sets forth) it is established that they should not be baptized again.

If that is not heresy then nothing is.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 28, 2018, 03:15:04 PM
Quote
When one comes to the realization that the Magisterium (extraordinary and ordinary) is in fact infallible, everything becomes more clear.
When a Bishop gives a homily at mass, that is an act of the magisterium.  Is that infallible?  It could be; it could not be.
When the pope gives an "off the cuff" sermon or interview, that is an act of the magisterium.  Is that infallible?  It could be, it could not be.  Depends how precise he is.

You have no idea what you're talking about.  Distinctions must be made.  Your mentality is binary; theology is not.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 28, 2018, 03:42:26 PM
Quote
Drew, Stubborn, Pax ... I don't even recognize you as Catholics.
Emotional overreaction. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 28, 2018, 03:51:47 PM
Quote
The homily of a Bishop and an "off the cuff" sermon or interview by the pope are acts of the Magisterium??
If the Bishop is giving a sermon on a doctrinal matter, he is using his teaching authority and this is an act of the magisterium.  If the pope is giving an interview and he is speaking of faith/morals, yes, this is an act of the magisterium.  Depending on what they say, if it agrees with Tradition, it could be infallible or not.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 28, 2018, 04:04:33 PM
From this article:
http://sspx.org/en/clear-ideas-popes-infallible-magisterium (http://sspx.org/en/clear-ideas-popes-infallible-magisterium)

...Before you write it off because it comes from the sspx, just ignore that and concentrate on the quotes, which come from people who were talking BEFORE the sspx even existed...

The Ordinary Magisterium is ONLY infallible when it teaches "that which has always been taught".  Christ gave the Apostles the "fullness of Truth" therefore, there is nothing new to add to the Faith.  Therefore, the 1st century Christians had the full Faith, just like we do.  This is why we can point to "what has always been taught" as a litmus test for the Faith - because it never changes!

--------

The point of the question
The infallible guarantee of divine assistance is not limited solely to the acts of the Solemn Magisterium; it also extends to the Ordinary Magisterium, although it does not cover and assure all the latter’s acts in the same way. (Fr. Labourdette, O.P., Revue Thomiste, 1950, p.38)
Thus, the assent due to the Ordinary Magisterium "can range from simple respect right up to a true act of faith." (Archbishop Guerry, La Doctrine Sociale de l’Eglise, Paris, Bonne Presse, 1957, p.172). It is most important, therefore, to know precisely when the Roman pope’s Ordinary Magisterium is endowed with the charism of infallibility.

Since the pope alone possesses the same infallibility conferred by Jesus Christ upon his Church [i.e., the pope plus the bishops in communion with him, cf. Denzinger (http://sspx.org/en/media/books/sources-catholic-dogma-denzinger-12315) [Dz.]1839), we must conclude that only the pope, in his Ordinary Magisterium, is infallible in the same degree and under the same conditions as the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church is.
Quote
Thus the truth that is taught must be proposed as already defined, or as what has always been believed or accepted in the Church, or attested by the unanimous and constant agreement of theologians as being a Catholic truth [which is therefore] strictly obligatory for all the faithful." ("Infaillibilite du Pape", DTC, vol. VII, col. 1705)

This condition was recalled by Cardinal Felici in the context of Humanae Vitae:
Quote
On this problem we must remember that a truth may be sure and certain, and hence it may be obligatory, even without the sanction of an ex cathedra definition. So it is with the encyclical Humanae Vitae, in which the pope, the supreme pontiff of the Church, utters a truth which has been constantly taught by the Church’s Magisterium and which accords with the precepts of Revelation." (L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 19, 1968, p.3)

No one, in fact, can refuse to believe what has certainly been revealed by God. And it is not only those things that have been defined as such that have certainly been revealed by God; the latter also include whatever has been always and everywhere taught by the Church’s Ordinary Magisterium as having been revealed by God. More recently, Archbishop Bertone reminded us that the Ordinary Pontifical Magisterium can teach a doctrine as definitive [emphasis in original] in virtue of the fact that it has been constantly preserved and held by Tradition.

Such is the case with Ordinatio Sacerdotalis when it repeats the invalidity of the priestly ordination of women, which has always been held by the Church with "unanimity and stability" (L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 20, 1996).
Cardinal Siri, still speaking of Humanae Vitae in the issue of the review Renovatio to which we have referred, explains as follows:
Quote
The question, therefore, must be put objectively thus: given that [Humanae Vitae] is not an act of the Infallible Magisterium and that it therefore does not of itself provide the guarantee of ‘irreformability’ and certitude, would not its substance be nonetheless guaranteed by the Ordinary Magisterium under the conditions under which the Ordinary Magisterium is itself known to be infallible?"

After giving a summary of the Church’s continuous tradition on contraception, from the Didache to the encyclical Casti Connubii (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html) of Pope Pius XI, Cardinal Siri concludes:
Quote
This encyclical recapitulated the ancient teaching and the habitual teaching of today. This means that we can say that the conditions for the Ordinary irreformable [i.e., infallible—Ed.] Magisterium were met. The period of widespread turbulence is a very recent fact and has nothing to do with the serene possession [of the Magisterium—Ed.] over many centuries." (Renovatio, op.cit.)

It is an error, therefore, to extend infallibility unconditionally to the whole of the Ordinary Magisterium of the pope, whether he is speaking urbi et orbi or just addressing pilgrims. It is true that the infallibility of the Extraordinary Magisterium is not enough for the Church; the Extraordinary Magisterium is a rare event, whereas "faith needs infallibility and it needs it every day," as Cardinal Siri himself said (Renovatio, op.cit.). But Cardinal Siri is too good a theologian to forget that even the pope’s infallibility has conditions attached to it. If the Ordinary Magisterium is to be infallible, it must be traditional (cf. Salaverri, loc. cit.). If it breaks with Tradition, the Ordinary Magisterium cannot claim any infallibility. Here we see very clearly the very special nature of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium, to which we must devote some attention.

The special nature of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium
As we have seen, Cardinal Siri observes that the Humanae Vitae, even if it is not an act of the ex cathedra Magisterium, would still furnish the guarantee of infallibility, not "of itself," but insofar as it recapitulates "the ancient teaching and the habitual teaching of today" (Renovatio, op. cit.). In fact, in contrast to the Extraordinary Magisterium or the Solemn Judgment, the Ordinary Magisterium does not consist in an isolated proposition, pronouncing irrevocably on the Faith and containing its own guarantees of truth, but in a collection of acts which can concur in communicating a teaching.
Quote
This is the normal procedure by which Tradition, in the fullest sense of that term, is handed down;..." (Pope or Church?, op. cit. p.10)
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 28, 2018, 05:33:40 PM
I'm sorry but the fact that you agree with Stubborn's inane and incoherent ramblings is enough to completely discredit you in my mind.

His idiotic comments are all predicated on the fact that he doesn't understand that this error does not actually come from the Magisterium.  He repeatedly assumes that the V2 Popes are legitimate as a premise for proving that the V2 Popes are legitimate.  That's the ultimate begging of the question.
The truth is always idiotic and incoherent to those without faith, to liars and to workers of iniquity. Again, nothing complicated about it.

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 28, 2018, 05:40:39 PM
Quote
For to what other See was it ever said I have prayed for thee Peter, that thy Faith do not fail? so say the Fathers, not meaning that none of Peter's seat can err in person, understanding, private doctrine or writing, but that they cannot nor shall not ever judicially conclude or give definitive sentence for falsehood or heresy against the Catholic Faith, in their Consistories, Courts, Councils, decrees, deliberations, or consultations kept for decision and determinations of such controversies, doubts, questions of faith as shall be proposed unto them: because Christ's prayer and promise protected them therein for conformation of their Brethren.

I think it does not come any clearer than this. This is a dogmatic decree from Vatican I Council which denial constitutes heresy. This teaching is infallible.

And yet, rejecting your own rule of faith, you deny it. So does poor, confused Ladislaus.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 28, 2018, 07:00:47 PM
Quote
I would just like to see a teaching of the Magisterium that teaches that it is fallible in any form/type/mode whatsoever. I have never seen such a teaching and until you produce one, no one will consider your arguments legit.

Ask and ye shall receive...

The "Authentic Magisterium" cannot be so simply identified with the Ordinary Magisterium. In fact, the Ordinary Magisterium can be infallible and non-infallible, and it is only in this second case that it is called the "Authentic Magisterium." The Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique [hereafter referred to as DTC—Ed.] under the heading of "papal infallibility" (vol. VII, col. 1699ff) makes the following distinctions:
1.   there is the "infallible or ex cathedra papal definition in the sense defined by Vatican I" (col.1699);
2.   there is the "infallible papal teaching which flows from the pope’s Ordinary Magisterium" (col.1705);
3.   there is "non-infallible papal teaching" (col.1709).

Similarly, Salaverri, in his Sacrae Theologiae Summa (vol. I, 5th ed., Madrid, B.A.C.) distinguishes the following:
1.   Extraordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 592 ff);
2.   Ordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 645 ff);
3.   Papal Magisterium that is mere authenticum, that is, only "authentic" or "authorized" as regards the person himself, not as regards his infallibility (no. 659 ff).
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: King Wenceslas on March 28, 2018, 07:22:12 PM
3.   there is "non-infallible papal teaching" (col.1709).

Amoris Laetitia
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 28, 2018, 07:31:14 PM
Quote
I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail.

First off, how are you arguing that the pope's faith cannot fail, yet this doesn't apply to his personal faith as well?  Does the pope have 2 faiths?  1 personal and 1 of his office?  Does he have 2 souls?  Can he get to heaven personally, but go to hell as a pope?  Can he go to hell personally, but go to heaven as pope?

When did Pope Paul VI lose his personal faith?  We need a concrete example, with evidence, if you're going to make this accusation.  You can't use circular reasoning and say "Well, V2 is contrary to tradition, therefore I can't accept it, therefore a true pope couldn't have decreed it, therefore he's not pope."  That's so circular that it an intro high school logic class would laugh you out of the room.

When did JP2 lose his?  Benedict and Francis too?

My point is, the question of the pope is COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of the question of V2.  You want to mingle it all together, but that's just because you are treating theology like a sports team and you want people to be on "your side".  As I said earlier, this is either-or logic.  These types of theological questions have MULTIPLE layers, therefore there are MULTIPLE explanations and MULTIPLE viewpoints.  How many different theological opinions were there at the time of St Bellarmine?...multiple.  And there are multiple viewpoints on V2.  So what's multiple x multiple?  More than either-or.

Quote
This is a dogmatic decree from Vatican I Council which denial constitutes heresy. This teaching is infallible.
The Point #6 which you quoted from Vatican 1 is not part of the dogmatic decree.  Point #6 is not infallible.  The below is the only infallible part:

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our saviour, for the exaltation of the catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the sacred council, 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 ours: let him be anathema.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 28, 2018, 07:32:19 PM

Quote
3.   there is "non-infallible papal teaching" (col.1709).

Amoris Laetitia
Exactly.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 28, 2018, 08:53:38 PM
Quote
Really Pax? Now you are going to compartmentalize Vatican I Council just like you do with Vatican II? What is the end of such madness? What about the other previous 19 Ecumenical Councils? Must Catholics scrutinize the narrative of every single dogmatic document, just in case there has been a grammatical error or linguistic differences?
You're missing the point.  The faith is known by simple truths and simple sentences that a child can memorize by way of the catechism.  So, when the pope defines a doctrine solemnly, he does so in a simple sentence, because truth is simple, as is God.  The ARGUMENTS and REASONS why the pope issued the doctrine ARE NOT INFALLIBLE because they are not doctrine.  It really doesn't matter WHY the pope reaffirmed the dogma of the assumption, or WHAT he hopes will be accomplished through his action.  This isn't infallible because it's not directly related to faith and morals.  All that matters is the dogma.

From the Baltimore Catechism.  Very succinct definition of infallibility, just like the doctrine was defined.

Q. 530. When does the Church teach infallibly?
A. The Church teaches infallibly when it speaks through the Pope and Bishops united in general council, or through the Pope alone when he proclaims to all the faithful a doctrine of faith or morals.
Q. 531. What is necessary that the Pope may speak infallibly or ex-cathedra?
A. That the Pope may speak infallibly, or ex-cathedra:
   1. He must speak on a subject of faith or morals;
   2. He must speak as the Vicar of Christ and to the whole Church;
   3. He must indicate by certain words, such as, we define, we proclaim, etc., that he intends to speak infallibly.

Q. 532. Is the Pope infallible in everything he says and does?
A. The Pope is not infallible in everything he says and does, because the Holy Ghost was not promised to make him infallible in everything, but only in matters of faith and morals for the whole Church. Nevertheless, the Pope's opinion on any subject deserves our greatest respect on account of his learning, experience and dignity.


Also, here are some quotes on infallibility.  I've posted these before...



Quote
All of the below quotes are from a lengthy article which you can find here:  http://the-american-catholic.com/2013/10/19/cardinal-newman-on-papal-infallibility/ (http://the-american-catholic.com/2013/10/19/cardinal-newman-on-papal-infallibility/)

These conditions of course contract the range of his infallibility most materially. Hence Billuart speaking of the Pope says,

“Neither in conversation, nor in discussion, nor in interpreting Scripture or the Fathers, nor in consulting, nor in giving his reasons for the point which he has defined, nor in answering letters, nor in private deliberations, supposing he is setting forth his own opinion, is the Pope infallible,” t. ii. p. 110. And for this simple reason, because on these various occasions of speaking his mind, he is not in the chair of the universal doctor.

4. Nor is this all; the greater part of Billuart’s negatives refer to the Pope’s utterances when he is out of the Cathedra Petri, but even, when he is in it, his words do not necessarily proceed from his infallibility. He has no wider prerogative than a Council, and of a Council Perrone says,

“Councils are not infallible in the reasons by which they are led, or on which they rely, in making their definition, nor in matters which relate to persons, nor to physical matters which have no necessary connexion with dogma.” Præl. Theol. t. 2, p. 492.

Thus, if a Council has condemned a work of Origen or Theodoret, it did not in so condemning go beyond the work itself; it did not touch the persons of either. Since this holds of a Council, it also holds in the case of the Pope; therefore, supposing a Pope has quoted the so called works of the Areopagite as if really genuine, there is no call on us to believe him; nor again, if he condemned Galileo’s Copernicanism, unless the earth’s immobility has a “necessary connexion with some dogmatic truth,” which the present bearing of the Holy See towards that philosophy virtually denies.


5. Nor is a Council infallible, even in the prefaces and introductions to its definitions. There are theologians of name, as Tournely and Amort, who contend that even those most instructive capitula passed in the Tridentine Council, from which the Canons with anathemas are drawn up, are not portions of the Church’s infallible teaching; and the parallel introductions prefixed to the Vatican anathemas have an authority not greater nor less than that of those capitula.

7. Accordingly, all that a Council, and all that the Pope, is infallible in, is the direct answer to the special question which he happens to be considering; his prerogative does not extend beyond a power, when in his Cathedra, of giving that very answer truly. “Nothing,” says Perrone, “but the objects of dogmatic definitions of Councils are immutable, for in these are Councils infallible, not in their reasons,”& c.—ibid.

To sum up, let's re-read the Baltimore Catechism, which is direct, clear and childlike and see what it says about Indefectibility, which many of you have a garbled understanding of.  

Q. 543. What do you mean by the indefectibility of the Church?
A. By the indefectibility of the Church I mean that the Church, as Christ founded it, will last till the end of time.
Q. 544. What is the difference between the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church?
A. When we say the Church is infallible we mean that it can never teach error while it lasts; but when we say the Church is indefectible, we mean that it will last forever and be infallible forever; that it will always remain as Our Lord founded it and never change the doctrines He taught.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 28, 2018, 10:00:15 PM
Quote
Look, I know you are trying really hard but the reality is that Ecunemical Councils are infallible.
They have the POTENTIAL to be infallible.  V2 was the first to not have been.  All other were infallible, in specific parts of the canons only.


Quote
There is absolutely nothing in Catholic theology that supports the notion that General Councils can promulgate heresy.
I agree that history/theology does not support the idea that a council could err.  However, it never says it can't happen, either.  How many theologians argued that the pope could never become a heretic?  Yet here we are.  

I believe V2 was a fallible council, which is to say it erred.  The question is not: Can a council promulgate heresy?  That's too general.  The question is: Can a council change doctrine which would bind catholics to believe in error?  No it cannot and V2 did not.  

V2 proposed contradictions with truth and error mixed together but it did not OFFICIALLY teach these errors, or the contradictions, because there is no penalty of sin if we disregard such novelties.  V2 was not a fully authoritative council, as were the previous ecumenical councils.  If it were, then the magisterium would've drawn a line in the sand and said "you must accept V2 or else you're a heretic."  The Church has yet to say this, or anything close to it.  All She has said is that we must give "religious (conditional) assent" to its documents.  There are NO OTHER ecumencial councils which ONLY require CONDITIONAL assent.  None.  So if you won't admit that V2 is different than all other ecumenical councils you have no integrity.

Quote
If an Ecumenical Council has taught heresy to the Universal Church, then the Church has defected.
A teaching of the Church implies that we MUST accept it under pain of sin, with certainty of faith, in order to be saved.  All other ecumenical councils required this level of belief.  V2 did not (and still does not).  Therefore, V2 did not "teach" in the same manner, nor on the same level, as all other ecumenical councils.  Again, if you won't admit this difference, you are of bad will and you have an agenda.


Quote
when we say the Church is indefectible, we mean that it will last forever and be infallible forever; that it will always remain as Our Lord founded it and never change the doctrines He taught.
This means that the Church, in Her OFFICIAL teachings, will never change church doctrine and will forever remain the same, until the end of time.  V2 did not change church doctrine, (though it proposed (but did not require) "modern" ways of "re-understanding" certain doctrines).  The reason V2 did not change doctrine is because NO ONE IS FORCED TO ACCEPT THEIR NEW IDEAS.  If we are not force to accept it, under pain of sin, with certainty of faith, as a matter of salvation, then it's not part of the Faith.  It's as simple as that.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 28, 2018, 10:19:25 PM
Saying V2 is the same as all the other ecumenical councils is like saying a corvette with a VW engine is the same as all other corvettes.  You can't judge a council by the body-style and who was there , nor can you judge it by the way it drives/operates, you have to look at the engine and the nuts-and-bolts of the conciliar documents.  Once you open up the hood and start poking around, you'll see it's not a real corvette, it's just an imitation, it's a ruse put on by freemasons who had no intention of changing church doctrine (and they didn't).   
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 28, 2018, 10:46:54 PM
This Ecumenical Council was the first to invite non-Catholic "observers" to participate in its proceedings, who took an active part in the proceedings behind the scenes as is well pointed out by Michael Davies in his work on " Pope John's Council". The very presence of these non Catholic observers must have had an inhibiting effect on the Council Fathers. 

It was the first Ecumenical Council to be declared "pastoral" rather than "dogmatic" if other councils, did have pastoral propositions, they were nevertheless dogmatic Councils. 

It was the first Ecumenical council that neither delimited Catholic doctrine from contemporary errors, nor issued disciplinary canons. When requested by hundreds of Council Fathers for the condemnation of Communism - certainly the principal error of the time, they were sidetracked by those in control - in clear violation of the Council's own rules of order - as reported by Father Wiltgen (The Rhine Flows into the Tiber) and others.


Bishop Butler of England publicly stated that Vatican II was in no way infallible: 
“Not all teachings emanating from a pope or Ecumenical Council are infallible. There is no single proposition of Vatican II – except where it is citing previous infallible definitions – which is in itself infallible.” (The Tablet 26/11/1967)


The same was affirmed by Bishop Rudolf Graber who wrote in his book:
“Since the Council was aiming primarily at a pastoral orientation and hence refrained from making dogmatically binding statements or disassociating itself, as previous Church assemblies have done, from errors and false doctrines by means of clear anathemas, many questions took on an opalescent ambivalence which provided a certain amount of justification for those who speak of the spirit of the Council.” (Athanasius and the Church of Our Times, 1974)


The difference between doctrinal and pastoral teachings has great implications at Ecumenical Councils. This is because the Church has never taught that all Church Councils are in and of themselves infallible. St. Robert Bellarmine, points out that, "Only by the words of the general Council do we know whether the fathers of that council intended to engage their prerogative infallibility" [17]



What is more, is that Fr. Vincent McNabb O.P, rightly pointy out that "If there have been antipopes still more have there been anti-councils. If papal actions must be distinguished into official, semi-official, and personal, equally so must the acts of councils" - Infallibility (London, 1927), Sheed and Ward, Pg. 78.

In the case of Vatican II it would be highly imprudent to give our assent without departing from the faith to a great number of its works. Archbishop Felici, the General Secretary of Vatican II did not hesitate to state that Catholics must "make reservations" on those declarations from the Council "which have a novel character" 

Hence we can clearly comprehend why "these doctrines (of the Second Vatican Council) are not even part of the Church's authentic (i.e., ordinary, non-universal) teaching, because the bishops expressed no intention to hand down the Deposit of the Faith; on the contrary, their spokesmen (e.g., Paul VI) expressed their intention to come to terms with the modern world and its values, long condemned by true Catholic churchmen as being intrinsically un-Catholic. Therefore, the documents of Vatican II have only a Conciliar authority, the authority of that Council, but no Catholic authority at all, and no Catholic need take seriously anything Vatican II said, unless it was already Church doctrine beforehand."
--Fr. Pierre Marie, editor of the French Traditional Dominicans' quarterly, Le Sel de la Terre

"Since not everything taught by the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible, we must ask what kind of assent we should give to its various decisions. The Christian is required to give the assent of faith to all the doctrinal and moral truths defined by the Church's Magisterium. He is not required to give the same assent to teaching imparted by the sovereign pontiff that is not imposed on the whole Christian body as a dogma of faith. In this case it suffices to give that inner and religious assent which we give to legitimate ecclesiastical authority. This is not an absolute assent, because such decrees are not infallible, but only a prudential and conditional assent, since in questions of faith and morals there is a presumption in favor of one's superior... Such prudential assent does not eliminate the possibility of submitting the doctrine to a further examination, if that seems required by the gravity of the question"
Nicolas Jung, Le Magistère de l'Èglise, 1935, pp.153 -154, Cf. DTC "Église" in, vol.IV, col.2209.

Pope Pius II already condemned Vatican II some 500 years before hand in his decree Exerabilis [27] which condemned anyone who would presume to call a council to alter any Catholic dogmatic teaching.

Pope Clement XIII stipulated in his decree, Dominico Agro, of two centuries ago that none of the faithful should have "extraordinary opinions proposed to them, not even from Catholic doctors; instead, they should listen to those opinions which have the most certain criteria of Catholic truth: universality, antiquity, and unanimity."


http://catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/vatican.htm
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 29, 2018, 12:02:54 AM
Amazing, you make the allegation of lying and produce no evidence other than your arguments (for what they are worth) have not convinced me?  You think everyone reading these posts are fools?  When I call you a liar, I produce a specific allegation.  The charge is based upon evidence so that you can address the specific charge. Liars always have problems with their memory so let me refresh yours.  
 
To "prove" your claim that the "magisterium is the rule of faith," you pasted the article from the Catholic New Advent Encyclopedia that argued that the rule of faith must be "extrinsic" to the faith.  
Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-heretical-pope-fallacy/msg587485/#msg587485)
« Reply #94 on: January 03, 2018, 09:27:31 PM »
 
From this you argued that the magisterium is extrinsic to the faith, and that it is not part of divine revelation. We had several exchanges on this question to which you replied:
 
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg600685/#msg600685)
« Reply #293 on: March 21, 2018, 08:17:44 AM »


Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg601142/#msg601142)
« Reply #358 on: March 23, 2018, 06:32:15 PM »

After Cantarella posted a dogmatic teaching that the magisterium is from divine revelation, she was asked whether she believed the dogma or you.
 
The reply did not come from Cantarella but from you.  And now we move on to your lying efforts to "prove" that you never argued that the magisterium is extrinsic to divine revelation.
 
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg601154/#msg601154)
« Reply #363 on: March 23, 2018, 08:23:17 PM »
 
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora on March 23, 2018, 06:32:15 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg601142/#msg601142)

"Well, what is it going to be: the Magisterium is part of divine revelation or the Magisterium is not part of divine revelation.  Who has everything wrong, you or Ladisalus?"

And the equivocations keeps on flowing.  You are a liar.
 
But your claim that the magisterium is not part of divine revelation is just one of many stupid things that you have posted. You are a phony pretending a competency that you do not possess.

Several years ago you denied that supernatural faith was believing what God has revealed on the authority of God.

 
SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/secret-special-chapter-of-neo-fsspx/msg463233/#msg463233)
« Reply #30 on: August 16, 2015, 08:08:35 AM »
 
Then you demonstrated that you in fact did not know the definition of supernatural faith when you proposed driving a wedge between these two necessary attributes and thereby, dissolving the definition.
Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-heretical-pope-fallacy/msg588127/#msg588127)
« Reply #245 on: January 08, 2018, 11:25:03 AM »

So in this thread we have you arguing the magisterium is the rule of faith when you clearly do not know what the faith is or what the magisterium is. No wonder you do not know what the rule of faith is!
 
But you plod on tracking dirt where ever you go. Sedeprivationism presupposes the dissolution of the form and matter of the papal office and you are so ignorant that you do not even know that this presupposition necessarily produces a substantial change destroying the office!
 
You possess some knowledge but without wisdom or understanding.  The habit of the first principles is wholly lacking with you.  And what makes everything so destructive, you have no moral sense and your too immature to take responsibility for what you post or the damage you may do.
 
Drew

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg600637/#msg600637)
« Reply #291 on: March 20, 2018, 10:11:04 PM »

Just an additional post where Ladislaus claimed that the Magisterium was NOT part of God's revelation. It deserves to be added to the others already referenced in the post above:

Quote
"Indeed the Magisterium is NOT part of God's Revelation.  That Revelation ceased with the death of the Last Apostle.  But the Magisterium does indeed come from God's AUTHORITY (which He left with and communicated to the Church).  Just because it's extrinsic to the faith, per se, doesn't mean that it's not of God's authority."  
Ladislaus

He actually did not retracted this error, he just claimed he never said it.  This is an incredible error the implications of which would overturn the entire Magisterium.  The point of bringing this to everyone's attention is for several reasons:

1) Ladislaus denied having said this,
2) this displays a remarkable ignorance of fundamental first principles of the Catholic faith,
3) Ladislaus claims that the magisterium is his rule of faith and did not even know that it is part of revelation that has been dogmatically defined,
4) he has accused others of being Protestants for holding dogma as the rule of faith while he held this fundamental Protestant doctrine that the magisterium is not part of divine revelation.
5) Supernatural Faith is believing what God has revealed on the authority of God the revealer.  This is another example of dividing the Revelation of God from the Authority of God which in the end corrupts the very definition of supernatural faith.

This matter demonstrated an ignorance of the Magisterium and an ignorance of what supernatural faith actually is from a person who has posted repeatedly on this thread posing as an expert on these two questions.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 29, 2018, 06:27:19 AM
It seems obvious that in gaining sedeism, Lad cannot not see his own great bitterness and lack of charity, to say nothing of the spiritual disorder that he once saw. 


Quote
Ladislaus:

"I myself had once been a Sedevacantist. Only in retrospect can I honestly see the great bitterness and lack of charity that this led to on my part. I have found nothing but spiritual disorder – to one extent or another – in all the Sedevacantists I have ever met (myself included and foremost among them). It would be best to leave out the numerous downfalls – in scandalous fashion – of bitter Sedevacantists."

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 29, 2018, 08:30:48 AM
Quote
Cantarella, there's no need to keep debating these heretics.
I'm coming to the same conclusion about you two.  Both of you continue to post your personal interpretation of general V1 excerpts.  How about you post some good research?  How about you post some FACTS?  The closest thing you have to supporting your view is 1-2 Fenton quotes about a weird, modernist view that the pope possesses a fallible infallibility (which is a contradiction), which leads to the false idea that the pope can never make a mistake and is an oracle.

The key problem with this view is that indefectibility and infallibility are intertwined, as the Baltimore Catechism clearly shows.  Indefectibility means that the Church will last til the end of time and Her doctrines will be preserved pure for the duration.  It does NOT mean that a non-doctrine will be preserved from error, as Fenton wrongly theorizes.  A fallible magisterial teaching (i.e. V2) is not doctrine, therefore it's not protected from error, therefore indefectibility (just like infallibility) aren't engaged!  You want to put ALL magisterial acts under the protection of the indefectibility umbrella - No!  Only infallible doctrine, only those teachings which have a 'certainty of faith', which are required to be believed, are protected.

If you want to post some other quotes to support this modernist ideal, I'm all ears.  I'm open to the fact I could be wrong or misunderstanding.

Meanwhile I'm posting quote after quote from experts, all of whom disagree with Fenton, 1) who talk about a fallible magisterium, 2) who explain why only canons are infallible and not 90% of the rest of the document and 3) which is why V2 is not infallible and therefore can err, because the fallible magisterium is NOT part of the teaching church authority.  We owe it religious  CONDITIONAL assent but we do not owe it blind faith, which is what is DEMANDED by all other ecumenical councils.  This fact, that V2 is different in teaching authority and intent from all other ecumenical councils, you refuse to admit, which shows your lack of integrity.

I pray for you both to be less attached to your views and more open to possible truth.  Let the facts lead where they may.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 29, 2018, 09:03:11 AM
If you believe that all Councils are infallible, then V2 was infallible.

If you say you believe all Councils are infallible, but V2 was not, then you do not believe all Councils are infallible.
If you say it is dogma that all councils are infallible but V2 was not, then you have no faith in that dogma.

All they are doing is creating an argument based on a NO doctrine (the "totality doctrine") in an attempt to justify their sedeism. It is an an entirely iniquitous argument whose ultimate accomplishment is the condemnation of what they themselves say they believe -  but really do not.  

All this iniquity is due to their attempt to justify their sedewhateverism, that's what it's all about.





Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on March 29, 2018, 10:03:17 AM
This is a SSPX priest. That someone would think that an ecumenical Council whose decrees have been approved by a Pope is heretical should tell us a priori that such a person cannot do good theology. The SSPX also exercises poor theology in others matters; but that is another topic. That is why I had asked for a non-SSPX resource.

Anyway, this author is wrong and here is proof. He says: "The difference between doctrinal and pastoral teachings has great implications at Ecumenical Councils. This is because the Church has never taught that all Church Councils are in and of themselves infallible".

In the scriptural annotations for the Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 15, which recounts the First Council of Jerusalem, is taught very explicitly that a General Council represents the whole Church, and therefore cannot err. Here is the most relevant parts from the textual annotation:

The Holy Ghost is the assistant of all lawful Councils, to the world's end, and that by Christ's promise.

At Vatican ll, there was never any intention of doing what the Church had always done in regard to previous Councils. There was no condemnation of error or heresies or schisms or the like. Do you understand why that's important?  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on March 29, 2018, 10:26:23 AM
I've pointed out this insanely idiotic "begging the question" logic about 100 times to you already.  What we're saying is that V2 was NOT an legitimate Ecumenical Council and therefore not infallible.  That's the very POINT of sedevacantism/sedeplenism.
You've never offered a definition of the indefectible and errorlessly teaching "Magisterium." You avoid my posts bringing up the apparent contradiction of how a Magisterium which is, to quote the popes you quoted, "unable to be mistaken, "without danger of error," and which "could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching," could in fact actually teach the erroneous doctrine of BoD in a universal catechism approved by the pope and drafted at the request of the Ecumenical Council of Trent.

Is your indefectible Magisterium limited to ecumenical councils and infallible, solemn papal utterances like the bull of Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus? If not, where else does it reach?

We do need to know this when confronted with a teaching of the Magisterium, don't we? It would help us immensely in dealing with an issue like, e.g. "BoD" . . . wouldn't you say? The popes and bishops are teaching all the time, writing encyclicals, issuing catechisms, etc. And apparently Our Lord's design - according to you - includes a usurpation by men masquerading as the Magisterium, issuing these teachings in abundance.

And I say, "what do we believe, Ladislaus? Where is the indefectible Magisterium?"

And you say, "these guys aren't it, they're masqueraders." And I say, "on what basis do you say this?" And you say . . . ?

You refer to what in proving your point? Past Magisterial statements? How do you judge the "masqueraders" without stepping away from your "rule of faith" to some other rule and becoming the "heretic" that you say Drew, Stubborn etc. are or may be?

I could tell you to go ask John Henry and he'll tell you what you need to know without any chance of being wrong, but if you don't know who John Henry is and couldn't identify him if you saw him . . . what the hell good is it?

Are you the CI Court Jester? This is very amusing.

And as to your blathering about Drew and Stubborn going against "all the Catholic theologians," I'm still waiting for the Catholic theologian that agrees with you that "the Catechism of Trent didn't teach BoD" - the only weak response I got from your "BoD is error" and "my rule of faith is the errorless Magisterium" contradiction.

It's a wonder anyone around here takes you seriously.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on March 29, 2018, 10:39:39 AM
If Vatican II was "different" as we all seem to agree, must be because a true Pope did not promulgated it. The only difference that could be defended from a theological point of view in saying that Vatican II was not a true Ecumenical Council of the Church, is that the authority which promulgated it is illegitimate, basically that Paul VI was an impostor, so there was not a Papal approbation, which is what makes the Councils infallible. It is either that; or accepting that Vatican II did not teach heresy; and hat therefore, we ought to be applying the "Hermeneutic of continuity".

The resolutions of a General Council are infallible. Part of the long scriptural annotations following the mentioned chapter of Acts of the Apostle from my Rheims Bible dated 1582 reads as follows:

But don't you take the view of Des Lauriers, in that the conciliar popes are popes and yet not popes at the same time?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 29, 2018, 10:54:14 AM
Quote
That someone would think that an ecumenical Council whose decrees have been approved by a Pope is heretical should tell us a priori that such a person cannot do good theology

First of all, V2's "decrees" do not carry the same weight as ALL PREVIOUS ECUMENICAL COUNCILS.  Apples vs oranges comparison.  ALL previous ecumenical councils REQUIRED, under PAIN OF SIN, with CERTAINTY OF FAITH, as a MATTER OF SALVATION, that their infallible canons had to be believed.  V2 DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SUCH BELIEF.  Therefore, your comparison is WRONG.  You are the one with faulty theology.

Quote
Do you know what distinguished the anti-Councils? precisely the lack of PAPAL APPROBATION.
This is a good point and I agree.  The quote was an interesting one, but we'll throw it out as its irrelevant.  My bad.

Quote
What we're saying is that V2 was NOT an legitimate Ecumenical Council and therefore not infallible.
Agree.  But it has nothing to do with sedevacantism.  It wasn't infallible because 1) it didn't follow V1's infallibility requirements and 2) it never intended to be infallible.

Quote
The resolutions of a General Council are infallible.
Of course they are.  But V2 HAD NO RESOLUTIONS/CANONS.  A teaching of a council, whereby the Church issues a statement, with an anathema, IS REQUIRED TO BE BELIEVED OR WE GO TO HELL.  V2 had no such statements/resolutions/canons.  Therefore, it's not infallible.

Quote
If Vatican II was "different" as we all seem to agree, must be because a true Pope did not promulgated it.
THANK YOU for admitting that V2 was not like ANY OTHER ecumenical council in church history.  But it has nothing to do with the status of the pope!  It has to do with the language used (or lack of it), the intention of the council and the lack of MORAL WEIGHT of its documents, which do not bind anyone to believe its drivel.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 29, 2018, 11:27:30 AM
Well, then be consistent, Stubborn. Your rule of Faith is "dogma", then have Faith in the infallible dogma that there is no salvation without personal submission to the Holy Father. If you recognize Pope Francis as such, then there is no other option for you but attending Mass next Sunday in your local FSSP, as unpleasant as may sound.
The dogma never states we must submit to him at all, it clearly state: "We declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Since dogma, particularly this one, is no longer your rule of faith, you likely believe, or say you believe, that this no longer applies to you. As such, it is apparent that you are convinced that you are infallibly safe to claim the pope is no pope at all and entirely disregard this dogma in favor of your new found rule of faith, this magisterium. The thing is, this goes against the rule of faith you say you believe in since your magisterium is most assuredly not sede and condemns as schismatic those who are. 

Your perplexities arise Cantarella because there is the consistent confusion you guys are in, between our obligation to remain faithful to truth / doctrine, and the requirement of authority, i.e. being subject to popes  - popes who are either knowingly or unknowingly hell bent on destruction of souls and destroying the Church. In His great wisdom, God surely must have worded the dogma this way to end all confusion in the matter, as He most certainly knew this confusion would arise and be the ruin of many.

Rest assured that there is no doctrine that teaches we are to obey evil wishes, teachings, or commands of the pope alone, or the pope in unison with the bishops.

 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 29, 2018, 11:37:12 AM
Moron.  She holds this dogma as an object of her faith based on (and motivated by) the rule that it has been defined by the Church.  Idiot doesn't even know what "rule of faith" means and he's spouting nonsense as if he's some kind of theological authority.


And you are?  :laugh1: Did you flank seminary?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 29, 2018, 11:47:11 AM
Moron.  She holds this dogma as an object of her faith based on (and motivated by) the rule that it has been defined by the Church.  Idiot doesn't even know what "rule of faith" means and he's spouting nonsense as if he's some kind of theological authority.
No, I am merely saying that which is the most basic and fundamental of truths of the Catholic faith, which is the authority.
I leave theological gymnastics out of it, that's your department. Well, that and insults.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on March 29, 2018, 12:05:12 PM
Of course he is.  R&R twists teachings of the Church to suit their narrative of the situation, and have been for a long time.
  
Yes, this sums it up nicely.  

Well, it will be up to all of the adherents of the various versions of sedeism to set everyone straight, right?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 29, 2018, 12:29:22 PM
Quote
He's now trying to liken the teaching of an Ecumenical Council to a random bishop giving a Sunday sermon or the Pope giving a radio interview. 
Nope, nice try.  You refuse to admit that an infallible statement IS REQUIRED FOR SALVATION.  V2 is not required, because it contradicts previously infallible/required statements, therefore it's anathema.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on March 29, 2018, 12:32:45 PM
The Shepherd has been struck and the sheep are scattered...we all have to do our best in this situation, Meg.  I believe most of us are trying to do our best to make sense out of everything.  

I just happen to believe the most logical position is the sede vacante position and that's why I'll keep debating and arguing about it.              

Okay, but the thing is, the Rainbow Coalition of Sedevacantists can't even agree among themselves as to what the truth of the situation really is. And yet they (you) condemn the stance of recognizing the pope, but resisting his errors.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 29, 2018, 12:33:27 PM
Quote
But these R&R Trad Catholics are in no way different, theologically speaking, from the Old Catholics who arose in the aftermath of Vatican I.
There you go again, making rash generalizations, like the liberal media, and you broad-brush everyone who disagrees with you as "R&R", which you've falsely defined as a narrow and specific viewpoint, when in reality, the term can include multiple mindsets.  You fail to distinguish either through malice, laziness or lack of education.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 29, 2018, 12:40:38 PM
If you have no acumen for theology, then you need to stop drawing absurd theological conclusions (out of ignorance) and then falsely attributing your nonsensical conclusions to others.  You were claiming that Cantarella no longer believed in dogma because her rule of faith isn't dogma.
What you call absurd "theological conclusions (out of ignorance)" are principles simple, basic and fundamental to the Catholic faith.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 29, 2018, 12:45:12 PM
Quote
So according to Pax Vobis' logic, the Nicene Creed emerging from the Council of Nicea (Ecunemical I) must be a fallible teaching subject to error because it does not happen to be enclosed in a "Canon".
Trick question.  The Nicean creed, as we know it today, was formulated at Nicea, but revised at the councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on March 29, 2018, 12:47:07 PM
Right??  According to Pax, we can't know for sure, so we have to pit Council against Council, and Pope against Pope...this is lunacy and at a minimum, proximate to heresy.  

No "pitting" is necessary in stable times. It is only necessary when heresies raise their head, like the Arian and the mixed bag of heresies we see now.  

The Holy Father and the bishops are believed to be true; that is the default position. Hitherto (prior to V2) that has served well, for the most part. 

If someone is on this forum I take it as the default position that they all are serious about the most important thing on earth, the Catholic faith. Most of us study it, practice it and devote our inner being to it. With the assistance of the Holy Ghost and divine revelation as handed down to us through the Church, we have a sensus Catholicus

Sometimes the default position, the assumption of true teaching and assent, gets disturbed; bells go off. This happened with that gentleman who objected at Mass to hearing the preaching of the Arian heresy.

Here's the point: what triggers the bells, and how does Ladislaus, Stubborn, Drew, Bellator Dei, Cantarella, know they've just heard heresy? How do they know this with a false, "masquerading magisterium" at the very top?

They have an infallible, true guide: the Church's teachings with the protection of the Holy Ghost, committed to writing in its dogma. 

This is true for Ladislaus, Stubborn, etc. 

You can dance around in these silly arguments about "rule of faith," etc. Even those who reject Laddie's version of the "rule of faith" give deference, respect and assent to the lawful authority as the default position. They act with the Catholic assumption, the Catholic default position . . . so nix this "Protestant" accusation. 

Ladislaus tosses his "rule of faith" to determine that the current hierarchy is full of masqueraders. How else does he do it? He takes infallible teachings from past Magisterium on, for example, religious liberty, or EENS, etc., and he judges that what he's hearing is either heresy or plainly wrong in any event. This is what Stubborn, etc. does. 

The "problem" is the inflated, pompous, "we are God's chosen and can do (teach) no wrong" attitude that has corrupted Churchmen and warped theologians into thinking they are beyond reproach and harm - for all intents and purposes whenever they open their mouths and speak. 

The truth is they only speak with the infallibility of God when He wills them to do so, for the revelation of what He wants us to know, and then He leaves them to their faithfulness, wisdom and freedom. 

Their wisdom hasn't been so wise and their freedom has been abused. God is not mocked, and so here we are. 

The Sedes promote this pompous, inflated idea of "indefectibility," the same ideas that brought us to this pass and promoted the vanity of Churchmen who can "interpret" and "update" God's Word as his spokesman who cannot "err." 

Kudos to Stubborn, Drew, Pax and those who are consistent and faithful, and don't avoid the contradiction that plagues others such as Ladislaus as to their holding to a "rule of faith" to an "errorless" Magisterium without correctly defining that term, "Magisterium." They depart from their own rule of faith at will - as they sometimes have to to be faithful to the truth. 

Sure, Laddie, you can quote tons of "theologians" who will chime "we can say no evil, we are the Temple of the Lord" (cf. Jeremiah 7:4) - as I said, that's how we got here. 

But prithee, where is that one theologian who teaches that the Catechism of Trent did not teach Bod? LOL (an inside joke if you're new to the thread) 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 29, 2018, 12:49:08 PM
Quote
Those who reject the Magisterium as this proximate rule must replace this proximate rule with something.  If it isn't the Church presenting dogma to our minds with authority as worthy of supernatural faith, then it's something else, a fallible rule that ultimately reduces in every case to private judgment.

It is only by the authority of the Church that we know what has been revealed by God.
Excellent post.  

This is what separates the Catholic Church from the reformists. 
What did he replace the magisterium with?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 29, 2018, 12:53:21 PM
Quote
He's making it up.
Yes, I made up all those quotes from theologians and Bishops about how V2 is a fallible council.  I also made up the theological commentary where it explains the 3 levels of the magisterium and how the papal office is only infallible in specific, and precise circumstances, as Vatican I lays out.

Meanwhile, your only source is Fenton.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 29, 2018, 01:01:22 PM
Quote
So how can we know that what the Church previously taught was true before such infallibility "requirements" were defined in Vatican I? This is, 19 Ecunemical Councils prior that one.
Because the requirements for infallibility are part of the Faith, which has existed since Apostolic times.  Vatican 1 only RE-TAUGHT what had always been believed.  Do you think it is a coincidence that all previous dogmatic statements at ALL ecumencial councils and ALL 'stand alone' dogmatic statements (i.e. immaculate conception in a papal bull) used the same formula to define these truths?  No it's not coincidence because it is FROM APOSTOLIC TIMES.  Who do you think the Apostles learned it from?  Christ, of course.

It goes to show how warped your thinking is on this topic that you would presume to think that infallibility didn't exist before Vatican 1.  Protestants believe that we're like the mormons and when we define something, that means it's a "new" teaching.  Of course it's not new - the truths of our Faith have been around SINCE DAY 1.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 29, 2018, 01:07:43 PM
I'm not following, Stubborn...take me down the rabbit hole a bit and maybe I'll figure it out.  
In a nutshell, the magisterium, his (previous?) rule of faith, is NO, but presumably he is not. This means he rejects the magisterium as his rule of faith.

So I asked, what did he replace his rule of faith, i.e. the magisterium, with. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 29, 2018, 01:13:28 PM
Link to Council of Chalcedon, translated.  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.iii.html (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.iii.html)

Notes from the website:
The Creed is preceded in the acts of the Council by an express confirmation of the Nicene Creed in both forms, 'the Creed of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers of Nicæa,' and 'the Creed of the hundred and fifty holy Fathers who were assembled at Constantinople.' The Fathers of Chalcedon declare that 'this wise and saving Creed [of Nicæa] would be sufficient for the full acknowledgment and confirmation of the true religion; for it teaches completely the perfect doctrine concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and fully explains the Incarnation of the Lord to those who receive it faithfully.'

The addition of a new Creed is justified by the subsequent Christological heresies (Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, and Eutychianism). After stating it, the Synod solemnly prohibits, on pain of deposisition 64 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2/png/0072=64.htm)and excommunication, the setting forth of any other Creed for those 'who are desirous of turning to the acknowledgment of the truth from Heathenism and Judaism.'

----

The bolded part, the express prohibition and penalty of excommunication, is non-existent in V2 (as is the use of apostolic authority).  Ergo, there is no penalty for challenging V2's documents, when they contradict each other and tradition.  Ergo, they are not required to be believed for salvation.  Ergo, they are fallible.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on March 29, 2018, 01:29:39 PM
I don't think there's exactly a "Rainbow Coalition of Sedevacantists" (although when I read that, it made me laugh pretty good).  If that were the case you'd have to include the "sede plenists" as part of that Coalition.    

Personally, I don't care for all of the labels, but it becomes somewhat necessary in order to distinguish all of the particular points of view.  I view myself as a Catholic who believes the sede vacante position is the most logical explanation of the Vatican II revolution, and I view you as a fellow Catholic who disagrees with me.


Condemn is a strong word...I don't believe I've ever condemned anyone.  

Condemning aside, don't you do the same to Catholics who hold a position different than yours?

I said that you condemn the STANCE of those who believe that the pope is the pope, but do not follow him into error. 

I do condemn sedevacantism in all of its various forms. I'm not sure about condemning sedes themselves. Sedes can't agree on much of anything. When they aren't arguing among themselves, they argue with non-sedes. 

To me, the sedeplenists and sedeprivationists would necessarily be a part of the Coalition. But they themselves might not like that idea - I don't know. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 29, 2018, 02:00:46 PM
Quote
Pax, post a source that teaches the sermon of a bishop or an interview by the pope is an act of the Magisterium...  That's what I'm asking


I'm sorry, I misspoke.  I meant to say 'magisterial act' (a term for teaching) and not 'act of the magisterium' (which has an official meaning).  Magisterium means "the Church's divinely appointed authority to teach the truths of religion".  This was given to all the Apostles (i.e. Bishops), not just to St Peter, though only St Peter has the power of infallibility.  Bishops do have an authority to teach (which is why each diocesan bishop has an official chair, which symbolizes his authority).  This authority is part of the magisterium, but it can never be infallible.  So, the example I gave of the Bishop's sermon was a bad one.  Mea culpa.

The point I was trying to make with the "off the cuff" interview of the pope (which could be part of his papal fallible magisterium, if he intends to comment on doctrine) is to contrast this type of papal speech with a precise, prepared papal bull of Pius IX and the Immaculate Conception.  Words matter.  Precise words matter more.  Precision, intent and clarity are all necessary for something to be infallible, because if the pope makes use of infallibility to COMMAND that all catholics believe something as a matter of faith, for salvation, then it darn well better be certain what we have to believe and it better be as simple as possible so that little Mary Sue and Joe Plumber can understand it.

If it's not precise, not clear, and not authoritative (i.e. V2) then it cannot bind us to believe it.



Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on March 29, 2018, 02:02:52 PM
I suppose you could say that I condemn the R&R position...along with sede positions that aren't simple sede vacante.

I would agree that most folks who hold the sede vacante position are in disagreement on other issues, but then again, the R&R have many disagreements with each other as well.

Like I said, we're all trying to do our best and I'm happy to have a forum where we can have robust debate about all of it.      

Yes, those who recognize the Pope but do not follow him in his errors do have disagreements. But it's not on the same level. The disagreements are more about whether or not the new mass is licit, or sinful to attend, whether or not high heels should be worn at Mass, that sort of thing. There's not the same level of disunity and verbal flogging that goes on when there are a lot of sedes and sedewhatevers on the forum. 

The sedes and sedewhatevers cause extreme disunity. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 29, 2018, 02:04:14 PM
Quote
But these clowns here who assert that an Ecumenical Council can teach heresy
You've yet to respond to ANY of the quotes i've posted, from theological experts and Bishops.  These are not my opinion, but from people who study these things for a living.  Quit attacking me and let's debate ideas.  Find other sources besides Fenton.  Don't be a 1 trick pony.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on March 29, 2018, 02:07:08 PM
If it were a mere quibble about the legal status of a pope, I'd agree with you.

But I have realized on this thread I that must distance myself from acknowledging those as Catholic who have basically a heretical view of the Magisterium.  You yourself called it "at least proximate to heresy".  I think it's more than just proximate.

For those R&R who just say, "As for the pope, it's not my position to say."  or "I just give him the benefit of the doubt." or "It's up to the Church to depose these guys, and I don't have the authority to do it."  That kind of reasoning is all within the parameters of a disagreement among Catholics.  Cajetan vs. Bellarmine on the heretical pope issue, a disagreement among Catholics.

But these clowns here who assert that an Ecumenical Council can teach heresy or even grave error to the Universal Church, and that we must reject the teachings of an Ecumenical Council by appealing to Tradition?  That's just downright heretical.  There's no other way to describe it.  St. Pius V would  have had them burned at the stake.  If these guys are Catholic, then the Church owes an apology to Luther and to the Old Catholics.

Well, if you consider as heretics those who believe that the pope is the pope, and that they are therefore heretics who should be burned at the stake, then why do you post on a forum full of heretics? (What you consider to be heretics). Doesn't your strange theology include the idea that you shouldn't be dialoguing with heretics? Or is dialoguing with so-called heretics a part of your theology? Why do you spend SO much time on what you consider to be a heretic forum?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on March 29, 2018, 02:29:36 PM
From my point of view, I'd tell you that the NO is a false church, set up to deceive the masses and propagandize them in false doctrine that has some semblance of the Catholic Church.  The only teaching authority the NO possesses is from the devil.  
We agree on this. The reason we even can agree on this, is because the magisterium is not our rule of faith.

If it were our rule of faith, there is no possible way we could *honestly* say such a thing and at the same time claim the magisterium is our rule of faith.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 29, 2018, 02:45:50 PM
Quote
I see a contradiction occurring in Lumen Gentium; in that salvation is possible to those who are "ignorant" of the need to be in communion with the Pope of Rome, and therefore never join the Catholic Church, contradicting the thrice infallibly defined, EENS dogma.
Ahhh, but see you are "sifting" the magisterium, as Ladislaus so often says.  You aren't allowed to do that.  If the magisterium is always infallbile and an ecumenical council is always infallible, then this contradiction is only APPARENT and not real.  And you must use +Benedict's 'continuity' theory to bridge the gap.  You must wait for the Church to clear up the confusion.  This is your logical conclusion.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: hollingsworth on March 29, 2018, 03:01:11 PM
I have concluded that CI has become little more than a dumping ground for frustrated and semi-informed trads to hyperventilate and call attention to themselves.  Who bothers to read lengthy screeds from uncredentialed forum members?  Some of you turn a legitimate topic into an 'omnibus bill,' which includes all of your little pet liturgical and theological peeves.  You generate more heat than light. ;D 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 29, 2018, 03:06:27 PM
And now you shamelessly mock the solemn teaching of Vatican I.  It was not Cantarella but Vatican I which taught about the Pope's "never-failing faith".  But, then, what's the difference?  If you can excoriate the teaching of one Ecumenical Council (Vatican II), then why not the other Vatican Council also?

You're a complete disgrace, and the more you post the less Catholic you seem.

Then AGAIN you repeat that lie that we consider the Pope the rule of faith.  We are not talking about the Pope but about the Papal Magisterium.  And, yes, Vatican I DOES IN FACT TEACH that the Papal Magisterium (to the Universal Church) IS IN FACT THE RULE OF FAITH.  In fact, it's explicitly laid out.

I'm absolutely appalled by your posting.

My initial post was directed to Cantarella. She is old enough to answer for herself.  But since Cantarella has not replied, I will assume that you agree with her post and she is satisfied with your response.  And I therefore will attribute Catarella's post to both of you and the reply is directed as such.  After all you use the plural pronoun "we" in your reply to my post.



Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg601760/#msg601760)
« Reply #497 on: Yesterday at 06:20:09 AM »


Cantarella said:

Quote
"Mmmmm....Pastor Aeternus is telling us explicitly that the Pope enjoys the Divine promise of never-failing Faith.
 
 "What does that say about the belief that all the conciliar "popes" have become heretics one after the other?"

Cantarella

So you agree with this common error that attributes a personal "never-failing faith" as an attribute of the pope. This necessarily makes the pope your rule of faith.  Now I know that logical connection is lost on you but others may appreciate why it happens and what are its consequences.


If anyone believes that the "gift ... of never-failing faith" is a personal possession of the pope, it follows that he must be free from all heresy both formal or material.  This necessarily follows because Pastor Aeternus gives the reason for the gift:


Quote
This gift, then, of truth and never-failing faith was conferred by heaven upon Peter and his successors in this Chair, that they might perform their high office for the salvation of all; that the whole flock of Christ, kept away from the poisonous food of error by them, might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly doctrine; that the occasion of schism being removed, the whole Church might be kept one, and, resting on its foundation, might stand firm against the gates of Hell.
Pastor Aeternus

If the gift of never-failing faith is a personal attribute of the pope for the purpose of keeping the "whole flock of Christ.. away from the poisonous food of error" then it is his personal faith that forms the rule and must preserve him from all heresy personally, both formal and material, in everything he says and does, because even a good willed material heretic would lead the "flock of Christ... to the poisonous food of error."

Now those who hold dogma as the rule of faith can examine the dogma itself and conclude what the "gift of never-failing faith" actually entails because they use the infallible dogma to properly understand the non-infallible narrative. The dogma details under what specific conditions are required for the pope, in the exercise of the Magisterium (i.e.: teaching authority) to engage the Attributes of Infallibility and Authority Jesus Christ endowed His Church. Since the Dogma is grounded upon the "gift of never-failing faith," the gift itself, as an attribute of the papal office ("successors in this Chair... might perform their high office"), means that the pope can never bind the faithful Catholic to doctrinal or moral error.

So what are we to make of your charge that I :

Quote
"You shamelessly mock the solemn teaching of Vatican I."
Ladislaus

This charge is made without evidence of fact or reasoned arguments.  It's at the level of a children's playground taunt.  The equating of a Vatican I, which engaged the Church's Attribute of Infallibility, with Vatican II, which did not, is false because they are different in kind and not just degree.  The former teaches the revealed truth of God on the authority of God, the latter is teaching the opinions of churchmen based upon their grace of state and their own authority.  But, as I recall, in the past you have had problems seeing this fundamental distinction.

 
Finally, your claim that the "magisterium is your rule of faith" and not the pope deserves another look in light of Pastor AeternusThe Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church. It can engage the Attribute of Infallibility which Jesus Christ endowed His Church only by the pope. It is only the pope who stands in potentia with the Attribute of Infallibility.  Without a pope you have no one in potentia to the Magisterium and therefore, no possibility of the Magisterium in actuWithout the pope, no Magisterium.  So, as a rule of faith, the pope and the Magisterium stand or fall together.  Your distinction between the two as a rule of faith is meaningless.

Contrary to your claim, Vatican I did not teach as you claim:


Quote
"And, yes, Vatican I DOES IN FACT TEACH that the Papal Magisterium (to the Universal Church) IS IN FACT THE RULE OF FAITH."
Ladislaus  


Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4 entitled, the "The Infallible Teaching of the Roman Pontiff" in the first paragraph says:


Quote
"The first condition of salvation is to keep the rule of the true faith."
Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus


What is the "true faith"It is the "Infallible teaching of the Roman Pontiff." What do we call the "infallible teaching of the Roman Pontiff"?  Dogma. At baptism the ceremony begins with the priest asking what they ask from the Church? The answer, "Faith."  That is the grace to believe what God has revealed on the authority of God.  And just before the entrance of the baptistery, the candidate recites the Credo, that is, he recites the rule of faith for a creed is a litany of dogmas, it is the "infallible teaching of the Roman Pontiff."  And if in life the Catholic falls into heresy and denies a rule of faith, to be restored to the Church he must repent, renounce the heresy and make a profession of "the rule of the true faith," that is, he must recite the Credo, a litany of dogmas. 

 
Pastor Aeternus details the authority of the Apostolic See of Rome and says:

Quote
"Apostolic See is bound before all others to defend the truth of faith, so also if any questions regarding faith shall arise, they must be defined by its judgment."
Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus

What do call a question of faith regarding doctrine that is "defined by its judgment"? This is definition of DOGMA.  And again:


Quote
 And the Roman Pontiffs, according to the exigencies of times and circumstances, sometimes assembling Ecumenical Councils, or asking for the mind of the Church scattered throughout the world, sometimes by particular Synods, sometimes using other helps which Divine Providence supplied, defined as to be held those things which, with the help of God, they had recognized as conformable with the Sacred Scriptures and Apostolic Traditions. For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles. 
Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus


When the "Roman Pontiffs..... defined as to be held those things which, with the help of God, they had recognized as conformable with the Sacred Scriptures and Apostolic Traditions," what is the "definition" called?  DOGMA. What do we call it when the "successors of Peter... inviolably keep and faithfully expound Revelation"? DOGMA

The magisterium is the process. The produce of this process is DOGMA. The produce is the object of divine and Catholic faith, it is the DOGMA itself, and it is the object that forms the rule because it is the failure to keep DOGMA the makes one a heretic. The failure to keep the rule of DOGMA is the definition of heresy!


Quote
But since, in this very age in which the salutary efficacy of the Apostolic office is most of all required, not a few are found who take away from its authority, We judge it altogether necessary to assert solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God found worthy to join with the supreme pastoral office.
Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus


The "prerogative" of engaging the Attributes of Infallibility and Authority is "joined with the supreme pastoral office." It is primarily an attribute of the office and secondarily and accidentally the attribute of the pope who occupies the office. Without a pope there is no access to the Attribute of Infallibility Christ endowed His Church for without a pope, the office is not in potentia to the Attribute.  Your claim that you follow the Magisterium as your rule of faith and not the pope as your rule of faith is immaterial because Jesus Christ has bound the two together.  The Magisterium, that is, the teaching authority of the Church is nothing without the pope to engage it. In the end, Pastor Aeternus is saying the same thing as the Fourth Council of Constantinople affirmed by Pope Adrian II and the regional council approved Pope Zosimus that dogma is the proximate rule of faith.

It is entirely appropriate that you have destroyed the papal office with your theory of sedeprivationism which fractures the form and the matter of the office thus causing it to undergo a substantial change. Just as the separation of the form and matter of a person causes a substantial change leaving you with a corpse, you have killed the papal office at the same time you have deposed the pope. Whatever name you want to call your "rule of faith," either way there is no practical difference. It is dead and gone.

You have no pope, you have no access to the magisterium, you have no rule of faith, and you have no understanding regarding Pastor Aeternus.  But what should we expect.  You are the guy who did not know that the Magisterium of the Church is part of divine revelation.  You are the guy who did not know the definition of supernatural faith and destroyed it by splitting its two necessary attributes.  

Stubborn was right when he said you embrace the process over the product.  This is common to Modernists who embrace evolution and prefer becoming to being, the pursuit of truth over its possession.  That is what Vatican II did with its elimination of the necessary attribute of time in its definition of the universal magisterium.  It gives precedent to the process over the product, and that is what you do by rejecting dogmatic truth as your rule of faith in favor of the process that never ends, never reaches its term.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 29, 2018, 03:15:10 PM
Quote
It's not "sifting" if she believes that the NO is a false church.
Ahhh, but what is the evidence that the Church is false, according to her?  The V2 documents that she "sifted".  CIRCULAR LOGIC! 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 29, 2018, 03:19:09 PM
Because of the Catholic principle of non-Contradiction in dogmatic teachings as those emerging from Ecunemical Councils. In particular I see a contradiction occurring in Lumen Gentium; in that salvation is possible to those who are "ignorant" of the need to be in communion with the Pope of Rome, and therefore never join the Catholic Church, contradicting the thrice infallibly defined, EENS dogma. I also see a contradiction in Nostra Aetate and the Church radical change on Her timeless approach towards the perfidious Jews. This false Magisterium of the Church has become radically Judaized.  

Cantarella,

When you say that you judge heretical teaching by the "principle of non-Contradiction in dogmatic teachings as those emerging from Ecunemical Councils," you are using Dogma as your "rule of faith" to judge the magisterial teachings from Vatican II and the conciliar popes that 'contradict' this formal object of divine and Catholic faith.  Dogma is not just the proximate rule of faith to be orthodox, but it is also the breaking of this rule that defines what is heresy.  Heresy is the rejection of divine and Catholic faith, that is, the rejection of one or more dogmas as their rule of faith.

Drew 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 29, 2018, 03:21:05 PM
Quote
Without the pope, no Magisterium.  So, as a rule of faith, the pope and the Magisterium stand or fall together.  Your distinction between the two as a rule of faith is meaningless.

Exactly!  If the pope has lost his spiritual office through heresy, then there is no magisterium, therefore the rule of faith is non-existent.

So you need to come up with a new sede term which combines sedeprivationist/sedevacant with the above.  How about - "magis-sede-terium-vacant"?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 29, 2018, 03:24:20 PM
Quote
She throws them all out as being without authority.
She (the new authority) throws them all out as being without authority.  Very humble.
I'll ask again, at what definite, precise point in time did Paul VI lose his spiritual authority?  This is important for all to know.  And by whose authority (I hope not your own) did you make this determination?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 29, 2018, 03:30:56 PM
Quote
Now you could claim that private judgment is the starting point for any rejection of Vatican II. 
He who calls everyone protestant is now promoting protestant private interpretation.

Quote
But the rejection of the Conciliar Church has more to do with the fact that it lacks the elements required for the motives of credibility in general.
Here's what Vatican I says about 'motives of credibility', which it says the Church always posesses.  Nice try.

But, even the Church itself by itself, because of its marvelous propagation, its exceptional holiness, and inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good works; because of its catholic unity and invincible stability, is a very great and perpetual motive of credibility, and an incontestable witness of its own divine mission. (Vatican I, Session 3 (http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#4), chapter 3)
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 29, 2018, 03:45:11 PM
Quote
That's why St. Robert spoke of MANIFEST heresy (vs. formal heresy or any other kind of heresy) ...
Speaking of St. Robert Bellarmine, who said that, "Only by the words of the general Council do we know whether the fathers of that council intended to engage their prerogative infallibility"

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 29, 2018, 03:52:38 PM
Now you could claim that private judgment is the starting point for any rejection of Vatican II.  But the rejection of the Conciliar Church has more to do with the fact that it lacks the elements required for the motives of credibility in general.  If you look at that abomination as a whole, it does not resemble the Church Church in its essential marks.  Those "motives of credibility" are the natural precursors before the acceptance of the Church's authority as a whole.

SSPX Resistance News (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/) / SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/secret-special-chapter-of-neo-fsspx/msg463197/#msg463197)

« on: August 15, 2015, 07:00:59 PM »

In this exchange with you nearly three years ago you were critical of "private judgment."

Quote
So how do we know that Pius IX and Gregory XVI weren't in fact WRONG in their condemnation of religious liberty while Vatican II was right?  Ah, you say, it's because Pius IX and Gregory XVI followed Tradition while Vatican II did not.  Says who, Drew?  Your private judgment?
Ladislaus

My reply was:

Quote
We know they are wrong because their teaching is in accord with the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.  Of course any judgment anyone makes on anything can rightfully be called “private judgment.”  Even making a profession of Catholic faith by the submission of mind and will to the revelation of God is a “private judgment.”  Vatican I’s article on the faith says that, “the assent of faith is by no means a blind movement of the mind.”  That is, it requires a “private judgment” regarding the motives of credibility.  What I said before concerning conscience applies here.  Every Catholic must do his best before any act or judgment to insure a conscience that is both true and certain.  He is then required to follow that conscience even if it is shown subsequently to be erroneous....  
Drew

It takes awhile but I am glad to see you are making progress and perhaps the current postings in this thread will bear fruit some day.
 
 Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 30, 2018, 08:40:20 AM
Knock yourself out.  "De Conciliis, I, 17"
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 30, 2018, 09:02:41 AM
Further proof that V2 was not infallible, did not intend to be, and thus is not a matter of salvation, because it only requires 'religious CONDITIONAL assent'.


1) The Announcement written by the Secretary General of the Council, Cardinal Pericle Felici, that precedes the Preliminary Explanatory Note (known as the Nota praevia) to Lumen gentium says:

Taking into account conciliar custom and the pastoral aim of the present council, this holy synod defines as binding on the Church only those matters of faith and morals which it openly declares to be such. The other matters which the synod puts forward as the teaching of the supreme Magisterium of the Church, each and every member of the faithful should accept and embrace according to the mind of the Synod itself, which is clear either from the subject matter or the way in which it is said, in accordance with the rules of theological interpretation.



2) One of the conditions for a magisterial statement to be infallible is that it is binding (for when the Church binds us to believe or assent, she guarantees with her charism of infallibility that she is right). And for her to bind us to believe, or assent to, something, she must explicitly propose her teaching as binding. This is the traditional doctrine and practice of the Church, specifically the practice of all twenty one ecumenical councils, a doctrine that even Vatican II (in the well-known nota praeva to Lumen gentium) itself reiterates:

In view of the conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.

As a matter of fact, nowhere in the council documents does the Synod openly declare that such and such a doctrine is being defined.



3) From Sylvester Berry's The Church of Christ (1927), pp. 458-9.
"Bishops assembled in council are infallible only when exercising their supreme authority as teachers of faith or morals by a definite and irrevocable decree that a doctrine is revealed and, therefore, to be accepted by every member of the Church. (1)  But since the bishops need not intend such an irrevocable decision at all times, it is necessary that an infallible definition be so worded as to indicate clearly its definitive character.  For this purpose no set formula is necessary; it is sufficient to mention the doctrine as an article of faith, a dogma of faith, a Catholic dogma, a doctrine always believed in the Church, or a doctrine handed down by the Fathers.  Anathema pronounced against those who deny a doctrine is also sufficient evidence of a dogmatic definition.

A large majority of the acts of councils are not infallible definitions, because they are not intended as such.  "Neither the discussions which precede a dogmatic decree, nor the reasons alleged to prove and explain it, are to be accepted as infallibly true.  Nothing but the actual decrees are of faith, and these only if they are intended as such." (2)

d) Since infallibility is due to mere assistance of the Holy Ghost, human agencies should be employed to discover and understand the truth to be defined, but the certitude of the definitiondoes not depend upon the previous investigation made by the bishops of the council, nor upon their skill and learning.  Failure to make proper investigation would be sinful on the part of the bishops, but the Holy Ghost can and does prevent all error in the actual definition, even though all investigation has been neglected, or false reasons adduced to prove the doctrine."

(1) Other matters falling under the infallible authority of the Church will be considered elsewhere  Cfr. pp. 503 sq.

-  Italics above are from the original author.
-  For a screen shot of this book excerpt:  http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2011/08/berry-ecumenical-councils-are-not.html (http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2011/08/berry-ecumenical-councils-are-not.html)
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 30, 2018, 11:34:39 AM
More quotes to prove that V2 did not require anything to be believed as a matter of faith, nor was it binding on the faithful, therefore it's fallible and can (and should be) questioned an/or anathema'ed..
(all bolded parts are from me)...

---

St. Robert Bellarmine on the Infallibility of General Councils of the Church.pdf
http://www.academia.edu/36244015/St._Robert_Bellarmine_on_the_Infallibility_of_General_Councils_of_the_Church.pdf (http://www.academia.edu/36244015/St._Robert_Bellarmine_on_the_Infallibility_of_General_Councils_of_the_Church.pdf)


page 184:
The Object and Extent of the Infallible Authority of a Council


By the sixteenth century, councils had issued a large number of decrees of varying kinds, from Christological pronouncements to demands that priests and bishops tithe for the crusades. Not only were there varying kinds of decrees, but the Acta  of councils contained various types of ac-tions, including speeches, letters, arguments, treatises, decrees, and defini-tions. With so many different types of actions undertaken by and at vari-ous councils, Bellarmine naturally had to address the object and extent of infallible teachings: On what can a council teach infallibly? And what parts of a council acta are to be considered infallible? For Bellarmine infallibility is restricted to the decrees of the councils that are proposed as such: The greater part of the acta of councils does not be-long to the faith. For the discussions which precede a decree are not of the faith, nor are the reasons adduced for them, nor are those things brought forward to illus-trate or explain them, but only those actual decrees, which are proposed as of the  faith 53.  (italics are a quote from Bellarmine)


Bellarmine wishes to exclude every activity or document of a coun-cil except those which are formally proposed as binding on the faithful. Once confirmed, these infallible decrees are immutable (immutabilia) and definitive (definitiva) and are not subject to revision or recession 54, even by the pope himself 55, although Bellarmine also recognizes that in some cases the wording of the decree could have been better 56. Not only must the decree be proposed as a matter of faith, it must per-tain either to faith (fides) or to morals (mores). The phrase ‘faith and morals’ was customary by the sixteenth century and admitted a wide range of meanings; however, Bellarmine’s usage of the phrase in De Conciliis seems to be relatively clear and straightforward. By the term ‘faith’ he includes a number of related but discrete matters, and throughout the fourth contro-versy, Bellarmine gives examples that explain to some extent what he has in mind.


Page 190:


The fourth basic distinction is the extent to which sacred scripture and conciliar acts are protected from error. Each and every word of sacred scripture is the Word of God; as Bellarmine puts it, There is not a word in  scripture in vain or not rightly placed 77. This means that each and every word of the scriptures is free of all error and demands an act of faith. In contrast, there is little in the acta of a council that is actually proposed as part of the faith of the Church. Thus, neither the conciliar discussions, the arguments in support of a particular proposition, nor any accompanying explanation is of the faith. Only the council’s published decrees form part of the faith of the Church. This does not extend even to all decrees that relate to faith and morals but only to those decrees which are formally proposed as part of Catholic doctrine.


Bellarmine argues, however, that when a decree is proposed as de fide , it is clearly known from the words of the council, and councils make this clear in several ways. First, a council may state that a particular doctrinal proposition is part of the faith of the Church, or it may apply the theological censure of “heretic” to those who deny this teaching. More commonly, a council attaches the censure of ‘anathema’ to the condemned proposition and excludes those from the Church who continue to hold the heretical teaching 79.  If none of these conditions are met, then it is not certain from the decree itself whether the matter is de fide.


Bellarmine cautions that while in most doctrinal decrees only the meaning of the decree pertains to the faith, and not the words, there are a few exceptions. The Council of Nicaea, for example, demanded the ac-ceptance of the word homoousion,  and the Council of Ephesus the word The-otokos. Aside from certain exceptions, one does not incur the censure of heresy for arguing that conciliar formulae are poorly worded 80.



Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 30, 2018, 02:25:41 PM
I doubt someone would lie to make a point, but even if that particular quote is a fabrication, +Bellarmine says basically the same thing in the other quotes I posted.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 30, 2018, 06:33:09 PM

Quote
 I asked for a Magisterial Teaching, 
Well, the term “magisterium” has only been used for 150 years, so that’s a limitation on your request.  I’ve posted stuff before and you rejected that too, so do your own research.  The fact of the matter is, that since Vatican 1 defined the parameters of the papal magisterium’s infallibility, anything which falls OUTSIDE those parameters, by definition, is fallible.

You want it spelled out for you, because you are hard-headed, but only the “negative” conclusion exists.  A positive definition about the limits of the magisterium has never been issued by Rome.  Doesn’t mean the negative conclusion is wrong, just means it’s not to your liking.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 30, 2018, 06:37:45 PM

Quote
The bottom line is that Ecunemical Councils approved by the Pope cannot err. This is true, regardless of the Council issuing dogmatic canons or anathemas.
There are so many quotes from theologians all saying the same thing.  And I could post a lot more.  What’s the use?  You can’t even follow St Bellarmine’s explanation.  You either have a reading comprehension problem, or you’re not open to the truth. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 30, 2018, 06:44:46 PM
Quote
What if there were errors in the Council of Trent or Vatican I Council present in the "fallible" narrative"?
Do you have the documents of Trent memorized?  How about all the other ecumenical councils - can you recite them all by heart?  Have you even READ them all, word for word?  Because If you think that every word is infallible, then by golly, you’d better be familiar with every dot and tittle.  

And if they are all infallible, why are schools not teaching them?  Why aren’t they in the catechism?  And I mean every word?  We HAVE to believe EVERY WORD under PAIN OF SIN, right?  (That’s what infallibility means, don’t you know?) According to your logic, we do have to know EVERY WORD...which is nonsense.  

Only those decrees which must be known with certainty of faith, under pain of sin, are infallible.  Which amounts to a few sentences for each dogma.  This is why a catechism can even exist - because dogmas are clear, concise teachings of the faith, not 1,000 word essays of theological reasons and facts.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 31, 2018, 08:21:41 AM

Quote
Second, the Fathers are clear that those who refuse to accept the definitions of faith made by a general council are to be excluded from the Church as heretics.
You gloss over this term like it has no meaning.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 31, 2018, 08:23:28 AM

Quote
Except that Pax insisted that V2 taught blatant heresy.
I said it erred.  I said it had contradictions. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 31, 2018, 08:25:41 AM

Quote
You're conflating the term de fide with infallibility
Infallibility is only used for de fide definitions. That’s it purpose. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 31, 2018, 08:32:10 AM
Quote
Bellarmine reasons that if the pope is infallible in judging matters of faith or morals, then his judgment of a council’s decision cannot be in error, no matter how small the particular council.
You continue to ignore the fact that V2 did not have any judgements.  Therefore it’s not protected by infallibility.  It did not have any dogmatic decrees, canons, judgements or teachings.  Therefore, infallibility IS NOT PART OF THE COUNCIL.  This is backed up by the quotes from Paul VI himself, the council fathers, theologians present and theologians not present.  

You have an agenda.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 31, 2018, 08:45:30 AM

Quote
But while there could theoretically be some small mistakes, for an Ecumenical Council to teach heresy or even grave substantial error to the Universal Church? 
Your use of the word “teach” is in error.  That’s your problem.  A teaching of the Church MUST be believed by all the faithful, with certainty of faith, under pain of sin, as a matter of salvation.  V2 DID NOT “TEACH” ON MATTERS OF FAITH AND MORALS like all other ecumenical councils.  There is NOTHING in V2 that we MUST accept with a “certainty of faith” therefore your use of the word “teach” is absolutely wrong because you fail to distinguish the different levels of thr magisterium, some only requiring CONDITIONAL assent, which fact you continue to dodge like a snake on a road dodges cars.  

You refuse to accept that ‘fallible’ means ‘can err’ (big or small). 

You refuse to accept that V2 only requires CONDITIONAL assent, and not certainty of faith. 

You refuse to accept that only DOGMATIC decrees, judgements, canons, or definitions are infallible. 

You have no integrity.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 31, 2018, 08:56:41 AM

Quote
No, Pax Vobis. Of course we do not have to memorize all Ecunemical Councils by heart
Of course we don’t, because only the dogmatic decrees, judgments, canons or definitions are MATTERS OF FAITH.  All else is theological reasons and intentions, which aren’t infallible. 

If everything were infallible, according to your logic, then the REASONS for Trent’s definitions/canons are JUST AS important as the definition itself.  So why isn’t the whole council, WORD FOR WORD, in the catechism?  Why don’t you have it memorized?  

According to you, we have to believe the reasons and intention behind the dogma with “certainty of faith”.  Ergo, we HAVE to know the whole council or else we can’t get to heaven.

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 31, 2018, 12:11:17 PM

Quote
There are many teachings of the Church that fall short of being de fide. 
True, but these non-de fide teachings are not required to be held with 'certainty of faith'.  They are to be held with CONDITIONAL assent, just like V2.  Ergo, they are not required for salvation...just like V2 is not required.

Instead of you continuing to call everyone names, like a 5th grader, why don't you go prove that V2 is REQUIRED to be believed with CERTAINTY OF FAITH, since it is infallible, as you say.  I'll wait...
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 31, 2018, 05:43:51 PM
Is it possible that in an expository passage in an Ecumenical Council there could be a small mistake?  Theoretically, yes, although even this is unlikely as Catholics have always believed that Ecumenical Councils have been under the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.  But while there could theoretically be some small mistakes, for an Ecumenical Council to teach heresy or even grave substantial error to the Universal Church?  That would mean a defection of the Church.  I reiterate without any hesitation or shadow of doubt that people who believe as Pax does are heretics and are not Catholic.

I disagree.  The problem with sedevacatism and sedeprivationism is that they lead to theological and philosophical teachings that overturn dogma. 
 
Why cannot an fallible council approved by a pope, churchmen teaching by their grace of state, teach heresy? The reply is typically that the Indefectibility of the Church would not permit this.  But here is the problem.  The Attribute of Indefectibility has not been dogmatically defined as has been the Attribute of Infallibility.  Much of what is believed concerning this Attribute of the Church is the product of theological speculation and Catholics are free to speculate how this Attribute is exercised and preserved in the Church. 
 
Dogma establishes the limits of theological speculation and as long as a Catholic does not offer any conclusions that oppose revealed truth, he is free to consider other possible explanations.  It is from theological speculation that we have the common opinion the Indefectibility serves as a personal non-infallible infallibility of the pope protecting him from error in doctrine and morals in the exercise of the authentic ordinary magisterium based upon his grace of state.  This theory has a number of problems that are not just evident since Vatican II but can be seen throughout difficult times in Church history.
 
We know that the Attributes of the Church are powers given to her by her founder, Jesus Christ, that enable the Church to do specific things.  But just as in man, where each individual sense power has its specific mode of operation and individual ends but still has considerable overlapping with other sense powers in many general perceptions, so do the powers of the Church. If each power is considered with respect to its individual end, they correspond to the three principles duties that God has imposed upon His Church: to teach, to worship God and sanctify the faithful, and to govern specifically enumerated by St. Pius X in Pascendi.  These duties are possible through the powers of Church given to her by God, that is, Infallibility, Indefectibility, and Authority. It is important to remember that these Attributes are firstly Attributes of God and only Attributes of the Church because the Church is a divine institution.  The powers resided primarily and essentially in the Church.  They resided in churchmen only secondarily and accidentally.
 
The specific end of Indefectibility is to worship God and sanctify the faithful.  Common theological opinion holds that Indefectibility of the Church means that a council and pope could never impose doctrinal or moral error on the Church.  This leads to conservative Catholics. like Emmett O'Regan. who believe that the pope possess a personal never-failing faith and Indefectibility means there is no possibility of error from the Vatican II or concilar popes therefore we must accept them and all they teach.  It also leads to sedevacantism/sedeprivationism that agree in general principle with conservatives but therefore conclude that the pope cannot be the pope to preserve the Attribute of Indefectibility.  I contend that both of these conclusions are wrong and both lead to overturning of dogma.
 
If you consider Indefectibility as primarily an Attribute of the Church in light of the specific end of this power, that is, the worship of God and the sanctification of the faithful, these ends have never been absent from the Church since Vatican II. Just as Noah building the Ark condemned a sinful world, so Catholics faithful to tradition and the "received and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments" condemn the conciliar Church. It is traditional Catholics that will not betray the faith that constitute the evidence of the Church's Indefectibility. 
 
This theory may not be correct but it does not overturn any Catholic dogma.
 
As far as the exercise of Authority, it is strictly addressed in Catholic moral theology.  The proper response to Authority is Obedience.  But the ultimate Authority is God and all Catholics are obligated firstly to obey God.  There are about a dozen subsidiary virtues under the virtue of Justice.  These subsidiary virtues are hierarchically related.  The first and most important virtue under Justice is the virtue of Religion. This virtue primarily concerns giving to God the things that are God's and typically can be quantified by specific acts.  It is the virtue of Religion that governs obedience. Obedience is only a virtue when it is properly regulated by the virtue of Religion.  When it is not, any act of obedience is sinful.  There has hardly been any imposition of Authority since Vatican II that does not directly offend the virtue of Religion and must therefore be opposed. 
 
R & R does no damage whatsoever to Catholic dogma or Catholic morality. Two things are necessary for any reconsideration: firstly, a conciliar pope will have to directly engage the Attributes of Infallibility and Authority to bind the Church to doctrinal and moral error, secondly, sedevacantists/sedeprivationists will have to produce a pope who is generally accepted by Catholics faithful to tradition. 
 
I do not think either one is going to happen.

Lastly, every faithful Catholic should remember that the two greatest tests by God, the angelic test in heaven and the person of Jesus Christ to the Jews, required His chosen faithful to reject the constituted authority established by God.  It should not surprise anyone if this should happen again.

Drew

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 31, 2018, 06:10:01 PM

Quote
Things can be taught infallibly even if they are not de fide
I don’t think the above is possible.  Infallibility only deals with faith/morals; it is PRECISELY the reason it exists - to define matters of faith.  Provide an example where an infallible statement is not de fide or “of the faith”.


Quote
Secondly, you're confusing indefectibility/infallible safety with infallibility in the strict sense.
Fenton is the only source which postulates this ideal.  It’s a theory at this point.  I’d like to see a strictly-orthodox theologian agree with him.  One theologian does not make it so.  


Quote
quite another for an Ecumenical Council to teach HERESY to the Church, as you have claimed.
V2 is an ecumenical anomaly.  This is what the masons wanted - to cause confusion.  To create an unprecedented situation.  They succeeded.  But those who know their faith, and the simple truths of the catechism, know that its errors are errors.  They also know that these errors are NOT binding as even the authors, theologians and post-conciliar popes have repeatedly said.  

You and Cantarella want to define V2 in your own strict way, while ignoring the facts and the REPEATED PUBLIC admissions of its theological limitations and the MANY DISCLAIMERS on its moral weight.  

You have decided the post-conciliar popes have no authority and THEN YOU GO FURTHER and you replace his authority with YOUR INTERPRETATION of the moral weight of a council.  You have an agenda and aren’t open to the truth.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on March 31, 2018, 09:07:10 PM
No, a de fide truth is not the same thing as a matter of faith.  "Matter of faith or morals" simply refers to truths having to do with faith and morals (as opposed to scientific truths, for instance).  There are lesser truths which pertain to the faith.  And that's the typical R&R misreading of Vatican I again, that only solemnly defined dogmas are infallble.  "Define" simply means to clearly delineate and put an end to dissent ... on some matter relating to faith and morals ... in such a way as to make it clear that it must be held by all the faithful.

Pax Vobis asked you to "provide an example" of somethings that are "taught infallibly (and) are not de fide.  There is none in the reply.

This, in my estimation, is impossible unless you accept the theory of mere ecclesiastical faith.  That is, that the Church on its own authority, can declare something infallible that is not part of divine revelation.

This question was discussed in detail on another thread examining Fr. Fenton's article in the AER on ecclesiastical faith.  It was the conclusion of Fr. Fenton that mere ecclesiastical faith does not even exist.

Whatever the Church defines as infallible must be part of divine revelation either directly or necessarily follow from it, that is, deduced necessarily from revealed truth, or be intrinsically related so as to be a necessary property to the revealed truth.  An example of the latter would be the belief that the separation of the form and matter of a material being necessarily causes a substantial change.  If this were not true, dogmatic canons on the sacraments would be dissolved.

I have never met a R&R traditional Catholic who thought "only solemnly defined dogmas are infallible."  Vatican I also speaks of the "ordinary and universal" magisterium as infallible and this is commonly understood.  This assertion is absurd.  

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on March 31, 2018, 11:37:40 PM
I disagree.  The problem with sedevacatism and sedeprivationism is that they lead to theological and philosophical teachings that overturn dogma.  
 
Why cannot an fallible council approved by a pope, churchmen teaching by their grace of state, teach heresy? The reply is typically that the Indefectibility of the Church would not permit this.  But here is the problem.  The Attribute of Indefectibility has not been dogmatically defined as has been the Attribute of Infallibility.  Much of what is believed concerning this Attribute of the Church is the product of theological speculation and Catholics are free to speculate how this Attribute is exercised and preserved in the Church.  
 
Dogma establishes the limits of theological speculation and as long as a Catholic does not offer any conclusions that oppose revealed truth, he is free to consider other possible explanations.  It is from theological speculation that we have the common opinion the Indefectibility serves as a personal non-infallible infallibility of the pope protecting him from error in doctrine and morals in the exercise of the authentic ordinary magisterium based upon his grace of state.  This theory has a number of problems that are not just evident since Vatican II but can be seen throughout difficult times in Church history.
 
We know that the Attributes of the Church are powers given to her by her founder, Jesus Christ, that enable the Church to do specific things.  But just as in man, where each individual sense power has its specific mode of operation and individual ends but still has considerable overlapping with other sense powers in many general perceptions, so do the powers of the Church. If each power is considered with respect to its individual end, they correspond to the three principles duties that God has imposed upon His Church: to teach, to worship God and sanctify the faithful, and to govern specifically enumerated by St. Pius X in Pascendi.  These duties are possible through the powers of Church given to her by God, that is, Infallibility, Indefectibility, and Authority. It is important to remember that these Attributes are firstly Attributes of God and only Attributes of the Church because the Church is a divine institution.  The powers resided primarily and essentially in the Church.  They resided in churchmen only secondarily and accidentally.
 
The specific end of Indefectibility is to worship God and sanctify the faithful.  Common theological opinion holds that Indefectibility of the Church means that a council and pope could never impose doctrinal or moral error on the Church.  This leads to conservative Catholics. like Emmett O'Regan. who believe that the pope possess a personal never-failing faith and Indefectibility means there is no possibility of error from the Vatican II or concilar popes therefore we must accept them and all they teach.  It also leads to sedevacantism/sedeprivationism that agree in general principle with conservatives but therefore conclude that the pope cannot be the pope to preserve the Attribute of Indefectibility.  I contend that both of these conclusions are wrong and both lead to overturning of dogma.
 
If you consider Indefectibility as primarily an Attribute of the Church in light of the specific end of this power, that is, the worship of God and the sanctification of the faithful, these ends have never been absent from the Church since Vatican II. Just as Noah building the Ark condemned a sinful world, so Catholics faithful to tradition and the "received and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments" condemn the conciliar Church. It is traditional Catholics that will not betray the faith that constitute the evidence of the Church's Indefectibility.  
 
This theory may not be correct but it does not overturn any Catholic dogma.
 
As far as the exercise of Authority, it is strictly addressed in Catholic moral theology.  The proper response to Authority is Obedience.  But the ultimate Authority is God and all Catholics are obligated firstly to obey God.  There are about a dozen subsidiary virtues under the virtue of Justice.  These subsidiary virtues are hierarchically related.  The first and most important virtue under Justice is the virtue of Religion. This virtue primarily concerns giving to God the things that are God's and typically can be quantified by specific acts.  It is the virtue of Religion that governs obedience. Obedience is only a virtue when it is properly regulated by the virtue of Religion.  When it is not, any act of obedience is sinful.  There has hardly been any imposition of Authority since Vatican II that does not directly offend the virtue of Religion and must therefore be opposed.  
 
R & R does no damage whatsoever to Catholic dogma or Catholic morality. Two things are necessary for any reconsideration: firstly, a conciliar pope will have to directly engage the Attributes of Infallibility and Authority to bind the Church to doctrinal and moral error, secondly, sedevacantists/sedeprivationists will have to produce a pope who is generally accepted by Catholics faithful to tradition.  
 
I do not think either one is going to happen.

Lastly, every faithful Catholic should remember that the two greatest tests by God, the angelic test in heaven and the person of Jesus Christ to the Jews, required His chosen faithful to reject the constituted authority established by God.  It should not surprise anyone if this should happen again.

Drew
Excellent. 

My disagreement with you is best represented by the juxtaposition of these two quotes of yours:

Quote
"If you consider Indefectibility as primarily an Attribute of the Church in light of the specific end of this power, that is, the worship of God and the sanctification of the faithful, these ends have never been absent from the Church since Vatican II."

and

"Two things are necessary for any reconsideration: firstly, a conciliar pope will have to directly engage the Attributes of Infallibility and Authority to bind the Church to doctrinal and moral error, secondly, sedevacantists/sedeprivationists will have to produce a pope who is generally accepted by Catholics faithful to tradition.  

I do not think either one is going to happen."

I agree with both statements, and because I do I disagree with an implication that I see in the paragraph from which the first quote is taken:


Quote
Just as Noah building the Ark condemned a sinful world, so Catholics faithful to tradition and the "received and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments" condemn the conciliar Church. It is traditional Catholics that will not betray the faith that constitute the evidence of the Church's Indefectibility. 

I read that as you saying that it is only Traditional Catholics, who attend the Latin Mass, who continue to carry the faith of the Church in these times. I disagree. In addition to the impossibility of a pope "engag[ing] the Attributes of Infallibility and Authority to bind the Church to doctrinal or moral error," I also think it impossible for a pope to promulgate or foist a Mass upon the Church that fails to perpetuate the Lord's presence in the Church and deliver the sacramental grace of the Eucharist, the center of our faith. Perhaps, however, that is included in your formulation. 

True Catholics who hold to the true faith have followed Our Lord into the "captivity" of the Novus Ordo and post-Vatican 2 reality. This has been willed by God on the Church for her past abominations and the "heresies" by prior popes with regard to bowing to Mammon and the Money Powers, most evidenced with regard to usury, and the practical gutting of God's law against it. 

On the whole in coming to understand what we are going through I recommend that Jeremiah 29 and the "70 years of captivity" for God's people be deeply and prayerfully studied. That punishment came upon the Church of the Old Covenant for its past abominations, and those who followed God's will and went into captivity were the ones to receive the future blessing. 

In any event, within the NO are numerous elect of God, receiving Our Lord in maimed but salvific rites while in "captivity" in a foreign land, humbly enduring His just scourge upon His people, praying, confessing, saying their Rosaries, standing outside abortion clinics, decrying sodomy and adultery, maintaining the truth of "one Lord, one faith, one baptism."

But again, I agree with you, perhaps in total, and misunderstood and read some implications into your excellent post that weren't there. 

Have a Blessed Easter, brother.   
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on March 31, 2018, 11:43:40 PM
The heading to Jeremiah 29 in my Douay Rheims:

Quote
Jeremias writeth to the captives in Babylon, exhorting them to be easy there and not to hearken to false prophets. That they shall be delivered after seventy years. But those that remain in Jerusalem shall perish by the sword, famine and pestilence. And that Achab, Sedecius, and Semetas, false prophets, shall die miserably.

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: obscurus on April 01, 2018, 01:10:37 PM
I wonder what is your understanding of the dogma that there is no salvation without personal submission to the Pope of Rome, Mr. Drew.  It is a defined dogma of the Catholic Church that no one can be saved who is not subject to that flesh and blood Vicar of Jesus, the Roman Pontiff. How can you recognize, in good conscience, who the Pope of Rome is, and still persist in severing communion from him?
Are you saying we are under a moral obligation to become a sedevacantist or sedeprivationist? I am sorry but there is considerable debate about what needs to be done with a heretical Pope. There is absolutely nothing wrong with avoiding him while at the same time recognizing his authority. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 01, 2018, 02:35:26 PM
I wonder what is your understanding of the dogma that there is no salvation without personal submission to the Pope of Rome, Mr. Drew.  It is a defined dogma of the Catholic Church that no one can be saved who is not subject to that flesh and blood Vicar of Jesus, the Roman Pontiff. How can you recognize, in good conscience, who the Pope of Rome is, and still persist in severing communion from him?

This has been addressed repeatedly by several others but is worth repeating because you still have not understood it.  Submission and obedience are not synonymous except with regard to God to whom we own unqualified obedience.
 
A son who is perfectively submissive to his father may disobey his father whenever his father commands anything that is in violation of the eternal law, natural law, divine positive law or opposed to right reason.  The disobedience in these circumstance does not cause or imply a removal of submission.  In these cases the son rather chooses to "obey God rather than man."

The last words of many Catholic martyrs in the English persecution have been recorded for our benefit.  They were executed for "treason" and they typically denied the charge of treason, confessing their loyalty to their king and country, but their greater loyalty to God for whom they were giving up their lives.

 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 01, 2018, 02:54:53 PM
Excellent.

My disagreement with you is best represented by the juxtaposition of these two quotes of yours:

I agree with both statements, and because I do I disagree with an implication that I see in the paragraph from which the first quote is taken:


I read that as you saying that it is only Traditional Catholics, who attend the Latin Mass, who continue to carry the faith of the Church in these times. I disagree. In addition to the impossibility of a pope "engag[ing] the Attributes of Infallibility and Authority to bind the Church to doctrinal or moral error," I also think it impossible for a pope to promulgate or foist a Mass upon the Church that fails to perpetuate the Lord's presence in the Church and deliver the sacramental grace of the Eucharist, the center of our faith. Perhaps, however, that is included in your formulation.

True Catholics who hold to the true faith have followed Our Lord into the "captivity" of the Novus Ordo and post-Vatican 2 reality. This has been willed by God on the Church for her past abominations and the "heresies" by prior popes with regard to bowing to Mammon and the Money Powers, most evidenced with regard to usury, and the practical gutting of God's law against it.

On the whole in coming to understand what we are going through I recommend that Jeremiah 29 and the "70 years of captivity" for God's people be deeply and prayerfully studied. That punishment came upon the Church of the Old Covenant for its past abominations, and those who followed God's will and went into captivity were the ones to receive the future blessing.

In any event, within the NO are numerous elect of God, receiving Our Lord in maimed but salvific rites while in "captivity" in a foreign land, humbly enduring His just scourge upon His people, praying, confessing, saying their Rosaries, standing outside abortion clinics, decrying sodomy and adultery, maintaining the truth of "one Lord, one faith, one baptism."

But again, I agree with you, perhaps in total, and misunderstood and read some implications into your excellent post that weren't there.

Have a Blessed Easter, brother.  

You may be right, but maybe not.  I think Jeremiah 29 applies perfectly in a different sense.  Maybe it is the traditional Catholics faithful to dogma, like Fr. Feeney, who are and have been suffering the Babylon captivity while the Novus Ordo Catholics who have stayed in Rome  (the new Jerusalem) who spiritually have and "shall perish by the sword, famine and pestilence." 
 
I last attended a Novus Ordo liturgy more than 45 years ago.  I have seen what became of the families of conservative Catholics a generation older than myself, my own generation, and now a generation of my own children.  I know that our immemorial ecclesiastical traditions are not and cannot be matters merely of Church discipline. I know this because I understand fully that it is by these traditions whereby the Faith is known and communicated to others. They thereby are necessary attributes of the Faith.  By their association with the Faith they take on the quality of the dogmas they signify and they themselves become irrevocably associated with these truths.  Just as in this thread, I have discussed the Aristotelian philosophical concept of hylomorphism which has been perfectly associated with sacramental theology and the dogmas on the sacraments, so that the philosophical concept itself has the same quality of infallible truth. 
 
This explains why our immemorial ecclesiastical traditions have become the subject of dogma such as in the Tridentine profession of faith and the dogmas on the "received and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments."  It explains why those who would destroy images of our faith (iconoclasts) were called heretics.  The immemorial ecclesiastical traditions are types of icons and their destruction at the hands of the Novus Ordo philistines, the Neo-iconoclasts, is also heresy.  Those Catholics trying to keep the faith in the Novus Ordo structures have by that fact alone made compromise with dogmatic truths of our faith.
 
And, I do know of individuals in the Novus Ordo who are doing their best to keep their Catholic faith but typically they are alone in this struggle and have become isolated from their families. The numbers of families that I have known who have remained in the Novus Ordo and successfully kept their children in the faith is a very rare exception.  If they have been somewhat successful it is because they have maintained some traditional elements such as a good catechism, the Rosary and other traditional devotions, home schooled their children, etc. But these are exceptions because every image projected from the Novus Ordo opposes the true faith individually and collectively.  Just one example, the baptistery in a traditional Church was outside the Church symbolizing the necessity of the sacrament to enter the Church.  Most Novus Ordo churches have moved the baptistery into the destroyed sanctuary.  This image overturns the doctrine of original sin and the necessity of baptism for salvation without saying a word.  When a child's faith is formed in the Novus Ordo, it is the accumulation of these false images that make an indelible impression on their souls which can only be reformed by a miracle of grace.  My own individual impressions are supported by every objective collection of statistical evidence.  The general apostasy is far worse today than it was only ten to twenty years ago.

The priest who has served our Mission over the last eight years had his priestly formation under Cardinal Krol in Philadelphia, probably the most conservative prelate in the United States at the time, and attended Novus Ordo Catholic primary and secondary schools.  When he moved to tradition, he spent two years with the SSPX before coming to our Mission.  Even now, hardly a week goes by when he does not discover some new fundamental truth of our Catholic heritage that he had never heard of before.  The priests that have been formed in the Novus Ordo are, as a whole, know nothing about the Church before 1965 or adopt its fundamental presuppositions when examining the history of the Church.  They almost uniformly do not hold dogma as their proximate rule of faith.     

 
Rome will suffer a cleansing far worse than what occurred under the mercenary army of Charles V that left the entire city desolate stripped of its wealth and reduced to a small fraction of its earlier population.  This cleansing was necessary to for the ground work of reforming of the Church with the Council of Trent. And in a like manner, it will be traditional Catholics returning from their Babylonian captivity that will rebuild.  
 
I wish you a blessed Easter.
 
Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Centroamerica on April 01, 2018, 07:01:29 PM
Conversely, I have no problem attending the non una cum Masses because I do have positive doubt. Frankly (no pun intended), I don’t see how anyone could not have positive doubt. The man is a manifest heretic. Unless you are an Ecclesia Dei devotee, it would seem that you would be compelled to doubt.

My only issue would be with those who try to impose the sede vacante position. I was told that I must resolve my doubt. How does one resolve one’s doubt about having a legitimate pope? Board the next plane for the Vatican and request a hearing? This is where sedevacantists go off the deep end. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: obscurus on April 01, 2018, 07:34:47 PM
Hogwash.  If you recognize his authority and avoid him, then you are in schism.  Period.  No, there's no strict obligation to be a sedevacantist or a sedeprivationist.  But one must at least have positive doubts about the legitimacy of the V2 popes to avoid the sin of formal schism.  If you want to argue that he stays in office until removed by the Church, that's a theological opinion.

However you want to eventually resolve the pope question in isoluation, I could hardly care less.  What I care about is how you're butchering the indefectibility of the Church, the holiness of the Church ... smearing the Magisterium as having taught heresy, etc.  That is what I find repugnant.  As to whether you think Bergoglio is the pope, I could hardly care less about that in isolation.  I have no problem attending Mass una cum Francisco.  I have a problem with Protestant and non-Catholic principles that usually end up manifesting themselves with R&R.
Wow, you certainly are over-analyzing the issue. I am only saying that I am not going to say that the See is Vacant. I recognize he has been given authority but that he is misusing his authority. He holds the office but should not have the office. Who decides that he should be deposed? In fact, who will depose him? Or the local diocesan bishop? Me? You? My obligation is to keep the faith in its simplicity. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 01, 2018, 09:13:29 PM
Submissive and in submission to are completely different things.  No, this is not a question of simple disobedience.  You go to a Mass center that operates outside of the Church's jursidiction, nay, not merely outside of but "over and against" it, as it were, in defiance of it.  You reject the Magisterium and the Universal Discipline of the Pope.  So a son might be "submissive", i.e., pay lip service about how in theory he should submit to his father, but then he leaves the home in defiance of his own father and instead of helping with the father's business, he opens a shop down the street that is trying to steal customers from his own father.  That's what you're doing ... if these guys are legitimate popes.  You can TALK all you want about how you wish to submit to your father, but in fact you are NOT in submission to him.

Stop it with the "obey God rather than man" nonsense already.  This isn't about simple obedience, but about submission to the Magisterium and Church's Universal Discipline.  When you put YOUR interpretation of Tradition/dogma over that of the Magisterium, you're not actually obeying God ... but rather your private judgment, i.e. yourself.  That's Protestantism in a nutshell.


"HOGWASH".
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 01, 2018, 10:35:15 PM
Submissive and in submission to are completely different things.  No, this is not a question of simple disobedience.  You go to a Mass center that operates outside of the Church's jursidiction, nay, not merely outside of but "over and against" it, as it were, in defiance of it.  You reject the Magisterium and the Universal Discipline of the Pope.  So a son might be "submissive", i.e., pay lip service about how in theory he should submit to his father, but then he leaves the home in defiance of his own father and instead of helping with the father's business, he opens a shop down the street that is trying to steal customers from his own father.  That's what you're doing ... if these guys are legitimate popes.  You can TALK all you want about how you wish to submit to your father, but in fact you are NOT in submission to him.

Stop it with the "obey God rather than man" nonsense already.  This isn't about simple obedience, but about submission to the Magisterium and Church's Universal Discipline.  When you put YOUR interpretation of Tradition/dogma over that of the Magisterium, you're not actually obeying God ... but rather your private judgment, i.e. yourself.  That's Protestantism in a nutshell.

Once again you are answering for Cantarella.  Why?  She can answer for herself.
 
Yet when you get asked a direct question to provide evidence for one of your assertions, no reply:

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg602240/#msg602240)
« Reply #672 on: Yesterday at 09:07:10 PM »
Quote
“Things can be taught infallibly even if they are not de fide.”
Ladislaus

You have a habit of saying things that are indefensible. 
 
Your claim is only possible if the theological theory of mere ecclesiastical faith is true.  Your problem is that the theory is just theological, well to borrow your terminology, “hogwash.” The question of mere ecclesiastical faith was discussed in detail in an earlier thread.  While the discussion was not directly with you, you were repeatedly posting your two-cents worth of comments in support of those I was arguing with.

SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/secret-special-chapter-of-neo-fsspx/msg463563/#msg463563)
« Reply #49 on: August 18, 2015, 05:25:37 PM »
 
I invite anyone to read the thread if interested in this question because the implications of mere ecclesiastical faith are important in the current crisis.  Suffice to say, the article by Fr. Fenton from AER completely destroys the myth of mere ecclesiastical faith.  He admits it’s a common and popular opinion, but a myth nonetheless. The thread also discusses the implications of accepting the theory of mere ecclesiastical faith.

The problem with you Ladislaus is that you are incapable of learning anything because you already know everything. Your claim that “Things can be taught infallibly even if they are not de fide,” is impossible.

If Cantarella looks to you for direction she will have no one to blame but herself.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 02, 2018, 09:58:24 AM
Quote
Your claim that “Things can be taught infallibly even if they are not de fide,” is impossible.

Yep, still waiting on Ladislaus to clear this up.  I've typed many things too fast and made a mistake.  I'm not trying to "trap" you in an error.  If you need to re-clarify, then do so.

The fact is that V2 does NOT require anyone, anywhere to believe its documents with 'certainty of faith' shows that it's a ecumenical anomoly.  Its documents are not matters of salvation, nor matters of sin.  All previous ecumenical councils DID teach with certainty of faith, under pain of sin, because the pope made use of his infallibility and the guidance of the Holy Ghost.  If the pope does not intend to teach infallibly, he has no special guidance from the Holy Ghost, anymore than you or I do if we say a prayer.  Outside of infallibility, the pope is only teaching as a private theologian, in his capacity as Bishop of Rome and he can err and err bigly.  Vatican 1 explained this when it outlined the 4 requirements.

The Universal Disciplines of the Church don't apply here, because V2 imposed no discipline on anyone; we only have to accept its documents with 'religious CONDITIONAL assent'.

Finally, "de fide" means "of the faith".  All things which are infallible are "of the faith" because they MUST be believed.  All non-infallible things either 1) only require 'religious CONDITIONAL assent' or they aren't matters of faith/morals, so the term "of the faith" is not applicable  (example: the eucharistic fast is not a matter "of faith" because its a liturgical/human law which the pope can change.)
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 02, 2018, 02:52:55 PM
Quote
That's tantamount to a defection of the Magisterium.
If the pope is not engaging his FULL magisterium, then his errors are not a defection, because his errors do not come from the OFFICIAL PAPACY but from his private office as theologian/bishop.  You are making an illogical and erroneous connection between the fallible magisterium and indefectibility.  There is not ONE V2 official who has claimed that V2 was free from error.  You and Catarella however disagree and try to impose YOUR INTERPRETATION of a council and you HAVE NO OFFICIAL CHURCH AUTHORITY TO DO SO, nor any facts to support your thesis.  (You've yet to show one quote or fact which proves that V2 must be accepted as a matter of salvation, yet you falsely assert that it is part of the infallible magisterium.  So ridiculous.)

If the pope is not BINDING the faithful to believe WITH CERTAINTY OF FAITH, under PAIN OF SIN, as a MATTER OF SALVATION, a matter of faith and morals, then the Church's official magisterium is not in use, so a "defection" of the faith is possible, since the magisterium is not teaching, but only fallible bishops, and there is nothing to stop fallible bishops (including the pope) to lose the faith and corrupt the laity.  Which is why Christ warned us to "beware of wolves in sheeps clothing" and why St Paul warned that "even if an angel from heaven preach a new doctrine, let him be anathema."
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 02, 2018, 03:19:07 PM
Cantarella, I remember not too long ago you were a firm opponent of sedevacantism, with well balanced and sensible posts. It is sad to see that you too have now fallen for their errors. As they say "The corruption of the best is the worst".

On the other hand, I am pleased to see that there are others who have taken the place of those who have fallen. It is encouraging to see!!!

Thank you drew, Pax Vobis, Stubborn, Obscurus, etc (I'm not a regular patron here, so I'm sure I must have missed some, maybe even many). May I ask you, PLEASE, organize yourselves and write some decent articles for the benefit of others. There are still people who are tempted by the snares of sedevacantists, and they would greatly benefit from your combined knowledge, wisdom and understanding. This is what Catholic Action is all about. Don't risk one day having to give Our Lord the same answer as Cain: "am I my brother's keeper?".
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 02, 2018, 03:20:36 PM
Quote
You go to a Mass center that operates outside of the Church's jursidiction, nay, not merely outside of but "over and against" it, as it were, in defiance of it.

Here you go again, Ladislaus, slinging around rash generalizations, like a 2-bit chef slings around day-old hashbrowns at a waffle house.  You're like a politician who makes himself look good by giving a great 10 second "sound bite" but when asked for an in depth-interview, he can't explain his ideas with any substance.

1. These mass centers are legally valid, since they are allowed by Quo Primum.  All novus ordo masses are illegal and sinful because they violate Quo Primum.  Therefore, mass centers which avoid the novus ordo are the only moral and legal and salvific choice.

2.  Canon law makes it very clear that "the salvation of souls is the highest law".  Canon law allows AND COMMANDS the priests to provide the faithful with the mass and sacraments, even providing for cases where jurisdiction is lacking.

3.  Quo Primum is clear that no priest can be forced (in any way) to say a mass that is not using the rite of Pope St Pius V.  It also allows a priest to say mass using this rite for all time, without permission from any authority, since THE AUTHORITY COMES DIRECLY FROM THE PAPACY.  So, in a sense, Quo Primum is a universal jurisdictional allowance for mass and ANY PART of the latin rite (even confessions and marriages, because the novus ordo's new rites, including confession/marriage, are new and thus, illegal).

(Sedevacantists, on the other hand, say that jurisdiction is non-existent for everyone, since there's no pope, so they don't have jurisdiction either, just in a different sense.)

Quote
You reject the Magisterium and the Universal Discipline of the Pope.
We reject the fallible magisterium, since it is in error in some cases, which we are allowed to do since it only requires 'religious CONDITIONAL assent'.

The fallible magisterium is not part of the Universal Discipline of the Pope/Church, because a discipline requires a 'certainly of faith' and a command 'under pain of sin', which the post-conciliar popes had admitted does not exist.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 02, 2018, 03:55:58 PM
So basically a legitimate successor of St. Peter, the very foundation of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, has turned to be an enemy of Jesus Christ?

Then you wonder why the Protestants laugh at us.

:facepalm:  :laugh1:

Every Catholic (and non Catholic) without Sanctifying Grace is an enemy of Jesus Christ. And that includes many popes, bishops .. and sedevacantists. Did you not know that?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 02, 2018, 03:58:04 PM
An excellent point...  

Pitting pope against pope and Council against Council is exactly what R&R leads to...

Pitting Catholic against Catholic is exactly what sedevacantism leads to..
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 02, 2018, 04:34:45 PM
Quote
So the Vicar of Christ on earth himself has been offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in an illegal and sinful rite for decades now?
Does a bear shat in the woods?  Does a pig like mud?  Can a pope go to hell?

Answers are all “yes”.  

Your question presupposes the pope is some kind of spiritual Oracle or saintly-diety.  So weird and uncatholic.  Any pope can lose his faith just like Martin Luther did.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 02, 2018, 04:41:20 PM

Quote
So basically a legitimate successor of St. Peter, the very foundation of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, has turned indeed to be an enemy of Jesus Christ?
How many theologians have addressed this possibility?  Many, over the course of many centuries.  Even St Bellarmine said it was possible.

So one the one hand, you argue that the pope could never fall into heresy, so the post-conciliar Church popes were never valid to begin with.  

On the other hand you constantly appeal to St Bellarmine, who talks about what to do with a HERETICAL pope AFTER he’s been elected.  Yet, above, you deny that St Bellarmine’s situation is possible.  

You are a walking and confused contradiction. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 02, 2018, 06:04:23 PM
Quote
What is completely foreign to Roman Catholicism is the disdain and contemptuousness towards the Pope of Rome, the legitimate successor of St. Peter, by those who call themselves Catholic.
You mean the same disdain and contempt that St Bellarmine showed towards the (imaginary) pope whom he argued could fall into heresy?  I guess St Robert was in error and his ideals are COMPLETELY FOREIGN to the faith, as you state.  (sarcasm alert).

St Robert Bellarmine, as well as the many theologians who studied this situation, all use the same phrase "a heretic pope".  This means that the pope was pope, then becomes a heretic.  Which completely DESTROYS your argument that a heretic pope is not possible.  If they were arguing that a heretic could never become pope, then they wouldn't call him a heretic pope, but a heretic non-pope, or anti-pope.  But no, they do not describe him thus, because they take into account that a pope could turn to heresy DURING his pontificate.

Again, you have a reading comprehension problem.  You should not be discussing these matters at all.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 02, 2018, 06:09:55 PM

Quote
It is believed that Popes can indeed fall into error in private writings or even have sinful lives

It is argued by MANY theologians (and even St Bellarmine admits that while he disagrees with the idea, that it's a valid argument) that a pope can fall into heresy.


Quote
But NOT promulgate error in Ecunemical Councils, though.
V2 did not OFFICIALLY and AUTHORITATIVELY (i.e. under pain of sin, as a matter of salvation) force ANYONE to accept their novelties.  You have not proven your above statement in any capacity and EVERY V2 theologian, including Pope Paul VI says the COMPLETE opposite of what you said.  Your view has no factual backing.  It is worse than a theory, it is wishful thinking.  At worse, it's a lie.

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: klasG4e on April 02, 2018, 07:17:22 PM
Again, they pretend that V2 were just the private musings of one Giovanni Battista Montini.  He and the bishops were officially teaching the Church, exercising the Magisterium.
Alas, only if they had been exorcising the Magisterium instead!
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 02, 2018, 07:17:40 PM
Quote
It was an act of the fallible Magisterium.  

There.  Fixed it for you.  You refuse to admit that the magisterium can be fallible and err.  


Quote
Paul VI simply stated that V2 did not SOLEMNLY define anything.
Yes and they said much more.  Not only did Paul VI fail to SOLEMNLY define anything he also failed to non-solemnly define anything.  The magisterium can be infallible solemnly and non-solemnly.  V2 was neither.  

V2 was of the 3rd and lowest level of magisterial “teaching” (to use that term liberally): a non-solemn, fallible teaching, where faith/morals are not defined, nor clarified, but only explained how they should apply at the pastoral level.  This fact has been admitted by Paul VI, and many noted V2 theologians, bishops, cardinals and intellectuals.  And I’ve quoted many of them.  

Your view of V2 is not based on facts.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 02, 2018, 08:59:56 PM


Quote
The Fifth Lateran Council defines infallibly the necessity of being subject to the Pope of Rome for salvation, so if you know who the Pope of Rome is, then why don't you submit?



Quote
Pope Innocent III († 1216) :

The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because “he who does not believe is already judged.” (St. John 3:1) In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men." (Sermo 4)    




Quote
Pope Adrian VI († 1523) :
 “If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can
err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334).



Quote

Venerable Pope Pius IX :
 “If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him.” (Letter to Bishop Brizen)




Quote
Pope Adrian II († 872) :
 “We read that the Roman Pontiff has always possessed authority to pass judgment on the heads of all the Churches (i.e., the patriarchs and bishops), but nowhere do we read that he has been the subject of judgment by others. It is true that Honorius was posthumously anathematized by the Eastern churches, but it must be borne in mind that he had been accused of heresy, the only offense which renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter's pernicious teachings”.



Quote
St. Thomas Aquinas:
There being an imminent danger for the Faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was a subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Glossa of St. Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2.14), 'St. Peter himself gave the example to those who govern so that if sometimes they stray from the right way, they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from their subjects.” (Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 33, A. 4) 


Quote

Saint Thomas Aquinas O.P:


It is written: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’ Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore, superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.” (Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 104, A. 5)




Quote
From Galatians 2:11
 
But when Cephas [Peter] was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” (Galatians 2:11)



Quote
 
The theologian Juan Cardinal De Torquemada O.P. († 1468)
 “Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not, it is said in the Acts of the Apostles: 'One ought to obey God rather than man'; therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over.” (Summa de Ecclesia)
 


Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 02, 2018, 09:33:09 PM
You have a habit of classifying anything as "theory" or "speculation" if it hasn't been formally or solemnly defined.  So, for instance, you claimed this of the Church's disciplinary infallibility and overall indefectibility ... even though the propositions related to both disciplinary infallibility and indefectibility flow directly from Catholic teaching and have a much higher theological note than "speculative".  For you there seem to be only two categories, de fide and speculation.  That's in line with your limiting of infallibility to solemn definitions.  As with the different ramifications of indefectibility which are denied by no theologian, the notion of fides ecclesiastica is very widely held.  This distinction appears in every listing of the "theological notes" that I have ever seen.

But for people of your mindset, anything short of things defined solemnly by the Church are optional.

The term “speculation” has as its primary meaning the contemplative consideration of a subject. Its modern sense to conjecture or surmise unrelated to known facts is the fourth or fifth meaning of the word depending on your dictionary reference used.  The Church Fathers at Nicaea speculated on the divine revelation of the Trinity before formulating the dogma that the Father and the Son are consubstantial.
 
Fr. Fenton has a nice article in AER on half dozen or more speculations on the nature of the Communion of Saints, a formal object of divine revelation.  The Indefectibility of the Church is a matter of divine revelation as well but its exact nature and its method of operation have not been dogmatically defined and are open to further speculation.  
 
It is grossly absurd mischaracterization to claim that I have “two categories, de fide and speculation…..  limiting of infallibility to solemn definitions” making “anything short of things defined solemnly by the Church are optional.”  I have made many post posts in the past and several posts directly to you that demonstrate this as calumny.  Furthermore, since I obviously adhere to the Catholic principle that dogma is the proximate rule of faith, it would be corruption of the dogma:

Quote
Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed  which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium. Vatican I

 
It is not clear to me what you are trying to say in this post. So what are claiming? That there is such a thing as "mere ecclesiastical faith"? And that my denial of its existence represents a "habit of classifying anything as 'theory' or 'speculation' if it has not been formally or solemnly defined?" This question has been considered in detail before and you have contributed to the posts in that thread. If you need to be reminded of the details, they can be covered again.
 
The article by Fr. Fenton demonstrates an example where popular theological speculation has proved to be utterly useless and even harmful to the Church. My argument was essentially a detailed review of Fr. Fenton's article which buries the theological absurdity of mere ecclesiastical faith ultimately denying that it even exists. The discussion in the thread went beyond what Fr. Fenton presented and addressed some of the theological consequences of believing this myth.
 
If Fr. Fenton did not convince you I can guess at the reason.  Fr. Fenton uses dogma as his rule of faith from which he draws necessary and certain theological conclusions.  From these derived truths, he agrees with the theologians who concluded that mere ecclesiastical faith has no basis in reality. It is true the mere ecclesiastical faith was a common error at the time of Fr. Fenton's article and in fact is even more common today because it makes the pope the rule of faith. But popular as it is, it is still an absurd myth and I am grateful to Fr. Fenton for having addressed it. 
 
Indefectibility is essentially the power the Church possesses to offer true worship to God and sanctify the faithful. This first and fundamental truth cannot be forgotten in any consideration of the nature of Indefectibility and how it is preserved in the Church.
 
One of the first things that need to be grasped is that “disciplinary infallibility” is an oxymoron. Discipline is in the order of Authority-Obedience and Infallibility is in the order of Truth-Falsehood.  Once this idea is dumped it is possible to move toward understanding the nature of immemorial ecclesiastical traditions.
 
I have made a repeated claim to you and others that immemorial ecclesiastical traditions are not matters of mere discipline, but rather, necessary attributes of the faith. The iconoclasts were condemned as heretics for rejecting images of the faith.  Every immemorial ecclesiastical tradition is an image of the faith by which is can be known and communicated to others.  Dogma is expressed in words.  Those words are images of specific concepts that are joined in categorically judgments that are infalliblely true.  The words of a dogmatic definition and the immemorial ecclesiastical traditions are analogous.  They are both the work of the Holy Ghost.  Immemorial ecclesiastical traditions are not mere matters of discipline; they possess elements of discipline, but are essentially direct properties of Catholic truth.  They are the incarnational manifestation of truth. This explains why immemorial ecclesiastical traditions have been the object of dogmatic definitions and therefore cannot be a matters of simple discipline, i.e.: objects mere ecclesiastical faith.  
 
Clarity on this matter begins with holding Dogma as the proximate rule of faith.  This should be evident to everyone reading this thread by this one fact alone: the definition of heresy is the rejection of Dogma, that is, heresy is failure to keep Dogma as the proximate rule of faith.  
 
Once you understand this you can clearly see that the overturning of any immemorial ecclesiastical tradition is an attack on the faith itself and the virtue of Religion.  No human person regardless of their authority can legitimately command anything against the virtue of Religion and no Catholic can be obedient to such a command without sin.  This is fundamental principle of Catholic moral theology.  That holds true whether the authority is father and son or the Pope and a faithful Catholic.
 
A heretical pope does not possess any authority by his grace of state to command any attack against the faith and it does not require removing him from his office or destroying the office to correct the problem both of which lead to the overturning of Catholic dogma.  And, as I have already said, it is absurd for sedevacantists or sedeprivationists to accuse R & R Catholics of problems regarding the Attribute of Indefectibility especially when they end up on a church of their own making that is without a necessary attribute of the Church founded by Jesus Christ and without any material or instrumental cause to ever correct the problem.  Whatever church this is, it is not the Catholic Church.  It cannot worship God or sanctify the faithful.  It is therefore a most defective church.

Drew 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 02, 2018, 09:52:00 PM
I am not aware of any reputable Catholic source which gives this (rather childish) explanation of the doctrine of submission to the Vicar of Christ on earth, the Pope of Rome. I have only heard this rhetoric in SSPX circles. Furthermore, you did not answer what is your understanding of the dogma, what it entails, and its implications in the regular lives of Catholics. You briefly touched the point of the legitimacy of general disobedience.  Do you become a subject to the Roman Pontiff by virtue of Baptism alone? What are your obligations as a Roman Catholic in this respect?

I rather believe the words of Pope Leo XIII in Epistola Tua, 1885:

Cantarella,

I think its better to just take one point at time with you and work it to its resolution.  

You apparently think that Catholic morality is situational, that a Catholic moral principle is differently applied by the accidental property of 'maturity'.  Would you now demonstrate how the Catholic moral principle that obedience to any human authority which is governed by the virtue of Religion is applied in a "childish" relationship between a father and his son, and the relationship between a ruler and his people, and the relationship between a pope and the faithful. Also explain how and why a child's disobedience to the unjust command of his father, the disobedience of a citizen to the unjust command of his ruler, and the disobedience of a faithful Catholic to the unjust command of a pope are categorically different in the application of this Catholic moral principle.  Explain how the moral principle changes, or how its application is situationally different.  Explain how and why in these different circumstances the obligation of submission is, or is not, destroyed.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 03, 2018, 04:51:55 AM
This whole thread, and the other long winded thread (The Heretical Pope Fallacy (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-heretical-pope-fallacy/405/), 28 pages) could have been reduced to a few posts IF ONLY sedevacantists would know how to distinguish between the Authentic Magisterium and the Infallible Magisterium (Extraordinary and Ordinary). For some reason, they CAN NOT and WILL NOT make a distinction between the two. 

This is the one and only dogma of sedevacantists: "Thou shalt not distinguish between the Authentic and the Infallible Magisterium"

And those who fail to distinguish between the two can only go two ways:

1. Either they HAVE TO reject the whole Magisterium on account of the erring of the Authentic Magisterium, and thus arrive at sedevacantism.

2. Or they HAVE TO accept the errors of the Authentic Magisterium on account of the Infallibility which they mistakenly think belongs to the Authentic Magisterium as well, and thus arrive in the Novus Ordo.

The same underlying error leads to two different erroneous positions.

Once you understand and accept the distinction between Authentic and Infallible Magisterium, you simply Recognize the Infallible Magisterium as Infallible and the Authentic Magisterium as Authentic, and so you accept the teaching of the Infallible Magisterium while you Resist the errors of the Authentic Magisterium. In other words, Recognize and Resist.

The rule of Faith is the Infallible Magisterium (Teaching Authority), expressed in the dogmas it proclaims.

Since the Authentic Magisterium is not infallible, it does NOT belong to the rule of Faith, i.e. it can and does at times err.

Vatican II was a council of the Authentic Magisterium, it was NOT a council of the Infallible Magisterium.

What is so hard about all this?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 03, 2018, 05:48:22 AM


Dear Cantarella,

Thank you for your kind words. The feeling is mutual. Regarding the quotes, I was looking for one of them I saw in the Fr. Hesse videos and came across the rest. I had never seen them. I'm open to any comments, please enlighten us, they are not our rule of faith.



Quote
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema."
 [Galatians 1:8 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=55&ch=1&l=8#x)]



Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 03, 2018, 08:46:21 AM
Pius IX first used the word magisterium in 1863.  Pope Leo XIII's quote below was written in 1896, roughly 30 years later.  At the time, when the word magisterium was used, it meant the infallible type only.

It is only in the 1900s that modernists started using the word too generally, to apply to any teaching of the church (fallible and non-fallible), so theologians had to construct the 3 levels to explain the differences and to attach the different labels - solemn, authentic, ordinary.  It's still confusing, because modernists are still everywhere and like to confuse, but at least there is more consistancy than 70 years ago. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 03, 2018, 09:59:45 AM
This whole thread, and the other long winded thread (The Heretical Pope Fallacy (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-heretical-pope-fallacy/405/), 28 pages) could have been reduced to a few posts IF ONLY sedevacantists would know how to distinguish between the Authentic Magisterium and the Infallible Magisterium (Extraordinary and Ordinary). For some reason, they CAN NOT and WILL NOT make a distinction between the two.
One of the main problems is that the sedes' very definition of "magisterium", which they say is their rule of faith, is the same as the Novus Ordo definition of "magisterium". Which is to say the sedes' adhere to the NO "totality of bishops doctrine". They believe this NO doctrine, quoted from a sede bishop, to be "a dogma of faith" - "The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful." - Bishop Pivarunas, CMRI

This NO doctrine is adopted from - and backed up by teachings from some of the 19/20th century theologians like Van Noort, who teaches that being bound to the magisterium as your rule of faith "implies a corresponding duty to believe whatever the successors of the Apostles teach".

In order for the sedes to justify their unfaithfulness to their rule of faith, they must claim that their "magisterium" is full of illegitimate members, imposters because of the heresies that they all teach whether assembled in general council or scattered over the earth. Since their "magisterium" is full of imposters, this frees the sedes from their duty to believe whatever the "magisterium" teaches and ipso facto encourages them to the confusion we see them consistently post.

I think a step in the right direction is to agree with and use only Pope Pius IX's description of the Magisterium whenever referring to it:
"...all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith." - Tuas Libenter


 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on April 03, 2018, 10:13:03 AM
How do you reconcile your post with this teaching from Pope Leo XIII?


Samuel is correct, he understand the "authentic magisterium", you don't.

The “authentic (or authorized) magisterium” refers only to the person who occupies the Church office to which the Magisterium is attached.

Fr. Joseph Fenton attributes the term “authentic (or authorized) magisterium" to the theological writings of the esteemed Fr. Joachim Salaverri who said:



 Fr. Joachim Salaverri wrote:
Quote
“An internal and religious assent of the mind is due to the doctrinal decrees of the Holy See which have been authentically approved by the Roman Pontiff.” Fr. Joachim Salaverri, of the Jesuit faculty of theology in the Pontifical Institute of Comillas in Spain, quote taken from article by Fr. Joseph C. Fenton, Infallibility in the Encyclicals, AER, 1953
 
 Papal Magisterium that is mere authenticum, that is, only "authentic" or "authorized" as regards the person himself, not as regards his infallibility. (no.659ff). Fr. Joachim Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa (vol. I, 5th ed., Madrid, B.A.C.)

The last paragraph of the Ratzinger "Profession of Faith" (Rejected by ABL) and which remains the Non-Negotiable Condition for the SSPX and all indult communities says


Quote
What is more, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate when they exercise the authentic Magisterium even if they proclaim those teachings in an act that is not definitive.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html

I've said before the Amoris Laetitia is a "teaching" that "the Roman pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate when they exercise the authentic Magisterium even if they proclaim those teachings in an act that is not definitive."

Since the Modernists cannot use the attribute of Infallibility to bind error, the professio fidei comes handy.

The quotes are from an old thread saved here: http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/Catholic%20Controversies/LG,X1989ProfessionFaith;AuthenticMagisterium.htm

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 03, 2018, 11:21:09 AM
Quote
Essentially what you're saying is that the non-infallible teachings of the Pope and bishops have no authority when they're not infallible, and Catholics can be free to disregard them. 
You really are a person of extremes.  If something is not infallible, we must give 'religious CONDITIONAL assent'.  If you want to know what that means, go re-read the definitions i've posted multiple times.
Quote
So you're essentially denying the notion of authoritative teaching to anything short of infallible pronouncements.
I've posted theologians' explanations of the 3 tiers of magisterial authority numerous times.  You refuse to make distinctions.  You have no integrity.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 03, 2018, 11:24:27 AM
Quote
"At the time, when the word magisterium was used, it meant the infallible type only"  Are you kidding me, Pax??  Where did you come up with this little gem?  Source please...
You don't even believe that there IS a fallible magisterium, so how else can YOU interpret this, but that it's ALL infallible? 
Go do a google search on the magisterium and there's plenty of history out there.  I'm not re-posting it, as i've done so multiple times.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 03, 2018, 11:29:55 AM
Quote
I actually have a scriptural annotation ...
Cantarella, you need to stop with the scriptural annotation that you've posted like 1,000x.  It's AN OPINION.
The weight you place on its importance is embarrassing.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 03, 2018, 11:36:52 AM
Quote
Same thing here. The "superiors" who are mentioned here (and may be disobeyed if they command something sinful), are NOT precisely the Pope of Rome.
A superior is a superior.  The Pope is a superior.  Principle applies.  If St Thomas needed to make an exception, I think he's smart enough to remember to do so.  Your exception is not valid.

Quote
St. Thomas explicitly taught in "Contra Errores Graecorum" that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. When we talk about the Holy Father himself then; then the submission to be given is completely different.
Right.  We are only obligated to give 'religious CONDITIONAL assent' to the pope, unless he requires UNQUALIFIED assent, through a teaching that he, through infallibility (either solemn or non-solemn), binds us.
Also, if the pope sets a disciplinary rule (i.e. communion fast, or some liturgical rule), which is under pain of sin, so obedience is required and made clear.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 03, 2018, 11:40:49 AM
Cantarella,
You still haven't explained why you believe in the false generalization that the pope's "faith cannot fail" when St Robert Bellarmine, your personal hero, says otherwise multiple times and argues that the pope CAN fall into heresy.

I suspect you don't have an answer to this (one of your many) contradictions.  You, like Ladislaus on this topic, have an agenda and a lack of integrity.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on April 03, 2018, 01:26:49 PM
...because we believe that his authority comes from GOD, being the succesor of St. Peter. Obedience and loyalty to Peter is the authentic and traditional Catholic attitude.

His authority does come from God, but the pope is not God. It is Our Lord Jesus Christ who is actually the head of the Catholic Church. If the Pope is not in submission to the head of the Church, we do not have to follow him in that error. 

I repeat...the Pope is not God. He is human. He is not automatically endowed with supernatural faith that cannot fail. He does not become like a sort of demi-god when elected pope. It is not guaranteed that the Holy Ghost will be with the Cardinals when they elect a pope. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 03, 2018, 01:36:37 PM
You're entitled to your opinion.  

Since you've decided to join in, please elaborate on the quote from Pope Leo XIII.  What is he saying in the quote below?  What does he mean?

Why would anyone be banished from the Church by departing "from the doctrine propose by the authentic magisterium" if the authentic magisterium can err?  

Bellator Dei,

“Elaboration” is very easy because Pope Leo XIII does it himself in the encyclical.  The term “authentic magisterium” is more commonly translated, “authorized magisterium.”  “Authorized” is a better translation because it is more descriptive of the meaning.  The term only means that it is the pope himself who is engaging the magisterium.  It does not alone indicate what kind of magisterial power is being used. It could be the ‘authorized ordinary magisterium’ based upon his grace of state which is capable of error and has errored in the past.  Or, it could also be the ‘authorized extra-ordinary Magisterium’ or the ‘authorized ordinary and universal Magisterium’ both of which engage the Church’s Attribute of Infallibility and from which error is impossible.  Now the “authorized Magisterium” that Pope Leo is talking about in the encyclical is the Magisterium established by Jesus Christ that has the “authority” to engage the Attribute of Infallibility He gave His Church and that is clearly seen in the context of the encyclical.  

Quote
It was consequently provided by God that the Magisterium instituted by Jesus Christ should not end with the life of the Apostles, but that it should be perpetuated. We see it in truth propagated, and, as it were, delivered from hand to hand. For the Apostles consecrated bishops, and each one appointed those who were to succeed them immediately "in the ministry of the word."
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum

The Magisterium is “provided by God,” “instituted by Jesus Christ,” and “delivered from hand to hand” to different churchmen throughout time who can engage the Magisterium.  So it is evident that without the “churchmen”, there is no access to the Magisterium.  Consequently, those who say the “magisterium is their rule of faith” really mean “churchmen” are their rule of faith, i.e.: the pope is their rule of faith.  

Quote
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodoret, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n.).
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum

Here you see that the “authorized Magisterium” is directly referring to condemned heresies, which only occurs with the overturning of Dogma.  And Dogma is only possible by an infallible judgment of the Magisterium.  

Quote
Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own. As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true. If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man. "Lord, if we be in error, we are being deceived by Thee" (Richardus de S. Victore, De Trin., lib. i., cap. 2)………..
For this reason the Fathers of the Vatican Council laid down nothing new, but followed divine revelation and the acknowledged and invariable teaching of the Church as to the very nature of faith, when they decreed as follows: "All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written or unwritten word of God, and which are proposed by the Church as divinely revealed, either by a solemn definition or in the exercise of its ordinary and universal Magisterium" (Sess. iii., cap. 3). Hence, as it is clear that God absolutely willed that there should be unity in His Church, and as it is evident what kind of unity He willed, and by means of what principle He ordained that this unity should be maintained, we may address the following words of St. Augustine to all who have not deliberately closed their minds to the truth: "When we see the great help of God, such manifest progress and such abundant fruit, shall we hesitate to take refuge in the bosom of that Church, which, as is evident to all, possesses the supreme authority of the Apostolic See through the Episcopal succession? In vain do heretics rage round it; they are condemned partly by the judgment of the people themselves, partly by the weight of councils, partly by the splendid evidence of miracles. To refuse to the Church the primacy is most impious and above measure arrogant. And if all learning, no matter how easy and common it may be, in order to be fully understood requires a teacher and master, what can be greater evidence of pride and rashness than to be unwilling to learn about the books of the divine mysteries from the proper interpreter, and to wish to condemn them unknown?" (De Unitate Credendi, cap. xvii., n. 35).
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum


This confirms everything I have said.  The Magisterium is “living” in that it is engaged by living people, i.e.: the pope.  You can only have a pope if you have a papal office, i.e.: the form and the matter of the office cannot be destroyed as in sedeprivationism. It is “perpetual” in that there will always be successors to the papal office, i.e.:  for sedevacantists to lose a pope for fifty years is not “perpetual” and what makes matters worse, they have means to ever get one.  And what confirms that the “authorized Magisterium” that Pope Leo is talking about the infallible Magisterium, he says, “As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true.”

Hope this helps.

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 03, 2018, 01:46:34 PM
How do you reconcile your post with this teaching from Pope Leo XIII?

The translation on the Vatican's website, which btw Fr. Cekada also accepts and uses as the correct translation, is this:

Quote
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.

There is a difference between authorized and authoritative. Consulting a dictionary:

Quote
Authorized: having official permission or approval.
Authoritative: able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable.

So, authorized means that it comes from the true or authentic Magisterium, while authoritative means that it can be trusted as accurate, in other words, infallible and therefore binding.

The teaching of the Authentic Magisterium is authorized, but not authoritative.

The teaching of the Infallible Magisterium is both authorized and authoritative.

You may want to read this lengthy article, which first appeared in the 2002 issue of SiSiNoNo: Clear Ideas on the Pope's Infallible Magisterium (http://sspx.org/en/clear-ideas-popes-infallible-magisterium)

Therefore, Pope Leo was talking about the Infallible Magisterium, and not the Authentic Magisterium. Quite the opposite of what you were trying to claim.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on April 03, 2018, 01:52:27 PM

Pope Leo XIII elaborates on this specific issue...

I don't have a problem with Pope Leo Xlll and the quote you provided. Of course there will always be a succession of popes. Those of us who aren't sedes already know this.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on April 03, 2018, 02:18:34 PM
That was not the point, Meg. The point of the quote is to demonstrate that Christ left in Peter and His successors, a representative of Himself on earth. Christ and the Pope are not independent from each other. As Pope Innocent III explains here:

Sorry, Canteralla, but the Pope is not Christ. The pope is not God. He is human. Fully human. Or do you disagree?

It's almost as if you believe that the pope is the fourth person of the trinity, which seems rather gnostic. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 03, 2018, 02:24:08 PM
Well, I'm certainly not a linguist by any stretch of the means.  But the latin sure seems to indicate the word "authentic".

Looks pretty clear to me, but maybe someone with training in Latin can chime in...

From an online Latin dictionary (https://www.online-latin-dictionary.com/latin-english-dictionary.php?lemma=AUTHENTICUS100):

Quote
authentĭcus (adjective I class)
1. (document) original, genuine, authentic
2. that comes from the author

Looking up the Latin word for authentic in the same dictionary (https://www.online-latin-dictionary.com/english-latin-dictionary.php?parola=authentic):

Quote
authentic (adjective)
1. verus [veră, verum]
2. certus [certă, certum]
The bottom line for me is this: often lay theologians will read something and understand it in a completely different way as what was intended by the one who wrote it. Put many little such mistakes together and you will arrive at a big mistake, which will be very hard to correct.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 03, 2018, 03:10:40 PM
Another example from Satis Cognitum:

From an online Latin dictionary:

authentĭcum
neutral noun II declension

1 original or authentic document, the original
2 document certifying relic genuine

..which also is officially (http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum.html) translated as :

Quote
Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 03, 2018, 03:17:48 PM
Well, I'm certainly not a linguist by any stretch of the means.  But the latin sure seems to indicate the word "authentic".

Looks pretty clear to me, but maybe someone with training in Latin can chime in...

You basically have two choices now:

1. You stick to the official translation, which is also accepted and used by Fr. Cekada, in which case your original argument is turned against your sedevacantist position.

2. You reject the official translation, you ignore Fr. Cekada, and you simply stick to your own translation, in order to keep propping up your sedevacantist position.

What would an honest person be inclined to do?

Btw, it would be an interesting exercise to try and track down where that different translation originated. I can guess the answer. Can you?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 03, 2018, 03:53:19 PM
I already ignore quite a bit of what Father Cekada has to say.  He's done a lot of good research and laid a good foundation, but I don't care about what version of this or that is accepted by him...

I'm certainly skeptical of the translation, yes.  Anything "official" that comes from the apostate church should make anyone skeptical.  Obviously, in your position, it makes sense that you would accept something "official" from the Vatican.  I get it, man...  

I don't find it that interesting of an exercise...  Of course, I know where I got it from.  

I did, however, find our dictionary exercise interesting as it confirmed my original assertion about the translation.

I could pursue this a little further, but I sense it would do you no good, and thus it would be a waste of my time.

At the end of the day, God knows us better than we know ourselves, and He told us that we must search in order to find. This also means that those who don't want to search (usually because deep down they are afraid of what they might find), will only have themselves to blame for the erroneous opinions they hold.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 03, 2018, 04:12:46 PM
I agree, I don't think that our little exercise did you any good.  People like you already think you know it all - it's obvious from this last condescending post of yours.

By the way, Samuel, you can pursue this as far as you want to go.  Just know that I'll be here to keep you in check...  

Ok, let's pursue it then.

The same translation ("authoritative") is also used and accepted by the following illustrious sedevacantist mentors :

Fr. Cekada (http://www.fathercekada.com/2007/07/16/frankenchurch-rises-again-ratzinger-on-the-church/)

Novus Ordo Watch (https://novusordowatch.org/refinishing-the-great-facade/)

The Dimond Brothers (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/catholic-glossary-principles/#.WsPqqZ9fhhE)

John Lane (http://sedevacantist.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1823&p=17878)

John Daly (http://pope-speaks.com/?page_id=245)

So, please tell me, what motivates you to ignore these illustrious authorities, generally accepted by sedevacantists as "reliable, trustworthy, honest, fair, intelligent, learned, .."? What is the authority upon which you base your own ("authentic") translation then?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 03, 2018, 04:26:46 PM
I agree, I don't think that our little exercise did you any good.  People like you already think you know it all - it's obvious from this last condescending post of yours.

By the way, Samuel, you can pursue this as far as you want to go.  Just know that I'll be here to keep you in check...  

By the way Bellator Dei, I certainly do not "think I know it all", on the contrary, I actually am convinced that my knowledge is far less than yours.

But, as Drew pointed out recently in a conversation with Ladislaus, many people have a vast knowledge, but very little wisdom and understanding. And that is a lethal combination!

I prefer a little bit of knowledge combined with a good and correct understanding, rather than a lot of knowledge without a good and correct understanding.

Protestants fall into this latter category, as also do.. sedevacantists.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 03, 2018, 05:38:25 PM
Even better than education are FACTS to support one’s views.  Most of this thread is personal opinion and facts are ignored.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on April 03, 2018, 07:10:55 PM
There's no need to apologize at all ... since Drew and his wife are actively promoting heresy.  They would have been burned at the stake by St. Pius V for trying to spread such poison.

You're succumbing to feminine emotions in feeling the need to apologize.

Get over yourself already. 

You’re such a bloviating hypocrite. You go on and on and on about the right Catholic response to the Magisterium as the “rule of faith,” but you act very differently when you disagree with its teachings. 

The Council of Trent directed the production of a catechism for instruction of the faith, particularly with regard to the sacraments, and holy prelates, including many of the Fathers from Trent, undertook the work and produced the Roman Catechism with the approval of Pope St. Pius V, under whose authority it issued. Subsequent popes endorsed it as the model of instruction for teaching the faith. 

Yet, I guess, according to you, the Roman Catechism does not come from the Magisterium. Wait . . . you never said that.  The only response I ever got from you on this issue was, “the Catechism doesn’t teach BoD,” not that it wasn’t a production of the “errorless” Magisterium. 

Anyway, I’m still waiting as to your assertion that the Roman Catechism doesn’t teach BoD:

Name a single Catholic theologian who agrees with you and reads the Catechism as not teaching BoD.  A . . . SINGLE . . . ONE. 

But you go against the unanimity of theologians on that one, eh? How you can cite an opponent’s disagreeing with the theologians is beyond me – yet you do it repeatedly.  

If your Catholic “rule of faith” encompasses the indefectible “teaching Church” teaching an error regarding justification such as BoD to the universal Church in its definitive Catechism, your “rule of faith” is no different from Drew’s, Stubborn’s, Pax’s etc.: it’s effectively a rule that is followed only when the “teaching Church” lines up with what you think is dogma, or what you think Trent says on justification, etc. 

You could be a mascot for the guys who were going to stone Mary Magdelan, since the sin you commit is the same one that those you are going to stone committed. 

You have the credibility of a Pharisee, and have the same stinking hypocrisy in charging others with heresy.  

No one here seems to mind your hypocrisy, but I can’t help addressing it. 

Watching you in action almost actually hurts.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 03, 2018, 07:39:47 PM
Bellator, I made 1 minor error, and admitted it.  You come in and out of a 50 page thread multiple times and want people to re-post evidence they already provided or “it’s made up”.  Meanwhile the only “facts” you post are centuries-old excerpts of pope quotes along with your interpretation of what they mean and how they support your argument.  How about some real facts, like theologians or experts who DIRECTLY address the question at hand, with no interpretation necessary.  

Further, you’ve yet to address Bellarmine’s comments on when a council is infallible (which is narrow) and the multiple quotes on the 3 levels of magisterial teaching.  You weren’t around 10-15 pages ago but you can go back and read.  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 03, 2018, 08:16:46 PM
Your sarcasm indicates you're not really interested in pursuing anything...but I'll bite.

I don't have any "illustrious sedevacantist mentors", Sam.

Father Cekada, Novus Ordo Watch, John Lane, and John Daly all believe in the salvation of non-Catholics, so I don't pay much attention to any of them.  Occasionally I'll refer to some Father Cekada material, and Novus Ordo Watch has some good material, but to be honest, I don't know much about John Lane or John Daly...

That being said, I believe that the Dimonds have the most comprehensive material to read through, and I refer to their material the most.  And to correct your statement above, MHFM does not use or accept the translation of "authentico" or "authenticum" as "authoritative".  See below, from the Dimonds website:

Thank you, that explains everything.

All the following quotes are from the Dimond's website (emphasis mine) :

Quote
Papal Infallibility does not mean that a pope cannot err at all and it does not mean that a pope cannot lose his soul and be damned in Hell for grave sin.  It means that the successors of St. Peter (the popes of the Catholic Church) cannot err when authoritatively teaching on a point of Faith or morals to be held by the entire Church of Christ.  We find the promise of the unfailing faith for St. Peter and his successors referred to by Christ in Luke 22.
...
Satan desired to sift all the Apostles (plural) like wheat, but Jesus prayed for Simon Peter (singular), that his faith fail not.  Jesus is saying that St. Peter and his successors (the popes of the Catholic Church) have an unfailing faith when authoritatively teaching a point of faith or morals to be held by the entire Church of Christ.
...
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, 1896:
“… Christ instituted a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium… If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man.”

Outside of the Church there is absolutely no salvation
 (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation/#.WsQed59fhhE)
Heretic – a baptized person who rejects a dogma of the Catholic Church. Heretics are automatically excommunicated from the Church (ipso facto) without any declaration for rejecting an authoritative teaching of the Faith.

The Glossary of Terms and Principles (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/catholic-glossary-principles/#.WsQcxp9fhhF)
(http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/catholic-glossary-principles/#.WsQcxp9fhhF)
And so are these quotes:

Quote
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, and that with the consenting judgment [i.e. consensus] of the holy fathers who certainly were accustomed to hold as having no part of Catholic communion and as banished from the Church whoever had departed in even the least way from the doctrine proposed by the authentic magisterium.”

Also, note here that the Church is infallible in its ‘authentic magisterium’.  Pope Leo XIII declares that to deny teaching of the ‘authentic magisterium’ is to separate oneself from the Church.  The position that the ‘authentic magisterium’ can contain error is common among false traditionalists.

The Magisterium is Free From Error (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/the-magisterium/#.WsQX6Z9fhhF)

There are probably many more quotes that fit in either of the above boxes, but I'm sure any reasonable person will get the picture:

The Dimond Brothers use the translation that suits their theory of the day. And today's theory may well (and often does) contradict yesterday's theory.

1. In the first box they need to defend the Catholic Church from the arguments of Her external enemies, and so they teach that the Magisterium can indeed err, but not when authoritatively teaching.

2. In the second box they need to "prove" sedevacantism, and so they declare that the Magisterium is always free from error (i.e. authentic Magisterium).

It is so obvious, even after a 5 minutes look across their site, that I am indeed struggling not to become sarcastic.

Bellator Dei, like the Eunuch, you are in need of a reliable teacher, and the Dimond brothers do not qualify for that position.

He that walketh with the wise, shall be wise: a friend of fools shall become like to them. Proverbs 13:20
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on April 03, 2018, 08:59:20 PM
I'm not going to digress onto the subject of BoD here (this thread is long enough already), but it suffices to say that AT NO POINT have I ever asserted that there can be no error whatsoever in any proposition ever to have emanated from the Magisterium.  What I have stated is that the Magisterium is infallibly safe, i.e., that no one can in submitting to an authoritative teaching made to the Universal Church on a substantial point proposed as being normative for the faithful endanger their faith (as Msgr. Fenton articulated it).  BoD, conceding for the sake of argument that the Church has taught this, as held by St. Thomas et al., does no substantial harm to the faith.  It's a speculative theory that can be understood in such a way as to bring no harm to Catholic doctrine.  Saying that the Magisterium is the "rule of faith" is not the same as saying that it's absolutely inerrant ... you ignorant baboon.  I've explained this to you several times already, but you are too dense to absorb this ... that and too blinded by your own heretical depravity.

Yeah, you went into your bit about a Thomsistic distinction between substance and accidents. The problem is, here's what the popes you quoted said about the your "indefectible" Magisterium (as I reminded you before):

Quote
Why don't you go back and look at your quotes from the popes. Here's some of the phrases they used: "unable to be mistaken," "without danger of error," "could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching." That is far more than "cannot, on the whole, be subtantially corrupted." Nice try, though, with that Thomist stuff. Impressive.

Now let's look at what you say:

Quote
Saying that the Magisterium is the "rule of faith" is not the same as saying that it's absolutely inerrant ... you ignorant baboon.  I've explained this to you several times already, but you are too dense to absorb this ... that and too blinded by your own heretical depravity.


They didn't say, the Magisterium "can't do substantial harm to the faith," "can't endanger the faith," or, my favorite, "can't be, on the whole, substantially corrupted [maybe just a teeny bit? lol)" . . . They said quite clearly it can't err or be mistaken; they said, well, "absolutely inerrant." Like you said to Pax, "you make this stuff up."

Face it, Ladislaus, you say BoD is "error." So much for the Magisterium being "unable to be mistaken," and teaching "without danger of error."

You reject your indefectible teaching Magisterium on BoD. You reject your popes on the indefectible Magisterium being "unable to be mistaken" and "without danger of error," etc.

I can make distinctions, just not your distinctions.

Deo gratias.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Jeremiah2v8 on April 03, 2018, 09:33:22 PM
No I don't, moron.  I have consistently characterized BoD as an opinion of speculative theology with which I happen to disagree at this time.

You have no recourse but to lie in a futile attempt to win this debate, out of spite.

So who is right and who is wrong between you and the Magisterium when you "disagree" with its speculatively theologizing about BoD?

The wrong one is in "error" - which is why I imagine you "disagree" with it. Or do you "disagree" with truth much?

If it's the Magisterium in error, don't go doing any carpentry with your "rule of faith." lol
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 04, 2018, 05:43:02 AM
So who is right and who is wrong between you and the Magisterium when you "disagree" with its speculatively theologizing about BoD?

The wrong one is in "error" - which is why I imagine you "disagree" with it. Or do you "disagree" with truth much?

If it's the Magisterium in error, don't go doing any carpentry with your "rule of faith." lol
Since his magisterium can be wrong on inconsequential matters, he is naturally free to decide which matters are inconsequential and which matters they got wrong. He is also forced to decide who is actually the real vs fraudulent magisterium and find out where the real magisterium aka Church is hiding.  

What does this actually amount to? It amounts to the whole idea being wholly iniquitous. It's only aim is to spread iniquity, which  causes doubt, division, confusion and the loss of faith among the people. The NO knew exactly what they were doing when they convinced the masses that the magisterium is the rule of faith.

As per Last Tradhican's sig - the whole idea has been "Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962."

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 04, 2018, 08:53:41 AM
Quote
Interestingly enough, my first post on this thread was on page 12 - It was a post correcting your false assertion that "the foundation of the Church are its teachings..."
The Church = teachings + pope.  It's both.  However, teachings came first, because Christ was teaching the Apostles the Truth (which came from both the Old Testament and Christ's new testament) before the Church even existed.  Christ's public life and time before the Ascension were done before Pentacost (birthday of the Church).  So, teachings are the foundation of the Church, with the pope being the guardian of the teachings.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 04, 2018, 08:56:03 AM
Quote
As for the Bellarmine quote from the SSPX article you posted, I believe Cantarella and Ladislaus addressed this.
Why don't YOU address it?  They read plain english and then apply verbal/mental gymnastics to say that it doesn't say what it says.  I guess you go along with their lack of integrity?  Suit yourself.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Meg on April 04, 2018, 11:04:34 AM
The Pope is human indeed; but as time progresses, I am more and more convinced that his Faith indeed cannot fail. Until someone is able to prove otherwise; I am now endorsing the 4th proposition explained by St. Bellarmine here:


As I had said before, the evidence of Popes not falling into heresy is overwhelming. R&R just can't really defend its position on this matter. Most of their sources do not even have enough theological weight whatsoever. For example, this quote attributed to Pope Adrian VI:


First, this is a false assertion, given that it is easily proven by ecclesiastical documents that not "MANY" Roman pontiffs were heretics. Second, it turns out that this quote was not written by POPE Adrian VI, but by "Adriano Florenzio" before being elected pontiff. Therefore, this work does not even belong to the Magisterium whatsoever.

Do you believe that the pope is also divine? I have to ask, because you said that the pope and Christ are not independent of each other. 

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Stubborn on April 04, 2018, 11:58:46 AM
I will go further and say that I don't even think you can safely believe a Pope can become a heretic after the dogmatic definition of Papal infallibility from Vatican I Council.

So 1) when, exactly, does the pope exercise this infallibility, 2) what is the criteria for the pope's infallibility per V1, also 3) when, exactly do all the bishops of the world exercise their infallibility according to the First Vatican Council?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 04, 2018, 01:34:08 PM
Quote
I am now endorsing the 4th proposition explained by St. Bellarmine here:
Ha ha.
1) Who cares what you endorse?  
2) The first phrase out of St Bellarmine's mouth is:  "...it is probable..."
3) So what are you endorsing, a probability?
4) So, from a probability (and your scriptural annotations...let's not forget those), you infer a DOGMATIC view that the papacy is "unfailing", IN ALL MATTERS, even when not infallible?  (And you obviously don't understand V1, if you think this council supports your view).

This is just laughable.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 04, 2018, 01:36:30 PM
Quote
He's referring to the simple fact that the existence of the alleged quotation cannot be verified.
St Bellarmine was quoted 4-5x saying that 1) councils are only infallible in their decrees/canons/definitons and 2) decrees/canons/definitions are the ONLY parts which are 'of the faith' and must be held for salvation. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 04, 2018, 02:35:22 PM
A single reading of Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus is all is needed to arrive to my conclusions:

7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

Catarella, PLEASE use some common sense.

Q. What is the gift that was conferred on Peter and his successors?
A. It is the "gift of truth and never-failing faith".

Q. Why was this gift conferred on them?
A. It was given "so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine".

Q. And what would be the result of having such a gift?
A. It would "remove the tendency to schism and the whole Church would preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell."

Now look outside your window, and what do you see?

The modern popes started spouting error, they handed out poisonous food, we have schismatic rites, etc... But wait a minute, what about that gift they received? Was that gift not supposed to prevent just the kind of situation we're in now?

1. The pope certainly does not seem to have (or at least use) that gift any longer.
2. He is no longer nourishing us with heavenly doctrine.
3. There is no longer unity, but schisms everywhere.

So, was that gift useful to have then? Did it work?

According to the sedevacantive narrative, God's gift is utterly useless. The only use they have for this gift is as a tool to reject whichever pope they would like to reject. Exactly the opposite of what the gift was given for: to preserve unity and avoid schism!!

According to Traditional Catholics with understanding, the gift was given for a certain purpose, but not forced upon the ones receiving this gift. IF they make use of it, they will be guaranteed to achieve the promised result. IF they refuse to make use of this gift, they will not be guaranteed to achieve the promised results. Just like when you are given a ruler: IF you use the ruler to draw lines, your lines will be straight, but IF you refuse to use that ruler your lines will be crooked.

In the sedevacantist narrative, this gift of never failing-faith would have made St. Peter and his successors impeccable, invincible, perfect, etc.. and it would have taken away their free will.

Let's try another way:

If you believe that a pope can fall into heresy and lose the faith, then you must admit that at that point he also loses this gift of "never failing faith". So he can lose that gift, ok? But if he can lose this gift, could it also not be possible that he can simply choose not to use this gift, while still retaining it for future use? Was the gift forced upon him? And when he refuses to use the gift, will he be deposed because of such refusal? In that case I would say it is no longer a gift but a curse, like the sword of Damocles: "you can be pope, and here's you're welcome gift, but if you step out of line you're no longer pope and I will take your gift off". I would certainly never want to be a pope under such conditions!

I think this whole sede things just defies logic.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 04, 2018, 03:00:22 PM
Quote
7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that (1) they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that (2) the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and (3) be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the (4) tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

Here's another view of the above. 

1.  What is the "exalted office for the salvation of all"? 
  Answer:  It is the OFFICIAL TEACHING office of the magisterium. 
  Problem:  The V2 church does not make use of its official teaching office, because she does not teach AUTHORITATIVELY, which binds us to believe, as a matter of salvation.

2.  How does the Church keep the flock away from the "poisonous food of error"? 
  Answer:  By AUTHORITATIVELY teaching that x, y or z is ANATHEMA and FORCING the faithful to reject these errors UNDER PAIN OF SIN.
  Problem:  V2 did not do this and the post-V2 Church has not done this, except for Paul VI condemning birth control and JPII condeming women-priests and also euthanasia and abortion.

3.  How does the Church "nourish with the substance of heavenly doctrine"? 
  Answer:  By AUTHORITATIVELY teaching that a, b and c MUST be believed WITH CERTAINTY OF FAITH. 
  Problem:  Outside of the positive teachings of Paul VI on family/natural law and JPII on the importance of life, the pope's actions are non-existent.

4.  How does the Church remove schism and preserve unity?
  Answer:  By teaching AUTHORITATIVELY and BINDING THE WHOLE CHURCH to believe a, b and c.
  Problem:  V2 did not do so, and the post-V2 Church hasn't done so outside of the few cases listed above concerning contraception, euthanasia and abortion.

Your interpretation of the above passage is wholly inadequate, theologically empty and illogical.  Your lack of reading comprehension is astounding.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 04, 2018, 03:02:47 PM
Quote
And those I have already explained to you.
You ignored 1/2 of the quotes.  I'm not surprised.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 04, 2018, 03:07:26 PM
Quote
Your argument is not with me, Pax, but with the Vicar of Christ.  
The pope is the foundation of the Church, but not the ONLY foundation
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 04, 2018, 03:10:45 PM
That is just because you do not understand it. If, in fact, the conciliar "popes" have done all you describe above against the Church, then that is a public indication that they are NOT the legitimate successors of St. Peter to begin with. That is the sign, because we know that popes do not fall into heresy.

Vatican I told us that the pope received a gift for a very specific purpose. Sedevacantists completely ignore that purpose and have inserted their own purpose:

According to Vatican I the purpose of this gift is: to enable the pope to nourish the Church with heavenly doctrine, and to keep the Church united.

According to sedevacantists the purpose of this gift is to give Catholics a litmus test for the validity of a given pope.

Can you not see that this is a gross distortion?
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 04, 2018, 03:17:51 PM
Do tell.  This ought to be good.

[Insert R&R distortion of Vatican I right here].

Ladislaus, it is stupid and useless remarks like these that undermine everything else you may possibly have to say. I normally skip straight over your posts.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 04, 2018, 03:18:16 PM
Quote
We are dealing here with the possibility of heresy in an Ecunemical Council,

Cantarella/Ladislaus,
You ignored these quotes the first time, will you ignore them again?

From V2's footnotes:

In view of the conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.

As a matter of fact, nowhere in the council documents does the Synod openly declare that such and such a doctrine is being defined.

----

You dodged this quote too:   (From Sylvester Berry's The Church of Christ (1927), pp. 458-9.)
"Bishops assembled in council are infallible only when exercising their supreme authority as teachers of faith or morals by a definite and irrevocable decree that a doctrine is revealed and, therefore, to be accepted by every member of the Church. (1)  But since the bishops need not intend such an irrevocable decision at all times, it is necessary that an infallible definition be so worded as to indicate clearly its definitive character.  For this purpose no set formula is necessary; it is sufficient to mention the doctrine as an article of faith, a dogma of faith, a Catholic dogma, a doctrine always believed in the Church, or a doctrine handed down by the Fathers.  Anathema pronounced against those who deny a doctrine is also sufficient evidence of a dogmatic definition.

A large majority of the acts of councils are not infallible definitions, because they are not intended as such.  "Neither the discussions which precede a dogmatic decree, nor the reasons alleged to prove and explain it, are to be accepted as infallibly true.  Nothing but the actual decrees are of faith, and these only if they are intended as such."


----

St Bellarmine:
For Bellarmine infallibility is restricted to the decrees of the councils that are proposed as such: The greater part of the acta of councils does not be-long to the faith. For the discussions which precede a decree are not of the faith, nor are the reasons adduced for them, nor are those things brought forward to illus-trate or explain them, but only those actual decrees, which are proposed as of the faith 53.

Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Samuel on April 04, 2018, 03:23:51 PM
So you mock this, eh?

Gross distortion?  This comes almost verbatim from the TEACHING OF VATICAN I, dips..t:
And this last part is key.  If Catholics are forced to split off from the hierarchy on account of error in the Papal Magisterium, then this overturns the teaching of Vatican I.  If the Magisterium has gotten so corrupt that Catholics are forced to refuse submission to the hierarchy, then it's a sign that these are not Peter with the "gift of truth and never-failing faith".

Ladislaus,

I have given you the explanation a few posts back. I am sorry for you that you are unable and/or unwilling to read and comprehend. Please take a break for a while.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 04, 2018, 03:26:27 PM
Quote
Oh, Pius IX condemned Religious Liberty?  Well, it didn't have all the notes of infallibility, so it's a flip of the coin whether I accept it or not.  I like Pius IX and don't like Vatican II, so I'll go with Pius IX.
Anyone with an 8th grade understanding can read encyclicals pre and post V2 and see the difference in use of the english language.  Your sweeping-generalizations, emotional rants, and childish name-calling are becoming more and more normal for your posts.  I wish you'd deal in facts, but that might be asking too much.

In fact, it is mostly through Pius IX's 'syllabus of errors' (which was authoritative and clear) that we know V2's philosophy (non authoritative and ambiguous) is wrong.  Pius IX condemned almost all of V2's errors.  To say that one cannot read both and see the difference in authoritative-tone, clarity and purpose is a lie.  Again, you have no integrity.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 04, 2018, 03:31:51 PM
Quote
He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience.
Oh, here we go again, with Fenton...

"Directives", definition:  an official or authoritative instruction.

V2 contained no "directives", no canons, no doctrinal definitions, nor laws.  Therefore, Fenton's above quote does not apply.  It ONLY applies to magisterial acts which BIND the faithful, under PAIN OF SIN. 

Things are either "of the faith" or they're not.  There's no in between!
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 04, 2018, 03:34:24 PM
Quote
So you're saying that the teachings of Pius IX were infallible, right?
No, not everything.  The Syllabus of Errors was binding, yes.  The Immaculate Conception, obviously, and any canons from V1.  And any of his non-infallible magisterium, which I don't have memorized because it would've been a RE-TEACHING of a dogma ALREADY IN EXISTENCE, therefore it was already in the catechism.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 04, 2018, 03:42:34 PM
Quote
Directives ... from Latin, meaning to give a direction to.  And Vatican II clearly set a direction for Catholic theology and made it normative for the Church.
AUTHORITATIVE direction is different from just direction.  AUTHORITATIVE presumes we MUST BELIEVE it.  A simple 'direction' is not binding, and the pope is NOT protected from error in simple directions, only when he is authoritative, and teaches/binds the Church.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 04, 2018, 03:48:56 PM
Quote
I didn't ask whether the Syllabus was binding but whether it was infallible.
The syllabus contains many errors that have been previously and infallibly condemned.  Yet the Syllabus is not regarded as an infallible statement, no.  It could fall under the non-infallible magisterium, if such errors are shown to have been ALWAYS condemned (which is problematic, since most of those errors have only been around since the 16th century with modern philosophers).  Yet, such a condemnation must be given 'religious conditional assent' and presumed to be correct, unless we find errors.
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 04, 2018, 04:07:00 PM
Again, for people like Pax and Drew, the entire Magisterium can become polluted with error so grave that it endangers the faith if submitted to and an Ecumenical Council can teach heresy to the Universal Church.

Except for a small handful of solemn pronouncements, the rest of it amounts to little more than the public musings of a Giovanni Battista Montini or Karol Wojtyla or Jorge Bergoglio.  Hey, there's Bergoglio's latest Recyclical.  Well, he was just thinking out loud.  Oh, Pius IX condemned Religious Liberty?  Well, it didn't have all the notes of infallibility, so it's a flip of the coin whether I accept it or not.  I like Pius IX and don't like Vatican II, so I'll go with Pius IX.  I'm going to pit Pope against Pope and Council against Council.

And the entire Magisterium outside of those core dogmatic de fide teachings can become so thoroughly corrupted that we must break submission with the hierarchy in order to please God and save our souls.

THIS is the Church you believe in?

It's blasphemous ... and quite heretical.

You can only accuse someone of heresy if dogma is your proximate rule of faith.  Since it is not, you have nothing by which to make any judgment.  You have removed the pope by destroying the papal office with sedeprivationism and are left with no magisterium and no rule of faith.  You arrogantly demand to make yourself the ‘lord of the harvest.’   
 
The difference between your disobedience to conciliar popes and mine lies in the motive.  I keep faith with Catholic dogma and you do not.  I keep faith with the first principles of moral theology and you do not.  You destroy the papal office by dividing the form and the matter causing a substantial change and I do not.  I disobey because I keep faith with dogma and would rather obey God than man.  You disobey because you have destroyed anything to be obedient to.  My disobedience is an act of virtue.  Yours is a sinful attack on divinely revealed truth.
 
You believe in mere ecclesiastical faith.  I know it’s a myth.  You believe in non-infallible infallibility.  I know that something cannot be and not be at the same time.   
 
You have made repeated indefensible and stupid claims, such as, “the magisterium is not of divine revelation,” you denied that “faith is believing what God has revealed on the authority of God,” you corrupted the definition of supernatural faith by dividing its two essential attributes, and you cling to your “infallible security” blanket like a nervous child while I keep faith with dogma, the formal object of divine and Catholic faith, and thus the proximate rule of faith.
 
Ultimately, you are a loser.  I just hope you lose all by yourself.
 
Drew  
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: drew on April 04, 2018, 05:23:05 PM
I believe that we are not dealing with human authority, Mr. Drew; but in the figure of the Pope, DIVINE authority coming from God. Otherwise, the foundation of St. Peter that Our Lord envisioned for His Church is quite meaningless. That changes everything of course, and it is why the example of father and son falls short. We part from the premise that the Holy Father, on account of having authority from God, will NOT and CANNOT command something harmful to the Faith.

The Vicar of Christ on earth does not issue unjust commands to the Faithful or lead souls to Hell by promulgating error. As simple as that. If someone has doubts on the reason for this, please read Vatican I Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus.

Cantarella,

All authority comes from God.  All authority that is delegated from God is conditionally exercised subject to the higher authority.  Ultimately, all delegated authority is conditional on it being consonant with the will of God.  Obedience to all human authority is regulated by the virtue of Religion.  If any command violates the virtue of Religion such as a command against natural law, eternal law, divine positive law, revealed truth, etc. it cannot be obeyed without sin. This principle is true for all delegated authority no matter who is exercising it. The pope is the highest human authority but still he is a man exercising human authority and the same moral principles apply to him as to every other human.

The claim that the pope “will NOT and CANNOT command something harmful to the Faith” is what everyone believes who holds the pope as their rule of faith.  You may not like to admit this but this is exactly what you are claiming. It is this rule of faith the leads to conservative Catholicism and Sedevacantism.

Those that do this, like Ladislaus, believe in the lollipop doctrine of “Infallible Security.”  This doctrine believes that the Attribute of Indefectibility Christ endowed His Church means that the pope “will NOT and CANNOT command something harmful to the Faith.”  “Infallible Security” means that the pope has an infallible infallibility and a non-infallible infallibility. They also believe that each pope possess a personal "never-failing faith," and therefore whatever he says or does can be a safe guide for all the faithful.  It distills down to papolatry.

Pastor Aeternus, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church from Vatican I, defines four doctrines of Catholic faith: 1) The apostolic primacy conferred on Peter, 2) The perpetuity of the Petrine Primacy in the Roman pontiffs, 3) The meaning and power of the papal primacy, 4) Papal infallibility – the infallible teaching authority  (magisterium) of the Pope. (Wikipedia)

By defining exactly what criteria are necessary for the pope to be infallible, it necessarily indirectly defines when he is not infallible. Nothing from Pastor Aeternus says the pope,will NOT and CANNOT command something harmful to the Faith” except when he engages the Attributes of Infallibility and Authority which Jesus Christ endowed His Church.


But Pastor Aeternus does say that there will be perpetual successors in the papal office.  Sedevacantism does not have a pope, and what is worse, they have no possibility to ever get one.  In Sedevacantism the material and instrumental causes necessary to make a pope do not exist.  Sedevacantism has constructed a church that CANNOT be the Church founded by Jesus Christ because it does not possess the necessary attributes.  Can’t you see the absurdity of appealing to Pastor Aeternus which condemns Sedevacantism?

The whole position is a mass of contradictions.  If the pope will NOT and CANNOT command something harmful to the Faith” how did this current mess ever happen?  How could it have ever happened?  

For you, the “magisterium is the rule of faith” – but only sometimes.  Without dogma as your proximate rule of faith, you have no criteria by which to judge if the authentic ordinary magisterium of the pope based upon his grace of state has made any error.  Since Vatican II was a magisterial work, you must accept it and in the end, I would not be surprised if you do.  I know other sedevacantists who have done just that.  They went from traditional Catholicism, to sedevacantism, to the Novus Ordo.  It is hard to say whether it is the isolation of sedevacantism or just the inner logic of the situation that resolves itself in this way.  The isolation is pathognomonic of the disease.  I actually know sedevacantists who, not wishing to be associated in the company with heretics, did not attend their children’s weddings or receptions because Indult priests officiated.  Since the pope is really their rule of faith (even though some like to plead that is the “magisterium”) either way, when they get rid of the pope, they get rid of any access to the magisterium, and they necessarily get rid of their rule of faith. The inner logic drives them into the Novus Ordo.  You will have to take the 1989 Profession of Faith to be reconciled with Novus Ordo and swear unconditional obedience to the “authentic magisterium” (that is, unconditional obedience to the pope), but this fact Ladislaus has said again and again that he has no problem with it.  I understand why.  The pope really is his rule of faith.  But what is insufferable, he wants to make himself the "lord of the harvest."

Drew
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 04, 2018, 06:07:45 PM

Quote
If the Magisterium has gotten so corrupt that Catholics are forced to refuse submission to the hierarchy
The V2 hierarchy HAS NOT REQUIRED SUBMISSION to their errors.  They are NOT REQUIRED TO BE HELD UNDER PAIN OF SIN. Therefore, when we question and refuse parts of V2 (which we are allowed to do because they only require CONDITIONAL assent) it HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OFFICIAL MAGISTERIUM which is only in operation when teachings are REQUIRED.  

You refuse to admit this fact. 
Title: Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 04, 2018, 06:11:55 PM

Quote
but “also be submissive to him in matters of liturgy and discipline.
Cantarel